The perfect counter-argument for the restriction of the 2nd Amendment
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
That moment when liberals find out that muskets were loaded with .50 - .75 caliber lmao.
Updoot. They're too fucking stupid to even know how much damage caliber of that size will do.
EXACTLY LIKE MY WIFE..She feels we don't need weapons because IT IS SECURE AND I come back...HOW secure would you feel if someone held a knife to your throat?
Nice but the perfect argument was give by Scalia in his Heller opinion:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
I have read other text that made the argument of how ridiculous would it be if the First Amendment only guaranteed free speak delivered by way of the spoken word, or in pamphlets, or papers, and did not cover modern day communications like over the phone, or Internet. Of course that would be preposterous.
And what if the Fourth Amendment only protected us against search methods only available during our founding, but allowed no protection against electronic eavesdropping, or surveillance.
This never gets - and never will get - old 😊
This makes me feel good. ~{°¡°}~
PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!