Universal arms rights for Americans was never promised in the original 2A. Yeah, SCOTUS subsequently incorrectly interpreted 2A as a universal arms right for Americans.
In the Biden Administration, you do now. Also in the Biden Administration, there's a whole lot of equity teaching (brainwashing) in the military.
The whole basis of your argument is that the 2a, which does not grant any thing to anyone, grants powers to the federal government. Your interpretation cuts against the plain text. Enough. You have yet to reference ANYTHING but a book I'd have to buy and have delivered, which does not override the primary and secondary sources cited in Heller.
Yes, they did. He cited various grammar primers from the relevant time period, as already stated. We've been over and over this. I'm sorry you can't accept basic facts.
You have no basis in fact for your claim. Demonstrate otherwise. You have no basis in fact for your claim. Demonstrate otherwise.
Who care what is in the original 2A? What is important is what is in the current 2A. If nothing else, the fact that they added it would indicate that it was a very important part of the amendment.
You are so funny! So you think that people are vetted by the military and rejected if they are "stressed" about their body parts? Hilarious! But no! Transgenders' constitutional right to bear arms was violated by Trump because... not even because Trump is a homophobe (I don't think he is), but because he was feeding demagoguery to this gullible homophobe base.
Even Scalia acknowledged that the 2nd A DOES refer to a military scenario. Except he arbitrarily expanded it from there ignoring all historical and linguistic facts that contradicted him. So, if it doesn't, then even less is there some UNIVERSAL right to own weapons either.
The military will reject people with special medical needs. That would include transgender surgery or special pharmaceutical needs.
Tying "the right to keep and bear arms" to "the militia" means that we all have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.
The conservative justices have been doing exactly that. Because it wasn't relevant to his point. He does pay attention to that. That's why he keeps correcting your untrue statements. No he isn't. He is merely pointing out that your claims are untrue. He does acknowledge such history. Thus his posts pointing out that our claims are untrue. The reason why you are unable to use the history of the passage of the Second Amendment is because your claims are untrue.
No it didn't. "Keep" means to posses the arms and maintain them in good working order. No it wasn't. That is incorrect. The last half of the Second Amendment forbids infringement of the longstanding individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment has always protected the right to keep and bear arms.
No, you just can't back up any of your claims. He's read them. Thus his corrections of your untrue claims. Because states are forbidden from violating people's civil liberties. That is incorrect. Protecting the right to keep and bear arms was a primary purpose. No it wasn't. That is incorrect. The second half of the Second Amendment protects the longstanding individual right to keep and bear arms from infringement.
He cited examples of the use of isolated words like "arms", "keep" and "bear". Which is irrelevant because, as philologists have pointed out, "keep and bear arms" is one complete inseparable idiom. This is why philology is done by philologists, and not by attorneys. All this is explained and PROVEN on the OP.
so you've BSed your way into some cooking nonsense about the second amendment regarding military even though it says nothing of the sort in the amendment whatsoever because of some comments Scalia made that you clearly didn't understand? He only had to extend the protection because people were trying to make up linguistic techniques to deny the second amendment. His words follow what was written in 1791 you are focusing on stuff from the 19th century because it was about denying black people of the ability to defend themselves.
They didn't when the 2nd A was enacted. Looky looky... now I'M the one defending the 2nd A, and I got the right wingers arguing it's obsolete.
Mr. Trump committed no such violation. But if you want to know what a law says and means, then you should consult a lawyer. It wasn't all that bad. The only thing he did wrong was fail to say that everyone has the right to have military weapons. Yes.
The military, can, does, and will, reject a -lot- of people. Proof you have no right to be a member of the military. Or militia.
Nope. I was just clarifying how the military operates. They deploy with standard logistic packages. It is not practical to deploy people with special needs beyond those standard logistic packages. Nor do they accept someone who is going to require an expensive medical operation.
