|
RE: My "bow only" poll
I can't help but believe in my heart that the framers were simply paying homage to state sovereignty, and offering a built-in check against the Federal Government. It's times like we just witnessed (recent USSC decision) when I feel that the justices form an opinion, beforehand, and "grasp" at intricacies (either written, implied, or otherwise) to support their "beliefs" or political leanings (and yes....they have political leanings). I'm not saying they got this one wrong. I'm saying exactly what I stated. If you'll (general HNI community)remove emotionfrom the issue (and this issue, in totality)...you'll gain a further understanding of what Fran is saying. He's not the only one who feels this way. In fact.....MANY strict constructionists agree with him. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
Ok Jeff, but the rest is Diddle:D
. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
Gary - they go through a few pages to address the term "people" in the decision - citing authority that "people" doesn't mean "everyone." We've already cut criminals and minors from the purview of the 2nd. We've also held that this "right" does not apply in certain buildings, at certain times, or during certain events.
Which is weird, because the other six times "the people" is mentioned, it does mean everyone. Stevens points this out in his dissent. It's one of many inconsistencies that forced the majority to dance the Irish jig to arrive at their decision. Ironically, the majority sells themselves as "strict constructionists" - but they strayed like dogs in this one. Stevens calls them on it in his dissent. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. I think the idea that the Founders' "original intent" should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet. Yesterday's decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment's guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it -- not ignore it. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
ORIGINAL: GMMAT There were steps put in place (via Article 5 of theUS Constitution)to alter the constitution. You know....."amendments";). The second amendment was ratified as part of a 10 part amendment,known in popular terms as the "Bill of Rights". It's been done (amended and ratified) I "think" 27 times. So.....the 2nd amendment wasn't originally part of the original doctrine. If the proper steps are followed.....I'll accept the process outcome. It's the American way. For ****s and giggles.....it would have been nice to ask a black MAN (prior to 1869) and ANY woman (prior to 1920) what they thought of our forefather's "foresight". Constituitonal amendments have their place.....and if the proper channels are followed....I'll live with (AND accept)them......bar none. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
There are many names for Jihad. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
The one point that has not been dissected is the fact that gun ownership is only second behind freedom of speech when thought of in order of importance.
Our founders did understand that the government can not and never will be able to protect the very citizens it takes to make up this union.In the days of our founders 911 did not exist,it was a time when weeks or even months could pass before help or protection would arrive.The protection of your family and personal possessions were completely up to yourself. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
ORIGINAL: quiksilver Gary - they go through a few pages to address the term "people" in the decision - citing authority that "people" doesn't mean "everyone." We've already cut criminals and minors from the purview of the 2nd. We've also held that this "right" does not apply in certain buildings, at certain times, or during certain events. Which is weird, because the other six times "the people" is mentioned, it does mean everyone. Stevens points this out in his dissent. It's one of many inconsistencies that forced the majority to dance the Irish jig to arrive at their decision. Ironically, the majority sells themselves as "strict constructionists" - but they strayed like dogs in this one. Stevens calls them on it in his dissent. Gun rights are not the only rights a criminal loses. I view the Bill of rights like this: If I am a good boy, I have the right to be left alone;) |
RE: My "bow only" poll
The one point that has not been dissected is the fact that gun ownership is only second behind freedom of speech when thought of in order of importance. I think....if you asked a black American about the amendments to the US Constitution's"order of importance".....you might get a differing viepoint than the one you hold. |
RE: My "bow only" poll
The right to protect ones self was granted to tax payers, which the union existence was based upon.
At the time there was no death tax so our founders found it important to keep said payers alive. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.