Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Joeh" data-source="post: 2133641" data-attributes="member: 18680"><p>You pretty much posted what's been in my head all along. There does not seem to be a constitutional argument to support an interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way other than that it shall not be legislated against.</p><p></p><p>Which, brings me to the part that bothers me the most. If an average Joe like me can reach this position through reason, why does it appear that the individuals tasked with protecting these rights cannot also accomplish this task? Is it to the point that I am simply to believe that those elected officials are 'smarter' than I am, and thus can deduce a logical path that supports the end result? Following that, why has the SCOTUS not revisited this issue, reviewing the previous decisions, and revised their position to one that makes legal sense, especially in light of recent events and the potential for incredulous unconstitutional state legislation against the 2A? Why would they simply wait for more ridiculous, over-reaching, legislation to be passed through congress and made to law, knowing that it would be considered unconstitutional? Is this not the purpose of the checks and balances that our government claims to have?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Joeh, post: 2133641, member: 18680"] You pretty much posted what's been in my head all along. There does not seem to be a constitutional argument to support an interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way other than that it shall not be legislated against. Which, brings me to the part that bothers me the most. If an average Joe like me can reach this position through reason, why does it appear that the individuals tasked with protecting these rights cannot also accomplish this task? Is it to the point that I am simply to believe that those elected officials are 'smarter' than I am, and thus can deduce a logical path that supports the end result? Following that, why has the SCOTUS not revisited this issue, reviewing the previous decisions, and revised their position to one that makes legal sense, especially in light of recent events and the potential for incredulous unconstitutional state legislation against the 2A? Why would they simply wait for more ridiculous, over-reaching, legislation to be passed through congress and made to law, knowing that it would be considered unconstitutional? Is this not the purpose of the checks and balances that our government claims to have? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom