Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[rightwinger]

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

Ah.... here is where your true colors come out. Before you stated that you weren't anti gun... now we get into it and indeed you are.


Stupid pathetic bitch.

Show me what I posted is anti-gun? I posted what I thought gun laws should be which also includes restrictions on gun ownership. When asked, I posted what I thought those restrictions should be. The law agrees with most of my restrictions.

If you want more firepower or the ability to pack a silenced handgun, Uzi or armor piercing bullets....you get no sympathy from me.

The gun is there for your protection....if you desire offensive or military grade firepower ...tough luck for you

 

[JakeStarkey]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Liberal idiocy on display in all it's moronic, head-in-the-sand glory.

Only a liberal would call a court upholding the 2nd amendment as "activist".

This has got to be the quotidian...but, hopefully not the most quintessential on the subject...


"I AM a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.

Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.

Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.

DOUG VAN GORDER
Quincy "
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed..._campaign=8315

Guns, teachers, and self-defense - The Boston Globe



Jaw dropping.

 

[rightwinger]

Excessive firepower would prove to be useful against excessive firepower.
No?

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

 

[Tech_Esq]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The right to own and bear arms does not include machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. No court is going to ever interpret this decision in that matter. No, folks, sorry to bum ya out, but: no guided-missile frigate for you!

 

[JakeStarkey]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

I am not a liberal, and you are a reactionary, not a conservative. I agree with the intent of the decision but chuckle that the conservative court used a liberal move. That's OK. I bet the Senate will stomp all over reconciliation beginning in January.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

What, pray-tell, is a machine pistol? Please define your term in detail. It makes a difference.

I can legally buy a MAC 10 or 11, a TEC-9 and Uzi the list goes on. So, what would you be talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

Another idiot that ignores the Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United Sates. It quite clearly states that all rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be restricted by the sates.

Another point, taking power away from a state is not statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

I almost hate to burst your bubble here, but suppressors are legal under federal law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

Another idiot that ignores the Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United Sates. It quite clearly states that all rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be restricted by the sates.

Another point, taking power away from a state is not statist.

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

 

[Oddball]

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

Roe isn't enumerated, or even implied, in the BoR.

Pretty poor choice of analogy.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

I am not a liberal, and you are a reactionary, not a conservative. I agree with the intent of the decision but chuckle that the conservative court used a liberal move. That's OK. I bet the Senate will stomp all over reconciliation beginning in January.

First if you think I'm a reactionary, then you are clearly a lefty radical. So, you are quite right in correcting me, you are not a liberal, your probably much farther left than socialist, perhaps a Marxist or Maoist, one can only guess at these things. Perhaps you'll write more and I'll get a better idea. Hopefully your next writings with have more content rather than mere barbs.

Second, I've found that it usually quite effective to turn one's enemy's tools back upon them. It seems that they focus very much on how to use it offensively and not so much on how to defend against it. So, when it's turned upon them, they are easy victims.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The right to own and bear arms does not include machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. No court is going to ever interpret this decision in that matter. No, folks, sorry to bum ya out, but: no guided-missile frigate for you!

Duh, and it shouldn't.

Nutter

 

[Tech_Esq]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

Another idiot that ignores the Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United Sates. It quite clearly states that all rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be restricted by the sates.

Another point, taking power away from a state is not statist.

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

Since the concept, as Justice Alito notes in his opinion, of incorporation dates back to a time prior to modern concepts of "liberal" and "conservative", I'm not ready to grant you ground on how incorporation is the sole province of liberal judges.

You want to make your case?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

Roe isn't enumerated, or even implied, in the BoR.

Pretty poor choice of analogy.

Come on Dude, get with the penumbra man.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Sorry boys...no toys for you

Afraid the law agrees with me and it makes sense. Bring it up at your next NRA meeting. You will find a shoulder to cry on

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

Ohio Ordnance Works KGI, Knesek Guns - International Distributor of the Finest Firearms

You can buy anything that you want.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

The right to own and bear arms does not include machine guns, bazookas, grenades, etc. No court is going to ever interpret this decision in that matter. No, folks, sorry to bum ya out, but: no guided-missile frigate for you!

Miller certainly did in 1937. They concluded that weapons of a military nature or of use to a military were protected by the 2A.

Further, how would congress be able to gran letters or Marque without people being able to own that kind of fire power?

 

[rightwinger]

You mean those laws that the SC keeps shooting down as unconstitutional?

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

I almost hate to burst your bubble here, but suppressors are legal under federal law.

I don't care.

I was asked what I thought should be restricted. I still think there is no legal reason to own a silencer. If you are defending yourself or your family there is no reason nobody should hear it

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

I don't care.

I was asked what I thought should be restricted. I still think there is no legal reason to own a silencer. If you are defending yourself or your family there is no reason nobody should hear it

How about hearing protection, what they were originally designed for? Or do we not get to protect our hearing?