Obama is the worst president ever!

Post Reply New Topic

oh, lookie. yet another thread devolved into a gun battle.

OK if you are such an expert, I guess it would be no problem to cite a case where the Supreme Court struck down an assault weapons ban.

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2?53.

(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved. Pp. 22?28.

(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.

(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30?32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.

(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ? in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute ? would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.

I am really tired of this guy and his lies. He has done nothing but damage this country for the last 5 years. I am sick of him and his liberal pals trying to take our freedoms away from us. He and the liberals want to take our guns away, they take money from hard working people and give it to lazy people who have 15 kids and don't work, they want to give rights to illegal immigrants, they want to raise the minimum wage, this country is in so much debt, and Obamacare is a joke. I am sick of Obama and all politicians. We need to take our country back. There are no jobs, most people are on welfare and unemployment, and taxes are high. Plus, he has no idea how to handle ISIS and he plays golf and goes on vacations while there are problems in this country and around the world. This is the worst administration in the history of the United States. It is filled with nothing but lies, incompetence, socialism, and scandals. Anyone who believes a word that comes out of Obama's mouth is an imbecile.

...

The "assault weapons" you're referring to are in common use for lawful purposes.

Ipso facto the Supreme Court has ruled that these weapons are constitutionally protected, and eventually the states with bans on them are going to hit that legal brick wall; it may just take a while for the ideal case to present itself and work its way through the court system, as was the case with Heller and McDonald.

...

The "assault weapons" you're referring to are in common use for lawful purposes.

Ipso facto the Supreme Court has ruled that these weapons are constitutionally protected, and eventually the states with bans on them are going to hit that legal brick wall; it may just take a while for the ideal case to present itself and work its way through the court system, as was the case with Heller and McDonald.

I disagree. I don't think military style assault weapons with high capacity magazines are constitutionally protected.

Even if commonly owned, they are not in common use for defense (according to police reports), they are not designed for hunting, and they can be banned.

But we will see. In any case, this is not an issue that will be popular for Democrats, so I don't think they will address it,

at least until another massacre happens next week.

The current insane mood of conservatives surrounding the president is mostly nonsense. Distortion and hyperbole is what they use when they don't have real issues. It's all socialism and impeachment hysteria, and I think a large part racism. That being said, there are many liberal objections to Obama surrounding issues of privacy, drug enforcement, financial industry reform, legalized corruption, and war. Perhaps if conservatives stuck to these issues we could find some common ground. But they can't because they are worse on all counts.

As a Democrat, the way I am able to comprehend the hatred for Obama is to remember what is like during the Bush administration. The Left would pounce upon every verbal mistake and policy failure of Bush. Neither Bush or Obama will be rated in anyone's top ten presidents, but the blood frenzy of Republicans for Obama reminds me very much of the Democratic hate-mongering against Bush.

Neither Bush or Obama will be rated in anyone's top ten presidents

if you guys think Hillary Clinton will not be a great president. your all f****d in the head. otherwise just pretend the world never had a chance to have a good justice run.