Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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?

Point Turtledude. :lol:

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Very good. That says something completley different than what you posted first.

Which is why I corrected my typo.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

Fear based argument? For what purpose would I do that? How am I trying to create fear? The Court will decide these issues whether we are fearful or not. You don't think the next up on the agenda is going to be some ban on other types of weapons?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Of course they can't -- which is why not a one of them has even tried.

Big loss for the liberals today.
:2party:

HUGE LOSS FOR LIBERALISM



Big win for liberty, and freedom:mrgreen:

 

[Goobieman]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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.

"In common use at the time" and "part of the oridinary military equipment".
Hard to argue that M16s and M60s and the like are not "arms" under the 2nd.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Point Turtledude. :lol:

I'll defer to a neutral umpire, thank you.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

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?

Why would you suppose the the members of a well regulated military would not have the arms they need to do their duties?

Why would you say I'm bitter?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Fear based argument? For what purpose would I do that? How am I trying to create fear? The Court will decide these issues whether we are fearful or not. You don't think the next up on the agenda is going to be some ban on other types of weapons?

your lets see how far it goes argument and convicted felon argument.


1, felons have thier rights taken away.

2. I am all for non violent felons having thier rights restored and the right for violent felons to petition to have them restored.

3. I am all for the people being allowed fully automatic weapons.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Why would you suppose the the members of a well regulated military would not have the arms they need to do their duties?

Why would you say I'm bitter?

The militia are all able males 18-45 and women in the national guard.

In order for them to be "well regulated" ie "in good working order" they would need to be profficient in said weapons which comes from ownership/training.

These are not full time soldiers here.

 

[Orion]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

This isn't really a partisan issue. To imply that the 4 dissenting judges were activist liberals is a bunk argument. Judges in SCOTUS have to weigh a bunch of different factors in order to arrive at a fair ruling, and there is a pannel because they don't all arrive at the same conclusions.

I'm not paying particular attention to non-criminals who are cheering like this is some victory. Banning guns would give the blackmarket increased demand, and that's when you get more death by guns. It's not a good scene when you have to approach a street level thug to buy your weapons. Those thugs already exist, but at least there is some kind of equilibrium in terms of legally owned and illegally owned guns, and a registry would define the two groups nicely.

I don't agree that guns should be available to all people, but I grew up in a different culture and my values are different. As far as the U.S. goes, this was a fair ruling.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

your lets see how far it goes argument and convicted felon argument.


1, felons have thier rights taken away.

2. I am all for non violent felons having thier rights restored and the right for violent felons to petition to have them restored.

3. I am all for the people being allowed fully automatic weapons.

If individuals have a consittutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, saying you cannot bear arms because you were convicted at one time sounds like an infringement of the right to me.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

This isn't really a partisan issue. To imply that the 4 dissenting judges were activist liberals is a bunk argument. Judges in SCOTUS have to weigh a bunch of different factors in order to arrive at a fair ruling, and there is a pannel because they don't all arrive at the same conclusions.

I'm not paying particular attention to non-criminals who are cheering like this is some victory. Banning guns would give the blackmarket increased demand, and that's when you get more death by guns. It's not a good scene when you have to approach a street level thug to buy your weapons. Those thugs already exist, but at least there is some kind of equilibrium in terms of legally owned and illegally owned guns, and a registry would define the two groups nicely.

I don't agree that guns should be available to all people, but I grew up in a different culture and my values are different. As far as the U.S. goes, this was a fair ruling.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
-------


Both of these positions are ignorant of the constitution, emotional, and legislative thinking. Treasounous.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

The militia are all able males 18-45 and women in the national guard.

In order for them to be "well regulated" ie "in good working order" they would need to be profficient in said weapons which comes from ownership/training.

These are not full time soldiers here.

I agree. I at least never claimed that a person who is a member of a well regulated militia shouldn't be able to bear arms.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

If individuals have a consittutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, saying you cannot bear arms because you were convicted at one time sounds like an infringement of the right to me.

Can felons vote?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

I agree. I at least never claimed that a person who is a member of a well regulated militia shouldn't be able to bear arms.

You do realize YOU are the militia, right? and you are contextually wrong.

the 2nd says that in order for the militia to be "well regulated" ie, "in good working order" that the peoples rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Indy]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

What is an assault weapon? :roll:


Did you read the decision? You are wrong.

Wow, way to be a douche there Mr. Hellhound. So much for being allowed to have an opinion. :roll:

2.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Gee, I don't know maybe AK-47's, fully automatic rifles, etc.
Use your head my friend and I'm sure you will be able to figure out what I meant by "assault weapons". Or you can just sit there and play Mr. Condescending, your choice.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Can felons vote?

Where does the constitution say the right to vote shall not be infringed?

 

[shuamort]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Both of these positions are ignorant of the constitution, emotional, and legislative thinking. Treasounous.

And what's extremely ironic about that is the fact that without treason and guns, we wouldn't have the second amendment.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

You do realize YOU are the militia, right? and you are contextually wrong.

the 2nd says that in order for the militia to be "well regulated" ie, "in good working order" that the peoples rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm not part of any well regulated militia.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

And what's extremely ironic about that is the fact that without treason and guns, we wouldn't have the second amendment.

How is it "ironic"?


Two separate issues. This country was founded on the basis of liberty. Liberty was upheld this day.

 

[shuamort]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Can felons vote?

Do felons have access to the other amendments?

 

[shuamort]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

How is it "ironic"?


Two separate issues. This country was founded on the basis of liberty. Liberty was upheld this day.

It's ironic because the Brits were trying to take away the colonists' guns. Those who started our independence were traitors, they committed treason, against the crown to gain our liberty.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Do felons have access to the other amendments?

Sure.

.....

 

[shuamort]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

Sure.

.....

Here's where it gets interesting.

So why would we limit felons to access to the second amendment only? (Not asking you specifically).

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High court strikes down gun ban

I'm not part of any well regulated militia.

Sure you are.


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



And George Mason Agrees.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788