115
Connecticut School Shootings : Swingers Discussion 21343910151
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsConnecticut School Shootings
TOPIC: Connecticut School Shootings
GoTo Page: Less ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... More 
Start   151 to 160 of 712   End
User Details are only visible to members.
The Supreme Court held:[43]

(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, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17354 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"A well regulated militia"

All able bodies to be proficient with a weapon of their own, suitable for use in war if need be.

What is so hard to understand about that??

There is no secret meaning in the Constitution. It was written in common language of the time so those voting for it's ratification understood it.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17354 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Then please explain why you proclaimed yourself a gun owner and beat your chest?

I don't have to shoot things, I shoot because it is a hobby. I carry because it is a deterrent so I don't have to shoot people, or people get hurt. But I don't expect mentally challenged angry spitting ranters to understand.

Keep this in mind, people who carry everyday as part of life don't shoot schools. It is those troubled assholes that are wannabes that think killing helpless victims makes them a somebody. These people don't carry, they sit in their hole and spit at a computer screen and plot revenge. They are much like libtards who instead of becoming a worthwhile part of society they blame objects and others for their woes.

Not everybody is responsible enough to own or carry firearms, especially libtards. It is just a matter of identifying them and locking them up, to keep the rest of society safe from these loons.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Somewhere in America, cheerleaders for real men who know real thrills are approving the insanity of 'assault weapon ownership for guys with tiny dicksl."

It's a mad, mad, crazy world, and men who fear inferiority need someone to cheer for their insanity.

No such cheers happen at Hooters.

Treasure Is FL
Username hidden
(7065 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That post was meant for macho guys like you FJ. The kind of guy who has to shoot something...

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(2789 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Please cite where the act of 1792 was repealed. The act of 1903 only established a national guard. You really need to learn to read.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"It is clear that guns are an extension of manhood for so many of American males."

Yet the above poster claims to a firearms owner. More like a manhood wannabe in his case.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19526 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I guess this "deterrent" effect must be a two-edged sword. If it's well known that many country folk are armed, it's a less attractive target for burglars. Unless they know you are not home, and/or they are specifically looking for guns.

If assault weapons are banned in future sales, then current owners of such guns become the primary source for criminals who want to get one.

If you've advertised the fact that you are well armed, and then you decide it's an attractive hazard, and get rid of your assault weapon, does that make your position more precarious?

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
According to the SCOTUS, no judge or legislature of any political stripe can impose a gunless society. I have not seen any legislative proposals to ban all guns.

That same SCOTUS, however, does acknowledge that the Constitution gives government the right to regulate guns in society.

From the comments on this forum, it seems like certain right-leaning folks want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to accept.

In the Second Amendment, the Founders declared that the reason for the right to bear arms was the necessity of "a well regulated militia." In light of this language, it is laughable to see conservatives claiming fidelity to original intent question the government's right to impose gun regulations.

Even the five conservative justices in the Heller case would not go that far.

As I said before, the fight over the extent of gun regulations is a political one, not a Constitutional one.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I hope that effective deterrence will make it impossible to ever know whether my need for a gun at my house in the woods is real or merely perceived. I do know, however, that my perceived need is reasonable.

Amherst Canada
Username hidden
(2373 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... More 
Start   151 to 160 of 712   End
TOPIC: Connecticut School Shootings