|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM EST |
It's my opinion that the 2nd Amendment is a protection against
the Federal Gov't
disarming the citizenry, by insuring the States the right to
keep "well
regulated militia[s]".
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER Syllabus:
Held:
1. The Second
Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The
Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand
the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text
and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear
arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s
interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or
a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the
ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a
citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
...
The various National Guards being select
militias.
Item 2 of the syllabus as PJ so ably pointed out elsewhere denotes
limits on the individual right ensconced in the nations more than 22,000 gun
laws, some small number subject to eventual Supreme Court review. One could do
worse that to read both opinion and dissents presented by the Supreme Court in
this case as well as McDonald v. Chicago
which extends the Second Amendment to the individual States.
The Heller
decision also approaches whether or not the Second Amendment extends to modern
firearms referring to speaking to limitation to arms at the time of ratification
as bordering on the frivolous in the
opinion.
From a spectator's point of view your opinion does not appear
to be fully informed. While it seems unlikely the Supreme Court comprised of a
different set of idealism can undo the opinion in the future, there's always the
old saw of increasing what is reasonable in terms of limits on an individual
right, as we see in Fourth and First Amendment cases of late.
That the
first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights gives rise to a common
defense of the meaning of 'The People', limiting excesses on restrictions of
individual rights without Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional
Convention.
Both seem likely to fail the from the ratio of Red and Blue
states and ratification mechanisms by the states, no tyranny of the majority by
popular vote due to population numbers is likely to succeed with each state in
control of it's own voting procedures.
Attacking one individual right
through political expediency is to allow the camel's nose under the tent skirt
perhaps leading to restrictions on other civil liberties held more universally dear. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 09:51 PM EST |
"That said, there is no justifiable reason for personal ownership of
automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, except the reason that everyone is afraid
to say: Overthrow of the U.S. Gov't."
I call "shenanigans". You've obviously never been charged by a pack
of javelina. I have, and was glad I had an AR15 with a 30 round magazine.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 10:52 AM EST |
I think it is very odd that a community of people who are generally
freedom-loving types seem to lean so often on the "no reason" reason.
"No reason" is exactly why we have a constitution with a bill of
rights. Otherwise there is "no reason" I shouldn't be able to vote to
shut down your newspaper or outlaw your religion or keep your flag-burning
carcass in chains.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 01:22 PM EST |
Free Press, Free Speech, and The right to own firearms were
all put in the Bill of Rights in case a tyrant rose to power
displacing the republic (Think Caesar)... The people could
revolt.
Now as to why the rise in general violence against one
another and kids shooting up schools... That is a different
story altogether. Gun control isn't the answer though...
roll it back to 1812 and I can just about grantee you that
every rural household, and many of the urban households, did
in fact have guns in them... Heck even in 1912 that was
probably the case... The male children, over the age of 10
were most probably taught how to fire the them.
There aren't newspaper stories of teenage children in these
communities in these time periods shooting up the
schoolhouse though... The entire gun control issue is a
straw-man... It's not the gun's.. it's something else in
society that has changed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:46 AM EST |
and let me add from the CDC
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.
Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%)
involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
I can see no justifiable reason for people to be able to buy alcohol ...
especially hard liquor.
Now that I think of it sports cars have very high accident rates as compared to
other car models. I can see no justifiable reason why people should be allowed
to own sports cars.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
