The Supreme court has made an important ruling - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

AmateurFlix · 06-26-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ah but anyone that tries to do that is killed or jailed by the government in CLEAR violation of the 2nd amendment. Also since I can't own RPGs, tanks or nukes how am I expected to defend myself from a tyannical government with some handguns and shotguns and deer rifles?

it seems obvious to me the intent isn't to permit one-man "armies" from taking up a fight against the entire nation in opposition to their lone views, but rather to insure that a small government could not impose its will upon on a significantly larger population who are in agreement that what their government is doing, is wrong, and wrong enough that it's worth fighting for.

as for your question about the types of arms, there is not a military in the world that is capable of fighting a well armed civilian population of our number, and it is very likely that many of the individuals in the military would refuse to take arms or go 'awol' if asked to fight in some type of civil war in which popular opinion was overwhelmingly against the government.

the second amendment is a very simple, elegant solution to deter any form of truly tyrannical government from ever coming to pass.

severe · 06-26-2008, 10:05 AM

btw this is the actual amendment ratified by the states: "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."

previously posted amendment was the one approved by congress and senate but now what went out to the states. there's definitely enough wiggle room to try and argue that the amendment applies only to militia. its actually scary the vote was 5-4, no 8-1 or 9-0. thats a dam close vote if you ask me.

theking · 06-26-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iseeyou

Sam's club can refuse to allow weapons on their property. Legally, anyone with a weapon can be asked to leave, except law enforcement officers who have special rights. And, in general, anyone with a weapon who refuses to leave can legally be forced to leave.

Check your eyes. Here is what is does NOT say.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The words "the people" means all people within the jurisdication of the United States. It does not mean only some people such as only soldiers or only police or only citizens or only white people or only adults.

It is scary to think that the 2nd amendment in no way allows for banning of ownership of WMD by "the people" ... but it's true.

Here is what it says:

1. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what it implies:

1. In order to achieve a well regulated milita, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2. There is no ban on private militias.

Perhaps today it is not necessary to allow private ownership of arms in order to achieve a well regulated militia. Still, the authors of the 2nd amendment decided it was a good idea and it was passed into law. it can be repealed but the 2nd amendment has never been changed even though many people try to subvert it.

Excellent...A+...for you.

iseeyou · 06-26-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by severe

previously posted amendment was the one approved by congress and senate but now what went out to the states. there's definitely enough wiggle room to try and argue that the amendment applies only to militia. its actually scary the vote was 5-4, no 8-1 or 9-0. thats a dam close vote if you ask me.

Here is what it does NOT say.

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed."

"If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless a well regulated milita provides security"

"The people only have a right to keep and bear arms if a well regulated milita is unavailable to secure a free state."

"The only people who have an uninfringable right to keep and bear arms are members of well regulated militas"

"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Jenny S. · 06-26-2008, 12:05 PM

That's the third SC decision I totally agree with in the past 10 days. Habeas corpus re-instated, the inflationary use of the death penalty pushed back, and now the right to bear arms being partially restored. I am slowly beginning to re-gain my trust in this system.

These judges are not half as bad as people think they are.

Socks · 06-26-2008, 12:09 PM

Jenny, your avatar might ruffle some feathers here, since playboy might as well own this place.. Might wanna check with eric or ice. I have no problems with it, but just a heads up

Jenny S. · 06-26-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Jenny, your avatar might ruffle some feathers here, since playboy might as well own this place.. Might wanna check with eric or ice. I have no problems with it, but just a heads up

Why would it? It hasn't in many years.

But then, I was going to get rid of it anyway, I actually already have a new one.

Jenny S. · 06-26-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Jenny, your avatar might ruffle some feathers here, since playboy might as well own this place.. Might wanna check with eric or ice. I have no problems with it, but just a heads up

See, a new avatar. I was actually going to use this one

but was afraid the Chinese would sue me for clamping their chopsticks on to my nipples.

theking · 06-26-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny S.

That's the third SC decision I totally agree with in the past 10 days. Habeas corpus re-instated, the inflationary use of the death penalty pushed back, and now the right to bear arms being partially restored. I am slowly beginning to re-gain my trust in this system.

These judges are not half as bad as people think they are.

What do you mean by "partially" restored? BTW...would be nice if the revisted Eminent Domain.

IllTestYourGirls · 06-26-2008, 03:04 PM

the people are the militia. period.

CheeseFrog · 06-26-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

EXCATLY back then we didn't have much of an army. That's why they talk about militias. And also even if it did apply to grandma the first part CLEARLY states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " well if grandma has a gun then she needs to be part of a miltia and not any old one, one that is well trained. Unless you're in the national guard you're not part of militia and therefor do not have a right to a gun.

Even if the founding fathers meant "standing army" when they said "militia," the last part still reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's right there in black & white. Until you can prove that the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/National Guard are no longer necessary for our security, the last part of that amendment still stands.

eightmotives · 06-26-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

yeah mean less blacks around mean less votes for Obama, less poor people, less people on welfare.

Go fix me a sandwich and blow this fat dick.

lookatthis · 06-26-2008, 05:45 PM

fuck that shit

Jenny S. · 06-26-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

What do you mean by "partially" restored? BTW...would be nice if the revisted Eminent Domain.

The decisions still leaves many loopholes for States and communities to prevent people from exercising their civil liberties.

I see it like this: We as Americans got this Constitution and we can't just pick and chose which part of it we like. Gun advocates tries to reduce the Constitution to the 2nd, pornographers try to reduce it to the 1st, and the government tries to reduce it to nothing, as we have seen in the past years.

digifan · 06-26-2008, 06:50 PM

I want a big bad bomb!

theking · 06-26-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny S.

The decisions still leaves many loopholes for States and communities to prevent people from exercising their civil liberties.

I see it like this: We as Americans got this Constitution and we can't just pick and chose which part of it we like. Gun advocates tries to reduce the Constitution to the 2nd, pornographers try to reduce it to the 1st, and the government tries to reduce it to nothing, as we have seen in the past years.

"and now the right to bear arms being partially restored."

It has always been the law of the land and was reaffirmed in todays decision thus nothing for the Court to restore. There are certain cities that will now have to restore the right.

bloggingseo · 06-26-2008, 10:58 PM

Wow that's a very important ruling. And a good one in my opinion

tony286 · 06-26-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

"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 translate this as "a militia is needed to protect the security of the states and the militias should be armed". I don't see where it says Grandma has a right to carry her firearm into Sam's Club where her grandchild can pull it out and shoot herself with it.

I agree also they wrote that so if the government got stupid the people could rise up again and replace it. But when they wrote it was muskets against muskets. I would interesting if we could know what they really meant.

siccmade · 06-26-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

whoa whoa you can't have it both ways.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ok first of all it's says ARMS not GUNS. and WMDs are in fact ARMS. If I can't own WMDs then my right to bear these arms are in fact being infringed.

So it's pretty simple, either indivduals have a right to bear ANY and ALL forms of arms or the 2nd amendment only meant MILITIAS have a right to exist. The fact is that if individuals have a right to bear arms then ALL guns laws INFRINGE on that right and thus are unconstiutional and should be struck down. It's pretty black and white and I'm not so sure why it's so complicated for people to understand that it's either one way or another and they need to choose one and not have this mishmash.

Saying if you can't own weapons of MASS destruction your rights are being infringed is a little crazy. You really think people should own WMDs? There has to be a limit somewhere.

Revisions need to be made and new laws put in place as times change. When this shit was written they didn't have WMDs. They didn't know how shit would be here in 2008. They didn't even have an internet to do their whining on...

06-26-2008, 12:05 PM	#55
Jenny S. Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Europe and SE US Posts: 582	That's the third SC decision I totally agree with in the past 10 days. Habeas corpus re-instated, the inflationary use of the death penalty pushed back, and now the right to bear arms being partially restored. I am slowly beginning to re-gain my trust in this system. These judges are not half as bad as people think they are. __________________ Jenny Seemore Pornography is the bloody gladiator who stands guard over the First Amendment

06-26-2008, 03:04 PM	#60
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	the people are the militia. period. __________________

06-26-2008, 10:58 PM	#67
bloggingseo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Austin Posts: 1,793	Wow that's a very important ruling. And a good one in my opinion __________________ Writing mainstream and adult since 2003 Hit me up ICQ 375089597

06-26-2008, 10:05 AM	#52
severe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 331	btw this is the actual amendment ratified by the states: "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." previously posted amendment was the one approved by congress and senate but now what went out to the states. there's definitely enough wiggle room to try and argue that the amendment applies only to militia. its actually scary the vote was 5-4, no 8-1 or 9-0. thats a dam close vote if you ask me.

06-26-2008, 12:09 PM	#56
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Jenny, your avatar might ruffle some feathers here, since playboy might as well own this place.. Might wanna check with eric or ice. I have no problems with it, but just a heads up

06-26-2008, 05:45 PM	#63
lookatthis So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 46	fuck that shit

06-26-2008, 06:50 PM	#65
digifan The Profiler Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ICQ 76281726 and I'm female Posts: 14,618	I want a big bad bomb!