Jump to content
The make up of the current supreme court has the same numbers of conservatives and liberals as the one in 2008. And some of the same judges. The same current court that ruled in favor of Obama care. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Nothing. Just like background checks.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Supreme Court held
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(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.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) 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.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Someone will surely post that this is Bush's fault.
Yep. Never fails. Once again it's Bush's fault. The desperation of the Obama worshipers is obvious. Not just one scandal but three and counting.
Conservatives are not surprised by this use of the IRS. Same thing happen during the Clinton administration. Only Clinton went further by targeting individuals in addition to conservative organizations. Using the IRS against opponents says a lot about the authoritarian tendencies of the Left and those who would like to have the authority to implement the Left’s policy agenda. It should come as no surprise that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill Democrats chose the IRS as the vehicle for implementing and enforcing the Obamacare mandate.
I knew it! There it is... it was Bush's fault. Pathetic.
Please go back to Chicago!
America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem
You are delusional.
“White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.”
Good comments J. You can also sign up with the GDP and post comments online. We could use your help friend.
Good comment Bob. You can also sign up with the GDP and post comments. We could use your help friend.
Last login: yesterday