An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
For an appropriate response, I'm in a tossup between "non sequitur" and "ignoramus".
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).
In a 5–4 ruling issued on June 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. In so doing, it endorsed the so-called “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment’s meaning and rejected a rival interpretation, the “collective-right” theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia. Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the operative clause of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” codifies an individual right derived from English common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights (1689). The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens. The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
In a 5–4 ruling issued on June 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. In so doing, it endorsed the so-called “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment’s meaning and rejected a rival interpretation, the “collective-right” theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia. Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the operative clause of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” codifies an individual right derived from English common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights (1689). The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens. The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
It made as much sense as your asinine question....ya jackass.
Wez
DA
You be an idiot.
Sheriff Joe
DA
I always knew you were queer.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
"Having it coming" is having a different opinion from yours, Gay Joe.
Sheriff Joe
DA
The Second Amendment Ain't About Hunting.
Wez
DA
Sure, could have killed more kids.
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
those old lead balls didn't travel that far that fast. You would have to be one unlucky SOG :0
Wez
DA
Do your shits talk internet tough too?
My question was on topic. Your non-response demonstrated your ignorance.
Liar.
Sheriff Joe
DA
You ok commie?
Bruddah IZ
DA
From your link:
The extreme costs of keeping illegal immigrant criminals in this country
According to research and statistics by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, U.S. taxpayers are footing an annual bill of nearly $19 million a day to house and care for an estimated 300,000 to 450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country.
These figures include not only those immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but all immigrants here who commit and have been convicted of crimes. Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.
So the next time you hear some Open Borders politician or pro illegal immigrant surrogates advocate on their behalf, ask yourself why we as American citizens need to bear the increasing costs of violence, victimization and burdensome taxes in subsidizing illegal immigrant criminals who shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.
And why would you make a "reasonable inference or guess, based on the article somewhere below 1.8B??? Ton of money yes, but if we eliminated gun violence 3B costs, the other costs would drop as well???
You have no way of knowing that.