Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amateurís Take On McDonald Second Amendment Arguments
http://www.radioviceonline.com/ ^ | March 2, 2010 | Steve McGough

Posted on 03/02/2010 6:59:52 PM PST by Biggirl

On the USSC and the handgun ban in Chicago. I enjoyed listening to the audio of the Heller arguments but unfortunately, they did not release any audio for today’s arguments. This afternoon I posted the full text of the oral arguments within a few minutes of being released and I’ve taken the time to read through the 77 pages during some free time tonight.

(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: handguns; mcdonald; mcdonaldvchicago; ussc

1 posted on 03/02/2010 6:59:52 PM PST by Biggirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. My read is that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are on equal footing and parallel to each other.

Freedom of speech does not require a “permit” to use, so neither should the ability to own guns. There’s no “concealed carry permit” required for a person to talk to another person ‘legally’ so there should not be any paper restricting the ownership of guns.

This doesn’t say that if a person uses a gun there are no consequences, just that anyone should be allowed the ownership of guns AND the ability to carry one on the hip or in a holster anywhere . . . including a bar whether drinking or not; including a college or university, whether attending or not; including to sports events.

The more people who carry guns, the safer everyone is. That and it really pisses off liberals.


2 posted on 03/02/2010 7:16:35 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (MAKE THE WHITE HOUSE A SMOKE FREE ZONE. No Cigarettes, Cigars or Pipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. My read is that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are on equal footing and parallel to each other.

Freedom of speech does not require a “permit” to use, so neither should the ability to own guns. There’s no “concealed carry permit” required for a person to talk to another person ‘legally’ so there should not be any paper restricting the ownership of guns.

This doesn’t say that if a person uses a gun there are no consequences, just that anyone should be allowed the ownership of guns AND the ability to carry one on the hip or in a holster anywhere . . . including a bar whether drinking or not; including a college or university, whether attending or not; including to sports events.

The more people who carry guns, the safer everyone is. That and it really pisses off liberals.


3 posted on 03/02/2010 7:16:35 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (MAKE THE WHITE HOUSE A SMOKE FREE ZONE. No Cigarettes, Cigars or Pipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
" Mr. Feldman, our selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause does suggest that there are some rights that were fundamental enough to be incorporated and some that are fundamental, but not fundamental enough to be incorporated. We have drawn a line.

How can we have fundamental rights that may be restricted by the states?"

Wouldn't fundamental rights be inalienable?

4 posted on 03/02/2010 7:22:33 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
" Mr. Feldman, our selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause does suggest that there are some rights that were fundamental enough to be incorporated and some that are fundamental, but not fundamental enough to be incorporated. We have drawn a line.

How can we have fundamental rights that may be restricted by the states?"

Wouldn't fundamental rights be inalienable?

5 posted on 03/02/2010 7:23:14 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
" Mr. Feldman, our selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause does suggest that there are some rights that were fundamental enough to be incorporated and some that are fundamental, but not fundamental enough to be incorporated. We have drawn a line.

How can we have fundamental rights that may be restricted by the states?"

Wouldn't fundamental rights be inalienable?

6 posted on 03/02/2010 7:24:24 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

On top of everything else, obummer just b#tch slapped the supreme court for all the world to see.
There could be legal open carry on the streets of Chicago soon.


7 posted on 03/02/2010 8:10:24 PM PST by muddler (Obama is either incompetent or malicious, and it makes little difference which.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Thats right take the bate and let the feds legitimately establish the “holes” in the 2nd amendment as to make life “livable” for the liberal states.

The same holes which the same Federal government is already USING to disarm our states a resent Tennessee Militia cases demonstrated.

Thats right the 2nd amendment is a dead letter as far as its propose of insuring that the people and their states would retain the means necessary to resist the centralized tyranny of the Federal government.

The reason for it being a dead letter is IS the presumption of incorporations and thus the necessary “exceptions” to its limitations now applied to ALL levels of government not just state and local.

that means the Federal government having the “supremacy” will be able to justify the laws which effectively disarm not only the people of the means to defend them-selfs against such a government but more importantly for practical considerations, OUR STATES!

This is a FOOLISH move on the part of people who supposedly support “Gun rights” and it will end VERY badly!


8 posted on 03/02/2010 8:24:05 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Once again, maybe, this time in English?


9 posted on 03/02/2010 8:46:35 PM PST by IncPen (HEY GORE -- GIVE BACK THE OSCAR! - GIVE BACK THE NOBEL! ANSWER THE HOAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Perennial Practice Makes Perfect Packin` Precedent:

http://rescuefinder.0catch.com/2ndAmendment.html


10 posted on 03/02/2010 8:58:54 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (God bless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson