Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the who damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.
"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”
They’re politicians in black robes, they don’t define truth. You’re citing interpretation changes by an illegitimate court to rules written at the country’s birth that aren’t even old enough vote. The sooner people stop deluding themselves that they’re anything but another form of politician the better, but I’m sure you’ll pick and choose which rulings are the word of God and which are bullshit.
It’s not reverence, I’m telling you the way it is. You’re free to ignore reality if you’d like. The line of “money isn’t real, man!” people is over there -->
This whole comment chain is about the ruling being dumb and not in line with the actual historical reason that owning weapons needed to be a constitutional amendment. Circling back around with “but that’s what they said” is just complete mindless deferral to authority. “They were right because they said it, checkmate libtard.”
The ruling is the ruling, there’s only one way to over-ride the Supreme Court and that’s by passing a new amendment.
Here’s what needs to happen:
Get 290 votes in the House. The same people who don’t have 218 right now to fund the government.
Get 67 in the Senate. The same people who can’t get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
Get ratification from 38/50 states. In a country where 25 + DC voted Biden and 25 voted Trump. You’d need all 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.
Alternately, we could bag the whole thing and write a new Constitution, but again, the new one needs to get ratified by the states, and between the states who want to outlaw abortion and the states who want to outlaw guns, nobody is going to agree on it.
Or just tell the court to go fuck itself and states will make their own laws. Guns for personal defense wasn’t the law of the land until 15 years ago and it can flip and disappear the moment the court changes or liberals find some gumption and stop respecting corrupt justices. No constitutional amendment needed.
Not that any of your repeated circular arguments addresses the whole topic of this thread.
Who the fuck cares what the Geneva convention bans? That’s a nation-to-nation treaty. We won’t use this if you won’t, not “no one can ever use this”. And the very fact that you approve of “destructive devices” being banned but not handguns proves the who damn point. The 2nd is about rebellion, but we let the government defang rebellion while playing to petty interpersonal fears. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to define the rules regarding fighting off robbers, you need it to define the rules for fighting off the government.
Not according to the Supreme Court and they are the ones who decide this stuff:
McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”
They’re politicians in black robes, they don’t define truth. You’re citing interpretation changes by an illegitimate court to rules written at the country’s birth that aren’t even old enough vote. The sooner people stop deluding themselves that they’re anything but another form of politician the better, but I’m sure you’ll pick and choose which rulings are the word of God and which are bullshit.
That’s the job of the Supreme Court, I’m sorry you disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter.
It could change if the court were to swing the other way, but it’s only been getting more conservative in my lifetime, not less.
What an incurious reverence of authority.
It’s not reverence, I’m telling you the way it is. You’re free to ignore reality if you’d like. The line of “money isn’t real, man!” people is over there -->
This whole comment chain is about the ruling being dumb and not in line with the actual historical reason that owning weapons needed to be a constitutional amendment. Circling back around with “but that’s what they said” is just complete mindless deferral to authority. “They were right because they said it, checkmate libtard.”
The ruling is the ruling, there’s only one way to over-ride the Supreme Court and that’s by passing a new amendment.
Here’s what needs to happen:
Get 290 votes in the House. The same people who don’t have 218 right now to fund the government.
Get 67 in the Senate. The same people who can’t get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
Get ratification from 38/50 states. In a country where 25 + DC voted Biden and 25 voted Trump. You’d need all 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.
Alternately, we could bag the whole thing and write a new Constitution, but again, the new one needs to get ratified by the states, and between the states who want to outlaw abortion and the states who want to outlaw guns, nobody is going to agree on it.
Or just tell the court to go fuck itself and states will make their own laws. Guns for personal defense wasn’t the law of the land until 15 years ago and it can flip and disappear the moment the court changes or liberals find some gumption and stop respecting corrupt justices. No constitutional amendment needed.
Not that any of your repeated circular arguments addresses the whole topic of this thread.