The Right To Bear Arms

[M14 Shooter]

Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love the OP.

Of course you do.

This is a lie...

...but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...

... as Heller contains no such text.

Not going to defend the lie you posted?
No wonder you like the OP.

 

[Lakhota]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is confusing.

 

[tjvh]

There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.

DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is confusing.

Only to idiots. The exact same wording is used on several other amendments which gun grabbers have no problems with.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I have a right to arms. Fact.

 

[Lakhota]

I have a right to arms. Fact.

You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions. Fact.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a right to arms. Fact.

You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions. Fact.

In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm drinking whiskey tonight. Do you want to take my right to drink away from? I'm fucked out of my mind.

You want to take away my right of arms but you don't want to take away my right to drink. Interesting. I'm sitting here getting fucked and posting to you. hehe

Real reason is my back hurts like hell so I'm leaning on it to take the pain away.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So will black bear and grizzly bear arms both be illegal?

 

[Spoonman]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

perhaps you could point out any limitations in the wording of the 2nd amendment. I'm guessing you can't

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have a right to arms. Fact.

You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions. Fact.

So....
When are you going to cite the text where Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...?

 

[regent]

Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form. A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form. A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?

There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.

 

[regent]

Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form. A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?

There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.

If a sound argument worked the problem would have been solved long ago. It must be an emotional argument, an argument with a few catchy slogans and some historical references to the founding fathers. If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form. A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?

There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.

If a sound argument worked the problem would have been solved long ago.

This is only true if both sides are convinced by sound arguments; the anti-gun side argues from emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, which explains why there is still a "problem".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.

too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

 

[regent]

If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.

too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost.
Great idea though.

 

[Spoonman]

If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.

too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost.
Great idea though.

it will still cost less than maintaining a database of firearms, tracking every trransaction, issuing the proper paperwork and permits. any idea what these background checks are going to cost? they don't tell you that part.

 

[M14 Shooter]

too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost.
Great idea though.

it will still cost less than maintaining a database of firearms, tracking every trransaction, issuing the proper paperwork and permits. any idea what these background checks are going to cost? they don't tell you that part.

Never mind that none of these things will prevent someone from shooting up a school...

 

[PaulS1950]

The constitution is the only document that grants any power to the federal government and it grants very few. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the supreme court the power to decide the constitutionality of any act by, on behalf of or for the other branches of the federal government.

The bill of rights does remove the power of modifications to those rights by the states and the federal government. EVERY infringement on any of our rights is unlawful, unconstitutional and an act against the constitutional republic of the United States of America - in plain words it is treasonous.