Are you a gun controller ?

[Ridgerunner]

So your beef is with the Supreme Court? My beef is with the two major parties that are nothing more than a sham to distract the American People while both of them proceed to tear down every aspect of freedom for the common man for the benefit of the elites using slightly different methods that arrive at the same destination. One who unyieldingly supports either of those groups while proclaiming to support freedom is a hypocrite.

Here we are in nearly complete agreement. However, I include the Libertarian Party, also..and most OTHER political entities clamoring for THEIR share of the rotten goodies...ripped off the backs of taxpayers.

I ALSO include the so-called 'justice system'..a perverted morass best navigated by throwing hundred dollar bills ahead of you as you advance thru it..and God help those that do not have those hundreds and tens of thousands of them.
The Founders would weep....
I have no intention of presenting a case by case study of the inroads the Courts have made on destroying Freedom in this country since 1865.
Either you understand that they HAVE...or you do not.

 

[MadDawg]

Ridge-
I have found Belief best for your religion. I never liked being told in the secular world you either believe or you dont.

It would be nice if examples could be given as things like busing are not the court's idea but the state's idea.

There is a great debate on if the Courts lean toward one philosophy or another. You can argue they agree with a law for the better good and perhaps not strictly 'constructionalist'.

But constructionalist is often in the eye of the beholder. When ther supreme court rules the Florida recount was over due to Florida law setting a time limit, the democrats howled.

When the same court rules Florida law was constitutional on survivorship, and Congress couldnt interfer it was the Republicans who screamed activist judges!

Most often beleivers have to pick and chose the decisions to make a case. those who look at the entire record tend toward most decisions are split and err toward caution.

If you believe the court is activist then you see only those cases that go against your political beliefs.

While we refer to the politcal system as a republic, democratic, or representative governance.

But bottomline is the bottomline. We are a capitalist nation and money does talk. Spend more money and you get better stuff. be it a car, house or trial.

If you think that started around the end of our bloody civil war that kept the nation whole you are mistaken. Money was talking in the Colonies waaay before the summer of 1776. Many federalists wanted some sort of wealth test before a man could vote. Something like land ownership, or after the Civil War, a poll tax.

It wasnt until a century after that war before poll taxes were declared Unconstitutional. But once again only after a case was brought before the court.

The men of wealth were leery of the common rabble, they didnt want those who hadnt achieved the American dream to a certain level, the ablity to be too involved in decision making.

Anyway it would be nice to have more than a belief in the collapse of our political system.

 

[Ridgerunner]

MadDawg;
Back to the original context of the post ;

One does not need ANY uncertainty about the exact meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'..no matter what 'beliefs' one has.

Those few words are an absolute BAR to government deciding whom, where, or how a citizen exercises his God-given Right to self defense and defense of Country.
That is why the Great Good Court did not address those four words...simply because it would have made a hollow mockery out of their learned, measured words finding that 'governments can institute reasonable gun laws'....mockery being what they inflicted upon themselves ANYWAY...among intelligent people....

 

[338Shooter]

I love mausermike. I'm glad he's back.

 

[1shot(bob)]

I love mausermike. I'm glad he's back.

If anyone ever doubted that they are one and the same, that last post erased those doubts.
MD and MM are twins.

 

[MadDawg]

bob-
we are brothers from diferent mothers!

Ridge-
while the Constitution is an amazing document, it is vague in a few parts.

If the had said Citizen that would have really helped.

If they had said People in good standing in Society maybe.

But as we all know the way its worded now convicts and the insane would have the right to bear arms.

Placing 'well regulated' into the COMPLETE right is a stumbling block. Implies some sort of benchmark. I am not happy militia is in there either. The problem is most pro-gun guys only recall the last half and the gun regulators the first half.

So while I feel strongly about the right to keep and bear, I think most the voting public feels some restrictions are prudent.

 

[1shot(bob)]

bob-
we are brothers from diferent mothers!

Whatever!

Ridge-
while the Constitution is an amazing document, it is vague in a few parts.

If the had said Citizen that would have really helped.

How so?

If they had said People in good standing in Society maybe.

But as we all know the way its worded now convicts and the insane would have the right to bear arms.

As long as they are not IN prison or an insane asylum, why shouldn't they?

Placing 'well regulated' into the COMPLETE right is a stumbling block. Implies some sort of benchmark. I am not happy militia is in there either. The problem is most pro-gun guys only recall the last half and the gun regulators the first half.

Not if you understand the meaning of the phrase when it was written. In the time it more referred to a well-trained' militia.

So while I feel strongly about the right to keep and bear, I think most the voting public feels some restrictions are prudent.

And that is why we are a republic and not a democracy. The majority doesn't set the rules, the rules do.

 

[338Shooter]

To regulate means to make regular.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But as we all know the way its worded now convicts and the insane would have the right to bear arms.

Convicts ?
I assume you are talking about a convicted criminal that has served his time and has been released back into society ?

Whyever would you attempt to restrict his Right to own a weapon ? Ever heard..."He paid his debt to society" ??

Demanding that government do its' JOB..keeping vicious animals in jail,or executing them... and releasing the ones that stand a chance of returning to civil society...what is the beef with a former prisoner owning a weapon ?

Insane people ? Lock them up or MEDICATE them...and give a citizen back his weapons and Right to carry it at will. You will be AMAZED at how rapidly many 'insane' people will become decent, quiet citizens...when they know that somebody in the area is armed.

Oh..yea...about that 'majority' that wants gun control ? FINE...but PLEASE stop breaking the LAW to get it. There is a procedure for those cowards to get their way...it is called 'amending the Constitution' !!

Until that is done..those 20,000++++ gun laws are ILLEGAL...no matter HOW a corrupted Court weasels the words around.

 

[Martialartsblackbelt]

bob-
we are brothers from diferent mothers!

Ridge-
while the Constitution is an amazing document, it is vague in a few parts.

If the had said Citizen that would have really helped.

If they had said People in good standing in Society maybe.

But as we all know the way its worded now convicts and the insane would have the right to bear arms.

Placing 'well regulated' into the COMPLETE right is a stumbling block. Implies some sort of benchmark. I am not happy militia is in there either. The problem is most pro-gun guys only recall the last half and the gun regulators the first half.

So while I feel strongly about the right to keep and bear, I think most the voting public feels some restrictions are prudent.

again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM