Supreme Court to take up Second Ammendment Case Posted: 6 months ago by hmtksteve
A Washington DC case on gun ownership laws is to be heard by the Supreme Court this year. Never have three commas caused so much controversy... (The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." )
Comments: 3 Score: [-] 157 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 6 months ago by dollyllama:
Oh let's see, a Supreme Court stacked with Neocons...I wonder what they'll do.
/sarcasm
I don't necessarily believe one way or the other about gun ownership, it's not for me, but I don't know how far I'd restrict it. But c'mon, does anyone out there really think this Supreme Court is going to declare guns unlawful? REALLY? If so, can I sell you a nice bridge?
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by bcgrote:
I just hope they can interpret it in the spirit with which it was written.
By "free state" (NOT capitalized!), the writers meant the state of being free, not a State that is free.
Basically the 2nd means that a population which is armed can protect itself from the tyrannies of a government seeking to suppress them.
A militia is different from a Militia, or National Guard. A militia is individuals who are not sworn military members, just regular folk, neighbors, who are trained and able to defend their freedoms against their government, or indeed anyone!
That is is the first statement in the Amendment. The second part is also clear: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because we want them to be a part of a well regulated militia of neighbors to protect their neighborhood against any incursions by an out of control government!
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 1thirteen3:
« dollyllama : Oh let's see, a Supreme Court stacked with Neocons...I wonder what they'll do.
/sarcasm
I don't necessarily believe one way or the other about gun ownership, it's not for me, but I don't know how far I'd restrict it. But c'mon, does anyone out there really think this Supreme Court is going to declare guns unlawful? REALLY? If so, can I sell you a nice bridge? ...The Supreme Court is not stacked with Neocons. I hate neocons as much as you do, but to insist that it's stacked with Neocons is preposterous.
Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsberg are all neo-liberal. Kennedy and Souter are middle of the road. Thomas and Scalia are Constructionists (a far cry from Neoconservative. I'm sure they hate Bush). Alito and Roberts we've yet to find out, but they are probably neoconservative. So please don't make outlandish statements like that.
But, yes, I do agree with you that I don't think they'll overturn the 2nd Amendment. I think that it'll be a 5-4 decision. Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens in the dissent against Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts.
Score: [-] -19 [+].
< 1 >