2nd Amendment ruling-Individual right. Gun owners win!

[bobotech]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Now I don't have to worry so damned much about the upcoming elections!

[themadscientist]

shoot em if ya got em!

[Hijacker]

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm happy to see the result of this ruling, although I don't much like the strictly partisan 5-4 decision. It shows that the Supreme Court has become polarized.

[DeXteR]

Wow... 5-4? That's scary.

Maybe it's time for me to join the NRA and start sending them some money.

On the other hand, I don't have to be too worried about stock-piling arms and ammo anymore.

[AZhitman]

I'm happy to see the result of this ruling, although I don't much like the strictly partisan 5-4 decision. It shows that the Supreme Court has become polarized.

OR, it could show that the Left is considerably illogical and irrational, toeing the lefty party line despite the facts.

None of the 4 will join the 5, because that would admit the 5 were right all along. Can't have that.

[AZhitman]

Stevens' dissent is so hypocritical, it's laughable...

"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, theFramers made a choice to limit the tools available toelected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,"

Yep. Imagine that.

The Framers of the Constitution, even then, knew that government could potentially get too big for its britches.

Even the language he uses, and his smartass tone, disgusts me. Read it again....

BTW, might be moving this one to Politics - Feel free to link to it in "Guns" or Gen Chat.

[HashiriyaS14]

OR, it could show that the Left is considerably illogical and irrational, toeing the lefty party line despite the facts.

Actually yeah, that is precisely what I was implying.

In this case, I believe that the lefter-leaning justices allowed their partisan affiliations to get in the way of interpreting the constitution rationally.

So yes, exactly, yep, fo' sho'.

And I'm generally a fan of Stevens, but in this case I definitely disagree.

[StricNyne]

i think i am gunna go shoot something right now to celebreate !

[Cold_Zero]

Stevens' dissent is so hypocritical, it's laughable...

"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, theFramers made a choice to limit the tools available toelected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,"

Yep. Imagine that.

The Framers of the Constitution, even then, knew that government could potentially get too big for its britches.

Even the language he uses, and his smartass tone, disgusts me. Read it again....

BTW, might be moving this one to Politics - Feel free to link to it in "Guns" or Gen Chat.

Justice Stevens pretty much chastized the Court from the bench. He must have been pissed. What is ironic is that Justice Stevens claimed the court overstepped its bounds, yet during other cases I am sure he didnt think the Court may/did overstep its bounds.

[Repo Man]

2nd Amendment ruling-Individual right. Gun owners win!

About time they got something right.

[OriginalWheelman]

Yeah a bunch of framers, a good chunk of whom took their guns and went to fight the world's largest army.

[Mr1der]

About time they got something right.

amen brother.

I wish ammo prices would drop now

I wanna chew up some .45 and 12 ga whenever I get the safety fixed on the Mossberg...

[datsun2401972]

shoot em if ya got em!

http://www.puertorico-herald.o....html

Number one reason not to shoot in the air like these guys...what a bunch of ****ing idiots.

Just search "girl stray bullet". The specific one I recall was a girl standing on the corner of a street getting caught by a stray bullet(killed). Can't remember where it happened though, figured that link would be obvious enough.

And thank God I can keep my right to bear arms. Hell, I wouldn't mind if we took it back to the old west and carried guns UNconcealed.

[telcoman]

AZhitman

Not everyone is happy with this decision

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...mc=th

The New York Times said it better than I.

EditorialLock and Load comments (40) E-MailPrint Save ShareDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink Published: June 27, 2008Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.

Skip to next paragraph The Board BlogAdditional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » RelatedLandmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns (June 27, 2008) Text of the Decision (pdf)Readers' CommentsShare your thoughts on this editorial.Post a Comment »Read All Comments (40) »In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.

This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.

There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.

On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.

Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.

Overturning that law, the court’s 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established “a new constitutional right” that creates a “dramatic upheaval in the law.”

Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.

In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.

The gun lobby will now trumpet this ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions, anywhere, at all times. That must not happen. And today’s decision still provides strong basis for saying it should not.

If the ruling is held to apply to the states, and not just to the District of Columbia — which is not certain — there will still be considerable dispute about what it means for other less-sweeping gun laws. Judges may end up deciding these on a law-by-law basis.

Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns — a major source of guns used in crimes — are all upheld.

The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.

That last part is the final indignity of the decision: when the justices go to work at the Supreme Court, guns will still be banned. When most Americans show up at their own jobs, they will not have that protection.

This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.

Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.

Pity the poor G owner involved in a minor fender bender when a gun carrying $sshole in a huge Hummer or some other POS pulls out a gun and shoots. I'll never understand the logic in this decision?

Telcoman

[mtcookson]

Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.

Facts state otherwise.

Quote »even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.”[/quote]Whoever wrote this is a complete idiot... if the people don't have arms, how would they even be able to create a militia in the first place. What they seem to not like to say is that the militia is allowed to keep the government in check. Take the guns away and there will be no militia to keep it in check. Epic Fail.

They aren't reading it correctly apparently...

Quote »A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]I don't understand why that is so hard to understand... it says a militia is needed for the security of a free State then they go on to say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... they don't say members of a militia, they say PEOPLE. It seriously can't be that hard to understand.

Quote »This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country.[/quote]Again, facts state otherwise.

Quote »It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.[/quote]They aren't gun rights, they're Constitutional Rights. We are sending a message to the world that we will not have our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS taken away. Over a human life?? Whomever wrote this has their head so far up their *** that the methane must be giving them hallucinations... yet again, facts state otherwise. Taking away guns from the law abiding does not take them away from the non-law abiding... crimes will still happen.

Quote »There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns.[/quote]Awesome, only another 50 million or so and every person could have one ensuring criminals would not harm anyone fearing they might get shot.

Quote »The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.[/quote]If every person in those class rooms had a gun how many would be dead? Maybe 2... after the first innocent gets shot everyone else would probably unload on the criminal. If they catch him before the act then only one... the criminal.

Quote »On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.[/quote]Like above, what if they were all equipped?

Quote »The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.[/quote]Wait... DC has the highest crime rate... and one of the strictest gun laws... do these monkeys have no brain to see the correlation? I absolutely can not wait to see the crime rate drop in DC because of this ruling. It will happen... but sadly at the same time I know these brainless monkeys will deny the ruling had anything to do with it. I can see it now... the headlines will state:

"DC crime rate at an all time low, believed to be due to global warming. Scientists say criminals less likely to act during such high temperatures."

Quote »Overturning that law, the court’s 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.[/quote]Like I said above, you can't have a militia if you have no guns. Take all of the weapons away from the military and see what happens if you don't believe me.

Quote »Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns — a major source of guns used in crimes — are all upheld.[/quote]A background check is ok with me but limiting bulk sales of handguns? I think not... I'm going to be in the gun business and need to buy bulk to make money. Maybe a limitation against an individual but if they try to do an all out ban on bulk handgun sales they can go **** themselves.

Quote »The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.[/quote]Allowing more senseless killings by criminals.

Quote »This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.

Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.[/quote]There's nothing "far right" about it... it was simply a ruling ensuring AMERICANS got to keep their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Quote »Pity the poor G owner involved in a minor fender bender when a gun carrying $sshole in a huge Hummer or some other POS pulls out a gun and shoots. I'll never understand the logic in this decision?[/quote]Hopefully now you'll understand it a bit better.

[mtcookson]

http://www.puertorico-herald.o....html

Number one reason not to shoot in the air like these guys...what a bunch of ****ing idiots.

Shooting straight up in the air is harmless... now if they're shooting at an elevated angle that is dangerous. Shooting straight up though, the bullet will reach its maximum height, stop, then start falling and will reach a low terminal velocity that simply won't allow the bullet to kill a person. It may leave a bruise but it simply wouldn't be able to kill as its not traveling fast enough. Now, at an elevated angle it will still have some power behind it and that can kill a person.

[AZhitman]

telco speaks out of both side of his mouth.

OK, so the gov't shouldn't limit offensive material in the media, or a woman's right to kill her baby, or the right of gays to marry... but it should be allowed to make a personal possession (firearm) illegal?

You missed the memos:

Guns don't kill people, people do.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Interestingly, I reside in a state with very lax gun laws and a very concentrated population... It's also a very "polite" society, as people around here are free to carry in plain sight.

Maybe not everyone is happy with the Court's decision, but that doesn't mean they're not Socialist freedom thieves.

Justice Stevens' dissent was pathetic, and it's very clear when you read it.

[AZhitman]

Oh, and the writer of that article is not a very bright advocate... Lots of emotional diatribe, appealing to the left-brained hand-wringer.

Fact is, trying to make this an "election" issue is retarded.

Are you convinced that Obamallama would have the authority to change this? We've already established that the Dem Justices voted along party lines - NOT as their interpretation of the Constitution would have led them to vote...

This was a simpler decision to make than R v W, yet there's a fringe minority freaking out about it.

Amazing.

[wingFeather]

Guns will be outlawed in Obamerica. Just wait! It'll be a repeat of the Clinton 90's all over again. More gun laws, less freedom.

[Repo Man]

Man, I would respond to this, but cookson and teh Hitman have already gotten it dead-nuts on. So many times in history has this happened where we have gained freedoms related to firearms and the exact OPPOSITE of the liberal prediction has occurred. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

I cannot understand why any law-abiding citizen of the United States would be upset to know that one of their freedoms guaranteed to them by the Constitution has been upheld by the highest Court in the land. This applies to YOU just as much as it applies to me.

And as long as we're quoting other sources, I think Tom DeLay did a pretty good job of summing it up:

Finally – a strict constructionist ruling from the Supreme Court. Today is a good day and conservatives across the country, especially the legal scholars, need to praise the Court and encourage more rulings on these grounds.

Now, naturally, my first reaction was to hear what the liberals had to say….that’s the political energy that fuels me. So I listened to Dianne Feinstein’s comments, and Chicago mayor Richard Daley’s comments and others and realized that they have no logical argument…just the propagation of fear. They fear random gunfights and Wild West shoot outs, meanwhile they have their security teams carrying firearms, and they don’t live in the neighborhoods where you really have to worry about such things. But the beauty of living in a society where gun ownership is a fundamental right is just that – you should be afraid that everyone has the ability to harm you, and you should feel protected by arming yourself.

And like all of Barack Obama’s statements, this one appeals to your emotion, but makes no political sense and in no way identifies his position on major public policy. So does he agree with the Supreme Court? It’s either a fundamental right to self defense or it’s one the government can snatch away whenever a new sheriff comes to town. What do you believe, Senator?

A great book is John Lott’s More Guns Less Crime. He digs into the real statistics and the psychological profiles of criminals who prey on those who are the least likely to defend themselves. It’s disgusting, but what’s even worse is a government that forces you to rely on their public services – meaning the cops who take 30 minutes to show up, if at all – as your first line of defense.

Yes, this is frightening – for criminals who should fear breaking into a little old lady’s house who just may have a loaded gun in her nightstand. This is a major victory but it’s not the end…there are many more fights and we can’t trust liberal politicians who are in charge of turning this ruling into sound law to do an about face just because the Supreme Court says so. Now I’m going to start working on garnering support for concealed carry in D.C…

[HashiriyaS14]

I completely agree with Repo here.

Anyone who would be excited about, for instance, the Supreme Court upholding freedom of religion should also be excited about the Supreme Court upholding the right to own a firearm.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to support. If you don't like part of the constitution, you probably don't live in the right country.

[telcoman]

Are there two different United States that we live in?

It sure seems that way to me?

It seems to me that there is a substantial change in attitudes once you are west of the Delaware River until one reaches the California border?

http://www.1010wins.com/Newark...95991

More gun violence

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

The news stories of someone actually protecting themselves by using a legal gun seem to be far and few between ?

Perhaps a separate thread is needed to track news stories on gun violence and stories where legal ownership of a gun actually prevented criminal activity?

Telcoman


Modified by telcoman at 2:42 PM 6/27/2008

[mtcookson]

That first link just more proof that gun restrictions do not work (and in turn makes it have nothing to do with this thread). In New Jersey, you can't get a permit for a handgun until you are 21... she was 18 and had a handgun.

Just for the heck of it though, say there were no guns... it would then be likely that someone there that night would have died from a stabbing instead.

As far as the gang one, they probably all had illegal guns making it yet another moot point for this thread.

Quote »The news stories of someone actually protecting themselves by using a legal gun seem to be far and few between ?

Perhaps a separate thread is needed to track news stories on gun violence and stories where legal ownership of a gun actually prevented criminal activity?[/quote]They are out there... but the reason you probably don't often see them is because major media is mostly liberal meaning they would never air something like that in the first place.

The next reason is because of stupid laws like what DC had, making it difficult for the law abiding to have weapons to protect themselves but doing nothing to the actual criminals. Heck, it wasn't until recently that us Kansans were finally allowed to conceal a weapon. It shouldn't be long before the crime rate in Wichita drops drastically. Heck, you can already see a decent drop at most points in time and that's with minimal concealed carry licenses (right over 13,000 have been issued for the entire state since they were allowed in July of '06... a point of interest, the age group with the highest number of applications is men and women (separately) between 50 to 60 years of age, next was men ages 60-70 and women ages 40-50, men 40-50 women 60-70. Men 20-30 was actually less than men 70-80. When I mean separately above, its the number men and the number of women, the number of women getting them is significantly less in each age group but their high points are above.)

Another reason is because most news agencies don't like reporting good news, you should know that.

Finally... there actually is no reason to keep track of them because the crime rates in places that are allowed to have guns have been proven to be lower. Just watch, when they're allowed to have guns in DC again the crime rate WILL drop.

[AZhitman]

Anyone who would be excited about, for instance, the Supreme Court upholding freedom of religion should also be excited about the Supreme Court upholding the right to own a firearm.

You can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution you want to support. If you don't like part of the constitution, you probably don't live in the right country.

Hash, if you were a woman, I'd... well, never mind.

Well-said, Sir. Sometimes you make my points much more eloquently than I could.

[AZhitman]

Are there two different United States that we live in?

It sure seems that way to me?

It seems to me that there is a substantial change in attitudes once you are west of the Delaware River until one reaches the California border?

http://www.1010wins.com/Newark...95991

More gun violence

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne...story

The news stories of someone actually protecting themselves by using a legal gun seem to be far and few between ?

Perhaps a separate thread is needed to track news stories on gun violence and stories where legal ownership of a gun actually prevented criminal activity?

Telcoman

The density of the word "seems" and the prevalence of question marks in that posts tells me you're simply not sure what you believe... And Hash nailed it - No more "picking and choosing" for the libbies.

The Constitution is the single most brilliantly-drafted document in modern history... The more you study it, the more amazed you'll be by the foresight and endurance of its wording.

[HashiriyaS14]

And Hash nailed it - No more "picking and choosing" for ANYONE.

Edited for accuracy!



The right can't reasonably go on advocating personal firearms rights if they want to strike down so many other individual liberties either. Goes both ways, but yes, in that particular post, I was aiming my foot at the left's a$$.

[sensibleS13driver]

Telcoman, you are digging a hole. This case was blatantly obvious which makes the unfortunate 4 look especially asinine.

Though it was hardly more clear cut than the Gitmo ruling which drew the same partisan line. There are a few people in this thread who should be explaining themselves as to that quick change of heart.

[AZhitman]

Telcoman, you are digging a hole. This case was blatantly obvious which makes the unfortunate 4 look especially asinine.

Though it was hardly more clear cut than the Gitmo ruling which drew the same partisan line. There are a few people in this thread who should be explaining themselves as to that quick change of heart.

Let me be the first to say, the attitude of the "right" on this matter is NOT an "I told you so", but more of a, "See what we can accomplish when we play fair and ignore politics?"

If this case doesn't make the TRUE libs (those who ignore reality and toe the party line based on emotion not logic) wake up and see what their partisanship has done, nothing will.

And trust me, those of us on the right have had a few brutal wake-up calls as well. It sucks, but it washes off the hypocrisy and makes us more critical thinkers.

[AZhitman]

The right can't reasonably go on advocating personal firearms rights if they want to strike down so many other individual liberties either.

Very, very true.

Please remind me of that next time I say something neo-connish.