Anonymous ID: 518e69 Jan. 16, 2019, 2:14 p.m. No.4782100   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2189

Any law that permanently seizes firearms from Americans without a felony conviction is unconstitutional. Even the felony rule has serious issues if you wish to look at the second amendment via an originalist lens.

Anonymous ID: 518e69 Jan. 16, 2019, 2:28 p.m. No.4782250   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2289

>>4782189

 

The key is "shall not be infringed". This means that any law that negatively impacts citizens rights vis-a-vis firearms compared to their rights at the time the constitution was amended, even secondarily or in the manner of a fringe would be unconstitutional.

Anonymous ID: 518e69 Jan. 16, 2019, 2:36 p.m. No.4782339   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2359

>>4782289

 

quite.

 

Now a lot of people don't agree with that strict a position. Fine, but the way to address that is not to ignore what the constitution plainly states. If you can't put a fringe on it, then you can't. Fine, attempt to pass another amendment that makes whatever changes you think are appropriate, but ignoring the supreme law of the land makes all the other law of the land meaningless, arbitrary, and ultimately dictatorial. Which is how we ended up here…

Anonymous ID: 518e69 Jan. 16, 2019, 2:49 p.m. No.4782507   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4782482

 

And Poland had their entire government murdered over it… oh I mean they were dead before the plain crashed… I mean… nothing to see here!