• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights - The Daily Beast
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

Nuts like the NRA have advanced a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment for the past few decades, but politics and legal thinking signal a return to traditional jurisprudence. Remember that the NRA’s understanding of the Second Amendment is an extremely recent phenomenon. For more than 200 years, the legal and scholarly consensus was that, in the absence of a standing army, the Second Amendment was designed to enable states and localities to maintain a “well-regulated militia” by placing muskets and other weapons in the hands of local citizens………..


Then came three decades of conservative political activism, focused on law schools, the National Rifle Association, and conservative think tanks. This effort culminated (but by no means concluded) with the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, which the Supreme Court found, for the first time, an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment………..

ALSO SEE:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Things go up…….things go down……

And a new court, without a full number of justices, has signaled a changing view of the Second Amendment……..

Not to take away the right to own a gun……….

But moreso allow limits state and federal government have to regulate the use and safety measures of regulation………

One only look to the three gun case decisions issued this term…..and the denial to hear some others which affirmed the right to regulate……

Seems the Court has hear the cry from 70-90% of folks for a need to pass some constitutional ways to regulate the safe use of guns and who has a right to own one……
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The second civil war will occur if the progressives try to kill the Second Amendment.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The second civil war will occur if the progressives try to kill the Second Amendment.

I am sure ImYoda will be leading the charge to confiscate guns and break down doors.

what the Supreme court probably will do if we get another extreme anti gun leftist woman is to allow states to pretty much ignore the McDonald Holding. Federal gun controls are going to be rare if at all given the crushing ass kicking the dems took over the 1994 gun ban. and with more and more AR 15 and other semi auto rifles being bought and combined with the fact that the government sold about 2 million MI carbines (which cannot be legally distinguished from the AR 15s that shed flash hiders and other idiotic reasons for Bannerrhoids calling them "assault weapons") a semi auto ban is going to fail. Plus, lots and lots of us who remember what happened in 1994 are stocking up on normal capacity magazines. There are over 100 million more AR 15 magazines in private possession now than there were 22 years ago. Companies like TROY and MAGPUL didn't even exist pack then and they are cranking out a million magazines weekly. They are better made and last longer than the standard GI magazines that were the normal magazine in 1994.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights - The Daily Beast
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

Nuts like the NRA have advanced a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment for the past few decades, but politics and legal thinking signal a return to traditional jurisprudence. Remember that the NRA’s understanding of the Second Amendment is an extremely recent phenomenon. For more than 200 years, the legal and scholarly consensus was that, in the absence of a standing army, the Second Amendment was designed to enable states and localities to maintain a “well-regulated militia” by placing muskets and other weapons in the hands of local citizens………..


Then came three decades of conservative political activism, focused on law schools, the National Rifle Association, and conservative think tanks. This effort culminated (but by no means concluded) with the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, which the Supreme Court found, for the first time, an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment………..

ALSO SEE:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Things go up…….things go down……

And a new court, without a full number of justices, has signaled a changing view of the Second Amendment……..

Not to take away the right to own a gun……….

But moreso allow limits state and federal government have to regulate the use and safety measures of regulation………

One only look to the three gun case decisions issued this term…..and the denial to hear some others which affirmed the right to regulate……

Seems the Court has hear the cry from 70-90% of folks for a need to pass some constitutional ways to regulate the safe use of guns and who has a right to own one……

The Daily Beast is where I get all my news.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Daily Beast is where I get all my news.

from the article ImYoda was gushing over

That attitude, combined with the unprecedented gerrymandering of the House of Representatives, makes it unlikely that federal legislative action will come any time soon even though a majority of Americans support it.

actually most people do not support the sort of crap ImYoda wants. sure lots of people "support" universal background checks and other feel good things but bans on guns-well look what happened in 94

as to the guy who wrote that nonsense-He's a far left Jewish Gay activist whose articles often whine about middle class conservative Christian Males-the group that the Bannerrhoid movement sees as making up most of the gun owning population. As the National Review article I posted a couple weeks ago notes-the NRA has become a symbol of that democraphic and every movement that sees middle class conservative middle aged Christian males as the enemy, usually adopts gun control as one of their tactics to attack their enemy

Michaelson's rants are not the product of someone who is a serious scholar in second amendment issues but rather a gay activist who sees the NRA as supporting candidates who are hostile to his main political issue-gay rights
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights - The Daily Beast
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

Nuts like the NRA have advanced a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment for the past few decades, but politics and legal thinking signal a return to traditional jurisprudence. Remember that the NRA’s understanding of the Second Amendment is an extremely recent phenomenon. For more than 200 years, the legal and scholarly consensus was that, in the absence of a standing army, the Second Amendment was designed to enable states and localities to maintain a “well-regulated militia” by placing muskets and other weapons in the hands of local citizens………..


Then came three decades of conservative political activism, focused on law schools, the National Rifle Association, and conservative think tanks. This effort culminated (but by no means concluded) with the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, which the Supreme Court found, for the first time, an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment………..

ALSO SEE:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Things go up…….things go down……

And a new court, without a full number of justices, has signaled a changing view of the Second Amendment……..

Not to take away the right to own a gun……….

But moreso allow limits state and federal government have to regulate the use and safety measures of regulation………

One only look to the three gun case decisions issued this term…..and the denial to hear some others which affirmed the right to regulate……

Seems the Court has hear the cry from 70-90% of folks for a need to pass some constitutional ways to regulate the safe use of guns and who has a right to own one……

Radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Hmm.... I suppose at the time the Founders were radical. :shrug:
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Hmm.... I suppose at the time the Founders were radical. :shrug:

to hysterical far left gay activists who have their panties in a knot because the NRA supports candidates who TEND NOT TO SUPPORT GAY rights, anything the NRA does will be ridiculed or lied about. the fact is, that guy's constitutional law professor at Yale-at the time he was there, is pretty much on the same page as the NRA when it comes to the individual right's interpretation
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Hmm.... I suppose at the time the Founders were radical. :shrug:

Those words are your words............

There is plenty of room to fully define what the Second Amendment means at law.............


Let's start with what ""A well regulated Militia............."

Catch my drift.......
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Those words are your words............

There is plenty of room to fully define what the Second Amendment means at law.............


Let's start with what ""A well regulated Militia............."

Catch my drift.......

what was the pre-existing right that the founders intended to guarantee with the second amendment? Now ImYoda is afraid to answer me because it destroys his insinuation that one had to be in a well regulated militia to exercise a right that the founders saw as existing PRIOR to government (and prior to "well regulated militias)

and btw if the purpose of this right was to create an environment where a "well regulated" (i.e. in good working order and ready to act) militia could be readily formed, only a moron or someone completely clueless about militias would conclude that your right to have arms did not vest until you actually answered the muster. Even if ImYoda's silly insinuation is correct, everyone who could possibly join a militia must be armed BEFORE actually JOINING in order to be effective and thus create a "well regulated" militia
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights - The Daily Beast
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

Nuts like the NRA have advanced a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment for the past few decades, but politics and legal thinking signal a return to traditional jurisprudence. Remember that the NRA’s understanding of the Second Amendment is an extremely recent phenomenon. For more than 200 years, the legal and scholarly consensus was that, in the absence of a standing army, the Second Amendment was designed to enable states and localities to maintain a “well-regulated militia” by placing muskets and other weapons in the hands of local citizens………..


Then came three decades of conservative political activism, focused on law schools, the National Rifle Association, and conservative think tanks. This effort culminated (but by no means concluded) with the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, which the Supreme Court found, for the first time, an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment………..

ALSO SEE:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Things go up…….things go down……

And a new court, without a full number of justices, has signaled a changing view of the Second Amendment……..

Not to take away the right to own a gun……….

But moreso allow limits state and federal government have to regulate the use and safety measures of regulation………

One only look to the three gun case decisions issued this term…..and the denial to hear some others which affirmed the right to regulate……

Seems the Court has hear the cry from 70-90% of folks for a need to pass some constitutional ways to regulate the safe use of guns and who has a right to own one……
Wooooooo.....not terribly worried about it. Nice spin though.
 

yankintx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
19,324
Reaction score
8,593
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
from the article ImYoda was gushing over

That attitude, combined with the unprecedented gerrymandering of the House of Representatives, makes it unlikely that federal legislative action will come any time soon even though a majority of Americans support it.

actually most people do not support the sort of crap ImYoda wants. sure lots of people "support" universal background checks and other feel good things but bans on guns-well look what happened in 94

as to the guy who wrote that nonsense-He's a far left Jewish Gay activist whose articles often whine about middle class conservative Christian Males-the group that the Bannerrhoid movement sees as making up most of the gun owning population. As the National Review article I posted a couple weeks ago notes-the NRA has become a symbol of that democraphic and every movement that sees middle class conservative middle aged Christian males as the enemy, usually adopts gun control as one of their tactics to attack their enemy

Michaelson's rants are not the product of someone who is a serious scholar in second amendment issues but rather a gay activist who sees the NRA as supporting candidates who are hostile to his main political issue-gay rights

Serious scholar of the 2nd amendment? Is that a degree program courtesy of Trump U or correspondance course from the NRA?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Those words are your words............

There is plenty of room to fully define what the Second Amendment means at law.............


Let's start with what ""A well regulated Militia............."

Catch my drift.......

Actually it is a fact that in their time the Founders were considered radicals as they had progressive ideas for their time. Not every colonial fought against the British ya know.

Now, you want to start with the militia clause of the 2nd? That's fine. Don't forget to include the part that says "being necessary to the security of a free state" which explains why the militia clause was added to the 2nd. Also don't forget the other clause in the 2nd that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Also don't forget to quote the Founders and previous SCOTUS rulings (even before Heller vs DC) that mentioned that the people have a right to own guns and don't forget to state why our Founders believed that people had a right to own guns.

If you can get all that straight then we can have an actual discussion. Until you study up on it though I'm afraid that we'll just be talking in circles and there will be no use to continue this conversation. Here is one place that you can start in your studies...

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
 

RetiredNSmilin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,242
Reaction score
1,985
Location
East Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are ANTI-GUN threads the only thing you make threads about?

Sure seems like it. I do not even read them anymore.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Serious scholar of the 2nd amendment? Is that a degree program courtesy of Trump U or correspondance course from the NRA?

what sort of silliness is this? the guy who wrote that nonsense is someone whose main goal is pushing gay rights. He has no credentials in second amendment scholarship. serious scholars in the second amendment include Sanford Levinson, David Koppel, Akhil Reed Amar, and Eugene Volokh.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,727
Reaction score
85,332
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Are ANTI-GUN threads the only thing you make threads about?

Sure seems like it. I do not even read them anymore.

Nah he often starts threads on topics that have ALREADY had a thread started on them (such as Kirk not supporting Trump) or threads that gush love for Hillary. You know, conservative topics ;)
 

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights - The Daily Beast
Why the Next Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Gun Rights

Nuts like the NRA have advanced a radical interpretation of the Second Amendment for the past few decades, but politics and legal thinking signal a return to traditional jurisprudence. Remember that the NRA’s understanding of the Second Amendment is an extremely recent phenomenon. For more than 200 years, the legal and scholarly consensus was that, in the absence of a standing army, the Second Amendment was designed to enable states and localities to maintain a “well-regulated militia” by placing muskets and other weapons in the hands of local citizens………..


Then came three decades of conservative political activism, focused on law schools, the National Rifle Association, and conservative think tanks. This effort culminated (but by no means concluded) with the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, which the Supreme Court found, for the first time, an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment………..

ALSO SEE:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Things go up…….things go down……

And a new court, without a full number of justices, has signaled a changing view of the Second Amendment……..

Not to take away the right to own a gun……….

But moreso allow limits state and federal government have to regulate the use and safety measures of regulation………

One only look to the three gun case decisions issued this term…..and the denial to hear some others which affirmed the right to regulate……

Seems the Court has hear the cry from 70-90% of folks for a need to pass some constitutional ways to regulate the safe use of guns and who has a right to own one……

Any such predictions of the next Court are nonsense. Until the election in Nov., when we will decide who appoints the next Justice, no accurate predictions can be made. Kennedy has sided with gun rights in the past. There is no reason to believe he would do otherwise if another conservative is posted to the Court.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually it is a fact that in their time the Founders were considered radicals as they had progressive ideas for their time. Not every colonial fought against the British ya know.

Now, you want to start with the militia clause of the 2nd? That's fine. Don't forget to include the part that says "being necessary to the security of a free state" which explains why the militia clause was added to the 2nd. Also don't forget the other clause in the 2nd that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Also don't forget to quote the Founders and previous SCOTUS rulings (even before Heller vs DC) that mentioned that the people have a right to own guns and don't forget to state why our Founders believed that people had a right to own guns.

If you can get all that straight then we can have an actual discussion. Until you study up on it though I'm afraid that we'll just be talking in circles and there will be no use to continue this conversation. Here is one place that you can start in your studies...

I disagree and see it much differently than that
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any such predictions of the next Court are nonsense. Until the election in Nov., when we will decide who appoints the next Justice, no accurate predictions can be made. Kennedy has sided with gun rights in the past. There is no reason to believe he would do otherwise if another conservative is posted to the Court.



We will see
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well there is no reason to be worried..........Constitutional rights will not be changed or violated

Common sense will prove there is no compelling reason to ban anything. So yes, you are correct. What will change is how mental illness is handled. That is going to open a whole new can of crap.
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I disagree and see it much differently than that

How do you see them finding a compelling argument to restrict sales of one of the most widely owned firearms in the U.S. That should be interesting.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Common sense will prove there is no compelling reason to ban anything. So yes, you are correct. What will change is how mental illness is handled. That is going to open a whole new can of crap.

So-called common sense is most often used as an excuse justifying a position in a subject they have no knowledge........

And if mental illness becomes and issue regarding the possession/ownership of a gun...........it will soon be "studied".........special commission 'ed....... commissioned comprehensive reported......to death....

Because it cost's too much to fix (if that were possible) or an active single-issue voting block which pols can appeal to for votes
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How do you see them finding a compelling argument to restrict sales of one of the most widely owned firearms in the U.S. That should be interesting.

It is not how widely owned and popular a firearm is ...........It is a simple matter of a state passing a law banning them.......and law is supported by citizens

as has been done in NY and Conn.....................and constitutional to do so.......


Does that qualify as interesting?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree and see it much differently than that

How you see it does not matter. How it actually IS does. So, I guess you don't want to actually have a real discussion of the 2nd Amendment, what the founders thought at the time of people owning guns, and its actual meaning.
 
Top Bottom