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

What you omitted refutes your point. That’s why you keep omitting them. The heller ruling precludes you from implementing the restrictions you want, as I keep showing you.

 

Who the hell said anything about a ruling contrary to the 2nd A?

Ok... you seem to be having some debate in your own head about ... who knows what.... I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out what that may be. You're on your own.

 

So if I didn't alter the meaning, and you say the second part contradicts the first, that means you are saying that Scalia refutes his own point.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I wouldn't dare defend Scalia given the absolutely lousy reasoning he showed in writing this whole piece of crap legislation.

 

It does matter.

The constitution limits government for the protection of citizens.

Circumventing the amendment process, removing citizens rights, does matter.

 

Legislation?

 

An oligarchy is not a minority of the populace, it is a small group from the populace. We are talking about the tyranny of the majority which is predicated on democracy and the whole of the populace voting for what they want either as representatives of government or laws themselves. If the majority of the populace do not want black females to own guns they can vote such a law; that is tyranny of the majority. A minority of the populace cannot vote for such a law. That is why tyranny of the minority -- of the populace -- is an impossibility.

Who says human rights cannot be subject to a vote. I just gave an example where it can be. What makes you think a majority of the people cannot vote to eliminate freedom of speech, or abolish private property, or whatever. It seems you want majority democracy but in your fantasy world the majority will never do evil things. Who or what is there to stop them?[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Human rights cannot be put to a vote. Human rights are absolute, and anyone who does not understand that cannot call themselves an American. That concept is the very foundation of our beliefs and the principal our country was founded on.

 

Not under our constitutional system, it is true. But the conversation was not about that. Any mob of a majority not inhibited or restrained by some constitutional system can most certainly vote away people's rights. This would be precisely a tyranny of the majority that our founders and framers feared and worked to protect America from such with things like the electoral college and state government selection of senators and the non-election of judges.

 

Not under our constitutional system, it is true. But the conversation was not about that. Any mob of a majority not inhibited or restrained by some constitutional system can most certainly vote away people's rights. This would be precisely a tyranny of the majority that our founders and framers feared and worked to protect America from such with things like the electoral college and state government selection of senators and the non-election of judges.[/QUOTE]

That is correct.

 

No need to guess at what I’m saying. My post was written in plain English. You purposefully omitted the portion of the ruling which precludes you from implementing the restrictions you want.

 

Absolutely!!!

 

Oh I see. You mean like the SC redefining the individual mandate of the ACA as a tax. Legislating from the bench.

Except in the 2A realm there is historical reference such as the Federalists Papers to validate interpretation and in the ACA case it’s just making stuff up and picking random definitions that suit agendas.

Doesn’t matter really. Just checking to make sure you weren’t one of those nuts that doesn’t know the functions of the branches of government.

 

We all accept that there are reasonable restrictions on all of our civil liberties. The oft used example is that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless there really is one). There are examples for all of our civil liberties. You may not deliberately withhold lifesaving medical treatment from a child, relying on religious freedom as another example.

Gun owners (most) accept certain regulation of firearms and possession.

But the key is that the regulation must be reasonable, and it should not interfere with the peaceful, non-injurious exercise of the right. Passing a law that banned guns from private ownership does interfere with the the peaceful exercise of that right. As such, it would constitute a nullification of the right. No body of government may simply issue a blanket nullification of a constitutional right, and an attempt to do so would be illegitimate. And that illegitimacy would justify resistance and non-compliance.

There is a process set out in the Constitution for making changes to it, and that is the only legitimate way to do it.

 

I am not the 1 infringing.
When have citizens ever been able to legally able to own a nuke.

Don't confuse my connection with reality, with your inability to discern reality.
Have citizens every been able to legally own a claymore? Howitzer? Flame thrower?
It's not my limits you need to worry about, but US citizens and the gov't.

 

Oh, I see... and "minority" means the larger group of the populace...

You gotta be kidding me! Look it up! Oligarchy IS the tyranny of the minority.

There are only three options as far as who makes decisions: 1- A majority (Democracy), 2- a minority (Oligarchy) or 3- an individual (dictatorship)

It would be, but it would be unconstitutional.

Protection from discrimination based on sex, ethnic identity, sexual identity or preference, religion, ... etc... is a human right. In a Democratic system, human rights cannot be subject to vote. This is exactly the reason why California Proposition 8 which passed by a majority in 2008, and which eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry, was quickly deemed unconstitutional. You cannot limit the right to a portion of the population to marry whomever the hell they want based on their sexual orientation.

In a Democracy, the majority can vote and decide to ban guns for everybody. The fact that you wouldn't agree with the decision doesn't make it "tyranny".

 

Take it up with the USSC.

 

So a majority vote to take away my guns is not tyranny; is that because they tiik away everyone's rights? I think I finally understand you. Things the government or the people do that you like and approve of -- not tyranny; things the government or people do that you don't like or approve of -- tyranny. Nice.

 

He never heard of Socrates?

 

I'm sure Frederick Douglass and Dredd Scott loved hearing that just as much as I do.

What you fail to understand is that at some point you people are going to push it too far and "taking it up" with the government or our fellow citizens is not going to be a fun experience for anyone involved.

 

Not sure how an unconstitutional law can be constitutionally passed.

 

Yes!

So, now that we're clear that SCOTUS legislates, we can dispense with the nonsense that some sort of "right" for everybody to own guns for whatever purpose is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Not really but it doesn't matter because the Bill of Rights was approved by three fourths of the States and not by Federalist Papers.

Happy to pass with flying colors. Now... let's see if you pass the test.

 

So you don't care about constitutionality and admit to same. You may henceforth be absolutely disregarded on the subject.

Poo Pooing the most commonly cited secondary authority?

Except you only got a 66% which is a failing grade so.... sorry chief

 

I assume you are integrating our discussions about voting on human rights to your "black woman" example. A bit of obfuscation I see in that., so let's clarify: Taking away guns from the general population does not infringe any human right. Selectively singling out a particular group of the population based on the protected categories does.

Ah... of course! The old "I'm rubber you're glue" argument. It never gets old....

 

So you are fine to go along with whatever the court does even if it isn’t following the Constitution? Basically you want the court to function as a politburo. Ok.

Where would you get the idea amendments are adopted by inanimate objects? If you are throwing out all parts of the Constitution you don’t like I guess none of this matters.

There’s nothing to “pass”. You’ve demonstrated you prefer to operate outside of the parameters our United States agreed upon. That’s good to know. If we aren’t going to play by those rules I’m not terribly concerned because my rights are independent of all these agreements anyway. We knew it was only a temporary reprieve from authoritarianism. It was a good run and it demonstrated how beneficial such a system is to society.

 

All I have is a shotgun that belonged to my grandfather and later my dad (my avatar picture) and I've enjoyed shooting it occasionally.

But if the government comes around and gives me a couple of hundred dollars and orders me to hand it over then it's theirs.

I need to upgrade my computer anyway.