They make *what* for kids!?

[Mavorpen]

Well, if something is not a right, and can be controlled, what is the logical extreme?

Dragons descend from Valhalla shitting asteroids?

Is your argument really a Slippery Slope?

I will when you drop the textbook liberal act.

Which is...?

[Occupied Deutschland]

There you go.

Note the rest of it.

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Yes, and the general guideline is commonly held firearms. Machineguns are not commonly held, therefore the right to keep and carry them, while not nonexistent, is capable of much more stringent regulation.

Although this is a bit circular as the commonly held standard is the result of seventy odd years with the NFA in place, but in any case...

[Hathradic States]

Because it grants more rights, to put it simply. Once you have justified why something is a right, it is damn difficult to say why it isn't.

Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

[Neo Art]

I will admit though, I do get a little bit of delight at watching laypeople "agree" with a supreme court decision (especially when they get caught admitting they don't actually know what's in it). I sometimes have to wonder what's next. Are we going to be graced with their belief concerning CERN's data regarding the Higgs Boson? A bit of "Get out of my way! I got a B- in highschool physics and I'm here to validate your data!"

My poli sci professor was talking earlier about how annoying it is to try and teach poli sci for that very reason.

It REALLY fucking is. I mean, this is a discussion board, so we're supposed to be discussing, but I've always been somewhat bemused by this whole "special snowflake syndrome" thing going on when it comes to law and policy.

I don't understand how people can view themselves as rational, intelligent, reasonable people, and hold an opinion about a case when they have absolutely no idea what it says.

[United Dependencies]

If they were wrong in that decision, How can you be certain they're right in Heller?

Because it grants more rights,

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Prove I don't have the right to own a firearm.

Or try to convince me to repeal said right.

Go back and read the thread.

Yes. You have neither proven I don't have the right, nor convinced me or others that repealing said right would be a good idea.

So...congrats?

[Neo Art]

Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

.....wow.

[Cosara]

Prove I don't have the right to own a firearm.

Or try to convince me to repeal said right.

Go back and read the thread.

You've made no valid arguments.

[Hathradic States]

Because it grants more rights,

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

[Mavorpen]

Previous Supreme Courts managed it just fine.

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

...The fuck?

[Hathradic States]

What is one individual right they overturned after granting?

.....wow.

Seriously, find me one.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

So what would you say if the court suddenly said that personal ownership of guns was not a right?

That the Supreme Court was full of shit. But, since I likely won't have to deal with that for a long time, I see no reason to worry about it now.

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

[Neo Art]

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

Oh, you mean it upheld the right of the railroad to maintain seperate but equal facilities on their railcars?

I see.

[Mavorpen]

Go back and read the thread.

You've made no valid arguments.

Hello. I'm Mavorpen. I would like to inform you that there are more people participating in this thread outside of AA.

So stop dicking around and pretending as though the only person making arguments here is her. Go read the last few pages.

[Neo Art]

.....wow.

Seriously, find me one.

....wow.

[United Dependencies]

Plessy v. Ferguson granted some rights. I guess it was an ok decision too.

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

[Cosara]

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

Did that happen to be the right to have blacks work separately from whites?

[Neo Art]

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It granted businesses rights they previously did not have.

The sad part is, anyone with even a passing familiarity with constitutional law history wouldn't have even asked that question because of the immediately obvious example that springs to the mind of anyone who has ever taken a constitutional law class.

[Hathradic States]

That the Supreme Court was full of shit. But, since I likely won't have to deal with that for a long time, I see no reason to worry about it now.

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

[Hathradic States]

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.

[Mavorpen]

So the supreme court is infallible only when you agree with it?

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

Well, considering we've presented our argument several times without anyone being able to provide substantial arguments against it...

[Fireye]

So what would you say if the court suddenly said that personal ownership of guns was not a right?

Oh come now, the SUPREME COURT spoke in Heller, the most brilliant justices of the age. Including chief justice John Roberts, a foremost scholar of peerless capacity, unassailable, and above your petty questioning.

Until he ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Boy, did they shit a brick then.

Honestly, I thought NFIB V Sebelius was a pretty impressive bit of legal nitpicking on his part. I disagree with it, but I was impressed by it.

...

After my initial "OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" reaction, in all honesty.

[Neo Art]

It upheld certain rights for businesses.

Business's aren't people.

Because it grants more rights, to put it simply. Once you have justified why something is a right, it is damn difficult to say why it isn't.

Word that does not appear in the above: people.

You are really, really, REALLY bad at this.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I never said it was infallible. Merely that its ruling is law. Because of such, it is not up to pro-gun rights folk to prove their point, but to the anti-gun crowd to prove theirs.

Well, considering we've presented our argument several times without anyone being able to provide substantial arguments against it...

Stop lying.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, Plessy v. Ferguson merely stated that separate but equal facilities were acceptable. Which restricted rights.

Oh, you mean it upheld the right of the railroad to maintain seperate but equal facilities on their railcars?

I see.

So, just for clarity's sake, we can't speak of a "Right of access" in this case as being denied because that wasn't the question being decided on? Since there wasn't a right to free equal access to all facilities public and private to base their case from, the question was about the right of businesses to discriminate in who can access their facilities and whether or not that should be the law of the land? Or whether or not such a right was a real thing?