The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts

The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majority’s opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.

More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[blackhawk]

I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.

 

[Katzndogz]

I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.

Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is it still a part of the
Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.

things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.

and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.

Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.

Which ‘government’?

Over the last 60 years we’ve seen mostly state and local governments attempt to limit Americans’ civil liberties, where the Federal courts were needed to strike down those laws offensive to the Constitution and restore citizens’ rights.

That was the issue with Heller/McDonald, where the District of Columbia and Chicago had enacted handgun bans, overturned as un-Constitutional by the courts.

Thus your statement has no basis in fact, where the Federal courts remain a bulwark against government excess, and the sole venue in which the people can seek remedy to that excess.

 

[YoungRepublican]

I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.

Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.

I remember that quote! man how funny was that!

 

[tjvh]

Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts

The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majority’s opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.

More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

You bitch about the NRA then you link to this ^ crap? Hypocrite.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

tinydenser is hilariously stupid.

Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?

Negging is for children, Pee-wee...

That's what everyone who gets negged regularly says. Hence yours is off.

Pussy

 

[Rinata]

well congrats to all the liberals here.

The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution

In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.


thank you for your honesty

That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“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.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

 

[American_Jihad]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

You chumps need to lay off the crack that you smoke...

 

[Lakhota]

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

 

[American_Jihad]

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

You silly liberals can get wee weed up all you want, nothing is going to change. Whatcha going to do, go door to door to collect guns, lol good luck...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.

and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.

Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.

Which ‘government’?

Over the last 60 years we’ve seen mostly state and local governments attempt to limit Americans’ civil liberties, where the Federal courts were needed to strike down those laws offensive to the Constitution and restore citizens’ rights.

That was the issue with Heller/McDonald, where the District of Columbia and Chicago had enacted handgun bans, overturned as un-Constitutional by the courts.

Thus your statement has no basis in fact, where the Federal courts remain a bulwark against government excess, and the sole venue in which the people can seek remedy to that excess.

Which government? The one that argues that the location data on my cell phone is not private.

The US Government Can Track Your Location at Any Time Without a Warrant | Mother Jones

The government that argues that they do not need a warrant to go through my cell phone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/t...rts-and-legislatures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The government that argues that people should be in prison even though we know they are innocent.

Scores of N.C. inmates 'innocent' of gun charges, yet still imprisoned

I can keep going all day long, do not even attempt to argue that the feds are not trying to limit people's rights, that position is indefensible.

By the way, the feds filed a brief in Heller supporting the restrictions.

 

[Lakhota]

Most NaziCons would wet their pants when ATF knocked on their door.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts

The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majority’s opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.

More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

You bitch about the NRA then you link to this ^ crap? Hypocrite.

you folks are catching on.....LaKota is a phony......says he is a gun owner and for "sane" Gun ownership......bullshit.....in the other threads on this he is basically saying NO ONE should own a gun....the guy flip flops more than Romney did.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

What it actually says is:

“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.”

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??

sorry Rinata.....the PEOPLE are the Citizens of this Country.....this Country has "Zero Tolerance" for this and that.....maybe they should start having "Zero Tolerance" for Violence against people and start putting violent people away for a long time with no time off for good behavior......you serve every minute of your sentence.....

 

[hazlnut]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

It's right up there with no quarter.

 

[Si modo]

Inherent rights have no expiration dates, except to fascists.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Most NaziCons would wet their pants when ATF knocked on their door.

this coming from a guy who would not think twice about giving up a right because he was told that right is bad and we have to eliminate it......some people roll over LaKota like you.....some are willing to question WHY....and maybe even stand up for those rights.....you would not understand that.....you were told its not right to question authority....you don't question what the President says or does,you don't question what the Democrats do or say.....basically.....you don't question you just do.....and your Threads and Posts back that up.....go ahead prove how wrong i am about you....

 

[Ernie S.]

tinydenser is hilariously stupid.

Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?

Negging is for children, Pee-wee...

Turning rep off is for cowards that refuse to see how little respect people have for their opinions.

 

[Si modo]

Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?

Negging is for children, Pee-wee...

Turning rep off is for cowards that refuse to see how little respect people have for their opinions.

And, how long did it take the coward to do that after it announced that it would do that?