US district Judge rules ban on guns for felon is unconstitutional

[Rogue AI]

Probably not.
It most likely means exactly what it says.
Not

Otherwise that would be what was written.
But that is not what was written.
Instead it says...
A Well REGULATED militia.
As in regulated and CONTROLLED by the government.
Not the firearm free-for-all we currently have going on in this country.
This wasn't the intent of the founders and author of 2A.

That is not how the Founders governed. The private ownership of firearms outside any militia is well documented. Settlers did not get a militia escort and guard contingent, they were expected to fend for themselves, with privately owned firearms. Nor were private citizens restricted to just personal firearms, they could and did purchase the most deadly weapons of their time, artillery. None of which had anything to do with militias. You folks are simply wrong.

 

[Marener]

Hes required to look at case law 100 years older than the second amendment, on a case about the second amendment?
You are so butthurt, you make no sense.

Yep. Originalism is really goddamn stupid.

 

[TNHarley]

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

So I guess cars, apartments and trailers dont have fourth amendment protections?
Or phones, computers, megaphones, speakers etc dont have first amendment protections?
Do you even logic bro?

 

[MagicMike]

Nonsense, unless you are pretending you understand the Constitution better than those who signed it. You need only look to Hamilton's death to see the Founders' intent.

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

Well you will need to persuade the Supreme court that is what it means. Why did you ignore the end of the amendment? Militias are indeed well regulated.

So the current state of firearm ownershi/possession in the U.S. (according to your own words) is more about a whimsical 2008 SCOTUS ruling than what The Second Amendment actually says.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[22lcidw]

We have seen the last several years alone why the 2nd amendment is needed. The protests/riots over the last several weeks is proof of it. What Progs have created is a nation of zealots for different agendas. And then they endlessly promote White Nationalism as a hideous evil lurking everywhere. And the zealots believe it.

 

[TNHarley]

Yep. Originalism is really goddamn stupid.

I know! Having a constitution is stupid! Who needs rights and protections from the government?
Tard.

 

[Rogue AI]

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

Hamilton was shot with a privately owned handgun with no connection to a militia.

Do you get your news from a hand cranked press? If not, you clearly do not understand Constitutional rulings on technology.

 

[TNHarley]

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

So the current state of firearm ownershi/possession in the U.S. (according to your own words) is more about a whimsical 2008 SCOTUS ruling than what The Second Amendment actually says.

I'm glad we agree.

You have shown you dont understand what it says. Not sure that is a very good argument coming from you.

 

[Robert W]

Oh really?
Enlighten me then.
What type of weapon was it that Hamilton was shot with?
What other types/styles of firearms were available in Hamilton's day?
The flintlock musket/pistol?
Blunderbuss?
Because those would have been the total scope of what The Founders "intended."

So the current state of firearm ownershi/possession in the U.S. (according to your own words) is more about a whimsical 2008 SCOTUS ruling than what The Second Amendment actually says.

I'm glad we agree.

Agree with what? I am very happy to agree. But what are you claiming I agree to?
Actually though the amendment is short, and of course to some this confuses them, I accept their dictate as the amendment shall not be infringed on. Clearly said, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on. That locks the gate that the Democrats wanted unlocked.

 

[Marener]

I know! Having a constitution is stupid! Who needs rights and protections from the government?
Tard.

Did you mean to reply to me? Because your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[TNHarley]

Did you mean to reply to me? Because your response has nothing to do with what I said.

It does indeed.
If you dont support originalism, you dont support the constitution. Its not possible.
Supporting the government doing whatever in the hell it wants, makes the document meaningless.
This isnt rocket science.

 

[Marener]

It does indeed.
If you dont support originalism, you dont support the constitution. Its not possible.
Supporting the government doing whatever in the hell it wants, makes the document meaningless.
This isnt rocket science.

It’s definitely possible. Originalism is a farce. It’s just another way for conservative justices to do whatever they want and justify it by saying the founders would have done so, which is convenient because it’s not like the founders are going to tell them they’re wrong.

 

[kaz]

Well, try this time to understand. Forums are a place to make statements. Even wrong statements. They are not certain to reach the eyes of the Government. Better take your case to Government where it still might waste your time, but at least you took it to those who vote on laws.

I think you're right, you should stop posting on message boards, it's a waste of time

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s definitely possible. Originalism is a farce. It’s just another way for conservative justices to do whatever they want and justify it by saying the founders would have done so, which is convenient because it’s not like the founders are going to tell them they’re wrong.

Yep.

 

[Rogue AI]

It’s definitely possible. Originalism is a farce. It’s just another way for conservative justices to do whatever they want and justify it by saying the founders would have done so, which is convenient because it’s not like the founders are going to tell them they’re wrong.

Originalism is the baseline. The Founders already considered and added the potential for change, the amendment process. The rejection of originalism stems from the foolish desire to avoid going through the proper methods to create the changes the Founders clearly understood.

 

[Robert W]

I think you're right, you should stop posting on message boards, it's a waste of time

Sorry you will leave the forum.

 

[BackAgain]

Where does the government get the authority to take away constitutional rights forever?

Well, if one manages to earn a life sentence, the rights of such an inmate are pretty much gone forever.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand your point. But there is another side to it.

Another instance: let’s talk about some child molester. He gets convicted by a jury after a perfectly fair trial loaded with tons of only credible evidence. He goes to prison. Great. But, when he gets out, he also has a lifetime obligation to register as a sez offender.

He might complain, “but I served my time.” Our collective societal reply might be: “Yes. You did. But you’re nevertheless required to register as a sex offender and alert your neighbors to your status. And there are also related restrictions on where you are even allowed to reside. And if you don’t like it, tough shit.”

 

[kaz]

Yeah but, .........but give it a try.
Show the forum your chops. That you got game.
That there is a there there with you.

So again......are the Democrats rigging all elections? Any elections? If so, which ones. Name names. And explain to us how you know?

Saddle up, Skippy, show the forum whatcha got.

No, doing battle with an unarmed man is still wrong. When you have a clue, let me know

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, doing battle with an unarmed man is still wrong. When you have a clue, let me know

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Robert W]

It’s definitely possible. Originalism is a farce. It’s just another way for conservative justices to do whatever they want and justify it by saying the founders would have done so, which is convenient because it’s not like the founders are going to tell them they’re wrong.

Recall when forums were told over and over that the Founders did not amend the constitution that allowed for Abortions? Some other silly justices simply made up what they call law. And the current court fixed the problem.