what is your views on gun violence?

actually it was put in place to establish a militia to defend our country against (the british, etc)

it says that in itself

it is literally qualified by the whole "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part, saying that it guarantees weapons for everyone all the time with no restrictions is like saying the sentence "when our work is finished we will all go home for the day" means everyone gets to go home right now! if you ignore the first dependent clause, the rest of the sentence loses its intended meaning. what is a militia? basically by today's standards it would be the national guard.

so the second amendment protects the right of National Guard members to have guns.

this is just an argument I use against people who shield their beliefs in the Constitution. I dont actually care what the Constitution or the bill of rights says because it was written by guys who wore powdered wigs

[Poopalew]

this is just an argument I use against people who shield their beliefs in the Constitution. I dont actually care what the Constitution or the bill of rights says because it was written by guys who wore powdered wigs

Many brothers gave up their jobs to work on the building project and others used their vacation time to assist.

[maks]

that's a stupid argument, the supreme court exists to interpret the constitution (which regardless of how long ago it was written still remains the law of the land) and they ruled that it applies to individuals

that's a stupid argument, the supreme court exists to interpret the constitution (which regardless of how long ago it was written still remains the law of the land) and they ruled that it applies to individuals

the supreme court can be wrong and has been wrong many times

like in 2010 on citizens united
or in 2015 letting fags marry HEH jk yall free love

[maks]

whether or not you agree with their decisions they're still the law.

[maks]

as for citizens united that's only stupid if you look at it through the liberal talk-show spin of "DURR CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE ROFL" what it actually said was that corporations are made up of people who have the same right of free speech as anyone else regardless of what groups they happen to belong to, which by any metric makes total sense

[maks]

if the kkk nambla and the aryan brotherhood are protected under the first amendment then so is time warner

it allowed for unlimited donations and corporations are made up of people but those people have ALL DIFFERENT VIEWS so why should they be allowed to express a singular "viewpoint" and by viewpoint I mean buying politicians with unlimited "gifts" when they aren't singular citizens

money isnt speech and corporations are not persons

[maks]

citizens united didn't allow unlimited donations. it also does not declare that money is speech. it allows organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate. commercials are protected speech and always have been. all that citizens united did was clarify things which have always been true. stop getting all of your news from the daily show, it's comedy it's not intended to be accurate.

[maks]

it allowed for unlimited donations and corporations are made up of people but those people have ALL DIFFERENT VIEWS so why should they be allowed to express a singular "viewpoint" and by viewpoint I mean buying politicians with unlimited "gifts" when they aren't singular citizens

'corporations are made up of people but those people have ALL DIFFERENT TALENTS so why should they be allowed to sell a singular "product"'

bribery is illegal and citizens united did not legalize it.

[maks]

I mean if you don't like the ruling that's fine but at least describe it accurately you look like a retard