|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 5:18:08 GMT 9.5
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 5:18:08 GMT 9.5
being from australia, i guess you can be forgiven for not having a clue as to what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution says. it is really quite simple, but, far too many labor under the delusion that "the people" is talking about some kind of militia. justice scalia quite succinctly explained the meaning of the second amendment in district of columbia vs heller. you can read it here: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdfthe bottom line is quite simple: Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. as i said, your ignorance can be excused, but the onus is on you to learn what you are talking about. the decision is not difficult to comprehend I am aware of what the Second Amendment says, I don't however, need the US Supreme Court to translate English for me. I knew of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment when I made my post. It is however only an interpretation and is a loose interpretation at best. Gun lobbyists use the Second Amendment to say it is their right to own guns, but anyone in their right mind can see that the Second Amendment is far too vague in itself (i.e. nuclear warheads are arms). In actuality, the decision made by the Supreme Court is what currently determines an American citizen's right to wield guns, and unlike the apparently immutable Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court's decisions can change. Developed countries throughout the world manage quite well dealing with crime, without handing weapons of murder out to their citizens. Of all the current Great Powers in the world, the United States has the second highest homicide rate after Russia. I wonder what the reason is... HOMICIDE RATE BY FIREARMS you obviously DO need the supreme court to interpret english for you, since you don't understand what the second amendment says. scalia's explanation is the ONLY interpretation of the second amendment that can be intelligently made. as he explains, even if the wording were as ambiguous as the minority try to claim, it has no effect on the meaning. the meaning is derived from the writings and speeches of the founders, not just the words of the constitution. there simply is NO possible way to claim that the second amendment is talking about a state militia with a straight face.
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 5:20:27 GMT 9.5
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 5:20:27 GMT 9.5
the gun grabber nutjobs, besides believing that criminals obey the law, are also so stupid that they think violent video games, movies etc cause folks to be violent Well, while I am a 'gun grabber nutjob', I certainly don't think violent video games and movies etc are really a concern. Children learn to differentiate between fantasy and reality long before parents would usually allow their kids to play/watch such things. you are quite correct there. the ONLY reason that any fool emulates anything that he sees in any form of media is because he is inherently worthless. no form of media can force anyone to do anything
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 6:47:50 GMT 9.5
Post by Epi on Jan 12, 2013 6:47:50 GMT 9.5
Importance of Original Knowledge Principle: Don't trust retellers, get hold of the original sources.
A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books.
So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."
So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.
"The word is celebrate not celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes.
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 8:11:33 GMT 9.5
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2013 8:11:33 GMT 9.5
Importance of Original Knowledge Principle: Don't trust retellers, get hold of the original sources. A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong. "The word is celebrate not celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes. that is funny
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 9:39:47 GMT 9.5
Post by Adam on Jan 12, 2013 9:39:47 GMT 9.5
you obviously DO need the supreme court to interpret english for you, since you don't understand what the second amendment says. scalia's explanation is the ONLY interpretation of the second amendment that can be intelligently made. as he explains, even if the wording were as ambiguous as the minority try to claim, it has no effect on the meaning. the meaning is derived from the writings and speeches of the founders, not just the words of the constitution. there simply is NO possible way to claim that the second amendment is talking about a state militia with a straight face. It is simply wilful ignorance to say there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation of the Second Amendment IMO. All one needs to do is read it with a critical eye to see as much. The Supreme Court is not the Second Amendment. The US founders are not the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment amazingly enough is the Second Amendment.
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 12, 2013 9:40:22 GMT 9.5
Post by Adam on Jan 12, 2013 9:40:22 GMT 9.5
"The word is celebrate not celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes.
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 13, 2013 16:25:32 GMT 9.5
Post by Mrs Chips on Jan 13, 2013 16:25:32 GMT 9.5
I think when the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution there was no such thing as semi-automatics and assault rifles that can do so much damage in a short time. I think the people who wrote the constitution would turn in their graves to know what is going on now. Keep guns if you must but only hand guns and not the weapons of mass destruction that there is now. Personally why anyone would want a gun is beyond me unless it is for sporting reasons .
|
|
|
NRA
Jan 13, 2013 16:26:35 GMT 9.5
Post by Mrs Chips on Jan 13, 2013 16:26:35 GMT 9.5
I think when the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution there was no such thing as semi-automatics and assault rifles that can do so much damage in a short time. I think the people who wrote the constitution would turn in their graves to know what is going on now. Keep guns if you must but only hand guns and not the weapons of mass destruction that there is now. Personally why anyone would want a gun is beyond me unless it is for sporting reasons .
|
|