The 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean you have a right to own an AR-15

[HisArpy]

And they made law.

No, they made judicial decisions that weren't precedent except to the parties involved. (There's a rule for that called the Law Of The Case.) Other parties before other judges might not get the same result because the decisions in one court weren't binding on other courts.

The only appeal was to the Crown who wouldn't hear it unless a Lord was involved.

Thus, it was up to the legislature (or king's advisors at the time) to draft statutes which would protect everyone. These statutes ranged from the Statute of Frauds, to the Rule against Perpetuities, to divorce, to marriage, to the inheritance rules for children of unwed mothers, to the Magna Carta, to almost everything as society's needs developed and abuses recognized.

So, contrary to what you believe, no judge has EVER had the power to "make" law. The simple reason is that their authority didn't extend across the land to encompass everyone. That authority was reserved to the Crown/Legislature/Government. And it still is.

You thinking otherwise only shows how little you know about everything law or government.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't really get why the left is so averse to guns. Especially in the face of actual tyranny.

Maybe alone one person with a gun can't fight a government that has abandoned the Constitution. But a multitude can conduct an effective resistance. A resistance that cannot exist without firearms.

Such resistances generally suffer ten to fifty times as many casualties as the armies they are fighting.

 

[rgraham666]

What the ever-loving-fuck does any of this have to do with having the right to own an AR-15?

This is kinda random, but I think most of the posters here wish we had GB 2.0 which would basically be GB 1.0 before politics were banned from it.

Because, for one side of this debate, they are debating faith, not the use of firearms. That faith must be defended on all fronts and at all costs.

Once the faith rules all, and the heretics are destroyed, peace will rain over God's Chosen Land and People once more.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Such resistances generally suffer ten to fifty times as many casualties as the armies they are fighting.

I mean it would require planning and good leadership and execution but not every Federal facility is defended by an F-16 squadron.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Because, for one side of this debate, they are debating faith, not the use of firearms. That faith must be defended on all fronts and at all costs.

Once the faith rules all, and the heretics are destroyed, peace will rain over God's Chosen Land and People once more.

I'm not debating faith. People can believe whateverthefuck they want. I can choose whether or not I agree with them. This has Fuck All to do with my Constitutional Rights.

 

[MusicForTheDeaf]

Why don't they add the AR-15 into the national firearms act?