In the recent 5-4 Supreme Court vote on upholding 2nd Amendment rights?

Question

What were the reasons of the 4 who voted against the 2nd Amendment. Just why did they vote against it? What thought process was going on there?

Answer 1

thought process in DC are you kidding? I guess they're just aprt of the anti 2nd ammendment crowd

Answer 2

Matter of literal interpretation v creating rights.

The 2nd ammendment starts out: "A well regulated Militia ..."

4 interpreted this as state militia or national guard.  5 interpreted this as individuals.  

The irony is that the judges placed on the bench to follow the literal words of the constitution and not make any up, are the ones that made this stuff up.

Answer 3

Those who were against the majority decision believed that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the right of people to keep guns in order to join a militia. Since there is a militia, the National Guard, then your absolute right to own a gun is

not a Constitutional guarantee. There are limits to a person owning a gun.

1. A felon, convicted person who has been in jail cannot own

     a gun.

2. People under 18 MAY ,but not absolutely, be denied the

      right to own a handgun.

The idea that one has an absolute right to own a gun can be

compared to 1's right to own a slave, in 1787 one could own

a slave but slavery was abolished because attitudes change.

In 1787 with Indian attacks one should have owned a firearm

but now in certain instances the right to own a weapon is not

as clear as it once was. Why do people need semi

automatics with bullet proof vest piercing bullets? This was

the logic of the 4. Remember please Washington DC is a Federal District not a state so a State's or City gun ban is a different question and maybe a different answer.

                       Hope that helps.

                         Packers.

Answer 4

If you can't understand the actual decision and dissents, you can read the wikipedia article.  It explains it quite nicely.

Answer 5

They firmly believe that only the criminal should be armed, and the criminal must at all costs be protected from us armed victims.. After all we have all these police officers that are to serve and protect,,,they will be happy to serve you if you survive the criminal act and fill out the paper work as a victim,,,I for one will be armed and protecting both myself and my family I don't believe I must first be a victim I must be responsible for my own actions..............

Answer 6

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...