The Right To Bear Arms

[turtledude]

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.

I have never seen one of those things

the worst threat are cowardly turds who claim to be pro gun but are Hillary fluffing castrated men who want to ban guns

 

[Ernie S.]

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.

Idiots like you are not a challenge. You are unable to present a logical argument on the subject.

 

[kaz]

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.

Your ability to produce a stupid, bigoted, meaningless blurb with no connection to reality is actually pretty impressive. Are you actually a PR guy for the Democratic Party?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"

yep, the people already had guns when that was written; for hunting, indians, self- defense and, most importantly, the Revolution. Its 100% impossible that they intended to restrict that right one tiny bit given that they had no idea if the Revolution and Constitution would succeed or what the future held.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," 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. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons. Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess. Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing. And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back. How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," 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. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons. Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess. Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing. And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back. How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.

Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," 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. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons. Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess. Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing. And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back. How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.

Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.

Words don't kill. And if we did review the first then you would be one of the first to be arrested. As bad as it sounds to modifying the 1st amendment, there are some benefits to changing it to have you arrested. But, no, let's not go that far. Words don't kill, they help to garner freedom.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," 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. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons. Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess. Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing. And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back. How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
The latest shooting is attributed to one man acting alone. His politics and motivation are ambiguous.
ISIS is conservative, I guess, but shares nothing of substance with Conservatives in the US.

Learn to think for yourself, youngster. Read something but Slate and Progressive Underground.

 

[Ernie S.]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," 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. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons. Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess. Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing. And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back. How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.

During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.

Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.

Words don't kill. And if we did review the first then you would be one of the first to be arrested. As bad as it sounds to modifying the 1st amendment, there are some benefits to changing it to have you arrested. But, no, let's not go that far. Words don't kill, they help to garner freedom.

Dismissed!

 

[Ernie S.]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

.

... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.

See post 2769

.

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.

such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine.

 

[Ernie S.]

When the 2nd Amendment was written, firearms were single shot breech loaders, so your prescription holds no historical value, only typical Liberal hysterical nonsense.

 

[Lakhota]

Little dicks need big guns. Why is that?

 

[Ernie S.]

Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?

 

[Lakhota]

Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?

I don't know. I have several.

 

[Little-Acorn]

ISIS is conservative, I guess,

ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

And they PRACTICE that???

Not even close to correct.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?

No, liberals are afraid of people they don't have control over, having guns.

And once they get control over people, one of the first thing they do is restrict their subjects' guns.

 

[Ernie S.]

Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?

I don't know. I have several.

So you are afraid of me owning a gun. Why?