You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
16

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That's actually not true. When a state joined the union they accepted that the highest law of the land is the US Constitution. In doing so the state lost its --right-- powers to regulate. It is literally barred from infringement the moment it became a state. As such, a limitation of each state government, upon acceptance into the union, is that they surrender all --rights-- powers to regulate "arms."

As such, there is no parallel between the Second Amendment and The Civil Rights Act. Arguably the Civil Rights Act does violate state's --rights-- powers. Whereas when it comes to the Second Amendment, states literally never had a right or power and as such can not be violated. In regards to states and federal government, the only thing states can do is infringe upon YOUR constitutional right; which has become the norm and codified into thousands of unconstitutional laws. Which is why it literally says, "... shall not be infringed." Period. The period is actually there.

Edit: Dumb me. Don't know how to make a strike through character here.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] lemon11 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

The point was to reinforce that the purpose wasn't for irrelevant stuff like sport and hunting. People don't read the founding fathers' works or words. They don't read the Constitution itself. They don't need to. They have no use for it. They make the argument for hunting and against self-defense even today.

No words would have prevented this. Only blood.