Supreme Court posed to back right to bear arms

[Deborah K]

+1
He argued that the right to bear arms was the right of his definition of militia when it came to the 2nd amendment (collective interpretation). But when he was arguing his case about the DC gun ban specifically, his defense was essentially "but the people can have rifles"... implying that the 2nd amendment refers to the people (individualistic interpretation).

What a schmuck.

What an idiot. I heard this too and thought, 'are you so stupid that you don't even realize the Bill of Rights are rights protecting the INDIVIDUAL from the government???' He's trying to make an absurd argument. His definition of militia is government controlled.

BTW, has anyone noticed that the first amendment ' right to a redress of grievences' and the second amendment 'a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state' are two clauses that aren't addressed very often?

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

The DC ban (and any other ones) will be gone, and 2A upheld as an individual right. The only question is how far the court will allow regulations to go before being considered invalid.

That's the point. SCOTUS will rule that you have the right, but will also rule that you have to jump through 101 hoops to exercise it.

The Nazis did not start out saying nobody could have a gun. They started with making it very difficult to have one, and thus only the aristocrats (who supported Hitler) and the rich (who also supported Hitler) could afford to have a gun and get the right permissions.

Sure there will always be a 2A, but in the end they intend that the only people who will have them will be the big fat neocons with the H2s and the Bush bumper stickers, or those who, if not simply unaffected by the FED's destruction of the dollar and raping of the middle class, actually benefit from it, and all those cops making the big bucks when you add medical and health benefits. In some jurisdictions they let them double dip the overtime and they make over 200K a year - so they loooove the system. They will all be allowed to have guns.

Not you.

 

[hillbilly123069]

If this is to play into the other things they are trying to slip past us, then I

would bet more on this being an attempt to put people off guard.I liked what I heard too.
A friend called this morning to tell what she had watched on either CNN or CSPAN (She didn't remember)with a call in show. A rep from the NRA, a pro-gun restriction rep, and at least 1 other person were debating about Canada, Australia, and England being disarmed. It was apparently at this point callers from these countries started to voice their opinions after a statement was made about better quality of life in these places.These people condemned those statements as lies and advised the american citizens not allow themselves to be disarmed.Other callers that live here were stating,"Come get my gun! We're ready for you!". These statements sound extreme. I can see alot of people have been having situations worse than others. It's getting to be a regular thing for people to burn their own houses down prior to foreclosure. A british general asked,before british troops land to squash the rebellion in the late 1700's,"Will they fight?" I think this,no matter how it looks or sounds, is the only way they know to react to a wrong that should not exist.

 

[Banana]

would bet more on this being an attempt to put people off guard.I liked what I heard too.
A friend called this morning to tell what she had watched on either CNN or CSPAN with a call in show. A rep from the NRA, a pro-gun restriction rep, and at least 1 other person were debating about Canada, Australia, and England being disarmed. It was apparently at this point callers from these countries started to voice their opinions after a statement was made about better quality of life in these places.These people condemned those statements and advised the american citizens not allow themselves to be disarmed.Other callers that live here were stating,"Come get my gun! We're ready for you!"

Ugh.

I absolutely hate when I see this kind of shit. I mean, the second amendment was primarily for protection from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny, not to brandish guns or shoot random things. The more they play into this, the deeper hole they dig against all gun owners and ultimately the second amendment itself.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Ugh.

I absolutely hate when I see this kind of shit. I mean, the second amendment was primarily for protection from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny, not to brandish guns or shoot random things. The more they play into this, the deeper hole they dig against all gun owners and ultimately the second amendment itself.

 

[Banana]

Doktor Jeep-

Before you throw out that trolling, consider this:

Whenever I talk about gun rights to anybody, many people put it in the context of hunting or self-defense. When I tell them about the original intent of second amendment, they are usually surprised as this is their first time they've ever heard of this. Furthermore, when we framed the correct context, even most liberal democrat had to agree that second amendment made sense through this lens (though they may not change their minds on regulating hunting or self-defense). But in any average MSM discussion, they make a strawman out of second amendment by focusing mainly on hunting, recreational use and self defense which can be easily attacked with different approaches (why not just use bows & arrows only? Recreational use promote violence! Self-defense is not necessary if we have strong police force!).

There are nothing wrong with those uses, but it's almost a conspiracy to not ever speak of the original intent, and that really annoys me.

But hey, I guess I'm a trolling for wanting people to understand the constitution.

 

[madengr]

It's all right there in the preamble! The media never quotes the preamble when quoting the 2A. It's not about self defense and hunting!

....
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
....

 

[TruckinMike]

This is my post from the other thread...

Quote:
Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or
> only a few guns, or if a collector couldn't complete a set like a
> stamp
> collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into a
> demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need
> to
> have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a
> .270,
> which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers
> missed because they were focused on Scalia;
Is this a good thing or bad? The way I see it is Scalia is ignoring the meaning of the second. He should have responded with:

Quote:
"multiple firearms would be necessary in order to protect the "free" state from enemies both foreign and domestic. To regulate or infringe on ones right to possess and bear multiple firearms would directly violate the intent of the founders as expressed by george Washington when he stated "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." Inferring that the firearm is not about hunting or even self-defense, but about preserving liberty. Or as Thomas jefferson put it "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." I understand the "governments" position, of course they want to disarm the folks - the armed people can hold a tyrannical government to the constraints of the constitution. But only with the might of multiple firearms of war."


Thats the way I see it. But he weakened the argument by using the hunting analogy. I think he did it with FULL and BLATANT disregard to the intent. He knows better. And he knows the words of our founders. This "shaping" technique of debate is commonly used in argument after argument after argument to manipulate the listener away from real point. Its typical lawyer prowess.

Why is no one talking about this?

TMike

Its all a sinister ploy. --- wake UP! All I'm hearing is bleats from the sheep. BAHHH BAhHH BABABA BAHHHH.

no offense, but thats what I'm seeing -- minus a couple of you.

TMike

Right ON Banana!!! my sentiments exactly.