Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

Reid supports expanding background checks

86 posts in this topic


  • A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keepand bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    .. maybe i'm dense... but what part of People , and Keep, is being misunderstood? It doesn't say " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You might want to run that past an English Teacher, or just about anyone with a 4 year degree. Because, basically, that is exactly what it says. You don't need to repeat the part about the militia, because the sentence is linked together by the commas. If there was an "and" right before "the right to.... " there would be no arguement, but there isn't so the part about a Right is linked to the part about a regulated militia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not seeing how strong background checks is a bad thing. Isn't keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the stuff that is proposed is going to hinder a criminal, all it is going to do is hinder and infringe upon law-abiding citizens who own guns. Now a law that tells you have to report a gun stolen or face criminal accomplishments of the gun being used by an criminal would do more than a gun law or background check that is going hinder law-abiding citizens. When the gun is reported stolen and the information about the gun is given to the police, it will allow the police to do a better job of tracking the criminal and finding them. See where me and every other American are getting at? Make laws that actually will help, not hinder the citizens. When a gun is relieved from the hands of a citizen, they are not responsible unless they don't report it being stolen. If they refuse to, it places a unknown gun out there for a criminal to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to run that past an English Teacher, or just about anyone with a 4 year degree. Because, basically, that is exactly what it says. You don't need to repeat the part about the militia, because the sentence is linked together by the commas. If there was an "and" right before "the right to.... " there would be no arguement, but there isn't so the part about a Right is linked to the part about a regulated militia.

Then someone should inform the Supreme court of their misinterpretation of the second amendment ?

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.

*

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then someone should inform the Supreme court of their misinterpretation of the second amendment ?

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.

*

(5th time a cat jumped on my keyboard!)

Yep, but lets see for the second time how the court justifies the decision:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(In plain English, the court upholds the right, not because the second amendment seez so but because all along history one could keep arms and the second amendment does not say that possession for other purposes is prohibited )

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(In plain English, the court ruled as it did, not because the second amendment seez so but because there is a right to posses firearms in several State constitutions)

and then comes the part everybody wants to ignore:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(In plain English, the government may regulate who gets to have a gun and what type of gun the people may have or if guns have to be registered... or in plain English: short of banning all firearms about everything except a targeted gun class ban as shown in (3))

So, if the government wants to expand background checks to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks, or even create a gun registry, they may do so.

Edited by questionmark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me like the Supreme Court tends to follow the results of Presidential elections, with a delay of ten years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me like the Supreme Court tends to follow the results of Presidential elections, with a delay of ten years or so.

Every time a supreme court justice retires they are replaced by a judge appointed by the government, if the government is liberal the judge tends to be liberal, if conservative it tends to be conservative. But that does not mean much as shown with the health care ruling: a majority of conservative judges upheld the law, probably not because they liked it but because it did not violate any constitutional principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(5th time a cat jumped on my keyboard!)

Yep, but lets see for the second time how the court justifies the decision:

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(In plain English, the court upholds the right, not because the second amendment seez so but because all along history one could keep arms and the second amendment does not say that possession for other purposes is prohibited )

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(In plain English, the court ruled as it did, not because the second amendment seez so but because there is a right to posses firearms in several State constitutions)

and then comes the part everybody wants to ignore:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(In plain English, the government may regulate who gets to have a gun and what type of gun the people may have or if guns have to be registered... or in plain English: short of banning all firearms about everything except a targeted gun class ban as shown in (3))

So, if the government wants to expand background checks to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks, or even create a gun registry, they may do so.

Thanks questionmark, i understand every word of your post, even the parts in "plain english". I have no beef with limiting possession of arms, to some, for sensible reasons

Or expanding background checks... GOOD IDEA. I also understand the comma linking the overriding stated reason (militia) for the right of THE people to keep arms.

Because we need a militia, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep arms will not be infringed. Doesn't that say the same thing as the 2nd amendment? Didn't they know who they were referring to by " THE PEOPLE" ? Maybe i just don't get it... sorry to stir a turd if so. :w00t: . . Down Cat!

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at how Supreme Court justices vote, and it seems pretty much along party lines -- not absolutely but the pattern is there. That means that the court will swing liberal if Obama gets one or two appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at how Supreme Court justices vote, and it seems pretty much along party lines -- not absolutely but the pattern is there. That means that the court will swing liberal if Obama gets one or two appointments.

I don't think it is that plain, but yes, conservatives will have a conservative interpretation of the law, liberals a liberal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks questionmark, i understand every word of your post, even the parts in "plain english". I have no beef with limiting possession of arms, to some, for sensible reasons

Or expanding background checks... GOOD IDEA. I also understand the comma linking the overriding stated reason (militia) for the right of THE people to keep arms.

Because we need a militia, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep arms will not be infringed. Doesn't that say the same thing as the 2nd amendment? Didn't they know who they were referring to by " THE PEOPLE" ? Maybe i just don't get it... sorry to stir a turd if so. :w00t: . . Down Cat!

No, it does not say that. But several state constitutions do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.