Conquer Club

I for one have always supported our Constitutional right to arm bears.

although i'm not sure why as they are well known to be one of the greatest threats to America. i'm not sure why we're supposed to arm them, but as a patriotic American, i do not ask why, i just do as i am told.

I'm definitely for the right to keep arms. But only under the strictest of rules, and regulations. You must always have your permit on you. You must wait a period of time before you're allowed to purchase, you must go through mandatory training on the use, care, and responsibility of owning a firearm, and you're placed on a list for law enforcement use only on who has these permits. Yes, you should jump through hoops to own, and have the right to carry your firearm. The police should be aware you own a permit to carry concealed.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Hologram wrote:Well...

If the Supreme Court rules against everybody being allowed to carry guns then it would basically nullify that bill.

So, yes, the right is being tested.

The federal government would not suggest that each college campus in the nation figure out what they are going to do and have state legislation vote on it if the right was being tested, dude.

Secondly, the Supreme Court can not CREATE laws, they can only interpret them.

So, yet again, nothing is being tested.

Yes, but it can declare laws unconstitutional and by proxy, any other laws that are similiar to that law.

And the federal government is made of three entities who work more or less independently of each other, so while Congress or the President could suggest campuses do that, the Supreme Court could still take to trial a law.

heavycola wrote:In fact, give everyone a grenade launcher and an uzi, too. Why hold back when the safety of every american is at stake?

Uzi's are unamerican and as such against the constitution™

The1exile wrote:

heavycola wrote:In fact, give everyone a grenade launcher and an uzi, too. Why hold back when the safety of every american is at stake?

Uzi's are unamerican and as such against the constitution™

Not if we annex Israel.

The1exile wrote:

heavycola wrote:In fact, give everyone a grenade launcher and an uzi, too. Why hold back when the safety of every american is at stake?

Uzi's are unamerican and as such against the constitution™

That's what the good old fashioned Tommy Gun is for. A bit old, but reliable nonetheless.

HayesA wrote:I'm definitely for the right to keep arms. But only under the strictest of rules, and regulations. You must always have your permit on you. You must wait a period of time before you're allowed to purchase, you must go through mandatory training on the use, care, and responsibility of owning a firearm, and you're placed on a list for law enforcement use only on who has these permits. Yes, you should jump through hoops to own, and have the right to carry your firearm. The police should be aware you own a permit to carry concealed.

Just like owning and driving a car.

Hologram wrote:

HayesA wrote:I'm definitely for the right to keep arms. But only under the strictest of rules, and regulations. You must always have your permit on you. You must wait a period of time before you're allowed to purchase, you must go through mandatory training on the use, care, and responsibility of owning a firearm, and you're placed on a list for law enforcement use only on who has these permits. Yes, you should jump through hoops to own, and have the right to carry your firearm. The police should be aware you own a permit to carry concealed.

Just like owning and driving a car.

Well i guess they are similar, as long as I can still drive my car really fast at ANYONE WHO THREATENS MY FAMILY.

heavycola wrote:

Hologram wrote:

HayesA wrote:I'm definitely for the right to keep arms. But only under the strictest of rules, and regulations. You must always have your permit on you. You must wait a period of time before you're allowed to purchase, you must go through mandatory training on the use, care, and responsibility of owning a firearm, and you're placed on a list for law enforcement use only on who has these permits. Yes, you should jump through hoops to own, and have the right to carry your firearm. The police should be aware you own a permit to carry concealed.

Just like owning and driving a car.

Well i guess they are similar, as long as I can still drive my car really fast at ANYONE WHO THREATENS MY FAMILY.

Exactly what I was shooting for.

Or driving at, rather....

Hologram wrote:Well...

If the Supreme Court rules against everybody being allowed to carry guns then it would basically nullify that bill.

So, yes, the right is being tested.

Absolutely wrong, as a marine you should brush up on your understanding of the Constitution which you are sworn to defend.

The Supreme Court could rule (incorrectly) that the Second Amendment does not convey an individual right to bear arms. If Congress passes a law which sais that students can have guns with them at school the next day then the new legislation takes precedent. Congress always maintains the right to pass new legislation nullifying interpratations of old laws.

GabonX wrote:

Hologram wrote:Well...

If the Supreme Court rules against everybody being allowed to carry guns then it would basically nullify that bill.

So, yes, the right is being tested.

Absolutely wrong, as a marine you should brush up on your understanding of the Constitution which you are sworn to defend.

The Supreme Court could rule (incorrectly) that the Second Amendment does not convey an individual right to bear arms. If Congress passes a law which sais that students can have guns with them at school the next day then the new legislation takes precedent. Congress always maintains the right to pass new legislation nullifying interpratations of old laws.

First off, I'm not a Marine. I will be in about 8 months, but I'm not yet.

Second, contrary to popular belief, the oath of enlistment doesn't contain anything about upholding the Constitution, only in obeying the President, all officers appointed above me, and all non-commissioned officers appointed above me. You're thinking of the Oath of Office that all political office holders must take.

Third, the Constitution says nothing about Congress having the ability to overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court with new legislation. While this doesn't bar them from doing it, the law will no doubt quickly be taken up by a Constitutional lawyer and taken before the same Supreme Court that overturned the previous law in question and would no doubt meet the same ruling.

Hologram wrote:

GabonX wrote:

Hologram wrote:Well...

If the Supreme Court rules against everybody being allowed to carry guns then it would basically nullify that bill.

So, yes, the right is being tested.

Absolutely wrong, as a marine you should brush up on your understanding of the Constitution which you are sworn to defend.

The Supreme Court could rule (incorrectly) that the Second Amendment does not convey an individual right to bear arms. If Congress passes a law which sais that students can have guns with them at school the next day then the new legislation takes precedent. Congress always maintains the right to pass new legislation nullifying interpratations of old laws.

First off, I'm not a Marine. I will be in about 8 months, but I'm not yet.

Second, contrary to popular belief, the oath of enlistment doesn't contain anything about upholding the Constitution, only in obeying the President, all officers appointed above me, and all non-commissioned officers appointed above me. You're thinking of the Oath of Office that all political office holders must take.

Third, the Constitution says nothing about Congress having the ability to overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court with new legislation. While this doesn't bar them from doing it, the law will no doubt quickly be taken up by a Constitutional lawyer and taken before the same Supreme Court that overturned the previous law in question and would no doubt meet the same ruling.

I figured that I would honor you as a Marine because I have the utmost respect for people who serve. With that said I disagree with what you have said...

First off the oath of enlistment for officers reads as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
That's a dot mil so I think I have you here...

Rulings made by the Supreme Court are based off of the laws that Congress makes, all the Supreme Courth is supposed to do is interperate these laws. Based on this we can assert that new legislation can nullify old rulings. The Constitution explicitly states that that Congress has the power to change or amend the Constitution so here too we see how Congress can nullify a ruling.

If you want I can go back and find more specific legal text from my US Government class last semester to further prove my point, but I really don't think that it should be necessary. I'm not trying to be rude to you. I just think that as an American, especially as a prospective member of the military, you should do more research so that you better understand these concepts. Better you find out here than in an in person argument right?

Wow, it seems that I have indeed forgotten my oath... Hmmm, and I could've sworn that I was slightly confused at the bit about upholding the Constitution wasn't in the oath while I was at MEPS.... anyway, I digress.

I'm not arguing that Congress can't overturn Supreme Court rulings, and indeed it has, such as with the 16th Amendment. But my argument still stands that the Supreme Court would just overturn it again unless there was a resignation/death of a Justice and the dynamics of the Court changed, or there was a new Constitutional Amendment.

Really, there won't be a solid end to the argument of gun control until a clarifying amendment is ratified by Congress and the States.

/edit:Aha! I've got it! It's not "uphold", it's support and defend. That's what it was. I did remember my oath!