"Killing" spree in Japan - Page 2

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

How does that rule it a collective right

Did you bother to read them?

Seegars

The federal D.C. District Court agreed, upholding D.C.'s handgun ban in a decision issued on January 14, 2004. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that, "The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias."

Plaintiffs appealed the judge's ruling and the Brady Center filed an amicus brief in support of the District on July 28, 2004. The U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral argument on November 17, 2004, and on January 10, 2005, dismissed the appeal by a 2-1 vote. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the statute as none of the plaintiffs faced imminent criminal prosecution.

Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing by the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which was rejected on June 21, 2005.

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Did you bother to read them?

Seegars

The federal D.C. District Court agreed, upholding D.C.'s handgun ban in a decision issued on January 14, 2004. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that, "The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias."

Plaintiffs appealed the judge's ruling and the Brady Center filed an amicus brief in support of the District on July 28, 2004. The U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral argument on November 17, 2004, and on January 10, 2005, dismissed the appeal by a 2-1 vote. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the statute as none of the plaintiffs faced imminent criminal prosecution.

Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing by the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which was rejected on June 21, 2005.

And the federal courts have upheld that is violates the individual right in regards to Heller. So quite conflicting court cases

Miller had no ruling on collective rights as it was in reference to the NFA regulations.

Thorgrim · 03-24-2008, 02:04 PM

Donkey, I'd quit now...everyone knows im a liberal and don't support the individual rights theory, but Heller is going to be ruled as an individual right...end of discussion on the 2nd amemdnet if you only rely on SCOTUS

motivez · 03-24-2008, 02:09 PM

If the SCOTUS says it is though, what else is there to rely on that matters?

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

And the federal courts have upheld that is violates the individual right in regards to Heller. So quite conflicting court cases

That's the whole point with this subject. It's NOT cut and dry. It's NOT set in stone. That's why both sides always end up telling the other to get an amendment.

Originally Posted by hsmith

Miller had no ruling on collective rights as it was in reference to the NFA regulations.

If you say so. The courts disagree.

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If the SCOTUS says it is though, what else is there to rely on that matters?

I think that the SCOTUS is going to rule that it is unreasonable and overturn it (as most justices asked "How is a complete ban reasonable"), but it will be extremely limited in scope.

I think it will affirm that it is an individual right, but it is subject to restriction (which I don't quite agree with).

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If you say so. The courts disagree.

all you can find is dismissed case and a single judges opinion on the matter

whatever

Your mind is clearly made up and no relevant facts can be presented.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If the SCOTUS says it is though, what else is there to rely on that matters?

Personally, I would rather rely on the Constitution having language that can't be debated...can't be misinterpreted. That would render the courts say pretty much unnecessary.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

all you can find is dismissed case and a single judges opinion on the matter

whatever

Your mind is clearly made up and no relevant facts can be presented.

And you can't find a single case that makes it an individual right. I guess we're even.

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And you can't find a single case that makes it an individual right. I guess we're even.

Since when does the court need to rule on something to make the amendment "valid"?

You are creating a false dilemma for the validity of the amendment. The constitution doesn't state "All amendments need to be court verified."

"No court case exists, thus the amendment doesn't apply to individuals"

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

The amendment clearly states "the people" in it. To me, by golly, that means the people. As I said before, if it were reserved to the militia only it wouldn't have mentioned "THE PEOPLE"

7960 · 03-24-2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Personally, I would rather rely on the Constitution having language that can't be debated...can't be misinterpreted. That would render the courts say pretty much unnecessary.

There will ALWAYS be room for interpretation. Always.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Since when does the court need to rule on something to make the amendment "valid"?

You are creating a false dilemma for the validity of the amendment. The constitution doesn't state "All amendments need to be court verified."

"No court case exists, thus the amendment doesn't apply to individuals"

Sorry, that just doesn't work.

The amendment clearly states "the people" in it. To me, by golly, that means the people. As I said before, if it were reserved to the militia only it wouldn't have mentioned "THE PEOPLE"

No, the amendment CLEARLY says "well REGULATED militia." If "EVERYONE" is in the militia, then WELL REGULATED they need to be. "Hey, everyone can buy whatever they want" is not WELL REGULATED. Talk about paradox. While it's great you determine what YOU think the amendment says...the courts have consistently said opposite.

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, the amendment CLEARLY says "well REGULATED militia." If "EVERYONE" is in the militia, then WELL REGULATED they need to be. "Hey, everyone can buy whatever they want" is not WELL REGULATED. Talk about paradox. While it's great you determine what YOU think the amendment says...the courts have consistently said opposite.

Your extensive list of court cases proves YOU RIGHT!

What a waste of time

7960 · 03-24-2008, 02:32 PM

well regulated THEN meant the guys should show up with their own guns and ammo.

please stop using today's definitions for these words.

hsmith · 03-24-2008, 02:33 PM

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.

Well regulated doesn't apply to the people, it applies to the militia. You clearly don't want to read the English of the amendment.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Your extensive list of court cases proves YOU RIGHT!

What a waste of time

I am not doing your research for you. I'll find you a nice link and you can waste your time trying to debunk them all. Again, if it were a fucking cut and dry issue why are you so eagerly awaiting the ruling on the current case? That's right...it's because the courts have sided with the militia interpretation pretty much every single time. I invite you to post anything that says otherwise.

7960 · 03-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It has absolutely ZERO relevance to this thread. Even so, I clarified my position for you in the other thread...there should be no debate about it. The thread is not "HEY, I WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS AND BURN THE CONSTITUTION." If you can't read, it's about Japan and the US and the differences between the two countries in dealing with guns. The thread is NOT about me.

Originally Posted by you

Situation seems pretty clear to me. ....seems that less guns and more regulation works just fine in Japan.

And you're not implying that taking away guns and instituting more regulations would "work just fine" here? Come on.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

well regulated THEN meant the guys should show up with their own guns and ammo.

please stop using today's definitions for these words.

This is what your argument is? I give up. You win. Give everyone guns. It sure seems to be the smart thing to do in this country.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

And you're not implying that taking away guns and instituting more regulations would "work just fine" here? Come on.

No, I am not. Incorrect assumption.

Donkey® · 03-24-2008, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

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.

Well regulated doesn't apply to the people, it applies to the militia. You clearly don't want to read the English of the amendment.

You can't have it both ways. If EVERYONE is in the militia then it fucking applies to the people. Who the fuck is in a militia? Cows? Dogs and Cats?