In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
I see this majority opinion by the SCOTUS as a veiled invitation for more cases. They want to rule in our favor. This judgment was written so broadly because it is the first of many. The court has not been asked to define the Second Amendment, like most others. It wasn't written to provide wiggle room, it was written to provide the broad outline, with details to filled in later with other cases.
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
And that is about all this case provides for us.
As the far left continues to abuse Second Amendment rights, it will further provide proof that we, the people, need to guard ourselves from an abusive heavy handed government. It will make future cases easier to win.
Read a little about Scalia. Listen to him when he does talk in public. He is a fascinate person. This is how he operates, and this is how the Scalia Court will continue to operate in the near future.
Scalia Court? Isn't Roberts Chief Justice? Scalia is running the show for now. [:D]
I doubt this is the case...they could have settled this matter once and for all, right here and now with this decision.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by jethro
I will have to agree with Saxon here. We didn't get to this level of restrictions with one law, and we will not get rid of them with one case. Incrementalism is how we lost our freedoms and it will be through incrementalism that we can get them back.
Mike
I would like to think you are right, but from everything I've read so far, it appears to me that the government's power and authority to restrict gun ownership has now been set in stone.
+1...and it makes my stomach sick...a day is coming...[:(]
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision. If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter. I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake. The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations. If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
I see this majority opinion by the SCOTUS as a veiled invitation for more cases. They want to rule in our favor. This judgment was written so broadly because it is the first of many. The court has not been asked to define the Second Amendment, like most others. It wasn't written to provide wiggle room, it was written to provide the broad outline, with details to filled in later with other cases.
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
And that is about all this case provides for us.
As the far left continues to abuse Second Amendment rights, it will further provide proof that we, the people, need to guard ourselves from an abusive heavy handed government. It will make future cases easier to win.
Read a little about Scalia. Listen to him when he does talk in public. He is a fascinate person. This is how he operates, and this is how the Scalia Court will continue to operate in the near future.
Scalia Court? Isn't Roberts Chief Justice? Scalia is running the show for now. [:D]
I doubt this is the case...they could have settled this matter once and for all, right here and now with this decision.
The way I understand it, when a majority opinion is written it is rewritten several times until all justices in the majority are in agreement. Consequently, compromises are made and the opinion gradually gets watered down until at least 5 justices reach that agreement and sign off on it. While you get 5 justices in agreement, the decision can get broadly worded.
Further court cases with slightly different circumstances will provide definition.
Scalia has given a few interviews where he says he does lead the lawyers on questioning to "help" him out to make the point he wants to hear. Maybe it's softball questions, but he does show a willingness and openness for his support. I think that is exactly what he is doing here.
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision.
It didn't, unless you consider more regulation, restrictions, crawling, and begging good.
If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter.
We did lose.
I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake.
1) We do not need the SCOTUS to affirm that it's an individual right; the Constitution does that for us, and it's pretty clear.
2) The SCOTUS did not rule that it is an individual right. A "right" is no right at all when accompanied by restrictions, regulations, or conditions.
The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
Our * were kicked because some of us believe the whole "common sense regulation" B.S. There is no common-sense regulation. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Period.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations.
It discourages me that so many people have been so quick and eager to accept what the SCOTUS did as "good", or as a "win", when in reality, all the goverment has done was get more of their boot in the door.
If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
If the founders were here, they would in all probability vomit over the naivety and apathy of the majority, and their willingness to accept what the goverment says/does.
If the founders were here, they would implore "the people" to get busy, and I am not talking about painting the house or taking out the trash. (Belay that; taking out the trash is a fitting analogy).
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
quote:
Originally posted by SaxonPig
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision.
It didn't, unless you consider more regulation, restrictions, crawling, and begging good.
If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter.
We did lose.
I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake.
1) We do not need the SCOTUS to affirm that it's an individual right; the Constitution does that for us, and it's pretty clear.
2) The SCOTUS did not rule that it is an individual right. A "right" is no right at all when accompanied by restrictions, regulations, or conditions.
The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
Our * were kicked because some of us believe the whole "common sense regulation" B.S. There is no common-sense regulation. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Period.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations.
It discourages me that so many people have been so quick and eager to accept what the SCOTUS did as "good", or as a "win", when in reality, all the goverment has done was get more of their boot in the door.
If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
If the founders were here, they would in all probability vomit over the naivety and apathy of the majority, and their willingness to accept what the goverment says/does.
If the founders were here, they would implore "the people" to get busy, and I am not talking about painting the house or taking out the trash. (Belay that; taking out the trash is a fitting analogy).
+1
If our founding fathers were here, they would not accept the company of MANY folks who frequent this board. They were real men who understood the gravity of such situations.
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million. [:(]
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million. [:(]
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
I'm completely convinced that some here are completely blind to the facts...either that, or they have not even bothered to read the decision and make informed decisions on the matter...They just believe whatever the media spoon feeds them.[V]
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
Why is it that many think the SC was going to wipe out all restrictions?
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by HunterMag:
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
My god I'm glad my attitude/outlook on things isn't that negative.
Maybe it's time for you to check out bud?
Why is it that many think the SC was going to wipe out all restrictions?
If they would've done the right thing, that is exactly what would've happened.
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
That's the spirit. Let's hope it doesn't happen in our lifetime. That way, we can leave the mess for our kids to deal with. Not no, but HELL NO. I would rather the inevitable come to pass sooner rather than later, so my kids and everyone else's will not have to deal with the mess, but live in freedom, and have more individual liberty than I did.
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Why is it that many think the SC was going to wipe out all restrictions?
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
You are still missing the point...SCOTUS enacted NEW restrictions with their decision...open your eyes. We did not have these restrictions BEFORE THEIR DECISION!
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
My god I'm glad my attitude/outlook on things isn't that negative.
Maybe it's time for you to check out bud?
I'll pray for you...
What you call being negative, I call being realistic. Being realistic means that you see through all the smoke, mirrors, and legal double-talk. There is one thing, and one thing only, that stands between us and tyranny; an unregulated right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Period. That's all. Do you think the reason tyranny hasn't occured yet is out of the goodness of our politician's hearts? Some people choose to believe that, but not only is that belief wrong, it's dangerous too. Some refute the need for the citizens' RTKBA with, "Well, this is 2008. Tyranny will not / could not occur here." How wrong they are. It has happened before, and in all likelihood, will be at least attempted again. We already have a government that believes they have absolute power when the Constitution clearly states that the power belongs to the people.
Wanna pray? Pray that our country will be restored to the Republic it was meant to be by our Founders.
"You are still missing the point...SCOTUS enacted NEW restrictions with their decision...open your eyes. We did not have these restrictions BEFORE THEIR DECISION!"
I'm sorry ECC, maybe I am just dumb, but what does this mean????
Yes we did have restrictions before the SC ruleing.........
THERE WAS A GUN BAN!!!!..... of ALL GUNS IN DC!!!!!! for over 32 YEARS!!!!!!! Now there is NOT!!!!
Now the Mayor can say he will not allow semi-auto's in, but can he do this w/o the votes/support of the people of DC? Can they not vote him out next election? Can the Mayors of our cities do whatever they please??? I think it is now up to the people of DC to protect thier rights and make some big changes. So how can we help them? And will they help themselves?
Also, last time I checked, a revolver will kill you just as dead as a semi-auto! Years ago, many carried revolvers, they took aim and hit thier targets. Not all this "spray and pray" crap we have now! When was the last time you heard of a police shooting that involved less than 50 rounds fired!
Paul.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
That's the spirit. Let's hope it doesn't happen in our lifetime. That way, we can leave the mess for our kids to deal with. Not no, but HELL NO. I would rather the inevitable come to pass sooner rather than later, so my kids and everyone else's will not have to deal with the mess, but live in freedom, and have more individual liberty than I did.
Well then why don't you write your congressman to eliminate the 2nd amendment since you'd rather see our rights/freedoms gone now.[xx(]
This crap is going no where fast. Have a good day.[;)]
What you call being negative, I call being realistic. Being realistic means that you see through all the smoke, mirrors, and legal double-talk. There is one thing, and one thing only, that stands between us and tyranny; an unregulated right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Period. That's all. Do you think the reason tyranny hasn't occured yet is out of the goodness of our politician's hearts? Some people choose to believe that, but not only is that belief wrong, it's dangerous too. Some refute the need for the citizens' RTKBA with, "Well, this is 2008. Tyranny will not / could not occur here." How wrong they are. It has happened before, and in all likelihood, will be at least attempted again. We already have a government that believes they have absolute power when the Constitution clearly states that the power belongs to the people.
Wanna pray? Pray that our country will be restored to the Republic it was meant to be by our Founders.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
OK wsfiredude, I'm with you. So lets remind the "Goverment" that we know the "Constitution clearly states that the power belongs to the people." What should we do first? I mean we can sit here and think of all the BAD things that can go wrong, but can we think of one thing we can do right now to make it better?
Could ALL of us here on GB forums write a petition and ALL sign it and send it in asking for........WHAT? How about the fact that I can go down to my friends house and trade or buy a gun from him/her, but if my friend lives across a State line we must go thru a FFL, pay for over night shipping, etc....
In my State, they wanted to make it harder to buy a gun at a GunShow, and they wanted to take the DUI level from .08 to .05.....
Both of these were VOTED down. So maybe instead of assumeing the "Goverment" will make more restrictions...... we need to get out there and tell the people around us to vote these laws down!
Like Larry Flint told us, you may not like his form of "ART", but it is still protected under the 1st Amendment.
And yes, (if you are a believer), David smote the giant! But not with a safe full of swords and spears locked up in his War Room. He did it with a sling and 3 little stones. But mostly with the faith and courage that God gave him to get up off his butt and face the Giant!
Now Heller has shown us that the Giant can be smote! Any body else care to hunt a lil GIANT?
Paul.
If the individual right to own a firearm was so clear, we would never have had a lawsuit. It was and is NOT that clear to four justices and whether you agree or not is irrelevant. What the court did was CODIFY the individual right, and for me that's enough for this case. There will be more.
Any society must have rules and laws, else we have anarchy. If we had that you would NOT be living in Idaho---we would have stopped you at the border. Not everyone should be allowed access to, not to mention wonership of, firearms. Some people simply are not fit. Those types must be specified by law and denied. Are you gonna let Hinckley have one? Your shrill cry of alarm says yes.
Concentrate your energy on getting a conservative into the Whitehouse so we can preserve what we have. Obama gets in, the next justice appointed will not be a Roberts or Scalia.
quote:Originally posted by odentheviking
"You are still missing the point...SCOTUS enacted NEW restrictions with their decision...open your eyes. We did not have these restrictions BEFORE THEIR DECISION!"
I'm sorry ECC, maybe I am just dumb, but what does this mean????
Yes we did have restrictions before the SC ruleing.........
THERE WAS A GUN BAN!!!!..... of ALL GUNS IN DC!!!!!! for over 32 YEARS!!!!!!! Now there is NOT!!!!
Now the Mayor can say he will not allow semi-auto's in, but can he do this w/o the votes/support of the people of DC? Can they not vote him out next election? Can the Mayors of our cities do whatever they please??? I think it is now up to the people of DC to protect thier rights and make some big changes. So how can we help them? And will they help themselves?
Also, last time I checked, a revolver will kill you just as dead as a semi-auto! Years ago, many carried revolvers, they took aim and hit thier targets. Not all this "spray and pray" crap we have now! When was the last time you heard of a police shooting that involved less than 50 rounds fired!
Paul.
This is untrue...the ban was and is Un-Constitutional...just like gun registration would be...or a ban on semi-autos...NOW, DUE TO THE SC's RULING, these things become Constitutional. There are 157 pages of new restrictions placed on firearm ownership that now carry as much weight as the Constitution itself...These are the facts that you are failing to see. Previous "laws and regulations" were un-Constitutional...New ones that fall under the guidelines of this ruling will not be.
This is untrue...the ban was and is Un-Constitutional...just like gun registration would be...or a ban on semi-autos...NOW, DUE TO THE SC's RULING, these things become Constitutional. There are 157 pages of new restrictions placed on firearm ownership that now carry as much weight as the Constitution itself...These are the facts that you are failing to see. Previous "laws and regulations" were un-Constitutional...New ones that fall under the guidelines of this ruling will not be.
OK, ECC let me see if I understand this..... like I said, maybe I am just dumb.....BUT
Just so I can understand, when you say "Constitutional" and "Un-Constitutional" are you stateing your opinion or some kind of case law? Because as I see it, the Ban in DC was NOT Un-Constitution until last week when the SC ruled that it WAS. And now it has been lifted.
Now I have not read all 157 pages of this case, but would someone please spell out these NEW "restrictions" that are so much worse than the original ban? And if the ban could be turned over after 32 years why will it be so much harder to turn any or all of these other restrictions? Now you have the SC standing behind you saying that this a right of the people.
So, if the Mayor of DC wants to ban semi-auto's because he says they are "Machine Guns", then this should be easy to break down. The BATF has very clear and detailed guidelines as to what is a semi-auto and what is a machine gun. And in thier eyes they are clearly not the same! Can someone tell us all, are the "new restrictions" for DC that much heavier than for the rest of our States, Cities, etc...?
It sounds to me that many here were hopeing the SC would just open up the gates and let the people of DC have any guns they wanted. Is this what you call "Constitutional"? The last time I read the Constitution it stated:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
[/quote]
They are criminals, they probably already have one.
In case you haven't noticed it's the people that FOLLOW the laws that are being denied their rights NOT the criminals. The criminals do what they want. THAT is why bans don't work.[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by guntech59
quote:Originally posted by odentheviking
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
They are criminals, they probably already have one.
In case you haven't noticed it's the people that FOLLOW the laws that are being denied their rights NOT the criminals. The criminals do what they want. THAT is why bans don't work.[:(!]
[/quote]
All very true above. However, if I get shot up by some long-term criminal, I would feel better about it if he did not purchase his gun legally down at the local hardware store. In addition, with or without a constitutional right to own guns, we gun people must still take the thoughts, feelings and fears of the great middle of the road group of citizens who do not own guns but generally don't mind if you and I have them. That means at least we must make an effort to make it illegal for known criminals to purchase guns. Yes, yes, I know they will still get their guns, but at least we can tell our fellow citizens that the guns weren't purchased legally. That alone could allow our fellow citizens to see a major difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners.
quote:All very true above. However, if I get shot up by some long-term criminal, I would feel better about it if he did not purchase his gun legally down at the local hardware store. In addition, with or without a constitutional right to own guns, we gun people must still take the thoughts, feelings and fears of the great middle of the road group of citizens who do not own guns but generally don't mind if you and I have them. That means at least we must make an effort to make it illegal for known criminals to purchase guns. Yes, yes, I know they will still get their guns, but at least we can tell our fellow citizens that the guns weren't purchased legally. That alone could allow our fellow citizens to see a major difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners.
And yet another classic example of Collectivism -vs- Individualism.
Such examples abound and I fully intend to point them out when I see them.[;)]
NEVER will we call for stringent punishment for misuse of weapons...ONLY draconian rules, regulations and laws directed towards decent citizens...
We are DETERMINED to ignore the main thrust of the Second Amendment ..the absolute need to conceal from the government Who, Where, and what Types of weapons possessed by citizens of a free country.
ok, i admit i know enough about american law and your constitution to be called ignorant or an idiot.
now that the scotus has made its ruling why not accept it for what it is?
now would be the time to get ready for the next round in court. the first step should be to find all the writings of the founders and make notes of everything that has survived and been said about the second amendement.
what is in the congresional library that was mentioned by washington? franklin? and all of the others? they all must have had their own views and opinions about why there was a need to have a second amendement.did washington say he wanted it included so everyone could go and shoot a deer to eat? did he say he wanted it so if there was ever a need the people would have the means to overthrow another dictatorial government who ignored the people? did he want it so everyone would be able to protect themselves from indian attacks? there must be something that proves why he thought it was important enough to have it included in your bill of rights!
the written proof of why they thought it was important enough to include it in your bill of rights must exist somewhere. do any letters survive that were written by them to constituants explaining why there was a need for it? any surviving interviews from old newspapers? any books written at the time that qoutes them?
all of those writings will go a long way to showing the spirit and intent of why it was included, therefore the courts of today would have no choice but to use those writings as precedent. it would defy logic if there was proof that it was included so the people would always be able to demand of their politicians that they obey the peoples views and the court ignored it!
start hunting for the proof of why you have a second amendement and take that to the supreme court to prove beyond doubt that you the citizen of the u.s. do have the legal, undeniable right to own guns if you want...for any legal reason that you want!
i dont recall reading anywhere that you could only own a flintlock rifle or pistol, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and please dont try to tell me that in your war of independance that the "rebels" wouldnt have used machine guns if they had access to them. they used the most modern weapons available at that time!
legally a firearm should be a firearm, not a single shot , not a semi auto, not a machine gun...they are all firearms, and they are all capable of doing the same things...putting a bullet or load of shot where it is intended to go.
should convicted felons be able to have guns? why not if they have served their sentence...if they cant be trusted to be a law abading member of society ever again keep them locked up or hang them to protect society from them, dont punish law abadeing people because of the failiure of parole boards...if a parole board lets someone out, make them accountable for it if that person breaks the law again. at the moment they answer to no-one when they let some piece of scum back into society, they just say"its not our fault he/she broke the law again"...its rubbish, it is their fault!
the answers to the next round in the supreme court have to be in the writings of the original people who wrote the second amendement and voted for it to be included...you have just got to dig for them and then shove them in the faces of the justices!!
good luck, i wish that we had half of the chances you have to maintain your rights..it sucks big time when you are told you only have priveleges!.
quote:Originally posted by dan kelly
ok, i admit i know enough about american law and your constitution to be called ignorant or an idiot.
now that the scotus has made its ruling why not accept it for what it is?
now would be the time to get ready for the next round in court. the first step should be to find all the writings of the founders and make notes of everything that has survived and been said about the second amendement.
what is in the congresional library that was mentioned by washington? franklin? and all of the others? they all must have had their own views and opinions about why there was a need to have a second amendement.did washington say he wanted it included so everyone could go and shoot a deer to eat? did he say he wanted it so if there was ever a need the people would have the means to overthrow another dictatorial government who ignored the people? did he want it so everyone would be able to protect themselves from indian attacks? there must be something that proves why he thought it was important enough to have it included in your bill of rights!
the written proof of why they thought it was important enough to include it in your bill of rights must exist somewhere. do any letters survive that were written by them to constituants explaining why there was a need for it? any surviving interviews from old newspapers? any books written at the time that qoutes them?
all of those writings will go a long way to showing the spirit and intent of why it was included, therefore the courts of today would have no choice but to use those writings as precedent. it would defy logic if there was proof that it was included so the people would always be able to demand of their politicians that they obey the peoples views and the court ignored it!
start hunting for the proof of why you have a second amendement and take that to the supreme court to prove beyond doubt that you the citizen of the u.s. do have the legal, undeniable right to own guns if you want...for any legal reason that you want!
i dont recall reading anywhere that you could only own a flintlock rifle or pistol, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and please dont try to tell me that in your war of independance that the "rebels" wouldnt have used machine guns if they had access to them. they used the most modern weapons available at that time!
legally a firearm should be a firearm, not a single shot , not a semi auto, not a machine gun...they are all firearms, and they are all capable of doing the same things...putting a bullet or load of shot where it is intended to go.
should convicted felons be able to have guns? why not if they have served their sentence...if they cant be trusted to be a law abading member of society ever again keep them locked up or hang them to protect society from them, dont punish law abadeing people because of the failiure of parole boards...if a parole board lets someone out, make them accountable for it if that person breaks the law again. at the moment they answer to no-one when they let some piece of scum back into society, they just say"its not our fault he/she broke the law again"...its rubbish, it is their fault!
the answers to the next round in the supreme court have to be in the writings of the original people who wrote the second amendement and voted for it to be included...you have just got to dig for them and then shove them in the faces of the justices!!
good luck, i wish that we had half of the chances you have to maintain your rights..it sucks big time when you are told you only have priveleges!.
dan kelly,
All the steps you suggest and the information you reference above is readily available and has been made available to the SCOTUS.
It is not arguable as to the meaning of Amendment II and it is certainly easily found and provable as to what the founders intended when they wrote and adopted the Constitution itself and later, the Bill of Rights.
The below link is to the "Amicus Briefs" filed in support of "Heller" in the recent SCOTUS case. Many of these briefs include such information and the SCOTUS Justices were fully aware of this and much, much more to support the meaning of Amendment II.
The SCOTUS is perfectly aware of the actual intent of Amendment II. Thye simply were not going to put the lie to Federal Gov't past and current actions AND nullify all the Federal and most of the State gun-laws in existence.
Thus, they ignored the prohibition on the Fed, found in Amendment II, which is for them to keep their damn dirty hands off of our RTKBA.
That linchpin phrase was skipped over as if it were meaningless, it is "shall not be infringed".
All other aspects of Amendment II were exhaustively researched and detailed historically.
"Shall not be infringed" was the only part of the amendment that was not detailed in the same manner and laid out for all to see.
Comments
I see this majority opinion by the SCOTUS as a veiled invitation for more cases. They want to rule in our favor. This judgment was written so broadly because it is the first of many. The court has not been asked to define the Second Amendment, like most others. It wasn't written to provide wiggle room, it was written to provide the broad outline, with details to filled in later with other cases.
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
And that is about all this case provides for us.
As the far left continues to abuse Second Amendment rights, it will further provide proof that we, the people, need to guard ourselves from an abusive heavy handed government. It will make future cases easier to win.
Read a little about Scalia. Listen to him when he does talk in public. He is a fascinate person. This is how he operates, and this is how the Scalia Court will continue to operate in the near future.
Scalia Court? Isn't Roberts Chief Justice? Scalia is running the show for now. [:D]
I doubt this is the case...they could have settled this matter once and for all, right here and now with this decision.
quote:Originally posted by jethro
I will have to agree with Saxon here. We didn't get to this level of restrictions with one law, and we will not get rid of them with one case. Incrementalism is how we lost our freedoms and it will be through incrementalism that we can get them back.
Mike
I would like to think you are right, but from everything I've read so far, it appears to me that the government's power and authority to restrict gun ownership has now been set in stone.
+1...and it makes my stomach sick...a day is coming...[:(]
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision. If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter. I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake. The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations. If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
I see this majority opinion by the SCOTUS as a veiled invitation for more cases. They want to rule in our favor. This judgment was written so broadly because it is the first of many. The court has not been asked to define the Second Amendment, like most others. It wasn't written to provide wiggle room, it was written to provide the broad outline, with details to filled in later with other cases.
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
And that is about all this case provides for us.
As the far left continues to abuse Second Amendment rights, it will further provide proof that we, the people, need to guard ourselves from an abusive heavy handed government. It will make future cases easier to win.
Read a little about Scalia. Listen to him when he does talk in public. He is a fascinate person. This is how he operates, and this is how the Scalia Court will continue to operate in the near future.
Scalia Court? Isn't Roberts Chief Justice? Scalia is running the show for now. [:D]
I doubt this is the case...they could have settled this matter once and for all, right here and now with this decision.
The way I understand it, when a majority opinion is written it is rewritten several times until all justices in the majority are in agreement. Consequently, compromises are made and the opinion gradually gets watered down until at least 5 justices reach that agreement and sign off on it. While you get 5 justices in agreement, the decision can get broadly worded.
Further court cases with slightly different circumstances will provide definition.
Scalia has given a few interviews where he says he does lead the lawyers on questioning to "help" him out to make the point he wants to hear. Maybe it's softball questions, but he does show a willingness and openness for his support. I think that is exactly what he is doing here.
quote:
Originally posted by SaxonPig
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision.
It didn't, unless you consider more regulation, restrictions, crawling, and begging good.
If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter.
We did lose.
I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake.
1) We do not need the SCOTUS to affirm that it's an individual right; the Constitution does that for us, and it's pretty clear.
2) The SCOTUS did not rule that it is an individual right. A "right" is no right at all when accompanied by restrictions, regulations, or conditions.
The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
Our * were kicked because some of us believe the whole "common sense regulation" B.S. There is no common-sense regulation. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Period.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations.
It discourages me that so many people have been so quick and eager to accept what the SCOTUS did as "good", or as a "win", when in reality, all the goverment has done was get more of their boot in the door.
If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
If the founders were here, they would in all probability vomit over the naivety and apathy of the majority, and their willingness to accept what the goverment says/does.
If the founders were here, they would implore "the people" to get busy, and I am not talking about painting the house or taking out the trash. (Belay that; taking out the trash is a fitting analogy).
originally posted by trfox:
quote:
Originally posted by SaxonPig
With every new law a challenge will have to be raised. This ruling will be beneficial in future cases as it does strike down a primary anti-gun argument (collective vs individual right) so there is good in the ruling. But it certainly doesn't invalidate every gun law and anyone who expected that it would is a fool.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Finally some common sense. Many gun owners here are acting like absolutely no good came out of the SC decision.
It didn't, unless you consider more regulation, restrictions, crawling, and begging good.
If we had lost I don't think those negative people could act any more bitter.
We did lose.
I mean Jeez S. Crist, the highest court in the land has ruled that ownership of firearms (and maybe other weapons) is an individual right for God's sake.
1) We do not need the SCOTUS to affirm that it's an individual right; the Constitution does that for us, and it's pretty clear.
2) The SCOTUS did not rule that it is an individual right. A "right" is no right at all when accompanied by restrictions, regulations, or conditions.
The doubt about that right in the past has been a large part of how the anti-gun people often kicked our azzes.
Our * were kicked because some of us believe the whole "common sense regulation" B.S. There is no common-sense regulation. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Period.
It discourages me that so many people are always so quick and eager to look at the bad side of any and all situations.
It discourages me that so many people have been so quick and eager to accept what the SCOTUS did as "good", or as a "win", when in reality, all the goverment has done was get more of their boot in the door.
If the founders of our country had had that attitude, they would have given up and we would not have our own country.
If the founders were here, they would in all probability vomit over the naivety and apathy of the majority, and their willingness to accept what the goverment says/does.
If the founders were here, they would implore "the people" to get busy, and I am not talking about painting the house or taking out the trash. (Belay that; taking out the trash is a fitting analogy).
+1
If our founding fathers were here, they would not accept the company of MANY folks who frequent this board. They were real men who understood the gravity of such situations.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million. [:(]
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
I'm completely convinced that some here are completely blind to the facts...either that, or they have not even bothered to read the decision and make informed decisions on the matter...They just believe whatever the media spoon feeds them.[V]
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
originally posted by HunterMag:
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
My god I'm glad my attitude/outlook on things isn't that negative.
Maybe it's time for you to check out bud?
I'll pray for you...
Why is it that many think the SC was going to wipe out all restrictions?
If they would've done the right thing, that is exactly what would've happened.
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
That's the spirit. Let's hope it doesn't happen in our lifetime. That way, we can leave the mess for our kids to deal with. Not no, but HELL NO. I would rather the inevitable come to pass sooner rather than later, so my kids and everyone else's will not have to deal with the mess, but live in freedom, and have more individual liberty than I did.
Why is it that many think the SC was going to wipe out all restrictions?
And worse yet(this saddens me greatly)there will always be resrtictions no matter how loudly we complain.
I'm still a firm believer that we are better off than having the SC vote in favor of banning guns.
Yes that day may come to pass but at least it's not today.
You are still missing the point...SCOTUS enacted NEW restrictions with their decision...open your eyes. We did not have these restrictions BEFORE THEIR DECISION!
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by HunterMag:
I'm completely convinced that some/most here would complain if given a million tax free dollars...because it wasn't 2 million.
1) The government/SCOTUS/ ect. didn't "give" us anything.
2) When the government does "give" something, there will always be strings attached. Always.
Would you rather have the SC vote in favor of the ban along with restrictions too.
They are one in the same. If you read the entire opinion, you will see the door has been opened for even broader restrictions than we have now.
Any yes, I almost wish the verdict had gone differently. As has been stated already, we would have seen which Americans love more; freedom or slavery. Sadly, I believe most would choose slavery.
My god I'm glad my attitude/outlook on things isn't that negative.
Maybe it's time for you to check out bud?
I'll pray for you...
What you call being negative, I call being realistic. Being realistic means that you see through all the smoke, mirrors, and legal double-talk. There is one thing, and one thing only, that stands between us and tyranny; an unregulated right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Period. That's all. Do you think the reason tyranny hasn't occured yet is out of the goodness of our politician's hearts? Some people choose to believe that, but not only is that belief wrong, it's dangerous too. Some refute the need for the citizens' RTKBA with, "Well, this is 2008. Tyranny will not / could not occur here." How wrong they are. It has happened before, and in all likelihood, will be at least attempted again. We already have a government that believes they have absolute power when the Constitution clearly states that the power belongs to the people.
Wanna pray? Pray that our country will be restored to the Republic it was meant to be by our Founders.
I'm sorry ECC, maybe I am just dumb, but what does this mean????
Yes we did have restrictions before the SC ruleing.........
THERE WAS A GUN BAN!!!!..... of ALL GUNS IN DC!!!!!! for over 32 YEARS!!!!!!! Now there is NOT!!!!
Now the Mayor can say he will not allow semi-auto's in, but can he do this w/o the votes/support of the people of DC? Can they not vote him out next election? Can the Mayors of our cities do whatever they please??? I think it is now up to the people of DC to protect thier rights and make some big changes. So how can we help them? And will they help themselves?
Also, last time I checked, a revolver will kill you just as dead as a semi-auto! Years ago, many carried revolvers, they took aim and hit thier targets. Not all this "spray and pray" crap we have now! When was the last time you heard of a police shooting that involved less than 50 rounds fired!
Paul.
That's the spirit. Let's hope it doesn't happen in our lifetime. That way, we can leave the mess for our kids to deal with. Not no, but HELL NO. I would rather the inevitable come to pass sooner rather than later, so my kids and everyone else's will not have to deal with the mess, but live in freedom, and have more individual liberty than I did.
Well then why don't you write your congressman to eliminate the 2nd amendment since you'd rather see our rights/freedoms gone now.[xx(]
This crap is going no where fast. Have a good day.[;)]
Wanna pray? Pray that our country will be restored to the Republic it was meant to be by our Founders.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
OK wsfiredude, I'm with you. So lets remind the "Goverment" that we know the "Constitution clearly states that the power belongs to the people." What should we do first? I mean we can sit here and think of all the BAD things that can go wrong, but can we think of one thing we can do right now to make it better?
Could ALL of us here on GB forums write a petition and ALL sign it and send it in asking for........WHAT? How about the fact that I can go down to my friends house and trade or buy a gun from him/her, but if my friend lives across a State line we must go thru a FFL, pay for over night shipping, etc....
In my State, they wanted to make it harder to buy a gun at a GunShow, and they wanted to take the DUI level from .08 to .05.....
Both of these were VOTED down. So maybe instead of assumeing the "Goverment" will make more restrictions...... we need to get out there and tell the people around us to vote these laws down!
Like Larry Flint told us, you may not like his form of "ART", but it is still protected under the 1st Amendment.
And yes, (if you are a believer), David smote the giant! But not with a safe full of swords and spears locked up in his War Room. He did it with a sling and 3 little stones. But mostly with the faith and courage that God gave him to get up off his butt and face the Giant!
Now Heller has shown us that the Giant can be smote! Any body else care to hunt a lil GIANT?
Paul.
If the individual right to own a firearm was so clear, we would never have had a lawsuit. It was and is NOT that clear to four justices and whether you agree or not is irrelevant. What the court did was CODIFY the individual right, and for me that's enough for this case. There will be more.
Any society must have rules and laws, else we have anarchy. If we had that you would NOT be living in Idaho---we would have stopped you at the border. Not everyone should be allowed access to, not to mention wonership of, firearms. Some people simply are not fit. Those types must be specified by law and denied. Are you gonna let Hinckley have one? Your shrill cry of alarm says yes.
Concentrate your energy on getting a conservative into the Whitehouse so we can preserve what we have. Obama gets in, the next justice appointed will not be a Roberts or Scalia.
Clouder..
"You are still missing the point...SCOTUS enacted NEW restrictions with their decision...open your eyes. We did not have these restrictions BEFORE THEIR DECISION!"
I'm sorry ECC, maybe I am just dumb, but what does this mean????
Yes we did have restrictions before the SC ruleing.........
THERE WAS A GUN BAN!!!!..... of ALL GUNS IN DC!!!!!! for over 32 YEARS!!!!!!! Now there is NOT!!!!
Now the Mayor can say he will not allow semi-auto's in, but can he do this w/o the votes/support of the people of DC? Can they not vote him out next election? Can the Mayors of our cities do whatever they please??? I think it is now up to the people of DC to protect thier rights and make some big changes. So how can we help them? And will they help themselves?
Also, last time I checked, a revolver will kill you just as dead as a semi-auto! Years ago, many carried revolvers, they took aim and hit thier targets. Not all this "spray and pray" crap we have now! When was the last time you heard of a police shooting that involved less than 50 rounds fired!
Paul.
This is untrue...the ban was and is Un-Constitutional...just like gun registration would be...or a ban on semi-autos...NOW, DUE TO THE SC's RULING, these things become Constitutional. There are 157 pages of new restrictions placed on firearm ownership that now carry as much weight as the Constitution itself...These are the facts that you are failing to see. Previous "laws and regulations" were un-Constitutional...New ones that fall under the guidelines of this ruling will not be.
This is untrue...the ban was and is Un-Constitutional...just like gun registration would be...or a ban on semi-autos...NOW, DUE TO THE SC's RULING, these things become Constitutional. There are 157 pages of new restrictions placed on firearm ownership that now carry as much weight as the Constitution itself...These are the facts that you are failing to see. Previous "laws and regulations" were un-Constitutional...New ones that fall under the guidelines of this ruling will not be.
OK, ECC let me see if I understand this..... like I said, maybe I am just dumb.....BUT
Just so I can understand, when you say "Constitutional" and "Un-Constitutional" are you stateing your opinion or some kind of case law? Because as I see it, the Ban in DC was NOT Un-Constitution until last week when the SC ruled that it WAS. And now it has been lifted.
Now I have not read all 157 pages of this case, but would someone please spell out these NEW "restrictions" that are so much worse than the original ban? And if the ban could be turned over after 32 years why will it be so much harder to turn any or all of these other restrictions? Now you have the SC standing behind you saying that this a right of the people.
So, if the Mayor of DC wants to ban semi-auto's because he says they are "Machine Guns", then this should be easy to break down. The BATF has very clear and detailed guidelines as to what is a semi-auto and what is a machine gun. And in thier eyes they are clearly not the same! Can someone tell us all, are the "new restrictions" for DC that much heavier than for the rest of our States, Cities, etc...?
It sounds to me that many here were hopeing the SC would just open up the gates and let the people of DC have any guns they wanted. Is this what you call "Constitutional"? The last time I read the Constitution it stated:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
[/quote]
They are criminals, they probably already have one.
In case you haven't noticed it's the people that FOLLOW the laws that are being denied their rights NOT the criminals. The criminals do what they want. THAT is why bans don't work.[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by odentheviking
So how would this work if you gave every crack head, drug dealer, pimp, and rapest in DC the right, over night, to buy a gun?
Paul.
They are criminals, they probably already have one.
In case you haven't noticed it's the people that FOLLOW the laws that are being denied their rights NOT the criminals. The criminals do what they want. THAT is why bans don't work.[:(!]
[/quote]
All very true above. However, if I get shot up by some long-term criminal, I would feel better about it if he did not purchase his gun legally down at the local hardware store. In addition, with or without a constitutional right to own guns, we gun people must still take the thoughts, feelings and fears of the great middle of the road group of citizens who do not own guns but generally don't mind if you and I have them. That means at least we must make an effort to make it illegal for known criminals to purchase guns. Yes, yes, I know they will still get their guns, but at least we can tell our fellow citizens that the guns weren't purchased legally. That alone could allow our fellow citizens to see a major difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners.
And yet another classic example of Collectivism -vs- Individualism.
Such examples abound and I fully intend to point them out when I see them.[;)]
I am a firm believer of putting the blame where it belongs.
Peoples behavior CANNOT be legislated.
NEVER will we call for stringent punishment for misuse of weapons...ONLY draconian rules, regulations and laws directed towards decent citizens...
We are DETERMINED to ignore the main thrust of the Second Amendment ..the absolute need to conceal from the government Who, Where, and what Types of weapons possessed by citizens of a free country.
At least.the New Americans are
now that the scotus has made its ruling why not accept it for what it is?
now would be the time to get ready for the next round in court. the first step should be to find all the writings of the founders and make notes of everything that has survived and been said about the second amendement.
what is in the congresional library that was mentioned by washington? franklin? and all of the others? they all must have had their own views and opinions about why there was a need to have a second amendement.did washington say he wanted it included so everyone could go and shoot a deer to eat? did he say he wanted it so if there was ever a need the people would have the means to overthrow another dictatorial government who ignored the people? did he want it so everyone would be able to protect themselves from indian attacks? there must be something that proves why he thought it was important enough to have it included in your bill of rights!
the written proof of why they thought it was important enough to include it in your bill of rights must exist somewhere. do any letters survive that were written by them to constituants explaining why there was a need for it? any surviving interviews from old newspapers? any books written at the time that qoutes them?
all of those writings will go a long way to showing the spirit and intent of why it was included, therefore the courts of today would have no choice but to use those writings as precedent. it would defy logic if there was proof that it was included so the people would always be able to demand of their politicians that they obey the peoples views and the court ignored it!
start hunting for the proof of why you have a second amendement and take that to the supreme court to prove beyond doubt that you the citizen of the u.s. do have the legal, undeniable right to own guns if you want...for any legal reason that you want!
i dont recall reading anywhere that you could only own a flintlock rifle or pistol, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and please dont try to tell me that in your war of independance that the "rebels" wouldnt have used machine guns if they had access to them. they used the most modern weapons available at that time!
legally a firearm should be a firearm, not a single shot , not a semi auto, not a machine gun...they are all firearms, and they are all capable of doing the same things...putting a bullet or load of shot where it is intended to go.
should convicted felons be able to have guns? why not if they have served their sentence...if they cant be trusted to be a law abading member of society ever again keep them locked up or hang them to protect society from them, dont punish law abadeing people because of the failiure of parole boards...if a parole board lets someone out, make them accountable for it if that person breaks the law again. at the moment they answer to no-one when they let some piece of scum back into society, they just say"its not our fault he/she broke the law again"...its rubbish, it is their fault!
the answers to the next round in the supreme court have to be in the writings of the original people who wrote the second amendement and voted for it to be included...you have just got to dig for them and then shove them in the faces of the justices!!
good luck, i wish that we had half of the chances you have to maintain your rights..it sucks big time when you are told you only have priveleges!.
ok, i admit i know enough about american law and your constitution to be called ignorant or an idiot.
now that the scotus has made its ruling why not accept it for what it is?
now would be the time to get ready for the next round in court. the first step should be to find all the writings of the founders and make notes of everything that has survived and been said about the second amendement.
what is in the congresional library that was mentioned by washington? franklin? and all of the others? they all must have had their own views and opinions about why there was a need to have a second amendement.did washington say he wanted it included so everyone could go and shoot a deer to eat? did he say he wanted it so if there was ever a need the people would have the means to overthrow another dictatorial government who ignored the people? did he want it so everyone would be able to protect themselves from indian attacks? there must be something that proves why he thought it was important enough to have it included in your bill of rights!
the written proof of why they thought it was important enough to include it in your bill of rights must exist somewhere. do any letters survive that were written by them to constituants explaining why there was a need for it? any surviving interviews from old newspapers? any books written at the time that qoutes them?
all of those writings will go a long way to showing the spirit and intent of why it was included, therefore the courts of today would have no choice but to use those writings as precedent. it would defy logic if there was proof that it was included so the people would always be able to demand of their politicians that they obey the peoples views and the court ignored it!
start hunting for the proof of why you have a second amendement and take that to the supreme court to prove beyond doubt that you the citizen of the u.s. do have the legal, undeniable right to own guns if you want...for any legal reason that you want!
i dont recall reading anywhere that you could only own a flintlock rifle or pistol, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and please dont try to tell me that in your war of independance that the "rebels" wouldnt have used machine guns if they had access to them. they used the most modern weapons available at that time!
legally a firearm should be a firearm, not a single shot , not a semi auto, not a machine gun...they are all firearms, and they are all capable of doing the same things...putting a bullet or load of shot where it is intended to go.
should convicted felons be able to have guns? why not if they have served their sentence...if they cant be trusted to be a law abading member of society ever again keep them locked up or hang them to protect society from them, dont punish law abadeing people because of the failiure of parole boards...if a parole board lets someone out, make them accountable for it if that person breaks the law again. at the moment they answer to no-one when they let some piece of scum back into society, they just say"its not our fault he/she broke the law again"...its rubbish, it is their fault!
the answers to the next round in the supreme court have to be in the writings of the original people who wrote the second amendement and voted for it to be included...you have just got to dig for them and then shove them in the faces of the justices!!
good luck, i wish that we had half of the chances you have to maintain your rights..it sucks big time when you are told you only have priveleges!.
dan kelly,
All the steps you suggest and the information you reference above is readily available and has been made available to the SCOTUS.
It is not arguable as to the meaning of Amendment II and it is certainly easily found and provable as to what the founders intended when they wrote and adopted the Constitution itself and later, the Bill of Rights.
The below link is to the "Amicus Briefs" filed in support of "Heller" in the recent SCOTUS case. Many of these briefs include such information and the SCOTUS Justices were fully aware of this and much, much more to support the meaning of Amendment II.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
The SCOTUS is perfectly aware of the actual intent of Amendment II. Thye simply were not going to put the lie to Federal Gov't past and current actions AND nullify all the Federal and most of the State gun-laws in existence.
Thus, they ignored the prohibition on the Fed, found in Amendment II, which is for them to keep their damn dirty hands off of our RTKBA.
That linchpin phrase was skipped over as if it were meaningless, it is "shall not be infringed".
All other aspects of Amendment II were exhaustively researched and detailed historically.
"Shall not be infringed" was the only part of the amendment that was not detailed in the same manner and laid out for all to see.
Go figure...