Well the Supreme Court got this one right

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2008 10:19 PM GMT
    We do have the right to own firearms to protect ourselves. The 2nd amendment says so. This is a major coup for the NRA and the Pink Pistols.



  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Jun 28, 2008 10:25 PM GMT
    The only thing that bothers me about this decision is the 5-4 ruling.

    It should have been a clear 9-0.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2008 11:30 PM GMT
    TexanMan82 saidThe only thing that bothers me about this decision is the 5-4 ruling.

    It should have been a clear 9-0.


    Yep.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 3:17 AM GMT
    Well John, on this issue I stray far from my normal liberal views. I TOO AGREE WITH THIS RULING !!!! No government has the right to tell me or you whether or not we can have a gun to protect ourselves and our property. Gun laws in general only work for the normally law abiding citizens anyway, so the criminal who may be intent on commiting a crime while using a gun will still not be deterred from obtaining one, no matter how many gun laws are on the books. To my mind, gun laws in general don't work any better than the anti drug laws that are unnecessarrliy filling our jails up. Well John, we agree again !!!!!!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 3:35 AM GMT
    Well, I sort of agree. I do think the 2nd Amendment means that you can own guns, but I also think striking down the requirement that guns in the home be safety-locked was sort of insane. That's precisely the sort of regulation that the 2nd Amendment ought to permit. And when there's a better Court, it will.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 29, 2008 3:43 AM GMT
    John43620 saidWe do have the right to own firearms to protect ourselves. The 2nd amendment says so. This is a major coup for the NRA and the Pink Pistols.





    A vague approach that I may agree (with the basic premise) and will probably disagree with how it will be interpreted.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jun 29, 2008 4:01 AM GMT
    Oh, joy. I can't wait for the next supreme court sanctioned massacre at a high school, college or workplace by someone 'expressing their 2nd ammendment rights'.

    Technically, it would be impossible to prosecute the killers since that would be an 'infringement'.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:06 AM GMT
    TexanMan82 saidThe only thing that bothers me about this decision is the 5-4 ruling.

    It should have been a clear 9-0.


    Well-said. And one of the reasons I am voting for John McCain. The fact that an Obama appointee would not agree with this opinion and would have been one of the Justices to vote against gun rights is an important reason I will not be voting for him.
  • KansasColt09

    Posts: 179

    Jun 29, 2008 4:19 AM GMT
    I agree with gun rights and the freedom to protect yourself and property, but I do not believe that voting for John McCain would solve ANY of this nations problems. Obviously there are more issues at stake than gun control...maybe civil rights and not getting fired from your job because you're gay? I think that seems like a pretty good topic to vote on, as well as many others including getting this nation out of a destructive war and back to prosperity free of embarrassment in a global economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:23 AM GMT
    While I hate guns and I know that the increased usage will increase the incidents of suicides and "passion/impulse killings", I tend to agree with the ruling as well. It unfortunately puts the spotlight on America's obsession with killing each other.

    icon_idea.gif OK, I just deleted an entire philosophical paragraph regarding the future use of silent laser weapons, but I think I'll wait until I'm not as tipsy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:32 AM GMT
    KansasColt09 saidI agree with gun rights and the freedom to protect yourself and property, but I do not believe that voting for John McCain would solve ANY of this nations problems. Obviously there are more issues at stake than gun control...maybe civil rights and not getting fired from your job because you're gay? I think that seems like a pretty good topic to vote on, as well as many others including getting this nation out of a destructive war and back to prosperity free of embarrassment in a global economy.


    Which is why I specifically said "one" of the reasons. This topic is on gun rights, not any of the other issues you mentioned. There are host of issues that McCain will be better on in my opinion, and I did not list them b/c that is not the topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 4:42 AM GMT
    well, I disagree with this one. I think at the time the second amendment was written, there might have been a need for protection by weapons, not now. We have plenty of people shooting each other with guns easily obtained, I have yet to hear ANY stories of where a person needed a weapon to defend themselves from the government or their representatives trying to hurt/injure/kill them. Don't know too many hunters that need high powered automatic weapons to kill a squirrel. And don't give me the hunting story, I use to hunt and we used a shot gun, registering it would not be an issue to a real hunter! Sorry guys, just look at the news of any metropolitan area... post office killings, school shootings, random snipers, office killings...come on!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 7:54 AM GMT
    The second amendment wasn't meant for hunting. It was meant for keeping our elected d-bags in Washington from running our country into the ground.

    Don't get me started on the school shootings. Xbox babysitting it how we arrived at that situation.

    Parenting on auto-pilot is the largest single contributor to the social welfare parasite load that is draining the coffers of our government and creating the culture of “it’s not my fault.”

    Watch Idiocracy!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 8:04 AM GMT
    Colbert_Nation saidOh, joy. I can't wait for the next supreme court sanctioned massacre at a high school, college or workplace by someone 'expressing their 2nd ammendment rights'.


    Wow.. just wow.

    Colbert_Nation said
    Technically, it would be impossible to prosecute the killers since that would be an 'infringement'.


    Wrong. I feel compelled to explain myself but if you fail to see the difference between the right to possess an object and being held responsible for your actions: anything I say will be futile.

    I wonder if personal responsibility will ever come into fashion again... haha, of course not!

    McDonalds made my older brother fat and the gun killed my younger. OohOoh! The TV made me nearsighted, no wait it was Doctor Who, Doctor Who did it! Him and his insipid space hookers.. icon_mad.gif
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jun 29, 2008 1:04 PM GMT

    Colbert_Nation said
    Technically, it would be impossible to prosecute the killers since that would be an 'infringement'.


    Wrong. I feel compelled to explain myself but if you fail to see the difference between the right to possess an object and being held responsible for your actions: anything I say will be futile.

    I wonder if personal responsibility will ever come into fashion again... haha, of course not!

    McDonalds made my older brother fat and the gun killed my younger. OohOoh! The TV made me nearsighted, no wait it was Doctor Who, Doctor Who did it! Him and his insipid space hookers.. icon_mad.gif[/quote]

    I shall explain. Handguns and military-style weapons have one inherent purpose -- to kill human beings. You can use them for other purposes, but that's not really what they're intended for. You can kill a person with a knife or baseball bat, but that is a misuse of objects that have other purposes. Now, does it make a lot of sense to have these weapons widely and freely available, but yet NOT allow them to be used for their intended purpose? Are there any other objects or materials legal to own but NOT legal to use?

    Since gun ownership is now an individual 'right' (and as such cannot be infringed) as opposed to a 'priviledge' like driving a car which can, and is, heavily regulated, then there's no legal basis for gun laws or restrictions of any sort whether it's age limits, training requirements, type of firearm, size of magazine, type of ammunition (cop-killer bullets), etc. Guns are now in the same catagory as free speech or freedom of religion.

    Communities through the country trying to fight gun violence have basically been told that there's nothing they can do exept pick up the pieces after the fact and that, if anything, conditions are about to get a lot worse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:06 PM GMT
    I agree that we have a right to bear arms, I just don't think that owning them should be as easy as walking up to to a vending machine. At my last job I had a gun counter in my store. While the vast majority of my customers were sane law abiding folks, there were more than a few nut jobs. I think that everyone should be required to pass a firearms safety course and have to provide proof of that before purchasing any firearm whether it be handgun or long gun. I don't think waiting periods or NICS checks are unreasonable either. We had an incident in my store where one of my employees called in a NICS check on a long gun purchase and it turned out the guy had a warrant out and before we knew it we had cops in our store to take him away. If the NRA had its way, he would have been able to walk out of my store and do whatever the hell he wanted with that gun. My objection to the NRA is that they want all the rights and none of the responsibilities of gun ownership. I really don't think it's in the nation's best interest to be required to hand over a gun and ammo to any psycho that walks through the door with out benefit of background check. I also don't buy their argument that everyone will be perfectly safe from the psycho I just sold a 10 gauge to so long as they all have a guns strapped to their hips.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:18 PM GMT
    Buckwheet said I wonder if personal responsibility will ever come into fashion again... haha, of course not!


    This is the kind of statement that always makes me see red.

    Personal responsibility? What about the responsibility that gun dealers have to see that their products don't wind up in the hands of criminals?

    Don't lecture anyone about "personal responsibility". It isn't a good argument for the gun lobby. Or for the rest of the right-wing agenda, for that matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:30 PM GMT
    eb925guy saidwell, I disagree with this one. I think at the time the second amendment was written, there might have been a need for protection by weapons, not now. We have plenty of people shooting each other with guns easily obtained, I have yet to hear ANY stories of where a person needed a weapon to defend themselves from the government or their representatives trying to hurt/injure/kill them. Don't know too many hunters that need high powered automatic weapons to kill a squirrel. And don't give me the hunting story, I use to hunt and we used a shot gun, registering it would not be an issue to a real hunter! Sorry guys, just look at the news of any metropolitan area... post office killings, school shootings, random snipers, office killings...come on!


    That is what the amendment process is for. If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, you repeal it by amendment. You don't get to just say, "Well, we don't have a need for it anymore, in my opinion, so *poof*, it's not there anymore!" icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:31 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation saidOh, joy. I can't wait for the next supreme court sanctioned massacre at a high school, college or workplace by someone 'expressing their 2nd ammendment rights'.

    Technically, it would be impossible to prosecute the killers since that would be an 'infringement'.


    Really??? I didn't realize this ruling just made murder legal. Wow, we gotta do something about that! [/sarcasm]

    I do hope you're being a tad bit facetious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:43 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation said

    Since gun ownership is now an individual 'right' (and as such cannot be infringed) as opposed to a 'priviledge' like driving a car which can, and is, heavily regulated, then there's no legal basis for gun laws or restrictions of any sort whether it's age limits, training requirements, type of firearm, size of magazine, type of ammunition (cop-killer bullets), etc. Guns are now in the same catagory as free speech or freedom of religion.

    Communities through the country trying to fight gun violence have basically been told that there's nothing they can do exept pick up the pieces after the fact and that, if anything, conditions are about to get a lot worse.


    What?! Did you even read the opinion? This entire rambling about not being able to impose regulations is completely and utterly false. Are you getting your interpretation of the opinion from the DailyKos or something?! Read the actual opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:45 PM GMT
    RBY71 saidI agree that we have a right to bear arms, I just don't think that owning them should be as easy as walking up to to a vending machine. At my last job I had a gun counter in my store. While the vast majority of my customers were sane law abiding folks, there were more than a few nut jobs. I think that everyone should be required to pass a firearms safety course and have to provide proof of that before purchasing any firearm whether it be handgun or long gun. I don't think waiting periods or NICS checks are unreasonable either. We had an incident in my store where one of my employees called in a NICS check on a long gun purchase and it turned out the guy had a warrant out and before we knew it we had cops in our store to take him away. If the NRA had its way, he would have been able to walk out of my store and do whatever the hell he wanted with that gun. My objection to the NRA is that they want all the rights and none of the responsibilities of gun ownership. I really don't think it's in the nation's best interest to be required to hand over a gun and ammo to any psycho that walks through the door with out benefit of background check. I also don't buy their argument that everyone will be perfectly safe from the psycho I just sold a 10 gauge to so long as they all have a guns strapped to their hips.


    And the Supreme Court opinion changes none of these regulations or laws...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 1:58 PM GMT
    eb925guy saidI have yet to hear ANY stories of where a person needed a weapon to defend themselves from the government or their representatives trying to hurt/injure/kill them.

    Well maybe that's the problem. You've never seen government tyranny and you're willing to wait until it's here before deciding it might be a good idea to be armed, but of course by then it's too late.

    I, on the other hand, have witnessed a small glimpse of a government that feels it's not accountable to the people who elected them. In the summer of 2001, the Tennessee legislature tried to pass an income tax and were determined to do it, citizens opinions be damned.

    The acrimonious debate grew to a head. Citizens in Nashville got word of what day the vote would take place. The capitol police ringed the capitol side by side with batons in hand, blocking access by the public to a public building. This only inflamed the situation. (See the photos below, taken in Nashville, TN, July 2001). It's shocking that this is a scene that happened anywhere in America.

    Governments do turn on their own citizens. When they do, it really helps the government if the citizens are unarmed. In the 20th century, 167 million people were killed by their own government in Russia, China, Pakistan, Cambodia, and over a dozen other countries around the world. If you can't envision that happening in America, you can thank our tradition of an armed citizenry.

    herecomedetroopers.jpg


    riotpolice-5-22.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 2:10 PM GMT
    RBY71 saidI agree that we have a right to bear arms, I just don't think that owning them should be as easy as walking up to to a vending machine. At my last job I had a gun counter in my store. While the vast majority of my customers were sane law abiding folks, there were more than a few nut jobs. I think that everyone should be required to pass a firearms safety course and have to provide proof of that before purchasing any firearm whether it be handgun or long gun. I don't think waiting periods or NICS checks are unreasonable either. We had an incident in my store where one of my employees called in a NICS check on a long gun purchase and it turned out the guy had a warrant out and before we knew it we had cops in our store to take him away. If the NRA had its way, he would have been able to walk out of my store and do whatever the hell he wanted with that gun. My objection to the NRA is that they want all the rights and none of the responsibilities of gun ownership. I really don't think it's in the nation's best interest to be required to hand over a gun and ammo to any psycho that walks through the door with out benefit of background check. I also don't buy their argument that everyone will be perfectly safe from the psycho I just sold a 10 gauge to so long as they all have a guns strapped to their hips.


    stonecoldfoxboy saidAnd the Supreme Court opinion changes none of these regulations or laws...


    Where in my post did I say that it did and where did I say I disagreed with the ruling?
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jun 29, 2008 2:18 PM GMT
    The fact that something is recognized legally as a right and not a privilege in no way prevents it from being regulated and denied to certain individuals. We have a right to vote, but that comes with an age restriction, the requirement that you have not been convicted of any felonies, etc. We have a right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for certain things you say, such as making threats of violence or lying in court. We have a right to freedom of religion, but if you decide to reenact ancient practices of human sacrifice you'll still be brought up on murder charges. This extends to rights not explicitly recognized within the test of the constitution as well--there are legal precedents on the right to privacy (and on which Roe v Wade is based), yet most often those privacy rights are predicated on a reasonable assumption of privacy: someone else can testify that (s)he heard you say something, or saw you do something.

    Honestly, the thought that something is given a legal status of a right as opposed to a privilege somehow makes it untouchable as far as regulations go is just absurd.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2008 2:26 PM GMT
    Colbert_Nation said
    Guns are now in the same catagory as free speech or freedom of religion.

    And even free speech and religion are subject to reasonable regulation. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't sacrifice animals in the public park. I think you know how silly your hyperbole is, but this kind of alarmist rhetoric seems to have replaced reasoned dialog for many people in America today.

    As stonecoldfoxboy said, it's also obvious you've not read the decision, because your analysis of it, that states can no longer regulate guns, is completely dead wrong. A large part of the opinion expounded on the reasonable regulations states can still enact. Even the ACLU released a statement affirming that saying, "The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation."