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.
That was 1991, a very different court.Actually. The court has ruled on it.
Supreme Court Lets Stand Ban on Machine Gun Ownership
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to recognize a constitutional right to own machine guns sought by the National Rifle Assn., which had described a lower court's ruling in the matter as "the first ban on firearms possession by law-abiding citizens in American history."www.latimes.com
No decision has overturned this one.
Hey lookie there...the word Militia is right there.Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II.
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.
It's not an interpretation. It's the plain language and confirmed by other sources.
And before the precedent set by Heller.That was 1991, a very different court.
The contemporary writings of the founders.Other sources? Like who?
That was 1991, a very different court.
You know the court did not uphold the National Firearms Act of 1934, as applied to machione guns - right?Yet it is still the law of the land. You can argue that it is not, but it is.
But not law. Cool.The contemporary writings of the founders.
You know the court did not uphold the National Firearms Act of 1934, as applied to machione guns - right?
I do agree with your basic premise that one can argue how they wish an issue to be, but that is not the same as arguing how it currently is, legally or otherwise. Your assertion that this is solely an issue among the Left, however, is misguided; there is, for example, a contingent among the Right who argue that the former President should have some sort of Executive Privilege, while the fact of the matter is, at this point he does not. That's just an example; this is something that people from all perspectives do. So I'm with you on that.I get the impression that Leftists, at all levels, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and opinion. And it is difficult and frustrating to debate Leftists because they refuse to countenance this difference. Allow me to provide a few examples on common debating points.
One reasons why Leftists in Congress seem so cavalier about ignoring our basic, founding documents - even though they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - is because the Constitutionality of a law cannot be immediately challenged, the process usually takes years, and they know they can get away with it.
- It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.
- We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.
- We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.
- We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.
- We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.
The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.
The USSC has not, ever, ruled the National Firearms Act of 1934, as applied to machine guns, is constitutiuonal.They let the lower court decision stand
facts are interpreted differently ? you just proved the ops point !Facts are not debatable. They are interpreted differently by many people.
They let the lower court decision stand. That means the lower court decision is the law of the land right?
