Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[daveman]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

 

[ConHog]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

Oh, I would. She's skankalicous.

 

[Jeremy]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

I hear it tastes like chiken.

but anyway, sorry guys...



please continue....

 

[daveman]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

Oh, I would. She's skankalicous.

Do they make tongue condoms? Preferably Kevlar...

 

[The T]

I'm going to. I retire next January.

Meanwhile: Have you worn the uniform? Or do you want to continue pretending you know what constitutes an embarrassment to it?

I've had several posts discussing the OP. Let me summarize:

"SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

Your retirement party should be a celebration for strengthening our Military by leaving it.

And manhood is stronger for you never having been one.

Amen to that.

 

[FA_Q2]

WOW, where to begin...


I will start with this:

This is just more of your intellectual dishonesty. In general, our Troops are trained to obey orders. Period. This is why when the illegal orders were issued to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were given most went along with it even though some actually followed the UCMJ and challenged the legality. In two cases I know of regarding Iraq, the soldiers who challenged the orders were victorious by virtue of not being sent to prison for disobeying those orders. One soldier I know of, Tillman, was shipped out of Iraq for his protesting of the illegal invasion and shortly after returning to Afghanistan he was killed by our own troops.

Who in the fuck do you punks think you are fooling?

The wars were NOT illegal in the sense that the troops were concerned. You may argue on the international stage or any other way you like but an order to go to war issued by congress or presidential security actions. What IS a concern for the troops is what is written in the UCMJ and that covers legal and illegal orders. Outside that, there is no other authority that a soldier goes by to judge the orders given him or her. To the point at hand, the VAST majority of US soldiers would not fire on US civilians or take away their rights as a large scale military operation. The events you pointed out were in specific instances and small operations which are completely different from a blanket order from the president or large scale operation to remove individual right. Soldiers are smart enough to understand where the line is. Also of note, it is unlikely that a case like these will happen again as the people have come to realize that there is a HUGE difference between police actions within a nation and war actions without. The lines cannot cross as the military is a killing force, not a peacekeeping one and cannot operate under the civilian requirements that need to be met when dealing with American civilians.

Now to curve's base claim:

The first mistake is arguing for the right to own a gun under the 2nd because COTUS was never intended to tell us what we could and could not own. There's nothing in COTUS saying we have the right to own televisions, stoves, dental floss etc. This has opened the door for the government to restrict our liberties not based on individual freedom and social contract but rather the exploitation of government intrusion on an arbitrary basis. The new proposals for government control of the internet is a current example.

The text of the 2nd states:

“ 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 purpose? Security of the State. How is it accomplished? Well regulated militia. Who would be the militia? The people. Therefore, the focus is not on individuals to have weapons but for Militias to exist and the only way they could exist is if the members of the Militia had weapons. The "State" referred to the Country and not a single State. Considering that whole Revolutionary War thingy......I'm sure there were very real fears that Britain would try to control the New World again and if the new colonies did not have weapons and Militias......well.....I'm sure the picture is clear.

It does not matter how semantics are applied because you cannot escape the Militia. You cannot ignore the clear fact the focus is on security of the State through the Militia and not simply because a bunch of individuals have guns.

My biggest beef with the ruling is it has opened the door to re-write even the clearest texts. It took 220 years to successfully win in Court the re-writing of the 2nd so we have only tethered COTUS and put it in the hands of the most persistent. Not the most honest. Nobody should have ever tried to argue we have the right to own guns under the 2nd because we should have never given the government enough power to arbitrarily decided what we could and could not own.

It seems to me that your argument hinges on that last statement, the government should not have the power to tell us what we should own and therefore the court's ruling is incorrect. That is somewhat backward though. We were ALREADY being told what we could and could not own and this court ruling limited that a great deal. That is the heart of the ruling, it is unconstitutional to tell us that we cannot own a gun. In that sense, you seem to be arguing that the decision was correct - please clarify!
Now for the actual text:

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 states SPECIFICALLY "the right OF THE PEOPLE." There is no other way to put that in context. What comes before and what comes after does not change what that statement means. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because it is that right that makes a militia possible. Without the right of each and every citizen to be armed the ability to maintain a militia separate from the government becomes impossible. THAT is the underlying fact. The meaning of militia is not an issue when concerning the right of the people, that right still exists and MUST exist in order for the right to form a 'well regulated' militia to exist as well. Tell me HOW a militia is to be formed without the right to bear arms? If the right is purged a militia could easily be disbanded by simply denying their access to the arms required exist.

The 'well regulated' comes in the form of another RIGHT, not a limitation of your rights. In Germany, it is ILLEGAL to form any group that practices military maneuvers and actions aka "well regulated militia." It goes as far as limiting people's ability to play certain games such as paintball. That is what is inferred here in that part. A well regulated (read trained) militia AND the right for individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not only are you allowed to own a firearm (legal with MAJOR restrictions in Germany) but you are also legally allowed to form a militia and train with those weapons (not legal in Germany).

 

[FA_Q2]

Thing is? Enumerated rights States have NO say so over. It is hallowed ground and tells the Government...hands off.

The ONLY way is by Constitutional Convention, and the Amendments are re-written.

And that is the truth of the matter.

The whole shame of this decision? It Should have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

We should be very afraid, and on our guard.

That really is the scary part. This was a CLEAR 9-0 and what we ended up with is 4 of the judges that do not see the second amendment anymore. I am uncertain of HOW they could have come to such a ruling and fear what could happen if another vote goes to that mentality. It is the inherent problem with the court. Although it is supposedly non partisan, the judges are clearly partisan and we continually play this political tug of war. NONE if the judges should be partisan, on EITHER side.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The point you people need understand is that the liberal filth that would take your guns won't do it by simply taking them away, rather, they'll do by doing EXACTLY what Chicago did today. You might as well not even own a hand gun if you live in Chicago lest you be put on some list with the CPD which could mean all kinds of trouble for you in the long run.

And all of this arguing about what the fathers obviously meant, well we know what they meant, is ridiculous in the context of my previous statement as are continuous rulings of ambiguity from the SCOTUS not detailing how far exactly the states can go in legislating red tape to keep people from owning guns. You can't even buy ammunition in Illinois without a significant amount of red tape involved.

 

[FA_Q2]

The point you people need understand is that the liberal filth that would take your guns won't do it by simply taking them away, rather, they'll do by doing EXACTLY what Chicago did today. You might as well not even own a hand gun if you live in Chicago lest you be put on some list with the CPD which could mean all kinds of trouble for you in the long run.

And all of this arguing about what the fathers obviously meant, well we know what they meant, is ridiculous in the context of my previous statement as are continuous rulings of ambiguity from the SCOTUS not detailing how far exactly the states can go in legislating red tape to keep people from owning guns. You can't even buy ammunition in Illinois without a significant amount of red tape involved.

Agreed. that is another problem as well. The amount of red tape involved these days IS an infringement on rights and should be addressed. As pointed out earlier, crime rates DECREASE when gun carry laws are relaxed. That is not to say all regulation should cease but it is a CLEAR issue when the laws of owning a weapon spiral out of control. Hopefully, that will be addressed within the courts later.

 

[ConHog]

The point you people need understand is that the liberal filth that would take your guns won't do it by simply taking them away, rather, they'll do by doing EXACTLY what Chicago did today. You might as well not even own a hand gun if you live in Chicago lest you be put on some list with the CPD which could mean all kinds of trouble for you in the long run.

And all of this arguing about what the fathers obviously meant, well we know what they meant, is ridiculous in the context of my previous statement as are continuous rulings of ambiguity from the SCOTUS not detailing how far exactly the states can go in legislating red tape to keep people from owning guns. You can't even buy ammunition in Illinois without a significant amount of red tape involved.

Agreed. that is another problem as well. The amount of red tape involved these days IS an infringement on rights and should be addressed. As pointed out earlier, crime rates DECREASE when gun carry laws are relaxed. That is not to say all regulation should cease but it is a CLEAR issue when the laws of owning a weapon spiral out of control. Hopefully, that will be addressed within the courts later.

Red tape? I just go into Bass Pro and buy about anything I want. For other things , well, there are sources.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The point you people need understand is that the liberal filth that would take your guns won't do it by simply taking them away, rather, they'll do by doing EXACTLY what Chicago did today. You might as well not even own a hand gun if you live in Chicago lest you be put on some list with the CPD which could mean all kinds of trouble for you in the long run.

And all of this arguing about what the fathers obviously meant, well we know what they meant, is ridiculous in the context of my previous statement as are continuous rulings of ambiguity from the SCOTUS not detailing how far exactly the states can go in legislating red tape to keep people from owning guns. You can't even buy ammunition in Illinois without a significant amount of red tape involved.

Agreed. that is another problem as well. The amount of red tape involved these days IS an infringement on rights and should be addressed. As pointed out earlier, crime rates DECREASE when gun carry laws are relaxed. That is not to say all regulation should cease but it is a CLEAR issue when the laws of owning a weapon spiral out of control. Hopefully, that will be addressed within the courts later.

Red tape? I just go into Bass Pro and buy about anything I want. For other things , well, there are sources.

Well, most places aren't as gun friendly as Arkansas and other southern states.

 

[ConHog]

Agreed. that is another problem as well. The amount of red tape involved these days IS an infringement on rights and should be addressed. As pointed out earlier, crime rates DECREASE when gun carry laws are relaxed. That is not to say all regulation should cease but it is a CLEAR issue when the laws of owning a weapon spiral out of control. Hopefully, that will be addressed within the courts later.

Red tape? I just go into Bass Pro and buy about anything I want. For other things , well, there are sources.

Well, most places aren't as gun friendly as Arkansas and other southern states.

Sucks to be you

 

[R.C. Christian]

No, I have no problems whatsoever. Sucks the be someone in Illinois, California and elsewhere.

 

[FA_Q2]

Red tape? I just go into Bass Pro and buy about anything I want. For other things , well, there are sources.

Well, most places aren't as gun friendly as Arkansas and other southern states.

Sucks to be you

And that is the wrong attitude. When peoples right are taken and/or challenged then EVERYONE loses. That thinking spreads and infects. If I can violate the constitution in CA then why can I not do so in AK. I have no issue with states' rights and having the states decide things for themselves, after all I can move. Violating the COTUS is an entirely different matter. That is an issue ALL Americans should care about.

 

[CurveLight]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

That's because she's a woman and by your own admission you fantasize about dudes.

 

[CurveLight]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

Your retirement party should be a celebration for strengthening our Military by leaving it.

Why? I'm not some pansy leftist.

You're a pansy and you're too fucking stoopid to realize it. You sit on your fat ass and embarrass yourself on the daily.

 

[CurveLight]

Your retirement party should be a celebration for strengthening our Military by leaving it.

And manhood is stronger for you never having been one.

Amen to that.

You would say amen to something so fucking dumb. Holy shit this board sucks because of dumbass crybaby cocksucking bitches like you.

 

[daveman]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

That's because she's a woman and by your own admission you fantasize about dudes.

You're going to have to provide a link for that. NOTE: There is no URL for the ass, your usual source.

Once again, a member of the oh-so-tolerant left uses homosexuality as an insult. Why are you a homophobe, Curve?

 

[daveman]

There is nothing you could offer me to get me to tongue-punch Lindsay Lohan.

Your retirement party should be a celebration for strengthening our Military by leaving it.

Why? I'm not some pansy leftist.

You're a pansy and you're too fucking stoopid to realize it. You sit on your fat ass and embarrass yourself on the daily.

What are you, 12?

 

[FA_Q2]

and no response to my post?