> Very weird firearms decision from the SC

You gunna go burn some shyt down?

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Their idea that gun laws have to reflect the situation at the founding of the country makes me think that some state should ban all weapon designs after 1789.

Should we ban TV news and the internet too? 

You are a real simpleton.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

As far as I know, those aren't weapons.

No but weapons are specifically mentioned in the constitution.   So are freedom of speech and press.  They did not restrict those freedoms to the methods of the times, and it is curious that you are unable to understand that.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Many times I get the argument, whether I agree with it or not, but this one is just strange.

It reaffirms what is cleary written in the constitution.   Nothing strange about it at all.

wrote:

No but weapons are specifically mentioned in the constitution.   So are freedom of speech and press.  They did not restrict those freedoms to the methods of the times, and it is curious that you are unable to understand that.

Apples and oranges.

Each amendment is litigated separately.


Anyway, its time to make a balanced view of firearm regulation a prerequisite for getting nominated for federal judgeship, just like what was done with abortion.

We can go back to the 2nd as it was interpreted for over 150 years as a collective right.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Apples and oranges.

Each amendment is litigated separately.


Anyway, its time to make a balanced view of firearm regulation a prerequisite for getting nominated for federal judgeship, just like what was done with abortion.

We can go back to the 2nd as it was interpreted for over 150 years as a collective right.

No such thing as collective rights. Collectives have power.

Oh and fuq you pussy, buy a gun and be a man for once in your life.

GroomerAU wrote:

No such thing as collective rights. Collectives have power.

Oh and fuq you pussy, buy a gun and be a man for once in your life.

Rights belong to the individual.  Full stop.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 … OrvAwpDQHA


TRIGGERED!

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Anyway, its time to make a balanced view of firearm regulation a prerequisite for getting nominated for federal judgeship, just like what was done with abortion.

No.  It is not a judge's job to lord over us.  Their job is to simply interpret the Constitution and the laws that are written and duly passed.

GroomerAU wrote:

No such thing as collective rights. Collectives have power.

Oh and fuq you pussy, buy a gun and be a man for once in your life.

Before Heller, 2nd amendment was considered a collective right.

Its the right of the state to organize a militia, and determine what equipment is required.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Before Heller, 2nd amendment was considered a collective right.

Its the right of the state to organize a militia, and determine what equipment is required.

Ummm, no.   It has always been an individual right.

wrote:

Ummm, no.   It has always been an individual right.

Until Heller -- which is a very recent decision -- the courts disagreed.


Do you know why the courts now agree? Because there was considerable effort to only nominate judges that believed in what was at the time a fringe belief.

Its time for the liberals to learn from the conservatives. From now on, only appoint judges that understand how to balance rights with public safety.

Because, if you don't have public safety, guns won't help.