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

[Tim]

Now you're changing your opinion slightly. Earlier you said it was up to the state/local government. Using what you just said, the city of Chicago has no business trying to take a right granted to the state of Illinois. So which do you want to stick with?

A fair point, but that in no way does that invalidate their argument. It doesn't have any impact on their interpretation of the Constitution.

I guess my whole point is that the constitution and amendments are not absolute.

Take example the 1st amendment and free speech. The 1st amendment says we have free speech, period. Yet we have laws that take that right away, try yelling fire in a theater. So your freedom of speech is taken away from you when there are extenuating circumstances. If just cause can be shown, your rights can be restricted. This is the beauty of the constitution, it is NOT a 12,000 page document outlining every conceivable nuance of the law. It is an outline that needs to be applied and refined as needed.

I view the 2nd amendment the same way. As a gun owner I can live with the fact that I cannot own a rocket launcher or carry my gun into a federal building. I can understand not allowing convicted felons to own a gun. These are restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment because they make sense.
Well I also believe that if NYC wants to restrict certain firearms for the safety of their population, they should be allowed to do so. And you need to remember that when we talk about restricting guns in these cities, we are not talking about banning all firearms. We are talking about restricting what type of firearms they can own.
So if you are living in NYC and want home protection, go out and pick yourself up a nice shotgun, you can do that. But they don't want handguns within the city limits because of the ability of concealment.
So even if you live in a city like NYC, you still have your 2nd amendment rights, you just can't have a handgun.... but you can't have a rocket launcher either :dunno

 

[Peter Parka]

We're not a democracy.

Jesus Christ! It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who denies such basic facts.:willy_nilly: Everyone gets to vote for their government in the USA and you haven't got a president who is there against the overwhelming wishes of the population. Just because you have an irrational hatred of liberals and wet yourself at anything which might be seen to be liberal dosent mean the rest of your country feel the same way as you.

 

[Accountable]

Jesus Christ! It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who denies such basic facts.:willy_nilly: Everyone gets to vote for their government in the USA and you haven't got a president who is there against the overwhelming wishes of the population. Just because you have an irrational hatred of liberals and wet yourself at anything which might be seen to be liberal dosent mean the rest of your country feel the same way as you.

We use the democratic process to choose representatives. That makes us a representative republic. We do not vote on every issue. We leave that to our representatives. Our president is voted in via electoral college, not popular vote. I believe Clinton and Bush were both elected without having won the popular vote.

Those four words were just a simple clarification. The overwhelming majority of the post was the meat, which you've completely ignored.

... I have great faith in human nature, though, in a positive way. I too have not seen the need to revolt, but that doesn't mean there has never been the need. There has. And since there has, there may be again. Since there may be the need to revolt in the future, I like the idea of the insurance our 2nd amendment provides, because it is much harder to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one.

 

[Accountable]

I'm not saying the second amendment was only for the states... But if you go back and look at the background of the 2nd amendment you will see that having state militia's were very important. The idea was to never have a standing army in a time of peace and have individuals ready to serve in their state militia at a moments notice. There was even talk about every man of age required to have a pack ready with a musket, set number of rounds, powder, etc.
With militia's being as important to the states as they were, it was important to make sure the federal government did not have the power to take that away. If you read the earlier state constitutions, the wording is actually much clearer and the intent was easier to see.
So some believe that the second amendment was a protection given to the states to have individuals armed and ready for their militia, since it's the states that organize their own militia's.

I guess my whole point is that the constitution and amendments are not absolute.

Take example the 1st amendment and free speech. The 1st amendment says we have free speech, period. Yet we have laws that take that right away, try yelling fire in a theater. So your freedom of speech is taken away from you when there are extenuating circumstances. If just cause can be shown, your rights can be restricted. This is the beauty of the constitution, it is NOT a 12,000 page document outlining every conceivable nuance of the law. It is an outline that needs to be applied and refined as needed.

I view the 2nd amendment the same way. As a gun owner I can live with the fact that I cannot own a rocket launcher or carry my gun into a federal building. I can understand not allowing convicted felons to own a gun. These are restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment because they make sense.
Well I also believe that if NYC wants to restrict certain firearms for the safety of their population, they should be allowed to do so. And you need to remember that when we talk about restricting guns in these cities, we are not talking about banning all firearms. We are talking about restricting what type of firearms they can own.
So if you are living in NYC and want home protection, go out and pick yourself up a nice shotgun, you can do that. But they don't want handguns within the city limits because of the ability of concealment.
So even if you live in a city like NYC, you still have your 2nd amendment rights, you just can't have a handgun.... but you can't have a rocket launcher either :dunno

What you say makes sense, but why does it have to be either/or? If the amendment applies to the individual it applies to the state. Okay fine, I'll stipulate that a limitation is not a ban, no matter how much I'd LOVE to mount a 50 cal on my roof (if nothing else than it would look really cool).

But it comes down to trust and fear. Can't law-abiding citizens be trusted? Shouldn't they be? Criminals are going to find handguns, and they will be illegal. If a person feels more comfortable with a handgun than a shotgun for self-defense, why shouldn't that be allowed?

 

[Peter Parka]

We use the democratic process to choose representatives. That makes us a representative republic. We do not vote on every issue. We leave that to our representatives. Our president is voted in via electoral college, not popular vote. I believe Clinton and Bush were both elected without having won the popular vote.

Those four words were just a simple clarification. The overwhelming majority of the post was the meat, which you've completely ignored.

Democracy is a political form of government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people.
Stop being so pedantic, the USA is a democracy, deal with it.

 

[retro]

no, we're a Federal Constitutional Presidential Republic... however we do use a representative democracy as part of our system of government. The founders were strictly against a Direct Democracy, and founded the country as a Constitutional Republic instead. We use a form of Democracy in our government, but that isn't what our government actually is.

 

[Peter Parka]

Got to love how you even have a President who is a democrat yet you still cant hack black and white facts that the USA is a democracy, you crack me up!:24::24::24::24::24::24::24:

 

[Codrus]

... yet you still cant hack black and white facts

:eek why you gotta bring color into it?

 

[Zorak]

We use the democratic process to choose representatives. That makes us a representative republic. We do not vote on every issue. We leave that to our representatives. Our president is voted in via electoral college, not popular vote. I believe Clinton and Bush were both elected without having won the popular vote.

Those four words were just a simple clarification. The overwhelming majority of the post was the meat, which you've completely ignored.

I've never heard the term representitive republic, only representitive democracy.

 

[retro]

Got to love how you even have a President who is a democrat yet you still cant hack black and white facts that the USA is a democracy, you crack me up!:24::24::24::24::24::24::24:

So when we have a Republican President, does that mean we're a Republic? Your logic is rather flawed Peter, sorry to say. The Democrat party was named that by their opposition, the Federalists, who hoped to stigmatize them as being for a Democracy rather than a Republic. The Democrat party actually initially named themselves the Republican party, but ended up taking on the name that was given them by the Federalists.

 

[Alien Allen]

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."​

 

[Codrus]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson in his "Commonplace Book"

Jefferson copied this passage from Marquis Cesare Beccaria's book "Dei delitti e delle pene" ("On Crimes and Punishments"), and while i don't agree with Beccaria on everything in his book....i do agree with the statement above

 

[edgray]

Republic and democracy aren't two opposing ideals. The US, ostensibly, is both.

Nitpicking though, I've heard it more accurately described as a polygarchy.

 

[dt3]

I guess my whole point is that the constitution and amendments are not absolute.

That's where our fundamental difference is. I think they are intended to be absolutes. Your example of free speech is a classic one. It's clear after reading what our founding father's wrote that they didn't intend for people to yell fire in a theater. Rather, their sole intent was to provide the freedom to speak out against the government without retribution.

However I do agree to an extent with your 2nd Amendment views. It would be unreasonable to let people roam the streets with rocket launchers. If we were to strictly interpret the Amendment, that would be legal. However, I doubt our founding fathers could foresee the consequences when they wrote it, society was vastly different obviously. As such, I'm fine with most of the restrictions in place. BUT, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I'm ok with giving up a little liberty (the right to carry a rocket launcher) for the overall good of society (keeping rocket launchers away from people who would do dumb shit), but the current federal regulations in place are my personal line, and for now the SC seems to agree.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."​

Yeah, they messed it up when they added "under God". Those religious types... In 6th grade, I and a friend of mine got sent to the Principle's office for refusing to stand, put our hands over our hearts and say the Pledge of Allegiance in first period. I'm sure this is shocking to some of you. We were proving a point.

 

[Alien Allen]

Yeah, they messed it up when they added "under God". Those religious types... In 6th grade, I and a friend of mine got sent to the Principle's office for refusing to stand, put our hands over our hearts and say the Pledge of Allegiance in first period. I'm sure this is shocking to some of you. We were proving a point.

I quit saying the pledge in 6th grade

It was that "liberty and justice for all " part
that tripped me up

 

[Minor Axis]

I quit saying the pledge in 6th grade

It was that "liberty and justice for all " part
that tripped me up

To clarify we were proving that there was no requirement to say this pledge to prove anything to anybody and it proved nothing by saying it.

 

[Accountable]

Democracy is a political form of government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people.
Stop being so pedantic, the USA is a democracy, deal with it.

I had to look it up.

overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.
​

I think that fit's you more than me, and you still ignored the lion's share of my post. Don't sweat it, though. I don't want you getting hung up on another word.

 

[Accountable]

no, we're a Federal Constitutional Presidential Republic... however we do use a representative democracy as part of our system of government. The founders were strictly against a Direct Democracy, and founded the country as a Constitutional Republic instead. We use a form of Democracy in our government, but that isn't what our government actually is.

:nod::nod::nod:

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

 

[retro]

I guess my whole point is that the constitution and amendments are not absolute.

So wait... the supreme law of this country is nothing more than a guideline? Then hell, let's bring about ways to prevent black people and women from voting. We should be able to do that since the Constitution is only a guideline. Or does this only apply in the case of the 2nd Amendment? Or whatever you think is convenient?

Good God, just when I think you can't say anything else completely ignorant and unintelligent you go and outdo yourself again.