WSJ NEWS ALERT: U.S. Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights to States, Cities

Not saying I want to ban guns (I actually plan on buying one fairly soon), but for the sake of a more interesting thread I'll play the devil's advocate:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

I was reading something about this a few days ago on my CNN iPhone app and according to them the "anti gun rights" arguement goes something along the lines of "a well regulated Militia" meaning military, law enforcement, etc.

To me, that feels like quite the stretch but I digress..

Another "anti gun" arguement I've heard (this is from a buddy whom I disagree with)... My buddy argued that guns dont kill people bullets do and that heavily regulating ammunition would not be unconstitutional and effective..

Sounds like it'd just put another item on the black market to me honestly haha!

Personally, I feel like currently it is too easy to obtain a firearm; I have met many people who have absolutely no business with an item of such power but I would be more than angry as a responsible, reasonably intelligent citizen if I was denied ownership of a gun.

edit: Although unrelated, I also feel it is too easy to pass high school in America (every year school gets easier for children) and it is too easy to get a drivers license (everyone has seen the idiots on the roads lol)...

US TITLE 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.


The anti-gun crowd attempts to distort what the word "militia" means. What it meant at the writing of the second amendment is still what it means today. It is every able-bodied male in the United States above the age of 17 and under the age of 45.



The organized militia (completely different animal) are those people who are in the reserves and national guard, and they are considered part of our standing military (roughly 60% of our standing military is made up by our reserves and national guard).


As to "heavily regulating ammunition" in order to control firearms, with the Heller decision as well as the McDonald decision, that is a pipe dream. SCOTUS has stated definitively that the second amendment codifies an individual liberty so any attempt to regulate ammunition would be an attempt at an end run around SCOTUS's ruling on the matter, something the justices wouldn't take kindly too.



And you are correct in that any anything that people want that is banned simply goes to the underground economy. If ammunition was either banned for civilian consumption or heavily taxed an overnight underground economy would spring up and our nation would give one more commodity to enhance the banking account of criminals and organized crime.

Countryfarmer said:

Yeh, the OSHA changes would have made it where it would have been near to impossible to buy ammunition because the "safety" standard would have been impossible for most sellers to comply with. Those changes bit the dust as well.

There is a lot of backdoor activity going on with regards to second amendment liberties. The three that we have both pointed out are just some of such.

Click to expand...

Well...one of the things mentioned is actually a 'victory' for gun rights. Firearms are now allowed in a lot of national parks...yay!

If Obama has a hidden agenda to take away people's guns, he's doing a remarkably good job at hiding it....

abe23 said:

Well...one of the things mentioned is actually a 'victory' for gun rights. Firearms are now allowed in a lot of national parks...yay!

If Obama has a hidden agenda to take away people's guns, he's doing a remarkably good job at hiding it....

Click to expand...

This is my thinking lol.

the last thing Obama wants to do is ensure that the American people aren't going to vote for him for a second term, and the best way to avoid that is to stay away from iffy subjects like gun control.

Honestly, when I see NRA ads or whatever hating on Obama because they think he is or even can take away their guns I just think of it as a waste of time/money because it's not going to happen; Americans will always have their guns.

What if the SCOTUS hadn't reaffirmed gun rights? The right would still exist even it weren't "affirmed". It would simply be an open "rights grab". People should remember the vote was 5-4!! That tells me another "right" is in danger of being taken, ONE vote away.

We also have the natural right to self ownership...how's that working out for us cannabis users? Bottomline, the vote wasn't a victory, it was a warning....5-4. That means 4 Supremes think plain english in the 2nd amendment can mean whatever they want it to say despite what it DOES say.

Rob Roy said:

What if the SCOTUS hadn't reaffirmed gun rights? The right would still still exist even it weren't "affirmed". It would simply be an open "rights grab". People should remember the vote was 5-4!! That tells me another "right" is in danger of being taken, ONE vote away.

We also have the natural right to self ownership...how's that working out for us cannabis users? Bottomline, the vote wasn't a victory, it was a warning....5-4. That means 4 Supremes think plain english in the 2nd amendment can mean whatever they want it to say despite what it DOES say.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that scared me too...

Rob Roy said:

What if the SCOTUS hadn't reaffirmed gun rights? The right would still exist even it weren't "affirmed". It would simply be an open "rights grab". People should remember the vote was 5-4!! That tells me another "right" is in danger of being taken, ONE vote away.

We also have the natural right to self ownership...how's that working out for us cannabis users? Bottomline, the vote wasn't a victory, it was a warning....5-4. That means 4 Supremes think plain english in the 2nd amendment can mean whatever they want it to say despite what it DOES say.

Click to expand...

It's not about affirming or denying....it's more about defining the exact extent of that right and that's exactly the job of the court. Would a law that prohibits the smoking of cannabis in public places also be an infringement on your right to self-ownership? Would a law that states that you can't shoot your cruise missiles in a national on a sunday be an infringement on your second amendment rights?

abe23 said:

It's not about affirming or denying....it's more about defining the exact extent of that right and that's exactly the job of the court. Would a law that prohibits the smoking of cannabis in public places also be an infringement on your right to self-ownership? Would a law that states that you can't shoot your cruise missiles in a national on a sunday be an infringement on your second amendment rights?

Click to expand...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hmm. That doesn't need much clarifying to me. I think it goes well with my philosophy. Nobody has a right to initiate aggression, everybody has a right to DEFEND themselves.

I am very suspicious of the Supreme Court and anybody paying attention should be also. There job is not to reinterpret the obvious or to negate natural law. If they had somehow voted 4-5 against, it wouldn't have meant they got it correct.

You should check out the WICKARD case (misuse of interstate commerce clause) if you want to see an example of blatant SCOTUS abuse of power.


Concerning smoking cannabis in public, I don't have a problem with not smoking in close proximity to others if the smoke bothers them.
However that doesn't mean that in all public places smoking weed should be prohibited.

Cruise missiles? Been peeking in my garage again haven't you?

Pepole kill people,not guns. Enforce the gun laws we have,but the prisons are too full. Some people are not safe behind the wheel of an automobile,they diffinitely don't need to be able to buy a gun.

Agcat said:

Pepole kill people,not guns. Enforce the gun laws we have,but the prisons are too full. Some people are not safe behind the wheel of an automobile,they diffinitely don't need to be able to buy a gun.

Click to expand...

so bad drivers should be banned from owning a gun? That has to be one of the worst logical assumptions I have read in my entire life. Its no different than saying bad tennis players should be sterilized.

The most disturbing thing is the vote was decided by 1 person, in the America i love it would have been 9-0 in favor of the 2nd.