Supreme Court Ruling on 2nd Amendment...
- Thread starter blacklabman
- Start date
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
CalifrniaDreamn
New Member
Well you're wrong!!! When you split something, you agree with changing two different things. The Supreme court changed 1 thing and left the other in place. Sorry even a court janitor could have figured out they would maintain restricting guns to convicted felons and people with mental issues. Get over yourself!!!
I heard on tv that the opinion by Justice Scalia was written so that it recognized that this referred to handguns and that other types of weapons (AK-47 comes to mind for me!! lol) were not included in this reasoning. So that your right to have a pistol is not the same as your right to bear a semi-automatic weapon. This should bring many court cases to come in the future.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Well you're wrong!!! When you split something, you agree with changing two different things. The Supreme court changed 1 thing and left the other in place. Sorry even a court janitor could have figured out they would maintain restricting guns to convicted felons and people with mental issues. Get over yourself!!!
The discussion wasn't about splitting anything. I said that the Supremes would affirm the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right and overturn the DC ban, but allow other "reasonable" gun control measures to stand... and I was right.
Now... go back to mom and dad's basement Mr. Wannabe.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
There's a lot of interesting reading in there. It looks like the majority held most of the arguments that the pro-gun community have been making for years:
- That the main purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to ensure that citizens have an ability to protect themselves from the Federal government. I never thought I would see the words "The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved." in a Supreme Court document.
- That trigger locks prevent people from effectively using firearms for home defense.
- That the interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right is supported by other use of the word "people" in the Bill of Rights and in other similar firearms laws written just before and after the ammendment.
I also like this part: "The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in onnection with militia service." Looks like the dissenters tried the longtime argument that the gun grabbers have used for decades and lost. Oh happy day!
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Yup, it is an argument that can't be truly believed by the anti's no matter how many times they'll tell themselves people will believe it. As I have said before, just look at what was going on back at the time it was written and tell me that it did not refer to the individual citizens. Can't be done, I don't care how dumb a person is.
ironintestines
Non-Premo
We won in a sense. I'm happy the ruling went the way it did, but, a 5-4 margin is a little too skinny for comfort. There are 4 that do not think the 2A is an individual right. That's scary
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Did...
...you read the dissents?
This is how they read the 2A;
"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 as long as they only have those arms when they are actively in the militia. The people are subordinate to the militia and the militia is subordinate to the state. The state is NOT the people and the militia is NOT the people. They are the things the people serve."
...you read the dissents?
This is how they read the 2A;
"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 as long as they only have those arms when they are actively in the militia. The people are subordinate to the militia and the militia is subordinate to the state. The state is NOT the people and the militia is NOT the people. They are the things the people serve."
buddscreek
Active Member
...you read the dissents?
This is how they read the 2A;
"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 as long as they only have those arms when they are actively in the militia. The people are subordinate to the militia and the militia is subordinate to the state. The state is NOT the people and the militia is NOT the people. They are the things the people serve."[/QUOTE
THAT IS VERY, VERY SCARY . I TAKE THAT AS MEANING "WE THE PEOPLE"
HAVE NO VOICE.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
See...
...that's getting to the heart of the matter; the ideology. The most satisfying and intellectually stimulating conversations about politics and government are, to me, the ones that get to ones ideology, ones philosophy, how one comes to a point of view.
If a point of view is based purely on democratic process, what most people want, then it doesn't get any lazier yet, still, there must be an underlying argument even for simply going along with the crowd IF one recognizes rule of law, individual rights and the constitution as the source of our law.
To say "We don't trust people in big cities to have weapons" is also to say "They are not allowed to defend themselves and their loved ones and their property."
And THAT gets right to your point; voice. If 4/9's of the SCOTUS thinks there is NO individual right to self defense, that can go an awful lot of other places as well, including speech, redress, property, etc.
All these things tie together to weave our societal fabric and to selectively tear those ties, to weaken them based on clearly extra-constitutional argument is to weaken it in such away as to risk rather large and unpredictable failures.
...that's getting to the heart of the matter; the ideology. The most satisfying and intellectually stimulating conversations about politics and government are, to me, the ones that get to ones ideology, ones philosophy, how one comes to a point of view.
If a point of view is based purely on democratic process, what most people want, then it doesn't get any lazier yet, still, there must be an underlying argument even for simply going along with the crowd IF one recognizes rule of law, individual rights and the constitution as the source of our law.
To say "We don't trust people in big cities to have weapons" is also to say "They are not allowed to defend themselves and their loved ones and their property."
And THAT gets right to your point; voice. If 4/9's of the SCOTUS thinks there is NO individual right to self defense, that can go an awful lot of other places as well, including speech, redress, property, etc.
All these things tie together to weave our societal fabric and to selectively tear those ties, to weaken them based on clearly extra-constitutional argument is to weaken it in such away as to risk rather large and unpredictable failures.
cwo_ghwebb
No Use for Donk Twits
As A Followup
WINNERS' TEST
THE SUPREMES' GUN RULING
I confess that I was one of the Second Amendment scholars who doubted that there were five votes on the high court to support an individual-right view of the Second Amendment.
I'm happy to be wrong about that, but there were only five such votes - demonstrating how narrow the margin was, and how out of touch the court is with the American public, which believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms by a 3-1 margin.
If, as some have been calling for, we had a "Supreme Court that looks like America," this case wouldn't even have been close. Ordinary Americans have generally believed that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied to, you know, the people.
It takes politicians, law professors (and, it turns out, four Supreme Court justices) to believe that a "right of the people" somehow actually doesn't belong to the people at all.
The individual rights-view finally won out, but just barely.
Is the gun-rights movement mature enough to follow through on this week's victory? We'll find out.
WINNERS' TEST - New York Post
Interesting point on now making sure we keep our rights as individuals.
WINNERS' TEST
THE SUPREMES' GUN RULING
I confess that I was one of the Second Amendment scholars who doubted that there were five votes on the high court to support an individual-right view of the Second Amendment.
I'm happy to be wrong about that, but there were only five such votes - demonstrating how narrow the margin was, and how out of touch the court is with the American public, which believes the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms by a 3-1 margin.
If, as some have been calling for, we had a "Supreme Court that looks like America," this case wouldn't even have been close. Ordinary Americans have generally believed that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied to, you know, the people.
It takes politicians, law professors (and, it turns out, four Supreme Court justices) to believe that a "right of the people" somehow actually doesn't belong to the people at all.
The individual rights-view finally won out, but just barely.
Is the gun-rights movement mature enough to follow through on this week's victory? We'll find out.
WINNERS' TEST - New York Post
Interesting point on now making sure we keep our rights as individuals.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Elect Obama, he chooses the next Justice, and 2A comes up again and goes the other way. Who knows what other rights of an individual they would take away once they open the door.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well...
That argument only goes so far. GHW Bush gave us Souter and Thomas, so, I give him a D.
Ford gave us Stevens.
And Reagan was only batting .500 with Scalia and Kennedy.
McCain is on record as having been OK with Roberts but not Alito.
That argument only goes so far. GHW Bush gave us Souter and Thomas, so, I give him a D.
Ford gave us Stevens.
And Reagan was only batting .500 with Scalia and Kennedy.
McCain is on record as having been OK with Roberts but not Alito.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
True dat.
So conservative appointees seem to think for themselves, and make decisions not based on their political beliefs as much as what they believe to be right (albeit really right or not)..
Whereas the Democratic appointees?
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
I've agreed with what you post more times than not, so it would be fair to say I've been dead ass wrong quite a few times.
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs
Well-Known Member
Anyone who is far in either direction (right or left) is bad for the country because they are only voicing the views of a small percentage of people...:shrug:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Anyone who is far in either direction (right or left) is bad for the country because they are only voicing the views of a small percentage of people...:shrug:
True, but anyone that reads the constitution the way it was intended, and interprets it the same way is considered a Conservative, and not only a Conservative but far Right, and would never get confirmed with a Democratic majority.
For Example, Scalia is a constitutional scholar, and believes decisions should be based on the Constititution using the language and meanings from the time it was written.. he's considered a Conservative just on that basis alone.
What's sad is that SHOULD be the requirement of being on the Supreme Court. If you interpret the Constitution any other way, or build modern day meaning into 200 year old language, you shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs
Well-Known Member
And I agree with you on that. Also that Scalia did a good job at interpretation on this one.
I find myself discontent with both parties though. There are too many far wingers on both sides and I disagree with both of them too much to even fight to say either is BETTER. I agree with some right wing policies, such as the right to bear arms (with the only real restrictions being the standard "convicted felon, mentally disabled, etc)...whereas I also agree with the left wing on things like being pro-choice.
Eh, I don't fit well in either party, and I'm just fine and dandy with that
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
The discussion wasn't about splitting anything. I said that the Supremes would affirm the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right and overturn the DC ban, but allow other "reasonable" gun control measures to stand... and I was right.
Now... go back to mom and dad's basement Mr. Wannabe.
Hey dumbass, letting stand means they changed nothing!!!
Got to go, moms calling me for lunch...