Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)

12. You're extremely wrong

Reply to jody (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:58 PM

Dec 2012

Steven cited those, but did not find them to be "inherent or inalienable" (and neither do the specific things cited). Stevens only cites them to highlight the omission of a "right to bear arms" absent the purpose of a "well-regulated militia". I'd suggest you bother actually reading the dissents in the case, since you clearly haven't.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bearing arms to fend of a tyrannic government... [View all] DetlefK Dec 2012 OP

Tyranny: An organized effort to end slavery as a cherished tradition and way of life. Loudly Dec 2012 #1

After Kent State riqster Dec 2012 #2

I was thinking along the same lines KansDem Dec 2012 #3

It's a stupid, paranoid argument. The best control against bad gov't is voting. Bucky Dec 2012 #4

2A is about an individual's RKBA for self defense. Congress has all the authority it needs for the jody Dec 2012 #5

No, actually, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #8

Thanks for your opinion but DC v Heller defines the law and 2A is about individual self-defense. Get jody Dec 2012 #9

Until such a time as it's reviewed by a later Court decision. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #10

Dissents by Stevens & Breyer cite PA(1776) & VT(1777) constitutions that declare natural, inherent, jody Dec 2012 #11

You're extremely wrong Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #12

Read the PA & VT constitutions that use those words. Stevens acknowledged those constitutions. jody Dec 2012 #15

No, actually, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #18

What do you mean with your general statement "No, actually, it isn't"? nt jody Dec 2012 #19

"isn't indisputably an inalienable right". Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #20

I believe McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the Second in the Fourteenth, see wikipedia jody Dec 2012 #22

I guess Marinedem Dec 2012 #6

That doesn't hold any water. DetlefK Dec 2012 #7

You make the assumption that elections will always be fair Xithras Dec 2012 #16

Morality and legality aren't the same. DetlefK Dec 2012 #21

That's how this country was formed, though. It's hard to reconcile. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #13

Don't forget reason #2 the coming race war. Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #14

They need reminded that Red Dawn is not a documentary. n/t cynatnite Dec 2012 #17