Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper

[saveliberty]

Funny, I find nothing muddy about the wording of the second amendment...

Because you don't want to...

Let?s look at the Second Amendment, cutting through the myths and spin « Fabius Maximus

An interpreter who favoured regimen would argue that the ablative clause determines the sense of the main clause; hence, the state has the right to maintain an army.

Those who favour the absolute, as American courts have done, bracket the militia clause and take the main clause to mean that citizens may own as many firearms as they choose. The difference between constructions amounts to roughly 12,000 murders a year.

SCOTUS says otherwise in Heller.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

SCOTUS says otherwise in Heller.

Even Heller conceded that the government can ban some classes of weapons.

Just a matter of changing classifications.

 

[jillian]

Funny, I find nothing muddy about the wording of the second amendment...

most jurists thought that the current interpretation was laughable... until heller. you might want to take a look at breyer's dissent, which actually appropriately sets forth the issues...

as opposed to scalia's giving of the middle finger to accepted jurisprudence.

the one thing scalia did that was right was that he left it open for reasonable regulation that didn't constitute a total ban of gun ownership.

 

[saveliberty]

Funny, I find nothing muddy about the wording of the second amendment...

most jurists thought that the current interpretation was laughable... until heller. you might want to take a look at breyer's dissent, which actually appropriately sets forth the issues...

as opposed to scalia's giving of the middle finger to accepted jurisprudence.

the one thing scalia did that was right was that he left it open for reasonable regulation that didn't constitute a total ban of gun ownership.

What crap. Heller clearly came down on the side of gun ownership. We had some gun control nuts on the panel. No surprise there.

 

[jillian]

Funny, I find nothing muddy about the wording of the second amendment...

most jurists thought that the current interpretation was laughable... until heller. you might want to take a look at breyer's dissent, which actually appropriately sets forth the issues...

as opposed to scalia's giving of the middle finger to accepted jurisprudence.

the one thing scalia did that was right was that he left it open for reasonable regulation that didn't constitute a total ban of gun ownership.

What crap. Heller clearly came down on the side of gun ownership.

yes. it did. and i don't think i said otherwise. but if you actually look at what heller says, and not what some rightwingnut blogger says... you'll see that the decision leaves room for reasonable regulation.

now, read... and stop tantruming...

Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way in his majority opinion in Heller to limit Second Amendment protections to the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, Stevens said said. A section of Scalia's opinion identified permissible regulations, including prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons, though the section was dicta, [Justice]Stevens said.

Heller Decision Leaves Room for New Gun Restrictions, Retired Justice Stevens Says - News - ABA Journal

from scalia's decision in heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou-tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam-ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., Statev. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunnv. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

and i believe earlier i said breyer wrote the dissent in heller, seems it was stevens.

 

[saveliberty]

Thank you for the correction Jillian. I appreciate your sourced discussion. I don't find the second without the same limitations as any other Constitutional right either. To me, the line is a reasonable firearm for use in a citizen militia. That includes semi-automatic firearms.

 

[Uncensored2008]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

and i believe earlier i said breyer wrote the dissent in heller, seems it was stevens.

Sevens is far left-wing and staunchly anti-liberty. There is a reason that Stevens wrote the dissent, the anti-liberty faction lost.

But your claim that Heller flipped the bird at precedent is utterly false. In fact Heller is completely consistent with earlier rulings.

Staples v. U.S., - U.S. - (1994)
U.S. v. Lopez, __ U.S. __ (1995)

BTW, didn't Justice Stevens, state that gun owners are evil, in his commentary on Bryan v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)? Sure he did.

 

[jillian]

Thank you for the correction Jillian. I appreciate your sourced discussion. I don't find the second without the same limitations as any other Constitutional right either. To me, the line is a reasonable firearm for use in a citizen militia. That includes semi-automatic firearms.

thanks. i think it is up for question as to what the limitations are or will be. no matter what is done, it will go to the high court.

personally i think they should stick to the limitations on clip size and on tightening background checks. if they do the same AWB as last time, it would be a pointless exercise anyway.

 

[jillian]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

and i believe earlier i said breyer wrote the dissent in heller, seems it was stevens.

Sevens is far left-wing and staunchly anti-liberty. There is a reason that Stevens wrote the dissent, the anti-liberty faction lost.

But your claim that Heller flipped the bird at precedent is utterly false. In fact Heller is completely consistent with earlier rulings.

Staples v. U.S., - U.S. - (1994)
U.S. v. Lopez, __ U.S. __ (1995)

BTW, didn't Justice Stevens, state that gun owners are evil, in his commentary on Bryan v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)? Sure he did.

stevens pov is more consistent with historical interpretations than the stuff made up by scalia. but that's neither here nor there since you ignored the actual case citation which was from scalia's opinion.

was it easier for you to take a pot shot at one of the more respected members of the court since you weren't capable of addressing the actual case?

 

[saveliberty]

Thank you for the correction Jillian. I appreciate your sourced discussion. I don't find the second without the same limitations as any other Constitutional right either. To me, the line is a reasonable firearm for use in a citizen militia. That includes semi-automatic firearms.

thanks. i think it is up for question as to what the limitations are or will be. no matter what is done, it will go to the high court.

personally i think they should stick to the limitations on clip size and on tightening background checks. if they do the same AWB as last time, it would be a pointless exercise anyway.

Clip size only helps if you limit the number of clips. Most are actually termed magazines technically. Limiting magazines seems to step over the line, so no real change there. Background checks need to be consistent. I also have no problem with a basic training standard for your first gun, any additional training for a significantly new type of weapon and advanced training for concealed carry. That said, a kid stealing a gun still kills.

 

[Cowman]

liberals must be so happy

You ARE dumb.