The Supreme Court makes me nervous on gun issues. The Heller decision was WAY too close than what educated people with a knowledge of american history should have voted for. I was shocked when I heard how close Heller was, and I wouldn't be shocked if this went either way.
USA TODAY: Supremes to define reach of gun laws
- Thread starter searcher451
- Start date
- Status
Gouranga
Member
Which is very frustrating. The actual text says "The right of the PEOPLE..". It is a individual right. They made is pretty clear as to whether it is an individual right or not. Looking at some of the discussion around the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It is absolutely clear, what they intended was far more than personal protection.
Every monarchy in Europe made sure their citizens were disarmed and at the mercy of the governments standing army. The first thing the British tried to do during the revolutionary war was disarm the populace. An armed populace (well regulated meaning well armed) is there to serve as a protective force for the entire nation from a tyrannical government. Whether federal or state government makes no difference. That is why it was put in there.
What is frustrating is folks look at that entire concept as treasonous when in fact it is the opposite. It call on citizens to protect and keep the Constitution and the nation intact in the extreme event that the nations government begins to behave like the British monarchy was at the time.
I know it is pretty much preaching to the choir on here but I have been spending way too much time chatting on new board with folks using 2010 context to analyze vocabulary and history from the 1770's to determine the framers intent.
I am extremely nervous about this case, it could really push us forward or back. I can see an cascade of cases to challenge other state laws or a wave or new state laws blocking gun ownership depending on the outcome.
SSN Vet
Member
But how can this be???
When according to so many around here, the NRA is a sell out organization that doesn't do a darn thing to help secure our second ammendment rights.
Perhaps the NRA is wiser than many give them credit, in that they have seen the forrest through the trees... choosing to selectively pick their battles with a keen aim at winning the war.
Heller and McDonald are thee biggies. A win here is a landmark victory for the cause.
I read a lot of folks bash the NRA because they didn't jump in to help Calvary Arms (and I myself felt that they should have at the time) but now that the facts are coming out, it certainly appears that Calvary Arms brought their troubles upon themself, by knowingly breaking the law.
Perhaps there are a few x-sailors at the NRA who realize that you don't want to tie up alongside what you know to be a sinking ship.
I think we all have a debt of gratitude to the NRA and that we can form and support other organizations to address other issues if we think the NRA isn't addressing every issue out there.
larrupin
Member
SSN VET said "I think we all have a debt of gratitude to the NRA and that we can form and support other organizations to address other issues if we think the NRA isn't addressing every issue out there."
+1
Probably none of us like everything the NRA has done but when you stand back and look at the whole of their efforts and accomplishments it is impressive. Just look at how far CCW has come in the last few years.
I am old enough to vividly remember the national newscasts saying they would be watching for the horrendous effects when FL passed thier concealed carry law, sure was quiet from them after nothing happened.
Some really good comments on this post and I hope and pray that we continue to win "back" the right we already have.
God Bless,
Larrupin
+1
Probably none of us like everything the NRA has done but when you stand back and look at the whole of their efforts and accomplishments it is impressive. Just look at how far CCW has come in the last few years.
I am old enough to vividly remember the national newscasts saying they would be watching for the horrendous effects when FL passed thier concealed carry law, sure was quiet from them after nothing happened.
Some really good comments on this post and I hope and pray that we continue to win "back" the right we already have.
God Bless,
Larrupin
"...states and cities should be able to decide for their own jurisdictions how to reduce crime and also prevent accidental injuries caused by firearms."
That line. That's the one that really set me off. The government wants to protect us from ourselves.
Not much of a stretch to imagine that rationale being extended to just about any article in your household. Let's ban anything with a blade, you might cut yourself. Barbecue lighter fluid, you could get burned. Step ladders too, you might fall. The antis are throwing every specious argument they can think of up against the wall hoping something will stick.
That line. That's the one that really set me off. The government wants to protect us from ourselves.
Not much of a stretch to imagine that rationale being extended to just about any article in your household. Let's ban anything with a blade, you might cut yourself. Barbecue lighter fluid, you could get burned. Step ladders too, you might fall. The antis are throwing every specious argument they can think of up against the wall hoping something will stick.
Deanimator
Member
...while of course renouncing all legal responsibility for protecting any individual from a third party.
"We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
No your missunderstand. (also off topic but the SCOTUS just ruled the corperations have rights to, but thats for another thread)
One school of thought is that the 2nd ammendment refered to the states rights to raise and keep millitias. As a result the individual would need to be able to bear arms of a military nature, since back than hunting rifles were simply a given. I always love how the lefties argue that military weapons should be banned and hunting rifles are OK, really its the other way around if you follow this argument. Hunting rifles are not protected.
The Supreme court in older cases thought along these lines. I forget the case off the top of my head, but it was about an individuals right to own a sawed off shotgun. The court came down against it because a sawed off shotgun has no military value and is not in use with the armed services. They rulled that weapons that are not of a "like kind" to contemporary military rifles are not protected. So your AR15 or Ak47 would be protected, your .22LR would not be.
Personaly I come down on the states rights argument because I think that was closer to what the founding fathers intended the 2nd ammendment to be used for. It wasn't to protect the lone guys rights to own a Glock 17 and carry it in federal parks, or even to defend himself in a crappy area of Chicago; it was ment to protect a lot of citizens rights to own military type weapons and form militias. The 2nd ammendment was designed as an enforcement tool for the other ammendments if voting failed. You have to understand the thinking of the time, and if you read the memoirs of the people alive than it becomes quite clear. They really viewed the US as something like the Europeans viewed the EU oh probably 15 years ago. If you were from CT you hated people from NY that was another country, and people from Virginia?! So they were very concerned with the rights of the states, more so than their collective rights. Its very similer to say France or Germany not wanting to yeild power to the EU.
A lot of people didn't know where these new "United States" thing was going so they wanted their own states to maintain a lot of power so they could pull out of the contract using military force if needed. This school of thought lasted until the Civil War when Lincoln enforced the contract. I find it fascinating because if you look at this country up until WW2 we always kept a VERY small and underfunded military, because of the commen distrust for the government. Just recently after WW2 have we gotten into this military industrial complex thing and love a massive standing force. But thats a very recent development in this country.
Its really quite interesting, the cases are online I recomend skimming through them.
Last edited:
Buck Snort
Member
General Geof sed: "States do not have rights; they have powers." Isen't there something in the Constitution to the effect of rights reserved to the states? Or does it say "powers"?
jmortimer
Member
It will go down 5 to 4 with Justice Kennedy deciding everything. If president @$%$#@ gets one more justice on the court to replace one of the four "good" Justices we are toast - even with all the "10th Amendment" good news on the States' "Powers" front.
can't they use the 14th amendment to strike this down, like they used it for segregation?aren't states powers SECONDARY to federal law, and constitutional rights?
I thought we already had a war over this 150 years ago? what makes a chi town man different than a gary indiana man?
I thought we already had a war over this 150 years ago? what makes a chi town man different than a gary indiana man?
Deanimator
Member
If I had a nickel for every time I heard an anti-gunner who supposedly believed in "equality", call for different constitutional rights in different places, I'd be able to buy a water cooled .50 and all of the accessories with change.
yep, exactly. hope this goes our way, mb we can get rid of the retarded awb in ny. who knows, mb even make it easier to buy pistols in ny. I just moved here, i cant bring mine over because i dont have 4 friends to confirm my " good moral character" to the county sheriff...
- Status
Similar threads
