Supreme Court may decide who can carr...

Supreme Court may decide who can carry guns

There are 9 comments on the KSDK-TV Saint Louis story from Apr 14, 2013, titled Supreme Court may decide who can carry guns. In it, KSDK-TV Saint Louis reports that:

The court may decide as early as Monday to consider whether the Second Amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KSDK-TV Saint Louis.

Roice

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#9 Apr 15, 2013
You gun nuts simply can't read! Where in "Keep & Bear" does it imply that you can have & carry guns? Keep could mean, like, keep locked up in government armory. And Bear couldn't mean carry, because that would just be stupid! I hope you murdering gun lovers can sleep at night knowing all the pain you cause with these evil instruments of death. You all need a hobby of some sort. And don't quote me Supreme Court mumbojumbo! Or Thomas Jefferson or R. Lee Ermery from Full Metal Jacket. Or Ted Nugent lyrics!! I'm going insain with all the bullets flying around. I haven't even been outside this year yet! Heaven help us!
Duh

Bridgeville, PA

#10 Apr 15, 2013
http://quinnell.us/sspb/...
The Constitution Is NOT the Bible
Posted on 2 April 2012 by Kenneth Quinnell

One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of “originialism” as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of “Well, the founding fathers never expected…” followed by the person’s preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claims 1) haven’t read the Constitution, 20 haven’t read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) haven’t read any of the founding fathers’ writings about these topics.

As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? It’s not relevant for three reasons:

1. The law is not what they said, it’s only what they passed
2. They are dead and didn’t live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them
3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral

That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They weren’t. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy — landowners — should have the right to vote. They were not saints. They weren’t authors of the Bible and, most importantly for the present, the document they left behind to govern us — the Constitution — is NOT the Bible.

Reverence for it is misplaced. While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. That’s why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what we’ve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is a living and unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things aren’t true, but you can’t find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, it’s not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. It’s filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal government’s power to deal with most issues.
Duh

Bridgeville, PA

#11 Apr 15, 2013
And those who argue that it does these things can never legitimately cite what part of the document agrees with them. Instead, they point to something that not only doesn’t agree with them, it frequently doesn’t even address the topic they suggest. And people who don’t want society to do the right thing will often hide behind their flawed, if not downright dishonest, interpretation of the Constitution.

To that I say that defense doesn’t matter to me. I deal with what is right and wrong, not what is legal or illegal. If the government and/or the Constitution say something immoral, then I’m not going to agree with them nor am I going to defer to their point of view or say that I have to because “it’s the law.” If the country is trying to help a group of people out of poverty and you don’t like it and argue that it’s unconstitutional, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want to help those people, because almost nothing is unconstitutional in terms of creating government programs. It has to be something that causes more harm than it does good for it to be something that should be opposed in such a way. Programs that “originalists” oppose never fit that pattern.

Even if their argument was valid, though, if the Constitution is the only thing in the way of us doing the right thing, then we have a duty to our country and to humanity to not let that Constitution — a flawed document written by flawed human beings — stop that right thing from happening. Unless the Constitution explicitly says the government can’t do something, then it can do that thing up to and until it is determined that the Constitution says otherwise. Explicitly. Powers are implied. Limitations aren’t. They’re specifically listed. If the Constitution says something is explicitly forbidden and we determine that what we’re trying to do is the right thing to do, then we have the duty to change the Constitution that explicitly says such a thing to make it say otherwise. The Constitution changes. It should change. The only time the Constitution should limit a change is when that change is for the worse.
Duh

Bridgeville, PA

#12 Apr 15, 2013
My first post isn't showing up for some reason, so I'm posting it again....
http://quinnell.us/sspb/...
The Constitution Is NOT the Bible
Posted on 2 April 2012 by Kenneth Quinnell
One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of “originialism” as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of “Well, the founding fathers never expected…” followed by the person’s preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claims 1) haven’t read the Constitution, 20 haven’t read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) haven’t read any of the founding fathers’ writings about these topics.
As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? It’s not relevant for three reasons:
1. The law is not what they said, it’s only what they passed
2. They are dead and didn’t live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them
3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral
That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They weren’t. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy — landowners — should have the right to vote. They were not saints. They weren’t authors of the Bible and, most importantly for the present, the document they left behind to govern us — the Constitution — is NOT the Bible.
Reverence for it is misplaced. While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. That’s why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what we’ve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is a living and unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things aren’t true, but you can’t find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, it’s not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. It’s filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal government’s power to deal with most issues.
myth

Francesville, IN

#13 Apr 15, 2013
Those laws were enactive and inaffective . Ineffective rulings of the past by the owls in no way hinders a future ruling by the spiders upon a grounds that if the past ruling were to stand it would jeopardize the governments ability to protect the citizens and protect the Constitution . Such contradictory of freedom Laws however , such as the Article VI would have mere papers of treaties agreeing to the Law that all treaty members remove gun ownership by private citizens . I think our sovereignty needs to be more firmly established . Remember that George W Bush used Iraq's refusal to adhere to a UN treaty was reason enough to murder Saddam Hussein and his sons . This is BS . At most Bush should have only presented his case for the UN to make the decision . W took on the skull and boners club name The Decider when he Deceived everyone into a war on Terror without any plans as to what he intended to do . No plan except to murder rape pillage plunder innocent people for the Zionists .hand

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#17 Apr 16, 2013
America has become a nation of communists.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#18 Apr 16, 2013
Roice wrote:
You gun nuts simply can't read! Where in "Keep & Bear" does it imply that you can have & carry guns? Keep could mean, like, keep locked up in government armory. And Bear couldn't mean carry, because that would just be stupid! I hope you murdering gun lovers can sleep at night knowing all the pain you cause with these evil instruments of death. You all need a hobby of some sort. And don't quote me Supreme Court mumbojumbo! Or Thomas Jefferson or R. Lee Ermery from Full Metal Jacket. Or Ted Nugent lyrics!! I'm going insain with all the bullets flying around. I haven't even been outside this year yet! Heaven help us!
I would love to see your definition of bear against any English dictionary.

You , thinking bearing of arms is stupid does not change the definition but I am glad you posted.

You are the poster child for gun phobia and this gives great credence that liberal hysteria to restrict self defense is rooted in ones personal mental problems who instead of seeking treatment seeks to drag down everyone around her.

Only the strong survive.
Gun Control Does Not Work

United States

#19 Apr 16, 2013
Roice wrote:
You gun nuts simply can't read! Where in "Keep & Bear" does it imply that you can have & carry guns? Keep could mean, like, keep locked up in government armory. And Bear couldn't mean carry, because that would just be stupid! I hope you murdering gun lovers can sleep at night knowing all the pain you cause with these evil instruments of death. You all need a hobby of some sort. And don't quote me Supreme Court mumbojumbo! Or Thomas Jefferson or R. Lee Ermery from Full Metal Jacket. Or Ted Nugent lyrics!! I'm going insain with all the bullets flying around. I haven't even been outside this year yet! Heaven help us!
According to Webster the word "bear" as used in the Constitution is a transitive verb, and it is defined as to "move while holding something" or otherwise carry. Perhaps you liberal socialists are the ones that can't read.
myth

Francesville, IN

#21 Apr 16, 2013
Roice wrote:
You gun nuts simply can't read! Where in "Keep & Bear" does it imply that you can have & carry guns? Keep could mean, like, keep locked up in government armory. And Bear couldn't mean carry, because that would just be stupid! I hope you murdering gun lovers can sleep at night knowing all the pain you cause with these evil instruments of death. You all need a hobby of some sort. And don't quote me Supreme Court mumbojumbo! Or Thomas Jefferson or R. Lee Ermery from Full Metal Jacket. Or Ted Nugent lyrics!! I'm going insain with all the bullets flying around. I haven't even been outside this year yet! Heaven help us!
google War Pigs lyrics by Black Sabbath . hand

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Does federal law forbid workplace discriminatio... Sat Gremlin 6
News Federal court in Chicago to hear LGBT-workplace... Fri Gay Peace on Earth 5
News The Latest: Court stops 'Making a Murderer' inm... Nov 17 Go Blue Forever 1
News Texas Drops Losing Fight Against Resettling Syr... Oct '16 LovePotion4470 26
News U.S. Constitution is at stake in Clinton vs. Tr... Oct '16 Responsibility 7
News State of the Statehouse: Pence's ban hasn't sto... Oct '16 Duke defender 1
News Indiana governor and vice presidential candidat... Oct '16 plumptrumpLOL 125
More from around the web