PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns



SpiderMan
06-26-2008, 09:17 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/i...&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Deborah Charles)

Deeman3
06-26-2008, 09:41 AM
Well, at least now those city dwellers will have a fighting chance against the criminals.

Qtec
06-26-2008, 09:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia. </div></div>

If the right to bear arms is not dependant on being a member of a militia, why did they mention 'militia' at all in the USCON?
What was that all about?

Q

hondo
06-26-2008, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SpiderMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Deborah Charles)

</div></div>


Tap! Tap! Tap!

sack316
06-26-2008, 03:10 PM
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1142521455/Family_Guy_Right_to_Bear_Arms

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
06-26-2008, 06:32 PM
Q, I believe it is mentioned simply as part of the reasoning behind the ammemdment.

I was thinking about this quite a bit today. What is disturbing to me is how close the vote was. Imagine that 4 of the justices actually believe individuals shouldn't have the right to own a gun. Fortunately, clearer heads prevailed, albiet barely!

Here's another thought. WHAT IF.......
The last two justices had been appointed by AlGor or Kerry???? Is it possible that all the law abiding citizens in this country would have lost the right to protect themselves? The court just yesterday said child rapists don't deserve the death penalty! They could just have easily ruled the wrong way today.

Even if only for one day, EVERY one of us should be thankful that GW was the last president to appoint someone to the bench!

For those who are having a hard time holding your nose long enough to vote against Obama, keep what happened today in the back of your mind! A liberal supreme court could do more damage to our country than the next 5 presidents combined!!!!

When it comes to the constitution, it should not be open to interpertation....it should be taken at face value, just as it was written!

Steve

sack316
06-27-2008, 02:03 AM
I take this not as a victory for the constitution, but rather a victory for the english language /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
06-27-2008, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When it comes to the constitution, it should not be open to interpertation....it should be taken at face value, just as it was written!

Steve</div></div>

Does it say anywhere in the constitution that you can't own a gun if you are an ex-con?
ie, a constitutional right applies to everyone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In his majority brief, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted future, complex legal arguments about some of the restrictions, which the court had ruled were valid, such as denying the sale of guns to convicted felons or people with mental illnesses and outlawing their possession, in places such as schools.</div></div>


Q

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's another thought. WHAT IF.......
The last two justices had been appointed by AlGor or Kerry???? Is it possible that all the law abiding citizens in this country would have lost the right to protect themselves? <span style="color: #000066">No, it isn't. </span> The court just yesterday said child rapists don't deserve the death penalty! <span style="color: #000066"> ARe you saying the agree with that decision?</span> They could just have easily ruled the wrong way today.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A liberal supreme court could do more damage to our country than the next 5 presidents combined!!!!
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Scalia and friends already damaged this country enough when they decided they had the right to appoint George Bush, throw out the Florida State Court's decisions, and stop counting votes. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if only for one day, EVERY one of us should be thankful that GW was the last president to appoint someone to the bench!
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">No one action could ever be valuable enough to assuage all the damage that your right wingnut activists judges on the Supreme Court did to this country when they appointed George Bush as president, the worst president in the history of America. Look where the country is now!</span>

Sid_Vicious
06-27-2008, 09:36 AM
It's funny Gayle how we get the "just imagine if so-in-so(not the current idiot)" was in there, when all this piss-poor history with Bush, is just that, his-sto-ry. Frankly I'd not say anything if all I could do was "just imagine if." If that phrase is effecient enough for the right, then "just imagine if a rightie had been in office during Clinton's admin", and we'd NOT had the best economy EVER for 8 years. This country would be dead by now. You may think I jest, but I'm not...sid

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 09:55 AM
LOL, I always like to answer with, and just imagine, if Reagan hadn't gotten in there, and people hadn't allowed special interests in conjunction with the Republicans, to thwart Carter's movement toward energy independence, and all his warnings about our National Security interests, and how they would be impacted by dependence on foreign fuel, and the coming impact on our environment, calling for us to remove our dependency on foreign oil, and go in the direction of alternative fuels, higher cafe' standards. He spoke then of awarding companies that moved us toward solar, wind, and other technologies. Just imagine if Reagan hadn't taken the solar panels off the White House! Just imagine how many people might be alive today, if we had gone full thrust into stem cell research, instead of the Republican/pharmaceutical/Medical efforts to thwart those studies. Imagine over forty-one hundred American soldiers being alive, instead of dead, over an effort that has worsened our efforts against terrorists, and broken our army, and our bank account.

Every single harmful issue we face, from illnesses, to our dependency on foreign oil, and threats from terrorists, to the loss of protection of jobs, retirement protection, and health care, for working class Americans, Republicans have been on the wrong side of the issues. Their policies have worsened our circumstances in so many arenas, and now that we are hitting the wall as a result of their corporate fascist friendly policies, and the history is becoming undeniable.

Just Imagine if Democratics had not been around to fight against George Bush's privatisation of social security ideology, and look at what is happening to the stock market today!

Just imagine how much better of we would be today, if the Surpeme Court had been more liberal when Bush ran for office in 2000! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

LWW
06-28-2008, 04:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia. </div></div>

If the right to bear arms is not dependant on being a member of a militia, why did they mention 'militia' at all in the USCON?
What was that all about?

Q </div></div>
Read a US history book with a dictionary close by and you might understand. Words mean things.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
* = MILITIA: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia)
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

** = STATE: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state)
9. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.

In short, for each individual state and each individual person to be free from external federal tyranny and/or criminal tyranny from within the states and people retain the right to self defense from same.

It's the reason the Euros call the Americans every time they get invaded and the Americans can field an able army that can shoot straight in nothing flat when called upon.

LWW

mike60
06-28-2008, 01:47 PM
In Florida in the late 1970's around Miami there was a series of car jackings and home invasions. The State changed the law to allow most citizens to carry arms
in public and in their cars. Within a few weeks several criminals were shot by the people defending themselves with these weapons. The scum started going after
tourists because they knew the tourists were unarmed. That speaks volumes for the right of citizens to be secure in the knowledge that the first line of defense should be in your own pocket not waiting or the police who might not get there in time.

mike60 armed and vigilant

Chopstick
06-30-2008, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When it comes to the constitution, it should not be open to interpertation....it should be taken at face value, just as it was written!

Steve</div></div>

Does it say anywhere in the constitution that you can't own a gun if you are an ex-con?
ie, a constitutional right applies to everyone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In his majority brief, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted future, complex legal arguments about some of the restrictions, which the court had ruled were valid, such as denying the sale of guns to convicted felons or people with mental illnesses and outlawing their possession, in places such as schools.</div></div>


Q </div></div>

Hey Q. Did you bother to read your own constitution? You can't vote if your an ex-con but you can still hold public office. You just can't vote for yourself. And what's all that about the king. If parliament doesn't approve the king's woman he doesn't get to be king anymore and all of his children are out in the cold too. I guess they can all go on welfare.

Oh, and check this out. Not only is involuntary military service mandatory, you don't even have to be Dutch to get drafted. If you are there and they feel like it, you're drafted.

And, this just in. The US already has plans to invade Holland. From what I hear it is common knowledge over there. Well, from the US perspective it is true. I plan on leading the charge. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
07-01-2008, 08:05 AM
By Q's definition, Holland is an occupied nation.

LWW

SpiderMan
07-01-2008, 09:03 AM
Very Good Point.

It would have taken only one changed vote to have driven this decision the wrong way. Obama is the most liberal senator in Washington, so I doubt he'll be appointing any constitutional scholars to the Supreme Court.

SpiderMan

Bobbyrx
07-01-2008, 09:14 AM
Quote Gayle: "Just Imagine if Democratics had not been around to fight against George Bush's privatisation of social security ideology, and look at what is happening to the stock market today!"
<span style="color: #FF0000"> You seriously would rather the government have YOUR MONEY that you worked for and put it in a "lock box" making next to nothing or have the CHOICE (it was never going to be mandatory) to invest all or part of YOUR money as you saw fit?</span>

DickLeonard
07-01-2008, 11:23 AM
Pooltchr I really don't care when a gunmaan goes craczy and kills thirty students on campus in a state that has one of the worst records for providing weapons for criminals.

Those pistols are in a class with AK47s, everybody should have one so we can protect ourselves. I gotta get me one.

Charlie "the Bear' Calise who played good pool and ran a room in Yonkers and then the Bronx told me when we were playing he wished he would die from Cancer. I asked why wish for that that, Cancer is no way to die. He said that way he would know he was dying and he had alotta people he wanted to take with him. The Ultimate Weapon just throw another clip in and keep shooting. ####

pooltchr
07-01-2008, 05:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pooltchr I really don't care when a gunmaan goes craczy and kills thirty students on campus in a state that has one of the worst records for providing weapons for criminals.

#### </div></div>

I have to think that number might have been much smaller, had a faculty member, staff member, or another student been carrying a gun.

Steve

Qtec
07-02-2008, 11:57 AM
Nobody has answered my Q. Can an ex-con own a gun?
If its a constitutional right to own a gun, the Govt cannot deprive him/her of his rights!
Does it say in the USCON that a person who has commited a crime and served their time can be stripped of their con right to own a weapon?

Q

hondo
07-02-2008, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quote Gayle: "Just Imagine if Democratics had not been around to fight against George Bush's privatisation of social security ideology, and look at what is happening to the stock market today!"
<span style="color: #FF0000"> You seriously would rather the government have YOUR MONEY that you worked for and put it in a "lock box" making next to nothing or have the CHOICE (it was never going to be mandatory) to invest all or part of YOUR money as you saw fit?</span>
</div></div>


Bobby, there would be thousands and thousands of poor suckers
who wouldn't have the knowledge, luck, or attentiveness to successfully invest in their future.
Thus, they would have no future. Leaving them broke
and DESPERATE.
I'd hate to see it. Because in all likelihood they'd be coming after you smart Republicans in vicious packs.

Of course if they had no bread, they could always eat cake. Right?

hondo
07-02-2008, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In Florida in the late 1970's around Miami there was a series of car jackings and home invasions. The State changed the law to allow most citizens to carry arms
in public and in their cars. Within a few weeks several criminals were shot by the people defending themselves with these weapons. The scum started going after
tourists because they knew the tourists were unarmed. That speaks volumes for the right of citizens to be secure in the knowledge that the first line of defense should be in your own pocket not waiting or the police who might not get there in time.

mike60 armed and vigilant </div></div>


Mike, we're on the same page here.
I'd hate to think of an America where the citizens didn't have the right to own a gun.

pooltchr
07-02-2008, 04:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quote Gayle: or have the CHOICE (it was never going to be mandatory) to invest all or part of YOUR money as you saw fit?[/color]
</div></div>


Bobby, there would be thousands and thousands of poor suckers
who wouldn't have the knowledge, luck, or attentiveness to successfully invest in their future.
</div></div>

As was pointed out, this wasn't mandatory, it was optional. That means nobody HAS to do it, but those who want to, could.
The "thousands and thousands of poor suckers could just let the government handle their finances for them, while those who have a little intelligence, might opt to handle their own finances.
Steve

Bobbyrx
07-02-2008, 04:55 PM
Bobby, there would be thousands and thousands of poor suckers
who wouldn't have the knowledge, luck, or attentiveness to successfully invest in their future. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Where do you draw the line? Why stop with social security? Why not just let your entire paycheck go to the government each week and let them determine how much money you need to live on, so you won't spend too much.....</span>

hondo
07-02-2008, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bobby, there would be thousands and thousands of poor suckers
who wouldn't have the knowledge, luck, or attentiveness to successfully invest in their future. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Where do you draw the line? Why stop with social security? Why not just let your entire paycheck go to the government each week and let them determine how much money you need to live on, so you won't spend too much.....</span>
</div></div>

Your strawman wasn't necessary.
I had a legitimate argument.

mike60
07-02-2008, 10:53 PM
I have to go with Hondo here. Social Security has plenty of money if the party in power would stop stealing from it. Screw the stock market. Brokers like to "churn"
accounts, that is they collect a fee from every transaction whether or not it is a profit for the investor. Good luck with that against you.

mike60 poor but happy

Bobbyrx
07-03-2008, 10:02 AM
What's not legitimate about the question of where to draw the line? Where does the government stop protecting the citizens from themselves? People make bad decisions with their money all the time. IT'S YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. Why should the government, with it's wonderful financial record, be able to use it and not you.

hondo
07-03-2008, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's not legitimate about the question of where to draw the line? Where does the government stop protecting the citizens from themselves? People make bad decisions with their money all the time. IT'S YOUR MONEY. You worked for it. Why should the government, with it's wonderful financial record, be able to use it and not you. </div></div>


If it was optional, fine.
I don't remember W talking about it being optional.

pooltchr
07-03-2008, 07:29 PM
Hondo,
It was always presented as an option. Nobody would be forced to invest the money themselves. They could choose to do so with part of it if they so desired. Individual freedom. What a novel idea!!!!!
Steve