BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - Guns May be Regulated and Constitution Allows It

I am a professional writer who has studied law. I will explain the 2nd Amendment in very simple terms.

Actually, I'm going to have to stop you right there. The founders were absolutely AGAINST the formation of a standing army. That was part of their reasoning for including the 2nd amendment as a civil right, so that the army could not overpower its citizens.

I am a professional writer who has studied law. I will explain the 2nd Amendment in very simple terms.

The intended effect of the "contended comma" in the 2nd Amendment specifically and precisely crafts the meaning of the sentence to mean:

BECAUSE the government must maintain a standing army...

and

BECAUSE we just got done writing a WHOLE bunch of stuff about TYRANNY being the end result of ALL governments...
(This was assumed as a given...it was the FUCKING CONSTITUTION - written to prevent tyrannical government.)

... the PEOPLE must be able to keep arms to protect themselves against the standing army of the government.

PERIOD.

Also, the term ARMS meant the 'arms of the day' which means that the PEOPLE should all have military grade heavy weapons - whatever the government has.

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*
Means that no law can EVER be passed to limit the keeping and WIELDING of military grade heavy weapons by the people.

If the framers had meant "pistols," they would have said PISTOLS.



Therefore, THIS is how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted:

**
Because the government must maintain a standing army, there must never be ANY kind of restriction WHATSOEVER on the people's RIGHT to own and carry military grade heavy weaponry, because when the government has bigger guns, the people are oppressed.
**

I know of no one that will, good luck to them that try.

you admitted they were for a standing army in your sentence. The 2nd amendment provided that citizens should be allowed to bear arms should the government become tyrannical and oppose the people.

you explained the legals, and the law


can you explain law, as to this particular subject ??

The only justice is if the innocent people can shoot first.

This Supreme court justice is letting everyone know what the agenda now is. He is telling you what they WILL do in the future and trying to make justification for it by telling stories about the founding fathers etc...

and yes, the American people have already been subjugated to the point that IF told to turn in their weapons, THEY WILL!

Only a small TINY fraction of the population won't. And they will be branded DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, MARGINALIZED, and the military will hunt them down.

The "law" as you so blithely call it is not LAW, but statute.

Actually, I'm going to have to stop you right there. The founders were absolutely AGAINST the formation of a standing army. That was part of their reasoning for including the 2nd amendment as a civil right, so that the army could not overpower its citizens.

the law = statutes

you have studied statutes, you have not studied law

Wrong. Go read something.

Guns are only used for killing. The time to give them up is now.

You must live in a shit of a place to being saying that. The people I know won't stand for it AT ALL. And those people I know in the military will attack those who give those orders.

I am a professional writer who has studied law. I will explain the 2nd Amendment in very simple terms.

The intended effect of the "contended comma" in the 2nd Amendment specifically and precisely crafts the meaning of the sentence to mean:

BECAUSE the government must maintain a standing army...

and

BECAUSE we just got done writing a WHOLE bunch of stuff about TYRANNY being the end result of ALL governments...
(This was assumed as a given...it was the FUCKING CONSTITUTION - written to prevent tyrannical government.)

... the PEOPLE must be able to keep arms to protect themselves against the standing army of the government.

PERIOD.

Also, the term ARMS meant the 'arms of the day' which means that the PEOPLE should all have military grade heavy weapons - whatever the government has.

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*
Means that no law can EVER be passed to limit the keeping and WIELDING of military grade heavy weapons by the people.

If the framers had meant "pistols," they would have said PISTOLS.



Therefore, THIS is how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted:

**
Because the government must maintain a standing army, there must never be ANY kind of restriction WHATSOEVER on the people's RIGHT to own and carry military grade heavy weaponry, because when the government has bigger guns, the people are oppressed.
**

Let me make this real simple for everyone to understand.

We do have a gun problem but it's not from those of us who own guns legally and follow the laws it's from criminals who don't abide by the law and governments who seek to enforce their will on others. As long as those two entities are armed and creating havoc I will never give up my protection from them.

The framers were against a standing army, and allowed for "militias" that are organized and trained groups whos' ARMS are kept at an ARMORY for the time when they are needed.

And we all give them up except crazies and criminals and now we are better off why? You act like you can legislate morality. Did prohibition teach you nothing?

Your constitution has been shredded.. & you did nothing to stop them, enjoy the Karma.

Will Americans allow this to happen?

Stupid logic. There is not enough SWAT or military to disarm America. The security apparatus is outmanned and outgunned.

Slave or Shill...either way you are a sad excuse for a human.