Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[daveman]

Just curious...what country is that?

1) I am originally from NZ, but came to Aussie three years ago after my wife got a job offer she couldn't refuse.
2) I found NZ's political system more transparent and 'free' than Australia's
3) I have found Australia's political system more transparent than America's
4) BTW, I am talking the realities, NOT what your constitution or BoR actually states, but how it is applied in real life. This goes for NZ and Oz's statutes, too...

Cool. Would love to visit both countries.

While your perception of the US may have some merit, it can't be a true picture. You see what the media portrays...nothing more, nothing less. The same would be true for my perceptions of Oz and NZ.

 

[Dr Grump]

Cool. Would love to visit both countries.

While your perception of the US may have some merit, it can't be a true picture. You see what the media portrays...nothing more, nothing less. The same would be true for my perceptions of Oz and NZ.

True to a degree. However, I am very aware of how your political system works. I am 43 and have grown up on a diet of US television programmes (not just drama etc, but the likes of 60 Minutes etc, as well as getting for the past 10-15 years 24/7 Fox and CNN coverage). Then there is Time Magazine, Life, a tonne of online content etc. Plus having been on messageboards for the best part of 10 years, talking to both extremes of the political spectrum, it is not that hard to get the picture.

Yep, both countries have their merits, as does the US.....

 

[daveman]

Cool. Would love to visit both countries.

While your perception of the US may have some merit, it can't be a true picture. You see what the media portrays...nothing more, nothing less. The same would be true for my perceptions of Oz and NZ.

True to a degree. However, I am very aware of how your political system works. I am 43 and have grown up on a diet of US television programmes (not just drama etc, but the likes of 60 Minutes etc, as well as getting for the past 10-15 years 24/7 Fox and CNN coverage). Then there is Time Magazine, Life, a tonne of online content etc. Plus having been on messageboards for the best part of 10 years, talking to both extremes of the political spectrum, it is not that hard to get the picture.

Yep, both countries have their merits, as does the US.....

On that, we agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should I resent them because they get paid to do a job? I will admit that they did a pretty bad job, but that does not remove their right to get paid. If the government starts telling people how much they are allowed to be paid for their services, where does it end? With everyone working for the government?

I absolutely agree they deserved to get paid for their job. Where does it end? When they do a BAD job.....

Should that be the purview of the government, or the company that employs them?

 

[Dr Grump]

Should that be the purview of the government, or the company that employs them?

I would argue:
1) If they received TARP monies, the govt.
2) If the company could be trusted to guarantee full transparency, then sure.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale and Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Same old tired failed argument from the left. Cheap hand guns have ALWAYS been available to the CRIMINAL. You and your ilk have claimed all along more freedom would equal wild west shoot outs, increased homicides shootings everywhere as we degenerated into a killing frenzy cause we had access to guns. IT SIMPLY HAS NOT HAPPENED IN A SINGLE PLACE LAWS AVE BEEN RELAXED.

Your claim is full of shit. It always has been. It is born out by the new laws allowing carrying concealed and open across this country with DROPS in crime rates, shootings and murders and NO increase in accidental death rates.

You are one stupid fucker.

Sure tough guy; whatever you say. Post some evidence proving how the Rober'ts Court decisions will impact the future. You believe Obama policies will lead to communism and the conservative Supreme Court will protect our liberty. I believe otherwise, but I don't have any need to call you a "stupid fucker"; in my experience only punks sitting in the caged back seat of a county mounty use such language.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale and Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Same old tired failed argument from the left. Cheap hand guns have ALWAYS been available to the CRIMINAL. You and your ilk have claimed all along more freedom would equal wild west shoot outs, increased homicides shootings everywhere as we degenerated into a killing frenzy cause we had access to guns. IT SIMPLY HAS NOT HAPPENED IN A SINGLE PLACE LAWS AVE BEEN RELAXED.

Your claim is full of shit. It always has been. It is born out by the new laws allowing carrying concealed and open across this country with DROPS in crime rates, shootings and murders and NO increase in accidental death rates.

You are one stupid fucker.

Sure tough guy; whatever you say. Post some evidence proving how the Rober'ts Court decisions will impact the future. You believe Obama policies will lead to communism and the conservative Supreme Court will protect our liberty. I believe otherwise, but I don't have any need to call you a "stupid fucker"; in my experience only punks sitting in the caged back seat of a county mounty use such language.

You have claimed the ruling will result in wide spread lawlessness, shootings and killings. Provide a shred of evidence that is in fact true. The reality is your claims are full of shit. IN EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT WHERE THE LAW HAS BEEN CHANGED ALLOWING FREER CARRY RIGHTS, CRIME HAS GONE DOWN. There have been no wild shoot outs no increase in gun violence, no wild west shoot outs, no increase in murders, no increase in accidental deaths by firearms. NOT A SINGLE INCIDENCE of your dire bullshit claims. And yet you retards keep making them.

Give it up, you are to stupid to even realize just how fucking pathetic your ignorant claims are after we have listened to them for years and they are REPEATEDLY PROVEN FALSE.

 

[Father Time]

Ok I'm confused, wasn't this all ready covered by overturning the D.C. gun ban?

Good news either way.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

To all the ones that think this will cause an increase in gun crime:

We cannot stop drugs, many, many guns are imported at the same time the drugs come into this country. So the criminal says give me a gun with that bag of pot.

Gun Laws only deter Honest Citizens from having a gun!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ok I'm confused, wasn't this all ready covered by overturning the D.C. gun ban?

Not quite. D.C. is a federal enclave, so its relationship to the federal government is unique among American cities. As I said in an earlier post, we knew the Second Amendment puts restrictions on the federal government (and through that decision we knew that trickled down to federal enclaves) but until yesterday it had never been established that it applies to state or local governments.

 

[CurveLight]

You are a RETARD. The second clearly gives an INDIVIDUAL right. Once again for the stupid and the slow, the TERM " the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, in ever place it appears in the US Constitution, but you would have us believe that in the 2nd that no longer applies.

Again you fucking dumb ass, the second provides two protections. One to the State ensuring the Federal Government can not take away militias and the second one to INDIVIDUAL citizens giving them the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are a RETARD. The second clearly gives an INDIVIDUAL right. Once again for the stupid and the slow, the TERM " the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, in ever place it appears in the US Constitution, but you would have us believe that in the 2nd that no longer applies.

Again you fucking dumb ass, the second provides two protections. One to the State ensuring the Federal Government can not take away militias and the second one to INDIVIDUAL citizens giving them the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

No it is not. It is a 2 condition sentence you dumb ass. Further at the time of the writing of the Constitution "well regulated" meant nothing more then well drilled. The bill of rights is a conglomerate of over 180 Amendments. every amendment provides more then one right and not always just to one entity. But you would have us believe the 2nd is the only one where the Founders only enumerated one right AND did not mean that the term "the people" referred to an individual right.

 

[saveliberty]

It says milita and not military. You do know there is a difference right?

 

[CurveLight]

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.


Nice and slow:
1. Your inability or purposeful misunderstanding is not 'All of that dancing."

2. The Constitution is known as the Supreme Law of the Land

3. George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights. He stated "the whole people..."= militia

4. If the militia has the right to arms, and the militia is "the whole people".. then everybody has he right to be armed.

now get this: if the militia is the whole people, then individuals are part of the group that has the right to arms.

Now, you may continue to play dumb.

The Prince song is "1999" you fucking whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You must be a Prince fan, seein' that you party like it's 1995.


Nice and slow:
1. Your inability or purposeful misunderstanding is not 'All of that dancing."

2. The Constitution is known as the Supreme Law of the Land

3. George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights. He stated "the whole people..."= militia

4. If the militia has the right to arms, and the militia is "the whole people".. then everybody has he right to be armed.

now get this: if the militia is the whole people, then individuals are part of the group that has the right to arms.

Now, you may continue to play dumb.

The Prince song is "1999" you fucking whiner. It is all dancing because all you're doing is cherry picking with each response instead of looking at:

“ 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. ”

There is no separation between the regulated militia and the people. You're trying to make it say two things when it is only saying one thing. If the right of the people to keep arms is under condition of the militia then there is no guarantee for individuals separate from militias.

I know it must be really strange to read the whole sentence in one shot but if you want to call shotgun on the ride to Cherry Picking Palace then don't get upset for being called out for your sniping attempts.

Your language pretty much indicates that you lost the argument.


I've given the correct meaning of militia twice...how dense can you be?

 

[CurveLight]

It says milita and not military. You do know there is a difference right?

Yes and it makes no difference because it does not change the condition.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a RETARD. The second clearly gives an INDIVIDUAL right. Once again for the stupid and the slow, the TERM " the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, in ever place it appears in the US Constitution, but you would have us believe that in the 2nd that no longer applies.

Again you fucking dumb ass, the second provides two protections. One to the State ensuring the Federal Government can not take away militias and the second one to INDIVIDUAL citizens giving them the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

Scalia disposed of that nonsense in Heller. You really need to get with the times.

 

[CurveLight]

You are a RETARD. The second clearly gives an INDIVIDUAL right. Once again for the stupid and the slow, the TERM " the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, in ever place it appears in the US Constitution, but you would have us believe that in the 2nd that no longer applies.

Again you fucking dumb ass, the second provides two protections. One to the State ensuring the Federal Government can not take away militias and the second one to INDIVIDUAL citizens giving them the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

No it is not. It is a 2 condition sentence you dumb ass. Further at the time of the writing of the Constitution "well regulated" meant nothing more then well drilled. The bill of rights is a conglomerate of over 180 Amendments. every amendment provides more then one right and not always just to one entity. But you would have us believe the 2nd is the only one where the Founders only enumerated one right AND did not mean that the term "the people" referred to an individual right.

So if you abide by your own interpretation where do gun owners go to get "well drilled?" (Don't say BP)

 

[The Rabbi]

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

No it is not. It is a 2 condition sentence you dumb ass. Further at the time of the writing of the Constitution "well regulated" meant nothing more then well drilled. The bill of rights is a conglomerate of over 180 Amendments. every amendment provides more then one right and not always just to one entity. But you would have us believe the 2nd is the only one where the Founders only enumerated one right AND did not mean that the term "the people" referred to an individual right.

So if you abide by your own interpretation where do gun owners go to get "well drilled?" (Don't say BP)

Their local range.
But it isn't a requirement of gun ownership.

 

[CurveLight]

You are a RETARD. The second clearly gives an INDIVIDUAL right. Once again for the stupid and the slow, the TERM " the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, in ever place it appears in the US Constitution, but you would have us believe that in the 2nd that no longer applies.

Again you fucking dumb ass, the second provides two protections. One to the State ensuring the Federal Government can not take away militias and the second one to INDIVIDUAL citizens giving them the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

Clearly? Really?

“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. ”

What is the stated condition for people to bear arms? It's under a well regulated militia.

Scalia disposed of that nonsense in Heller. You really need to get with the times.

What? With his "prefatory" and "operative" bullshit? You really shouldn't assume what others know or don't know based merely on disagreement you assumptive ignorant asswipe.