Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bullshit. Regardless of what brain dead TM thinks, our Senator Fienstien expressed a desire to ban civilian ownership of firearms, which is in effect, expressing a belief than any and all gun control laws are Constitutional.
Can you find that quote for me. I haven't heard that.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."
Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban - ABC News
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun. The decision will affect gun control laws across the country.
"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
He addressed the "problem of handgun violence" by saying there are a "variety of tools" such as "measures regulating handguns" available. But he said that the "enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," which includes measures such as an "absolute prohibition of handguns."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito signed onto Scalia's opinion.
And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory?
That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States
It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.
Despite that our elected officials swear an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign OR DOMESTIC?
Whatever you say genius.
And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory?
That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States
It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.
It's written on the heart of every patriot. Oh, wait. some have no heart. Would that be you.Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.
Where is this written in the Constitution?
That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States
It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.
Despite that our elected officials swear an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign OR DOMESTIC?
Whatever you say genius.
So you say that swearing an oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies means that we have a Constitutional right to wage war on the U.S. Government????
It's a fruity idea. No one has ever had the nerve (or lack of brain cells) to trot that one out in court. Wonder why?
you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims
Wouldn't that mean than anyone that possessed a gun would have had to go to Iraq to fight if called upon to do so?To keep government in check:
Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Noah Webster:
James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.
Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.
Where is this written in the Constitution?
That's how the war was sold to us: to protect America from invading terrorists.Wouldn't that mean than anyone that possessed a gun would have had to go to Iraq to fight if called upon to do so?To keep government in check:
Declaration of Independence:
Noah Webster:
James Madison's original wording of the Second Amendment:
There are several Supreme Court decisions which explain that the amendment is not saying you must belong to a standing or existing militia to own a gun, but that every able bodied man must be able to possess a gun in the event they are needed to be called upon to defend their country.
given the purpose of a militia is to protect america against foriegn invaders, i'm guessing no
And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory?
That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States
It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.
Its the whole reason the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, i.e. the individual, not the county, the state or the country. It was not collectivized as the founders knew that push comes to shove, when the decsion has to be made to defend yourself, it has to be made by individuals. Each one deciding what limit they are willing to take vs. criminals, the government, or a lack of government.
you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims
so you agree corproations have the right to fund candidates campaigns with out limit, becasue the supreme court said so.
That's how the war was sold to us: to protect America from invading terrorists.Wouldn't that mean than anyone that possessed a gun would have had to go to Iraq to fight if called upon to do so?
given the purpose of a militia is to protect america against foriegn invaders, i'm guessing no
That's a decent point - but it's not the point under discussion.
The point under discussion was whether or not the second amendment secures the right to weaponry in order to wage war on the United States
It's an absurd notion. I'm the first to say that NOTHING in this life is 100% certain, so I'm only 99.9999999% certain that any court hearing such an absurd legal argument would get the giggles.
Its the whole reason the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, i.e. the individual, not the county, the state or the country. It was not collectivized as the founders knew that push comes to shove, when the decsion has to be made to defend yourself, it has to be made by individuals. Each one deciding what limit they are willing to take vs. criminals, the government, or a lack of government.
I respect your right to your opinion - but I find it very difficult to respect such a fruity notion.
you people have NO legal leg to stand on to make these claims
so you agree corproations have the right to fund candidates campaigns with out limit, becasue the supreme court said so.
Yes, they do have the right.
Like it not, SCOTUS decides what Constitutional rights you have and don't have - Not you and not me.
Its the whole reason the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, i.e. the individual, not the county, the state or the country. It was not collectivized as the founders knew that push comes to shove, when the decsion has to be made to defend yourself, it has to be made by individuals. Each one deciding what limit they are willing to take vs. criminals, the government, or a lack of government.
I respect your right to your opinion - but I find it very difficult to respect such a fruity notion.
So the notion that rights flow up from the individual, with restrictions on the government of whatever level on how to deal with those rights is fruity?
What is fruity is the notion that rights flow DOWN from the government and are granted to individuals.
so you agree corproations have the right to fund candidates campaigns with out limit, becasue the supreme court said so.
Yes, they do have the right.
Like it not, SCOTUS decides what Constitutional rights you have and don't have - Not you and not me.
That's not true either. You and I get to determine that through nullification. Lots of SC decisions that were not Constitutional according to the people.
Yes, they do have the right.
Like it not, SCOTUS decides what Constitutional rights you have and don't have - Not you and not me.
That's not true either. You and I get to determine that through nullification. Lots of SC decisions that were not Constitutional according to the people.
and the idea of nullification was shot down 100 years ago.
People can spout off all they want about what is and what is not Constitutional. Their opinions are not enforced. It's just pi$$ing in the wind.
I respect your right to your opinion - but I find it very difficult to respect such a fruity notion.
So the notion that rights flow up from the individual, with restrictions on the government of whatever level on how to deal with those rights is fruity?
What is fruity is the notion that rights flow DOWN from the government and are granted to individuals.
I never said anything close to this.
I said that the notion that you have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms in order to wage war on the United States is a fruity notion. You can try to spin it into something else - which just proves that you cannot defend the notion itself. The notion is so fruity on its face that you have to try to spin it into something else to defend it.
