If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

It's obvious rights can be taken away by gov't.
It's why you can't own a nuke. Or a machine gun, newly mfg auto rifle, or a claymore mine. Many other weapons the military has that you and I can't own.
So, it's pretty clear the gov't can take away rights.

Look at the Patriot Act and its infringement on privacy rights. And We The People, most of them any way, cheered for it.

 

No. Just as I would not expect the press to comply with being censored by the government if press censorship was passed and upheld by the Supreme Court. Just as I wouldn't comply with a prohibition against peaceable assembly. I would not expect religious people to stop exercising the practice of their religion if religion was banned by law and upheld by the Supreme Court. If they passed a law that ended the right to a trial by jury and the right to counsel, I would not support that, and I would consider the courts to be illegitimate, even if the Supreme Court upheld ending those rights.

The bottom line is this: We may change the Constitution. We may not overrule the Constitution.

The obligation of government, including the Supreme Court, is to uphold the Constitution, not nullify it.

 

You are going to be disappointed I’m afraid. You had better get some partisan judges. Independent ones will not interpret the way you want.

 

What nonsense! The main opinion is the ruling. It's the decision with the reasons for that decision.

 

It is my understanding that it is legal to own nukes. However, it is illegal to sell you a nuke or for you to own the materials to build a nuke. It has nothing to do with the second amendment.

 

Of course they can be taken away! The constitution is just a scrap of paper that was a contract between the federal government and the states. The federal government has reneged on its promise to the people, which is why you can list all sorts of ways that we no longer have rights.

That doesn't mean that the federal government can just keep marching off into stupidland as if the idiots in charge are still representing a legitimate government. This shithole hasn't been a legitimate government for centuries now.

It's not a legitimate government, and has no moral authority because it has broken the agreement we had.

 

I do my best to eliminate them.

 

If you think you are not being biased, you need to try harder.

 

Actually I submit that it does, since, as I noted elsewhere, private ownership of a nuke presents a threat to the security of a free state.

 

Maybe the current POTUS will try to restore some of those rights?
Maybe take away the Patriot Act?
Nah. I am sure he enjoys the spying he gets to do.

 

And maybe we'll have a democrat in the white house in 2020, so forget about restoring those rights that you think we shouldn't have.

You know, like that 2nd thing that says "shall not be infringed" but you have no problems with infringing.

 

It is impossible to have a tyranny of a minority of the populace.

I said nothing about banning guns because of political beliefs. I said the tyranny of the majority can take away my liberty and property and rights anytime they wish.... and they will so wish. Second, gun control does not save lives. Saving lives is just a demagogic foil of the people who do not want me and millions of others to have guns.

It is according to our constitution, though I recognize that matters little to the leftists.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all won elections as have Hussein, Putin, and dozens of other modern day dictators.

 

Here's the thing about that. Even the far right radical Antonin Scalia recognized the 2nd Amendment provides for the government to legally pass restrictions on gun ownership. So your analogy is specious.

 

Another in a long list of positives to support President Trump,

 

They've done so, that does not mean it is constitutional.

 

I didn’t accuse you of any infringements. I pointed out you omitted the rest of the heller ruling which specifically precludes you from implementing the restrictions you are calling for. I then quoted that portion you left out showing you that you can’t implement what you want.

 

The underlying premise is simply not possible. Not legally and not logically. Stop and think about it. "Legally" passing a "law" that violates the "law of the land" is in fact circular and irrational. You can't pass a law that violates the same law. You can however, Amend the United States Constitution. That's an Amendment and those are different than "legally" passing a law that contradicts and violates existing law. In which case, the United States Supreme Court would be outside the Law of The Land and in direct violation of it. This would take extant jurisprudence and stand it up on its Left ear.

Just from a purely technical standpoint - your question has no answer.

However, the heart of your question does have an answer and the answer is: Civil War II.

Come and take it. Just beware of the 800 meter range when you do.

 

So you never heard "olygarchy"?

I don't know what a "tyranny of the majority" can or can't do, because there has never been such a thing in History. In a Democracy human rights are not subject to vote. People can't vote to eliminate freedom of speech, or to abolish private property, or to incarcerate people who have not committed any crime, or to allow the government to dictate who people can marry... Because that would be an infringement on human rights. Gun ownership is a legal right, but not a human right.

That is a political position for which each side needs to provide arguments and evidence. Voters in a Democracy can limit things that are a threat to public health. All the objective evidence I have seen so far seems to indicate that societies that have limited or abolished the use of guns by the public, tend to have less gun deaths than those that don't.

Saving lives is just a demagogic foil of the people who do not want me and millions of others to have guns.
It is according to our constitution, though I recognize that matters little to the leftists.

When I say "elections" I am talking about Democratic elections. Not fake circus elections. And I am also, obviously, talking about elections to become the head of government. Despite what you might think, obfuscation is not a debate tactics that makes you look good.

 

Oh, I have informed reasoning. All you need to do is watch the Democratic candidates give the GOP a mountain of soundbites on a daily basis. It will be childs play to portray the Democrats as the radical extreamists they are who are out to confiscate all guns and radically raise taxes. Every time a Democrats give a speach, the GOP's war chest gets bigger... a lot bigger.

 

1) no he doesn't. 2) this post simply highlights that you don't understand how SCOTUS works.

 

You cannot site a case and yet you insist there has been a rulling... You are really making yourself look foolish.

 

Good to know that you're not accusing me of distorting the subject. But then... so what if I omitted it? I only need the quotes I sent to prove my point.

 

What the hell? I already did!!

Don't tell me you're one of those who harasses honest posters into sending the same links over and over, by denying that we sent them.

Last time!

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-by-the-court.561559/page-7#post-1070974652
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-by-the-court.561559/page-8#post-1070975031

 

And once again, none of those cases has a rulling contrary to the 2nd Amendment. You have failed to prove your case.