Ponderable

It's sad you need to twist and turn to make the framers intent fit your narrative . . . aka, the plumber is just making shit up, like all nutters do.
Listen shit for brains, I don't need to twist anything ...
What you need to do is read the most recent Supreme Court Decisions regarding the second amendment.
If you have any 1/2 witted comments afterwords, fire away...duck.
 
Listen shit for brains, I don't need to twist anything ...
What you need to do is read the most recent Supreme Court Decisions regarding the second amendment.
If you have any 1/2 witted comments afterwords, fire away...duck.
Heller? " . . . the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."
 
Heller? " . . . the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

The first time the SCOTUS ruled on a case bearing on the 2nd Amendment, it ruled that states could enact their own gun control laws since the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. The court has evolved over time from that interpretation.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

US v. Cruikshank, 1875.​
 
The first time the SCOTUS ruled on a case bearing on the 2nd Amendment, it ruled that states could enact their own gun control laws since the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. The court has evolved over time from that interpretation.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

US v. Cruikshank, 1875.​
Yeah so?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

OTIS McDONALD, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

[June 28, 2010]

Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join.

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
 
Yeah so?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

OTIS McDONALD, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

[June 28, 2010]

Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join.

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

As I posted right above, the court has evolved over time from that interpretation.
 
Regulated. Can't own a Bazooka, I agree.

Not unlimited. I'm ok with limiting firearm ownership to about 20.

The issue at hand is not how many firearms one could own. The issue is who may own them. A sane, law-abiding individual who is competent in the use of the firearms in his possession should face no limits to his law-abiding possession and use. The weakness we have in our gun-control policy in USA is that we have limited triage - we sort applicants for gun ownership into always yes or always no, with no place for "Maybe we should take a closer look". A short militia-like training program would benefit the country many ways, including developing competency with firearms (which was the original intent of NRA) plus weeding out those who don't know what they are doing or who should not be trusted with a deadly weapon, even if they have never committed a crime yet.
 
The issue at hand is not how many firearms one could own. The issue is who may own them. A sane, law-abiding individual who is competent in the use of the firearms in his possession should face no limits to his law-abiding possession and use. The weakness we have in our gun-control policy in USA is that we have limited triage - we sort applicants for gun ownership into always yes or always no, with no place for "Maybe we should take a closer look". A short militia-like training program would benefit the country many ways, including developing competency with firearms (which was the original intent of NRA) plus weeding out those who don't know what they are doing or who should not be trusted with a deadly weapon, even if they have never committed a crime yet.

Maybe gun ownership should require one to go through training on the order of the amount of time that is spent on getting a driver's license.
 
Back
Top