Mass Recall

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim.

Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament.

There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do.

ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then).

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles.

Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

“..conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” might include requiring that everybody who wants to own a gun has to get a permit, and have a background check,

“…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” That certainly seems to challenge the NRA’s idea that more guns in schools is a good idea.

And perhaps most striking, the majority ruling in Heller specifically leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to carry “concealed weapons”, a bedrock claim of gun rights advocates.

Try taking their automatic weapons away from them. It is a need, not a want. You have lost the plot if you think these gun toting clowns dont need them. They need them to shoot terrorists and bad guys. How many times has that happened? None.

As long as you keep using terms that have no meaning when referring to a free country, what can I do other than keep pointing out that your terms don't make any sense in the context that you are using them?

Remember, we're free here in America. Stuff that would make perfect sense when referring to serfs and slaves, doesn't have any applicability when talking about American citizens.

You really think your opinion and definitions are all there is?

Free?

Your poor die from preventable disease, you lock up and take away the freedom of more of your own citizens than any other nation, you have more massacres than any other nation - personally I like being alive and I wouldn't consider myself free if killed by your gun laws.

your terms don't make any sense in the context that you are using them?

America is the last free country on earth.

The only people who could be said to be killed by our gun laws would be the people who were illegally disarmed and were then killed while unable to defend themselves.

Your posts are so full of nothing but opinion.

You provide your definition of need and say it doesnt apply to guns.

But you also deny that people dont need guns they only want them.

See? Opinion. You dont like the meaning so you think you can bluff your way out with opinion.

See? Opinion.

See? Opinion.

You can not debate without being sleazy with the topic. I think there is enough above to prove your lack of honesty.

That America is the last free country on earth is a factual matter.

You insist the term need does not apply to guns.

There has been no plea on your part it has been a silly avoidance to not use the word need.

You think by being slippery you are making headway, when it is obvious you dont know the difference between fact and opinion.

Give me a ref for this fact. It should be very common knowledge.

Quote:

Ionus wrote: You insist the term need does not apply to guns.

Nonsense. I point out that the term does not apply to free people.

When dealing with guns in America, it is best to eliminate "need" from the lexicon.

are there any other nations in the world where people retain the right to carry guns when they go about in public? Perhaps I've missed some other coutry where people still retain that right, but so far as I know, the US is the very last.

Rubbish. This is what you said:

Quote:

When dealing with guns in America, it is best to eliminate "need" from the lexicon.

This is the sort of dishonesty you commit.

Yes, lots of countries. Here the process is you must be a registered owner and you must have a registered weapon. Then you can apply for concealed firearm permit. So you were wrong factually and in your opinion.