Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Ok.......

- - - Updated - - -

Police are held accountable all the time.

 

They probably meant it then. But they are not running the show now

 

So in other words if the Supreme Court ruled that a complete and total gun ban is not infringing upon our rights then its correct? This is why we need to stick to what the founding fathers intended. Thank God president Trump will appoint judges who thinks that way too.

 

That is the way the system works now.

 

Yes they are through the contract they laid out for us. If you want to break from it then amend the constitution or have the super majority of states vote to get out from it or move to Canada.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really.

 

I didn't express an opinion. I stated a fact

 

Isn't it amazing that justices "re interpret" the true intentions of our founders?
It's how they circumvent the amendment process.

 

Yeah it works great

 

It is known as civil asset forfeiture. And the supreme court has ruled that it is a constitutional practice. Do you agree with such?

Indeed they are not. Police officers, in general, do not face legal repercussions for their actions, even when they are of a blatantly criminal nature. It is only under extraordinary circumstances, that a police officer even faces genuine consequences for their improper actions. The courts have long held that any questionable actions must be looked at from the perspective of whether or not a police officer believed them to be appropriate under the situations of their profession. That is a far lower legal standard than any private citizen is held to.

 

If I knew the answer, obviously i wouldn't be repeating myself; this is the last time I'll ask you; what about my original question? Can you answer that as well??

 

You mean that particular group of people that have a lower incidence of criminal behavior than the police themselves?

Are you referring to the 2-3% of firearms that are legally purchased then used in crimes?

I'm just trying to figure out what tiny percentage you're worried about.

Here's what I do know: if someone wants to kill someone else, there is no law that is going to stop them.

If you are going to ignore the penalties for murder, you're not going to be stopped by legislation.

 

Of course it is . . . It is big business and the raw materials and finished product (timber, pulp, paper, plastic, silicon, books, newspapers, visual and audio media) certainly move in interstate commerce. Since the simple argument for the regulation of firearms is that Congress has the power to regulate items that move in interstate commerce, why can't that principle be extended to the means of exercising the rights of press and speech without any reference to or respect for the 1st Amendment?

 

I know. Note my use of the word "conjure" which denotes invented power rather than a delegated, defined power. One shouldn't expect invented power to stay confined to the original reasoning for its invention. Undefined power is limitless power and that is anti-constitutional. One should expect it to constantly expand and be selectively applied . . . Like against guns but not books.

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
​

People love Marbury because it allowed judges to "open the Constitution" and create law. They never admit that Marbury set-out rules for that interpretation and that in all interpretation, the foundational principles must be considered, respected and preserved.

 

Let's see if you can keep it up.

Does that condition, in your thinking, allow the federal government to do whatever it wants? Is there no binding action that comes from the 1st or 2nd Amendments?

Is the silence in the body of the Constitution's grant of powers on many matters meaningful or significant?

What were the Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution?

 

She is a senile idiot.

Her thinking on the RKBA/2ndA is wrong philosophically, historically and legally and is diametrically opposed to previous SCOTUS opinion on the RKBA/2nd Amendment and rights in general (without referencing the Heller majority opinion).

Please cite and quote her statements that you feel deserve your accolades and my respect.

And please, enough touting they exist, list the other people who support your position.

 

IMO, officers should have a certain level of leway due to them being more exposed professionally to these situations. Yet, citizens should be given more leeway than they currently have. An example: Say an officer is in a store when a mass killer starts shooting at everyone. He can return fire and if he hits a bystander in the process, he will likely be given leeway. Yet, a CC hits a bystander and he/she faces retribution. The circumstance should be considered for both.

 

I don't know enough about it to comment.

well, they are.

police officers are held accountable for criminal actions.

- - - Updated - - -

no it isn't.
.

speech isn't commerce. but, both the press and speech do have regulations to them. liable, slander, inciting violence, etc.

 

I don't think that is true. Even back then guns could not be "possessed" by blacks, criminals, or insane people. And even back then there were placed where you couldn't bring your guns.

The key is in the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state ..." A well regulated militia would serve as the vehicle by which gun possession would be regulated.

- - - Updated - - -

Scalia's Heller decision was one of the biggest pieces of judicial activism in decades. He completely re-wrote the 2A to suit his political preferences.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they thought that a well regulated militia was necessary to a free state. They said so.

 

Does not matter a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) what anyone thinks that does not make the rules.

 

Yea, until they rule on something that YOU disagree with.
Until they step on a right that YOU value.

 

Until they reinterpret the first amendment to ban any opinion you spout. Enjoy the ban.

 

Wrong. Scalia did not believe in a "living Constitution".

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/12/supreme_court_justice_antonin.html
“The constitution is not an organism. It’s a legal text,” Scalia told a few hundred campus and community members at a talk in Princeton University’s Richardson Auditorium this afternoon. “It means today what it meant when it was adopted.”

Once again you are proven wrong.

Give up while your head is above water.

 

Sorry, but he/she has been laying on the bottom sucking water since the thread began.

 

can anyone find even a sliver of evidence that the founders did not intend the second amendment to guarantee an individual right

can anyone find any evidence whatsoever, that the founders intended the Federal government to have any authority over private citizens acting in their own sovereign states -be it gun ownership, growing wheat etc

answer those two questions and you will see that Scalia's only sin was entertaining that the blanket limitation on federal action was somehow subject to "limitations"

 

One of the problems currently is that police officers in the united states are given entirely too much leeway in determining what is and is not necessary in the course of their duties. Police officers have been caught in the act of kicking restrained suspects in the head, but they are not punished for such actions. Police officers are also trained to deliberately escalate a situation to the point where excessive force is deemed justified, simply to maintain control of the situation at all times.