- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shooting at Orlando gay club: 50 Dead, 53 Injured, Shooter is Radical Muslim
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:20 pm to Clames
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:20 pm to Clames
quote:
No it isn't. There were two prevailing theories; the individual rights interpretation and the collective rights interpretations (plural because there were two distinct legal theories there "original" and the "sophisticated"). The 2008 v Heller case settled that, all nine SCOTUS justices held that the individual right interpretation is the correct reading (5-4 is the split of the scope of that interpretation). There is no longer any rational reason to think there is an interpretation that makes the 2nd Amendment only apply to those serving in militias.
I haven't read that case or the opinion, but I imagine that there is a rational reason to think there is an interpretation that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias since 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices appear to have dissented from the decision to the contrary. That seems like the very definition of "rational reason."
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:24 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
I haven't read that case or the opinion, but I imagine that there is a rational reason to think there is an interpretation that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias since 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices appear to have dissented from the decision to the contrary. That seems like the very definition of "rational reason."
I just explained to you that all 9 justices held for the individual interpretation. There is no argument on that part now. The dissent applied to the scope of the individual right. The same unanimous decision came down in Caetano v Massachusetts just a few months ago. You really need to read these cases, you are way off.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:24 pm to LoveThatMoney
I would honestly love to have a gun and never have to use it, as opposed to not having one and needing it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News