We have the rule, its just that people don't always abide by the rules, hence they come in illegally and must be dealt with. Or there is some confusion as to status. Or there status must be initially established. Hence why we have a judicial system to redress grievances and an immigration system to process their applications. Whether we should be allowing more in or not is a "should" question not covered by the Constitution. Its discretionary on the part of Congress.
A vestigial, out of date amendment that needs repealed because it's misinterpretation and abuse has caused enough damage. (IMHO) Can I get an AMEN?
You can get an accusation of heresy how about that? Also if you think you've got the numbers give it a shot. You'll kick off civil war 2 but hey it's your sacred right
Yup. Citizens as members of the well-regulated militia were supposed to defend the security of a free state against foreign and domestic enemies. The militia, for example, was called on to defend the nation against the British invasion in the War of 1812. But we don't have that system anymore and gun apologists don't seem to want to restore it.
Exactly what misinterpretation and abuse of the second amendment is being referred to on the part of yourself? Explain such.
There is no sense in attempting to restore such a system, when those who would be doing the fighting cannot legally purchase and possess genuine military weapons.
I'm afraid that I can't support the repealing of any of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution or Bill of Rights as I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies "foreign & domestic" when I joined the US Military in the late 1960s. Additionally, you don't know how many lives have been saved because a law abiding person was trained and armed in the face of a malevolent criminal. Those statistics rarely if ever get reported. I know mine didn't.
We should have no security problems in our free States. Our State legislators are responsible for that.
Meaning simply that it is not possible for yourself to explain how the legal sale, marketing, ownership, and use of firearms, is in any way conductive of the illegal use of firearms for the purpose of murdering others.
And they are failing because they have become corrupt, and are far more interesting in continuing to hold office than in any other matter.
And the public is being conditioned to find the second amendment abhorrent. If any state legislator were to tell this modern generation of worthless individuals that they must organize and fall in line to be ready to provide for the well fare of their own state, they would quite vocally object to be expected to do the job of the military and law enforcement.
why complain about the tax cost of alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror? we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.
Since when is a guy walking into a store and buying an assault rifle a militia that is "properly formed"? Nuclear weapons would be the most effective, right? That would be bad news if you are at school fearing a school shooter. Fortunately the term "bear arms" at the time the 2 A was written referred to a military context. A hunter would be laughed at, if they were to claim they had the right to "bear arms" against a rabbit.
