Second Amendment -- Say goodbye to your guns?

[Gilding the Lily]

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.â€￾

Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling.

In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

This may put an end to the debate that often appears on this board.


Supremes agree to hear gun case

 

[Garfield1966]

There are 5 right wing activist judges and 4 left wing activist judges. Your guns are perfectly safe. Worst case scenario even if the SC banned all private fire arms, Congress would amend the Constitution in a NY second. They have no interest in being unemployed or being hanged from a tree limb. If anything, they will liberalize the rights already in place,

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Despite the conservative bend of the Court, I think they will reverse the lower court and find that there are not any strict protections for particular categories of firearms (such as handguns). But I would be very surprised if they went so far as to say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any individual right whatsoever.

We know atleast where Roberts stands on part of this issue... he made it clear during the nomination process.

 

[delldude]

The definition resides in a "well regulated militia".

However they too have to consider the populace having to protect themselves from tyranny

from the government.No guns...no protection from tyrannical government types

like fat ted and big nance.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The definition resides in a "well regulated militia".

However they too have to consider the populace having to protect themselves from tyranny

from the government.No guns...no protection from tyrannical government types

like fat ted and big nance.

Yeah... I think we both touched upon this in another thread once. The protection from tyranny is one of the duties of the "well regulated militia." And the right to weapons for the militia is one way that it should be able to meet that goal.

Unfortunately, as we both have noticed... it would be difficult for a militia, in today's age, to protect us citizens from tyranny because the "state" militia is heavily influenced -- if not outright controlled -- by the federal government.

That is an issue that should be dealt with outright, instead of side-stepping it and using that as a backdoor attempt to judicially edit the constitution to include a private right to all arms. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Now, just because the government can regulate arms.... that doesn't mean that they always should. I don't see why farmer Joe in Texas cannot have his rifle.

 

[KCFlyer]

The definition resides in a "well regulated militia".

However they too have to consider the populace having to protect themselves from tyranny

from the government.No guns...no protection from tyrannical government types

like fat ted and big nance.

I currently don't own a gun, but I feel a bigger threat of tyranny from big Dick and little Bush.

 

[Veritas]

We now have a near majority on the court who looks for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution when interpreting it. Today's firearms are considerably more powerful than any which were known at the time that the second amendment was adopted. Shall we say that the people's right to bear muzzle-loading muskets cannot be infringed? If not, why not guarantee everyone the right to bear chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons? After all, if the reason for the amendment is to ensure that the people retain the power to oppose an oppressive government, surely even modern firearms are insufficient against today's military.

 

[delldude]

I currently don't own a gun, but I feel a bigger threat of tyranny from big Dick and little Bush.

I should have played the lottery tonite..I just knew you'd chime in here with that type of post.

BTW hows your Iranian knowledge these days?

 

[delldude]

We now have a near majority on the court who looks for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution when interpreting it. Today's firearms are considerably more powerful than any which were known at the time that the second amendment was adopted. Shall we say that the people's right to bear muzzle-loading muskets cannot be infringed? If not, why not guarantee everyone the right to bear chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons? After all, if the reason for the amendment is to ensure that the people retain the power to oppose an oppressive government, surely even modern firearms are insufficient against today's military.

I oddly find myself in agreement here........dog.

Gotcha....ah ha ha...

thanks for playing..... :mf_boff:

 

[Garfield1966]

Just as the Constitution does not protect a person who yells fire in a theater, it does not allow the unlimited or unfettered ownership of weapons.

As Lilly pointed out in another thread I believe, the Const does not address individual rights. While the Military may advertise a "Army of One" it does not appear that this was the intent of the framers.

Never fear. The NRA has bought their politicians fair and square and given the 5-4 majority of the conservative activist judges, weapon ownership will not be jeopardized.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

OH dear GOD, I must be losing my mind !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having said that, .........lil' ol' LIBERAL ME, is CHANGING his stance on Gun Control

YES................what you've read is not a misprint .

All the GC in the world, is NOT going to stop some skin head, or homie, from "carrying", especially in the Cities !!

(I think local "12" proud is starting to rub off on me) :unsure:

 

[delta777]

I currently don't own a gun, but I feel a bigger threat of tyranny from big Dick and little Bush.

LOL!!!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

As Lilly pointed out in another thread I believe, the Const does not address individual rights. While the Military may advertise a "Army of One" it does not appear that this was the intent of the framers.

To clarify... the Constitution does protect certain individual rights (it was not one of the major premises though). However, most Constitutional scholars -- in which I am in agreement -- support the intepretation that the second amendment does not provide an absolute individual right to bear arms.

Even the makeup of the current court (which I am a fan of), while inclined to give an individual right interpretation, will still make that right limited in some fashion. I think the question is how far will the government limit that right? I don't think anyone on One First Street really thinks that the Court will either completely give the right, or completely take that right away.

 

[KCFlyer]

I should have played the lottery tonite..I just knew you'd chime in here with that type of post.

BTW hows your Iranian knowledge these days?

Hmmm Iran says they want to blow Israel off the map. Big dick and little bush say they want to blow tehran off the map. Could someone explain the difference to me? Because they both sound like rantings of madmen.

So that I'm clear...big dick and little bush is "that type of post"...but fat ted and big nance is used only in the most respectful way?

 

[wnbubbleboy]

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions

Samuel Adams