Here we go again…

  • @RaoulDook
    link
    English
    31 year ago

    It’s still not necessary to qualify it that way. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.

    Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.

      • @RaoulDook
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        OK well go tell them about that and see what they have to say about it.

        • @AngryCommieKender
          link
          21 year ago

          We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.

          • Dick Justice
            link
            21 year ago

            Wtf. I just googled that. How has that been allowed to continue foe a hund and fifty fucking years?? Jesus H. Christ.

            • @AngryCommieKender
              link
              11 year ago

              Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.

          • @RaoulDook
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            I don’t know much about that, but if that would get rid of qualified immunity for police then I concur.

            • @AngryCommieKender
              link
              21 year ago

              That’s the case that caused QI in 1982. The 16 missing words explicitly outlaw any sort of immunity for any government officials.