Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
now you're coming around to the reasoning of the framers of our constitution.
"checks and balances" - they are important.
while every other topic you mentioned may be successfully litigated and debated within our system, banned and overturned, the second amendment is the keystone to our entire system of government. it is the last balance of power between the public and government, and this is not my mere conjecture or a theory by some militia group, it is the opinion of the founding fathers of this country.
By referencing their writings, there can be absolutely no doubt as to the intention of the second amendment. It is intended as a protection from a tyrannical government. So long as we preserve that right, we have little need to fear a tyrannical government from ever coming to be. If we are asked to give up that right, we are being asked to fundamentally alter the system of checks and balances this government is intended to function under.
Those dissenting justices are well aware of this. Whether they personally support or oppose gun control is of no matter. The law clearly states what the majority affirmed, and just a little bit of research reveals the opinion of those who wrote & signed that law in the first place. So yes, I do question the integrity - and loyalty - of any justice who so flagrantly disregards our laws, as should you, regardless of what your opinion is on gun control.
What laws will those dissenting justices ignore next? Something more dear to you? They cannot be trusted.  |
In the 18th Century, you theoretically could put together a militia and take over the government. The Federal government didn't have a lot of power, nor the reach. Today, that is impossible.
There is no way that a group of armed citizens will ever be able to overthrow the government. Our government has too much sophisticated weaponry and powerful allies to allow it to happen. If you truly believe that it is possible, I don't know what else I can say to you. We are a long ways from that time, the world and technology has changed. Governments have grown up. We can't just walk up to the capital with some muskets and demand a new government.
The funniest part about the ruling is that those who you agree with, are the ones who have routinely ruled against the First Amendment. They are the ones that believe porn is not protected under the 1st Amendment. They are the ones that believe that Habeas Corpus is not a right. That the 4th Amendment isn't really all that big of a deal.
I'm not against the ruling the other day. I just think it's insane to call justices who have a different interpretation of the law traitors. It's a retarded analogy thrown out by conservative blogs to rile up the uneducated. None of the justices there are traitors, they just have different viewpoints.
Just remember that the justices you agreed with the other day are the same ones that believe you have no right to work in this industry.