Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

51. why aren't you citing the decision itself?

Sun Aug 11, 2019, 07:56 AM

Aug 2019

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/

Either way, assuming he did, both BoR are individual rights, retained by the individual against the State. The concept of collective rights did not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Arms ownership is an individual right, by some, for self defense. Of course, it isn't worth the paper its written on today since England is a surveillance state where saying the wrong thing on Twitter will bring the police to the door.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2nd Am history: Until 1959, every law review article concluded it didn't guarantee an individ right [View all] sharedvalues Aug 2019 OP

Yup, Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller enshrined something made up out of whole cloth RockRaven Aug 2019 #1

And Scalia in Heller literally got people killed in DC sharedvalues Aug 2019 #4

Money and power Buzz cook Aug 2019 #2

1939 scotus miller decision jimmy the one Aug 2019 #3

Can we change the name of this forum? "Gun control and made-up Republican RKBA"? sharedvalues Aug 2019 #5

Or better "Gun control and our well-organized militia" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #6

Consider this possibility: guillaumeb Aug 2019 #36

2ndA and slavery jimmy the one Aug 2019 #56

It's been considered here several times before, and shown to be false friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #63

I would like to see them back up this claim. gejohnston Aug 2019 #7

gun control hardly needed in 1790's jimmy the one Aug 2019 #8

not true gejohnston Aug 2019 #9

As you've seen, if ones' only strengths are 'repeated argument by assertion'... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #11

the go to after gejohnston Aug 2019 #16

then 1792, and now 2019 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #12

Historial fact, gejohnston Aug 2019 #14

ad hoc u hoc et al hoc jimmy the one Aug 2019 #19

I made no such claim gejohnston Aug 2019 #37

henry dearborn's firearm census 1803 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #20

Estimated ownership gejohnston Aug 2019 #30

malcolm, far right wing gun guru jimmy the one Aug 2019 #21

Personal attack gejohnston Aug 2019 #27

his rebuttals leave me almost speechless jimmy the one Aug 2019 #34

I honestly don't care. gejohnston Aug 2019 #39

It's sad that you and 16 other people believe that law review articles actually have legal weight friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #10

A interesting article with an irredeemable flaw sarisataka Aug 2019 #13

So you agree the NRA changed the meaning of the 2nd Am sharedvalues Aug 2019 #17

I feel like a squirrel preparing for winter, sarisataka Aug 2019 #18

Shrug. The NRA is a domestic terror organization sharedvalues Aug 2019 #24

no irredeemable flaw, except by you jimmy the one Aug 2019 #22

Many words... I will use fewer sarisataka Aug 2019 #23

moot, miller jimmy the one Aug 2019 #25

Thank you. I didn't have the energy to deconstruct sarisataka's many misleading points sharedvalues Aug 2019 #29

1938 DoJ amicus brief to 1939 supreme court jimmy the one Aug 2019 #28

Wow. DOJ 1938: "2nd A does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #32

And finally we come to agreement sarisataka Aug 2019 #40

? What? sharedvalues Aug 2019 #45

bor both guarantee of rights & limitation on congress jimmy the one Aug 2019 #49

We may be reaching the same point sarisataka Aug 2019 #41

scalia mischaracterized england's 'have arms' decree of 1689 jimmy the one Aug 2019 #43

wrong as usual gejohnston Aug 2019 #46

cognitive dissonance jimmy the one Aug 2019 #47

No, I said what the Miller decision said gejohnston Aug 2019 #48

just ask jimmy the one Aug 2019 #50

why aren't you citing the decision itself? gejohnston Aug 2019 #51

Obvious answer: Because, when read in full, it doesn't say what James claims it says. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #52

defence, english style jimmy the one Aug 2019 #54

No contradiction there, save in your own mind friendly_iconoclast Aug 2019 #55

not mutually exclusive gejohnston Aug 2019 #57

plausible enough jimmy the one Aug 2019 #58

the comprehention problem is strictly yours, gejohnston Aug 2019 #60

based on england's 'assize of arms' jimmy the one Aug 2019 #53

What other right is a collective right? krispos42 Aug 2019 #15

But Scalia claimed to be an originalist. guillaumeb Aug 2019 #26

Yes. Scalia was a right-wing partisan and his "originalism" was just a front sharedvalues Aug 2019 #31

Scalia had an agenda, guillaumeb Aug 2019 #33

Oh no question, he was a judicial activist. Exactly sharedvalues Aug 2019 #35

Thomas is just as bad. So many conflicts of interest. eom guillaumeb Aug 2019 #38

Yes. His wife is an insane rightwing crazy. sharedvalues Aug 2019 #44

Funny, gejohnston Aug 2019 #42

Been following this melm00se Aug 2019 #59

Yes sharedvalues Aug 2019 #62

Yup. "Only slender support for individual right to own gun" sharedvalues Aug 2019 #64

This idea of a collective right is so interesting to me. MarvinGardens Aug 2019 #61

Considering the legal treatment of GLBT, minorities, women and minors SQUEE Aug 2019 #65