Jimmy Neutron Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 After 27 years... A nice change of direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) After 27 years... A nice change of direction. I read the article, Jimmy. The points raised sound oddly familiar, though I can't quite place where I've heard them before. Edited March 10, 2007 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 10, 2007 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 I read the article, Jimmy. The points raised sound oddly familiar, though I can't quite place where I've heard them before. I like the decision, but will not be happy until a similar opinions comes from the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I like the decision, but will not be happy until a similar opinions comes from the Supreme Court. Yeah, those Rosie O'Donnell have been ducking this issue for too long. Agree that it's not just a group right; still think the individual right is subject to being "well-regulated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 While I agree with the statement: "The fact is that the criminals don't obey the law and they do have guns," he said. "It's the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law." I hate to think what this country will be like when every joe schmoe has a pistol and one has that one bad day..... I wonder how Canada keeps the gun violence down in it's country. Oh wait, NM there are a lot of french up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 The scary part of that article is what this judge stated. "Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state." So Karen,does this mean you think the entire Bill of Rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 The scary part of that article is what this judge stated. "Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state." So Karen,does this mean you think the entire Bill of Rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia? I doubt it, but the 2nd Amendment specificaly discusses the concept of it "being necessary to the security of a free State..." Notice how the word "state" is capitalized, suggesting a proper noun (rather than the more general concept of being in a "state of freedom"). Thus, one could argue that the language of 2nd Amendment itself limits its applications to the 50 states. I hadn't heard that argument before, but think it should fail. The freedom being procted isn't the "States'," its the citizens'. At best, "the security of a free State" language refers to the reason why the right to bear arms is important. Reading it as a limiting language strikes me as odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I doubt it, but the 2nd Amendment specificaly discusses the concept of it "being necessary to the security of a free State..." Notice how the word "state" is capitalized, suggesting a proper noun (rather than the more general concept of being in a "state of freedom"). Thus, one could argue that the language of 2nd Amendment itself limits its applications to the 50 states. I hadn't heard that argument before, but think it should fail. The freedom being procted isn't the "States'," its the citizens'. At best, "the security of a free State" language refers to the reason why the right to bear arms is important. Reading it as a limiting language strikes me as odd. It's part of the U.S.The Bill of Rights is for U.S. citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 While I agree with the statement: I hate to think what this country will be like when every joe schmoe has a pistol and one has that one bad day..... I wonder how Canada keeps the gun violence down in it's country. Oh wait, NM there are a lot of french up there. The slapping of faces is out of control in Canada. Out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I agree with the decision. In fact arguing only local militias have a right to bear arms is scarier than the random nutjob huddler holed-up in his shack with an ak and purple genie costume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I read the article, Jimmy. The points raised sound oddly familiar, though I can't quite place where I've heard them before. I agree with the decision. In fact arguing only local militias have a right to bear arms is scarier than the random nutjob huddler holed-up in his shack with an ak and purple genie costume. u had me till the purple genie costume... i ware a kilt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 10, 2007 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 A quote from the decision: We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a wellregulated militia—even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia—is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 Still have along battle ahead... Yeah, but the decision is pretty solid and the dissent is weak. Hopefully, this is the proverbial "genie out of the bottle" and we can get a favorable ruling from SCOTUS that will stand for a decade or two. I doubt it though, they'll probably deny cert. and avoid making such a controversial ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) Still have along battle ahead... A long battle? What are you talking about? Look at the number of states that are "shall issue" today as compared to 20 years ago. link For the most part, laws applying to handguns are getting more liberal. Stop reading that NRA newsletter. Edited March 11, 2007 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I'm sure all those who think everyone should have unfettered access to any and all guns also will stand up for the right of Iran and any sovereign country to obtain nuclear arms and whatever chemical or biological weapons they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 It's like I always say... if there's one thing DC needs, it's more handguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I'm sure all those who think everyone should have unfettered access to any and all guns also will stand up for the right of Iran and any sovereign country to obtain nuclear arms and whatever chemical or biological weapons they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) I'm sure all those who think everyone should have unfettered access to any and all guns also will stand up for the right of Iran and any sovereign country to obtain nuclear arms and whatever chemical or biological weapons we choose to drop on their scrawny asses. Edited March 11, 2007 by The Holy Roller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Logically consistent more than fishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I'm sure all those who think everyone should have unfettered access to any and all guns also will stand up for the right of Iran and any sovereign country to obtain nuclear arms and whatever chemical or biological weapons they choose. It's like I always say... if there's one thing DC needs, it's more handguns. I can't wait to buy a few uzis or maybe a bazooka to defend myself. Hey it's my "constitutional right" after all. Besides if you ban them then only the criminals will get them blah blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I can't wait to buy a few uzis or maybe a bazooka to defend myself. Hey it's my "constitutional right" after all. Besides if you ban them then only the criminals will get them blah blah No really... this will reduce crime. Just wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Logically consistent more than fishing. Consistent of his posting,yes. With anything to do with the actual topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 It's all just a part of W's plan to replace you with an illegal Mexican. Expand the constitution to include non-states and all of a sudden illegals have rights too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.