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

They marched on the State Capitol.

 

One time. Most of what they were doing was open carrying in their own neighborhoods to defend themselves from actual race based harassment by the police.

Besides: It was perfectly legal and I'd be tickled pink to have you explain to me how that is not both an act of political speech and keeping and bearing arms under the 1st and 2nd amendments?

 

I cant open carry here.

 

Is "here" california? If so: This unconstitutional (on more than one level) abrogation of rights is why.

You might want to google "constitutional carry" for an idea of what that looks like. To be clear: my own state of Texas doesn't meet that standard, and it is a terrible miscarriage of justice.

 

General "you". This whole thread is a strawman while looking past the actual actions of what the left is doing already. We can speculate about what may happen in the future, but the majority of people on both sides of the isle are against changing the 2A. We all might be dead by then so this thread is an act of futility.

The British tried to take our guns once....only once.

 

Its always funny when the left says they want to take guns, and think they defend minorities with this stance. But they fail to realize that the biggest deterrent from slavery ever taking over again is the unwillingness of the minority to give up their equalizers. Try putting any person into slavery when they, and the groups surrounding them are armed.

 

You've never heard of Open Carry Texas huh?

 

The funniest part about that is fatback there considers himself very right wing IIRC

 

What are you talking about? Only question there addressed to me I answered "Yes!" I did, however, make several points which two posters were unable to address and instead avoided using a false strawman.

 

What do you find subjective in the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

A "false straw man", is that a double negative or an oxymoron? LOL

 

The Supreme Court doesn't discuss how to secure the blessings of liberty. What they discuss is if the decision they are about to make about a specific case brought before them favors or opposes the goal of "securing the blessings of liberty".

 

You literally claimed you wanted them to make an ultimate moral judgment above all. That would mean they must disregard intent, plain meaning etc should they determine X is not within the "general welfare" or "common defense" etc.

That's subjective.

Instead interpretation should rely on original intent, as expressed in plain language and if the language is ambiguous in the writings of the actual draftors on the subject not substituting present judgments.
If a change is to be made, that is LITERALLY what the amendment process is for. USE IT. IF you find that you cannot obtain the consensus required: That's not a bug that's a feature.

 

I see there is no point in discussion with you as even serving up the whole string can't get you to participate in good faith.

 

Sure, but that’s irrelevant to my question. I want to know what makes that discussion objective instead of subjective.

 

Do you really think an AK-47 trumps a tactical nuclear weapon?

 

I understand what you're saying, but a strawman can be an argument about something real, but irrelevant. In this case it's false and irrelevant.

 

I said nothing about "disregarding" anything. The ultimate "intent" is the preamble. You can't disregard that. It's right there.... in the Constitution. Liberty, equality, common welfare,... etc. No Supreme Court should undermine those in any case. Once we know those are met, you can look at other things.

There can be nothing more objective than that.

Think of any example you want. But think real world. Not political ideology world!

 

Precisely! The fact that you served the whole string... and not the question you claim I "didn't answer", is the clearest indication that you have nothing. That's the way you hide the fact.

An honest poster would simply state what the damn question is... and be done with it. Nothing simpler.

I can always tell who is winning in a debate by using a simple rule: Those who simplify are the ones who are on the side of reality. Those who obfuscate are just trying to hide the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Too bad it is not that simple. The Preamble is more lofty ideals than anything. .Real life seldom matches lofty ideals because frequently what is fair for one person or group is likely not fair for another person or group. That is why the preamble is not binding.

 

IMO, you seem to be basically correct. Over the years, the Supreme Court has put caveats on most of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. They have never issued a decision that would prevent any and all gun controls and have always up-held their right to review such on a case-by-case basis.
And, although it would be difficult, the second amendment could be repealed with sufficient votes. Resisting such an amendment would be "illegal," entitling the State to prosecute the offending party, insomuch as that party had broken the law and by doing so had left the basic "social contract," upon which the rule of law stands.

 

Do you really think a US government that used tac nukes on it's own population could survive the night?

 

The word "sure" in your response is very important. Having agreed on that, what makes the discussion objective is the fact that there is an objective parameter: the Preamble. Not the justice's political position, not their personal preferences, not external political pressure.... but a parameter that is objective (because it's not determined by the justice's personal preferences, views, beliefs or wants), universal (because all justices will be guided by the same), external (because it's not something the justices bring with them), in which to base the decision.

 

Actually general welfare and common defense ( along with other terms) are pretty ambiguous. Hence why we have secondary authority, like the federalist papers.

That's full circle now. And..... scene! Good job everyone!

 

Because giving you the whole string is obfuscation.

I see you're a fan of the old admit nothing deny everything make counter accusations school of rhetoric. Amusing.