"If the State of Alaska wants to establish a State right for it's citizens to have hula hoops, they can do that."
I disagree with your word game arguments. I say people in Alaska already have the right to own a hula hoop. You have a right in the U.S. to do anything that is not illegal. You are a real legal egal it seems, and think some governing body (Alaska legislature in this case) gives out rights. They were endowed by our Creator according to the framers.
Note also this whole "argument" you have brought to me regarding our 2nd Amendement is based on my response to your friend's non-sensical and untrue statement that "guns are useless". He is an arrogant idiot that trys to pushe his opinion (incorrect in this case) on others. Does not have the integrity to argue his point that he feels no need for a gun, and therefore "guns are useless". They are entirely useful and functional. In many cases vital.
So let's go back to that, and see if you can support his position that you so eagerly jumped in to defend (although with a different "argument"). You can state all day long that I have no right to own a gun, but as long as I have one and it is legal I will contend it is a right. And I don't think the left has the facts on their side to take this right away. Your friend provides a good example for their "argument" for taking this right away.
"How else am I to interpret "What do you want them to take to the court?""
I stand corrected on this point. Your attack on the NRA did prompt that response. I also repsoned that I believed restrictions on gun ownership had passed muster with the USSC. You made fun of me for that statement. Have they? Can restrictions be legislated?
"If you're not implying that the USSC has refused a case, then your text has no point."
It was in response to your dishonest premise that the NRA is a bad and money hungry organization that had no interest in protecting my 2nd Amendment right.
"Brady, assault weapon ban, DC handgun ban but they never appeal them to the USSC."
Maybe they though they might not win. Half of the court does not interpret the constitution, they attempt to re-write it. This is why Bush's court picks are so important. We must stop people like you who read the 2nd Amendment as somthing other than a right for "the people to keep and bear arms". I know what people are, and I know what keeping and bearing means. And I know what "arms" means. Doesn't say you can have any weapon available on earth. But I think (as does any clear thinking person) that the framers meant that people in this fine country had the RIGHT to protect themselves with arms.
Note that some cities have tried to make it illegal to own firearms at all within their borders, and these laws have not stuck.
"which means you should be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now"
Your pretty funny. I don't think the framers designed the 2nd Amendment to force our "people" overseas to fight our wars. A good example of the twisted logic from the left that needs to be kept out of our courtrooms. I can see that you and I have different "opinions" on what "people" are. I don't think they are only "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years". I actually beleive women are people too.
Looks to me like the framers wanted a "well regulated militia" and "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". Most rational thinkers could see this. But if your agenda is to take this right away (the government does not GIVE us rights, it can only take them away), then you will twist the words any way you like. Just look what the left has done with the 1st Amendment. Creating child pornography through computer generation is free speech, and having any reference at all to religion (Christianity specifically) on public grounds is Congree making a law to ESTABLISH a religion.
The selection of judges by Bush is EXTREMELY important imo to get the people that want to take our rights away out of the position where they can do that. Our Constitution is a beautiful document. Too bad there are so many who want to destroy it.
"But we have a set of people that claim that "a well regulated militia is irrelevant; the intent of the Framers is irrelevant; the abhorrence of a standing Army is irrelevant...nothing is relevant except the words [and only the words] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I say the other words are important too. We can and should be able to form a militia. The framers knew there was no way to protect all people all the time, and they were smart enough to allow them to protect themselves. Why that is offensive to people like you (and your friend) is beyond me. Just control freaks that want to tell others how to live I guess.
"So for the hell of it, you're smarter than the Supreme Court"
Not smarter. But definately more honest than some of them. They are not even close to infallable, and more mistakes are being made all the time. The ruling about capital punishment for those under 18 is a good (and recent) example. Nothing in the constitution about this. But 5 of them invented reasoning that said there was. They wrote a new law as opposed to interpreting the Constitution. Pretty scary, I think. Lots of people like you who don't like the constitution or the legislative process I suppose. Let the Judges write the law.
"the NRA does not challenge it"
You say this is because they like money. I say it is because with the likes of an R B-Ginsburg on the court they think she might re-write the constitution just like you are trying to do. They will get to the USSC when the left is not so over represented on the bench.
"....If enough districts cite it, the USSC ends up accepting it, defacto"
The beauty of their strategy to get the right to carry in all states before they lock it up for good.
"The NRA by ignoring that decision is giving up what you believe is your Constitutional Right."
They are not ignoring anything. Just picking their battles and winning them, one state at a time. Smart people protecting me from people like you.
|
