Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

reply to post by ravenshadow13



Wow...raven, we are living in the 21st century, not in the 13th century, please stay focus. How would you like to be banned from your right of free speech for being mentally unstable, and thinking you are in the 13th century for making the comments you just made?


[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.

And having firearms to protect your family and yourself against CRIMINALS kills innocent people?....

You might have whatever ideals you want to have, you are free to do that, but do not impose your flawed ideals on everyone else.

The right to own and bear arms was given to us by our forefathers FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS, and no brainwashed person who has a problem with guns has a right, nor does the state to claim you, nor anyone else has a right to take away this right...

BTW, in case you didn't know Raven INNOCENT PEOPLE are normally the victims, and not the CRIMINALS.

You need to learn the difference between an INNOCENT person, and a CRIMINAL.

One more thing, are you also going to be a proponent for banning alcohol from drug stores because CRIMINALS can buy them legally and can create molotov cocktails which can kill more people than a gun?....

Originally posted by MemoryShock

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.

I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

Not relevant. What you fail to comprehend is that Restricted actually leads to Prohibited. It's the the first step. They take an inch at a time. Restricted is an inch.
I'm sorry, but a firearm is a tool, and there are alot of tools that one would hold for the sake of it. For example, I have a leatherman, a multi-purpose tool that comes in handy for a multitude of purposes, as well as self defense. I carry a sharpened pencil at times. It doesn't matter what is restricted or prohibited, or flat-out banned. If someone wants to kill you, their going to do it one way or another. And most likely, it will be by a firearm, because you will be "restricted" from having them, based on your status as "law abiding". Criminals don't abide by words like "restricted", "prohibited", or "banned". Or hell, even "law" for that matter. What I find unfathomable is that you people who are anti-gun don't get that. I bet you would if you were staring down the barrel of a .45 at the hands of a criminal who doesn't follow the guidelines of the laws that you wish to impose upon the law-abiding. See, by passing these "restrictions", "prohibitions", and "bans", you are crippling the law-abiding, and enabling the criminal. Perhaps that makes you and your like terrorists? Anyone a professional on the Patriot Act and care to chime in? My understanding is that a terrorist is one who spreads fear and panic through means of terror and terrorizing. Well, I'm terrified that I'm not allowed to defend myself or my family, but criminals can do whatever the hell they want without a care in the world of retaliation.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Oreyeon]

reply to post by Oreyeon



Unfortunately the gun-grabbers are some of the most brainwashed people in the world, and they think they have a right to take away our second amendment right because they have flawed ideals which conflict with the Second Amendment which the forefathers of this nation saw as being very important for the betterment, and protection not only of the individual, but also the Republic.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

I'm not opposed to pacificism in any way, shape or form - but to cowtow to FEAR simply because something might happen shows a weakness of character I'm not prepared to bow down to.

(...and I don't even own a gun.)






[edit on 5/28/09 by GENERAL EYES]

*double post - sorry.




[edit on 5/28/09 by GENERAL EYES]

I think it is important to make clear that she did not throw out the Second Amendment and say states didnt have to follow it.

What I read (and I could certainly be wrong), was that it is still up to the state to interpret the Second Amendment as the residents of that state see fit, which is encouraging in many ways. It is not the Federal Governments right to tell the individuals what it means.
The Supreme Court ruling regarding the District of Columbia was even a little bit different because it only applied to that little piece of federal land, not to the states in general.

In this ruling it says that when in doubt its up to the state to decide how the Second Amendment is applied, right?
Thats a good thing right?

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.

--Kross--

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
I'm not opposed to pacificism in any way, shape or form - but to cowtow to FEAR simply because something might happen shows a weakness of character I'm not prepared to bow down to.

(...and I don't even own a gun.)

And to feel so passionate about one aspect of self defense without consideration of others is a weakness I percieve...

Not saying you, GEN...I'm just saying...

Originally posted by MemoryShock

And to feel so passionate about one aspect of self defense without consideration of others is a weakness I percieve...

Not saying you, GEN...I'm just saying...

Consideration of criminals? is that what you are concerned about?...

i guess according to you then people in general should not try to defend themselves because of the ideals of people like you about self defense...

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Last year the Supreme Court voted down an issue (I forget what) concerning the 2nd Ammenment, the vote came 5 to 4 in favor of the 2nd ammendment. Too close for comfort. I know this judge won't change that much, but the next one certainly will.

It was Heller vs DC.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

That's because of a human flaw. Humans are violent. I don't think they should have guns. It's just a cool weapon used to kill other people. If you really want to kill someone, you should battle it out the hard way with knives and rocks. Guns are too easy.

People never complain about how violent we are. They never complain about the fact that violence is generally an everyday thing and when someone is shot on the news, it's not a big deal.

People only speak up when someone wants to make sure they're qualified to handle a murder weapon.

Done with this thread.

I'm trying to follow your logic but it's difficult.

So if some gets shot and it makes the news, it's no big deal? Then why give that situation media attention if it's no big deal?

And regarding your comment about using knives and rocks: so your problem isn't w/ the mentality of violent individuals, it's because people shoot each other instead of stoning and stabbing each other? So your giving stoning and stabbing a pass? Think about what you say before you post. Try imposing your view on a society where women are routinely stoned for adultery. Isn't that handling it the hard way?

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Protostellar]

reply to post by Protostellar


She already left the thread, she doesn't want to think about her statements, she just wants to keep to her flawed ideals no-matter what, and impose them on everyone else, even if the forefathers of this nation saw the right of Americans to own and bear arms as being very important and that it should never be infringed upon by anyone...





[edit on 28-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Tenth Amendment

The constitution DOES delegate this power, so it is not a state rights issue.
So I guess she overruled the Tenth Amendment also

-E-


[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]

I'm surprised people are shocked Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court is anti-Second Amendment. Of course she does. Bet that's very close to the top on his Litmus Test. She probably also thinks the U.S. Constitution says "separation of church and state", like a lot of people here do.

...the right to bear arms has always had limitations at both the federal and state level and those limitations (even the old ones that were racially biased) were not perceived as infringing on the 2nd amendment... sotomeyor's ruling wasnt a trendsetter, merely a continuation of long accepted policies...

...on another note, in the provided news snippet, the phrase "the second amendment's commandment" smells a bit off...


[edit on 5/28/09 by Wyn Hawks]

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


I was never shocked by this, and neither were many Americans.

Many of us knew that despite claims to the contrary Obama, and his entire administration were gun-grabbers.

The intention of this post was so that the Obama fans realize the truth about Obama, and his administration.

Soto

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

-E-