tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post8566842292398621061..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: It's an individual rightAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63750805345426762172011-08-15T14:28:53.987+02:002011-08-15T14:28:53.987+02:00"It seems to me the 2nd Amendment is anachron...<i>"It seems to me the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic and meaningless. Why gun-rights folks keep leaning on it is a mystery. If guns were another tool like any other, why cite the Constitution for proof of the right to own it?"</i><br /><br />Because there are plenty of you out there that would ban any gun you could. Then there are those like Laci that continue to beat the dead horse about some silly collective rights notion that was popular with a some folks for a few years.FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-37290074189561944632011-08-15T12:13:43.749+02:002011-08-15T12:13:43.749+02:00It seems to me the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic ...It seems to me the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic and meaningless. Why gun-rights folks keep leaning on it is a mystery. If guns were another tool like any other, why cite the Constitution for proof of the right to own it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-29085027833259279362011-08-14T22:02:13.430+02:002011-08-14T22:02:13.430+02:00How can something which relates to Federal powers ...<i>How can something which relates to Federal powers under Article I, Section 8 Clause 16 be incorporated against the states?</i><br /><br />Article I, Section 8 Clause 16 amended by 2A upon ratification. 2A takes precedent.<br /><br /><i>If you believe that the Second amendment means that:<br /><br />the right of the people to carry arms shall not be infringed?</i><br /><br />Its dicta and what the courts believe. Miller doesn't address this potion. As the court found, its a separate clause much as religion and assembly are separate freedoms.<br /><br /><i>Then, do you believe that criminals and terrorists have a right to arms?</i><br /><br />14th and due process. One is neither of the 2 labels unless they have been found guilty of a crime. You ought to know that already.<br /><br /><i>"But given the gibberish you posted, I doubt that is possible."</i><br /><br />I thought you profess to have gone to law school? Any 1st year student would understand what I've written above.<br /><br />May I suggest you refresh yourself of the following terms<br /><br />'fundamental rights' with regards to the framework used to refrain local/state power.<br />'incorporation doctrine' <br />and<br />'levels of scrutiny' as in strict, intermediate, and rational.<br /><br />Heller and McDonald are dicta; as in holding. They are as likely to be overturned as Slaughterhouse, Roe v Wade, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64190444852046273892011-08-14T20:19:25.145+02:002011-08-14T20:19:25.145+02:00Then, do you believe that criminals and terrorists...<i>Then, do you believe that criminals and terrorists have a right to arms?</i><br /><br />14th. Due process already eliminates such issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58200830591541030972011-08-14T16:47:06.670+02:002011-08-14T16:47:06.670+02:00Incorpotation?
How can something which relates to...Incorpotation?<br /><br />How can something which relates to Federal powers under Article I, Section 8 Clause 16 be incorporated against the states?<br /><br />If you believe that the Second amendment means that:<br /><br /><i>the right of the people to carry arms shall not be infringed?</i><br /><br />Then, do you believe that criminals and terrorists have a right to arms?<br /><br />Please reread this post and try to understand it. <br /><br />But given the gibberish you posted, I doubt that is possible.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39270979045459336662011-08-14T09:27:39.392+02:002011-08-14T09:27:39.392+02:00"But a conclusion that the Second Amendment p...<i>"But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." </i><br /><br />Incorporation just happened. While it took decades for 1st amendment issues to be resolved, I would garner it will take significantly less time for the 2nd.<br /><br />And of course we do have 'shall not be infringed' (which hasn't been tested), as well as protection with arms in common usage.<br /><br />McDonald mentions 'fundamental' right enough times its probably not terribly hard to figure our a framework once the level of scrutiny is decided. As far as you and I know, the court may eventually just adopt the same methodology as used with the 1st.<br /><br />I predict strict scrutiny or intermediate. Rational is unlikely at best. We'll know soon enough within the next 2 years. Fast enough by federal standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com