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.
No, when you are outside your home, that's where the 'bear' part comes in. There's a reason it was written as "keep and bear". Keep means own, and it's implied that you're keeping them in the home. Bear means to carry. If they meant the same thing, it would have been redundant to include both. They mean distinct and different things.
Well I'm glad the appeals court has the same interpretation as me and hopefully the supreme court have the same interpretation of the constitution in this day an age so that this matter can be put to rest (which i know it won't either way)
Oh that's true enough. I'm merely pointing out that our hopes of getting favorable decisions on issues like this now hinge on the prospect of the only candidate less likeable than Hillary somehow winning the election and appointing sound minded judges....
In other words, the chances are next to nothing, and we have Trump supporters to thank for that.
Believe me, Ted Cruz is even less likeable than Trump. I know there were people who thought he could pull it off, but there was not a chance in hell he could. Trump has a slightly better chance, though still very small.
Well I'm glad the appeals court has the same interpretation as me and hopefully the supreme court have the same interpretation of the constitution in this day an age so that this matter can be put to rest (which i know it won't either way)
This ruling only applies to one state: California. The rest of the states in this circuit already allow CCW. Most importantly, California's constitution does not have a provision which allows for ownership of guns like the other states do.
LOL, well that's a ruling that won't last long! Concealed Carry has already been upheld by the Supreme Court, so I've no clue what this federal court is smoking.
At the time 2A was written a state-of-the-art firearm had a rifled barrel and a new flint. If all arms in existence today were outlawed except for flintlocks, 2A would still be completely intact. While you're reading, BTW, you would do well to comprehend what was meant by a "well-regulated militia". PRO TIP: Do not ask the NRA. They don't even recognize that that particular phrase exists.
They were two separate things. The language is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's pretty strong language.
In other words, fear. If you want to carry a gun, become a cop or join the military. That's the way Australia approached the problem and all but eliminated mass shootings. On second thought, become a cop. The military doesn't allow open carry on bases, either. There are very good reasons for that.
Did they eliminate murder? Rape? Robbery? Suicide?
Last edited by katygirl68; 06-10-2016 at 01:16 PM..
This ruling only applies to one state: California. The rest of the states in this circuit already allow CCW. Most importantly, California's constitution does not have a provision which allows for ownership of guns like the other states do.
Really? Because having language in a state constitution doesn't apply to same sex marriage or abortion. That is deemed to be the law of the land, even though the language in the constitution says absolutely nothing about either of those two things, but clearly states the right to keep and bear arms. Kind of funny that people use this argument.
2A says nothing about being able to haul your hogleg around with you everywhere you go. Ronald Reagan made that point in so many words, and the NRA was adamantly opposed to people carrying guns until Wayne LaPierre started shilling for the gun manufacturers. It's about time we restored some common sense to America.
Well, #1, Ronald Reagan and the NRA's opposition to people carrying guns both took place in a pre-Heller universe.
And #2, their opposition was based on RACIAL undertones...
Never fails to amaze me how willing Liberals are to advocate for upholding policies that when adopted were borne of racism when it suits their agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
At the time 2A was written a state-of-the-art firearm had a rifled barrel and a new flint. If all arms in existence today were outlawed except for flintlocks, 2A would still be completely intact. While you're reading, BTW, you would do well to comprehend what was meant by a "well-regulated militia". PRO TIP: Do not ask the NRA. They don't even recognize that that particular phrase exists.
Ok, so using your logic, if all forms of speech were banned except by word of mouth and the quill pen, the 1st Amendment would still be intact. The Supreme Court already addressed this logical fallacy, and rightly concluded that it "bordered on the frivolous". They also addressed your stubborn contention that the right is confined to a "well-regulated militia" and came to the same conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Cowardice? Hardly. I own several firearms, but I'm not the one who feels the need to carry one every time I leave my home because I'm afraid.
Correct. Instead, you advocate for preventing others from carrying... because you're afraid.
Well, #1, Ronald Reagan and the NRA's opposition to people carrying guns both took place in a pre-Heller universe.
And #2, their opposition was based on RACIAL undertones...
Never fails to amaze me how willing Liberals are to advocate for upholding policies that when adopted were borne of racism when it suits their agenda.
Ok, so using your logic, if all forms of speech were banned except by word of mouth and the quill pen, the 1st Amendment would still be intact. The Supreme Court already addressed this logical fallacy, and rightly concluded that it "bordered on the frivolous". They also addressed your stubborn contention that the right is confined to a "well-regulated militia" and came to the same conclusion.
Correct. Instead, you advocate for preventing others from carrying... because you're afraid.
Liberals will never admit that gun control is the largest remaining segment of Jim Crow and they support it, just like democrats did the rest of Jim Crow laws of the past.
Next thing you will hear from dumb liberals is the second amendment doesn't saying anything that you can actually "use" a gun... those liberals are idiots... the ruling will be overturned, the liberal judges like to waste everyone's money because they can...
By whom, exactly? The only judicial body that can overturn it is the Supreme Court and currently, the court is split 4 Liberal, 4 Conservative, and with a divisive issue like this, there's no reason to believe the justices wouldn't split along those same ideological lines which would result in a non-binding decision that let's stand the 9th Circuit's ruling, and that's if they even had the votes to grant the appeal and hear the case to begin with.
The next president ( likely Hillary Clinton ) will undoubtedly appoint the 5th Liberal justice to the court, which would also result in an affirmation of the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Our only hope for getting this decision reversed by the Supreme Court rests solely on the prospect of an ever flawed Donald Trump winning the Presidency and appointing a Conservative to the court..... Good luck with that one.
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.
