Supreme Court Applies 2nd Amendment to States

Status
Not open for further replies.
jmac said:
fair enough gentlemen, I have expressed my opinions on here. This is a blog site. I try not to offend people but I still have the right to express my opinion. You may not understand what I am saying. I do not care, I have the right to express it and you have the right to disagree with it. I expressed one political thread that I started. It got dumped and rightfully so. I have expressed my opinion. You did not have to agree with me. That is what is great about this site and I do not go off willy nilly and if I do I apologize. Can you all say the same? I feel I am being unfairly attacked here because I expressed my opinions. If you think I need to be more clear simply say so. I will spend a half hour writing a book on what you are expressing. I figure you people are smart enough to either express what you are saying or understand where I am going. That may be my mistake. I am not picking on anybody and I do not want to start a war with anybody. Fair enough??
:)
Click to expand...

Sounds good.
 
Seems to me like politics & hunting forums mix even worse than politics & religion! :D

But since I do happen to be a minister, may I throw a little religion in the mix for a triad (Heh-Heh-Heh)...The good book says, "One man sharpens another, like iron sharpens iron" (a whetstone of sorts, if you will) - that is a good thing! If all any of us ever did is encircle ourselves with people who are just like us & happen to agree with every word we say - who on earth would ever learn anything, grow, expand our horizons or get the least bit "sharpened" by that process???

The trick is CIVILITY & the mental ability to step out of our own shoes & stand in someone else's for a sec, and very few human beings of ANY persuasion seem to ever be capable of much of that...If any particular conversation is not genuinely two-sided, then what is the point of having one in the first place???

Nice to see this thread begin taking on a much more gentlemanly demeanor! CHEERS (since the edit button wouldn't allow me to tack on the little mug-chinking icon thingamaggie)
 
Last edited:
A Word from the Good Book

hen said:
Seems to me like politics & hunting forums mix even worse than politics & religion! :D

But since I do happen to be a minister, may I throw a little religion in the mix for a triad (Heh-Heh-Heh)...The good book says, "One man sharpens another, like iron sharpens iron" (a whetstone of sorts, if you will) - that is a good thing! If all any of us ever did is encircle ourselves with people who are just like us & happen to agree with every word we say - who on earth would ever learn anything, grow, expand our horizons or get the least bit "sharpened" by that process???

The trick is CIVILITY & the mental ability to step out of our own shoes & stand in someone else's for a sec, and very few human beings of ANY persuasion seem to ever be capable of much of that...If any particular conversation is not genuinely two-sided, then what is the point of having one in the first place???

Nice to see this thread begin taking on a much more gentlemanly demeanor! CHEERS (since the edit button wouldn't allow me to tack on the little mug-chinking icon thingamaggie)
Click to expand...

Thank you for this excellent commentary and for a bit of wisdom that can sharpen us all.
 
For what it is worth, I can offer an opinion also. I feel that our Government has an obligation to protect its citizens from dangerous weapons and I don't feel that our Founders intended for all of us to own the type of weapons available today. Since the Second Amendment was adopted our Government has already outlawed many types of weapons such as automatic assault rifles because they can be a danger to our society. I'm certain of one thing, the more a type of weapon is abused against it citizens the more society will demand further restrictions. Even though I consider myself to be a sportsman and conservationist, I still believe that we need further restrictions on some firearms available today.
 
Deacon said:
the vote should have been 9-0, can judge not read the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

that has been my point all alone!!!!!!! they can try to take my guns away from me, over my dead body. not happy with the current goverment i didnt vote for him. should not share this with others , however, i am. deacon well stated.
 
jmac said:
that has been my point all alone!!!!!!! they can try to take my guns away from me, over my dead body. not happy with the current goverment i didnt vote for him. should not share this with others , however, i am. deacon well stated.
Click to expand...

"They" won't just try, they will. Get yourself an unregistered Thompson 1928A1 or M16 and the BATF boys will be happy to oblige you, over your dead body if you prefer, tough guy.

Nothing to do with Obama, since they were made illegal in 1934. Did you vote for Roosevelt?
 
Very good Point Jnor, I was born in 1934 and down trough the years. I have seen many amendments to the 2nd. Plenty of new restrictive laws passed. Really and I mean really,, Obama does not have to do a thing. There are enough laws in place to make things rough for gun owners. All he has to do is get them enforced..........Bob
 
Just the mere thought of anything being taken away is exactly why I stand up against any hunting, fishing, trapping, right of way access, etc. changes, that limit any part of our sports. Trespassers will still trespass, and criminals will still have guns. Guns don't kill people, people do. You can't legislate stupidity. Get out and vote, and don't give up notin. I mean notin!!:thumbsup:
 
Deacon said:
the vote should have been 9-0, can judge not read the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

Three of the minority in an opinion by Justice Breyer, believe that the majority misread history to conclude that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense rather than merely to assure that members of the state militias will have access to arms if called to serve. Justice Stevens, the fourth dissenter, has his own reasoning. The four judge plurality opinion by Alito with Roberts, Kennedy, and Scalia concurring, look to what is called "original meaning" to figure out what the text of the constitution means. To determine the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment they turn to history which led them to conclude that originally the 2nd Amendment was meant to provide a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as well as to guarantee the military integrity of state militias. For you fellow Kansas forum members, the plurality even looked to the events in Bloody Kansas in the late 1850s to inform their thinking.
 
Last edited:
Let's All Read the McDonald Opinion

We have had a good discussion about the 2nd Amendment. But who of us has actually read the McDonald Supreme Court opinion to see why the four opinion wiriters - two for the five judge majority and two for the four judge minority -- hold their opinions about the 2nd Amendment?

Let's challenge ourselves to read the opinion and then return to this thread with comments. If you put "U.S. Supreme Court" in your search, you will get the official website and you can click on the McDonald case on the right side of the first page that appears on your screen.
 
There's plenty of disagreement among the 9 SCOTUS justices. All agree that gun ownership by the militia is protected by the second amendment. A 5/4 majority agree that the Second protects gun ownership for self defense.

All 9 also agree that "reasonable restrictions" may be applied to gun ownership, including no ownership by felons or mental defectives, and apparently, although not explicitly stated, that ownership of particularly destructive guns (full auto, calibers larger than .50) may be limited.

And so that is where we stand today, just as the Constitution intends - the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of Constitutional law.

Folks on either side of a gun ownership debate can take any position they like, one way or another, but the Constitution and it's examination by the SCOTUS are the law of the land. Everything else is just noise.

This system has worked quite well for more than 200 years, and I, for one, am grateful that it has. I own and can use all the guns I like. Always have, and, I expect, always will.

I can live where I like, work where I like, worship where I like, elect whoever I like, speak out anytime I like, travel where I like, complain and criticize who I like.

Ain't the USA wonderful!
 
A great power that the President has is the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who serve a life term. With this power, the President can cause (depending how you view things) great long term harm or good. The Supreme Court Justices will have a decisive say on issues for many years. The executive branch has within it's legislation and implementation of various programs, from stimulus to bailouts and health care, is systematically dismantling parts of our free society. This President has proven to wax eloquently about protecting your rights but has acted in a manner only to take them away and increase the size of Federal Government and the tax burden. Given the opportunity, he will continue to do the same when it comes to his impact of 2nd ammendment issues. Some comments on this thread have under stated the President's power and role in affecting Supreme Court decisions.

Thank God, as citizens, we still have, within our power a voice and our vote.

"And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America where men were free"...Ronald Reagan.

Truth
 
jnormanh said:
There's plenty of disagreement among the 9 SCOTUS justices. All agree that gun ownership by the militia is protected by the second amendment. A 5/4 majority agree that the Second protects gun ownership for self defense.

All 9 also agree that "reasonable restrictions" may be applied to gun ownership, including no ownership by felons or mental defectives, and apparently, although not explicitly stated, that ownership of particularly destructive guns (full auto, calibers larger than .50) may be limited.

And so that is where we stand today, just as the Constitution intends - the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of Constitutional law.

Folks on either side of a gun ownership debate can take any position they like, one way or another, but the Constitution and it's examination by the SCOTUS are the law of the land. Everything else is just noise.

This system has worked quite well for more than 200 years, and I, for one, am grateful that it has. I own and can use all the guns I like. Always have, and, I expect, always will.

I can live where I like, work where I like, worship where I like, elect whoever I like, speak out anytime I like, travel where I like, complain and criticize who I like.

Ain't the USA wonderful!
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a helluva country. Well said and excellent summary of 2nd Amendment law.
 
My Rights are Growing - Freedom Abounds

Truth said:
A great power that the President has is the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who serve a life term. With this power, the President can cause (depending how you view things) great long term harm or good. The Supreme Court Justices will have a decisive say on issues for many years. The executive branch has within it's legislation and implementation of various programs, from stimulus to bailouts and health care, is systematically dismantling parts of our free society. This President has proven to wax eloquently about protecting your rights but has acted in a manner only to take them away and increase the size of Federal Government and the tax burden. Given the opportunity, he will continue to do the same when it comes to his impact of 2nd ammendment issues. Some comments on this thread have under stated the President's power and role in affecting Supreme Court decisions.

Thank God, as citizens, we still have, within our power a voice and our vote.

"And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America where men were free"...Ronald Reagan.

Truth
Click to expand...

I don't feel any of my rights have been taken away. If anything, my rights have increased recently with the Heller and McDonald decisions which the current occupant of the White House had nothing to do with. As someone with pre-existing health conditions who can only afford a bare bones Yugo (not Cadillac) health insurance policy, I appreciate the legal reforms that will bar insurance companies from denying me coverage or jacking the rates sky high. I view that as an increase in my personal freedoms. As for federal deficits, I am grateful that Republicans and Democrats joined together to prevent the financial crisis from moving the Great Recession into the Second Great Depression. When the economy turns around, and it will, the extra tax revenues will pay down the deficit just as has occurred numerous times before in our modern history. Our lives, overall, will not have been altered radically as they were during the Great Depression when there was hunger, mass homelessness and mass unemployment. One of my cousins got rickets, a life long affliction, due to malnutrition during the Great Depression. My ancestors saw malnourished cattle gnawing the bark off trees. No such thing is occurring today during this economic crisis. We are well fed, the cattle are well fed, the grocery stores are full of fresh, wonderful food. All the cars, trucks, buses, trains, and planes are running and there is plenty of gas. The stores are full of guns and ammo. Freedom abounds! We are very fortunate and very free.
 
Truth said:
A great power that the President has is the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who serve a life term. With this power, the President can cause (depending how you view things) great long term harm or good. The Supreme Court Justices will have a decisive say on issues for many years. The executive branch has within it's legislation and implementation of various programs, from stimulus to bailouts and health care, is systematically dismantling parts of our free society.
Click to expand...

Wow! Lot's of unTruth there. First off the President does not appoint Supreme Court justices. He nominates them. They are then examined by the Judiciary Committee, and finally voted on by the entire Senate. If they don't pass Senate muster, they don't serve. The power does not rest with the President. It rests with the Senate. Ask Robert Bork.

The executive branch legislates nothing. Legislation is done by, and only by, the Congress.

Can you name even one example of a part of our society which has been dismantled?
 
You are correct, the current President did not have much to do with the ruling (although his appointment Sotomayor voted against McDonald). And Kagan succeeding Stevens will not change outcomes, but if Obama gets the opportunity to replace any conservative Justices the pendulum will move the way of Obama and gun control advocates, it's that simple. You can thank Reagan, Bush jr and Bush Senior for your increased rights with the McDonald and Heller rulings as they appointed the conservative Justices who made the right decision to follow the intent of the Constitution. If you enjoy your guns (as you indicated that you do), hope that none of the conservative justices retire on Obama's watch.

We clearly have different views of freedom, but that is what makes for good discussion and I respect your opinion. We have to decide if we want a culture of takers or makers. At one time, most wanted the American idea of freedom and self responsibility. That is what our framers and founders wanted. Now, unfortunately, we a quickly moving toward a "mommy state" to take care of us. A cradle to grave mentality. If we continue to move down this road, our destination will be a poorer society, high unemployment, stagnation and complacency. By introducing universal health care, Obama has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. American liberals have long complained that we are the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well now we got it. As we approach European levels of entitlements we will need European levels of taxation. Expanded Government and higher levels of taxation is not my idea of freedom. As government gets larger and expands further into health care, power will be transferred to government health care regulatory agencies, overtime, you and your doctor will weigh less into treatment decisions. Our founders knew the importance of having a limited government it's citizens could afford and you must admit, this is clearly not the scenario that is unfolding in our great country. Thankyou and have a great day. Truth
 
jnormanh said:
Wow! Lot's of unTruth there. First off the President does not appoint Supreme Court justices. He nominates them. They are then examined by the Judiciary Committee, and finally voted on by the entire Senate. If they don't pass Senate muster, they don't serve. The power does not rest with the President. It rests with the Senate. Ask Robert Bork.

The executive branch legislates nothing. Legislation is done by, and only by, the Congress.

Can you name even one example of a part of our society which has been dismantled?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected mr normanh, nominated not appointed. Thanks for the lesson. To answer your question read my post/response to Brit Chaser. Have a great day, time to go to work. Truth
 
Truth said:
You can thank Reagan, Bush jr and Bush Senior for your increased rights
Click to expand...


Increased rights under Reagan, Bush and Bush? Huh?

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street."

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

[Gun World, 1996]

Itâ??s been nearly a year now, since George Bush resigned his NRA membership in a very public huff. As an NRA member myself, I havenâ??t missed him very much. But the story of George Bushâ??s relationship with the NRAâ??a story that the media entirely ignored while praising Bushâ??s resignationâ??is worth knowing, because the story shows the dangers that will be faced by gun owners should Republicans take the White House in 1996.

Now George Bush appears to be a nice guy. He served his country bravely during World War II. He would probably make a good neighbor. But in terms of how George Bush carried out his Presidential oath to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, Bush was an absolute disaster.

George Bushâ??s first major political encounter with the gun issue came when Congress was enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968. Representative Bush was the only Texas Congressperson to vote for the Act, and when doing so, he said that much more needed to be done.

And what additional gun laws has Obama signed ? None.

You know, Mr. Truth, you might be less fearful of our government if you actually knew something about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top