We have a Facebook group where you can comment on this issue. Let’s have a civil discussion.
What do you think “well regulated” as used in the Second Amendment means?
What do you think “arms” as used in the Second Amendment means?
Do you think the six subversive extremist Supreme Court Justices are consistent when they use “originalism” in their opinions?
The following are my opinions and not necessarily the opinions of the FCFS board or its members.
I posit that the six subversive extremist justices are dangerous ideologues with an agenda.
I continue to think we need to expand the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to 12. There are two major parties. Advise and consent could mean the Senate offers the President choices. Six justices should be recommended by Democrats and six justices should be recommended by Republicans. We now have six appointed by Republican Presidents and three appointed by Democratic Presidents. So we need three that Senate Democrats should suggest to be appointed to make it 12.
The AR-15 style automatic weapon was not around when the 2nd amendment was written. Does the 2nd amendment only apply to guns requiring reloading after shooting like most guns when the 2nd amendment was written (the flintlock musket was the most common weapon and a skilled infantry man could load and fire 4 shots in a minute)? I’m pretty sure James Madison had no idea how gun technology would change when he wrote the 2nd amendment. Guns like the AR-15 have one purpose: to kill people. Have you ever seen a photograph of the damage done to the human body after being shot with one of these?
I am appalled by the rise of “originalism” with the SCOTUS. Personally, I believe if it had been suggested in a Con Law class by a 23 year old female and not Scalia, the whole concept would have been laughed at (and the young woman would have flunked the class). But if you want to talk 2nd amendment, lets talk about what guns were like in 1791. Let’s meet the originalists with their own arguments.
