The California constitution was on point too. That didn't stop you from decrying that decision as judicial activism. And you also described that court as a bunch of "elites dictating public policy." Strange how you fail to describe this ruling in the same way even though both courts struck down laws that were un-Constitutional by the court's interpretation.



You're way beyond a hypocrite at this point.

Scalia cited HUNTING in his decision as a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms despite the conspicuous absence of such wording. If that isn't creating law where none exists, then I'm not sure what is. If the gay marriage ruling qualifies as activism, then this case would be overreaching to the extreme.

upholding the 2nd amendment is the courts overstepping to the extreme?

No but you need to realize that the second amendment could also just mean that only militias can have guns and that they must be stored. The entire point of the second amendment has nothing to do with self defense of the person against another person but self defense against the government itself. This interpretation would mean that it isn't illegal to own guns but that local authorities could in fact make it illegal for a person to own provided that a militia is able to be assembled(like the national guard).

So the court ruled on point to your interpretation of the amendment which is that everyone si allowed to own guns. I tend to favor the other interpretation of the amendment since I think a person owning a handgun would be less effective than a well regulated militia but ehhh as I said the amendment is vague and ambigious.

My full quote: "If [you believe] the gay marriage ruling qualifies as activism, then this case would be overreaching to the extreme."

And if you believe that the courts are a bunch of "unelected" and "unaccountable" (John McCain's words for them) "elitists dictating public policy" (Kidrock69's words for them) in the gay marriage case, then the same would have to apply to the court ruling in the gun rights case. That is, it would if modern conservatives had anything remotely resembling a principle.

While I agree with the ruling, I actually think the courts didn't go far enough. While the reason for bearing arms is open to interpretation, the word "arms" itself isn't. By that, I mean that "arms" is not restricted to "guns." An anti-tank weapon is an arm and should be allowed under the Constitution. Ditto a nuclear warhead.

As it is, the court ruling is likely to have very little effect on existing laws.

The amendment is NOT vague, or ambiguous. In this particular ruling, even the dissenting opinion agreed that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, not to "well regulated militias". The court was pretty much debating what kinds of weapons the local government could regulate, not whether or not individuals can bear arms.

I disagree. Now law-abiding DC citizens will have a chance to defend themselves. That's a huge effect in my book.

Eh, this whole ruling is just going to open the door for mini-restrictions, which is fine. I already gave up a long time ago on people not being able to own guns. In the future, what type of guns one can own, the process in which one goes about obtaining one, and if/where a gun can be carried in public will become the de facto way of trying to handle gun ownership. Frankly, none if it would matter if, as Chris Rock pointed out in the one funny thing he ever said, bullets were 500 bucks a piece.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

First off the amendment uses the word people and person. If it had said person then the "shall not be infringed" would of had a different meaning. Since people are plural it is ambiguous as to the right of the individual. Secondly it begins with a well regulated militia which establishes a context. The right own guns is not ambiguous the right for an individual to own a gun is. However even if the this more literal interpretation(IMO) is the correct one it does not impinge on the ability for the individual to own a gun but only allows the people to limit the ownership of guns to well regulated local militias.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oh, does this mean that the first amenmdent only applies to groups of people too? Please.

Do I really have to break it down to you?

Second amendment specifies the following:

1. A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a Free State. In this context, "well-regulated" does not mean regulated by the government; it means properly working.
2. Due to 1) the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The People here are not Armed Forces, not the National Guard, not the members of Congress; it's the American People.

I disagree. Now law-abiding DC citizens will have a chance to defend themselves. That's a huge effect in my book.[/quote]

I meant the laws outside of the one they turned over.



Agreed. And as the amendment says "arms" and not "guns," I'm wondering what the argument is on the banning of private citizens from owning military artillery and nuclear weapons. It doesn't really make any sense from a Constitutional stand point.

I have two points on this issue:

1. A ban on owning nuclear weapons by private citizens is pretty much meaningless. If an individual or an organization had the means to acquire such a weapon, then the least of their concerns is the law banning them from doing so.

2. From a constitutional standpoint, owning a nuclear weapon would automatically make you an imminent threat to the American people, so if one owns such a weapon then the government could argue that such person is infringing on everyone else's individual liberty rights by holding the entire nation hostage.

What about RPGs? Is it allowed?

We're not just talking about nuclear weapons. There are all sorts of arms that are banned from private ownership despite the 2nd Amendment.

Second, is it really your argument that if someone really wants a weapon, then they will break the law to get it, so we might as well make it illegal? Isn't that almost exactly the same as saying that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, and isn't the remedy to that argument from gun rights people that we might as well make sure that law-abiding citizens have them too?



First of all, such an argument is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "unless the weapon is really dangerous." In fact, gun safety advocates make just such an argument over the danger of automatic weapons and hand guns, which the NRA and other gun rights advocates dismiss as infringement.

The Constitution itself makes no such distinction in "arms." Replace the word "nuclear weapon" with "handgun" in your two points, and your argument is basically the same as any gun control advocate. You simply draw the line of "weapons I deem it okay for Americans to own" in a slightly different place.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5th amendment and other amendments specify person instead of people and in the first amendment people is used to describe the right to assemble which is plural. Do I have to break that down for you as well. As I said the 2nd amendment is ambiguous because it uses the word people and precedes it with well regulated militia. If they held a markman on that it would take days or years and would or could be overturned if it were actually a law and not an amendment.

Out of all of teh amendments it is the most poorly worded and by pointing this out it does not mean that I necessarily believe that guns should be illegal.

I suppose one could focus on the word "bear" in finding that the government can legitimately ban things like a nuclear weapon. You can't really bear a nuclear weapon (not counting something like a suitcase) at least in the sense that you would bear a weapon in 1791.

However, that argument would seem to fail if you were talking about something like a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

Again what about RPGs?

I've done some more thinking on this case and although I am utterly happy in the way the case was decided, I would have preferred that the S.C. hadn't granted a certiorari for the case. I would have preferred that the issue wasn't tackled and the courts were kept out of it because once the courts wade in, they will be there again and again and along with decisions that I like, will be decisions that I do not like.

I'd rather take my chances with the legislature. If the court would have went so far as to incorporate the 2nd Amendment (I doubt they had the votes for this as the Chief and probably Kennedy would not have went along) I would have felt better about the decesion, but they didn't, so I don't.

One definition of "bear" is simply "to be equipped or furnished with." So that would make it legal.

One the hand, one could also argue that the 2nd Amendment says keep and bear but not OWN. Technically speaking, restricting weapons to government-issue only would be Constitutional. But that ship has sailed, so we're left with private ownership of "arms." Which includes nukes. If one were a true Constructionist, which no one seems to be.

So we're back to Roberts and the others being political elites dictating public policy. I don't agree, but at least now you're more consistent.

Basically, the conservative viewpoint is this:

"We are in favor of state's rights! The federal government should not be telling the states how to make their own decisions!

Well, unless the states want to limit the right to own guns. Or regulate gay marriage. Or allow medical marijuana. Or regulate automobile emissions. Or do anything else we don't agree with."

Whenever I play a RPG, we use fake guns and padded swords.

Um, you are referring to role playing games, aren't you?

Actually, I think conservatives are probably a little more tolerant of the legality of rocket-powered grenades than they are role-playing games, which are, after all, Devil-worship.

Ok I write it again to make it clear for all :-)

Are RPGs (Rocket propelled grenade) allowed to have in the US or not?