To get your blood boiling

[philoshop]

34 minutes ago, wildcat junkie said:

What did the late "conservative" SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia have to say about 2nd Amendment rights?

I'll retrieve his entire SCOTUS supporting position for you, if necessary. But Scalia basically said that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is not restricted to government-constructed limitations. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was/is about keeping the Federal Government off the backs of the citizens.

Edited March 29, 2018 by philoshop

[Culvercreek hunt club]

9 minutes ago, philoshop said:

I'll retrieve his entire SCOTUS supporting position for you, if necessary. But Scalia basically said that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is not restricted to government-constructed limitations. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was/is about keeping the Federal Government off the backs of the citizens.

And then he went on to talk about a bunch of restrictions he was ok with. right?  I never read Heller as the home run it is touted as. That is one reason why I want more of these liberal SCOTUS justices to keel over and face plant in the next 3 years. I want that court stacked in our favor. 

[The_Field_Ager]

UC-Berkeley magazine blames gun violence on 'white men'

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10708

[wildcat junkie]

18 hours ago, philoshop said:

I'll retrieve his entire SCOTUS supporting position for you, if necessary. But Scalia basically said that the Second Amendment is an individual right that is not restricted to government-constructed limitations. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was/is about keeping the Federal Government off the backs of the citizens.

  On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

[wildcat junkie]

18 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

And then he went on to talk about a bunch of restrictions he was ok with. right?  I never read Heller as the home run it is touted as. That is one reason why I want more of these liberal SCOTUS justices to keel over and face plant in the next 3 years. I want that court stacked in our favor. 

Scalia was hardly a liberal.

 

[Five Seasons]

45 minutes ago, wildcat junkie said:

  On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

my interpretation of that is that we can still and should regulate firearms. That the second amendment isn't just a free for-all. And current state we do have restrictions ie the safe act, pistol and cc permits etc.

I know not everyone agrees with me, but I'd like to close private sale loopholes, increase background checks and put some more rigor around the system. What I strongly dislike is bans on ammunition, types of firearms and magazines. And I believe if we don't do more for former, we will continue to see more of the later. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, wildcat junkie said:

Scalia was hardly a liberal.

 

I NEVER said he was. My point was that the make up needs to be far more conservative that it is. Scalia was a perfect example of why not to put you eggs all in one basket

[Rattler]

1 hour ago, wildcat junkie said:

  On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” 

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

If you strive to understand what is being said here, you come to the conclusion all rights have limits, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights define what those limits are.

Scalia was making a supportive statement here when he said, "the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”.  

An AR-15 is one of the most common rifles in use in America today.  Statistical evaluation of it's minimal criminal use in the world supports the fact it is NOT a "dangerous and unusual" weapon.  In fact it is the perfect rifle for personal defense for the great majority of US citizens that have little training in personal defense firearm use.  I'll leave those details for another thread.

I firmly believe the SCOTUS will be forced to rule on these semi-auto rifle and magazine bans in the very near future, and when all of the past precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment is considered, as well as the actual writings from the founders on their intentions when it was written, the court will be forced to rule all of these bans are blatantly unconstitutional.

This is why the desire to completely ban civilian handgun ownership failed decades ago.  This is why the SCOTUS has been avoiding any cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment for decades now.  This is why Retired Justice Stevens is telling these protesters they need to start calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  This is why anyone who says they aren't taking anyone's guns away is a liar.  This is why anyone not opposed to this gun ban agenda is a fool.

 

 

[Rattler]

In debating people who want to attack and violate your natural right to keep and bear arms, it's important to point out that the federal government has been violating these rights for nearly a century.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the Feds to implement any gun control measure, including the acts of 1934 & 1968.  This is why the 10th Amendment was written.  

[Five Seasons]

25 minutes ago, Rattler said:

In debating people who want to attack and violate your natural right to keep and bear arms

you and I are on the same side, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "natural right". Natural rights are more like food, clothing, shelter, pursuit of happiness. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Belo

[Rattler]

3 minutes ago, Belo said:

you and I are on the same side, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "natural right". Natural rights are more like food, clothing, shelter, pursuit of happiness. 

Self defense is a natural right.  Pursuit of happiness is a natural right.  Food, clothing and shelter are not.  They must be earned.  Nobody deserves them for free.  

[Five Seasons]

i'm not sure a firearm for self defense is part of that. But we can agree to disagree. 

[TACC]

Scalia was hardly a liberal.
 

He was also an avid hunter

Sent from my SM-G900T3 using Tapatalk

[Rattler]

6 hours ago, Belo said:

i'm not sure a firearm for self defense is part of that. But we can agree to disagree. 

You need to give that some more thought.

[Rattler]

The words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd A refer to possession of arms. The founders were only concerned with crimes committed by individuals. They certainly would not agree with making mere possession of firearms a crime. Any government that agrees with making possession of an inanimate object a crime, believes in "Preventative Law", or punishing individuals for crimes committed by others. Anyone who doesn't comprehend how that is unconstitutional, doesn't understand individual rights and the Bill of Rights. They also don't understand how ignorant they are.

[Five Seasons]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:30 PM, Rattler said:

You need to give that some more thought.

 

20 hours ago, Rattler said:

The words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd A refer to possession of arms. The founders were only concerned with crimes committed by individuals. They certainly would not agree with making mere possession of firearms a crime. Any government that agrees with making possession of an inanimate object a crime, believes in "Preventative Law", or punishing individuals for crimes committed by others. Anyone who doesn't comprehend how that is unconstitutional, doesn't understand individual rights and the Bill of Rights. They also don't understand how ignorant they are.

we were discussing "natural rights", not rights granted to citizens of the united states.

[Rattler]

20 minutes ago, Belo said:

 

we were discussing "natural rights", not rights granted to citizens of the united states.

Unalienable rights are not granted to people.  They are born with them.  Where they reside is irrelevant.

[Five Seasons]

17 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Unalienable rights are not granted to people.  They are born with them.  Where they reside is irrelevant.

*sigh* and I thought we already agreed to disagree on where the 2nd amendment landed on that matter? Like God created man and just assumed everyone would know "said man can own a gun"?

[philoshop]

The U.S Constitution does not grant rights. It protects rights from government usurpation.

This is where so many on the left, especially the younger ones, get off the rails. They seem to think that by destroying the Constitution they can magically make guns disappear. That's simply not the case.

[wildcat junkie]

On 3/30/2018 at 10:56 AM, Rattler said:

If you strive to understand what is being said here, you come to the conclusion all rights have limits, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights define what those limits are.

Scalia was making a supportive statement here when he said, "the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”.  

An AR-15 is one of the most common rifles in use in America today. 

 

 

Perhaps you should strive to understand the concept of past, present and future tense.

 

"Where those in common use at the time" is past tense, as when the Bill of Rights was written. He did not state "are those in common use" as in  at the present time.

[Rattler]

If you read the written documents from the founders that detailed their intentions when the Constitution was written, they mention weapons that are in common use by the people.  The weapons at that time were equal to those possessed by the British.  They wanted the people to be a force to be reckoned with, in order to defend liberty against tyranny.  It would be illogical to assume they didn't mean for the people to remain a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Would we be willing to say all technological advancements since the signing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not subject to protection under those documents?

I believe that type of thinking attempts to confuse the Rule of Law over time.  Those founding documents are legal documents.  Legal documents say what they say, and do not say what they don't say.  They are not subject to interpretation and application as time passes.  To do so is judicial activism, which means the courts start making law, rather than ruling on law, which violates the powers granted to the three branches of government, which are meant to be checks on the powers of each of them.

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to ban anything.  Doing so is government abuse of power.  The founders wanted rule of law to cover criminal activity, not criminalize people for possession of anything that could be used to commit a crime.

It's obvious to me, people with an agenda that is stifled by the Rule of Law will try to bastardize what the law means in order to achieve their goals.  It's up to the people to put a stop to that.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Rattler

[Rattler]

Everything there is to know about the 2nd Amendment and your rights regarding self defense in one article.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-second-amendment-as-an-expression-of-first-principles/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=second-amendment-first-principles

Some of the text inside:

Expressing a widely held view, Elbridge Gerry remarked in the debate over the first militia bill in 1789 that “whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia.”

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

The principal constitutional debate leading up to the Heller decision was about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” was an individual right or a collective right conditioned upon service in the militia. As a general matter, of course, the idea of collective rights was unknown to the Framers of the Constitution—and this consideration alone should have been decisive. We have James Madison’s own testimony that the provisions of the Bill of Rights “relate [first] . . . to private rights.”

The notion of collective rights is wholly the invention of the Progressive founders of the administrative state, who were engaged in a self-conscious effort to supplant the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. For these Progressives, what Madison and other Founders called the “rights of human nature” were merely a delusion characteristic of the 18th century. Science, they held, has proven that there is no permanent human nature—that there are only evolving social conditions. As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today’s gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare.

This way of thinking was wholly alien to America’s founding generation, for whom government existed for the purpose of securing individual rights. And it was always understood that a necessary component of every such right was a correspondent responsibility. Madison frequently stated that all “just and free government” is derived from social compact—the idea embodied in the Declaration of Independence, which notes that the “just powers” of government are derived “from the consent of the governed.” Social compact, wrote Madison, “contemplates a certain number of individuals as meeting and agreeing to form one political society, in order that the rights, the safety, and the interests of each may be under the safeguard of the whole.” The rights to be protected by the political society are not created by government—they exist by nature—although governments are necessary to secure them. Thus political society exists to secure the equal protection of the equal rights of all who consent to be governed. This is the original understanding of what we know today as “equal protection of the laws”—the equal protection of equal rights.

Each person who consents to become a member of civil society thus enjoys the equal protection of his own rights, while at the same time incurring the obligation to protect the rights of his fellow citizens. In the first instance, then, the people are a militia, formed for the mutual protection of equal rights. This makes it impossible to mistake both the meaning and the vital importance of the Second Amendment: The whole people are the militia, and disarming the people dissolves their moral and political existence.