• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Woah, I was confused, You did that as I clicked on the other one and thought that posters were double posting.... Even me.... :shock:
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. You are as senile as the rest of us. LOL. :mrgreen:
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
What is there to say? There's finally a majority on the court that can read plain English words and decipher their meanings.
Click to expand...
The big problem is that alot of people want to interpret plain english to mean what it clearly doesn't because they do not like the outcome.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
What is there to say? There's finally a majority on the court that can read plain English words and decipher their meanings.
Click to expand...
Specifically noted is the repeated statement that the RKBA is a "fundamentral" right to our society.
 
Goobieman said:
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

More to follow as the decision is posted.
Click to expand...

I don't like how that article is written. The SCOTUS once again recognized the right of the individual to keep and bear arms making it illegal State laws which infringe upon such a right. But I bet ol' Mayor McBribe-and-steal isn't too happy about this. ****ing twit. If the elections weren't rigged, maybe someone other than Daley could be mayor
 
Liberals? Hello?

*crickets*

Hmmm, I guess they agree with the opinion. :shrug:
 
American said:
Liberals? Hello?

*crickets*

Hmmm, I guess they agree with the opinion. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I am somewhere between agreeing with it and not really caring. Probably mostly leaning towards not caring, honestly.
 
megaprogman said:
I am somewhere between agreeing with it and not really caring. Probably mostly leaning towards not caring, honestly.
Click to expand...
What would you think of it if it were 5-4 the other way?
 
Goobieman said:
What would you think of it if it were 5-4 the other way?
Click to expand...

I would disagree, but still mostly not care. I am generally supportive of gun rights, but its a very small issue with me as it has 0 impact on my lifestyle.
 
Goobieman said:
What would you think of it if it were 5-4 the other way?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting, however I think it would be difficult to for any Supreme Court to rule that it is not an individual right. Legislating from the bench is one thing, overturning 200+ years of interpretation AND the amendment itself, is another.
 
Goobieman said:
What would you think of it if it were 5-4 the other way?
Click to expand...

It nearly was. Thats why its so scary to even consider liberals on the bench. They don't care what the law says. They want to enact social justice in their own image.
 
American said:
It would be interesting, however I think it would be difficult to for any Supreme Court to rule that it is not an individual right. Legislating from the bench is one thing, overturning 200+ years of interpretation AND the amendment itself, is another.
Click to expand...

I don't think its as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, but OK.
 
megaprogman said:
I would disagree, but still mostly not care. I am generally supportive of gun rights, but its a very small issue with me as it has 0 impact on my lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Point to ponder Mega. and one I had to explain in a less tactful way during my college years.

If you consider the second amendment to be less of a primary right than the first imagine not being able to speak your mind because a fellow citizen doesn't like what you have to say, so he puts a gun in your face telling you to be silent.........while you have the right to speak on paper you most probably wouldn't feel free to exercise that right. Imagine now that this same citizen knows you also may be equally or adequately armed and can fight back, he still does not like what you have to say but doesn't feel as safe in violating your rights so he chooses to let you speak freely out of fear for his own safety.
Now, let's say no citizen is allowed to own arms but the government is........and they don't like what you have to say.........and have no problem pointing every one they have at you and demanding your immediate and continued silence, at this point your first amendment right exists only on paper as did your second amendment right, and all of the others are now interpretable at the whim of those with the power to silence and control by force.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Point to ponder Mega. and one I had to explain in a less tactful way during my college years.

If you consider the second amendment to be less of a primary right than the first imagine not being able to speak your mind because a fellow citizen doesn't like what you have to say, so he puts a gun in your face telling you to be silent.........while you have the right to speak on paper you most probably wouldn't feel free to exercise that right. Imagine now that this same citizen knows you also may be equally or adequately armed and can fight back, he still does not like what you have to say but doesn't feel as safe in violating your rights so he chooses to let you speak freely out of fear for his own safety.
Now, let's say no citizen is allowed to own arms but the government is........and they don't like what you have to say.........and have no problem pointing every one they have at you and demanding your immediate and continued silence, at this point your first amendment right exists only on paper as did your second amendment right, and all of the others are now interpretable at the whim of those with the power to silence and control by force.
Click to expand...

That's actually one of the reasons I am supportive of gun rights. However, and perhaps to my detriment, I have no desire to own one. So the personal practical effect if your scenerio is nil. Also, as a matter of practicality, there are many, many people who are extremely supportive of gun rights and I only have so much time and resources. I prefer to pick my battles and let those guys who care more take up the fight while I focus more on causes that I care more about.

Also, I do not think our country is doing to become a despotism any time soon, or likely in my son's lifetime. So, I am not too worried about this what-if. To be fair, I think this is because I have a different concept of what rights are than most conservatives do and I don't see most changes in laws as a threat to my person, unless they directly affect me and my every-day life. I tend to be more practical and less theoretical when it comes to rights and that sort of stuff.
 
Last edited:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

- James Madison

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

- Alexander Hamilton

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine

"The great object is, that every man be armed."

- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

- George Mason

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
Click to expand...

The Founders obviously and explicitly considered personal arms as a right of each citizen.
 
American said:
The Founders obviously and explicitly considered personal arms as a right of each citizen.
Click to expand...

Given their circumstances at the time, I am quite sure that they did. However, given that there are multiple schools of constitutional interpretation, the thought of the founders may or may not apply to the various forms of reasoning and views about the second amendment.

But anyway, this is a rehash of all the arguments about the constitution that are in threads all over this forum. I see no real benefit in going over them yet again, so I am going to go ahead and bow out.
 
I think without the 2nd amendment it would be hard to protect the 1st amendment. At least it was back when they were penned. Not so much true anymore because the police/military are much to powerful for even armed civilians to confront.

We are winning battles and still loosing the war.
 
megaprogman said:
That's actually one of the reasons I am supportive of gun rights. However, and perhaps to my detriment, I have no desire to own one. So the personal practical effect if your scenerio is nil. Also, as a matter of practicality, there are many, many people who are extremely supportive of gun rights and I only have so much time and resources. I prefer to pick my battles and let those guys who care more take up the fight while I focus more on causes that I care more about.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that stance, part of the right to bear is the right to choose not to. I also believe that the right to bear comes with the responsibility to protect when necessary, so people who choose not to have that luxury in their stance which I also have no problem with. I will protect anyone in trouble using my second if that ever becomes an issue, except for those who would take that right away from me by fiat, I would leave them to their own devices.

Also, I do not think our country is doing to become a despotism any time soon, or likely in my son's lifetime. So, I am not too worried about this what-if. To be fair, I think this is because I have a different concept of what rights are than most conservatives do and I don't see most changes in laws as a threat to my person, unless they directly affect me and my every-day life. I tend to be more practical and less theoretical when it comes to rights and that sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
Obviously I hope you are correct, however we cannot forget that historically despotic and other tyrannical governments had a very quick ascention to power and almost always started from a complacent public. That means we all must be vigilant to protect what we enjoy as America and requires us to ask questions about any laws proposed constantly.
 
Goobieman said:
What would you think of it if it were 5-4 the other way?
Click to expand...

I'm a liberal and I agree with this decision so....

I think the idea that liberals are rabid anti-gun types is inaccurate.
 
megaprogman said:
Given their circumstances at the time, I am quite sure that they did. However, given that there are multiple schools of constitutional interpretation, the thought of the founders may or may not apply to the various forms of reasoning and views about the second amendment.

But anyway, this is a rehash of all the arguments about the constitution that are in threads all over this forum. I see no real benefit in going over them yet again, so I am going to go ahead and bow out.
Click to expand...
You're right, not point in discussing what the Founders obviously said, which leaves little to interpret. Don't think they didn't know their words wouldn't be dissected by posterity.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I have no problem with that stance, part of the right to bear is the right to choose not to. I also believe that the right to bear comes with the responsibility to protect when necessary, so people who choose not to have that luxury in their stance which I also have no problem with. I will protect anyone in trouble using my second if that ever becomes an issue, except for those who would take that right away from me by fiat, I would leave them to their own devices.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I have never been in a position where my life was threatened by a deadly weapon. I will reserve the right to change this opinion if circumstances change.

LaMidRighter said:
Obviously I hope you are correct, however we cannot forget that historically despotic and other tyrannical governments had a very quick ascention to power and almost always started from a complacent public. That means we all must be vigilant to protect what we enjoy as America and requires us to ask questions about any laws proposed constantly.
Click to expand...

I hope I am correct too, but I see the US Government as a very robust entity, not easily changed. Especially the military, given its tradition and culture.
 
American said:
You're right, not point in discussing what the Founders obviously said, which leaves little to interpret. Don't think they didn't know their words wouldn't be dissected by posterity.
Click to expand...

One of the things that I always find interesting about conservatives in their view of the constitution is that they feel that their views are the only relevent ones. It always seems to be a matter of "this interpretation is obvious to me, so its right" without any real discussion of the merits and relevence of each type of interpretation. Its almost as if they feel their view is the default position and everything else is a blatent and obvious lie. Personally, I think its tunnel vision on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I'm a liberal and I agree with this decision so....

I think the idea that liberals are rabid anti-gun types is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Of course, not EVERY liberal is anti-gun - but in general, they are, and as a whole, the anti-gun side is populated by liberals.
 
megaprogman said:
One of the things that I always find interesting about conservatives in their view of the constitution is that they feel that their views are the only relevent ones. It always seems to be a matter of "this interpretation is obvious to me, so its right" without any real discussion of the merits and relevence of each type of interpretation. Its almost as if they feel their view is the default position and everything else is a blatent and obvious lie. Personally, I think its tunnel vision on the matter.
Click to expand...
One of the things I always find interesting about liberals in their view of the constitution is that they feel that their views are the only relevent ones...
 
Goobieman said:
One of the things I always find interesting about liberals in their view of the constitution is that they feel that their views are the only relevent ones...
Click to expand...

Actually, I am quite comfortable with multiple competing views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom