• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Zyphlin said:
I can't disagree more heavily with this.

You're cherry picking the constitution by stating this.

You're ignoring other peoples rights of free expression, and the founders intent for the constitution to be able to be altered for the times, by stating you would SHOOT AND KILL PEOPLE for trying to do what they're constitutionally allowed to do....amend the constitution.

No one part of the constitution is more important than the other. No one part of the consitution can be ignored while another one lauded.

If they simply tried to take your guns away, more power to you. If they're going through the constitutionally approved method to do it, then they're within their constitutional rights and YOU are the one violating THEIR rights by attempting to kill them.
Click to expand...

Perchance you misunderstand. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, people have rights. Rights are innate and inalienable to the individual. The Constitution merely states some of our bigger rights, specifically to forbid the government from infringing upon our rights. Should a government act too grievously against our rights, should it infringe upon our freedom and liberty too much; it is the duty of the People to overthrow the government and to establish a new one. To keep and bear arms is a right, you can change the Constitution to get rid of the second amendment; but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to keep and bear arms. All it means is that you would be willing to use the government to forcibly deny the exercise of one of our rights, which is tyranny. Tyrannical governments can rightfully be disposed of.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Zyphlin said:
Indeed, we must agree. However, disagreeing without knowing WHY we disagree doesn't add anything to debate. Will you answer:



Please tell me YOUR definition isn't "redefine [an amendment] to suit the lefts agenda is activism" as that is, essentially, EXACTLY what Hautey is saying.

To truly have to have a definition you need to have an exact criteria that can be matched regardless of political persuation.
Click to expand...

I don't see the constitution as a living document. If it were it would be useless, subjec to the whim of each passing generation. (prohibition is a prime example).

It outlines restrictions on the government and recognizes rights of the people. When you state that people have a right to keep and bear arms it means the same thing as te right to peacably assemble or the right of a person against self incrimmination. Utilizing the collective argument takes make those people in the 2nd, the government, (regulated militia) and misdefines the use of the word "well regulated" to suit an agenda.


I am just a person on the internet but it took me all of 30 seconds to look up that "well regulated" means "in good working order" and another 30 seconds to find statments on liberty and the intent of individual ownership of firearms to alway have been an individual right. Adams, jefferson, franklin, on and on, VA constitution, etc. etc.

Now these judges are professional lawyers, and to make the collective argument suspension of historical and literary vernacular must occur to reconcile this. I for one do not believe this to be happening and therefore to make the argument as the 4 decenting justices did, had to be done based on legislative attemps on thier part. It s not up to them to change law as they did with revent GITMO ruling (outright contradicting the German's in China WWII decision) but to uphold the constitution ans the framers intended which is what 5 justices did with this ruling.

See the difference?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Glad to see that not all is lost in Washington these days. Like the others, I agree with the ruling, and also agree that more needs to be done, but this is a step in the right direction. The people who are just and law abiding citizens, should have every right to their self defense from the criminals who are not beholden to following laws restriciting gun ownership. The just citizens of this country(or anywhere really) should not be left defenseless in the face of the unjust criminals.

Lock and load America, it is your right.....
:shoot:
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Thanks for at least some clarification on yoru view Reverend.

Still waiting for Hautey to explain why he believes that some on the right are hypocritical for saying this isn't judicial activism and yet some other rulings are, specifically, explaining what he believes judicial activism is
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

disneydude said:
The term "Activist Judge" is simply used by the right-wing to refer to decisions they disagree with....nothing more.
Click to expand...


"Activist Judge" applies to judges who legislate from the bench. Legislation is the responsibility of congress not the judicial branch of government.

As for the ruling by the SCOTUS this morning I think its about time. It is now and has been an individuals right to keep and bear arms. And today the Court confirmed that right. Its a great day for Americans..........Sgt Rock

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.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Goobieman said:
Anyone want to lay bets on when one of the anti-gun liberals will take a shot at telling us how the decision is wrong, rather than attacking the court and/or those that agree with the decision?
Click to expand...
No takers yet?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

sorry. I jsut wanted to subscribe to the thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Zyphlin said:
Thanks for at least some clarification on yoru view Reverend.

Still waiting for Hautey to explain why he believes that some on the right are hypocritical for saying this isn't judicial activism and yet some other rulings are, specifically, explaining what he believes judicial activism is
Click to expand...

I am waiting to hear from the advocates of forcing honest citizens to register their guns how that advances "responsibility and accountability" given that such a scheme has already been declared uconstitutional when applied to convicts, drug addicts, fugitives, those under indictment and those dishonorably discharged from the military
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Zyphlin said:
Once again...you're not getting me reverend.

There, once again, you're using the actual constitution and not some outside source as your reasoning for your argument. Very good, that'd be a great way to argue against that.

HOWEVER

That still doesn't make it "activism" as its still rooted specifically in the constitution, specifically in the words of it, specifically dealing with the specific things it states in the amendment. The simple fact that there is a POTENTIAL qualifier in there as to which "the people" it speaking of in the 2nd as opposed to the 1st gives legitimate reason to believe it could be different.

Once again, I'm not saying I think that's the case. I don't. However, I would not call that judicial activism becasue its still entirely based on the actual words and topic presented in the amendment.

I think I've at least given a very reasoned, explained explanation of how I see the difference between Judicial Activism and Strict Constructionism. What is your explanatio nof the difference Reverend?
Click to expand...

Good points. Both sides in this argument looked to the constitution for support of their position. The "collectivists" pointed to the language in the constitution that provided that the right was for the "maintenance of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state." Whether you agree with that reading or not, it is a constructualist argument because it is based on a construction of the constitution.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Iriemon said:
Good points. Both sides in this argument looked to the constitution for support of their position. The "collectivists" pointed to the language in the constitution that provided that the right was for the "maintenance of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state." Whether you agree with that reading or not, it is a constructualist argument because it is based on a construction of the constitution.
Click to expand...

it is a outcome based argument for several reasons-the first is that there is no language in the USSC that delegates such authority to the federal government. The second is that you cannot have a well trained militia called up quickly if people have not had time to learn and use guns prior to mustering. the amendment does not refer to well regulated firearms. stevens is a mental midget compared to Scalia and his misreading of Miller was not only hilarious-so was scalia's blistering response. Breyer's interpretation-that the right is dependent on the various local environments is equally pathetic

what we have are justices who don't like gun ownership so they ignore the obvious in order to use their power to try to uphold gun bans.

it is DISGRACEFUL that this was not a 9-0 decision
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Iriemon said:
Good points. Both sides in this argument looked to the constitution for support of their position. The "collectivists" pointed to the language in the constitution that provided that the right was for the "maintenance of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state." Whether you agree with that reading or not, it is a constructualist argument because it is based on a construction of the constitution.
Click to expand...




Where in the second is ""maintenance of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state."


This is not what the 2nd says at all. :roll:
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

TurtleDude said:
it is a outcome based argument for several reasons-the first is that there is no language in the USSC that delegates such authority to the federal government. The second is that you cannot have a well trained militia called up quickly if people have not had time to learn and use guns prior to mustering. the amendment does not refer to well regulated firearms. stevens is a mental midget compared to Scalia and his misreading of Miller was not only hilarious-so was scalia's blistering response. Breyer's interpretation-that the right is dependent on the various local environments is equally pathetic

what we have are justices who don't like gun ownership so they ignore the obvious in order to use their power to try to uphold gun bans.

it is DISGRACEFUL that this was not a 9-0 decision
Click to expand...

There are certainly arguments for contrary positions that have been made in tens of pages on prior threads, to which I will refer anyone who wants to discuss the issue of how the language of the 2ndA might be interpreteted. From a legal viewpoint, it is moot now.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where in the second is ""maintenance of a well regulated militia which is necessary for a free state."


This is not what the 2nd says at all. :roll:
Click to expand...

I put the first quotation in the wrong place and meant to put it before "a well regulated militia ..." I acknowledge the error.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Goobieman said:
Anyone want to lay bets on when one of the anti-gun liberals will take a shot at telling us how the decision is wrong, rather than attacking the court and/or those that agree with the decision?
Click to expand...

STILL no takers?

Surely the anti-gun left has SOMETHING relevant to say about this decision...
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Diane Feinstein claims this ruling will make people "less safe" even though the murder rate in DC increased steadily after the ban went into place (Seems like those willing to commit murder or robbery don't obey silly gun bans but their victims do). Does that mean DIFI-who had an impossible to get for us peasants California unrestricted carry permit-suggests that we would be safer if the entire USA was subjected to a DC style gun ban?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

TurtleDude said:
Diane Feinstein claims this ruling will make people "less safe" even though the murder rate in DC increased steadily after the ban went into place (Seems like those willing to commit murder or robbery don't obey silly gun bans but their victims do). Does that mean DIFI-who had an impossible to get for us peasants California unrestricted carry permit-suggests that we would be safer if the entire USA was subjected to a DC style gun ban?
Click to expand...



The same Fienstien that has a concealed carry permit?

Dianne Feinstein


One law for them, another law for us. :roll:



Liberalism at its finest.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

The ruling today is no big surprise given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

What will be interesting to see is how far the court will go in extending this individual right to "bear arms" "which shall not be infringed."

How could the court legitimately decide that a fully automatic M16 is not an "arm" within the meaning of the constitution? Or a machine gun? Or a Stinger for that matter? Or how a right which shall not be infringed can be denied for someone who is a convicted felon?

The strict constructionalist court which adopted this interpretation is going to be very activist over the next few years as it tries to shape the contours of a right to bear arms which shall not be infringed against the landscape of arms that today are far more lethal than anything the framers could have imagined.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Goobieman said:
STILL no takers?

Surely the anti-gun left has SOMETHING relevant to say about this decision...
Click to expand...

Already been debated ad naseum in other threads. Do a search for second amendment and you'll find lots of post with such arguments.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Iriemon said:
The ruling today is no big surprise given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

What will be interesting to see is how far the court will go in extending this individual right to "bear arms" "which shall not be infringed."

How could the court legitimately decide that a fully automatic M16 is not an "arm" within the meaning of the constitution? Or a machine gun? Or a Stinger for that matter? Or how a right which shall not be infringed can be denied for someone who is a convicted felon?

The strict constructionalist court which adopted this interpretation is going to be very activist over the next few years as it tries to shape the contours of a right to bear arms which shall not be infringed against the landscape of arms that today are far more lethal than anything the framers could have imagined.
Click to expand...


This is a fear based argument. People are still the same people.


And miller vs. Said that the 2nd protected the people to owning weapons that were commonly used by the military and short barrelled shotguns were not.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Iriemon said:
There you go: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Click to expand...



Very good. That says something completley different than what you posted first.
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Iriemon said:
There you go: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Click to expand...

your bitterness notwithstanding explain how a militia could be mustered and well trained in time of emergency and need if members of the citizenry were unable to train with or possess weapons prior to heeding the call up?
 
Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
they can't, they are still enjoying the activism of the GITMO decision.
Click to expand...
Of course they can't -- which is why not a one of them has even tried.

Big loss for the liberals today.
:2party:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom