Is it time to talk about guns?

Didn't know little pictures triggered you so much...

 

I'm not particularly concerned about where my right to protect my free state of existence came from. I'm glad I have it and I'm glad my government can't infringe on it.

 

You know, if I were a gun nut I would be concerned about the SC's overturning of Roe v Wade. There may come a time when the court is dominated by liberals and they decide to overturn the 2A.

 

They don't. Just another thing you don't know.

 

hahahaha

 

It's off topic, but which ammendment was overturned when they changed the decision on RvW?

 

This is 100% correct. Have at it and let's see how it works out.

 

The blood will be on his hands and those of the Court's majority. Justice Thomas is a disgrace to the Court, because he refused to recuse himself in a case involving his wife's insurrectionist plots. Basically, the Retrumplican majority is sayig :"We've got the power." If they were honest, that's what they'd write in their opinion. The Court may lose its legitimacy. as the unfortunate consequences of its decisions become manifest in human lives lost and ruined. That would be a real tragedy for this country.

 

The penumbra of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourteenth, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth and the Ninth Amendments. BTW, where does it say anything in the Second Amendment about concealed carry or semiautomatic weapons? Chief Justice Marshall, who was around when the Bill of Rights was adopted, admonished: “We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding . . . a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 1810 Even Justice Scalia recognized that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."

 

Miranda--gone. Roe v Wade-gone. Police responsibility-gone. Separation of church and state-gone- Guns-BUY MORE. BUY MORE NOW.

 

We're talking about rights aren't we?

 

But we still got God.

 

Whose blood exactly? The blood of criminals thwarted by someone legally carrying, after the criminal got used to his prey being unarmed?

 

You will be singing a different tune when one of your rights is taken away. Then again I am not sure that you know that there are more amendments than just the 2A.

 

A poor decision the SC made was overturned. No ammendments were changed in the least.
I've never seen anything written in the 2ndA mentioning autoloading firearms or concealed carry. It isn't necessary for any particular thing to be noted specifically for it to be considered a Constitutional right. Where exactly is abortion mentioned? And please don't guess at my thoughts on that subject because of that question.

 

I'm aware. Now you know. For Pete's sake, it's the bill of rights, plural. And the ammendments are numbered, so there's at least two...

 

Who would you put in this category ?

Any one who owns a gun ?

 

I have no argument with anything in this post . I don't see how it supports overturning RvW as equal to an ammendment being overturned.

 

. . . .
So your argument is that if everyone carries a gun, society will be safer.
What if guns did not exist?

 

The prior decisions that were overturned did .not take away previously recognized fundamental constitutional rights. In D.C. v. Heller, Scalia (pos5 2163) cites at length the precedents for reasonable restriction of gun usage..And Marshall's sound advise about the need to interpret the Consitution flexibly to allow for "the various crises of human affairs (which would presumably include changing weapons technology)..

The "who" has yet to be determined, but so far, the record of good men with guns taking out bad men with guns seems uncertain, as illustrated by the Uvalde killings--several good men with guns and shields apparently intimidated by a kid with an AR-15.