(December 6, 2013 at 4:39 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:(December 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The gun nuts hate it when you mention that stuff, TBD. They love to yammer on about the fucking constitution as long as they don't have to read all the hard words.
The right to bear arms was a "collective" ( not individual ) right until Bush's fascist fuckwads on the court put the profits of the death merchants above the lives of the citizenry.
To be fair, the collective vs individual thing might go back to the 50's and the Supreme Court
1939
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Quote:On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:
1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
But what is such an argument when Smith and Wesson is waving metric fuck tons of cash around, eh?