In Refutation of the Four Heller Exceptions - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

In Refutation of the Four Heller Exceptions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-30-2011, 07:41 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

I'm sure we can all agree that the SCOTUS dropped a real hidden stinker with Heller,that "precedent" should in no way be construed to allow the abrogation of inalienable rights,and that there are MOST DEFINITELY some people out there that should not have guns (or kitchen knives,cars,sports equipment,chain saws,pens,pencils,etc)- and in turn,should be in the custody of the state; as determined by a FAIR and IMPARTIAL due process that includes a jury of one's PEERS.

I'm not sure if I mentioned my specific problem with Heller,but its this:

Once upon a time the hoplophobes used to yell and scream about how the Second Amendment was a "collective right",as they interpreted erroneously and intentionally that the preamble,the "militia part" of the 2A made it so.

And it certainly DOES NOT-

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


So then here comes Scalia with Heller.

Heres my take on the process-
They -the government- know damn well they'd better get to airing the correct side of things,cause the truth just comes out sooner or later anyway(what with that pesky old internet and all),and to deny what is an individual right from millions of gun owning Americas -some of whom are absolutely ready to refresh a certain tree- and they (the government again) damn well know it......would just be stupid.
Unless they really want to foment Civil War 2 or something.Some of us know our rights damn well,and are SICK of watching them get abused and trampled upon.
We know where these rights come from and we know who has the power to give and to take.and it AIN'T the damn government.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Rights come from GOD not the state. You have rights antecedent to any earthly governments rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws. Rights derived from the great legislator: God."
-John Adams

Now,thats just how I see things.

The court,however,probably did not want to disturb the process,the system,in any great way.

So they stuck to "precedent".

But in order to do that,they had to LIE.

Robo- when I'm talking here about the court claiming "long standing precedent" for "gun control",I'm speaking about this in their terms of what they defined "long standing precedent" specifically to be in this case.Their terms were historical,and if I'm not mistaken they went all the way to Blackstone and the Revolutionary War.

Scalia twisted history and told a LIE when he claimed that that particular "longstanding historical precedent" supports "gun control".
He practiced nothing less then revisionist history and judicial activism of the lowest degree.It was a despicable,sickening display of activism from the bench.

There simply is no "longstanding historical precedent" in this regard- mostly,if you were convicted of a "felony" back in the day,you were hung.This is because a "felony" was pretty well defined as doing stuff that is very,very wrong- stuff like murder,rape,armed robbery- you know REAL and VERY EVIL crimes.
(Should we go back to hanging criminals like this?I say YES,but then....I'm a "right wing nutjob".......)
"Gun control" was holding your a$$ steady and reloading while waiting for the next attack in Napoleonic formation..........

Anyway I digress-
Heller came along and Scalia "interpreted" the law to suit his world view which in this case in my ever so humble opinion,it was placating both the left and the right.He had to admit that the 2A was an individual right,thus torpedoing the absurd notion that its somehow a "collective" privilege....but he opened up a Pandora's box with the "reasonable regulation" bull$hit.

Now,the hoplophobes can claim that the Second Amendment AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT allows for "Gun control",even in regard to it protecting an INALIENABLE individual right.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

I don't know about you,but I'd rather have the hoplophobes making themselves look as ridiculously ignorant of history and the English language as they were when they claimed that the 2A was a "collectivist" privilege reserved to the states and the militia.You know- a government power right there in the first 3 articles of a paper that was originally drafted to preclude government power.

The stupid looked good on them.It fit them like an expensively tailored suit.Anyone with half a brain could clearly see them wearing their stupid,everywhere they went.

But NOW they can claim "reasonable regulation" and enact any kind of damn "gun control" they want,within "reason".

And who gets to decide just what,exactly is within "reason"?

Perhaps the plain meaning and intent of our Founders when they said that the Second shall not be infringed?

Perhaps the definition of what inalienable means?

Maybe,perhaps,the actual history of what "gun control" has been in this nation,as enacted on a federal level(and that is ZERO,zilch,nada until the damn 1930's! long standing my arse.....)?

Or maybe the history of what "gun control" on a state level has been- you know,keeping all those evil slaves from bearing arms and then keeping all those evil black freedmen from the same?

Or maybe even world history,where "gun control" has been the ever cherished tool of despotic tyrants that murder millions of their own unarmed citizenry?

Nope.None of the above.



In Refutation of the Four Heller Exceptions - Legal and ActivismIn Refutation of the Four Heller Exceptions - Legal and Activism

They do.
These two clowns,as life tenured "justices" (activists in black robes) get to decide.

Thanks Scalia.

The Second Amendment-

A PRIVILEGE granted to you by government that is "reasonably regulated" by a bald a$$ copy of Weimar/Nazi era "gun control" and activists in black robes.

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/origins-gun-control-act-1968-warning-long-26881/
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 12-30-2011 at 08:10 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Heller Decision Extended to the States Jesse17 Legal and Activism 2 03-31-2011 08:17 PM
Whatever Happened To Heller V. Washington DC ??? SlamFire Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 03-30-2009 04:50 PM
The Heller Decision Vs. Executive Order? billt Politics, Religion and Controversy 12 11-25-2008 09:07 PM
Heller vs Dc--one man’s frivolous lawsuit tracker Legal and Activism 2 07-01-2008 11:32 PM
McCain Reacts to Heller Decision tracker Legal and Activism 3 06-28-2008 04:17 AM



Newest Threads