Is it time to talk about guns?

So much for states' rights.

Now as I understand this ruling, jurisdictions will have to consider "historical" limitations on guns in their jurisdictions before they can enact a gun law. (Although the court didn't follow historical precedent in regards to militias and gun ownership.)
So as there were no semi automatic guns or machine guns in 1776, and no law was passed in 1776 to prohibit or regulate them...no law can be enacted now.
Same with laser guns, light sabers, and phasers once they become available.

 

But, but, machine guns are regulated, in fact:

So how come they can be regulated? I don't think they're mentioned in the 2nd.

And don't get me started about District of Columbia v. Heller.
Why is it pro gun "we got a right to have any freaking gun we want people" always ignore it?
It can't be ignorance, (as in lack of knowledge as I have posted it lots of times here.) It must be willful, dishonest, and deliberate ignore-ance of well known facts as they can't refute them.

Are you claiming you never heard of District of Columbia v. Heller?

 

Really? You never heard of District of Columbia v. Heller?
Don't you read the posts in this thread? I had thought you did.

Let me give you a condensed version.
Before the SC heard the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008, there was no right for an individual to own a gun, according to the 2nd. You only had the right to own a gun if you were enlisted in a government run well ordered militia, as the founders intended.

Then the gun nuts got their majority on the SC and it ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that you might belong to a well ordered militia in the future, so you can have a gun now.
A perfect example of how extremists, even on the SC, can twist logic to meet an outcome they have already decided.

And yes I heard the news, that's why I posted something about it, duh.

 

Yes read it. See how the founders never intended for everyone to have the right to own a gun unless they were in a government run well ordered militia.
Until the gun nuts took over the Supreme in 2008.

Historically that is, for about 200 years that is.

 

As someone noted, assault weapons aren't mentioned in the 2nd but they appear to be legal.
Why can machine guns be banned but not assault weapons?
Who wants all firearms to be legal to be carried and used? (You don't think people want machine guns? Why was the bump stock invented?) More guns more guns, we need more guns!
Who's talking about arbitrary infringements? You don't think the government has a right to enact laws to protect its citizens from clear and present dangers?
It's a right?? Ha! And you said to read District of Columbia v. Heller! Apparently you never read it yourself. You had no right to own a gun until 2008.

Historical precedence my ass.

 

Exactly. And how the 2nd is interpreted can change. In fact the 2nd can change or be nullified. There is a mechanism in the Constitution to do that.

 

And who gave you that right? Where did it come from?
Are you telling me that the right to own a gun has been around ever since the universe was created?
Millions of years.
Before guns were even invented?

Is it a natural law like gravity or is it given by the current most popular god long ago in anticipation of the invention of guns; or was it given by the present government?

Where do you think rights come from exactly?

My interpretation is only wrong as espoused by the Supreme Court as of 2008. Before that, all the way back to 1789 there was no individual right to own a gun. So it appears that right was granted in 2008 by the Supreme Court...not by the original Constitution...not by the Bill of Rights...not by the founding fathers.
And as the court changed the original meaning of the 2nd in 2008, all I have been arguing is that it can be changed again.