Inversion fallacy. English seems to be a problem for YOU.
There are no limits to the right to bear arms. The Constitution of the United States never authorized anyone in the federal government to limit arm by type, brand, type of action, how it looks, whether they are practical, etc. There are no limits.
If you want to own a nuke, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires unusual storage methods, but it's LEGAL. Nukes are too expensive to own and store to be of any practical use, except as a national defense system.
If you want to own a tank, you can. It's not a practical weapon, and it requires a large place to store it, but it's LEGAL. Some people do own tanks.
If you want to own a cannon, you can. Quite a few people do. Most often they are used for celebration or entertainment purposes now.
If you want to own a machine gun, you can. Quite a few people do. The requirement that you have to registers the thing and follow BATF restrictions with them is itself illegal. They use a LOT of ammunition, which people generally don't want to pay for and cart around to shoot the thing, but it's LEGAL.
Laws are not needed to forbid carrying a weapon into a government building. That building is owned and operated by the government. They can set whatever limits they want.
The government does NOT own aircraft. If an airline has no problem with guns on board, people should be allowed to carry them. The government cannot stop the use of right of way if you have a gun. That includes airport terminals. TSA is illegal.They are also ineffective. It is quite possible to BUILD a gun or bomb using nothing but materials you can find on the secure side of any major airport. Most terrorists already know how.
TSA does not stop terrorists. The reason they are not hijacking airlines anymore is because they know any fool that stands up to hijack and airline today will be rolled over by an angry mob in seconds, before they can do anything. People know a hijacking isn't just a trip to Cuba anymore.
Schools? Children in K-12 are already not able to legally carry a gun. Age restrictions are sensible, since they are not full citizens of age yet. College campuses can and do make their own decision on whether to allow guns on their campus. So do various businesses. This sometimes conflicts with State law.
Scalia's opinion is wrong. His opinion is NOT the ruling.
He wrote the majority OPINION, stupid fuck. It’s the opinion of 5 SCOTUS judges. It IS the ruling. How many times does that have to be explained to you.
One simply cannot possess any type of gun, in any manner, in any place, and for whatever purpose. Try this dumbfuck. Go down to the local courthouse and try carry in your popgun. Let us know how that goes.
Guns in school IS an answer. Another answer is to allow teachers to lock the doors from the inside of their classrooms without requiring a key, and to use steel doors. Another answer is to install isolation steel drop slats that can be triggered on command from the school office.
Isolate the shooter, deprive him of targets in this way, and he will most likely kill himself, ending the situation. If he doesn't, he is rendered powerless until the police arrive.
It would also help to provide first training for type type of wounds a gunshot victim might suffer. The equipment required is slightly unusual, but is not expensive and can be applied by anyone with proper training. You could save a lot of lives that way as well.
In Utah, there ARE guns in the K-12 schools. Any teacher may carry a gun. The school system is not even allowed to ask if they carry or not. Utah is not alone, either. It works.
USFREEDOM911 (05-20-2019)
An opinion is not a ruling.
No, it is his opinion only. 5 judges are not holding the pen.
No. It is an opinion. The ruling is nothing more than deciding who wins the case.
Try English. It works better.
Yes they can.
Yes they can.
Yes they can, subject to property rights.
Yes they can.
The courthouse is owned and operated by the government. It's their property. Like anyone else, they have the right to bar guns on their property.
'Clarifying' it means changing it. The court does not have that authority. It doesn't even have authority to interpret the Constitution. I only has authority to interpret laws to see if they are in conflict with the Constitution. In those cases, they MUST rule according to the Constitution.
Here is the “ruling”, dumbfuck . Scroll down to page 54. Read it and weep, fool.
It says:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Last edited by domer76; 05-20-2019 at 02:19 PM.
Bookmarks