Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause: [141] A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Insurrectionist theory applies primarily to gun owners who arm themselves against perceived governmental tyranny to resist (or overthrow) it. [3] Insurrectionist theory can be divided into two components: Individuals should keep arms and armor as a check on government tyranny. [1] [2] [3] Individuals have a duty to act against tyranny with arms.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution addressed militias directly. Its clause describing "a well regulated militia" became a point of legal contention in the context of gun control, presenting a dispute as to whether a militia was a prerequisite to gun ownership or if it applied to all citizens in addition to militias.
The Second Amendment was created to make sure Americans could protect themselves from tyranny. There is no way we will change it. Trump went on like that for a couple of pages.
Here’s what Second Amendment actually says: “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
Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) held that the Second Amendment was fully incorporated within the 14th Amendment. This means that the court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. [88] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition.
Unlike the First Amendment—which prohibits abridging the freedom of speech—the Second Amendment bans infringing upon the right to bear arms, a very different construction. This language meant ...
In social choice, a tyranny-of-the-majority scenario can be formally defined as a situation where the candidate or decision preferred by a majority is greatly inferior (hence "tyranny") to the socially optimal candidate or decision according to some measure of excellence such as total utilitarianism or the egalitarian rule.