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

[Accountable]

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.

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.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer either of my questions. It certainly begs the second question, though.
Does that go for the other 9 amendments, or is the second one more special, Tim?

 

[retro]

in addition, you can't claim that the 2nd Amendment is an issue of state's rights, because of the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, which means it is a federal issue and not a state issue.

 

[retro]

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

I just chose the most ridiculous non-sequitur that I could think of that would go along with some of your earlier posts.

 

[Peter Parka]

You guys crack me up, you seem to be under the delusion that6 something written 300 years ago is perfect and completely relevant today.:24::surrender

 

[retro]

You guys crack me up, you seem to be under the delusion that6 something written 300 years ago is perfect and completely relevant today.:24::surrender

It's the supreme law of our country, and is relevant. If something needs to be changed due to irrelevance, then we have a process to do so. You crack me up for feeling the need to attack our form of government when it's the only one in the world like it. While other countries have gone through 2. 3, 4, or more different types of government in the last 230+ years, ours has stood strong. No other country can claim that as far as I'm aware.

 

[Minor Axis]

You guys crack me up, you seem to be under the delusion that6 something written 300 years ago is perfect and completely relevant today.:24::surrender

I come to OffTopicz quite often to be AMUSED!

 

[retro]

I come to OffTopicz quite often to be AMUSED!

The liberal fantasy world that you and a few others seem to live in is always amusing to me

 

[Accountable]

It's the supreme law of our country, and is relevant. If something needs to be changed due to irrelevance, then we have a process to do so.

 

[Zorak]

It's the supreme law of our country, and is relevant. If something needs to be changed due to irrelevance, then we have a process to do so. You crack me up for feeling the need to attack our form of government when it's the only one in the world like it. While other countries have gone through 2. 3, 4, or more different types of government in the last 230+ years, ours has stood strong. No other country can claim that as far as I'm aware.

Do you not feel the Second amendment is outdated though?

It's of little relevance how well armed or well regulated the Militia of the Free People are, considering the massive pool of highly trained professional soldiers and mechanized war machines that the state can call upon.

Is this amendment merely now just a facade that allows the people of America to continue enjoying their firearms in legality?

 

[retro]

Do you not feel the Second amendment is outdated though?

It's of little relevance how well armed or well regulated the Militia of the Free People are, considering the massive pool of highly trained professional soldiers and mechanized war machines that the state can call upon.

Is this amendment merely now just a facade that allows the people of America to continue enjoying their firearms in legality?

If that's what you think, then you obviously know nothing about American history. That Amendment is in place for precisely the same reason that led to the formation of this country to begin with.

Great Britain had highly trained professional soldiers too... while we were just a ragtag bunch of civilians for the most part. The only thing that makes it "outdated" is the fact that it's been watered down by a bunch of liberals over the years.

 

[Accountable]

Do you not feel the Second amendment is outdated though?

It's of little relevance how well armed or well regulated the Militia of the Free People are, considering the massive pool of highly trained professional soldiers and mechanized war machines that the state can call upon.

Is this amendment merely now just a facade that allows the people of America to continue enjoying their firearms in legality?

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

 

[edgray]

A question:

is it the fact you like owning guns, or the principle of the right to own a handgun? Or both even?

Just curious.

 

[retro]

A question:

is it the fact you like owning guns, or the principle of the right to own a handgun? Or both even?

Just curious.

For me, it's the principle. I don't personally own a gun of any sort (though that'll probably change in the next year or two). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the right to bear arms is one that is given to me by the Second Amendment.

 

[edgray]

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

don't you want you govt to trust you?

that all seems highly outdated...

 

[edgray]

For me, it's the principle. I don't personally own a gun of any sort (though that'll probably change in the next year or two). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the right to bear arms is one that is given to me by the Second Amendment.

I can understand the belief in the principle more than the want to own a firearm. I've never personally wanted anything to do with firearms.

I would hate to the govt take away your right to own arms. But would you be willing to give the right up for a safer society?

 

[retro]

don't you want you govt to trust you?

that all seems highly outdated...

The more the government feels they can trust the populace, the more comfortable they feel taking even more rights away.

It seems outdated to you because you don't understand our country. We're unlike any other country in the world... so it's really not a surprise that the Europeans around here think we're crazy.

 

[retro]

I can understand the belief in the principle more than the want to own a firearm. I've never personally wanted anything to do with firearms.

I would hate to the govt take away your right to own arms. But would you be willing to give the right up for a safer society?

I don't have anything against them personally. I've fired some in the past as I have friends that are big into guns. I always enjoyed shooting pellet guns as a kid and shooting targets, so that's why I'll buy one in the future. My ex-wife was completely anti-gun, so I didn't buy one earlier in my life for that reason.

 

[Accountable]

A question:

is it the fact you like owning guns, or the principle of the right to own a handgun? Or both even?

Just curious.

I don't own a gun, but my right to go out and get one if I feel that I need one is precious.

 

[retro]

I don't own a gun, but my right to go out and get one if I feel that I need one is precious.

Doesn't it feel weird to be in the .03% of people living in Texas that don't own a gun? I know it did for me :24:

 

[edgray]

The more the government feels they can trust the populace, the more comfortable they feel taking even more rights away.

It seems outdated to you because you don't understand our country. We're unlike any other country in the world... so it's really not a surprise that the Europeans around here think we're crazy.

I don't think you guys are crazy at all, and I'd like to think I understand your country a fair bit, spent a lot of time there over the years and can relate to the spirit in which the country was founded.

I would just think that if there was a bit of mutual trust, maybe you would get along a bit better?

It's a big difference in views towards the role of govt over there to over here. In Europe, we see govt generally as a tool to get what we, as a society want or need. Welfare, healthcare, pensions, a solid infrastructure etc etc - these are what we demand from our govts, and they generally provide. If there was some trust between the US citizens and their govt, maybe you guys would get more of the things you want from your govt. Just putting it out there, not US bashing at all.