What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) (individual right to bear arms) is unconstitutional. It must be overturned.

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
58,217
Reaction score
15,622
Points
2,220
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
The 14th amendment only applies to ex slaves. Besides, Cruikshank was after the 14th amendment was ratified and firmly found that it did not apply to state governments.


Tell that to all the fucking anchor babies of illegals.

.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
49,453
Reaction score
10,622
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.


The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. It was overturned you fucking moron!
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
9,500
Reaction score
17,470
Points
2,290

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
38,350
Reaction score
5,713
Points
1,130
The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.



Mostly the case was all about getting rid of the sense of a "collective right". There's no such thing as a collective right, and as such McDonald is a correct decision.
 
OP
Stormy Daniels

Stormy Daniels

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,958
Reaction score
1,509
Points
170
Mostly the case was all about getting rid of the sense of a "collective right". There's no such thing as a collective right, and as such McDonald is a correct decision.

That....no. Heller was the case that dealt with that. But Heller was in D.C. which is strictly federal jurisdiction. McDonald dealt with whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Prior to McDonald, the prevailing precedent said no.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
86,940
Reaction score
15,809
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
The 14th amendment only applies to ex slaves. Besides, Cruikshank was after the 14th amendment was ratified and firmly found that it did not apply to state governments.
If it only applies to ex-slaves why do gays use it and allowed to use it for marriage rights
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
86,940
Reaction score
15,809
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
That....no. Heller was the case that dealt with that. But Heller was in D.C. which is strictly federal jurisdiction. McDonald dealt with whether the 2nd amendment applied to the states via the 14th amendment. Prior to McDonald, the prevailing precedent said no.
What precedence are you referring to? Miller?
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
60,883
Reaction score
31,664
Points
2,645
Location
Trump's Army
Is this a convoluted response (by the left) to the S.C. about RvW? God help us if there is a generation so ignorant that they think (hope) that the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution can be "overturned".
The left is infinity triggered after RvW.
 

Jaxson

Active Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
241
Reaction score
98
Points
43
The case was wrongly decided. It just be overturned. There is no deeply held tradition in the United States that states cannot restrict citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Prior to the McDonald decision, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government. The power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms was a power reserved by the states. In McDonald, the court created something out of think air that did not exist before, discarding states' rights in the process. The court said, for the first time ever, that all of a sudden the restrictions on the federal government under the 2nd amendment, are also restrictions on the states.

This is clearly NOT in keeping with the deeply held traditions of the United States. This is brand new, out of nowhere. In fact, going all the way back United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and further back to Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), the Supreme Court recognized that the Bill of Rights did not limit the states, only the federal government.

So the decision in McDonald is contrary to the deeply rooted traditions of the United States, which means it is wrong, according to Justices Alito and Thomas. It must be overturned.


So all Federal laws don't apply to the States? So why have a Federal government if their laws don't apply to anyone?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top