Father of Oregon shooter calls for stricter gun laws

Jesus, you're a real sicko. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You'd be the sicko that can't handle the facts, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, but the Founding Fathers and Heller say you can take your jackass opinion and shove it up your wide-ass.

The 2nd amd doesn't need to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted differently. . . it states "A well regulated Militia".

....the courts will follow. . . just as they did with gay marriage. Originally Posted by southtown4488

So "the courts" interpreted the "gay marriage" amendment "differently"?

You need to work and study on your Constitutional Law interpretation precedents .... you know less than Obaminable does.

You are using an "expansive" concept of judicial interpretation to justify a restrictive interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Historically, as I pointed out, the SCOTUS has been "expanding" the meaning of the various provisions of the amendments to incorporate the changing realities of this country. The "gay marriage" ruling was a "trendy" judicial legislative act that ignored an existing amendment regarding "states rights" and decades of avoiding interference with "local issues."

Here's a beginning for you taken from Cornell University:

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation."

Like I previously posted ... the SCOTUS has a tendency to EXPAND the meaning of provisions in the amendments .... so now you have to overcome the "right of self-defense with firearms" based on "due process" .... like you can enjoy your same sex marriage now.

What makes the way it was interpreted in 1876 or 1939 wrong and the current ruling right? Timing? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, "timing." Here's the "timing" .....

... one of the "purposes" of the original amendment (2nd) was to allow the individual colonies (now states) to have weapons in the hands of the colonial citizens to defend against oppressive efforts by the "national" government to force the colonies to abide by the wishes of the "central" government,

.....so muskets against muskets.

If your reasoning is correct (which it's not) ....


... then what types of weapons would be "reasonably" sufficient to thwart an effort by the "national government" today to impose its wishes on the States?

What is the oldest branch of the military?

Sounds reasonable, but technology (and costs) have made that somewhat obsolete. Should people be allowed tanks, anti-personnel mines, and F-22s of their own? I am sorry, but give every citizen an assault rifle--if "the big bad central government" wanted to wage war on citizenry those assault rifles would mean nothing against Predators, AMRAAMs, and battleships with 30 mile range. It sounds good, it provides fodder for "unrestrained gun ownership", but it is moot for that purpose.

additionally, the way the view of state semi-independence changed post Civil War, much of the rest of the original intent is also moot.

We truly do allow ourselves to be captured my anachronistic ideas at times.

Yes, "timing." Here's the "timing" .....

... one of the "purposes" of the original amendment (2nd) was to allow the individual colonies (now states) to have weapons in the hands of the colonial citizens to defend against oppressive efforts by the "national" government to force the colonies to abide by the wishes of the "central" government,

.....so muskets against muskets.

If your reasoning is correct (which it's not) ....


... then what types of weapons would be "reasonably" sufficient to thwart an effort by the "national government" today to impose its wishes on the States?

What is the oldest branch of the military? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sounds reasonable, but technology (and costs) have made that somewhat obsolete. Should people be allowed tanks, anti-personnel mines, and F-22s of their own? I am sorry, but give every citizen an assault rifle--if "the big bad central government" wanted to wage war on citizenry those assault rifles would mean nothing against Predators, AMRAAMs, and battleships with 30 mile range. It sounds good, it provides fodder for "unrestrained gun ownership", but it is moot for that purpose.

additionally, the way the view of state semi-independence changed post Civil War, much of the rest of the original intent is also moot.

We truly do allow ourselves to be captured my anachronistic ideas at times. Originally Posted by Old-T

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" it is a semi-automatic rifle...

Sounds reasonable, but ...
We truly do allow ourselves to be captured my anachronistic ideas at times. Originally Posted by Old-T

The 2nd amendment is not about "anachronism" ... or "anachronistic ideas"!

The "logic" of the WIKI regurgitation of the 1939 SCOTUS case reveals the "weakness" of the flawed "rationalization" ... of limiting the 2nd amendment to "defense" against the government with a "local militia"!

A better method of interpretation would be to examine the discussions that occurred in the original drafting and crafting of the language, not to mention the reality of those times ... to ascertain the original intent .... but that was not the "intent" of the original founders, but it was to craft a document that would be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the changing times they envisioned ... and those that were beyond their capacity to believe would occur. In that process over the years the value of separate states with separate collective attitudes have been an important part of our jurisprudence.

Sounds reasonable, but technology (and costs) have made that somewhat obsolete. Should people be allowed tanks, anti-personnel mines, and F-22s of their own? I am sorry, but give every citizen an assault rifle--if "the big bad central government" wanted to wage war on citizenry those assault rifles would mean nothing against Predators, AMRAAMs, and battleships with 30 mile range. It sounds good, it provides fodder for "unrestrained gun ownership", but it is moot for that purpose.

additionally, the way the view of state semi-independence changed post Civil War, much of the rest of the original intent is also moot.

We truly do allow ourselves to be captured my anachronistic ideas at times. Originally Posted by Old-T

"Original intent" is at the root of the Constitution, Old-THUMPER. Only a supercilious "scumbag" like you wouldn't understand such a fundamental concept, Old-THUMPER.

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" it is a semi-automatic rifle... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Yes, but .... it "sounds" more "ominous and mean" ..... doesn't it?

Around the house I'd rather have a shotgun anyway.

"Original intent" is at the root of the Constitution, Old-THUMPER. Only a supercilious "scumbag" like you wouldn't understand such a fundamental concept, Old-THUMPER. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Times change. A fucking moron like you wouldn't understand such a fundamental concept.

Sounds reasonable, but technology (and costs) have made that somewhat obsolete. Should people be allowed tanks, anti-personnel mines, and F-22s of their own? I am sorry, but give every citizen an assault rifle--if "the big bad central government" wanted to wage war on citizenry those assault rifles would mean nothing against Predators, AMRAAMs, and battleships with 30 mile range. It sounds good, it provides fodder for "unrestrained gun ownership", but it is moot for that purpose.

additionally, the way the view of state semi-independence changed post Civil War, much of the rest of the original intent is also moot.

We truly do allow ourselves to be captured my anachronistic ideas at times. Originally Posted by Old-T

If your explanation is correct, then everything about the civil war was a complete disaster for white people. We killed each other by the hundreds of thousands to free the black man, we get virtually no credit for that, and we lost our states rights. We now are ruled over by people who hate us.

Times change. A fucking moron like you wouldn't understand such a fundamental concept. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The Constitution is still the root of all law in this country, you lying, "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and that hasn't changed, jackass.

The Constitution is still the root of all law in this country, you lying, "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and that hasn't changed, jackass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Times change. Laws change with them. 1788 was a long time ago. The fact that its been amended speaks to the malleable nature of the document.

Times change. Laws change with them. 1788 was a long time ago. The fact that its been amended speaks to the malleable nature of the document. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Obviously you're too damn stupid to realize that the Second Amendment, which amended the Constitution, has remained unchanged, you lying, "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Times change. Laws change with them. 1788 was a long time ago. The fact that its been amended speaks to the malleable nature of the document. Originally Posted by WombRaider

In all honesty, it has a one way malleable nature. It is permissible to change it into what the liberals want, but it cannot change back to what the conservative once had. That's why I hate the government and won't lift a finger to do anything for the furtherance of its oppressiveness.


P.S. For consistency sake, let me take this opportunity to call you a racist faggot, since all threads devolve to such, thanks to you liberals most of the time.

"Original intent" is at the root of the Constitution, Old-THUMPER. Only a supercilious "scumbag" like you wouldn't understand such a fundamental concept, Old-THUMPER. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh, I understand that. I just have not calcified my brain as you have. I was not the one who brought up the musket vs musket argument, I just said technology and world events have changed so that particular argument has little current weight. I also do not feel "original intent" is "infallible intent" as you do. Only a slave lover like you would feel that way. You lie, you distort. Just as we all expect of you.