Very interesting and well-said, Amph!
Printable View
Very interesting and well-said, Amph!
But there are prohibited weapons, fully automatic firearms, for example. It's just a question of degree, basically. I think all he's saying is that every right has limitations; I can't think of any that doesn't. Those limitations are wrangled over by lawmakers, then the judicial system, and if they stand, they become part of our common law (which is maybe better referred to as case law).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sepia and Dust
-The same process we undergo when we debate a topic as divisive as guns and gun laws in the U.S. Might I also add that the same process that determined these rights is not infallible; i.e. bad decisions can be made, because we are human.Quote:
...the rights and liberties of Americans are not sacred, they're not derived from some supernatural presence, but are "Natural rights" that are derived from public process
From McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA to Lowe's in Concord, NC; from a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, AZ to a cinema in Aurora, CO; from Columbine High School to Virginia Tech; and now from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT to the three shootings *this week alone* in Phoenix, Atlanta, and Chicago, it's been made clear over and over again that the U.S. is *not* a functioning society. In terms of violence, it's not a great privilege any longer to live here.Quote:
[the rights and liberties of Americans]...are maintained through a social compact wherein all citizens sacrifice something of their individual liberty in order to enjoy the privileges of belonging to a functioning society...
How many more bodies will it take to convince American citizens that this particular individual liberty involving bearing arms needs to be sacrificed for the common and greater good? The founders of this country would turn over in their graves if they knew what bearing arms has come down to, and I suspect there'd be a move to re-word the Second Amendment if not repeal it altogether. Guns got us something from the British: liberty. Now they just bring us grief, fear, outrage, and savagery.
I checked with the Tootsie Roll owl. He says three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Sawyer
As in the earlier Heller decision, the '10 decision left the door open to exactly what could be be reconciled by the 2nd, and basically just said hand cannons were fine and dandy as candy, as the right to protect ones home with said pistolas was just an understood concept in our little experiment with freedoms & liberty, or somethin' like that yada yada yada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sepia and Dust
And in my opinion, they just made it so each and every legally packin' man, woman, & even child in America, is in effect, his or her very own one man (woman/child) militia.
Which if so (and if not, um, why ain't it not?), then it also begs the question, if one is in fact one's very own de facto militia, why all the hub bub 'bout bein' 'well regulated' (I mean it says so pretty prominent right there in that list of ingredients everybody what gets high off snortin' gun oil yammers on endlessly about but don't seem to have actually read, butt then it so very long, and I believe written in plain English), know what I'm sayin', 'cause I kinda doubt Alito..or Scalia...or Roberts..or Thomas, maybe not even Kennedy, would :eyebrow:?
Nothin' ain't ever really gonna mean nothin' until the definition of militia, and of course the infamous, "well regulated militia", are firmly defined & established into today's 'day and age', our modern over 300 million strong reality, and I'm sayin' if we don't do that, then everything else comin' down the pike is so much bunk just beggin' for an even bigger fight not long down that same road.
"The Militia Act of 2013", oh yeah babes, now that's got a right swell ring to it, doncha's think:wink2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todash
[QUOTE=Lily Sawyer;564260 Now they just bring us grief, fear, outrage, and savagery.[/QUOTE]
P.S. I forgot to add unnecessary funerals to that list.
I suspect that there's not much, if any, more violence than there ever was. Certainly less than at many points through history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lily Sawyer
The founders gave us the means to alter our constitution, and we can exercise it or not as we choose.
Yes, there are prohibited weapons, but the decision being referred to diminished the scope of those prohibitions substantially. All handguns, for instance, cannot be prohibited by state or local governments, as was the case for some time in Illinois.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todash
Great points, S&D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sepia and Dust
But according to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), pages 54-56, the Supreme Court held: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
The above reference to United States versus Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1934), was a reiteration of the earlier courts ruling which "did not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by a [citizens'] militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes)." Or, more to the point, as Justice MacReynolds wrote in his original decision: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
That was how things stood in 2008, and I think we can all see why the Supreme Court had to further address the issue in 2010 and will likely be addressing this issue once again shortly. That is, In McDonald v Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court agreed that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. In the plural decision (the court was split) both assenting and dissenting Judges specifically reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible, although the issue was not directly dealt with in this case.Predictably, initial reactions of the Court's 2010 ruling were favorable from both the NRA and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and both were quick to issue statements indicating they were were entirely vindicated by the Court's ruling (despite the court not issuing a "clarification of standard for review" as originally requested by the Brady group).
And then doubts began to arise as some serious questions were asked...
And folks in a whole lot of places began to think maybe it wasn't such a great idea to allow the 1994 ban on assault weapons to lapse in 2004. So... particularly in the wake of Newtown, and reports that another AR-15 Bushmaster was used, legislators are remembering weapons deemed prohibited by legislation, and users wishing to procure or own those weapons deemed prohibited, are not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Feinstein et al. agreed to take the point and attempting to reinstate legislation that was allowed to lapse. Predictably, the NRA - after successfully lobbying for the lapse of the 1994 weapons ban in 2004, pointing out there was no significant decrease in gun-related violence: folks simply used guns not banned - is appalled, and consider Feinstein's bill an attack on constitutionally-granted rights.
Well, I guess we'll see what happens next, right? :smile2: