LastPommerFan

Just to clarify, I'm not saying a majority of the Justices, I'm not saying All of the current Justices. I'm saying 100% of the people who have ever held the position to which the Constitution prescribes the function of interpreting the implementation of said Constitution disagree with your position. Your are making the Constitutional Law equivalent of a creationism argument. It sounds nice, except for all of the evidence. Edited to add: That said, I believe that your position is philosophically correct. The defense of liberty from the state does not require individuals to be armed. It requires only that a sufficiently strong reserve militia, not under the control of federal authority to be maintained. I believe, at this point, we should consider reconstructing the 2nd amendment to create such an authority, particularly with interests in Cyber Weapons, and to abolish the individual right, which serves as a greater threat currently to many people's individual freedom than the State ever could.

100% of Supreme Court justices disagree with you. "The right of the people" means an individual every other place it comes up in the BoR.

The mutant teams, like the Browns.

True, but there are enough jobs in China alone making products bound for the US to essentially drop our unemployment rate to near zero.

Truth, but low standard of living in foreign countries killed those jobs long before the internet machine. Hell, our $10 coffee maker is the reason we have the extra $120/yr for Hulu!

App developer, actor, radio host, network technician... These are all jobs, no?

My explanations of SCOTUS history have been known to have a settling effect on people, that's great. The FBI, Rangers, etc. Are certainly the Government. The Local Sheriff? I'm not so sure. But the fact that the Federal Government is cutting a check for their assault vehicle and surveillance drone worries me. ___________________ And additional query: What about cyber-weapons. Should the people have the right to develop potentially harmful software and systems with the purpose of protecting themselves from the NSA? Does the 2nd amendment extend beyond conventional weapons?

Short, Non-lawyer explanation: The original bill of rights only protected the people from the federal government, states could (pretty much) do what they wanted (like slavery, etc.) The 14th amendment extended the protections of all people to everyone from any government, so local and state governments were prohibited from infringing upon the guaranteed rights. (Essentially allowing Blacks the right to vote) In general, and very specifically in some cases, the courts continued to uphold each states right to regulate firearms. Essentially saying that the second amendment was different from, say, the 4th amendment, and that the prefatory clause ("a well regulated militia being...") was the reason for this. Then, in 2009, on a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was indeed incorporated (extended as an individual right to all people protection from all levels of government), and that the Chicago Handgun ban infringed upon the 2nd amendment rights of it's people (ASIDE: Only Justice Thomas clarified that the right should extend to only Citizens, the rest of the justices extended that right to everyone, which would include foreign nationals on our soil.) It's important to note that the issue in that case was NOT whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, the court was unanimous in affirming that point of law, it was whether the power to regulate Guns was retained by the States and Municipalities.

If Judge Dredd has taught us anything, it's that on a long enough timeline, all sports teams will be relocated to either Mega City One, Uranium City, or Texas City. I will allow that several sports teams will potentially be contracted when Mega City Two is destroyed to end the Zombie Apocalypse.

Change the word morals to ethics and I'm all aboard.

My understanding is that the word "regulated" implied trained in the original context. I wonder if there would be something to gain from some serious state-level training being obligatory to gun ownership. Not a 2 day class, but a real long-term, militia style training regimen. Either offered by the states directly, or independent training approved by the courts to meet the "well regulated" clause. I also wonder if there would be middle ground to gain by severing the 2nd and 14th amendments and allowing the states to truly experiment with gun control legislation. Surely our freedom as a nation would not be at risk if Hawaii disarmed as long as Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Kansas were still armed to the tooth. I also don't see how registration of firearms impedes the right to bear them. I'm mostly concerned with the trade of arms and their movement between legal safe owners who present little threat to me and my family, and the felon who shot the fire fighters in West Webster 19 months ago.

Agreed. The right was always individual. I think the better debate is over the cause (defense against the federal government and external invasion vs. defense against other citizens) and the states rights to control arms. The States were never prevented from controlling arms within their borders until 2009. Not once. Short Barrel Shotgun bans, concealed weapon bans, all upheld by the courts for more than 2 centuries. Then Scalia. Scalia sees the long game.

A De Jure complete individual right to bear arms in self defense as well as in a militia did not exist until this decade. This is Antonin Scalia's greatest Legacy. He built that slim Majority to overturn 200 years of American history and change the intent of the second amendment from defense of liberty from tyranny to defense of citizen from citizen. The lawyers among us (eww) can probably show further, but prior to striking down the Chicago handgun ban, The 14th and 2nd amendments weren't officially linked by the SCOTUS (aside: this is the best acronym in america, hands down). Let's make sure that in a discussion of the intent of the 2nd amendment we understand that for 221 years, cities and states were allowed to restrict gun ownership as they saw fit. This indicates to me that the intention of the framers was to protect the States (particularly the Southern States) from Federal intrusion (particularly regarding slavery). This viewpoint is further reinforced by the fact that the House, dominated by the North, passed a law very specifically exclusively defending the right of the state militias to bear arms. That was changed in the senate, dominated by the South, to the amendment we see today.

30 is hot 20 is nice 10 is cold 0 is ice

What!?!? They love pie!!

That's gross. You're gross. and yes.

hooray!!! Sucks to be YOU PA!!! (seriously though, good luck :) )

Most first line centers score between 50-60 points. If our defense-first line (and I think that's Zemgus's best fit, the "third" line if you will) is scoring like that, we are going to be really really really good. The prospect of that makes me happy. EDIT: The above should read 55-65 pts.

I have a 2006 Matrix with 135,000 miles. I've never touched the timing belt, I do need a new serpentine belt, but that's nothing. How do I know if my timing belt needs to be replaced?

Colorado, man. And this was before recreational weed.

My interpretation is that I am more likely to face a threat from fellow citizens than from the government. By calling for restrictions on the power of the citizenry, I'm acting upon that judgement. By calling for restrictions on both I'm hedging my bets. My viewpoint is developed and mature. It is based on my knowledge of society and my personal values. It is neither naive nor ignorant.

There is a qualitative argument to be made betwixt A1 and A2. The first is essentially the right to think and act independently. This is a essential requirement for democracy to function. The second is essentially the right to own an object in case you need to overthrow the democracy.

What does this mean to you points-wise?

I see it a little differently. The 2nd amendment says I need to keep my slaves in line and protect my right to own them.

Yeah, in 100 years we would have been essentially free, but we'd still have a queen today.