If you need the government's permission to exercise a right... it is not a right after all

[g5000]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." - Antonin Scalia

The same is true of the First Amendment. The clause preventing Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" does not extend to child pornography or libel or slander.

 

[g5000]

voter ID is not a permit to vote...

It most certainly is. You can't vote without one in most states.

 

[g5000]

In any case, I totally agree that if the gummit puts restrictions on any right, meaning unreasonable ones that interfere with the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, then you do not have that right like you think. The thought occurs to me that X restriction today leads to Y restriction tomorrow until... voila'... you wake up one day and all the guns Americans used to own are now in the hands of

OMG

the commies who rule over us

Ah. The old slippery slope fallacy.

So when can I own a nuke? You cool with that?

How about some hand grenades?

 

[d0gbreath]

Reading is fundamental:

Having rights granted to me? How silly.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Ah. The old slippery slope fallacy.

So when can I own a nuke? You cool with that?

How about some hand grenades?

Ahhhh, the old illogical extreme fallacy. Moron.

 

[berg80]

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.
talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

 

[Flash]

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." - Antonin Scalia

The same is true of the First Amendment. The clause preventing Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" does not extend to child pornography or libel or slander.

The ruling today affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms must be defended vigorously, unlike what we see in the Democrat controlled commie states.

If the shithead Libtards in a commie state are going to do away with it then the court today said it must be a very high bar.

 

[Flash]

 

[maybelooking]

Have a nice wait. I'll stick with the Supreme Court.

if you agree with their infringements then back up why.

show me the things I asked for? you can't because they aren't there, which proves past rulings are wrong.

its ok, you can bow out now. youre wrong.

 

[White 6]

if you agree with their infringements then back up why.

show me the things I asked for? you can't because they aren't there, which proves past rulings are wrong.

its ok, you can bow out now. youre wrong.

A support letting the highest court in the land rule those types of decisions. I was raised that way, and it has served me well. Just because I do not like a ruling from time to time, does not make the ruling wrong, and as history has shown, they sometimes have reversed course. Still, ruling on law and constitution matters is their prime reason for existing and being created in the first place.

 

[maybelooking]

A support letting the highest court in the land rule those types of decisions. I was raised that way, and it has served me well. Just because I do not like a ruling from time to time, does not make the ruling wrong, and as history has shown, they sometimes have reversed course. Still, ruling on law and constitution matters is their prime reason for existing and being created in the first place.

I dont like or dislike any rulings on the 2nd. There are no "decisions" to be made regarding the 2nd. It's plain. Its easy to understand.

I simply am able to read plain English and understand it. I do NOT support any illegal infringements. Dont like the 2nd, then AMEND it like the founders intended.

The SCOTUS is able to make those ridiculous rulings because of support by uninformed people like yourself.

 

[Flash]

Breyer Makes Plain The Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights​

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.
talkingpointsmemo.com

What is notable is the ease with which the court's liberals shred the ludicrous, anachronistic arguments of the Right.

Breyer is a stupid Moon Bat appointed by Slick Willy that supposedly completed law school but does not even understand what "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means.

Read Alito's scathing rejection of Breyers stupidity. I posted some of it in another thread.

 

[White 6]

I dont like or dislike any rulings on the 2nd. There are no "decisions" to be made regarding the 2nd. It's plain. Its easy to understand.

I simply am able to read plain English and understand it. I do NOT support any illegal infringements. Dont like the 2nd, then AMEND it like the founders intended.

The SCOTUS is able to make those ridiculous rulings because of support by uninformed people like yourself.

Fine. Fire them, if you have the authority to exercise rights, based on your opinion's supposed superiority.

 

[maybelooking]

Fine. Fire them, if you have the authority to exercise rights, based on your opinion's supposed superiority.

too bad so many people are willing to support the very things the founders tried their best to prevent.

And I dont have to fire them. We FINALLY have a SCOTUS that is filled with justices that understand their role. The roll of ENFORCING the Constitution rather than inventing shit that isn't in there!!!!

GOOD JOB.

 

[scruffy]

In America our rights come from a 'Creator' who is (or was) recognized as the objective moral authority from which human rights come. Our Constitution was meant to ensure those rights over human edict. We have lost that connection today so, we are subject to the relative morality of those in power.

I'm not subject to anything. I'm not a subject. Those in power can make my life miserable, but I can make theirs miserable too, so what.

I'm not going to argue about where Rights come from, but I will fight for them if necessary.

 

[Leo123]

I'm not subject to anything. I'm not a subject. Those in power can make my life miserable, but I can make theirs miserable too, so what.

I'm not going to argue about where Rights come from, but I will fight for them if necessary.

We're all pretty much subject to Biden's high gas prices.

 

[there4eyeM]

The second amendment mentions arms, not firearms.

 

[pknopp]

too bad so many people are willing to support the very things the founders tried their best to prevent.

And I dont have to fire them. We FINALLY have a SCOTUS that is filled with justices that understand their role. The roll of ENFORCING the Constitution rather than inventing shit that isn't in there!!!!

GOOD JOB.

Many championing this ruling also condemned the judge who ruled "stop and frisk" unconstitutional.

Sadly for many it's not about rights and the constitution, but rather it's about politics.