Because gun control is unconstitutional, it also means that gun control is illegal

Because gun control is unconstitutional, it also means that gun control is illegal.

Attached: illustration_guns_finalWIDE4-scaled.jpg (2560x1054, 338.11K)

I once met a guy who told me he'd shoot at whoever tried to take his guns.
The cops came to his home and tried to take his weapons after a flood in the local area, he shot at them and didn't get prosecuted.
He meant it.

Well regulated militia.

Cleetus and the cult aren't a well regulated militia.

Attached: 20180301001336738023original.jpg (1600x1067, 189.51K)

This. Plus the constitution isn't infallible, we should be constantly questioning it's relevance.

well yeah it gets modified all the time
those are called amendments - sounds familiar right

yes, exactly. we should always be updating things, including questioning 2A, which is becoming toxic

>What is Ukrainian militant fighters for $400

Well regulated means maintained you fucking daft cunt, it doesn't mean anything close to what you think it means

>gun control is unconstitutional

The constitution says that SCOTUS interprets the constitution (Article III). SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution to mean that gun control is legal.

By the way, gun control existed during the founding fathers' lifetimes - both free and enslaved blacks were rarely allowed to own guns.

What's going on in Ukraine is the very reason that 2A is so important

You're questioning the wrong things. You question what you're told to question because you're a faggot.

Every time
>the word means something different because reasons REEEEEEEEEEE

>the word means something different because reasons REEEEEEEEEEE
It never meant guns should be regulated. It doesn't mean "something different". Anti gunners can't seem to grasp this.

The militia is well regulated, the armed People aren't.
Dumbfuck.

Ah, you don't know how to read either

All you need is 34 states to revise it kiddo.
Which 34 states is it gonna be? I'll wait.
I'd love to see your list
Gun rights are growing, not shrinking.

Attached: Right_to_Carry,_timeline.gif (676x509, 104.64K)

Scotus also interpreted that individuals have the right to keep arms.
DC v heller
Scouts will also interpret that individuals have the right to bear arms.
Nysrpc v bruen

So all this talk about militia this and militia that has been debunked. It's an individual right, not a militia right.

>SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution to mean that some types of gun control are legal.
ftfy
See, e.g. District of Columbia v. Heller.

The militia is regulated, the armed People are not.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let me translate for you.
Citizens need to be armed to be able to defend against a state run army.
See how easy that is?
Just go read a handful of the federalist papers for context. It's really not that difficult.

Good.

>Scotus
Which for the first time in my life, isn't stacked with judges appointed by "liberals". Already, they have been threatened with court packing if they take a gun case. Neato.

Every single gun law is unconstitutional and void

What is or isnt legal is nothing more than the whims of those in power.
The constitution is worthless when not enforced by those in power. This is true for its original form and its bastardized and degraded imitation.

DC v heller was a gigantic gun case.
Enshrining the individual right to arms, crushing the favorite leftist sticking point of militias.
It doesn't get much bigger than that, except nysrpc v Bruen which will be decided in just a matter of months.
They've been threatening to expand the court for decades. And done nothing.
Look at what states are doing. Gun rights have expanded wildly in the past 30 years.