Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 3 months, 1 week ago in NewsThe Supreme Court said on Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 397
-
-
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 1 week ago
I'm not surprised. You can thank the conservatives recently put on the Court for this one :)
"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority 'would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.'"
"He said such evidence 'is nowhere to be found.'"
There's no right to privacy either, but somehow the Constitution was interpreted as such in Roe v Wade.
Thank goodness law-abiding citizens had their right to bear arms and protect themselves in the privacy of their own homes affirmed by this decision.
Reply-
0%
Will13133 months, 1 week ago
no right to privacy either
---
maybe not but there IS against unreasonable search and seizure..
Reply-
0%
capecoralM3 months, 1 week ago
"The Supreme Court's ruling that Americans have a right to own guns" ???? What. The Supreme court ruled this? The scary part is that 4 justices ruled that the 2nd amendment was unconstitutional!!!!There is no doubt now that at least 4 on the court believe the Supreme Courts role is to legislate from the bench.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
why?
i'm not saying that i disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amndmt, but the fact of the second amdmts ambiguity is undeniable. it says nothing of handguns and does not specify what 'arms' are. a sword is 'arms' and DC residents still have the right to own them. The focus of the second amndmnt is the right to form militias in a time when there was no standing military. The objective and in fact meaning of the few sentences that are written are definately subjective.
Also there is another aspect to this case at it relates to DC. During the time of the BoR there were no permanant, DC inhabitants and the district was not covered by the constitution the same way other locations were... this has always been the excuse for their lacking federal represenation. Case law could be used to support this also being a reason for the second amendment not extending to them.
SImply pointing out that someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are anti-constitutionalist.
Reply-
-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
no, i didn't say that at all. reread instead of jumping to conclusions. I am saying that residents of DC are not covered under the consitution the same way citizens of the states are. I am not saying that it should be that way, or that i bleieve it to be that way, i am saying that according to case law it IS that way. Why are they are not permitted senators? case in point.
Reply-
-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
aside from the current Rep. talking points now which are jsut ways of talking around giving DC representatives since their reps would almost definately be Democrats, the civics explanation is that DC was a district and not a state for a reason. it was to be isolated from state government and run seperately since, at the time of its founding, it had virtually no permanent residents, and was it was desired for it to stay that way. the reps that worked there were there part of the year but citizens of their respective states. they were not to be affected by a seperate govt for which they had no say.
the bill of rights (and truthfully the constitution) was ratified by the states and awards rights to the STATES and states inhabitants... it does not specifically award those same rights to member of DISTRICTS, DC being its own special entity, for the proteciton of the capitol.
is this ******? of course it is. but this is the civic argument that has been made to me.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
'm not saying that i disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amndmt, but the fact of the second amdmts ambiguity is undeniable.>>>>
That's why in order to understand the Constitution, Justices are charged with studying the founders...their papers and their actions. It's easy enough to find numerous quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc etc etc on this subject. Their intent was for citizens to have the right of arms. I completely disagree with those who dissented. They are wrong, & didn't do their homework. Just as I disagree with them, I disagreed with conservative judges who approved faith based money through the 'back door,' in disrespect for the intention of the founders. (easy enough to look up). I also disagree with the conservative judges who interfered with Florida counting their votes in the 2000 elections.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
you disgree with their interpretation of the law or in their interpretation of its applcation. thats fine.
the point is that capecoral had accused the dissenters of legislating from the bench.
perhaps they think that the term 'arms' does not extend to hand guns... it certainly doesn't extend to 'nuclear arms' so a line is drawn somewhere, maybe they draw the line shorter than you do. maybe its something totally different, i don't know... but there is definate grounds for dissent. if this were a cut and dry situation they wouldnt have avoided it for 80 years.
Reply-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
Actually, from what I've been able to find (I can always count on our dysfunctional media NOT to be thorough), the dissenting opinion was more about the 'what ifs' than Constitutional intent.
You know, what if every felon challenges not having the right, etc etc etc, when in fact, I think Scalia was more than clear in the decision. Those words are what will stand up to the scrutiny of any judge hearing a case from someone denied gun ownership.
It was stated clearly that the right is NOT unlimited. The right does NOT include concealed weapons. The language is clear that the justices meant 'in the home.' They made it clear in the language of the opinion that it does NOT sweep aside current prohibitions (mentally ill, felons, etc).
DC went too far. They denied EVERYONE the right to own a gun. They were wrong. It was unconstitutional, and now that is fixed.
Reply-
-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
i agree people are making more of it. i agree that there is not much if anything fundamentally wrong with the descision. i dont know if you agree however with the earlier comment that the dissenters are legislating from the bench. that was my original problem in th thread.
however it does not say that DC went to far in outlawing guns, as i understand it. it says that they went too far in outlawing HAND guns. splitting hairs? maybe. but a distinction i think because it highlights the fact that there are different degrees of 'arms' and that the 2nd amd. does not allow all 'arms' just the 'arms' that our judicial branch sees appropriate. there are certainly 'arms' that an overwhelming majority of americans think are innaporpriate for private ownership. nuclear arms, rocket-launchers, grenade-launchers, flame throwers, black-rhino bullets, etc.
Reply-
0%
jordan113 months, 1 week ago
I don't know if 'hand guns' is splitting hairs or not. The court heard a case specific to hand guns. One man wanted the right to have a hand gun, legally, in his home. It appears the court stayed true to the case, & didn't embellish. Perhaps the rest of it is to be decided another day, in another case.
Reply -
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
"Black Rhino" ammunition?
Dude this was a marketing gimmick. There is NO fragmentation ammo that can defeat soft body armor.
The point of fragmentation ammo is that it won't ricochet. Go though walls, or ANY hard surface or over penetrate.
It's the exact opposite of armor piercing ammo.
However any center fire rifle round WILL defeat ANY soft body armor.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
You might be right. the only gun i own is a BB gun and i dont pretend to know a lot about the issues relating to arms.
All i know of black rhinos is from a neighbor of mine who was a secret service agent who had them in his drawers in the kitchen when i went to get a pen. I was told that he used them becaue they are armor piercing and he always carried guns in case of intruders and had free rounds in all available drawers from some strange reasons he attributed to his job. he told me they were not legal.
i admit that my own knowledge of them is limited to that.
Reply
-
-
0%
mompro3 months, 1 week ago
I'm so glad the supreme court is still tied up in this issue. Have we nothing else before the court. Guns are here to stay. Love it, hate it, take your pick. Those who fit the prohibition criteria can get them and have them. It's an embarassing statistic worldwide how many people die in this nation due to gun violence. I don't know who's damn fault it is, but while we're policing human rights around this world, I sure hope someone is still trying to figure out why we suck at getting guns and their epidemic figured out right here at gold old home. Talk about beating a dead horse. Then maybe we can figure out what an equal public education is after that. Can they bring that before the supreme court please. Maybe knowledge will lower the need for a gun. Who knows. I'm a dreamer.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
.Santa
"it says nothing of handguns and does not specify what 'arms' are. a sword is 'arms' and DC residents still have the right to own them."
The prefatory clause and the main clause makes it clear that they are talking about weapons that are in common use in the military.
This was the base of the 1934 Miller case, in that the 2nd Amendment does not protect sawed off shotguns as (in 1934) sawed off shotguns were not used by our military.
Oddly enough this may change as military shotguns are being mated to the M4 carbine or M16 rifle system, generally known as a "Master key" rifle/shotgun combo. The 12 gauge shotgun has a 10 in barrel, shorter than most sawed off shotguns.
http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh17-e.htm
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
nuclear war heads are used by our military? tanks are used by our military? surely they are 'arms', are they not?
land mines were used by our military in the revolution, should i be able to plant land mines in my house? Does the supreme court uphold that right in the cases you site?
and the 2nd amendment doesnt say military it says 'militia'. there is a difference. there was to be no standing military at the time of its authorship and a militia is a group of civilians who arm themselves to protect their community from outside forces.
I think there are gaping holes in your logic. and i would argue that even antonin scalia would agree with me.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
Santa:
I'm armed against outside sources like gangs, armed robbers, drug users who prefer to steal instead of work to support their habits, home invaders, rapists, child molesters...
I'll have no problem laying them in their grave should they threaten me or my family.
Gun control is knowing how and when to use them and who to use them on and why!!!
Now if you choose not to defend your family in that way it is your choice. Just don't make me a criminal, because you don't think people should be able to defend themselves with a deadly weapon.
I can and do handle my weapons quite well.
I'm not afraid to say we should go back to the days of wearing our sidearms.
In AZ when I lived there, I always had my .357's in my gunbelt. And I wore them wearever I went.
Much less crime there. Criminals know they will get shot and are less likely to break into homes or businesses when there are armed people there.
Not much profit in dying. LOL
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
thats your choice. fine.
but i think the reason that Arizona has less crime than where you are comparing it to probably has more to do with other social institutions than it does guns.
the gun you are most likely to be shot by is your own afterall. thats an statistical fact. there is no evidence that guns reduce crime, injury, or accidents, only evidence to the opposite. that doesnt mean we should get rid of them, its just about time we start looking at the issue with eyes towards reality and not a fantasy world of cowboys and indians.
and if crime is so low in arizona than the argument can be made that you need your gun LESS and 'users who prefer to steal' are not threatening your family but stealing insured merchandise, but thats neither here nor there.
i think that you are entitled to defend you and yours with force, however most locations have police departments that are employed to do just that, so an argument would have to be made as to why you are more qualified then they.
Reply
-
-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
nuclear war heads are used by our military? tanks are used by our military? surely they are 'arms', are they not?
"they are talking about weapons that are in common use in the military."
Santa, weapons that are in COMMON use, as in the AVRAGE GRUNT, AS IN INFANTRY.
The AVERAGE soldier does not use NUKES!
tanks are used by our military, yep but the COMMON AVERAGE soldier does not operate a tank.
"land mines were used by our military in the revolution, should i be able to plant land mines in my house? Does the supreme court uphold that right in the cases you site?"
What's stopping ya? If you can make them or buy them then yes you can plant them in your own house.
"and the 2nd amendment doesnt say military it says 'militia'. there is a difference."
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens, look it up.
Reply-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
"there was to be no standing military at the time of its authorship and a militia is a group of civilians who arm themselves to protect their community from outside forces."
Where do you get this idea?
If they didn't want a "standing army" then creating one and supporting it from day one to the present is a dumb way to make that point known.
I think there are gaping holes in your logic. and i would argue that even antonin scalia would agree with me.
I doubt it. My logic uses this court ruling and the 1939 miller case look it up!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
santa
"DC inhabitants and the district was not covered by the constitution the same way other locations were... this has always been the excuse for their lacking federal represenation."
As best I can tell the constitution covers Americans in total, not by location.
I don't see how someone could have "freedom of speech" in Lima Ohio and "No freedom of speech" in Walla Walla Washington.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
you don't? well why not try walking into the center of town in Provo Utah and reading the scripts of the publicly produced New York plays of David Mamet aloud for all to hear. Start with American Buffalo and see if you get to act two.
your freedoms are respective of your community. thats been upheld over and over again.
and with specific regards to the District of Columbia there is a different interpretation of the application of federal law because they are not a member of any state. they are taxed federally without any representation on the federal level taht decides the rate of those taxes. unconstitutional, but legal, as so far upheld by the courts and the gov't.
silly but true.
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Santa-
The argument was made that if the states kept standing militias they would ultimately be subsumed by the federal government, which is just what has happened, vis the National Guard. The 2nd amendment was specifically intended to keep firearms in the hands of private citizens. Had this not been the reality of Colonial America, there would not be a United states now, as most of the firearms used in the Revolution, especially initially, were privately owned weapons. The Founders' MAIN intention was that the people be able to RESIST TYRANNY by force. Hunting and home defense were important, but SECONDARY considerations.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
i agree with your explanations but not the leap in logic that says the 2nd amendment was intended to keep firearms in the hands of private citizens.
that absolutely may have been the intention of some of the founding fathers.... but if it were the intention of all of them, it would have read 'firearms' and not 'arms', and it would have read 'private citizens own firearms' and not 'right to bear arms'.
everything was a compromise back then. and some things were worded so generally because they allowed for interpretations that all could agree on. they left it up to their decendants to outline what those specifics would be as they came up.
these were smart men, who forsaw a lot of issues. surely they were wise enough to forsee the confusion here. they left it that way because they didnt have the answers either.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
In the 18th century "arms" were firearms, and an "armed man" or someone "under arms" was carrying a firearm. And I believe that they did not say "own" because they MEANT the right to be to BEAR, or actually carry, the "arms". My belief is that it was the intention of of the Founders that you should be able to strap on a pistol and go anywhere in the US. That is your "right to bear arms", and the fact is, at the time the ratification of the Constitution, many citizens never left their homes unarmed, and that your right to do so should not be infringed. That is the right, clearly stated in the amendment. The preceding phrases are by way of an EXPLANATION, not a limit. I am, by legal definition, a member of the Virginia Militia, which includes all able-bodied US citizens, and all aliens intent upon becoming citizens, between the ages of 16 and 50, currently resident in VA.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
tkyrchncs:
I absolutely agree with you we should be able to bear arms.
When only government appointed citizens can bear arms. We are at the mercy of the government to protect us.
We all know how well that is working out. Nothing against policemen. But why should I have to wait for him to protect me. Who says he will anyway? Perhaps he does not care for my beliefs. Perhaps he is to busy or perhaps he knows the criminals. Any of the above happens and I'm screwed.
Like one officer told me when I reported a man stalking my daughters and other children in our neighbor hood. We have to wait until he does something until we can arrest him.
This was back in the early '80s. I said wtf do you mean? He said we can't violate his rights. I said what about my rights and the rights of the children. He just shrugged and said he couldn't do anything.
Well a neighbor and I did. We caught the SOB trying to get a little girl to get in his car. It just so happened I had my 300 rifle, cont.
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
cont.
out that night. I was in my cammies in a tree in our front yard. I had been watching the bastar* for a couple of weeks. It was summertime and he was cruising the neighborhood at night looking for kid's out alone. There was a party at the next door neighbors and kids were going in and out while the parents got high and drunk.
This pervert stopped his car in front of my place and was trying to get the little girl.
Man I came flying out the tree and my neighbor across the street came running from his garage. We yelled at the guy and he froze. His eyes were the size of donuts when he saw my rifle. My neighbor had his shotgun.
We told the creep to leave the neighborhood and never return
or we would kill him. You know he called the cops on us.
btw. The cops caught him two years later after he had grabbed a five year old boy. Armed resistance to evil in our country should be taught not run from.
The politicians don't want us armed it is not in their interests.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
I'm glad you relieved your neighborhood of a stalker, CBGP. You know, firearms make thieves and other evil-doers a little nervous. An armed populace makes would-be tyrants a little nervous too. These clearly were the intentions of the Founders. People seem to forget that at the time of the ratification there were dangerous wild animals around, and food to be hunted, and criminals and Indians and foreign soldiers to be faced, right here in the original 13. There is no question in my mind what the Founders meant.
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
I like what Obaku said about it on here:
[paraphrase] every organism on the planet has the right to defend itself and does so. If a unicellar organism has the right to self-defense, shouldnt a human being?
I really don't know what other conclusion can be reached other than yours, tkychncs
True, intent is a tricky area, but you have to look at the climate of the time, the needs of the average individual, societal 'standards', and how those old boys GOT the ability to write the amendment in the first place.
Now one can say it's a different world now-but is it a SAFER world where the right to self-defense is less needed because there's less bears around?
PS I'm not a gun person, never fired anything above a 22, no bias here
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Well stated, DeadMan. Firearms in the Colonies were just every-day tools that nearly everyone had, like a frying pan, and like a frying pan, your parents and older siblings, etc, taught you how to use and care for one as an ordinary living skill. At one time all heads of households in VA were REQUIRED BY LAW to keep and maintain a 50 cal. rifle. The Founders were not a bunch of citified sissies, and even those who were citified had faced the reality of foreign troops working their will here on our soil, and had participated in expelling them. As long as there are any humans around, we will not have succeeded in removing all the dangerous and unpredictable animals from our environment.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
if the conditions of the time apply to the wording than does it follow that hte ocnditions of the time also apply to the 'arms'?
in that time they had single shot, manually loaded, inaccurate, usually non-fatal, fire-arms. so why do i need an 18 shot, semi-automatic, skull piercing hand-gun to protect my family?
i'm not saying you guys are wrong here... im just saying that your certainty of your interpretations is unwarranted. there is much more subjectivity to this issue than either side awards it.
Reply-
0%
mrbs3 months, 1 week ago
no ..the founders knew technology would change.how much had it change in only their life time.on this one they intended the people to have the front line technology.they intended for the people to be able to field what ever the government could bring to bear.their intention for this right was so that if the government got out of hand it could be brought down.they did not intend for the government to have any standing army so all the best stuff would be owned by private persons.now in this day and age of things happening to fast i would never call for the dismantling of the armed forces however i would make a case that every able bodied American should be required to own and keep a firearm in the house simply because of the threat coming from having a standing army
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
that makes no sense. you say that they had guns instead of a standing army. now we need guns because of a standing army.
you say that they knew technology would progress and they intended people to have front line technology, but you make no comment on the front line technology which is indisputedly banned (explosives, radio-active isotopes).
you refer to 'their intention' without saying who's intention. am i to believe that our forefathers, who disagree-ed on nearly everything, hence the necessity of the BoR, unanimously agreed on the interpretation of the few ambiguous lines in the 2nd Amendment?
And REQUIRING everyone to own a gun... you've gone from a 'right' to a 'mandate'. thats the exact OPPOSITE of freedom. not to mention the fact that keeping a gun in the house with a child exponentially hazards that childs likelyhood of being shot.
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
The INTENT was to forestall or else provide the means to resist tyranny. The logic that follows from the intent would lead to private ownership of laser-guided missiles, smart bombs, anti-armor weapons and ammo, etc. Given the reality of the disrespect our executive branch has shown for our Constitution and our individual liberties, I think that a well-armed citizenry is a necessity.
Reply-
0%
mrbs3 months, 1 week ago
any problem you may have with this admin is do to the fact that the damage was done long ago and it is all he has to work with.i personally have not experienced any tyranny from this admin and i seriously doubt you have either.if you can point to something that directly impacted you life then i would like to hear it.dont get me wrong .i have my problems with W as well but my problems are that he not really a conservative.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Anything done to fellow citizens impacts me, and anything done to foreigners in the name of my country impacts me. No man is an island. We know that hundreds of thousands of phone calls were illegally monitored, how would I know if it was me or not? This administration has outraged me numerous times with its blatant disregard for our laws and Constitution and basic human decency. Torturing people in my name indeed! The list is extensive, shall I proceed?
Reply-
0%
mrbs3 months, 1 week ago
ok foreigners dont care his responsibility is to protect america..not make us popular.. recorded all phone calls of Americans..that was bill..george only did it to incoming overseas calls..that is reasonable considering how 9/11 was planned.. the only other direct charge is torture well you know i dont consider playing music or sleep deprivation torture.personally i think they should have cut their sacks off with a dull spoon.when you are dealing with a culture that embraces death you must be willing to do what you must to live.
and yes proceed.. SO LONG AS YOU CAN LIMIT IT TO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Knowledge of an event makes it personal experience, for two reasons: we are an empathetic species, and we are able to draw conclusions. If YOU are tied to a board and nearly drowned, and I know about it, that affects ME. If YOU are arrested for no reason anyone will tell me, or even a court, and held indefinitely on a vague charge the details of which no one will tell me, or even a court, it affects me. If YOU are not allowed to confront your accuser, it affects me. If you are sent to fight in a pointless conflict it affects me. If you as the highest elected official in the land, sign bills into law and officially proclaim that you will not obey them, it affects me. Neither my ethics nor my morals will permit me to sit back and say "well, too bad for YOU" if you are even treated DISCOURTEOUSLY, especially by an official of MY government who is working in MY name.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
It is hard for me to believe that anyone who knows US history could interpret this amendment any other way. As late as the 1760's there were Indian raids here in western VA where I live. The story of Mary Ingles, who was abducted with two sons in the 1750's from within 2 miles of my current residence, is famous. Settlers in western PA, west of the Susquehanna, were nearly all killed or driven away in the French and Indian war in the 1750's. Nobody had forgotten any of this in 1789.
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
ok. they also didn't have local police stations a phone call away with V8 squad cars, hip holsters, and ******-pit shotguns.
all of the portraits of Geoge Washington show him carrying a sword, not a gun... i dont trust your linguistic history lesson...
im just saying that the subjectivity is much stronger than you seem to think it is.
this is up for interpretation, it was intended to be up for interpretation, and both sides have legitimate concerns and valid points.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
I don't see any room for interpretation. Changing circumstances DO affect our rights of course, but not the basic idea of them. Most of us do not hunt. Most of us would rather not confront an intruder. There is little physical threat from foreign powers. These things do not change our right to keep and should not change our right to bear arms. Paintings show whatever the artist wishes them to show. In the army a sword was a secondary weapon, and a command instrument, and a parade/formal decoration, and it still is two of these things. In paintings it is part of heroic symbolism for warriors. Are you familiar with the statue of Washington in the Monument? He is nude above the waist and draped below. How many people actually saw him like that, do you suppose? LOL, your art history is as weak as your American history.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
Sorry, guys, I meant to say Memorial, of course, not Monument!
Reply -
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
my art history? what art history? i simply stated a fact. swords are just as much an arm as a gun. they are depicted in paintings of the time period... whatever symbolic expression you would like to bestow apon them is neither here nor there, and if you want an art history debate i guarentee you're barking up the wrong tree.
the sculpture your citing is 'the american zeus' and it was some 40 years after the death of washington. it's clearly greek inspired and as much a juxtapositionaly homage towards our greek form of thought and law than it is a likeness of washington. it is totally incomparable to time period portraits by artists commissioned for realism.
furthermore, art history has nothing to do with the fact that evidence as it exists today supports the notion that swords were prevelant and common in the time of the revolution. your assertion that people of the time used 'arm' as a synonym for 'firearm' is wholly unsupported.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 1 week ago
If you wish to believe that the leading American lights of the Age of Reason wished to ensure your right to own a sword, that is your right. Edged weapons are still in use today, and probably will be as long as we exist, and we should be able to keep and bear those, too. I don't, however, believe it would have concerned our Framers that any current or future governments in our land might try to stop anyone from having a sword, let alone the second-most important concern. While swords were secondary combat arms in our Founders' time, they would be useless against any opponent with modern arms, and they have always been useless as a hunting weapon. It's a pretty silly argument on the face of it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 1 week ago
Santa, guns were the most commonly used "arms" at the time of the constititution's writing, and it was expected that every able-bodied male would have one.
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self defense." --John Adams
The language has been examined by a number of scholars in context and with respect to meanings at the time of the writing, and there is no doubt what the founders intended.
DC is trying to circumvent the constitution, and they will keep circumventing it, forcing endless lawsuits. Fenty is a totalitarian horse's a$$.
Reply-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 1 week ago
OK, let's cite a few others, then, that may be more to your liking. These are some of my own favorites.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson
"To disarm the people รข;; that...[is]...the best and most effective way to enslave them." --George Mason, In the Virginia convention
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 1 week ago
I am also glad they ruled this way. I do however think that they should have gone a few step further and insist on more invasive licensing processes. Also a yearly proof that you still posses that Gun, and a limit to a household on hand guns. We need laws in place that stop the senseless killing of our youth in the inner cities and this new rash of school shootings. I can see a hand gun and a hunting rifle per person!
Reply-
0%
injest3 months, 1 week ago
"I do however think that they should have gone a few step further and insist on more invasive licensing processes."
A privilege can require licensing, like driving a car, it's a privilege not a right.
A RIGHT should NEVER require licensing.
Think about it? Do you have a license to get on the internet and express your freedom of speech?
Do you think people should have a license to vote?
Reply-
0%
santa03 months, 1 week ago
you do need a license to vote. a govt issued ID. you cant vote without proving that you are the registered voter that you claim you are. and you must register and provide information before doing so, your 'right' to vote does not qualify you to do so automatically.
and furthermore you can be DENIED that right if you commit a certain crime, even AFTER serving a sentence and being released a free man. You still hve your right to free speech, your right to trial, your right to assemble, but you sre stripped of your right to vote... or your right to own a gun for that matter. we have a history of both restricting 'rights' and licensing for them.
and while driving is a priveledge, owning a car is a right. just like shooting a gun is a priveledge but owning a gun is a right.
we license drivers and register cars for safetys sake because they are dangerous.
the argument for licensing guns and registering them is not unconstitutional. you still have the right to own one.
Reply -
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin3 months, 1 week ago
'' Think about it? Do you have a license to get on the internet and express your freedom of speech?''
Shooting your mouth off doesn't kill anyone else[tho it can get the shooter-offer of said mouth in trouble, even killed if done in person]
''A RIGHT should NEVER require licensing.''
You are WAY off-base here, unless you think psychotics and serious mental patients have a right to buy and own guns, and should be allowed easy access to semi-auto weapons because it's their 'right'
Rhetorically the above quote may sound nice, but practically....
''Do you think people should have a license to vote? ''
after 2004...the thought may have trickled thru my mind...
Reply -
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 1 week ago
I would hate to think that all of you gun lovers are in agreement with school shootings. All i am saying is we are to take steps to ensure that some nut job is not selling guns to the derange and young children. Way too many people die in this country from gun crimes compared to lots of other countries that have a striving gun culture as we do here in the United States. The difference is that they have put the correct laws in place to make sure that guns doesn't get into the hands of the undesired users. I am not advocating for the removal of ones right to have a gun, however I am advocating for better laws or better enforcement of the laws. While if you walk into a gun shop you will be checked before being sold a gun, at a gun show that's less likely to happen, and that must change.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 1 week ago
BAR, none of the suggestions you mention has been shown to have any effect on stemming violence (don't bother citing Bra-dy funny numbers). Putting more laws in place for law-abiding citizens is not going to stop the senseless crime.
It's time to stop blaming the tools the criminals use and start looking at the real problem. Did you know that illegal aliens have a much higher murder rate than U.S. citizens? How is infringing the rights of U.S. citizens going to positively effect them--or cartels--or gangbangers, who commit most of the crime?
At least SCOTUS ruled correctly at the macro-level. Fenty will not give up just because the U.S. Constitution got in his way, though. He's all about being the biggest bully on the block. He'll find a way.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago
Blackacereturn:
Are you a hunter? Because I have many different rifles I hunt with. Depending upon the game I'm hunting, the terrain and the vegitation and foliage I'm in. The area I'm hunting in. I don't want to use a 7mm magnum rifle on a rabbit, any more than I want to use a .22 rifle for an elk.
As far as handguns, I carry a .22 with snake shot and a .357 for larger game. Or maybe my .41 magnum depending upon whether or not I'm likely to run across bear or not.
The point being any of these weapons would kill a person if used to. Weapons don't kill people people do.
Hell I can kill with a pen or pencil if I have to.
Stop pampering criminals and start executing those who use guns to commit crimes and I mean just those that kill somebody. If a criminal shoots someone shoot him, done deal. Stop blaming the victims and start blaming the criminals.
As far as stopping the killings and violence of our youth. We need to take those who teach these youngsters out.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
memestryker3 months, 1 week ago
The evidence is all over both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, other letters and communications of our founders, and until 1939, no one questioned it. The 1939 ruling clearly was judicial activism.
I'm also glad Roe v. Wade exists, and hope it holds up in this court. But my right to self defense is essential. Without it, I have nothing.
This really makes little difference in Bloomberg's efforts to disarm Americans, but it certainly does help shield us from the U.N., Soros, the Joyce Foundation, the Bradys, etc.
I have a lot of empathy for Sarah Brady. She suffered a terrible trauma. But that doesn't mean we should give up our rights.
Reply -
0%
Teech3 months, 1 week ago
About time these senile old a$$holes got one right. Now I can leave up my "protected by Smith & Wesson" sign.
Decision or no decision, they'll take my guns away over my dead body - and a whole bunch of theirs!
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
One down 2 to go. Now if they could get that separation of church and state is not in the constitution and quit MAKING laws as if it was.(yes Jefferson did say "THUS BUILDING a wall of separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury Baptist) "Thus building A WALL" REFERRED back to the original text in the constitution! Therefore the ORIGINAL text was even Jefferson's STANDARD! - which is "Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion or the FREE EXERCISE thereof which brings me to the third item FREE SPEECH. We have laws on the books that Jeopardize free speech by regulating what a preacher and teacher is allowed to say regarding political endorsements and/or religion these laws also clearly VIOLATE the constitution. THANK GOD for GW Bush's appointments that were STRICT constitutionalist that don't legislate from the bench! and to think many think he is the one that walks on the constitution - pure BS.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 1 week ago
Plenty of documentation by Jefferson and others is available to allow that state and religion should be kept separate. Similar documentation was undoubtedly used in this case, as well. Its proper to use it as it helps establish intent by those who wrote the Constitution in the first place.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
The intent was what one court wanted it to say to achieve their own personal objective and not what the forefathers wanted, The forefathers intent was to protect religion and to prevent a State Church like England had in fact it is one of the main reasons they left England. By taking the exert "separation of church and state" out of Jefferson's letter and not even include Jefferson's complete thought HIDES intent. Jefferson's letter is the LESSER document anyway and even his doc is clear and points back to the original text in the constitution WHICH he included in that very same letter! BUT when you just take the quick little statement "separation of church and state" you even PERVERT his lesser documents true meaning!
Reply-
0%
Mdiar3 months, 1 week ago
I'm fine with people preaching politics from the pulpit if that is what they want too do. They can even keep a tax free status if they really want too. I'm not fine with people trying to pass laws that go back to religious values that they share but other religions do not share. That comes to close to advocating a particular form of religion by advocating a set of morals that may be unique to that religion. That is to close to the establishing of a state church despite it not being in name only. However, people will vote how they wish and not much I can do about that.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
On this we agree, and the constitution agrees with this also - Congress shall pass NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof - can't be said much better than that. BTW unions are tax exempt also and no one seems to cry foul when they endorse candidates.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
No, It builds a wall of separation of church and state. making a law that a prayer can't be said over a public pa system is A LAW! "Separation of Church" and state" goes BEYOND what the constitution says. What the heck is wrong with using the same wording that is in the constitution for true clarity - or would that not serve some peoples personal agenda's as well!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
You don't know unions very well for I was part of a union drive once and on the committee and indoctrinating people is what it is about. I left realizing that the company I was with was wrong but the unions methods were equally wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Although the union fight (which they lost in the vote) did correct many of the problems of said company which actually was to their own benefit along with the workers. I don't disagree there has been positive things that came from unions ALONG with negative things
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
