Anti-gun Supreme Court

[Subotai]

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]

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]

no...all 9 said you had a RKBA... 4 of them just said you couldn't have a load pistol in your house.

[jwkincal]

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]

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.

[alfred1222]

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

HELL YES

[Don29palms]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.