Agreed. I don't just want an AR, I want rocket launchers, mortars, bazookas, a tank, and tactical nukes. I reserve the right to a railgun when that's a thing.
Agreed. I don't just want an AR, I want rocket launchers, mortars, bazookas, a tank, and tactical nukes. I reserve the right to a railgun when that's a thing.
See what can you do with your state legislators. This ruling was specifically directed towards overturning a unconstitutional state law in 7 states that forced citizens to go through an added, subjective hearing by a court official to determine if the person would qualify for a permit.
your grievance is altogether different since it deals with ordinances, armored vehicles, and other items.
Your post is just an angry mush of insults, off target arguments and meaningless facts.
The act of all judgment is subjective. Are you so naive to think that the gov't doesn't subjectively prosecute crimes?
What is your point? That since all judgment is ultimately subjective, no law can be too vague, broad or subjective to be un-Constitutional? That makes no sense. Laws get struck down all the time for being too subjective or vague.
What does prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to prosecute certain charges have to do with analyzing the degree of subjectivity in a written statute? Two different things. What are you even getting at?
The people of NYC decided to give representative of the people the power to judge who can carry a gun. They people of NYC decided that being scared doesn't cut it.
Notwithstanding your hyperbole ("being scared doesn't cut it"), no one disputes that the NYC law required a specific and personalized reason for a permit. The whole issue is whether that specific requirement conflicts with the Second Amendment requirement that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It sure seems to. As the SCOTUS pointed out "We know of no other Constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."
Can you imagine that? Every time you want to bash a popular politician, you have to apply for a permit that sets forth your particular personal need for the proposed bashing?
The two people had to show a compelling reason to carry. They did not because they could not. They, like you, are scared little man-babies with rambo fantasies. They, like you, are too weak and stupid to avoid gun use. You know it, I know it.
The fears, stupidity and/or weaknesses that you allege the Petitioners have are irrelevant to any of this.
There was no constitutional right to concealed carry until Heller. none. It was invented by the Federalist Society and the NRA. There is nothing in 2A that mentioned self-defense.
You seem to be arguing for a literalist approach to Constitutional analysis ("There is nothing in 2A that mentioned self-defense"), and I'm pretty sure you don't want that. The Second Amendment reads in relevant part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is pretty unequivocal and using its literal words, the Second Amendment would seem to prohibit any and everything at all that infringed the express right to keep and bear arms. Courts seldom read things in such a literal way, which is why there are many "infringements" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The particular infringement in this case just went straight to the heart of the Second Amendment (defense) and was therefore un-Constitutional.
You also have things Constitutionally backasswards. The purpose of the Constitution is NOT to specifically set forth and enumerate every right a citizen has. See the IX Amendment. So the Constitution doesn't have to expressly say you have a right to defend yourself for you to have such a right. Do you get that? It's really important.
It’s the originalist who want a literal interpretation of the constitution…so I ask
what miltia do you belong to?
I know its the originalists who want a literal interpretation (although I think that whole label "originalist" and the idea that they are the only ones who advocate literal interpretation is exaggerated - all legal opinions start with and adhere closely to literal interpretation).
What I was pointing out to the agitated poster "guns are for the weak" was that his argument "There is nothing in 2A that mentioned self-defense" seemed to be advocating for a literal interpretation, when its is the last thing he would want -- i.e., he's an inconsistent person. It would clearly backfire on him as someone who wants the Constitutional analysis to be far away from the literal language of the Constitution ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") and more focused on what his local legislature adopts (at least with respect to guns).
The same SC that decided Americans should be able to kill one another with guns has decided life in the womb is sacred. The irony.
Stop with the hyperbole. The right to keep and bear arms is all about defense and as a deterrent for a government to try to oppress their own people. The SC ruling on the New York gun law is about eliminating subjective infringement of a persons right to carry their firearm. No gun laws were created and New York can still require people to apply for a concealed carry permit, they just eliminated the subjective aspect of a court official being able to deny a law abiding citizen the right to concealed carry after having satisfied the appropriate criteria.
The right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the constitution. Show me where the right to an abortion Is clearly written. You can’t. Abortion as a constitutional right was loosely, and poorly, reasoned as a right to privacy. most people will tell you that they knew the ruling was shaky at best and would always be open to repeal.
So when does a life become sacred in your opinion? What’s the difference between a baby who is just born compared to the day before they were born?
Of course you think that way. You believe your country should be defined by what a bunch of guys thought in the 18th century.
Stop with the hyperbole. The right to keep and bear arms is all about defense and as a deterrent for a government to try to oppress their own people. The SC ruling on the New York gun law is about eliminating subjective infringement of a persons right to carry their firearm. No gun laws were created and New York can still require people to apply for a concealed carry permit, they just eliminated the subjective aspect of a court official being able to deny a law abiding citizen the right to concealed carry after having satisfied the appropriate criteria.
The right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the constitution. Show me where the right to an abortion Is clearly written. You can’t. Abortion as a constitutional right was loosely, and poorly, reasoned as a right to privacy. most people will tell you that they knew the ruling was shaky at best and would always be open to repeal.
So when does a life become sacred in your opinion? What’s the difference between a baby who is just born compared to the day before they were born?
Of course you think that way. You believe your country should be defined by what a bunch of guys thought in the 18th century.
What do you mean my argument is baseless? My argument is that restricting guns will save lives. How does that not apply to america? How is that baseless? Only a moron would say this.