Biden is going to take your GUNS! and they are using YOUR TAX PAYER MONEY TO "COME AND TAKE IT"

it's oddly funny that people have issues with changes to the constitution, when the actual AMENDMENTS were exactly that. As a living doctrine and document, we've seen changes for mostly good purposes; voter rights, and some that were not so desireable, such as prohibition. When a group wants to create an amendment it's by the will of the people, so that part is actually correct. It's voted on, but in reality it's voted on by the representatives of the people. NOT the people themselves. The peoples votes only carry as far as the local jurisdictions. We don't even count a popular vote for anything substantial or meaningful on a POTUS election; Usually it's for only city or state-wide elections. After that- No---it's not voted by the people or by their decision.

Let that sink in for a little bit.

The higher up the food chain we go when it comes to any elections or nominations or appointments, it's not about the general population- it's about our representatives votes. A pure democracy has the ability to change the laws quickly and offers no protection of rights from years prior, where as with a democratic republic, we have the protection of our constitution to ensure our in-alienable rights: A republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by the majority.

Imagine what a Trumpster would do without the constitution?!

Imagine a Lauren Boebert who wants to do away with the separation of church and state!?

Imagine a mentality of Trial by combat by Rudy G?! I can think of a few Caesars who would love him in the old days of Rome!

The "Fight like Hell Team" needs to be held accountable, with the Kracken lady and all the other dipshits being forced out of ever being part of a political process. They have no respect for it, and have tried to distort and convolute the entire thing, till it doesn't represent anything the founders had in mind, nor the states, nor the general idea of democracy or a democratic republic. A democratic republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by of which the majority of the mentioned people need to be thrown out of the country and off the island.

You'll follow felons who have said they would violate the Constitution to achieve
His goal No one has tried to take the guns from people.
You're worried about a a single right in stead the whole country. Trump is crazier than a shit house rat who wants to tear the country too.

it's oddly funny that people have issues with changes to the constitution, when the actual AMENDMENTS were exactly that. As a living doctrine and document, we've seen changes for mostly good purposes; voter rights, and some that were not so desireable, such as prohibition. When a group wants to create an amendment it's by the will of the people, so that part is actually correct. It's voted on, but in reality it's voted on by the representatives of the people. NOT the people themselves. The peoples votes only carry as far as the local jurisdictions. We don't even count a popular vote for anything substantial or meaningful on a POTUS election; Usually it's for only city or state-wide elections. After that- No---it's not voted by the people or by their decision.

Let that sink in for a little bit.

The higher up the food chain we go when it comes to any elections or nominations or appointments, it's not about the general population- it's about our representatives votes. A pure democracy has the ability to change the laws quickly and offers no protection of rights from years prior, where as with a democratic republic, we have the protection of our constitution to ensure our in-alienable rights: A republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by the majority.

Imagine what a Trumpster would do without the constitution?!

Imagine a Lauren Boebert who wants to do away with the separation of church and state!?

Imagine a mentality of Trial by combat by Rudy G?! I can think of a few Caesars who would love him in the old days of Rome!

The "Fight like Hell Team" needs to be held accountable, with the Kracken lady and all the other dipshits being forced out of ever being part of a political process. They have no respect for it, and have tried to distort and convolute the entire thing, till it doesn't represent anything the founders had in mind, nor the states, nor the general idea of democracy or a democratic republic. A democratic republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by of which the majority of the mentioned people need to be thrown out of the country and off the island. Originally Posted by eyecu2

You'll follow felons who have said they would violate the Constitution to achieve
His goal No one has tried to take the guns from people.
You're worried about a a single right in stead the whole country. Trump is crazier than a shit house rat who wants to tear the country too. Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

That's good and it should stay that way.

Easy to see who skipped civics class…

Easy to see who skipped civics class… Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think they like red ties and hats...just no love for civics. Hondas or legal wranglings...

Funny how MAGAS don’t see the words “well regulated” in the body of that ancient writing.

One might think they were ignoring the letter of the constitution.

One might…

… Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I am not a legal expert so I may have this wrong in terms of exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled:

However, it is my understanding t6hat the first clause of the single sentence Second Amendment has already been litigated at The Supreme Court.

The Heller decision found that the right of a citizen to own arms is an individual right having nothing to do with state organized militias.

The Bruen decision found that citizens not only may own firearms, but they may carry them in public.

I am sure that someone here may be able to fine-tune my oversimplification of that.

I am not a legal expert so I may have this wrong in terms of exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled:

However, it is my understanding t6hat the first clause of the single sentence Second Amendment has already been litigated at The Supreme Court.

The Heller decision found that the right of a citizen to own arms is an individual right having nothing to do with state organized militias.

The Bruen decision found that citizens not only may own firearms, but they may carry them in public.

I am sure that someone here may be able to fine-tune my oversimplification of that. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Don't forget the Heller decision was by a 5-4 vote. Would be 6-3 today in all likelihood.

And the Heller decision, as I stated before, made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was not absolute.

As long as there are open, free elections in this country, nothing is absolute.