Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

Yes, I'm sure those handguns would so effective at taking down a government armed with helicopters, fighterbombers, and a doomsday stockpile of nuclear weapons. /sarc

[lumin]

"Liberal" Supreme Court my ass.

Sounds pretty liberal to me.  The vote shouldn't have been 5-4, it should to have been 9 to nothing.  You either follow the 2nd Amendment or not, there's no gray area here.  What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" did these 4 enforcers of the law not understand?

[scriver]

What is the "heaviest" kind of "handgun" anyway? Because personally, I can understand the want for a "small" gun for protection (even if you'll most likely end up shooting your best buddy ), but I draw the line when it comes to war weaponry, and equipment obviously meant to make as much damage as possible, or make killing "easy".

[Kogan Loloklam]

Yes, I'm sure those handguns would so effective at taking down a government armed with helicopters, fighterbombers, and a doomsday stockpile of nuclear weapons. /sarc

Your right, after all there is no history of a world-changing event that brought down nations that started with a handgun.

[Aqizzar]

"Liberal" Supreme Court my ass.

Sounds pretty liberal to me.  The vote shouldn't have been 5-4, it should to have been 9 to nothing.  You either follow the 2nd Amendment or not, there's no gray area here.  What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" did these 4 enforcers of the law not understand?

They understood it just fine.  States have the right to make laws all they want, the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal government not infringing arms and so forth, and it does that all the time anyway.  It's absolutely a state's or city's prerogative to make whatever handgun laws pass there.  It's posterchild conservatives insisting the entire country should live by the imagined laws of the Ozarks imposing their ideas from on high.  But of course, judges are only "activist" when they're liberal.

Yes, I'm sure those handguns would so effective at taking down a government armed with helicopters, fighterbombers, and a doomsday stockpile of nuclear weapons. /sarc

Your right, after all there is no history of a world-changing event that brought down nations that started with a handgun.

I want you to step back and think for a minute about what you just said.

[Huesoo]

Yes, I'm sure those handguns would so effective at taking down a government armed with helicopters, fighterbombers, and a doomsday stockpile of nuclear weapons. /sarc

Your right, after all there is no history of a world-changing event that brought down nations that started with a handgun.

Are you saying the guy couldnt easily have killed him with a bow, crossbow, explosive, knife or poison?

Actually that was the most retarded thing I've heard today, I hope I've been trolled.

[Makrond]

The constitutional right to bear arms, for what it's worth, stems more from the founding fathers' fundamental disagreement with the British monarchy (the British royal family rose to power by having the biggest stick, like most other monarchies) and they decided that in an armed society, no one person or government could have the biggest stick and subjugate the population with military might. In short, it's to dissuage dictatorships from arising in the first place, not to topple them once they're firmly established. 

What is the "heaviest" kind of "handgun" anyway? Because personally, I can understand the want for a "small" gun for protection (even if you'll most likely end up shooting your best buddy ), but I draw the line when it comes to war weaponry, and equipment obviously meant to make as much damage as possible, or make killing "easy".

I'm not sure what your point is here. You're saying that civilians shouldn't have access to 'war weaponry'? Praytell, what makes 'war weaponry'? Because the average US citizen - assuming for a brief second that the average US citizen has $10,000+ kicking around - can quite legally get their hands on, say, a fully-automatic AR-15. There's no federal law against it (although there are plenty of states that don't allow it). 

[lumin]

"Liberal" Supreme Court my ass.

Sounds pretty liberal to me.  The vote shouldn't have been 5-4, it should to have been 9 to nothing.  You either follow the 2nd Amendment or not, there's no gray area here.  What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" did these 4 enforcers of the law not understand?

the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal government

Sorry I must have missed that line in the 2nd amendment, or is that Aquizzar's amendment?

[alway]

To be honest, the 2nd amendment needs revamping. It originated in an era when the gun was the equalizer; troops with guns were essentially what made up a military. Guns also took long enough to reload that one couldn't go into town, kill everyone, and live to tell the tale. Nowadays, militaries are highly mechanized and there is absolutely no way to counter them without multi-million dollar machines of your own. However, even small arms are able to kill more or less with impunity in a crowd of unarmed citizens. So unlike the low-risk, high threat to government weapons of old, today's guns are a high-risk to unarmed civilians and low threat to governments.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Yeah, I'm all for people owning guns if they were actually sane and if we had a sane background check and ways of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Overturning the gun ban is great and all but the supreme court has never been anywhere near the south side and lower wacker.

So I'm all for a gun ban in chicago.

I still remember 3 years ago or so, first day they had nice weather following winter and in that one day 30 people got shot and stabbed.

Thank goodness I'm out of that shithole.

[Aqizzar]

Because the average US citizen - assuming for a brief second that the average US citizen has $10,000+ kicking around - can quite legally get their hands on, say, a fully-automatic AR-15. There's no federal law against it (although there are plenty of states that don't allow it).

Ah, but see, there was until just a few years ago.  The point being, the federal government absolutely restricts the people's "right" to keep and bear completely undefined "arms" all the time.  The very fact that you can't own rocket launchers or antitank mines is at least as a good a legal precedent as whatever concept of the "Founder's Intent" that Sam Alito pulls out of his ass.

the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal government

Sorry I must have missed that line in the 2nd amendment, or is that Aquizzar's amendment?

Do you even know how federal law works, or do you just like to throw out whatever inflammatory statement you think will back you up?  Believe it or not, I'm the one being the strict constructionist here.  Although there is a certain argument to be made that the 14th Amendment could carry the 2nd down to the state level, that was not what the majority opinion was based on.  It was based purely on the juvenile notion that because the language of the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from banning firearms (and it does anyway), then nobody anywhere can be allowed to.  Which is complete bullcrap.

[Kogan Loloklam]

They understood it just fine.  States have the right to make laws all they want, the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal government not infringing arms and so forth, and it does that all the time anyway.  It's absolutely a state's or city's prerogative to make whatever handgun laws pass there.  It's posterchild conservatives insisting the entire country should live by the imagined laws of the Ozarks imposing their ideas from on high.  But of course, judges are only "activist" when they're liberal.

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.

Amendment 10 specifies exactly whom is granted the right to infringe.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is one case where states rights doesn't fit. This power has already been taken by the constitution.

To be honest, the 2nd amendment needs revamping. It originated in an era when the gun was the equalizer; troops with guns were essentially what made up a military. Guns also took long enough to reload that one couldn't go into town, kill everyone, and live to tell the tale. Nowadays, militaries are highly mechanized and there is absolutely no way to counter them without multi-million dollar machines of your own. However, even small arms are able to kill more or less with impunity in a crowd of unarmed citizens. So unlike the low-risk, high threat to government weapons of old, today's guns are a high-risk to unarmed civilians and low threat to governments.

For this, I take a page from Ben.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The right would not be taken because people were afraid of being killed.

I still remember 3 years ago or so, first day they had nice weather following winter and in that one day 30 people got shot and stabbed.

How'd the Knife ban go?

[KaelGotDwarves]

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.

A bunch of street thugs or hicks with guns are not a "well regulated militia". The National Guard is a well regulated militia.

I still remember 3 years ago or so, first day they had nice weather following winter and in that one day 30 people got shot and stabbed.

How'd the Knife ban go?

With a knife, you can run or defend yourself. Guns just lead to shootouts in the streets, masses of people getting killed. Or things like 7 year old girls getting shot in the face during drive-bys.

[Strife26]

So I'm all for a gun ban in chicago.

I still remember 3 years ago or so, first day they had nice weather following winter and in that one day 30 people got shot and stabbed.

Thank goodness I'm out of that shithole.

In the city where handguns were banned? That doesn't really help your case, you know.



I'm of the opinion that the 2nd should be fully incorporated and that there should be a strict one week cool-down, registering/background-check period for all firearms.

[Aqizzar]

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.

Amendment 10 specifies exactly whom is granted the right to infringe.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is one case where states rights doesn't fit. This power has already been taken by the constitution.

Once again, that applies to the federal government alone under any statute definition of the law.  Only by way of using the 14th Amendment to show that states must provide the same legal protections as the federal constitution could that argument work, and that is not what happened in this case, nor has it ever been made that way.  It could, but it didn't, so the definition that the 2nd Amendment applies to federal law alone should still stand.  But instead, we have justices finding cases based on some gradeschool notion of what they think the "Founders" intended, even though the "Founders" refused the press to record their hearings in drafting the Constitution precisely to keep people from doing that.