When did you get appointed to the Supreme Court and get to make that interpretation? Since you didn't, making such a claims makes you look foolish.
2nd Amendment right to carry openly in public affirmed
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
When did you get appointed to the Supreme Court and get to make that interpretation? Since you didn't, making such a claims makes you look foolish.
Ever notice how those that say what domer stated refer to the DoI when they talk about equality under but run from it when it says something they don't like?
countryboy
Verified User
Lol. Anyone who passed 5th grade English knows it clearly says "the right of the people".
But thanks for confirming there are plenty of left wing loons who want to disarm law abiding citizens.
Let’s try this again, dumbfuck. The Declaration is not law. You asked where in the Constitution it says you can kill your baby. I asked where in the Constitution does it say it has a right to live. Comprende, moron?
BTW, the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration? That was a lie when the ink was still wet.
Unless black people can open carry without getting cops called on them and then more than likely shot, open carry remains largely a white male "right". For some reason white males need that heat in their pants more than others.
For some reason black males automatically act like thugs they see on TV/movies when they have a gun. Acting a fool is what gets you in trouble not just carrying a gun.
The Supreme Court has read it plus past decisions and history and they disagree with you.
However, regardless of whether the federal and state governments can make 1) no regulations on guns; or 2) strict regulations, it is still a political decision what regulations they choose to make.
And, in practice, they have chosen to allow guns for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and any other reason people choose to own weapons. Even if the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to apply only to militias, that does not make owning weapons illegal absent laws prohibiting them. So, the interpretation becomes irrelevant in practice unless some jurisdiction prohibits ownership of weapons. The regulations we live with are based on political, not constitutional, decisions (with a few exceptions).
Carmine
Loose Cannon
I would. I don't care about guns. It's gun totin' crackers that I hate, not guns. (And I hate them even without their guns.)
I own guns, although I haven't played with them for a while because I like golf more.
But most of my friends would indeed be upset.
Actually that's not true.
In both Miller and Cruikshank they DO agree that it pertains strictly to the militia (which it actually says). Scalia in recent rulings decided to throw stare decisis out the window and became an activist political jurist in Heller and McDonald
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Oh we all know carrying was all, always about keeping blacks in line in america and we know who the fools are. Ronnie Reagan showed the world what a scam that was as Gov of CA once the Panthers basically said, "cool, then we can carry too since the police are murdering us in the streets". Nothing new, america being america.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Your knowledge of the Constitution is poor. The right to life is self evident.
Here’s the way it is, dumbfuck. You asked “where in the Constitution...” and I countered with my own “where in the Constitution...” That was an attempt to show you the childishness and absurdity of that moronic RW mantra. The Constitution mentions neither, does it, dimwit?
Isn’t “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” also two of those self-evident things? Those were lies when TJ was still writing. So, don’t give me your “self-evident” bullshit.
Hey, speaking of the right to life, you’re one of those death penalty advocates, aren’t you? A liitle problem with consistency?
Lot's of pussies in the Reichwing.
I can see a few cases when I might want to be packing shootin' irons.
Grizzly bear country.
Living next door to white trash hillbillies trafficking in crystal meth.
etc.
Some situations can be defused just by wielding a good, solid wooden bat or samurai sword.
If I ever feel sissy enough to carry a gun into Barnes and Noble, I would need to ask a friend to punch me in the mouth.
I can see a few cases when I might want to be packing shootin' irons.
Grizzly bear country.
Living next door to white trash hillbillies trafficking in crystal meth.
etc.
Some situations can be defused just by wielding a good, solid wooden bat or samurai sword.
If I ever feel sissy enough to carry a gun into Barnes and Noble, I would need to ask a friend to punch me in the mouth.
But Heller is current law and it was not just Scalia. But, again, that is irrelevant. Even if the court rules federal and state laws can ban all weapons, they choose not to do so. Not having a constitutional right to own weapons does not mean owning weapons is illegal, it just means government can ban those weapons if they choose. And, they choose not to. In recent years, states have chosen to expand right to carry and other laws friendly to gun owners.
Wrong the threw settled law out the window and an activist court made a narrow ruling that makes no real legal sense. The 2A absolutely relates to the militia. The words are there and settled law acknowledged that
It was a 5-4 Decision in which Scalia not only cast the deciding vote but wrote the opinion associated (which made no sense)
Of course it relates to the militia. The original wording by Madison included a conscientious objector clause. That has no relevance EXCEPT in the context of a militia. That exact wording somehow disappeared in a matter of days, but the intent was clear. Crystal.
The Supreme Court threw out settled law when they overturned state segregation, gay marriage, limits on free speech, press, and religion. Those were also "activist" decisions because they overturned legislative acts.
Since the government is not going to prohibit guns, it doesn't matter if the Constitution allows it or not. The American public wants to keep guns available and our lawmakers want to get reelected. As a fictitious Irish bartender once said, "the Supreme Court follows the election returns."
Right. 5 justices agreed. There have been many 5-4 decisions.