More states than that already protect an individual RKBA. Almost every state protects concealed carry. We have 90% of what we already want. All we have to do is work on that other 10%.
But no. No, that's somehow not good enough. There are those on this forum whot insist on a U.S. Supreme Court all-or-nothing showdown -- despite the fact that every lower federal court in every lower federal court gun case (save two) have ruled that the second amendment protects a collective, not individual, right.
Idiots.
Let me explain who you’re calling an idiot.
The NRA didn’t start this lawsuit.
Gunowners didn’t start this lawsuit.
A guy who never owned a gun in his life started this lawsuit.
Gunowners and the gun groups are just going to have to live with that fact and make the most of it.
Funny. I thought it was Ms. Parker and the District who were insisting on having their day in court. Didn't know it was all due to us idiot FReepers. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
You really are a moron aren't you?
I truly believe that you are anti-second amendment, as hysterical as you get over this issue.
You are also too ignorant to understand what the Majority in Parker did to Souter and Ginsburg with this statement:
"We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
They just put a shot across the bow of SCOTUS and these two justices that they are already on record in a various opinions that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
Why don't you ship your resume to AlGore since Global Warming will be the next issue in need of your spamming talents...
Idiot.
That would be me... I want the showdown. Despite being 1 conservative shy of expecting an individual right to RKBA being upheld, I don’t think the court will ever be more conservative over the next 50 years or so, then it is now.
I don’t think we are going to have a long run of conservative presidents and senators that produce a solid 5 minimum majority of truly conservative members of the Supreme Court anytime soon in the future, or ever.
Maybe I am just ignorant. I think we are all guessing. But I would like to take this chance, with 4 members of the Supreme Court giving us a fighting change to uphold the DC ruling to overturn the DC ban now, because I see our prospects only dwindling in the future.
Where we seem to disagree is in your belief that things are getting better or will get better, vs. my belief that things are certain to get worse for gun owners.
Britain and Australia both struck very quickly to ban guns.
The US electorate is not getting any smarter, IMHO. Cities are liberal and vote anti-gun. It is the rural districts that tend to vote pro-gun. More people are leaving rural districts to live in cities. This trend is working against us. The nation is being flooded with illegal immigrants who live in big cities, and who’s children will all be potential voters.
Maybe I am jumping the gun, but I don’t see the opportunity getting better down the road. I don’t see that if we just keep our heads down and carry a big stick, the ever-increasing liberal voter pool coming with new waves of immigrants will leave gun owners alone and in peace. Liberas are the least tolerant of all people I know.
Maybe I am an idiot for wanting a show down, but we have lost much of our RKBA rights since 1900, and I for one want a change to stop that race away from freedom rather than to see my gun rights chipped away steadily and certainly, decade after decade.
Not true. The "collective rights" theory cases are only of modern vintage, as is the theory itself. The earlier legal record is clear that the right was intended, as was the rest of the bill of rights, as an INDIVIDUAL right. Even a great many liberal constitutional academics agree.
But you are opposed to the individual right. Not surprised with your comment.
"Is this the hill I want to die on?"
MOLON LABE