The Supreme court has made an important ruling

[theking]

...the right for an individual to bear arms has been affirmed/reaffirmed and that a militia's rights are separate from an individuals rights as referenced in the 2nd Ammendment. A 5-4 decision.

[ADL Colin]

Seems like a whole lotta 5-4 lately.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by theking

...the right for an individual to bear arms has been affirmed/reaffirmed and that a militia's rights are separate from an individuals rights as referenced in the 2nd Ammendment. A 5-4 decision.

well of course they got it wrong. So now I can legally own WMDs right? According to this ruling I can. I suspect I'd still be arrested. Also I see at least a doubling of gun deaths in DC.

[stickyfingerz]

From my cold dead hands! Wonder if anyone tried to yank Heston's guns from his cold dead hands...

[qxm]

yeap.. they are talkin about it in MSNBC........people don't have to be related to the militia in order to have a gun.......

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by GatorB

well of course they got it wrong. So now I can legally own WMDs right? According to this ruling I can. I suspect I'd still be arrested. Also I see at least a doubling of gun deaths in DC.

Where did you get that from? The summary explicitly stated that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

well of course they got it wrong. So now I can legally own WMDs right? According to this ruling I can. I suspect I'd still be arrested. Also I see at least a doubling of gun deaths in DC.

No you cannot. You may be right about the increase in gun deaths...so be it.

[Brujah]

I'm gonna need more guns now, and bigger guns too.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by ADL Colin

Where did you get that from? The summary explicitly stated that the second amendment is not an unlimited right.

whoa whoa you can't have it both ways.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ok first of all it's says ARMS not GUNS. and WMDs are in fact ARMS. If I can't own WMDs then my right to bear these arms are in fact being infringed.

So it's pretty simple, either indivduals have a right to bear ANY and ALL forms of arms or the 2nd amendment only meant MILITIAS have a right to exist. The fact is that if individuals have a right to bear arms then ALL guns laws INFRINGE on that right and thus are unconstiutional and should be struck down. It's pretty black and white and I'm not so sure why it's so complicated for people to understand that it's either one way or another and they need to choose one and not have this mishmash.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by theking

You may be right about the increase in gun deaths...so be it.

yeah mean less blacks around mean less votes for Obama, less poor people, less people on welfare.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

From my cold dead hands! Wonder if anyone tried to yank Heston's guns from his cold dead hands...

One day I'll visit his grave, urinate on it and laugh.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

whoa whoa you can't have it both ways.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ok first of all it's says ARMS not GUNS. and WMDs are in fact ARMS. If I can't own WMDs then my right to bear these arms are in fact being infringed.

So it's pretty simple, either indivduals have a right to bear ANY and ALL forms of arms or the 2nd amendment only meant MILITIAS have a right to exist. The fact is that if individuals have a right to bear arms then ALL guns laws INFRINGE on that right and thus are unconstiutional and should be struck down. It's pretty black and white and I'm not so sure why it's so complicated for people to understand that it's either one way or another and they need to choose one and not have this mishmash.

It is not one way or another...it is the Court's way period...and that is very simple to understand.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by theking

It is not one way or another...it is the Court's way period...and that is very simple to understand.

The same court that said blacks were once 3/5 of a person? What happened to the the strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS? The SCOTUS got this one WRONG either way you look at the issue.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

The same court that said blacks were once 3/5 of a person? What happened to the the strict constitutionalists on the SCOTUS? The SCOTUS got this one WRONG either way you look at the issue.

It is the same court in name only...the actors change periodically...as does the interpretation of what is constitutional and what is not...but the court has always been the body that interprets what is constitutional and what is not and one is required to abide by their decisions. If you think a decision is wrong...you are entitled to that thought...so be it.

[DateDoc]

So the SF law will be gone soon too. Good!

[Tom_PM]

Not a terrible decision because not only did they say you can't outright ban all guns, but you also can't interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that individuals have an unlimited right to own arms with zero restrictions or regulations.

So it kind of opened the door, or stated that the door should remain open, for certain restictions or regulations that a state might decide is needed.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Not a terrible decision because not only did they say you can't outright ban all guns, but you also can't interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that individuals have an unlimited right to own arms with zero restrictions or regulations.

So it kind of opened the door, or stated that the door should remain open, for certain restictions or regulations that a state might decide is needed.

And that's why the ruling is wrong. It's either one way or the other. The SCOTUS pussed out because rulling for one side or the other would have meant a lot of shit hitting the fan. So be it. Now we'll continue to have lawsuits from both sides for decades because the issue is still not resolved.

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by GatorB

It's either one way or the other. .

According to whom?

[tranza]

Originally Posted by Brujah

I'm gonna need more guns now, and bigger guns too.

For what??

[Tom_PM]

Well, I think the lawyer from the Brady group who commented on tv said it right. They basically removed the extremes and left the broad area in the middle where common sense can come into play.

While now no state can outright ban/make illegal possessing a gun, they also cant stonewall legislation on gun regulations by saying it violates the constitution to regulate guns.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

And that's why the ruling is wrong. It's either one way or the other. The SCOTUS pussed out because rulling for one side or the other would have meant a lot of shit hitting the fan. So be it. Now we'll continue to have lawsuits from both sides for decades because the issue is still not resolved.

The ruling is that ownership of guns cannot be...outrightly...banned (including handguns) by city...county...state...or the federal government. Regulation is still applicable as it has always been. Thus nothing has changed except that it is a affirmation/reaffirmation that the second ammendment applies to individuals...and not to just militias. A very important clarification of the 2nd amendment.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by tranza

For what??

It's an Arms race!

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by theking

The ruling is that ownership of guns cannot be...outrightly...banned (including handguns) by city...county...state...or the federal government. Regulation is still applicable as it has always been. Thus nothing has changed except that it is a affirmation/reaffirmation that the second ammendment applies to individuals...and not to just militias. A very important clarification of the 2nd amendment.

Please show my WHERE in 2nd amendment is says the government can say this gun you can own, this gun you can't. Where? It doesn't. ANY regulation is by all logic INFRINGMENT. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY states the government CAN'T infringe. Please quit letting your bais on this topic get in the way and just look at this issue with pure logic.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

From my cold dead hands! Wonder if anyone tried to yank Heston's guns from his cold dead hands...

southern "charm" at it's finest.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Please show my WHERE in 2nd amendment is says the government can say this gun you can own, this gun you can't. Where? It doesn't. ANY regulation is by all logic INFRINGMENT. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY states the government CAN'T infringe. Please quit letting your bais on this topic get in the way and just look at this issue with pure logic.

The ruling is that of the Court...not my ruling...thus I do not have a bais...other than the fact that I...as an individual...own multiple types of guns and the Court has reaffirmed my right to do so...and ruled against those that claim the 2nd ammendment only applies to "well regulated militias'. You have made it clear that you do not agree with the decision of the court...so be it. They decide the law...not you...so being a pragmatist...I will not engage in a philisophical argument...when ultimately the argument is moot.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by theking

The ruling is that of the Court...not my ruling...thus I do not have a bais...other than the fact that I...as an individual...own multiple types of guns and the Court has reaffirmed my right to do so...and ruled against those that claim the 2nd ammendment only applies to "well regulated militias'. You have made it clear that you do not agree with the decision of the court...so be it. They decide the law...not you...so being a pragmatist...I will not engage in a philisophical argument...when ultimately the argument is moot.

"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."

I translate this as "a militia is needed to protect the security of the states and the militias should be armed". I don't see where it says Grandma has a right to carry her firearm into Sam's Club where her grandchild can pull it out and shoot herself with it.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Rochard

"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."

I translate this as "a militia is needed to protect the security of the states and the militias should be armed". I don't see where it says Grandma has a right to carry her firearm into Sam's Club where her grandchild can pull it out and shoot herself with it.

How you translate it is not of any import...other than to yourself. The only translation of any import is that of the court and it always has affirmed...and again today...reafirmed that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and not just to militias. As I stated before I am not going to engage in a philisophical argument about the 2nd Amendment. The court has ended that argument and an individuals right to own guns is the law of the land...period...and no city...county...state...or federal government can disobey the law of the land. So those that have outright bans on ownership will have to change their laws or spend money in an attempt to revisit the matter in court.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by theking

The ruling is that of the Court...not my ruling...thus I do not have a bais...other than the fact that I...as an individual...own multiple types of guns and the Court has reaffirmed my right to do so...and ruled against those that claim the 2nd ammendment only applies to "well regulated militias'. You have made it clear that you do not agree with the decision of the court...so be it. They decide the law...not you...so being a pragmatist...I will not engage in a philisophical argument...when ultimately the argument is moot.

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to show my the part in the 2nd amendment that talks about the government's ability to decide who can own what guns. I mean that's all it takes to prove me wrong.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to show my the part in the 2nd amendment that talks about the government's ability to decide who can own what guns. I mean that's all it takes to prove me wrong.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Rochard

"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."

I translate this as "a militia is needed to protect the security of the states and the militias should be armed". I don't see where it says Grandma has a right to carry her firearm into Sam's Club where her grandchild can pull it out and shoot herself with it.

EXCATLY back then we didn't have much of an army. That's why they talk about militias. And also even if it did apply to grandma the first part CLEARLY states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " well if grandma has a gun then she needs to be part of a miltia and not any old one, one that is well trained. Unless you're in the national guard you're not part of militia and therefor do not have a right to a gun.

[AmateurFlix]

If you familiarize yourself with the stated goals of those writing our constitution, there can be no doubt as to the specific purpose of the second amendment. It was not for mere hunting, it was not for mere protection against common petty criminals, and it was not specifically for a militia:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"No freeman 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.

The definitive purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect oneself from a tyrannical government. We have three branches of government (the legislative, executive, and judicial branches) which are designed to function within a system of checks and balances, and those branches of government are kept inline by a well armed public with free access to firearms.

If those branches of government would ever attempt to collude with one another in some heinous act, no amount of military strength could overcome 300 million armed civilians. They know this, so they have no incentive to step too far out of line. It is our society's way of maintaining discipline over our government, and functions because it will not need to be used, in much the same way that "mutual assured destruction" is the reason we do not see nuclear warfare erupting.



I would like to add to this just how disturbing it is that 4 out of 9 supreme court justices fail to apply the basic principles of US government in their decisions. Something to consider when you vote to elect whoever may be in a position to appoint the next one.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

EXCATLY back then we didn't have much of an army. That's why they talk about militias. And also even if it did apply to grandma the first part CLEARLY states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " well if grandma has a gun then she needs to be part of a miltia and not any old one, one that is well trained. Unless you're in the national guard you're not part of militia and therefor do not have a right to a gun.

The court decides what your rights are...and are not...end of story.

[cykoe6]

It is good to see the Supreme Court finally implement what was the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, which is that citizens have the right to bear arms to defend themselves against tyranny.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. 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

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

I would like to add to this just how disturbing it is that 4 out of 9 supreme court justices fail to apply the basic principles of US government in their decisions. Something to consider when you vote to elect whoever may be in a position to appoint the next one.

I agree completely. There is no reasonable Constitutional argument against the individual right to bear arms.

[theking]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

It is good to see the Supreme Court finally implement what was the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, which is that citizens have the right to bear arms to defend themselves against tyranny.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. 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

They did not "finally implement"...it has always been the law of the land...they just reafirmed it. What I do not understand is why anyone has allowed some cities to implement a ban...for so long...without someone taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by AmateurFlix

The definitive purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect oneself from a tyrannical government.

Ah but anyone that tries to do that is killed or jailed by the government in CLEAR violation of the 2nd amendment. Also since I can't own RPGs, tanks or nukes how am I expected to defend myself from a tyannical government with some handguns and shotguns and deer rifles?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

I agree completely. There is no reasonable Constitutional argument against the individual right to bear arms.

If that's true then by the same token I should be able to own a nuke since it also is ARMS.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

It is good to see the Supreme Court finally implement what was the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, which is that citizens have the right to bear arms to defend themselves against tyranny.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. 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

If it's so clear how come there is more lawsuit on the way form both sides? if it's clear they can't logically be lawsuits.

[theking]

Originally Posted by cykoe6

I agree completely. There is no reasonable Constitutional argument against the individual right to bear arms.

Actually their is...as the Amendment itself is poorly written...while the intent of the framers is very clear.

[KRosh]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I'm still waiting for ANYONE to show my the part in the 2nd amendment that talks about the government's ability to decide who can own what guns. I mean that's all it takes to prove me wrong.

Show me ANY law that is Black or White like you suggest!!!!


There is a reason why we have "interpretations" of the law because there is NO simple BLACK or WHITE.

[severe]

Originally Posted by GatorB

well of course they got it wrong. So now I can legally own WMDs right? According to this ruling I can. I suspect I'd still be arrested. Also I see at least a doubling of gun deaths in DC.

i see the total opposite, if dc doesnt make it a ridiculously large pain in the ass to get a gun, crime will go down. criminals aren't the people who are effected by gun bans, only responsible citizens who want to protect themsleves. why do you think dc has such a high crime rate already, the ban was in place.

think about it...

[JayMoyes]

Everyone, please.

You cannot simultaneously fight for and against freedom. The right to defend ones self is just as important if not more so than the right to freedom of speech.

Arms and speech are powers that are placed in the hands of people for a reason. As such, it is the duty of the people to act responsibly.

"Learning to speak is like learning to shoot."
-Avital Ronell

[theking]

Originally Posted by theking

Actually their is...as the Amendment itself is poorly written...while the intent of the framers is very clear.

The Congress of course could always take it upon themselves to rewrite the admendment but they won't.

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by GatorB

If that's true then by the same token I should be able to own a nuke since it also is ARMS.

There is no real debate about the intent of the Second Amendment. The people who oppose the right to bear arms attempt to obscure the obvious meaning of the amendment and the well stated intent of the framers. If you disagree with the right to bear arms then you should support a new amendment to the Constitution which takes away the right to bear arms. That is the only legal way to change the situation.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by KRosh

Show me ANY law that is Black or White like you suggest!!!!

Here's the ENITE 2nd amendment. Pretty fucking clear to me. No subsections. No ifs or buts. No exceptions.

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.

[Socks]

If the USA outlawed handguns, there would be thousands of less murders and deaths per year.

However.. You have a lot of people, so who cares!

[cykoe6]

Originally Posted by GatorB

If it's so clear how come there is more lawsuit on the way form both sides? if it's clear they can't logically be lawsuits.

There are lawsuits because many people who oppose the right to bear arms are making every effort to override the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. There is a system for changing the Constitution but the gun control proponents know that they lack the popular support to ever repeal the Second Amendment.

[iseeyou]

Originally Posted by Rochard

"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."

I translate this as "a militia is needed to protect the security of the states and the militias should be armed". I don't see where it says Grandma has a right to carry her firearm into Sam's Club where her grandchild can pull it out and shoot herself with it.

Sam's club can refuse to allow weapons on their property. Legally, anyone with a weapon can be asked to leave, except law enforcement officers who have special rights. And, in general, anyone with a weapon who refuses to leave can legally be forced to leave.

Check your eyes. Here is what is does NOT say.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The words "the people" means all people within the jurisdication of the United States. It does not mean only some people such as only soldiers or only police or only citizens or only white people or only adults.

It is scary to think that the 2nd amendment in no way allows for banning of ownership of WMD by "the people" ... but it's true.

Here is what it says:

1. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Here is what it implies:

1. In order to achieve a well regulated milita, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2. There is no ban on private militias.

Perhaps today it is not necessary to allow private ownership of arms in order to achieve a well regulated militia. Still, the authors of the 2nd amendment decided it was a good idea and it was passed into law. it can be repealed but the 2nd amendment has never been changed even though many people try to subvert it.

[theking]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Here's the ENITE 2nd amendment. Pretty fucking clear to me. No subsections. No ifs or buts. No exceptions.

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.

Your clearity is in conflict with the clearity of the Court...so whose clearity is important and which of you determines what the law of the land is? I know the answer so my question is rhetorical.

[KRosh]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Here's the ENITE 2nd amendment. Pretty fucking clear to me. No subsections. No ifs or buts. No exceptions.

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.

I know how the amendment reads, but it is how it is INTERPRETED. That is the key


the first amendment says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

but a woman is arrested for wearing a Fuck Bush shirt. It clearly states she has the right to free speech. Why is she arrested?


There is no Black or White - this is my point!