PDA

View Full Version : Anti-gun Supreme Court


sierra11
06-10-2012, 6:59 PM
Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

gunsandrockets
06-10-2012, 7:42 PM
Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

Your fear is perfectly reasonable. And supported by the last major ruling the Supreme Court made regarding the 2nd Amendment, the case of McDonald v Chicago.

The four member losing side of that decision all but said they wanted to overturn D.C. v Heller! On that losing side was new Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had claimed during her testimony to the U.S. Senate during her confirmation hearing that she would respect the precedent of D.C. v Heller. She lied.

So far Obama has replaced two anti-gun justices with shiny new anti-gun justices (though to be fair we don't know for certain about Kagan yet, but no one sensible would take that bet). The real danger is if Obama has a chance to replace one of the five pro-gun justices with an anti-gun justice. But considering the ages of the justices that danger is all but certain within the time of the next elected Presidential administration.

alfred1222
06-10-2012, 8:09 PM
Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

To answer your question, the supreme court can't rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional. They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

CDFingers
06-11-2012, 4:15 AM
Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

CDFingers

adrenaline
06-11-2012, 4:18 AM
They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

stix213
06-11-2012, 4:30 AM
Heller & McDonald are the law of the land, and a future SCOTUS is unlikely to overrule them. A future SCOTUS though can rule on other aspects of the 2A that could make it near meaningless.

For example, a future SCOTUS could rule that the right to bear arms refers to in your home only. They can rule that excessive taxation of ammunition is legal ($100 tax per round for example would kill gun ownership). They can make rulings that enlarge prohibited persons to include anyone with any record of illegality at all, including breaking the speed limit. They can make rulings on what kinds of guns are legal and illegal, for example banning all semi-auto rifles. They can rule that a police officer can confiscate any firearm on sight, for officer safety.

The list goes on and on. Heller and McDonald gave us a good platform to start this fight, but it didn't do a whole lot more than that if future cases don't reinforce them. Everything other than keeping a single handgun in your home with 1 mag of ammo is still up for grabs, with few exceptions.

SilverTauron
06-11-2012, 5:09 AM
Can an anti-gun supreme court rule the second amendment out of existence ? I'm worried if Obama appoints another liberal justice the 2A will suffer.

Your nightmare is their pefect dream. Some of the leftist thought want Obama re-elected for this precise reason;another liberal appointment or two , and not only will the "colonial and outdated" 2nd Amendment be ruled into irrelevancy but so will the rest of the Constitution.

With a liberal elite in charge of SCOTUS,nationalized healthcare , more expansive social welfare programs which wouldn't pass Constitutional muster today, and expanded gun control are completely on the table for options. The Constitution will be interpreted right out of practical relevance.

Ford8N
06-11-2012, 5:17 AM
They can however, rule against it to basically make it impossible to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.


Yes.

And they will.:nuke:

davbog44
06-11-2012, 6:26 AM
This is the danger of the idea that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to having it's meaning change with the times, and the opinions of nine individuals.

First, there is no reason to write a Constitution if the intention is to have what it says mean different things at different times. Secondly, the idea of a "living, breathing" Constitution politicizes what is supposed to be an independent, apolitical judiciary.

In theory, there should be no such thing as liberal or conservative justices. But sadly, that isn't the case anymore, if it ever was.

So yes, a future High Court could absolutely effectively nullify the Second Amendment; there are four justices on the Court right now who would. And even the ones who were on the right side of Heller and MacDonald don't seem capable of completely understanding simple English words like "Keep" and "Bear."

SanPedroShooter
06-11-2012, 6:41 AM
Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?

What do we need 2/3 of the legislatures in 2/3 of the states? How about a 2A rewrite...?

I know some states and some fed lawmakers have written in things like protection for hunting and lead ammo and exluding guns that dont enter interstate commerce from NFA. I wonder what states like Idaho, Arizona or Texas would do about a SCOTUS end run around the 2A?

Would they, could they somehow overide them? For intrastate guns and gun parts at least?

nocomply25
06-11-2012, 6:52 AM
The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

we shoot!!!

SilverTauron
06-11-2012, 7:08 AM
Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?

What do we need 2/3 of the legislatures in 2/3 of the states? How about a 2A rewrite...?



NEIN!

The political dynamic currently is that a lot of our voting population is concentrated in pro-liberal anti-rights cities. While "state" wise we have the Disarmament Lobby checked, the populations of NJ, NY, CA,HI and nearly all of the east coast have free America dead to rights numerically.Best case scenario a Constitutional Convention would degrade into an entertaining exercise in gridlock;at worst the liberals would hijack it and delete any reference to personal liberty in the new document.

Assuming our side prevailed,a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says would result in some convoluted statement like :

" The right to own, maintain, transfer, possess, move,operate,sell, purchase, repair, or receive arms in addition to the right to carry, concealed behind a covering garment or shirt or openly exposed for viewing to the general public, in a case,inside of, or outside of a holster, at all times and at all places including government buildings and offices operated by state , city, and Federal facilities,including historical monuments and operational offices, as well as all universities and scholastic buildings at all grade levels currently and any scholarly institution to be initiated in the future, in addition to the right to carry on military installations concealed or openly, will not under any and all possible and conceivable circumstances be taxed, revoked, regulated, superseded, cancelled, deferred, nor will additional requirements be added to require the exercise of this fundamental personal right afforded to all living U.S. citizens enumerated here."

Even with all that, I don't doubt for a second someone in CA would find a loophole in that run on paragraph big enough to sell a tissue-paper thin argument for may issue CCW and an Assault Weapons Ban somehow.

sholling
06-11-2012, 7:20 AM
Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.



This may be technically correct but for all intents and purposes it's 100% wrong. All that is required for an Obama Supreme Count to completely eliminate the right to keep and bear arms is for it to overturn Heller and declare that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only and not an individual right. That would effectively end the right of individuals to own or carry weapons and allow congress and states to pass complete bans. That was the status of the 2nd Amendment under the old pre-Heller 9th Circuit interpretation of the 2nd Amendment so don't say it can't happen.

If you want to look for other examples of where the Supreme Court has interpreted away constitutional rights you need look nor further than the POI clause of the 14th Amendment which has been a dead letter for better than a century.

sholling
06-11-2012, 7:33 AM
Do we have enough solidly pro gun states to run a Constitutional convention?
Probably not but it really doesn't matter. The states passed the 14th Amendment in an attempt to overrule a solidly racist Supreme Courts' efforts to block Congress from enforcing constitutional rights for freed blacks like the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the Privileges Or Immunities Clause nearly out of existence. The words are still there in the constitution but they no longer mean what they say. So in answer to your question even if the states ratified an amendment stating that "The right of individuals to keep and carry weapons of all types shall not be regulated or limited" the court can just interpret that to not apply to guns, knives, or clubs.

Wherryj
06-11-2012, 7:37 AM
Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

CDFingers

That is a rather naive statement. This is how it is supposed to work, but with the SCoTUS being responsible for "interpreting" the Constitution, they can merely interpret the 2A into oblivion.

We have far too many "judicial activists" on the high courts. Our rights are hanging by a thread. Politically appointed political activists now get to decide what the Constution "REALLY" says.

Wherryj
06-11-2012, 7:39 AM
Probably not but it really doesn't matter. The states passed the 14th Amendment in an attempt to overrule a solidly racist Supreme Courts' efforts to block Congress from enforcing constitutional rights for freed blacks like the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court simply interpreted the Privileges Or Immunities Clause nearly out of existence. The words are still there in the constitution but they no longer mean what they say. So in answer to your question even if the states ratified an amendment stating that "The right of individuals to keep and carry weapons of all types shall not be regulated or limited" the court can just interpret that to not apply to guns, knives, or clubs.

... and if the amendment states "Guns" the ant-rights court could say, "but not ammunition". We'd have to make sure that Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Micheals, etc. al...ALL write the amendment VERY carefully-and that still probably wouldn't matter.

The War Wagon
06-11-2012, 7:44 AM
"Rights" are inalienable, and GOD-given; NOT, "Supreme Court-approved." :rolleyes:

They may 'rule' the 2nd Amendment void - they may nullify the ENTIRE Constitution - they may rule the moon is made of green cheese, and the sky on a cloudless day is actually colored MacLaren field tartan plaid... they're 'ruling' it thusly, does NOT make it SO.

Besides which, should such a day ever come, that's why the 2nd Amendment was CORRECTLY observed & recognized as such by the Founding Fathers in the FIRST place.

nick
06-11-2012, 7:56 AM
My paranoid mind tells me that this is one of the reasons 2A cases are being stalled in the system right now.

wireless
06-11-2012, 8:05 AM
I think you are correct in thinking that and that you are not being paranoid at all.


Hopefully we can win Federal Reciprocity at the congressional/senate level and then states like CA, IL, NJ, HW can't do anything about it.

I don't have a good feeling about how 2A cases at the judicial level.

Exile Machine
06-11-2012, 8:26 AM
Our right to self defense against tyranny predates the constitution. If this right is ever ruled out of existence, that's a sign that the government is illegitimate and our cue to exercise our Right to alter or abolish it.

-Mark

BlindRacer
06-11-2012, 8:28 AM
NEIN!

The political dynamic currently is that a lot of our voting population is concentrated in pro-liberal anti-rights cities. While "state" wise we have the Disarmament Lobby checked, the populations of NJ, NY, CA,HI and nearly all of the east coast have free America dead to rights numerically.Best case scenario a Constitutional Convention would degrade into an entertaining exercise in gridlock;at worst the liberals would hijack it and delete any reference to personal liberty in the new document.

Assuming our side prevailed,a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says would result in some convoluted statement like :

" The right to own, maintain, transfer, possess, move,operate,sell, purchase, repair, or receive arms in addition to the right to carry, concealed behind a covering garment or shirt or openly exposed for viewing to the general public, in a case,inside of, or outside of a holster, at all times and at all places including government buildings and offices operated by state , city, and Federal facilities,including historical monuments and operational offices, as well as all universities and scholastic buildings at all grade levels currently and any scholarly institution to be initiated in the future, in addition to the right to carry on military installations concealed or openly, will not under any and all possible and conceivable circumstances be taxed, revoked, regulated, superseded, cancelled, deferred, nor will additional requirements be added to require the exercise of this fundamental personal right afforded to all living U.S. citizens enumerated here."

Even with all that, I don't doubt for a second someone in CA would find a loophole in that run on paragraph big enough to sell a tissue-paper thin argument for may issue CCW and an Assault Weapons Ban somehow.

I found one. The right to use, practice with, be proficient in, use in self defense, blah blah blah. Also, I didn't see anything about all types of ammo being legal. So usage ban and ammo ban, and making the use of the item in self defense be illegal, would nullify everything you wrote.

I'm sure even beyond that, there are tons of other loopholes. Those were just the first ones that I saw.

I think it has to be short sweet and simple. No frills, cause when there are frills, they go after grammer. And as we've seen from the current Amendment, they can't even read that one correctly.

vantec08
06-11-2012, 8:28 AM
If COTUS is "living" or "dynamic", that means its changeable by political whim or fancy. It is no longer a Constitution. Charter, perhaps, but not a Constitution. I read an article by a "progressive" NLG type who claims its legal to negate parts of the BOR because every lawsuit, including those at the SCOTUS level, close with "and any other remedy the court deems just." We are living in the most dangerous era in our history, and I have zero doubt SCOTUS can be stacked with one more "progressive" and literally shred the BOR. Even if things settle down next year or so, we will pay for 40 years of "progressing" for a long long time. Like LBJ (great society, nam).

dfletcher
06-11-2012, 9:59 AM
The Supreme Court has thus far decided we have the right to possess only a single gun in our home for self defense - correct? Everything else is open to their interpretation. That ought to be enough to desire our present President not be allowed to further influence the court.

While the court honors precedent and from what I've read prefers a certain continuity there are examples of SCOTUS reversing their previous decisions - Brown overturned Plessy, Lawrence v TX was a reversal, so was CU I believe. Lochner v NY, Adkins v Children's Hospital, Chisolm v GA, Adler v BOE, Bowers v Hardwicke, Pace v Alabama, Austin v MI CoC, OR v Mitchell and Wolfe v CO are examples of previous decisions reversed by SCOTUS. More info .....

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases1.htm

A SCOTUS reversal is uncommon. The "they're only being fearful" criticism of those with a concern misses the point. Actually, it doesn't address the point that the court does on occasion change its mind. I suppose it allows gun owners who support the President to beguile themselves into believing there's no risk to be run. I'd be more concerned about how the finer points are decided, but a concern regarding reversal is legitimate, I think.

interstellar
06-11-2012, 10:38 AM
In the meantime, I recommend you take Robert up on his offer to help you get a lifetime membership to the NRA for $300 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=556869. Also, give a donation to CalGuns and SAF (http://www.saf.org/).

alfred1222
06-11-2012, 10:59 AM
The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

The revolution begins?

vincewarde
06-11-2012, 12:10 PM
Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment. A completely new amendment would have to be developed and passed by 2/3 of the states.

Don't listen to the fear mongers. Read your constitution.

CDFingers

While technically correct, in practical terms your statements are absolutely false. SCOTUS can - while leaving a constitutional provision "on the books" - effectively render it meaningless by adopting an interpretation that has that effect.

As others have pointed out above, 4 of nine justices have voted TWICE to do exactly that in regards to the 2nd Amendment by ruling that it only protects a "collective right" to serve in the militia. In Dread Scott, SCOTUS went far beyond any slave state court by ruling that black slaves were not legal persons, but mere property with absolutely no rights whatsoever.

The high court - if the justices are dishonest and have an agenda - can rule any of our rights out of existence. This is why the founders established a system of lifetime appointments, in hopes of isolating the justices from politics.

The only "fix" for such a ruling would be another crystal clear amendment establishing our gun rights so clearly that the justices would risk impeachment if they attempted to "rule it out of existence".

The good news is that such a move is extremely likely, given that 41 states are shall issue or better. Even Obama could not stop it as it does not require any action on his part.

SpunkyJivl
06-11-2012, 12:44 PM
Our right to self defense against tyranny predates the constitution. If this right is ever ruled out of existence, that's a sign that the government is illegitimate and our cue to exercise our Right to alter or abolish it.

-Mark

That is the founding reason for the 2A!

CDFingers
06-12-2012, 5:24 AM
You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.

But in your defense, freedom is untidy. I do certainly enjoy our Wild America.

CDFingers

tankarian
06-12-2012, 6:33 AM
You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.
CDFingers


...sigh :rolleyes:
Hopeless....:(

sholling
06-12-2012, 7:17 AM
You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.

But in your defense, freedom is untidy. I do certainly enjoy our Wild America.

CDFingers
Denying reality does not mean that reality does not exist and denying history does not mean that history never happened and you my friend are in full denial mode. Our "scenarios" have happened in the past which when combined with the record of Obama appointees makes them those "scenarios" not only plausible but likely.

frankm
06-12-2012, 7:45 AM
Our right to self defense against tyranny predates the constitution. If this right is ever ruled out of existence, that's a sign that the government is illegitimate and our cue to exercise our Right to alter or abolish it.

-Mark

Yes, basically the government becomes the enemy of the United States. I don't think they'll do it, they risk civil war.

vincewarde
06-12-2012, 1:27 PM
You all saying "it's technically correct but" do not reason well. You invent highly unlikely scenarios, then run around with your hair afire.

But in your defense, freedom is untidy. I do certainly enjoy our Wild America.

CDFingers

I fail to understand your "does not reason well" statement when I supplied you with historical examples.

Dread Scott is the most blatant example. Slave states had historically treated slaves as legal persons who were also property. They could be charged with crimes, they could buy their freedom, they had the right to due process (ignored almost all the time) and killing a slave was considered murder (rarely prosecuted - but in at least one case a jury of white men gave the death penalty to a white slave owner who raped and killed his female slave). In Dread Scott, with one ruling, SCOTUS ignored all of that and ruled that black people were not people. As far as black people were concerned the Bill of Rights did not exist.

In addition, in the Heller decision, 4 of 9 justices voted to invalidate the 2nd Amendment by reading it in a warped way. Even though in every other case where the founders used the term "the people", strangely enough they meant he right to apply to the people. In this case, according to the minority, "the people" really means "the national guard" and the states. If individuals have any right to bear arms it is the arms issued to them by the government. One more vote and while the 2nd Amendment would have remained in the text of the Constitution - but it would have had no practical effect.

Please explain how a ruling that failed by just one vote is a "highly unlikely scenario". I wish that every justice on SCOTUS held the Constitution in high regard - but we know that this is far from true. Four of them often begin with how they think the ruling should come down, and they then get to work on some interpretation that will accomplish that.

You are right, freedom is messy. That's why the founders gave us a Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, and an amendment process. If any part of the constitution is to be invalidated it should be by the amendment process, not by judicial fiat. When judges repeatedly do that, IMHO, they have violated their oath of office and deserve to be impeached.

ziegenbock
06-12-2012, 2:44 PM
no...all 9 said you had a RKBA...:) 4 of them just said you couldn't have a load pistol in your house.

jwkincal
06-12-2012, 2:59 PM
no...all 9 said you had a RKBA...:) 4 of them just said you couldn't have a load pistol in your house.

Yeah, that still strikes me as weird, "it is an individual right but only applicable in the context of militia service" WTF?

But that is what they said. So, technically all 9 justices agreed that the 2nd amendment enshrines an individual right, but 4 of them thought it was only valid on alternate Tuesdays in months with an odd number of letters in their name.

drifter2be
06-12-2012, 3:59 PM
The question is...if that DID happen...

What would be the next step?

we shoot!!!

The revolution begins?

The phrase "from my cold dead hands" comes to mind.:43:

alfred1222
06-12-2012, 4:01 PM
The phrase "from my cold dead hands" comes to mind.:43:

HELL YES

Don29palms
06-12-2012, 5:41 PM
We haven't had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for a long time. We only have the privilege to keep and bear arms. Our right was taken awayyears ago. The fact that you have to have a backround check, at which point the government can say NO, to purchase a firearm is proof that it is a privilege and not a RIGHT. You get permission for a privilege. YOU DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!

Secret
06-13-2012, 4:02 PM
We haven't had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for a long time. We only have the privilege to keep and bear arms. Our right was taken awayyears ago. The fact that you have to have a backround check, at which point the government can say NO, to purchase a firearm is proof that it is a privilege and not a RIGHT. You get permission for a privilege. YOU DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!

So it would be ok for a mass murderer that was released from prison (for arguments sake) it would be ok for him to buy a firearm... kinda scary

kcbrown
06-13-2012, 5:30 PM
Regardless of what the fearful folks fear, it is impossible for the SCOTUS to over turn a constitutional amendment.


Oh no it's not.

In Slaughterhouse, the Supreme Court overturned the meat of the 14th Amendment. The consequences of that remain intact to this day.

The Supreme Court is the last word on the meaning of the Constitution as regards the law. That means, like it or not, it does have the power to overturn anything in the Constitution it pleases.

Whether doing so is politically wise is another question altogether. SCOTUS has an enormous amount of political immunity, but at the end of the day, its members live in the same country as the rest of us, and are vulnerable to, shall we say, "active protestation", along with longer-term consequences of their rulings. They also understand that sufficiently nasty shenanigans on their part will result in the country being torn asunder.

kcbrown
06-13-2012, 5:36 PM
So it would be ok for a mass murderer that was released from prison (for arguments sake) it would be ok for him to buy a firearm... kinda scary

Why?

If he's determined to continue in his ways, he'll get his hands on a firearm no matter what. That's precisely what we say when we explain the futility of passing anti-gun laws: criminals by definition don't obey the law, so restrictive gun laws affect only those who are intent on obeying the law anyway -- precisely those who don't need to be targeted at all. Why some people think that this suddenly changes when someone gets out of prison (such that someone who has just gotten out of prison will obey the law even when intent on committing crimes, a non-sequitur if I ever heard one, while someone who has not will simply ignore the law) is quite beyond me.

You cannot pick and choose your logic to support only what you want supported. Either adhere to the logic even when it works against your preferences, or dispense with the logic everywhere. But quit screwing around with this half-assed application of logic. It only winds up as a disservice to our cause and makes us look like a bunch of self-serving dolts.

Jason P
06-13-2012, 6:08 PM
So it would be ok for a mass murderer that was released from prison (for arguments sake) it would be ok for him to buy a firearm... kinda scary

Hell yes it's OK. If he has paid his debt to society, then he is free from that debt. Free means what it says, free. If he cannot be trusted with his freedom, then why was he released?

Legality of action was not his concern prior to incarceration, if he is released before his concerns are realigned with society then a background check is not going to stop him from killing. Neither will living in a country where there are no civilian arms. Look at the case of Andrei Chikatilo, no guns. Just a crazy A-hole choking people and pleasuring himself on his victims.

He was also executed though, which I personally believe should be applicable to any murder, rape or child molestation case. That'll keep the beds empty if you start ticking them off Texas style. Hell, I'll supply the ammo and the trigger time.

The Bill of Rights are rights not only of Americans, but as we recognize them, the rights of all men born free. That other sovereigns do not allow their citizens their rights is irrelevant when discussing the rights of free men and women on our soil.

The right to bear arms is the right of a living organism to protect it's existence, a basic principle of self-awareness. That means for any human to protect it's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - access to arms shall not be infringed.

At some point, we may have to go to war in our own country again. In my mind that war is more just than any we've been in my lifetime. I personally am tired of all this hypocracy. My money is the same as it was 3 years ago basically, but I am broke all the time now. I can't afford to take much time off, if I do I can't afford to transport myself very far. When I get there, I may find it illegal to do what was always done. I may need a permit or special license. Growing up in North Carolina, we fished where we wanted with little exception. See how that works out for you now in most places, especially here.

And all this is not of my own doing, this is the lie that is the paper in my wallet, perpetuated by criminals and traitors. But I'll die here before I let them coerce me into leaving before I AM READY TO DO SO. End rant..............

kcbrown
06-13-2012, 6:56 PM
He was also executed though, which I personally believe should be applicable to any murder, rape or child molestation case. That'll keep the beds empty if you start ticking them off Texas style. Hell, I'll supply the ammo and the trigger time.


In spirit I am in full agreement. In practice I am not.

The reason is that I do not trust the state to get it right when it comes to identifying only those who truly deserve the death penalty as deserving of such. There have been a number of cases where someone on death row was later exonerated of the crime due to new evidence surfacing (most especially, DNA evidence).

If the government can't get such identification right 100% of the time, then it has no business implementing the irrevocable and final action that is the death penalty. Indeed, the mere thought of giving the state that kind of power -- the power of life and death over the citizenry -- should send shivers down your spine. For the state, through the legislature, already has the power to declare any and all things felonies. With the availability of the death penalty, it would have that same power with respect to life and death. That is power and responsibility the state has shown itself to be entirely untrustworthy of.


With a sufficiently well-armed citizenry, people who deserve death row will wind up eventually being taken care of by that same citizenry in the event such people aren't simply kept in prison and away from society. That's because, eventually, the immune system of society that an armed citizenry represents will kick into action sooner or later, and those who deserve the death penalty (even if it's not available due to the untrustworthiness of the state) will wind up dead at the hands of citizens who are acting in their own self-defense.

EM2
06-13-2012, 7:42 PM
We haven't had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for a long time. We only have the privilege to keep and bear arms. Our right was taken awayyears ago. The fact that you have to have a backround check, at which point the government can say NO, to purchase a firearm is proof that it is a privilege and not a RIGHT. You get permission for a privilege. YOU DON'T NEED PERMISSION TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!



I gotta disagree here and I'll tell you why.

We have not lost any rights nor have they been taken from us.

A right is something that just is, it is something natural to being human and self preservation is one of those rights.
This cannot be taken away, the only way to lose rights is to give them up by not exercising them.

For example if we decided to exercise our right to bear arms we would just do it with or without "permission". That would be exercising our rights and this cannot be taken away.

The govmint can of course exercise power over us and force us to comply but we always retain the right to resist. This power of course is evil when exercised in such a manner and deserves to be resisted.

The fact that many people see rights & privledges in the same manner shows how far we have slid and given up fighting.

CDFingers
06-14-2012, 5:03 AM
All right: you all saying the SCOTUS can over turn a constitutional amendment seem conveniently to forget the actual history of overturning these things.

Prohibition.

We must note the hedging in the replies that do not understand this.

So, if you want to set your hair afire and run around being totally afraid of a piece of fiction, that's your right. However, if you expect actual people to believe you, you fall into a most unfortunate category--fox newsers. Bye.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
06-14-2012, 6:12 AM
I gotta disagree here and I'll tell you why.

We have not lost any rights nor have they been taken from us.


What good is an inalienable right if exercising it is a crime?


A right is something that just is, it is something natural to being human and self preservation is one of those rights.
This cannot be taken away, the only way to lose rights is to give them up by not exercising them.

Wrong. People are social creatures. We are a species who likes hierarchies and order.We live in a day and age where we can structure society to govern ourselves, but thousands of years of social evolution do not just end that easily. The way of the world ever since Sumerian carvings-and for the most part today-is one guy calling the shots with absolute power, and everyone underneath doing what they're told or facing "adverse action".

Thus, freedom is not a natural state. If we were to cease all lobbying for the RKBA and just let things play out, we'd end up like the UK is today.Why? Because freedom is an UNNATURAL state for a majority of people. A lot of folks in America fortunately know what the Constitution intended to establish, yet a lot of folks in America think that individual rights are too dangerous a threat to public safety.




For example if we decided to exercise our right to bear arms we would just do it with or without "permission". That would be exercising our rights and this cannot be taken away.

The govmint can of course exercise power over us and force us to comply but we always retain the right to resist. This power of course is evil when exercised in such a manner and deserves to be resisted.

The fact that many people see rights & privledges in the same manner shows how far we have slid and given up fighting.

The government darn well can take it away. A 7.62x 39 bullet in the head is an effective way of suppressing political opposition if all else fails-see the Middle East.You won't be exercising any rights at all from the grave.

Resistance? If things get that bad in mainstream America there won't be resistance, because the numbskulls who enacted the law to begin with will have been ELECTED. Its totally possible-indeed,its the case in California and other states-that in our form of government, the majority will choose representatives who dislike the BOR. As stated above, there are millions of voting Americans who think the Constitution's gotta go.

sholling
06-14-2012, 6:13 AM
All right: you all saying the SCOTUS can over turn a constitutional amendment seem conveniently to forget the actual history of overturning these things.

Prohibition.

We must note the hedging in the replies that do not understand this.

So, if you want to set your hair afire and run around being totally afraid of a piece of fiction, that's your right. However, if you expect actual people to believe you, you fall into a most unfortunate category--fox newsers. Bye.

CDFingers
ROTFLMAO! You keep ignoring actual historic examples of the court interpreting sections of the constitution out of existence because the facts don't fit your politics.

dfletcher
06-14-2012, 10:54 AM
All right: you all saying the SCOTUS can over turn a constitutional amendment seem conveniently to forget the actual history of overturning these things.

Prohibition.

We must note the hedging in the replies that do not understand this.

So, if you want to set your hair afire and run around being totally afraid of a piece of fiction, that's your right. However, if you expect actual people to believe you, you fall into a most unfortunate category--fox newsers. Bye.

CDFingers

To ensure we're using the same lingo, I don't think anyone is proposing SCOTUS would "overturn" (whatever that means) the 2nd Amendment but as we've seen the court has specifically reversed its own decisions several times and on cases of great importance. That is the concern, since it has happened the position has merit. We may all be dead and buried by that time, but it can occur.

Your "it can't happen" position could have merit had SCOTUS never overturned one of it's previous rulings, but since that ship has sailed I think your dismissal of the concern is lacking.

If you'd care to address that the court has reversed it's decisions on occasion, great. If more sweeping platitudes are on the horizon perhaps you'll allow the "bye" in this thread to stand? ;)

Meplat
06-14-2012, 12:07 PM
Wrong. People are social creatures. We are a species who likes hierarchies and order.

What you mean WE white boy?:p

MultiCaliber
06-14-2012, 1:03 PM
NEIN!



" The right to own, maintain, transfer, possess, move,operate,sell, purchase, repair, or receive arms in addition to the right to carry, concealed behind a covering garment or shirt or openly exposed for viewing to the general public, in a case,inside of, or outside of a holster, at all times and at all places including government buildings and offices operated by state , city, and Federal facilities,including historical monuments and operational offices, as well as all universities and scholastic buildings at all grade levels currently and any scholarly institution to be initiated in the future, in addition to the right to carry on military installations concealed or openly, will not under any and all possible and conceivable circumstances be taxed, revoked, regulated, superseded, cancelled, deferred, nor will additional requirements be added to require the exercise of this fundamental personal right afforded to all living U.S. citizens enumerated here."

[/I].

:thumbsup:
I freakin' love that!