confessions of a bigot

[The Emperor Fabulous]

oh, might I add, this has been the most interesting thread for a long time

[MrFun]

Emperor's Quote: They bring the Right to Bear Arms to the forefront and hide behind it, while the rest of the Constitution and Declaration are sent to hell. Most of these right-to-arms people are also "pro-life." HA!

I like your last post, Emperor.
And, your avatar is one of my favorite avatars that I have seen here on Apolyton so far.

BUT, I have a problem with that particular quote of yours. The past 200 years, the Supreme Court has consitently ruled that individuals do not have the right to bear arms. Only states have the right to a well-regulated militia under state government control.

Unfortunately, the prevailing misperception, is that the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the right to bear arms. And because it's so prevelant, and so predominant, it has become defacto--even at the price of distorting the Second Amendment.

[Bereta_Eder]

I've grown a bit mellow with age but I agree with Emperor's last post.

Except I'm Greek so some of it doesn't apply (Guns, Abortion - almost noone carries guns - abortions are legal and there are no "incedents" outside clinics whatsoever) And about Gianni, he's funny

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Most of these right-to-arms people are also "pro-life." HA!

Why is that funny? Private gun ownership saves lives. It seems to be the ultimate pro-life position.

You'll find that many "pro-life"ers also support the Death Penalty.

How is this a contradictory position?

Pro-Lifers seek to eliminate stem-cell research, research that could save not hundreds, not thousands, but HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF LIVES.

I want to see your evidence for this claim.

[KrazyHorse]

Why is that funny? Private gun ownership saves lives.

I want to see your evidence for this claim

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

[Bereta_Eder]

[MrFun]

The whole argument for right-to-bear arms is based on a defacto distortion of the Second Amendment.

In the United States in the past 200 years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that individual citizens do not have the right to bear arms. Only the state governments have the right to a well-regulated militia under government control.

[David Floyd]

But it can also easily be argued that the right to private ownership of firearms falls under the 9th Amendment.

[Ming]

One question...

WHAT THE HECK DOES GUN OWNERSHIP HAVE TO DO WITH BEING A BIGOT!!!!!

Get my drift...

[David Floyd]

Easy. MrFun seems bigoted against guns

[KrazyHorse]

Simpler than that, this is the thirteenth page of a thread whose original topic cannot carry a discussion for thirteen pages.

[MrFun]

Here is the Nineth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, why has the Supreme Court ruled consistently the past 200 years that individual citizens do not have the right to bear arms? I would need to go back to the specific case, that involved the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Nineth Amendment.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
So, why has the Supreme Court ruled consistently

in which cases?

[MrFun]

Supreme Court Cases

This is where I got the actual court cases.