SmarterthanYou
rebel
show me where i said 'universally'
Another mass shooting in Chicago.
- Thread starter wanderingbear
- Start date
Taft2016
Verified User
Jarod actually makes a good point.
Those of a libertarian bent tend to think the Constitutional safeguards we currently have were in place from the founding of the Constitution. Not so. The first search and seizure case did not make its way to the US Supreme Court until 1913. Prior to that, any search by law enforcement was considered reasonable. And even that 1913 case only applied to federal law enforcement, not local law enforcement.
So when libertarians are bemoaning the loss of the Founders' vision over cases involving something like police making entry into a dwelling upon the smell of marijuana...
For that to have been the Founders' vision we would have to assume that immediately after the signing of the Constitution the country was taken over by wild-eyed liberals, and it wasn't until originalists like Thurgood Marshall and Hugo Black came along that their vision was somewhat restored.
Those of a libertarian bent tend to think the Constitutional safeguards we currently have were in place from the founding of the Constitution. Not so. The first search and seizure case did not make its way to the US Supreme Court until 1913. Prior to that, any search by law enforcement was considered reasonable. And even that 1913 case only applied to federal law enforcement, not local law enforcement.
So when libertarians are bemoaning the loss of the Founders' vision over cases involving something like police making entry into a dwelling upon the smell of marijuana...
For that to have been the Founders' vision we would have to assume that immediately after the signing of the Constitution the country was taken over by wild-eyed liberals, and it wasn't until originalists like Thurgood Marshall and Hugo Black came along that their vision was somewhat restored.
SO it was not an absolute right if Blacks and other slaves were not granted that right... Correct?
I don't think its a fundamental or absolute right, never has been treated as such even by the founders.
Where are the citations for the "many" laws you "remember"?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so if the government makes any law it wants and a compliant court says it's ok, then rights are not absolute?
again with the foolish irony you can't seem to grasp. we the people created the federal government to safeguard our rights, not to determine our rights.
there are numerous cases before the civil war that has many courts saying that it was indeed absolute.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[28] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799). The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment".
The first relevant state court decision was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The Kentucky court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified.
The first relevant state court decision was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The Kentucky court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Well of course being shown reminders of all those "stupid dead kids" won't change your mind.
You've already proven what a self-absorbed little douche you are when it comes to the concerns of anyone other than yourself.
It's what drove you to come on here pissing about how put upon you were when a family member came to you for help and how, thanks to your lack of a soul, you couldn't be bothered to show even the tiniest bit of compassion towards her when she most needed some.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
As I'm sure you've discovered now, that's not something Topspin (The Dude) is capable of, especially on this particular subject.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
About what they're like in Canada (if you REALLY want to go that route).
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Like I said, they cannot see the parallels even though it's literally RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.
Not really. It's substantially more difficult to transport guns across national borders than state borders.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Well, not that I advocate or in any way approve of such things, but not really. It's pretty easy.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
So now the guy who sticks his fingers in his ears whenever he come across an opinion he doesn't agree with thinks he can lecture others on how to be an "adult".
OK. Let me restate that then. There is substantially more risk involved. Also, too, Indiana is, like, right next to Chicago.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
It's also illegal to purchase handguns across state lines (apparently this was a drive by). It's also illegal for IL residents to purchase firearms in any state without a FOID card. And lastly, risk isn't a inherent factor for those who consider doing malfeasance.
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
I support gun control for street gangstas who do all the shootings, butt we need our guns to protect ourselves from the street thugs. There will not be any new gun laws passed from now on like infinity, in my opinion. The vast majority of the American People are on my side, not yours.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Retroactive birth control? Oh shit! They're against that too.
Ask Admiral Maineman....
We do most of those things with guns too.....and more in places like Chicago and Washington DC....whats your point ?