> Very weird firearms decision from the SC

wrote:

And if he wants to be an originalist and only allow muskets then we'll only allow white people to vote.

Seems like a fair trade to me.

White male land owners.

Diarrhetrius Brown wrote:

I understand.

Very hard to understand what it says.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If only we had gun laws like Mexico we wouldn't have a gun problem, right?

Not hard. It says the citizens can maintain military readiness (by keeping proper equipment) in an era when there was no standing army.

Since the states control who is in the militia, they can always limit it.

As for gun laws, how about Australia? After a mass shooting there, they passed sensible laws, and in fact many people voluntarily handed in their weapons.

The fact is, gun control has worked very well in places where it has been tried.

wrote:

The bill of rights was there long before Heller and it has always had the same meaning.

Then why did courts interpret it differently for over 200 years?

Were previous Supreme Court justices stupid or ignorant?

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

As for gun laws, how about Australia? After a mass shooting there, they passed sensible laws, and in fact many people voluntarily handed in their weapons.

yeah, a guy killed 20 people with a knife a few years ago.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Not hard. It says the citizens can maintain military readiness (by keeping proper equipment) in an era when there was no standing army.

Since the states control who is in the militia, they can always limit it.

As for gun laws, how about Australia? After a mass shooting there, they passed sensible laws, and in fact many people voluntarily handed in their weapons.

The fact is, gun control has worked very well in places where it has been tried.

Nah.  The 2nd Amendment isn't about you feeling safe, it's about the government fearing the people.

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

The right of the people to be safe is fundamental.

It will take a few years, but eventually we will have new judges that understand how to balance public safety.

Ask yourself why the most violent murder capitals are where guns are outlawed.

RockHardConservative wrote:

Quote from Heller

Why did it take the court over 200 years to make this decision?

The law they struck down today was passed in 1911. Its not like its a new idea.


Why has the law been good for over 100 years?


Seems like someone is being an activist judge.

The US is fulfilling Trump’s prophecy to become the bigliest and bestes shythole in the world!!!
Push me, shoot you.
\

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Why did it take the court over 200 years to make this decision?

The law they struck down today was passed in 1911. Its not like its a new idea.


Why has the law been good for over 100 years?


Seems like someone is being an activist judge.

So now it's a problem but not when a faggot judge overrules a referendum by the public against faggot marriage?

Hypocrite much?

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

Yees, and Scalia's opinion was at odds with over 200 years of litigation regarding the second amendment.

And, that opion only covered weapons in a home and property, not the right to carry out in public.

The opinion today strikes down a 1911 law. That law didn't come up out of the blue, it was based on even earlier laws.

The second was for 200+ years understood to be a collective right.

Its all about keeping a militia ready when there isn't a standing military.

They desroyed your arguement with two words.

THE PEOPLE.

Fuq off, you uneducated idiot.

wrote:

They desroyed your arguement with two words.

THE PEOPLE.

Fuq off, you uneducated idiot.

The people who are a part of a well regulated militia.