Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I caught wind of an interesting matter that had occurred and was then quickly settled. I watch a southern gentleman who goes by the tag name of Hickock45 on Youtube. He does many gun reviews and has a private shooting range where he displays various firearms and how they operate. He's sort of a mix of good old country boy(NOT a redneck), history teacher and shooting instructor.
Recently his channel got suspended by Google and Youtube without explanation. The initial thought was that it was for violation of terms of service but that was quickly discounted. After a short investigation and an appeal he was amicably reinstated although the initial reason for the banning was unclear. He's never strayed into politics so that wasn't the reason. This caught the attention of even conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Hickock45 was quick to downplay the rumors it was just that Google had gotten nervous about pro gun material.
And? Most pornography is legal. Try looking at some at the Public Library. Likely another patron will report you and it will escalate from there. Same on City-Data. Someone will flag someone else's post because of their personal low tolerance level for the free speech of others. Where should this go? Should Google or YouTube be fined? Shut down? What? Were any guns damaged or confiscated or otherwise infringed, during the course of the misunderstanding?
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." - from the majority opinion in United States v Cruikshank, 1876.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - from the majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, 2008.
Two different Supreme Court opinions, or the opinion of an anonymous poster on the internet - who is more believable?
A third (McDonald) overruled the bolded part of the first, and the second excerpt you post has not been interpreted to do what you allude. Just because the right is not "unlimited" does not mean that government's powers to restrict the right are unlimited.
The footnote attached to that paragraph (#26) is never included in quotes such as yours but it has been the directing point for courts applying Heller.
"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ."
US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, 7th Circuit, (2009)
Actually, what that passage says is that the holding of Heller can't be used to question laws (it being so narrow) but Heller's unstated effect certainly can be (invalidating any and all permutations of the "militia right" and "state's right" and general "collective right" interpretations).
A third (McDonald) overruled the bolded part of the first, and the second excerpt you post has not been interpreted to do what you allude. Just because the right is not "unlimited" does not mean that government's powers to restrict the right are unlimited.
Are you claiming that the Cruikshank passage 'shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress' was overridden by McDonald v City of Chicago?
Also, I don't believe anyone has made the statement that government's powers to restrict gun rights are unlimited.
The footnote attached to that paragraph (#26) is never included in quotes such as yours but it has been the directing point for courts applying Heller.
[indent][indent]"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ."
US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, 7th Circuit, (2009)
Also, didn't U.S. v Skoien uphold by a 10-1 vote the conviction of Steven Skoien, who was arrested for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
You tell me. I don't fear my government. I fear nervous residents of suburban communities with stand your ground statutes a LOT more.
You fear people protecting their homes more than a government that grows bigger and more tyrannical all the time? How foolish. Because that government, if not kept in check, will make personal property and ownership a moot point, if given a chance.
please try reading everything i posted. i was merely indicating how the second amendment could be repealed. i NEVER SAID that it would be repealed. in fact i pointed out that i doubt it would ever be repealed in the foreseeable ever. thus your question is not only moot, it is idiotic.
There are 4 words in a legal document, standing firmly in the way.
A third (McDonald) overruled the bolded part of the first, and the second excerpt you post has not been interpreted to do what you allude. Just because the right is not "unlimited" does not mean that government's powers to restrict the right are unlimited.
The footnote attached to that paragraph (#26) is never included in quotes such as yours but it has been the directing point for courts applying Heller.
"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ."
US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, 7th Circuit, (2009)
Actually, what that passage says is that the holding of Heller can't be used to question laws (it being so narrow) but Heller's unstated effect certainly can be (invalidating any and all permutations of the "militia right" and "state's right" and general "collective right" interpretations).
It is not up to 9 federal employees, to decide my right to be free.
You may think it is, but they can decide your freedom for you, not me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
