Supreme Court barrier to Joe Biden’s gun grab

While President Joe Biden pushes for stricter gun control regulations, the Supreme Court is considering several Second Amendment cases with potentially major implications for gun ownership.

The case comes before the court as Biden ramps up the pressure for legislative action on gun rights. On Thursday, Biden signed a series of executive orders regulating firearms, and the White House signaled that his actions were “just the beginning” of a crusade against gun violence.

At the same time, the Supreme Court is weighing whether it will take up two cases that could clarify the limits of the Second Amendment. The first looks at the constitutionality of licenses to carry concealed handguns. The second examines the rights of convicted felons to own firearms. The court has both cases scheduled for its next Friday conference and could decide whether to hear them this month.

Would the framers have put impulsive village clowns in charge of cannon and a magazine? Did random individuals each take a cannon, powder and cannonballs to their homes? In my opinion, we should consider the founders' intents when commenting (text, history and tradition) along with compelling government interests (interests of the people in general).

I'll stick with the warship thing because it is obvious. Canon fire from a ship of war can absolutely reduce an entire town into rubble. At the tie of the founding, any rube with the money could commission and/or purchase as many as he had money for. Granted, manning a warship generally required that you be able to get along with fellow human beings. On the other hand, we also know from history that some very bad men had access to and made use of such armament for evil purposes. Others used the same kind of resources to protect the livelihood of other men, and ended up with Letters of Marque.

Despite the fact that there were evil men, the fine liberty-minded gentlemen who set this nation up did not put restrictions on or dissemination of what were the most powerful implements of destruction they knew of. It is this that we should consider when discussing such evil concepts as 'gun control'.

If I had ownership of a JDAM, MOAB, or even a nuclear weapon, it would be of no more danger to my neighbors than my pistol(s) or rifle(s) are.

My argument is that the Constitution does not speak to the issue at all. It says, quite simply 'shall not be infringed'. It also speaks of the breadth of the right when it speaks to Letters of Marque. If you would like to change or limit that, there is a procedure spelled out for that. I don't have any particular problem with it within certain parameters, such as WMDs as I mentioned.

Some folk might draw the line at crew-served weapons. I would not go quite that far. Texas history speaks to a town/militia in Goliad using a canon to protect itself. Personally, I'd like to see the militia actually being put to use in emergency and other situations. The concept really needs to be revived. A militia should also have access to all the hardware and equipment that it needs to be able to perform its role.

Prior to the 20th century, if you wanted to buy some dynomite, you'd just buy it at a local retailer - no questions asked. There was little mass and random destruction despite that. Many a farmer saved himself quite a bit of time, money, and effort when he needed to blow some stumps on his property. Occasionally he might have even injured himself or others if he was not experienced with using it. That was not, however, any reason to ban such material. In fact those who done blowed themselves up, kinda resolved the entire issue as far as they were concerned.

So, if you have concerns, follow the procedure spelled out in the Constitution, and don't support end-runs around it just as a matter of convenience. the fact that some men are evil is no reason to restrict my rights.

Your previous post to Familyop addressed the question in a rational way.

You should have just led with that. Contrary to what you immediately assumed, you don’t know my position at all.

I stated that at the very outset. I was testing commitment to the position (as well as intelligence.)

Too many people are afraid to actually engage in critical thinking and prepare a rational response. If you claim you have seen this hypothetical before, then you should have LED with the last response.

The basic problem is that it is an absolutely common trope used mostly by liberal trolls. I’ve been here a long time. It is neither original or particularly useful as a point to argue from.

In the real world, there is no comparison whatsoever between an MP5 and a WMD, be it biological, nuclear, or whatever. No sane person is arguing about nuclear weapons. Only trolls bring them up. Ever.

Anyone silly enough to bring up such things is not discussing thing honestly.

You have seriously self-identified as a troll, if not a piece of shit ATF faggot (because only faggots would work for BATFE), or as yet another FBI stooge. We have seen them for 20+ years here on FR. We know what they look like.

Feel free to attempt to redeem yourself, but as far as I am concerned, you are a troll. It has yet to be determined if you are an actual American and/or patriot, as opposed to just another government drone that is of less actual use to those of us who actually give a fuck about the ‘law’ and the Constitution, than your average garden slug. At present, the odds would lean towards a slug.

I haven’t bothered to look at your posting history, because I do not really give a damn.

It’s utterly moronic to openly embrace cowardice and immediately run to “troll” because someone tests your commitment to principals. The vast majority of “our” side seem to gravitate toward that lack of critical thinking. Everything is a conspiracy, lizard people are running the world, and reason is the enemy.

You are still doing it, even though you were almost free from the bonds of ignorance.

Take some time to see how John Lovell answers the very same question and the ask yourself why being a buffoon still appeals to you.

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.