Constitution is obsolete!:DL

doh


but is it?

i mean supreme court justices ruling 5-4 on a basic constitutional right?

give me a break

I think they're starting too see that that part IS obsolete. remember the constitution was given the ability to be changed just for that reason. The right to bear arms was set up partly for the people to be able to rise up against a government. But not we can own Semi auto guns, and the army has Machine guns, tanks, planes, and missiles.


Personally, I think the time has come for more comprehensive weapons laws. Better background checks, and make it much, much harder to get a pistol or assault weapon. If you are a law abiding citizen you would have nothing to worry about...you'd get your gun end of story. I own guns, but im not worried about them being taken away, or not being able to get another because my background is clear.

It was only a matter of time.

@gimpy117
The 2. Ammendment states that the government "Shall NOT INFRINGE on the people's right to keep and bare arms".

but amendments can be amended.

Yes they can.
And that is the correct method of making changes, not through "interpretations" from english to english.

Before you guys get all excited about the decision, look past the fact that the decision happens to be one you agree with and look at the actual court decision (www.supremecourt.gov). Yes it is 214 pages long but if you really want to understand what just happened, you need to read it. :yep:

All you states rights people should be very angry and you should thank the dissenting justices for thinking about state rights.

Especially read the dissenting opinion by Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. The dissenting opinion also supports the Second Amendment but dissented at this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

What just happened is that a major precedent as been set. This court's decision establishes that the Incorporation Doctrine interpretation of the 14th Amendment now establishes that federal laws will now take precedence over state laws in areas what used to be strictly within the purview of the State Government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we may have won the battle, but lost the war for state rights. :yep:

There is probably no stronger proponent for gun ownership rights than I am. But I see this as a bad precedent. While I may agree with the decision, I strongly disagree with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment this way.

Remember, this case was not about whether the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to own firearms, it was about whether the Incorporation Doctrine interpretation of the 14th Amendment grants to the Federal Government the power to superscribed State Laws. A subtle but very important decision.

So if you are a State's Rights and a limited Federal Government type of person, this was not the decision you should be happy with.

Look beyond the gun issue on this. :yep:

Were this true, the laws banning convicted felons from acquiring a firearm would be unconstitutional as well. Thankfully, this is not the case. The Court did get it right. But you have to be careful with such broad statements.

So the answer is no, you haven't lived in such as country. Figures.

What about full auto weapons? Should people have the right to buy those from the grocery store, no background checks? What about high explosives, RPG's, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.?

I oppose lax gun laws in Finland, I don't really care if the Americans are forced to 'pack heat' every time they leave the house and sleep with a gun under the pillow. Maybe that is just an example of the bad conscience of the US, they know their past will catch up with eventually.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way making such decisions is not the job of the court. Their job is to determine the constitutionality of the cases brought before them, period. They have absolutely no business "legislating from the bench".

Bingo!
Right on the money!

Case in point. Any futher rebuttal of you would be redundant at this point. Now, if you will excuse me, I am on my way to Giant to purchase some SAMs for my front yard.

Yes... IMHO if you -as a private citizen - can afford to purchase an M1 Abrams battle tank, you should be able to follow the appropriate channels to legally purchase one.

if you ask me... anything the military has access to - the citizens should have access to.

but then again my interpretation to 2nd amendment rights is extremely liberal to say the least.

Woh hey yea... I want access to a F16 :yeah:

Pfft, wimp. Give my an LGM-30G with a W87.

I'll bite on that one. That particular part of the Constitution IS obsolete.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when an oppressed population had recently armed itself, risen up, and thrown off their shackles. The Second Amendment was not written so that people could defend themselves from robbery. It was not written so that people can go hunting in deer season. It was not written so some guy with a shotgun could stop the Russians from invading. It was written so that an armed population could put an end to an out of control government.

The Second Amendment was written in a time when the average citizen could be equally well equipped as the government soldiers. A farmer could easily become an infantry soldier. A few craftsmen could put together the funds and buy a cannon. A town could easily put together enough people, with the same equipment, to face down the regular Army.

But technology has moved on. The army is no longer using those same muskets. The town cannon is a memorial, not a working artillery piece. The government forces can field mechanized infantry, tanks, helicopters, and jet planes. The government forces can call in airstrikes from aircraft carriers, cruise missiles from submarines, artillery bombardment from miles away. If it came to it, the government has nuclear weapons that it could employ.

I don't care how many handguns, rifles, and shotguns you have. Without equality to the equipment and training that the government can field, an armed population cannot stand against it. Unless you advocate giving every citizen access to their own automatic weapons, private ownership of armor, a local air force, artillery, and naval forces (including nuclear weapons), the Second Amendment will never be able to serve its original purpose.

So, yes, some parts of the Constitution become obsolete. There used to be parts in there about slavery. There used to be a bit in there about prohibition. But those were taken out with Amendments, using the Constitutionally provided process, and any changes to the Second Amendment needs to be dealt with the same way.

that makes two of us... but then again, its out of my budget. :oops:

What do you know of the naval side of the Revolution? War of 1812? Do you know what a Letter of Marque was? Most of the small warships of the time were privately owned, with the biggest cannons that would fit. The government gave them official license to act as 'Privateers', or government-sanctioned pirates.

You do realize the the shooting started in April 1775 because the British Military Governor of Massachussets sent troops to confiscate the contents of a privately owned armory, including cannons? That's the main reason we have the Second Amendment - to guarantee that citizens can have the same firepower as the government. Because the government is never to be trusted.