They voted against the Amendment? Really? They said it was uncons utional? Illegal? That it shouldn't be in the Cons ution? I must have missed that part of the dissent.
Need?
We should all own one or two. Maybe nobody needs 6 or more guns, but some people collect cars, some people collect stamps, some people collect palying cards.
Does Jay Leno need all the cars he owns?
Need is irrelevant. This is suppose to me a free nation, or do you prefer an authoritarian government?
So you go a few steps past libertarianism right to anarchy?
No kidding. I'm wondering that myself.Instead of pissing on us sideways, you could just tell us what you're talking about.
The decision should have been a 9-0 decision. Not 5-4.
Agreed.
The fact that the Court barely let this slide speaks volumes.
The vote was actually whether the 2nd amendment also applies to States, not whether it is cons utional or not.
that's what I was meaning in my earlier posts. After a couple more obama appointees, stuff like this might not even pass.Agreed.
The fact that the Court barely let this slide speaks volumes.
do you have any Winchester repeaters? 1870's type ? :P
Long story short, the majority of the other amendments in the bill of rights specify that they apply to individuals ("no person shall be forced ..."). Obviously, courts construe those amendments to protect individual rights. The second amendment is different. It specifically recognizes the right to organize a militia then recognizes a right to bear arms. I'm wondering what the argument is for construing the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to firearms beyond the militia.
Good ruling.
militia schlmilitia...
the entire BOR is about individuals.
anyway, didn't the SC in the past vote that the 2nd Amendment pertained to Individuals...?
Plainly, it has been a right of the American citizen since the birth of the nation. No matter your meandering on the 2nd, it has always been interpreted and understood to mean that every citizen has the right to bear arms.
Period.
To change the meaning on your basis would be to overturn 200+ years of precendent for no other reason than some wanton technicality.
Moreover, in the big picture, the legal gun owner is not the problem in this country. Its the illegal gun owners. Of that, there are plenty. Remove the right of citizens to own firearms and there would only be an explosion in the black market of otherwise law-abiding citizens seeing the writing on the wall.
Youd create a far worse problem in some lame attempt at reducing crime misassociated with gun ownership.
Technically, you are correct. In essence though, that's not true.
Because if the SC had ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states, then they are basically saying that a state can basically revoke your CONS UTIONAL RIGHTS.
Might as well just call it "uncons utional", it would be only taking it one step further.
What's next? Today, your State revokes your CONS UTIONAL right to bear arms.
Tomorrow, how about the 1st amendment? or the 6th? How the would you feel when the Supreme Court rules that the 1st amendment does not apply to States? Live in Texas? Yeah, in 2021, Texas creates a law where you lose your 1st amendment rights because X reason.
Somehow it's ok to challenge gun laws? Ha ha ha.
No. NO LEGAL PRECEDENT can be set in this matter.
I am shocked that it BARELY made it through. ing shocked.
This ty Supreme Court finally gets something right.
I wasn't aware I was saying anything other than the text of the amendment probably doesn't support an individual right to arms.
As for these hundreds of years of precedent, what cases are you talking about. To my knowledge, there have only been a few, with er and the Chicago case being the only two for the past hundred years or so.
The distinction as we think of it probably didn't even occur to the founders. Membership in a state militia basically required private maintenance of arms.
Maybe. But I don't think that explains why the Amendment singles out a "well regulated militia." if what you say is true, the founders intent would still be accomplished sans the militia clause.
Fair enough.
Not "200+ hundred years" of Court precedent, but application precedent. American citizens, whether in the state/local militia or not, have been able to "keep and bear arms" since the birth of this nation.As for these hundreds of years of precedent, what cases are you talking about. To my knowledge, there have only been a few, with er and the Chicago case being the only two for the past hundred years or so.
Thats what I meant by overturning hundreds of years of precedent. Maybe my use of the word precedent suggests Court rulings, if so, I am ignorant of that.
the federal government has been wiping their jackboots on much of the BOR anyway, for quite a while... and yeah I admit that they were doing it pre-obama.
in the past, the SC has purposely avoided 2nd amendment issues.Not "200+ hundred years" of Court precedent, but application precedent. American citizens, whether in the state/local militia or not, have been able to "keep and bear arms" since the birth of this nation.
uh, wha?
Winehole explained it, and you say you still don't think it explains it?
There's really no other way to explain it to you without repeating oneself.
The founders of this country lived in a time where each able bodied, white male, was encouraged, and even required in some places, to own a musket or rifle.
This was because we relied on the population, citizens, to enforce the peace and protect our nation from foreign invasion.
In time of war, the population, with all of their firearms, was called upon and organized.
When there were disturbances in local communities, unpaid night watchmen, and sheriffs, would enforce the law and keep the peace. It was a civic duty and honor to do this, and it was done by armed citizens.
A well armed "police force" and even a standing army was something the early Americans did not support. The "police" as we have it today, was non-existant back then. They hated the idea. They believed local communities should take care of themselves, and would ask for help when needed.
Nowadays, we apparently think we are too incompetent to do this anymore.
Even if we don't need the firearms to protect from foreign invasion, due to our military, we need them for personal defense.
Castle doctrine, etc. A man can defend his home and his family from many intruders if he is well armed.
This is something the founding father have always been vocal about. Now, grow some nuts, own a gun, be responsible with it, and shut the up, hippies..
What bull .
A gun is primarily meant to kill.
the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.
Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.
One of the major problems with the drug war in Mexico is that law abiding citizens are at the mercy of criminals, and can't protect their homes since gun ownership is illegal...
We don't want that here...
Picture this :
You have a wife, and 3 children. A 5 year old son, and an 11 and 16 year old daughters.
A man breaks into your home, and he is stronger than you. He overpowers you, and ties you up.
You now watch as he rapes your wife, and rapes your daughter right in front of you. Then he robs you, and leaves.
If you got lucky and called the police, they take about 10-30 minutes to show up.
or...
you could have had a gun, and protected your home.
Of course, you're too much of a brainwashed little got to realize how the world works.
News flash, bouton : We will never live in Utopia. In a perfect world, we don't need guns, but we live on Earth. Some people use them for hunting, some for SELF-DEFENSE, whatever.
Grow some nuts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
