What next, the Supreme Court will go after the 2nd amendment again, to add to their debacle?

I guess I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court was supposed to take public opinion into account.

@thorninmud I guess I wasn’t aware that the Supreme Court was supposed to take public opinion into account. Once upon a time popular opinion was called “a vote”.

Then they’ll be real sorry when the next election for justices comes around.

@Hypocrisy_Central the only thing the Supreme Court takes into consideration is Constitutionality.

@Hypocrisy_Central “The Supreme Court Jesters having dropped the ball big time”

I couldn’t agree more – the Voting Rights Act should have been upheld.

Could you translate your question into something coherent? If you feel that the supreme court “dropped the ball”, maybe you could provide insightful analysis on why you feel this way. Simply asserting it, calling them names, making even more wild assertions about being “so far to the left”, and using this to fuel speculation that the supreme court will suddenly “go after” the 2nd amendment really isn’t going to cut it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

@Hypocrisy_Central Would not vore for the Supreme Court, oh ya he can’t vote for them.

@Hypocrisy_Central I can’t answer your question without knowing which decision or decisions you take exception to, and what part of the Constitution the decision disregards.

The Court is not supposed to allow their own personal opinions to sway their judgement, yet we know who on the court is conservative, and who is liberal, due to the fact that they do let their own opinions sway their judgement.
After watching yesterday and today’s opinions, I would not say they have moved to the left. They are what they are, though I will admit that today’s prop 8 ruling was an unusual mix. Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Kagen, and Ginsburg all voted to deny standing to the authors of Prop 8. Dare I say that this mix of justices is queer.

So if the “popular opinion” was that black people or women shouldn’t have the right to vote (as it once was), the government/court should do nothing about it? This government of the US isn’t just a “majority rules” system; sometimes the majority wants something that’s discriminatory (i.e. segregation, no suffrage for women/black people, etc.); it’s also about preventing tyranny by the majority.

When did the Supreme Court “go after the 2nd amendment ”?

2A is probably safe for now until the make up of the Supreme court changes. Right now because of 2A friendly, 5–4 splits, it has hung on by its fingernails. Obama’s last two choices are definitely not 2A friendly. And then there is how these justices interpret the 2nd. We will have to wait and see. It doesn’t look good for the future and that is why you have been seeing firearms and ammunition selling so fast since the beginning of the year. We can argue why this has been happening all day long but the fact remains that when certain objects are allowed to be outlawed, that will be that. It then depends on the state you live in whether you can buy certain objects.

Who says its the popular opinion?

It’s not popular opinion. 2A is established law of the land.

@woodcutter The 14th amendment is as well. The Constitution actually has more than a couple or sentences right-wingers love in it. And it’s a very liberal document, not conservative at all by the standards of the day when it was written. That’s why judges interpreting it often decide things that upset far-right wingers who want to go back to the delights of Feudalism.

@ETpro 2A is quite clear. Its just one sentence.

@woodcutter It is NOT clear, and there have been disagreements about what that says for 230 years.

Exact text: 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.

I read it as giving members of a well regulated Militia the right to keep and bear Arms, others see it as giving every man, woman, and child in our country the right to own assault rifles.

Not. Clear.

Source

@SuperMouse It really doesn’t make any sense at all, because of the punctuation. Consider what it could mean if some of the extraneous commas are removed:

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.

OR

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.

These versions have completely different meanings. There are too many commas… the question is which ones actually belong there? The meaning of the amendment could not be more unclear.

The militia is us.The people. Its really that simple . If there are some who choose not to participate that’s fine. But it still enables the one’s who do want to be a part of it the right to do so. Don’t over think it.

Then what does it mean to “well regulate” that militia?

Well regulate. It basically means that the members needed to have their own weapons of the period that would fall within the logistics of the period. No bizarre or otherwise unusual weapons that couldn’t utilize the same ammo and tactics. It didn’t mean that there was to be a constant mini army that did nothing else.

One of the biggest arguments the gun control lobby cites is that the Second Amendment only applied to a militia. Let’s see some quotes by our Founding Fathers and the authors of our Bill of Rights:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people… To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them… ”—George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ”—Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ”—John Adams

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ”—Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ”—Thomas Paine

”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.”—James Madison

(Excerpts from JPFO website)

@woodcutter what? Even if we are the militia, and many are dubious that we are, anti gun control activists seem to want to ignore the “well regulated” part.

I was going as @thorninmud‘s response came up. I am wondering about the statement about bizarre and unusual weapons. I would have no problem considering semi automatic weapons in the hands in non-military or non-law enforcement citizens rather bizarre.

@SuperMouse That comment is confusing the way you have it there. “anti gun control activists?”

Are you saying pro gun people ignore “well regulated?”

Regulation involves rules. Regulation involves oversight. What authority exercises that regulation? And the militia’s not just barely regulated, it’s well regulated.

Well regulated= arms of the period. And in good working order. Someone wishing to join a homegrown fighting force was not just accepted because the commander was desperate for warm bodies to fight. He had to have their shit together. Meaning he couldn’t bring with him some broke ass musket that was going to be more of a liability than asset. Bring something that worked. The weapons of “the period” were all essentially military grade arms. The weapons the Brits had didn’t have much over what the colonist had. They hurled a .50 caliber lead ball that broke bones and ripped out guts. Here in the 21st century a militia still has to have current military grade arms “of the period” to even be a militia at all.

@woodcutter yes, I would say that the folks who are against gun control laws ignore the “well regulated” part.

Well regulated= arms of the period. And in good working order. Someone wishing to join a homegrown fighting force was not just accepted because the commander was desperate for warm bodies to fight. He had to have their shit together. Meaning he couldn’t bring with him some broke ass musket that was going to be more of a liability than asset. Bring something that worked. The weapons of “the period” were all essentially military grade arms. The weapons the Brits had didn’t have much over what the colonist had. They hurled a .50 caliber lead ball that broke bones and ripped out guts. Here in the 21st century a militia still has to have current military grade arms “of the period” to even be a militia at all.

I would say the well regulated part has never been ignored. I have my military ready arms. Do you?

@thorninmud What authority exercises that regulation? More to the gist of it all is…what authority does not exercise that regulation. That entity was never intended to be the federal govt.

What I’m seeing here is… if there were standing militias all over the country bearing arms, we would all be ok with 2A? Just as long as they seemed like they knew what they were doing?

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/a-well-regulated-militia.htm

This is bound to stick in Fluthers’ collective craw but read it. Its quick so no TL,DR sentiments should arise.

@woodcutter Ok, your link says that a “well-regulated militia” is to be led by its local leaders. Which local leader are you reporting to, if you are part of a well-regulated militia? And if you report to no local leader, how can you describe yourself as part of such a militia?

@glacial Which local leader do I report to? LOL! You are cleaver, but not as clever as you should be. Just like “fight club” rules, we don’t talk about who is what, or how many is in a militia especially on the internet. Nice try. That is the whole point. If we had all this in print, the federals would just round up everyone in the chain and neutralize the force.

Starting to understand now?

I stepped away from this thread for a bit, but it seems to have carried on despite the fact that the premise of the original question was a bit “fluffy” (or incoherent). Do we have any takers on the premise that the supreme court is “going after” the 2nd amendment?

Also, @woodcutter: “I have my military ready arms. Do you?” – What type of military arms do you have? Where do you store your helicopter, fighter jets, drones, surface to air anti-aircraft missiles, etc?

Do you feel that the 2nd amendment is most important because you can protect yourself against the US military? This seems like an extremely difficult task – especially considering how much people seem to love to build up the US military. Or is the 2nd amendment important for some other reason?

@woodcutter Well, your entire point seems to be to keep me from understanding you, so no. For all I know, you are trying to tell me that you’re a member of the KKK, a Waco-style cult, or just a loon. Nothing you are saying is promoting any kind of understanding at all.

@glacial I want you to just be reasonable and look at what you do before hitting the Answer button, again be reasonable..is all I ask.

I refuse to divulge sensitive information to you, for all i know you could be an NSA agent Or some crackpot wanting to stir up shit. . Prove to us you are not. You can’t.
It is not my job to make you understand me. I do expect you to trust me, and I’m not taking the bait. That right there should tell you plenty. If you still need to ask, then my friend you wouldn’t understand anyway. The point of the militia is to blend in with everyone else, even you. There is no need for us to be living in camo all the time just so you can tell who is who. Doing that would completely be against the premise of a militia.Thats the point. You don’t know who is, and who is not.

@tom_g So what you are saying that because the US military and the other civilian quazi military forces are all powerful and all knowing that it should be enough to not even try? All resistance is futile? Is that your philosophy on life? If it seems difficult or seemingly impossible to do, you don’t even try? 2A gives us the right to try. It doesn’t guarantee it will work. But then again nothing in life comes with a guarantee.

Several sheriffs throughout the US have came out to say they will not enforce many of these new infringements of the second. Think about that for a quick second. These are just the one’s who openly proclaim this. There are military members, some of them with their own titles and some under the radar who will not fire upon their countrymen if ordered.
It’s exciting isn’t it?

@woodcutter To be honest, this is what I find bizarre: you won’t come out and say what you mean, you just leave these oddly heavy-handed hints, which I can only imagine are meant to impress us with your badassery. But I read comments like these, in which you are basically describing that you consider yourself to be a secret soldier in a specific group with some number of other secret soldiers, and I don’t find them impressive. Instead, it simultaneously saddens me that you live in such fear of your own elected government, and creeps me the hell out that you think it would be cool to be secretly training to kill your fellow citizens or members of your own military.

You all should bookmark the JPFO website and read the features and stats. That site is fascinating if you are critical thinkers and it will be hard to stop reading there. There is an explanation for every question and urban myth ever thought up by gun controlers. I find it fascinating because it is a bulwark against the mainstream US Jewish mindset that they pretty much want to end civilian ownership of arms. This site reflects the Jews who remember the holocaust as well as world history. They’re Jews! whooda thought?

@glacial Now you are being intentionally dense for the sake of extraction. Stop it. You are smarter than that. I have come out and indicated what I mean. It’s just not what you wanted. Militia don’t brag on themselves. You should be appreciative for what you have managed to pull out of me. I may have said too much. So be gracious for once. I haven’t said I was a “secret soldier” of any kind and… I have not denied it either. It must make people like you crazy, not getting what you demand at the snap of a finger. Life for you so far must have been pretty sweet for you to really have expectations like that. You don’t know me. You don’t know almost everyone else in the country. None of us no matter what we do “owes” you jack. It is not important you know anyway. I asked you to trust me. I don’t lie. It doesn’t become me.

“I find it fascinating because it is a bulwark against the mainstream US Jewish mindset that they pretty much want to end civilian ownership of arms. This site reflects the Jews who remember the holocaust as well as world history. They’re Jews! whooda thought?”

Yes, @woodcutter. I think you have come out and indicated what you mean.

@woodcutter: “So what you are saying that because the US military and the other civilian quazi military forces are all powerful and all knowing that it should be enough to not even try?”

Well, I suspect you (and others like you) would be bringing a pack of chewing gum to a gunfight, so to speak. I have met some 2nd amendment fans in the past, and even they had abandoned the whole “we can fight them off” stuff. So, I was curious if you this is what you are saying (it seems it is).

@woodcutter: “All resistance is futile? Is that your philosophy on life? If it seems difficult or seemingly impossible to do, you don’t even try?”

More to the point – if I don’t feel there is a need to try, then I won’t try. I don’t feel the need to walk downstairs and fill my washing machine with luncheon meats. I also don’t feel the need to cook up paranoia about my government to a level where I am prepping for a war.

The fact is, I fear you more than I fear members of my government.

And not to mention but I will, that any kind of kit some would like to have to fight with also makes a handy self defense tool. Things can have many applications. Better to have more than you need and not use than to have something insufficient and regret it.

Or you can use your cell and call 911 and sit tight. That’s if sitting remains an option.

@tom_g You fear me? It doesn’t take much to rattle you does it? Fill your washing machine with lunch meats? th fuck is that shit? I suppose it might be natural for people to fear what they don’t understand. There’s a word for that. But when one is scared of something they refuse to understand is just plain unenlightened bigotry.

that really hurts…doesn’t it?

At the birth of this country, the founding fathers were worried about the creation of a standing army. They felt this would make us a more war-like state, and thought the best way to avoid the creation of a standing army was the employment of State Militias. This would be ordinary people who could be called upon by their state to handle sudden aggression upon us.
To ensure this was a viable option, they wrote the 2nd amendment, preventing States from outlawing guns.
In 2008, the Supremes ignored the first part, and jumped to the meat of the Amendment, which was silly, because the first part was where the justification for it is. I encourage you to read the decision, partially because Scalia resorts to name calling against the opposing justices.

Without the glorious second amendment, the British, or anyone else, even our own government, could waltz in and take over easy; ask the people in Syria who are crying for outside help because Assad has more guns and bigger ones as well. No one can take over the US easily, not even if the government got stupid and tried to go dictator. Any adversary would have to take this nation street by street and block by block because the people have enough arms to defend the streets. Is this a remote possibility that the founding fathers seen or one they did not see at all, it is the Constitution. Too many parts of the Constitution has already been chipped away. They are chipping away at the vote, once they get the vote and the second amendment they will have all of the marbles and the people can be taken on any ride the government wants them to go on.

@Hypocrisy_Central that sounds great in theory, but the armed forces certainly have bigger, deadlier, stronger, more precise, more dangerous weapons then citizens.

^^ Whoever will still have to put boots on the ground to take anything. ^^

The thing with using destructive devises to put down a rebellion is, that this is a greedy capitalistic society that really prizes their real estate and businesses. The rulers corporatists are not going to want these massive machines of war destroying these valuable assets. It is they after all who call the shots. And the cost of a public relations debacle that will be all but impossible to weasel out of if the govt blows up buildings and takes with it hundreds or thousands of people. To what end? to crush a handful of guerrilla fighters in pockets throughout a city? And forget about going after them in the rural areas. The cost will be high on both sides and in all likelihood force the cooler heads to prevail for a ceasefire and solutions for the original grievances.
The war in Iraq didn’t scale down because the greatest military in he world kicked their asses. Nope. They saw the de-escalation when the coalition started a dialog with the insurgents. Why?because sure, the US could have firebombed every single place they suspected their enemy to be and still not win, or they could be smart and use their heads and talk. The 2A is not in place to take over the country. It’s to stop an out of hand govt from doing it.