|Search Cool Running Community|
Looks like they will rule on the second amendment next spring. I'm sure this will get thrown into the Presidential election.
They will be ruling on whether it's just the militia or individual right to keep and bear arms.
My thought; the part that says "shall not be infringed" means to me we had the right previously to the constitution and can't be taken away.
The admendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What do you think will happen?
If the supreme court were above politics, then they would rule that it only applies to the militia. Because, archaic as the sentence structure may be, you can tell the first half of the sentence doesn't make sense without the second half and that they go together. Otherwise, the two ideas are distinct enough that they'd certainly warrant two different amendments.
But the Supreme Court is every bit as partisan as the legislative and executive branches. They will probably rule that it describes an individual right to bear arms.
But even if you look at it that way, it only limits the power of the federal government. It doesn't mean that individual states can't impose tough gun laws.
Tough gun laws are one thing but why shouldn't I be allowed to have my rifle to hunt on my land? I can imagine not allowing people to own assault rifles, the multiple reasons become quite obvious upon giving the topic a cursory thought.
Originally posted by Blackbird:
Yer shootin' at the wrong Injun, Tex. I'm for opening the border and letting everyone in.
They are getting in anyway...might as well save the ammo.
Originally posted by Arrojo:
Ban and confiscate all guns, I say.
Easy to say.. but how could you do that? You don't think there would be lots of deaths?? If this was tried, lots of gun owners would simple shoot the person trying to take the gun away.. turn lots of people into crimminals
Originally posted by Rich Mac:
turn lots of people into crimminals
Dude, they would be criminals. Um, I think we call them "murderers," in fact.
Of course, we turned a lot of people into criminals when we made drugs and robbery and carjacking illegal, too. That was probably wrong of us, huh?
This would make anything GWB has done with surveillance and other such curtailment of personal freedoms in the name of fighting terror look pretty tame.
Nothing smacks of totalitarianism quite like taking away guns.