No one is going to take your guns

[Quantum Windbag]

I smell fake..I would have heard about this.just like free speech your right to bear arms is not absolute.

Your rights might not be absolute, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you.

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

as usual, you missed the point.

My rights are absolute because they are unalienable. That means that, even if I wanted to, I can't give them up, or even give anyone, including the government, permission to ignore them under certain circumstances. That is why constittional law is so complex, the government exist only to violate and infringe on people's rights, and it has to make up all sorts rationalizations for why it is allowed to do so. That convinces a few idiots, like you, that no rights are absolute.

That still makes you, and the government, wrong, which is why I still have all my rights, even when you sit behind a keyboard and argue that I don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

District of Columbia vs Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit

[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. ___ (2007).


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Scalia also stated the state has the right to force you to lock up your gun in a case..

No he didn't. What he actually said is that the state can make a law that requires it, and then punish you if you break it, and they catch you.

 

[JWBooth]

Guns? What guns?
Mine fell out of a canoe in forty feet of water while on a camping trip.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

The Supreme Court already ruled that citizens have the right to defend themselves with lethal force against unlawful arrest or assault or theft.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Neither the Heller nor McDonald Courts authorized the use of lethal force against ‘unlawful arrest.’

And it’s telling how you and others on the right suddenly don’t consider Supreme Court decisions to be the highest law of the land when it comes to privacy rights, rights for homosexuals, or the ACA.

They didn't have to, that was already decided in John Bad Elk v US.

Now that I gave you the precedent feel free to pretend you always knew about it, and always defended it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Guns? What guns?
Mine fell out of a canoe in forty feet of water while on a camping trip.

I can back that up, mine were in the same canoe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the point is that you people don't want guns registered because you want it easier for people to conceal the fact that they own illegal guns.

How does not registering guns make it easier to conceal "illegal guns"?

Why should guns be illegal in the first place?

Honestly, the answer is to effectively deal with criminals.

How does not registering guns make it easier to conceal "illegal guns"?

The better question is: what’s the rational for requiring gun registration, where’s the evidence that registration prevents gun violence and keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, and absent that evidence, how does registration comport with a legitimate legislative interest?

Why should guns be illegal in the first place?

The better question is: what guns are considered in common use, and subject to Second Amendment protection, and what guns can be considered dangerous and unusual, and not subject to Second Amendment protection?

With the above criteria in place, states and local jurisdictions will know what types of firearms they may prohibit, and what types they may not.

Honestly, the answer is to effectively deal with criminals.

Correct.

And until such time as laws requiring registering firearms are repealed or invalidated by the courts, it remains the responsibility of gun owners to obey their states’ registration laws.

 

[Plasmaball]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

The Second Amendment:

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.

You forgot to cite the case where a court ruled the law was un-Constitutional.

And the Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law; to simply cite an Amendment absent that context is ignorant and meaningless – as is the rest of your ridiculous, hyperbolic post.

Unlike you, I can read, so I don't need a judge to tell me what the Constitution means.

Awe thats cute...

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left does not care about the Constitution. It is all about them getting their way and becoming the ruling class and subjecting everyone via making laws to control every aspect of your life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your rights might not be absolute, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you.

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

as usual, you missed the point.

My rights are absolute because they are unalienable. That means that, even if I wanted to, I can't give them up, or even give anyone, including the government, permission to ignore them under certain circumstances. That is why constittional law is so complex, the government exist only to violate and infringe on people's rights, and it has to make up all sorts rationalizations for why it is allowed to do so. That convinces a few idiots, like you, that no rights are absolute.

That still makes you, and the government, wrong, which is why I still have all my rights, even when you sit behind a keyboard and argue that I don't.

So when you're sitting in a jail cell because you committed a felony that you thought was protected by your right to bear arms,

and thus you have lost your 'unalienable' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

who won that argument?

 

[Geaux4it]

No kidding..but the reality here is your rights are not absolute. I have 200 years of scotus rulings, you have your opinion.

as usual, you missed the point.

My rights are absolute because they are unalienable. That means that, even if I wanted to, I can't give them up, or even give anyone, including the government, permission to ignore them under certain circumstances. That is why constittional law is so complex, the government exist only to violate and infringe on people's rights, and it has to make up all sorts rationalizations for why it is allowed to do so. That convinces a few idiots, like you, that no rights are absolute.

That still makes you, and the government, wrong, which is why I still have all my rights, even when you sit behind a keyboard and argue that I don't.

So when you're sitting in a jail cell because you committed a felony that you thought was protected by your right to bear arms,

and thus you have lost your 'unalienable' right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

who won that argument?

Thats why it is indeed time to change those, who make Unconstitutional laws

We are right, they are wrong

-Geaux

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again the far left does not care about the Constitution. It is all about them getting their way and becoming the ruling class and subjecting everyone via making laws to control every aspect of your life.

Really? And who fought and won the battle to establish that a woman's right to an abortion was a constitutional right?

And who defends that right against those who would try to get their way by abolishing that right?

Would that be, generally, the left or the right?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama's Gun Record Basically Consists Of Expanding Gun Owners' Rights - Business Insider

Major Garrett: Obama has expanded, not reduced gun rights - CBS News

So what is it with right wingers? Tardation or inbreeding that makes them hate Obama for no reason? The GOP being 90% white can't have anything to do with it. They claim they aren't "racist".

Funny, I didn't mention Obama, or race. Yet you still felt a need to accuse me of hating Obama because he is black.

Not to mention that I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Republican.

Dean cant help himself....that 90% white shit is in his blood now.....when he is at the malls next month and he sees a Santa....he will tell the guy.....you know you guys are 90% white......

 

[Pogo]

The Supreme Court already ruled that citizens have the right to defend themselves with lethal force against unlawful arrest or assault or theft.

The Constitution is the highest law in the land.

And the link to where SCOTUS ruled murder Constitutional is.... where again?

It's self defense agianst government thugs, not murder. The Government has REVOLTED against the shackles of the Constitution. That makes the Governmenta tyranny and criminal. You have the right to defend yourself from thugs.

(irrelevant links to self defense laws snipped)

Ah, I see. So you're acting as one-man SCOTUS, interpreting the law on your own, ergo whatever you decide the law means determines that you can do whatever you want.

Generally we call that anarchism. Must be convenient.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

So, you're saying that you believe anything obama promises?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Isn't it amazing how many times people say that, and how they are always proven wrong?

There’s nothing in the OP citing a case where a citizen’s gun was ‘confiscated’ and a hearing conducted subsequently to determine if the taking was warranted, and if warranted what the just compensation would be in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Such a case would be part of the public record and available to the OP to document.

Absent a sample case as proof, no ‘confiscation’ has taken place.

What’s not amazing is the OP is once again wrong, and once again only succeeded in exhibiting his ignorance.

well im sure you can relate to that Jones....

 

[S.J.]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

So, you're saying that you believe anything obama promises?

Still trolling and humping, I see. Have a nice Thanksgiving, turkey.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone who believes anything Obama promises is an idiot.

So, you're saying that you believe anything obama promises?

Still trolling and humping, I see. Have a nice Thanksgiving, turkey.

Your own words.

 

[Avatar4321]

One more reason I don't want to live in NYC

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left does not care about the Constitution. It is all about them getting their way and becoming the ruling class and subjecting everyone via making laws to control every aspect of your life.

Really? And who fought and won the battle to establish that a woman's right to an abortion was a constitutional right?

And who defends that right against those who would try to get their way by abolishing that right?

Would that be, generally, the left or the right?

And the standard far left talking points come out. * yawn *

Nice to know that the programming downloads for the DNC still work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Awe thats cute...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]You keep using that word. - YouTube[/ame]

Then again, what else can we expect from Plasmaball?