Supreme Court Gun Case

This quote baffles me. The Bill of Rights lists the rights that belong to the people, yet that some future government may wish to infringe. It lists the rights, publicly, that a legitimate government should never interfere with.

The fact that you have not, as of yet, required their protection in no way argues for their illegitimacy. The fact that I have never used my gun, although I have continuously owned it, is no more an argument for limiting gun ownership than to say that because I have met with others without persecution, it should not offend me that the Government wants to limit my right to assemble. Or that since my right to free speech has not yet been infringed, I have no argument that such a guarantee is needed.

In fact, the entire framework of these rights was so that this sort of discussion would not be needed. The Government does not legitimately have the right to interfere on these points...it is not up for discussion...that was the entire point. Of course, Governments always give excellent reasons to take away the right of its citizens; this has always been. Our founders knew this and for this reason they resolved that there were certain rights that were quite simply out of the auspices of Governmental authority. The Bill of Rights does not make this so, it simply recognizes that it is so.

Unfortunately, there are many who hold no regard for this Nation's principles or freedoms- freedoms that do not come from paper or votes, but from God and God alone.

 

is this about owning guns, or carrying guns, being armed?

 

I think the Supreme Court will and should incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. The government should not ban handguns and people should be able to own them for any legitimate reason, including self-defence.

 

Right. It involves selective incorporation.

 

Before we were married, my wife had to use a pistol to keep a group of thieves out of her home. It's amazing what a 45 does to remove the fever to steal and more.

 

I so get tired of liberals who know not their own constitution. Read the 10 amendment it will clear up the states rights issue on guns of any kind.

 

What's wrong with using a shotgun for self defense?

 

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right extended to all citizens of the United States superseding state's rights. I can't imagine any state arguing that it's laws supersede the most fundamental of rights as found in the Constitution.

 

If I am not mistaken this law is like the one that was overturned in D.C. where you can't not have a hand gun even in your home. To even possess in your own home is illegal.

 

I never noticed that the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment was specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated state militia.

"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."

I'm not sure if firearms for personal safety and recreation falls under that description. Interesting.

 

Apply this logic to free speech. Do you think states can limit free speech?

 

It has to do with selective incorporation. For example, the Supreme Court has never held the Third or Seventh Amendments to apply to the states, or the part of the Fifth pertaining to grand juries, or the part of the Eighth pertaining to excessive bail. While I agree with you that the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states, your comparison to free speech is a bad one.

 

Of course it does...and you have to torture the Constitution to make it say otherwise.

 

And it also says that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are no stated execptions limiting that right.

 

It has been debated for a long time whether they meant bear arms within the militia only or anytime, anywhere.

 

Not by people who have a rudimentary understanding of freedom.

 

If had just related to a local milita then it would stand to reason that arms would have been removed from the common man and only allowed in the hands of the soldier be he a professional soldier or a citizen soldier called up to defend his land and country.

 

By good willed people who love freedom on each side. With freedom comes responsibility.

 

Not bad at all. While the third and seventh have federal levels there is no where to go with the first and second amendments but to the states.