Any law enacted, restricting you right to bear arms is unconstitutional (Reid, bias)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I really don't see that in that decision but then I have never had a desire to interpret decisions with my agenda in mind.

You would have to actually read the decision first, something that no gun-proponent in this thread (even those who have cited it) appears to have ever done.

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Do you really think that the Court meant to give the bird to the people who see tyranny as a possibility?

I have no doubt that the Court, even its most conservative members, can recognize a nutburger when they see one.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Of course, we all know that the lady would abolish all guns for civilians with no thought of what could happen in the way of tyranny from so doing.

Your tendencies to 1) try and read minds and 2) to speak for everyone else are not your most admirable qualities.

[biggunsmallbrains]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

We have reached a point in this country where people are ignorant of the very basis of our own rights and function of government.
Any law short of an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by all the States, which infringes on your right to protect yourself by use of firearms, is illegal.
The reason for this is that the Constitution and the bill of rights is the Supreme law of the land, and no law written by Congress or by Executive Order can, or does override the Constitution.
The government as stated in the 10th amendment does not have the power to override your rights.
Will that fact stop the government from enacting illegal laws? No.
The fact is we do no longer exist in a free country where the government follows the laws.

There have been hundreds of restrictions on gun rights in this country for a long time. There has been a ban on automatic weaponry since the thirties. I suppose you think everyone should be able to walk around with a machine gun, tank or even nuke?

All our liberties are not 100% absolute. The first amendment does not protect slander. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater too. There are allowed to be reasonable limits. There always have been. So you can get off your high horse now.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

You don't seem to realize that you are just as biased in your own way as the people who disagree with you are in their own ways.

The difference is that my bias conforms to what is actually true.

You really need to actually read the Heller decision.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

We have reached a point in this country where people are ignorant of the very basis of our own rights and function of government.
Any law short of an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by all the States, which infringes on your right to protect yourself by use of firearms, is illegal.
The reason for this is that the Constitution and the bill of rights is the Supreme law of the land, and no law written by Congress or by Executive Order can, or does override the Constitution.
The government as stated in the 10th amendment does not have the power to override your rights.
Will that fact stop the government from enacting illegal laws? No.
The fact is we do no longer exist in a free country where the government follows the laws.

We have not existed in such a country for a century or more. The thing with the 2nd amendment is that there are a lot of gun owners out there so this suddenly hits a lot of people close to home. But the fact is that the federal government has been regularly overstepping its bounds for decade after decade. There just hasn't been a significant amount of people there protesting it. The virtuous citizenry this country was designed for, wherein the people were supposed to be watchdogs over the government, doesn't exist anymore.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

How wonderful for you. Completely irrelevant to any argument I have made in this thread, but wonderful none the less.

You didn't use the words of Framers in telling me what that militia is to be? I guess I really don't read very well, at all.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

But you 'Nobel Prize winner' is?

The only Nobel prize winner from 2009 that I know was a man who had done nothing, at the time he was awarded the prize.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

You didn't use the words of Framers in telling me what that militia is to be? I guess I really don't read very well, at all.

Your ability to read has always been suspect. It is your ability to understand, though, that generally proves to be your Achilles heel.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

I have no doubt that the Court, even its most conservative members, can recognize a nutburger when they see one.

Then it appears that you think this 5 people were actually thumbing their noses at people who think differently than you do?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Okay, so you must think that laws banning us from owning the most advanced arms (like fighter jets equipped with smart bombs, chemical agents, explosives, nukes, etc) all violate the 2nd Amendment then? Right?

Why are you lecturing me on this? I pretty much said the exact same thing in post 26.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27951633-post26.html

There was never meant to be a full time standing army controlled full time by the government.
It was suppose to be as needed, spur of the moment.

Those fighter jets are yours and mine, more so than our governments. We are the government.

The constitution does not start out, Us the Government.