What part “well regulated” do you not understand?

>contradicted 200 years of precedent prior to that
Sauce me nigger.

Stay mad you crying little weasels.

false people owned guns in the country legally for 200 years.

Attached: FV-hKh8XgAELYv-.jpg (896x907, 123.7K)

hmmm compelling argument, here's the thing though, we're never giving up our guns and abortion is getting banned tomorrow sweetie :)

>conceal carry is insane
How? How is it insane? It's pretty reasonable actually. Explain to me how somebody can make a irrational, ridiculous argument like this unironically, and legitimately believe that conceal carry is insane?

Attached: 1590667277729.png (500x439, 113.06K)

Cope incel you lost
npr.org/2022/06/21/1106466279/senators-reach-final-bipartisan-agreement-on-a-gun-safety-bill
texastribune.org/2022/06/23/texas-red-flag-law-bipartisan-gun-bill/

thats for a militia faggot
>not personal protection

We should ban high capacity bacon packs. Nobody needs 12 slices of juicy bacon.

From Judge Steven's dissent on DC v Heller:

>The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons and to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court's opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice (Id., at 2847).

cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm

I miss sweetie posting. Is she still around?

Your right we should be allowed to open carry any weapon anywhere

What part "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms" do you not understand?

>Not even an American.
I’m sorry do you think we fucking care what you think?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It’s not up for debate.
Eat a dick.

Well I need the arms anyway, so fuck off?

The part where I don't give a fuck, so you'll either have to stop being a pussy and come take the guns already, or shut the fuck up and go back to your hugbox where you belong.

Because we are righteous and you are evil

Simple as

That’s literally not what the opinion held. I hate these disingenuous faggots so much

Red flag laws are unconstitutional too, shitskin. The Supreme Court will do with those what they did to your now defunct "may issue" bullshit. You'll cry then too. And we will laugh at you.

Sauce me on 200 years worth of contradictions, not Stevens Dissenting opinion, you fucking brainlet

>required
You don't have to own a gun you bitch ass faggot Chris.

screenshot this, the workd REGULATION will change definitions and become (((REGULATION)))

Attached: 1645656808964.jpg (975x1024, 160.78K)

Heller did not even do that, fag. I hate retards who refuse to read the opinions they bitch about constantly

Attached: 1636384682520.webm (406x720, 544.4K)

shut up aussie nigger you don't know shit. The constitution doesn't require (((interpretation)))

Attached: 1652669306109.jpg (680x564, 57.67K)

i understand that it means well equiped
wheres my stinger to take care of the illegal surveillance planes?

show me the gun regulation in the 1700's after the constitution was ratified.

you just watched school of kids murdered and your defending this shit
Whos the evil one?
Get you head out of the bible and get with the times. Nobody needs weapons like AR15s unless they want mass murder

I thought it was a pretty tame decision.
It just says that you can't deny someone the right to carry outright. They will just move states like NY, NJ and CA to be more in line with states like CT.
Make no mistake, it is already very hard to obtain a CCL in CT, and really make it no different than a poll tax or any other similar Jim Crow era law. In this case, the non-rich are the "non-whites" being denied their constitutional rights.

I can tell you that even as a member of the US military, and therefore being exempt from assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans in CT, it is still unnecessarily difficult to exercise my right to bear arms in ways such as obtaining these weapons, ammo, and magazine from online vendors. Most people will just not ship to CT or are not willing to navigate the laws to not get in trouble.
This isn't just me, but also law enforcement personnel in CT that are forced to pay near double the price for ammo, magazines, rifles, handguns in this state unless we find an online retailer big enough and with a legal team that assures them its okay to sell to us.
You know who doesn't have any problem like this? The very wealthy in this state. So I say again, these restrictions are no different than Jim Crow era laws, and even as someone that has already gone through tons of background checks, clearances, finger print checks, and even stands armed watches every 4 days, I am still bogged down and restricted in my rights.
Would love to see some retard like the twitter guy in the OP say some shit like that to my face.

Which is funny since Justice Thomas did that in today’s opinion and showed why most strict gun regulation is unconstitutional

Read Clarance Thomas today. There are fewer than 10 examples in 600 years of history going back to England of an individual's right to carry a weapon being completely outlawed. The idea that it's suddenly dependent on militia service in 1791 is just not supported. But you already knew that.

that happened in 1934 retard