-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Supreme Court strikes down ban on handguns
- Thread starter FR7 Baptist
- Start date
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Amen. Great victory.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I guess it is true. State's rights really are dead. 
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
On that I agree with you.
I can see how conservatives could both oppose and support the decision.
When reading through the decision, the majority felt the 2nd Amendment and the 14th were related. Thus, the 14th amendment made the 2nd applicable to every state. According to Scalia, who wrote opposing Steven's dissension to the bill, he said that the left wing of the congress by arguing against making the 2nd amendment applying to states, are actually arguing against Roe V. Wade, which made abortion legal in every state. He is right, the left side of this argument seems to be contradictory.
I could see a states right person arguing against this decision based upon their use of the 14th Amendment. To argue for this case, you may have to argue that the Federal Government's justification in applying Roe V. Wade to all states was valid. For liberals to argue against this decision, they then are arguing against Roe V. Wade's rationale to applying this law to all states.
This is a very interesting decision because of the irony.
When reading through the decision, the majority felt the 2nd Amendment and the 14th were related. Thus, the 14th amendment made the 2nd applicable to every state. According to Scalia, who wrote opposing Steven's dissension to the bill, he said that the left wing of the congress by arguing against making the 2nd amendment applying to states, are actually arguing against Roe V. Wade, which made abortion legal in every state. He is right, the left side of this argument seems to be contradictory.
I could see a states right person arguing against this decision based upon their use of the 14th Amendment. To argue for this case, you may have to argue that the Federal Government's justification in applying Roe V. Wade to all states was valid. For liberals to argue against this decision, they then are arguing against Roe V. Wade's rationale to applying this law to all states.
This is a very interesting decision because of the irony.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Hmm - could we headline this story with
SCOTUS Strips States and Communities of Their Right to Control Gun Laws
?
SCOTUS Strips States and Communities of Their Right to Control Gun Laws
?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
hmmmm....does it say if the arms we bare should have no tatoos on them ? lol. just kidding.....:tongue3:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
How often do you protest yourself?
All the time!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Protection!!!! Self protection! Too funny the keyboards did me in again.
I protest myself every time I walk out of the house and forget that cup of coffee I just poured.:thumbs:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Not So Fast:
Maybe SCOTUS' Chicago Gun Ban Ruling Shouldn't Be Celebrated
The Court's ruling, that the Second Amendment extends to all 50 states, seems like common sense to those of us who see the right to bear arms as a constitutionally-protected right. But I guess the Court needed to spell it out for some lawmakers. There is a problem with this ruling however, and the problem is twofold: 1) how the Court used the 14th Amendment to reach its ruling--which is how many bad Supreme Court decisions have been reached—should make anyone claiming fidelity to the purpose of the Constitution suspicious; 2) celebrating this ruling harms the credibility of those who claim to be in favor of state and local sovereignty.
CONTINUE
Maybe SCOTUS' Chicago Gun Ban Ruling Shouldn't Be Celebrated
The Court's ruling, that the Second Amendment extends to all 50 states, seems like common sense to those of us who see the right to bear arms as a constitutionally-protected right. But I guess the Court needed to spell it out for some lawmakers. There is a problem with this ruling however, and the problem is twofold: 1) how the Court used the 14th Amendment to reach its ruling--which is how many bad Supreme Court decisions have been reached—should make anyone claiming fidelity to the purpose of the Constitution suspicious; 2) celebrating this ruling harms the credibility of those who claim to be in favor of state and local sovereignty.
CONTINUE
windcatcher
New Member
Actually the 2nd ammendment reads:
Another way of looking at this with my opinion bracketed is:
A well regulated [those persons who exercise lawful and moral responsibility] Militia [those who are not part of a standing army but may be counted on in events of emergency for defence of family, community, state or country], being necessary to the security of a free State [for the defense of a free people, and defense of the State against unlawful aggression or insurrection] , the right of the people [all able bodied and sound of mind citizens] to keep [possess] and bear Arms [use in emergency for defense and protection], shall not be infringed [impaired or limited in any way by other law or obligation].
iow, imo, 'gun laws' regarding weapons of self defense like hand guns, rifles, or shot guns ...in private use and possession... are not constitutional. Neither the state nor the community has the right to upsurp the rights of the citizen... God given rights ... unalienable rights..... rights which exists without prerequisite requirements..... for him to protect himself, his family, or, if needed, his community, from harm.
The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
imo, this helps establish limitations to both the powers of the federal government and the power of the state to infringe by law upon the right of the people to bear arms. Any government... local or state or national may pass a law but it doesn't make that law constitutional. If a jury sits in question judging a person according to a law which has been passed... and any person sitting on that jury is aware of the constitution.... he has both a right and a duty to judge the law by which that person is prosecuted by the constitution before he judges him by the evidence against the law. If that person or persons reasons that the law is unconstitutional.... he owes it to his peers and future generations to vote for an acquittal despite the legal arguments and emotional appeal made by the prosecution.