Supreme Court could decide Constitutionality of Gun Ownership

[Cam]

If the Supreme Court takes the Washington, DC. 2nd Amendment case it will one of the most important rulings ever.
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8287410

[freelance]

The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to "keep and bear arms."

OH DEAR GOD!

[xao]

This is very important.

[Ron Paul Fan]

The conservative leaning Supreme Court should not overturn the lower court's ruling.

[sparebulb]

These are very, very, very scary times.

[pcosmar]

It was this issue (2nd amendment) that introduced me to Ron Paul. It is a Key issue in many ways.
I would hope that the SCOTUS would rule that "shall not be infringed" means Shall NOT be infringed.

[Cam]

The arguments against the 2nd Amendment implying individual gun owership.

1. "Militia means an organized military body." - But, the Militia that freed this nation from the King's tyranny were made up of regular people, farmers and merchants. We used to hear of them all of the time, the Minutemen, and taught in school how a ragtag group of citizens stood up to the strongest army in the world.

2. "In the 2nd Amendment "the people" means the body politic, not the individual." - The Supreme Court looks at the Founder's Original Intent when deliberating Constitutional Issues. It was a long Revolution where the ordinary citizen/individual took up arms and spilled blood for Liberty. I believe the founders saw the "people" as the individual.

So we have arrived at the time where everything is going to be revealed to us. Are we going to continue to be freemen or become serfs.

[Madison]

The Supreme Court does not have this authority. Any such ruling against the 2nd amendment would not be a valid ruling.

The Supreme Court gave themselves unconstitutional power with the Marbury v. Madison case and we continue to bear the burden of this.

[klamath]

I find it kind of ironic that the first amendment says congress shall not pass laws against free speach and religion which could conceiviably allow the states the right to pass laws against speach and religion, yet the second amentment specifically says the right of the people to own and bear arm shall not be infringed which precludes even the states from passing laws against private ownership of firearms. Yet it is always assumed it is the other way around and freedom of speach is untouchable while private ownership of firearms is considered free for the states to mess with.

[noxagol]

I find it kind of ironic that the first amendment says congress shall not pass laws against free speach and religion which could conceiviably allow the states the right to pass laws against speach and religion, yet the second amentment specifically says the right of the people to own and bear arm shall not be infringed which precludes even the states from passing laws against private ownership of firearms. Yet it is always assumed it is the other way around and freedom of speach is untouchable while private ownership of firearms is considered free for the states to mess with.

Yeah.....

[beerista]

The arguments against the 2nd Amendment implying individual gun owership.

1. "Militia means an organized military body." - But, the Militia that freed this nation from the King's tyranny were made up of regular people, farmers and merchants. We used to hear of them all of the time, the Minutemen, and taught in school how a ragtag group of citizens stood up to the strongest army in the world.

2. "In the 2nd Amendment "the people" means the body politic, not the individual." - The Supreme Court looks at the Founder's Original Intent when deliberating Constitutional Issues. It was a long Revolution where the ordinary citizen/individual took up arms and spilled blood for Liberty. I believe the founders saw the "people" as the individual.

So we have arrived at the time where everything is going to be revealed to us. Are we going to continue to be freemen or become serfs.
From what I can tell, you're simply presenting the opposing argument, so I'm not asking you to defend your own position. I am curious what the argument for a "right" of the body politic is. How does that work? Isn't any right that can only be exercised under the scrutiny of the state by definition a "privilege" and not a "right?" Is there more to the argument than this?

By the way, anyone had success with presenting Paul slim jims or other documents at gun-related outlets? What sort of gun-related outlets are there that might not be immediately obvious? I'm thinking of gun stores and firing ranges. Anything else I should cover?

[noxagol]

From what I can tell, you're simply presenting the opposing argument, so I'm not asking you to defend your own position. I am curious what the argument for a "right" of the body politic is. How does that work? Isn't any right that can only be exercised under the scrutiny of the state by definition a "privilege" and not a "right?" Is there more to the argument than this?

By the way, anyone had success with presenting Paul slim jims or other documents at gun-related outlets? What sort of gun-related outlets are there that might not be immediately obvious? I'm thinking of gun stores and firing ranges. Anything else I should cover?

Gun shows are huge. Just tell them that Ron has never voted for any form of gun control and he has sponsored legislation to get out of the UN (talk to any ammo dealer to discover hatred for the UN) and you will have people listening.

[Cam]

"From what I can tell, you're simply presenting the opposing argument, so I'm not asking you to defend your own position. I am curious what the argument for a "right" of the body politic is. How does that work? Isn't any right that can only be exercised under the scrutiny of the state by definition a "privilege" and not a "right?" Is there more to the argument than this?"


Yes Sir, I'm just presenting the arguments I've read against individual gun ownership. They are very lame.

When you have people that have a vision for America that is so foreign to our heritage they will follow no rhyme or reason. Remember these are the type of people that call the greatest document ever written, "the Constitution," antiquated.

[pcosmar]

I can not do much at gun stores/gun shows.
I am classed as a Prohibited Person.:confused::mad:
I do spread the message elsewhere/any where I am.

[freedom_junkie]

What a disgrace if there are infringements on this right.

[noxagol]

What a disgrace if there are infringements on this right.

There are huge infringements on this right ever where in the country. I think that we should be allowed to own any weapons of any magnitude, except NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons. I don't think anyone should be allowed those weapons anyhow. If I want to own an RPG, it is my right. Arms does not mean gun, it means weapons. If I want to stroll down the street with a battle axe, that is my right.

Though, people often called me crazy for this. Just remember, at one point, people were able to own the first model of gatling guns.

[Matt Collins]

SEE THIS THREAD:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=35561