It's not clear to me how the literal-meaning-of-the-constitution-at-the-time-it-was-written Supreme Court could extend the 2nd amendment to basic self-defence. I mean it literally starts with a preamble explaining exactly why it is required, i.e. for well-regulated militia.
Are you familiar with American conservatives
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
It's not clear to me how the literal-meaning-of-the-constitution-at-the-time-it-was-written Supreme Court could extend the 2nd amendment to basic self-defence. I mean it literally starts with a preamble explaining exactly why it is required, i.e. for well-regulated militia.
Basically, the courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment is a non sequitur.
Spoiler!
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So the right to bear arms shall not be infringed even outside of a well-regulated militia, because that's what's written.
Several dead at a hospital here in Tulsa. This hits close to home. I work with people at that hospital and my son sees a pulmonologist in that building.
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
I read on Twitter that the U.S. averages a little over 10 mass shootings per week, so this is about par for the course. Two places you expect to be absolutely safe are schools and hospitals; not so.
I read on Twitter that the U.S. averages a little over 10 mass shootings per week, so this is about par for the course. Two places you expect to be absolutely safe are schools and hospitals; not so.
Well I learned in Team America, freedom isn’t free, it costs folks like you and me.
The Following User Says Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
