Supreme Court Defends Righ Of US Citizens To Live On Terrifying Streets

[Tim]

The SCOTUS struck down the city law that prohibited gun ownership. Do you think a city should be allowed to ban its residents from owning guns and keeping them in their homes?

Yes I do. I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them.

If you want to own and carry handguns, then don't move to NYC... Isn't that the whole Libertarian philosophy? Let the states determine what's right for them and if you don't like it, you can move.

I live out in the woods and have a nice gun collection, I even own handguns that would never be classified in the hunting category, strictly assault weapons. I have no problem with people owning guns, never have.

 

[Accountable]

Yes I do. I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them.

Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special?

 

[retro]

Yes I do. I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them.

They don't if they're in violation of the Constitution. That's one area where Federal Authority trumps State's Rights. Unless of course the Federal Government enacts legislation that is in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Alien Allen]

They don't if they're in violation of the Constitution. That's one area where Federal Authority trumps State's Rights. Unless of course the Federal Government enacts legislation that is in violation of the Constitution.

or the SCOTUS does an absurd interpretation of the Commerce Clause to hand over damn near everything else to the feds

 

[retro]

or the SCOTUS does an absurd interpretation of the Commerce Clause to hand over damn near everything else to the feds

Then we start an armed revolution... which is part of the point of the Second Amendment

 

[Tim]

I just don't believe the founders wrote this amendment as rigid as you guys are interpreting it.
That ALL people can own and carry ANY type of arms without any regulation or controls.

No, it was written in one short sentence to be interpreted and applied as needed, not as a be all end all.

If that's the case, then ALL people should be able to carry, whether felons, insane, mentally disabled, children, etc.
And they would be able to carry in ALL circumstances whether it be in grade schools, airports, banks, etc.
And the type of weapon cannot be regulated, since it says arms, not guns.

 

[Alien Allen]

No different that the rigid spin that anti gun advocates use to claim it was only to allow a militia to be armed.

Which is nonsense

Again where have we said there should be no regulations?

 

[Accountable]

Tim, answer my questions, please. I put them in blue for you.

Why aren't you Republicans pissed that the federal government is taking away state rights with this ruling?

Exactly what rights does this ruling take away?

The SCOTUS struck down the city law that prohibited gun ownership. Do you think a city should be allowed to ban its residents from owning guns and keeping them in their homes?

Yes I do. I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them.

Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special?

 

[Tim]

Q: Why can't I open carry into the post office?
A: I believe you should.
Q: Why can't I own a machine gun?
A: I believe you should.
Q: Why can't I carry into a Federal building, isn't the federal government supposed to protect my constitutional rights?
A: I believe you should.

So the constitution guarantees my right to own 6 Uzi's, 1 LARS rocket launcher, 17 grenades and a 357 magnum?

Because it says I have a right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say anything at all about what size arms or how many. So why is it constitutional to restrict the type of arms I can have?

I agree! :thumbup

No different that the rigid spin that anti gun advocates use to claim it was only to allow a militia to be armed.

Which is nonsense

Again where have we said there should be no regulations?

Just read the thread... :dunno

 

[retro]

Why aren't you Republicans pissed that the federal government is taking away state rights with this ruling?

I'm not a Republican, but the last time I checked, the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. This isn't an issue of the government violating the 10th Amendment, it's an issue of them upholding the 2nd Amendment. Please explain to me exactly what rights were taken away here.

 

[Alien Allen]

Just read the thread... :dunno

I will have to let ACC speak for himself.

But I did not see that as a blanket statement there should be no regulations.

Admit it you just did not like those answers

 

[retro]

I will have to let ACC speak for himself.

But I did not see that as a blanket statement there should be no regulations.

Admit it you just did not like those answers

Isn't that the way it usually goes around here. Someone (usually one of the uber leftists) doesn't like an answer, so they focus in on minutiae rather than addressing the issue at hand?

 

[Accountable]

Just read the thread... :dunno

Exactly what rights does this ruling take away, Tim? You never answered that question.

You wrote "I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them." Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special, Tim? You never answered that question, Tim.

 

[retro]

Exactly what rights does this ruling take away, Tim? You never answered that question.

You wrote "I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them." Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special, Tim? You never answered that question, Tim.

You shouldn't be allowed to carry a bazooka wherever you go, why would you think that? But all of you Republicans think you should be able to.

/Tim
:24:

 

[Tim]

You guys are so intellectually dishonest it's not even worth my effort.

If you are going to sit there and tell me that the 2nd amendment is perfect as written, that it's perfectly clear as to it's intention, then at least have the decency to include the entire sentence. Not just the part that suits your needs.

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.

And yes, that's a comma there, not a period.

So stop interpreting only part of the sentence to suit your needs. If you want honesty, then read it as a complete sentence/ a complete thought.

 

[Tim]

You shouldn't be allowed to carry a bazooka wherever you go, why would you think that? But all of you Republicans think you should be able to.

/Tim
:24:

That's exactly what accountable said earlier in the thread.

 

[Tim]

Exactly what rights does this ruling take away, Tim? You never answered that question.

You wrote "I believe that each and every state/locality has the right to determine what's right for them." Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special, Tim? You never answered that question, Tim.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

I'm in the camp that the 2nd amendment protects states rights, not individual rights. It prevents the federal government from taking gun rights, but it does not explicitly grant gun rights to everyone.

 

[Alien Allen]

You guys are so intellectually dishonest it's not even worth my effort.

If you are going to sit there and tell me that the 2nd amendment is perfect as written, that it's perfectly clear as to it's intention, then at least have the decency to include the entire sentence. Not just the part that suits your needs.



And yes, that's a comma there, not a period.

So stop interpreting only part of the sentence to suit your needs. If you want honesty, then read it as a complete sentence/ a complete thought.

You are the one doing the parsing and being intellectually dishonest

All one had to do was read up on stuff back then to know what their intent was

 

[retro]

You guys are so intellectually dishonest it's not even worth my effort.

If you are going to sit there and tell me that the 2nd amendment is perfect as written, that it's perfectly clear as to it's intention, then at least have the decency to include the entire sentence. Not just the part that suits your needs.



And yes, that's a comma there, not a period.

So stop interpreting only part of the sentence to suit your needs. If you want honesty, then read it as a complete sentence/ a complete thought.

:24:

You're interpreting it the way that you want to interpret it. You've decided that "a well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as being linked statements. But if that was the case, why wouldn't it have been written like this:

A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed

It wasn't written like that because the intent was to give rights for a well regulated militia and for people to keep and bear arms. Comma usage was different in those times... which is a well documented fact.

"The punctuation that emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was consistent in just two respects: it was prolific and often chaotic."
--- Alphabet to email: How written english evolved and where it's heading. Naomi S. Baron, Routledge, London and New York 2000. P. 185

"Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase."
--- 15 ed. V.29, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1997. P. 1051

"In the 18-19c, people tended to punctuate heavily, especially in their use of commas."
--- The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford New York, Oxford University Press 1992. Tom McCarthur ed. P. 824

In addition, there is also proof that ratified versions of the amendment only had one comma, so that it read

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

That image is directly from the Library of Congress, in case you were wondering
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

 

[retro]

I'm in the camp that the 2nd amendment protects states rights, not individual rights. It prevents the federal government from taking gun rights, but it does not explicitly grant gun rights to everyone.

How in God's name do you interpret that from the Second Amendment.

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

I also love how you're now a champion of state's rights in this, yet you claimed with the health care debacle that there wasn't any case for state's rights being infringed. You can't pick and choose Timmy.