Zewp.com

Buy Stuff

Zewp Net . Image Index . Upload . Mult Upload . Random Image

> Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Pages: 1 2 3

........................................................................

#26 2022-06-23 17:52:14

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

The right of THE PEOPLE - Not the STATES

https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

mittens

........................................................................

Spanky
#27 2022-06-23 17:52:59

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

wrote:

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.

Did you know that these things are not facts and are, instead, opinions?

........................................................................

#28 2022-06-23 17:55:27

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Spanky wrote:

Did you know that these things are not facts and are, instead, opinions?

Yes.  They even call them 'legal opinions'.   But once deliberated and decided by vote of the court, their decision has the full force of LAW.

........................................................................

Phillip_McCavity
#29 2022-06-23 17:57:08

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

........................................................................

#30 2022-06-23 17:58:18

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

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.

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

........................................................................

#31 2022-06-23 19:14:07

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

........................................................................

#32 2022-06-23 19:27:06

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

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.

........................................................................

#33 2022-06-23 19:29:51

Re: 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.

woot

........................................................................

Diarrhetrius Brown
#34 2022-06-23 19:37:13

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Phillip_McCavity wrote:

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

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?

........................................................................

Phillip_McCavity
#35 2022-06-23 19:47:07

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

........................................................................

Spanky
#36 2022-06-23 19:49:18

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

wrote:

Yes.  They even call them 'legal opinions'.   But once deliberated and decided by vote of the court, their decision has the full force of LAW.

Of course.

These opinions can change over time. Owning a gun is not an absolute right. Broad gun ownership as a right is just the current opinion of the highest court in the land. That could change.

........................................................................

Spanky
#37 2022-06-23 19:50:21

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

wrote:

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

Incorrect. The meaning has always been a matter of opinion.

........................................................................

#38 2022-06-23 19:55:31

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

Uneducated and dunning kruger, not surprising.

........................................................................

#39 2022-06-23 19:58:46

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Spanky wrote:

Of course.

These opinions can change over time. Owning a gun is not an absolute right. Broad gun ownership as a right is just the current opinion of the highest court in the land. That could change.

The court at this time is the ones who judge that and rule on it.  They have.   Move on to something else.

........................................................................

Phillip_McCavity
#40 2022-06-23 20:29:38

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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?

........................................................................

#41 2022-06-23 20:32:47

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

wrote:

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

Yep. Any citizen could privately own a military grade weapon.

........................................................................

Suck_It_Phil
#42 2022-06-23 20:33:30

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.....

........................................................................

#43 2022-06-23 20:34:25

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Spanky wrote:

Incorrect. The meaning has always been a matter of opinion.

really, maybe you want to go read the Federalist  Papers and get back to us

........................................................................

#44 2022-06-23 21:50:23

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

........................................................................

#45 2022-06-23 21:51:42

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

........................................................................

RockHardConservative
#46 2022-06-23 22:37:23

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Look at the libbies seethe over the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment!  Just look at 'em!  snicker

........................................................................

RockHardConservative
#47 2022-06-23 22:39:06

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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
#48 2022-06-23 22:59:47

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

RockHardConservative wrote:

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

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.

........................................................................

#49 2022-06-23 23:09:57

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

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.

........................................................................

ArtieTubbs
#50 2022-06-24 00:06:10

Re: Very weird firearms decision from the SC

Spanky wrote:

Baggers don't believe in originalism. Nobody does. It's insanity. They pick and choose when they want to benefit from original intent.

Please let’s all hear what mr GED in constitutional law has to say…

........................................................................

Pages: 1 2 3

Amazon Item ID (eg B00WXZ10T0)



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter