US Supreme court passes "modern" assault weapon ban,

Yeah, that's not what happened at all. They refused to see the case, and it's not the first time. The supreme court rejects gun related cases fairly often.

Just because they choose to uphold an already existing ban does not mean they're going to use their power to extend that ban from a single city to the entire nation.

>>7173
Why can the SC refuse to see cases? I get that they don't want to be buried under a bunch of inane crap, but a case dealing with one of our foundational rights is bretty important.

>>7176
They refused a bunch of very important cases because they were afraid of the political implications and the results way back in AnteBellum America, and I guess they've kept up the tradition

>>7164

Quit lying

they said local laws are acceptable; it is not a blanket ban, however, as most localities do not ban these types of weapons

>>7176
>Why can the SC refuse to see cases?

They can only do this when the proposed case would violate constitutional law, which any ban on guns of any kind would.

Shall not be infringed

>>7176
Would you rather SCOTUS just take thousands of cases each year and never be able to actually figure any if them out? We do have lower courts, it's not like nobody will hear the case. And the lower courts do have to take all cases

>>7179
They refuse like 99% of the cases they get, because otherwise there would be way too many cases for them to issue a well thought out decision on any of them. They actually usually take on the most important cases, so you're just flat out wrong there.

>>7314
Don't worry your right to own a musket isn't being infringed

>>7318
>Liberals make up false interpretations of the Constitution
Everytime

>>7318

Why are you liberals so delusional?

>>7328
>>7337
>Conservatives have zero knowledge of Constitutional law
Why are you Conservatives so condescending about topics you know nothing about?

If there's anyone who poorly interprets the constitution, it's the conservatives. Using their interpretation, I could legally have a missile silo in my backyard.

>>7401
>Using their interpretation, I could legally have a missile silo in my backyard.
You can. A missile is an arm and the 2nd amendment grants the people the right to keep and bear arms

>>7401
>>7370
In order to get any of the liberal gungrabbing interpretations you have to either:

Redefine words in a way that isn't used
Omit words or rearrange entire sentences

At this point you might be shitposting, so I'll stop replying to you after this.

>>7318
>Don't worry your right to own a musket isn't being infringed

I feel that we should ban your use of the internet. Why do you need the internet? Don't worry your right to own a manual printing press in not being infringed.

Good thing we both have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs, and feelings have nothing to do with it.

>>7422
Aren't explosive devices counted as ordinace instead of arms?

>>7461
youre thinking about it opposite. it would be if we banned the manual printing press he could still use the internet. fucking dumbass.
nice logic you gun loving homosexual, at least i dont have to make up for having a tiny dick or AIDS

Good, this keeps the bans on the state and local level.

>mfw no ban on siege weapons

I'd like to see the pinkos in Washington try to take away my trebuchet

I feel like all the libs are screaming WELL REGULATED and all the cons are screaming MILITIA and no one is for a well-regulated militia.

>>7487
I'm not the person you were responding to, but you're definitely in the wrong here. Your rights spelled out by the constitution are immutable, and the rights are broad as they are to be able to stand the test of time (in terms of rights retained/unchallenged).

However, IF modifications could be made to the bill of rights, then it follows that one could:

>Ban the use of "higher level" methods of information dissemination (speech)
>Allow the most basic forms of information dissemination, such as a printing press
>Right "upheld"

>Ban the use of certain arms and arms accessories
>Allow "lower level" or "basic" weaponry and accessories (smaller magazine capacity, no suppressors, no automatic fire, etc)
>Right "upheld"

As the 2nd amendment is immutable, then:

>A well regulated militia is necessary to the process of freedom
>Therefore the regulation of arms cannot be put into place, as THE PEOPLE of these United States must have access to arms to defend life, liberty, and to form militias should the need arise
>Militia may not exist without the people's access to arms
>Every able bodied person is considered to be a militia (wo)man per federal ruling (and likely local as well)
>If the access to weapons is restricted in any way, then the powers that be seek to disarm the check against them (militias, citizens defending their own liberty)

Two hundred years of corrupt jurisprudence that goes against the constitution, attempting to deny rights to the citizens of the United States, be damned. You may not modify the constitution without an additional amendment. Should you attempt it, the people fully have the right to water the tree of liberty with the blood of the tyrannical.

>>7514
You just wasted a lot of time burning a retard. That's what you did, you "punched down" to the point of beating up a mentally handicapped person or a child.

>>7401
>implying no one has a missle in their backyard..

have you ever been to arizona? i know a guy who has about 6 or 7 missles in his garage

>>7173
This is the astro-turfing I just posted about a minute ago.

OP is posting blatant misinformation to skew the flow of information in his favor.

>>7555
Took me maybe 120 seconds of total effort, I'm not too worried about it as my time isn't valuable. Either way, maybe that person will strive to be more correct in the future by seeking knowledge.

>>7474
Just DDs and they are regulated but legal

>>7498
>and all the cons are screaming MILITIA

The amendment is doing two things

>pointing out that we need a militia in good working order
>protecting the individual right to bear arms

>>7401
Everyone has the 2A fucked up.

I identify best as a Socialist Libertarian - ie. welfare/healthcare/education/worker's rights programs are the best shit since sliced bread and ensure a good standard of living in a developed country.
But the government should help people - when it restricts shit like marriage, recreational substances and firearms, they are overstepping their bounds.

The original intention of the second amendment was to keep the militia/people on par with the sovereign state.

It uses the specific phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in this context.

The US military is allowed to acquire and use new full giggle weapons - the same should stand for civilians.

However... There is no passage that prohibits licensing/training requirements.
Requiring people to pass a course on how to safely handle/operate firearms (mental health exam would not hurt either) before allowing them to purchase them would honestly be fine and would 100% be preferable to what they're done with "NFA items".

To clarify, how they've "banned" machine-guns is really sneaky, but they've tiptoed around the 2nd Amendment in a really smart manner.

>Can not infringe right to own FA weapons.
>Require all FA weapons be on register for civilians to own - doesn't violate 2A.
>Close that register - doesn't violate 2A.

They're not explicitly saying that you can't have a FA rifle, what they're saying is it needs to be registered and what do you know, that registry can't be altered.

>>7494
>trebuchet
nice

>>7677
Where does the libertarian part come in?

>the Americans most afraid of an ideology made so dangerous in that modifying its sacred text is unthinkable are members of an ideology in which revising the primary text is unthinkable
Web fuckin lad

>>7677
>massive social welfare program
>legal gay marriage, legal drugs, firearms restrictions
so you're a communist...

>>7164
Don't they know the first AWB in 1994 was a complete scrub and did nothing to stop shootings, violence, homicides or anything?

The ban literally did nothing

>>7677
You're an idiot

google DC vs Heller (2008)

>>7164
This is highly misleading, its not a pass on the ban nor is it an affirmation of the gun ban. They simply refused to hear it.

They get hundreds of cases about all sorts of rights every single year and they certainly can't view all of them

>>7637
>private armies
you mean well-regulated militias? Well would you look at that

>>7514
>Amendments are to be read in a strictly literal and absolute sense
>Child porn should be legal under the First Amendment
>Cults that sacrifice humans should be legal under the first amendment
>Sending bomb threats to the white house should be legal under the first amendment
great analysis Anon

>>7176
They reject most of the cases brought before them. They're only supposed to accept cases if they think they ask a good, unanswered question about the Constitution. Otherwise they're supposed to just defer to historical precedent.

>>7692
The government should not place unnecessary restrictions on the lives of its citizens.
People should be free to do whatever the fuck they want without infringing on anyone else's liberties.

The problem with how people view libertarianism is that the movement has been taken over by AnCaps who in reality would take the long dick of the government over having to pay taxes.

>>7725
No, I just want as little restrictions on life as possible.
Why does the government get to decide who you marry and how many people you marry?
Why is the government allowed to make substances illegal? Why not just regulate the shit out of it and make fuckloads of money?

And in regards to firearms - why do you allow the government to negate you access to modern equipment, directly in violation of your 2A rights?

Imagine this - You walk into an accredited training organisation (ie. a shooting range, like you do for your CCW) - You pay the shooting range a small fee and they evaluate your ability to safely handle and control firearms (trigger control, firing stance, safety precautions) and then a week later you get a card in the mail with your likeness and your name, authorizing you to purchase firearms.
Ideally, the system would be treated the same as background checks in that no gubermint organisation can keep the records and has to destroy them after processing your card.
With this card, you could walk in to any gun shop, buy a machine gun and maybe an anti-material rifle, without any stupid NFA bullshit/tax stamp attached.

>>7742
>he thinks that was strictly a literal interpretation
>he thinks that any of his terrible examples are equivocal or relevant in any way whatsoever
>he's never read the declaration of independence, constitution, federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, or any documents relating to the framework or founding of the US
>he doesn't understand the concept of personal freedom, protection of against the threat of tyranny, or the concept of other laws existing that DO NOT interfere with the bill of rights or any other constitutional amendment


10/10 input.

>>7703
The constitution can be revised, but not without a constitutional amendment.

>>7785
You do realize that "government helping people" is the main cause of unnecessary restrictions, right?

Especially because of how they're run, evwn for things you would agree on.

And they believe whatever you feel like unbanning to be a harm of some kind, even if it's just that those in power feel it threatens their own power. I can't see you as anything but a socialist who wants to let people do victimless crimes. Which is a step up, but I can't see it as libertarian.

>>7820
>You do realize that "government helping people" is the main cause of unnecessary restrictions, right?
No, it's the main cause of taxation.
The alternative is that the services are privatized and citizens end up paying a fuckload more for a fuckload less, such is the state of several industries in the US.

>I can't see you as anything but a socialist who wants to let people do victimless crimes. Which is a step up, but I can't see it as libertarian.
Because the Libertarian movement in the US has been taken over by AnCap morons, who simply want to pay less tax and pay their workers less than poverty wages.
The "Libertarians" would rather get on their knees and such the massive cock of regulation than pay taxes.
They put money before liberty.

>>7835
>Ancap
>Wants regulations
You might want to read up on that one.

So, you want a state run economy but less strict rules socially?

Why would you say freedom is good then condemn it in the same post?

Are you that afraid of the markets? Did you really fall for the "wealth inequality means no one is free" meme?

>redguards are the most violent group in the US
>mostly kill each other using handguns
>somehow liberals decide they need to disarm White men
The anti-White bias is pretty fucking obvious.

>>7837
What I meant was that if an AnCap had the choice between the government controlling when they shit or paying tax, they'd happy lose their freedom.

And no, I'm not afraid of the free market, but it has failed. Banks have fallen due to lack of oversight, people are paid at less than the cost of their labour (ie. Less than a living wage) and our political system is controlled by financial oligarchs that buy politicians and political parties as if they were trinkets.

And before you say that I'm poor, my wife and I have a combined income of 160k. We're definitely not upper class, but we're not poverty-stricken.

>>7164
>murders has been on the decline since the 90s
>murders are the lowest it's been since the late 70s
>we must ban guns now!!!
????

Good. Based SCOTUS as always.

>>7370
Because most neo-cons on this site are extremist teenagers who knew nothing about politics a year ago but got into it because /pol/ "red pilled them"

Teens always have a big fury for politics but rarely ever understand it. The current "cool ideology" is conservativism because Obama is in power. 7 years and it will seesaw back and all the teens will be liberals again.


Also why was this board made? We had /his/ which was /pol/ 2. Now...we have /pol/3?

Does Hiro just want to make a ton of redundant sub boards for /pol/ now?

>>7498
Because a good militia would need things to go up against a good army. And it's not the 1700's anymore, the military has many toys you do not and cannot have. The time for the violent revolution passed before your great grandfather was born. The era of drones, nuclear weapons, cyber warfare, chemical and biological warfare etc is not the time for la revolucion.

A militia of assault rifle owners isn't even enough to handle most street gangs.

>>7950
>He doesn't know about how asymmetrical warfare took the largest military in the world on twice and dragged them through the mud

Why do you people repeat the same incorrect information, anyway?

>>7965
Modern weaponry looks very impressive.

>>7891
>More regulation can save us from businesses lobbying for barriers to entry to a market
>implying

Some regulations are good, but there's no feasible way to deal with crony capitalism other than swinging the other way. Why you think socialism will save us is beyond me.

>>7318
>They refuse like 99% of the cases they get.

Maybe the United States needs a better system to deal with such a large volume of court cases? Like a few more SCs would be nice and could add some more checks and balances.

>>7946
funny of you to say that when the board started it was nuked with liberal bias, and now you are saying we are /pol/ 2 and 3?
maybe if you stopped flinging shit and started using arguments people would stop becoming "/pol/"

>>7742

Those examples you listed violate the rights of others, so really don't hold up as comparable counter points. Good hysteria though.

>>7318
>Don't worry your right to own a musket isn't being infringed
Regardless of the appellation Bill of Rights, they're explicitly and unequivocally written as a list of restrictions on federal government, not an exhaustive list of rights of the people. It's not a right to own a musket that is being granted, but a limitation on the power of federal government that is being imposed, and pretty clearly nothing about relegating the people (or a well regulated (well armed) militia (again, the people by legal definition)) to obsolete or improvised arms.

>>7487
>that last sentence

Mad as fuck

>>7164
finally, americans are too retarded to handle guns and explosives.

fucking toddlers don't even know where america is on a map lel

>>8600
>Mad as fuck
talking about yourself?

>>7318
>Right to own a musket
Confirmed for never reading the Bill of Rights. Right to bear arms not a musket.
>Inb4 well only the military should have those full-auto assault rifles we only had muskets back in 1776!
Yeah so did the military. The militia that would become known as the United States Continental Army had the same weaponry as the citizenry. One of the first things the british did when they captured Boston was to seize the weapons of the people. Which were the same as what the military was equipped with. Barring the few fuckers who owned Blunderbusses.