Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

[The_Dude 1,142]

I know what context is and I am sure the SCOTUS does also. It seems you may not though.

It's clear from this post, that you don't have any idea what it is. The dictionary is your friend, look it up sometime.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's clear from this post, that you don't have any idea what it is. The dictionary is your friend, look it up sometime.

So your saying you know better than the majority of the SCOTUS? And you say I don't understand.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'm saying, that it's absurd to live by the laws of a nation and society of 235 years ago. Furthermore, the context in which the 2nd amendment was written is frequenly maniuplated by the gun freaks. When it was written, we had no professional army, and as such, an armed population was needed for the militias to defend our country. Times have changed as you can see.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I'm saying, that it's absurd to live by the laws of a nation and society of 235 years ago. Furthermore, the context in which the 2nd amendment was written is frequenly maniuplated by the gun freaks. When it was written, we had no professional army, and as such, an armed population was needed for the militias to defend our country. Times have changed as you can see.

The SCOTUS, however, understands that the Bill of Rights isn't a "living" document that is open to interpitation. It is a set of hard and fast rules that can never be amended. The "times" does not matter when it comes to the Bill of Rights. It was never meant to either. The majority of the SCOTUS understands that.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The SCOTUS, however, understands that the Bill of Rights isn't a "living" document that is open to interpitation. It is a set of hard and fast rules that can never be amended. The "times" does not matter when it comes to the Bill of Rights. It was never meant to either. The majority of the SCOTUS understands that.

All that is your opinion, nowhere is it actually stated. The majority of the SCOTUS supports your OPINION, but not a consensus.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The SCOTUS, however, understands that the Bill of Rights isn't a "living" document that is open to interpitation. It is a set of hard and fast rules that can never be amended.

Says who? The Bill of Rights itself is a number of amendments to the Constituion - amendments 1 to 10, to be precise.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

All that is your opinion, nowhere is it actually stated. The majority of the SCOTUS supports your OPINION, but not a consensus.

Since the SCOTUS is the final say on what the constitution says then their opinion and this ruling settles the question. The 2nd amendment DOES grant all Americans the right to bear arms. It is cut and dried. No consensus is needed and despite what you think or want it isn't going to change. So, I will repeat, you are wrong when it comes to context. The SCOTUS just said so.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm saying, that it's absurd to live by the laws of a nation and society of 235 years ago. Furthermore, the context in which the 2nd amendment was written is frequenly maniuplated by the gun freaks. When it was written, we had no professional army, and as such, an armed population was needed for the militias to defend our country. Times have changed as you can see.

Thats twisting it a bit. It was about having a militia outside a regular army. The US Army predates the Constitution (formed in 1784 I think) and was a standing force (all be it fairly small).

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Says who? The Bill of Rights itself is a number of amendments to the Constituion - amendments 1 to 10, to be precise.

I should say "will never be" amended. It would require a 2/3 majority in congress and then 2/3 of the states to agree. That will never happen.

[Heracles 417]

Thank goodness we eliminated that system in "17 something"...at the point of a gun. AND STAY OUT!!!!!!!!!

Gary as a Libertarian, logical or rational thought is not your forte, so I expect such statements. After all, they're the basis of being a libertarian. Furthermore, such comments will not change the reality of being the laughing stock of the first world because of such backwards laws regarding weapons.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

What does the calendar have to do with my right to defend myself?

Yes, against foreign invaders, not your own people. Evidently the other four saw the logical intention of this. The founders also didn't envision weapons capable of killing 20 people fellow citizens in under a minute.

I believe the language is that it is a right to bear arms, not a right to defend yourself.

If anyone wants to play the Constitution angle, I have no problem with the literal interpretation. Keeping a riffle in your house, ready against a foreign invader.

The Constitution never said the right to carry handguns and use them against your own people.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Since the SCOTUS is the final say on what the constitution says then their opinion and this ruling settles the question. The 2nd amendment DOES grant all Americans the right to bear arms. It is cut and dried. No consensus is needed and despite what you think or want it isn't going to change. So, I will repeat, you are wrong when it comes to context. The SCOTUS just said so.

Again, that is the OPINION of the court, for now. It's not set in stone and can be revisited at a later date.

Thats twisting it a bit. It was about having a militia outside a regular army. The US Army predates the Constitution (formed in 1784 I think) and was a standing force (all be it fairly small).

The U.S. didn't have a standing, professional army at the time, at least not one capable of protecting the nation.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Again, that is the OPINION of the court, for now. It's not set in stone and can be revisited at a later date.

That is the point. The opinion of the court is the law. It is no longer the opinion. And because of Stare Decisis the chances of a different opinion are very slim. Fact is, the subject has been settled. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.

[Heracles 417]

It's time for a Constitutional amendment, that's what it comes down to.

Evidently, to some, had 12 year old female slaves been in the Constitution, they would have no problem with it.

[Heracles 417]

What I would like to know is if buying a ballistic missile is also acceptable.

Actually, when you seriously think about it, it would be considering the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against foreign invaders.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Booyah!