So then which is it? US vs Miller is the law of the land, but Heller and McDonald are abuses of power that need to be rejected wholesale? How very convenient
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply outlaw murder instead of getting rid of the 2nd amendment?
Too bad they didn't realize in the future there would be a faction of people who would not appreciate the freedoms they were giving us. Too bad they didn't know that there would be so many people who couldn't get by on their own and would be totally dependent upon the government for food, clothing, and shelter. Too bad they didn't just say "armed" instead of "regulated".
Either way, it's the second of the amendments that denote rights to us as individual citizens. If they had wanted to say that only persons enlisted in the state militia have the right to bear arms then they would have said that. They had time to think it out.
Either way, it's the second of the amendments that denote rights to us as individual citizens. If they had wanted to say that only persons enlisted in the state militia have the right to bear arms then they would have said that. They had time to think it out.
US vs Heller is the precedent that changed everything and went against all previous court rulings handed down for over 200 years. Whether it should be rejected....history will answer that one. We shall see whether we continue down the path of worshiping guns or go back to accepting they are necessary but aren't meant to be toys for idiots.
O'bama and Hillary should have rewritten the law. "We stridently urge you in the strongest terms, do not shoot anyone." That would have worked I'm sure.
It is too bad. Too bad they didn't write in a specific way to change the Consitution with the times. If only they had the foresight to think there'd be a large group of people who hate Americans and want the government to take their rights, they could have put in a way to change, dare I say amend, the outdated toilet paper that is the Constitution of the United States of America.
I haven't really ever focused on the 2nd Amendment case law, but I would bet a large amount of money neither has Platinum, and neither has the Thinkprogress contributor he's pulling his ideas from.
Arguing over guns is dumb because only Scotus can change anything pertaining to them and they only touch a gun case once a generation, they avoid those cases like the plague.
So you're OK with my owning a fully automatic M4, but not a double-barreled shotgun? I mean, in keeping with the consistent Supreme Court rulings you affirm? Just to be clear.
We might have something in common after all!
What you can do, take it or leave it advice, when you don’t understand something go to the primary source; read the federalist papers or something along those lines. Get your information straight from the horse’s mouth, not fro opinions about opinions, which is what lawyers are basically.…They are highly skilled idiots, trained in the art of deception by default since they have to be able to win any argument as a matter of profession, not which case is actually true.
What the federalist papers say doesn't matter because they set it up so that those "highly skilled idiots" get to decide how all of us are forced to understand. So the 2nd amendments vagueness is determined by the whims of the Justices. for 200 years it was slanted to anti-gun. For 10 years it has been heavily slanted to pro-gun. After a stint of deaths or resignations it could go heavily anti-gun or even more pro-gun. This is why the amendment should be redone to clearly define its purpose so political nuts can find something new to spend all day arguing over on message boards.
Take it or leave it advice as I stated.
And yes, they are idiots... any men without integrity are, but that’s a different matter.
And yes, they are idiots... any men without integrity are, but that’s a different matter.
That's 100% false. You clowns can amend the Constitution if you want. You just think it will be easier to accomplish your goal through SCOTUS, and you know to amend the Constitution, you'd actually have to be honest with your intentions to ban all guns.
When I say "you" I don't necessarily mean you. You may just be one of the ignorant fringe lunatics carrying the water for the other fringe lunatics and actually believing the shit you're fed.
Exactly. That's why judicial activisim is so important to them. Same for all consokidatioc of power at the federal level.
Easier to influence a few than it is to influence many.
Good to see that Obama encourages cities to fight back attempts to crack down on sanctuary cities.
What a joke.
What a joke.
For 200 years the supreme court was "anti-gun" ![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Say what you want, be we have some legitimately great trolls in this thread.
Say what you want, be we have some legitimately great trolls in this thread.
Here I will list direct quotes from some of our founding fathers, no opinions required. A well-regulated militia was an alternative to a standing federal army for the purposes of national defense, not "that citizens have the ability to protect themselves from [the militia]." as @PhattyJ4UK states.
On the dangers of a federal standing army:
“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” --James Madison, 1787. Notes of debates in the Federal Convention
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789.
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775.
"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
The alternative being a well-regulated militia:
"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808.
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803.
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. (notice on that one he says well-disciplined instead of well-regulated?)
"A militia so organized that its effective portions can be called to any point in the Union, or volunteers instead of them to serve a sufficient time, are means which may always be ready yet never preying on our resources until actually called into use. They will maintain the public interests while a more permanent force shall be in course of preparation. But much will depend on the promptitude with which these means can be brought into activity. If war be forced upon us in spite of our long and vain appeals to the justice of nations, rapid and vigorous movements in its outset will go far toward securing us in its course and issue, and toward throwing its burdens on those who render necessary the resort from reason to force." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. (how about this one with the "until called into actual use"?)
"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
And finally the fact that the militia had to be trained and were not just ordinary citizens:
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
"Against great land armies we cannot attempt defense but by equal armies. For these we must depend on a classified militia, which will give us the service of the class from twenty to twenty-six, in the nature of conscripts,... to be specially trained." --Thomas Jefferson to John Armstrong, 1808.
Is that enough original sourcing for you?
Last edited:
Yes, I’ll get around to reading what you’ve posted when I get the chance, but since I’ve already read such material back in 5e day my suspicion is that you are selectively quoting only to buttress your own position.
But yeah, it’s nevertheless more conducive to more serious discussion, if that’s something you are at all interested in.
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
He selectively quoted a bit but Jefferson was still pretty clear than a military complex was the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to our country. You know that thing that the GOP worships above all other things. He understood that it would turn us into an imperial state like Britain and take to much security away from the States while corrupting the federal government. Pretty much everything he warned on has happened.
That was Scalia trying to thread an interesting line. He ruled that banning handguns went to far but then contradicted himself in saying that other guns could be banned if deemed dangerous, but that goes against his common use argument. He basically admitted that nobody really has any idea how far to take the limitations of the 2nd amendment anymore because technology has created to big of a rift between what citizens want to play with and what can be deemed safe for public use.
I personally think citizens should be allowed handguns, shotguns, lever action and bolt rifles. All guns that are useful for defense or hunting, everything beyond that is just a dick measuring contest. And the ATF should get a massive influx of manpower to crackdown hard on illegal gun market flowing into cities & Mexico.
His post was most certainly false because the op ed was released yesterday morning. No conversation could've been made about it the night before.
Trump should use Kashuv the same way Obama used clock boy. Give em a taste of their own medicine.
Like most things, a common sense take on the 2A probably yields the best interpretation. The founders certainly would have anticipated advances in weaponry (as it pertained to firearms) and intended the citizens to have the legal right to obtain and bear arms which kept up with said advances. They also would not have intended for citizens to have the right to obtain and bear weapons of mass destruction such as nukes/bombs/chemical weapons/etc.
About those student anti-gun rallies last weekend....
Despite media narrative, study says teenagers made up just 10 percent of March for Our Lives crowd
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ust-10-percent-march-for-our-lives-crowd.html
Despite media narrative, study says teenagers made up just 10 percent of March for Our Lives crowd
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ust-10-percent-march-for-our-lives-crowd.html
Yeah they probably would have been totally cool with the Red Coats having access to all sorts of cutting edge weaponry while they were limited to base model bullshit for the "safety of the colonies."
But its tough to have common sense takes on the 2A when we have to worry about the mass production of affordable suitcase nukes in the near term.
Trump should send Baron out to kick that little pencil arm dweeb's ass who's been all over the news.
I don't get the lefts constant hyperventilating over Russia but hardly ever mention China. China is 100x's the threat Russia is. China has been doing dirty underhanded shit to the USA for years.
for all the libtards typing around here, what exactly do you think will happen if your side regains power and has enough activists judges to pull off what you so seem to wish for? your protected lawmakers and leaders manage to actually, on paper, ban guns from the citizens of this country. what I say again, do you think would happen? deep down inside you know exactly what will happen. it will be a blood bath of epic proportions. writing down a new law on a piece of paper and trying to enforce ain't the same thing. so keep typing with your wet dreams of a communist America, but it ain't happening. you are not confiscating one damn gun from us. point blank fu**ing period.
and to note, you might want to be on the side of the owners of the some 400 million guns when liberals try to seize said guns. one thing real Americans love is a fu**ing fight. one damn thing we are good at is winning that fight.
not one damn law from a democrat or republican is taking one damn gun from my house. I promise you that.
and to note, you might want to be on the side of the owners of the some 400 million guns when liberals try to seize said guns. one thing real Americans love is a fu**ing fight. one damn thing we are good at is winning that fight.
not one damn law from a democrat or republican is taking one damn gun from my house. I promise you that.
The fact that there even is a gun debate is a good enough reason to keep democrats out of power for as long as possible.
