Maybe the point of the ruling is that a person who “poses a clear threat of physical violence to another” would be disqualified to serve in the “well-regulated militia” that the Amendment authorized.

We tend to forget the Second Amendment got its first workout in 1794, when a twelve thousand man militia, under the personal command of President Washington, was assembled to frighten a group of tax rebels in western Pennsylvania into paying their federal excise taxes. Whiskey Rebellion, you know. But by the time of the War of 1812 the militia system had proven useless. In the heat of battle state militiamen refused to take orders from federal officers or simply fled in panic. The American defenders this way melted away at the Inglerious Battle of Bladensburg (never heard or that one either, eh) leaving Washington open for the redcoats to burn (in retaliation for the Yankees burning the capitol of Canada the year before, who knew).

Then came the NRA and the story got turned on its head.

I support common sense domestic abuse.

“(((Calvin Klein))) 100% organic cotton boxers. Nb4 “(((Calvin Klein))) is Jewish,” then I dunno bro, you got the money for (((Ralph Lauren)))? Just get normal, blank boxers. No exceptions.”

Just get Exoffico or Underarmor. Or something like Stanfield’s if you want to avoid buying from the chinermen.

I dunno; when I was a child, our neighbourhood abuser shot and killed his wife. That’s bad enough, but what he did not do, which was worse, was turn the gun on himself. Twenty years later, he was back on the streets.

The idea that a person has a ‘right’ to carry a weapon that makes it possible for him to kill you or you and the crowd you are in as easily as he points his finger is absurd beyond comprehension, regardless of the Constitution.

Although it’d indeed seem like “common sense” that an out-of-control lout, who physically and emotionally bullies the woman he’d professed to “love”, shouldn’t be wielding firearms, the REALITY is a lot more complicated, and not properly the province of a sweeping FEDERAL law that can’t possibly balance the interests of government to uphold the law versus the right, which ALREADY existed, to keep and bear ARMS (not simply “firearms”).

1) The Federal Government has NO business getting involved with matters adjudicating the laws re: spousal abuse, i.e. “Domestic Violence” (DV). Like so many other matter with respect to criminal law that doesn’t involve interstate and/or international commerce, that’s strictly a matter for the several states to legislate and enforce. Hence the Lautenberg Act should have been immediately struck down.

2) Does a state government have the ability to restrict and/or deny exercise of one’s 2A rights? I’d say, YES, provided it’s an appropriate PUNISHMENT for criminal mischief. Typically, we proscribe firearms to convicted FELONS, so it defies the Eighth Amendment that an act of misdemeanor DV should bring a LIFETIME ban on 2A rights. Certainly such a restriction during and including informal probation for such an offense would be appropriate. It also brings into question the matter of DUE PROCESS. That is, gun owners, particularly MALE gun owners, in fact operate under an invalid presumption that they’re unduly prone to violence, and, w/o any credible evidence of violence or a propensity thereof, are routinely stripped of their arms as a overreaching “preventative” measure, on the dubious grounds that it’s necessary to preclude an outburst of tragic, armed violence. Given the number of martial separations/divorces and the actual count of tragic related incidents involving firearms, this would seem as preposterous as, say, stripping one or both parties involved in a legal domestic proceeding of their ability to purchase and consume alcohol, a larger factor indeed in outbreaks of DV.

3) It’s that failure to observe the strictures of Due Process that make this ruling questionable. In the case involved, indeed the person restricted went on to commit and be convicted of felonies, so it’d seem that the issue was rendered moot. Not resolved is the degree to which a state or municipal government must observe due process before one’s 2A rights can be abrogated. If indeed they’re vulnerable to being stripped on a whim, a spurious accusation, leaving the burden of proof on the accused to assert his rights, then indeed, 2A doesn’t exist as a “right” at all.

“Shall not be infringed” became no guns for felons and drug abusers. Then we added wife-beaters to the list of people who can’t own guns, because it’s still ok to discriminate against wife-beaters. Now they have normalized gun control laws. Most Americans not only accept these laws that infringe upon their rights, but they actually demand additional restrictions.

The situation is similar to privacy laws, and people who accept government surveillance because they have “nothing to hide”. Most people clamoring to ban guns live in cities and do not own a gun. But once the guns and privacy are gone, the government will have total control, and everyone will appreciate the wisdom of protecting these rights by law.

Your reasoning is just as applicable, and perhaps more so, to agents of the government. Marksmanship, by the way, is a lot more difficult than merely pointing the finger.

Shall not be infringed. Unless…. [list of hundreds of different ways it’s infringed]

And did the founders that wrote the 2A believe it should apply to all people?

Thomas Jefferson would consider the NRA to be a bunch of race denying nutcases.

He would not support selling AR-15s to Blacks in any circumstance. I also highly doubt he would support selling Glocks to White trash wife beaters.

Jefferson didn’t believe that landless Whites should be allowed to vote.

Your NRA style interpretation is intellectually dishonest. It’s based on various rulings after the 2A was written. There is no possible way that the founders would support selling gold plated short barreled AR-15s to Black felons. Their first question would be: Where did all these Blacks come from? followed by: Has the White man gone insane?

Most of these abusers are negroes. They don’t care about stupid gun bans and I don’t care about them getting banned and ignoring the ban.

Needless to say women with negro ex-‘s are not in the dating pool unless you are Dick Butkus or Arnold Schwarznigr or similar.

Every time I read one of these articles, I always find myself wondering if it the writer is just a giant troll or if he might actually have kind of trauma to the brain.

Either way, having this kind of low tier garbage on the site drags the whole place down.

The idea that a person has a right to carry a club / drive a vehicle / fill a jug of gasoline and carry matches that allows him to do x, y, and z is absurd beyond comprehension.

OK kike. The idea that Jews get to live in America as citizens with legal rights is absurd beyond comprehension.

What people have to understand is that the legal protections the Constitution once supposedly guaranteed against the agents of Jewry and Masonry placing you under continual surveillance, searching, seizing and destroying your property, and trumping up false charges, are long gone.

What is needed is SECRECY. Every kind of SECRECY that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the Jews to find you or your weapons when time for flight comes. Hats, disguises, methods of travel that avoid suspicion. All of these things must be learned. We have to learn to be vigilant and continually aware, and continually ready not to “go Commando” but to “go Hezbollah” so to speak.

Israel’s adversaries have gotten sloppy and the Jews have been taking them out – understand just how difficult this matter is. Avoid confrontation in the foreseeable future – but understand, they can’t take what they can’t find.

Anglin is often looney but he has regular flashes of brilliant humor. And if you think he’s the dregs around here, you need to do more exploring.

+1 for state’s rights. This would additionally eliminate the F of the ATF, and each state’s version of the F wouldn’t have anywhere near as much leeway to commit the atrocities that the federal version has.

I don’t know who started the myth that local government is more inclined to corruption than centralized government, but that needs to die.

I mean, definitely wear boxers, because the balls were not meant to be restricted by tightness, but just get the Calvin Klein 100% organic cotton boxers.

Ridiculous!

Go to the JC Penney store that’s still open in your area (probably in the inner city) and buy the store brand white cotton boxers. Just like your Boomer grandfather. Stop being a fag.

Isn’t Ralph Lauren a Jew as well?

Forget Klein. For brand optics Under Armor probably has the right stuff as far as name goes, but in the context of the Second, lock and load, take no prisoners and all that, a real man is going Commando Style.

You left out another method that has already been used: put her in a wood chipper.

In 1790 slaves were 18% of our total population, today around 13%. So I’m guessing they’d have an idea where all these Blacks came from. F%#k those who started bringing them here a century earlier.