footlogicracing
PR Addict
Sorry, you're right. The Christian religion is predominant in the U.S. How many are truly Christian is debatable.I didn't know we were a nation of Christians, I do wonder what percentage of the country is though.
Sorry, you're right. The Christian religion is predominant in the U.S. How many are truly Christian is debatable.I didn't know we were a nation of Christians, I do wonder what percentage of the country is though.
Sturd, aren't you one of those people who isists that the Constitution says that bringing Christianity into a government entity (such as national defense) is prohibited?
I think the problem is that too many Muslims do act Muslim.
The guy from Duck Dynasty was interviewed and he stated that we should first try to convert them (ISIS) and if that is not possible then kill them. I think we can all agree that the only way we can deal with them is with death but that statement makes us the same as ISIS. Either convert to the Christian religion or die. ISIS is NOT the face of the Muslim.
I'm sorry, how does any of what you said relate to what I was talking about. All Muslims do not teach their offspring in this manner. You must understand that ISIS and terrorists alike are not the norm. They are radicals and extremists.Have you ever just taken a really hard look at how they live over there?
There is like almost no capitalism and almost no schools or educational institutions. The natives of those countries breed ignorance and hide behind religion. They brainwash their offspring to think that it's honorable to die soldiering for a figment of their imaginations. Worse yet is the adults of those children will offer up their children for this purpose as well. How ignorant is that?
Ever think why is it that they don't wish to be a positive and productive society in the civilized World Community? Wouldn't and couldn't they benefit from it? How bout their children?
Foolish ignorance..... simple as that.
Sturd, aren't you one of those people who isists that the Constitution says that bringing Christianity into a government entity (such as national defense) is prohibited?.
What I don't understand (here, have a piece of red meat) is why so many people
forget the first four words of amendment 2 - "A well regulated militia"
I don't think most people forget that part, but what is your point? Just say what you think. What is your interpretation of those 4 words?
Pretty much what it means and what, until an activist supreme court decided otherwise, it has always meant.
Or at least since the English Bill of Rights of 1689
Well regulated - to bring something under the control of authority. : to make rules or laws that control something
Militia - citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel
Way to do your homework there Hersey. LolRead the third paragraph closely Sturd. It wasnt an "activist supreme court" that made the decision to give us the right to bear arms. It was however one that removed it from us in 1939. In 08 they gave it back to us. Read the reasoning for that.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Hellerchallenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved outMiller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
Read the third paragraph closely Sturd. It wasnt an "activist supreme court" that made the decision to give us the right to bear arms. It was however one that removed it from us in 1939. In 08 they gave it back to us. Read the reasoning for that.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Hellerchallenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved outMiller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.
Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
If you look hard enough you can find information via the internet to support opinions and arguments on both sides of the issue. We all have our opinions and reasons for them.
Lol.....but the info I posted is fact about the laws and reasoning the court had for their decision, how is that an opinion or argument?
Why don't you just say that you don't think American citizens should own guns? Isn't that what you are really getting at?
Not sure what an English Bill of Rights has to do with the US though.
I always laugh when people think they can read my mind but don't critically read what I wrote.
The second amendment, like a lot of the constitution and first ten amendments, was based
partly on British common law, including the Bill of Rights of 1689.