|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:22:07 PM |
The PEOPLE are the STATE.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, man. That's a lie and I think most people in this country are now painfully aware of it. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:33:25 PM | exodusi1 said:
The PEOPLE are the STATE. This is NOT true.
The people create the state, and delegate some of their powers and authorities to the state.
By your logic, "the people are the state", then the state is also equivalent to the people.
The foundational concept of rights they are bestowed upon us by our creator. We have them simply because we are alive, and are able to enjoy them because we are willing to fight for them.
A government is created by people. Since rights (like responsibility) cannot be delegated, people cannot delegate their rights to the government they create.
Therefore, the government has no rights.
Look at people in a country with an oppressive government.
Do they have a right to free speech?
To worship as they wish?
The answer, of course, is "Yes they do!" The problem is that their government is abusing its power to infringe upon their rights. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:42:45 PM |
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.
Well, not really a surprise, to be honest. That's a very "American" decision, based on your country's history and culture. That "gun myth" (used in a non-pejorative sense here) pretty much ensured that type of decision eventually.
The part about keeping a loaded gun at home seems a bit overboard, but again held against the American vision of guns , it's again no surprise. If you have a gun, you may as well load it....right ? 
It's an American decision, in an American court, that affects primarily Americans in Washington. We'll see how it all works out, when the homicide rates get revealed next year. 
Overall, it's a triumph of individual rights over collective ones. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:43:27 PM | "Outlaw guns.. and only outlaws will have guns."
Limit guns to Militias -- and every gun owner will join a militia.
I am a single woman living alone. It's not so important whether I have a gun or not... It's important that a perp DOESN'T KNOW whether I have a gun or not.....
| |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:48:02 PM | Blackwater did, in New Orleans.
Blackwater is Bush's SS.
They don't care about your "right" to own a gun, because if they chose to take them, there isn't anything you could do about it. Small arms are no match for an M1-A1 or an Apache.
Yaawwwwnnn. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:49:46 PM | A TRUE Texan without a gun is like.....
like.....
like.....
Well nobody knows what THAT is like -- because THAT doesn't exist!
 | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:59:45 PM | My $ .02 as if anyone cares.
I don't own a gun right now.
The day my right to own a gun is taken away from me is the day that I go out and get one. Might not be too long over here. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:00:23 PM | It is blatently obvious that the SCOTUS was appealing to the "Bitter" group today that clings to its guns.
Judging from the reaction I received, bitter is too light. It is ironic that so many people cling to their Guns, when they vote away EVERYTHING that really matters.
Very sad! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:02:08 PM | The PEOPLE are the STATE.
Nope. In strict constitutional terms,
PEOPLE = INDIVIDUAL
STATE = COLLECTIVE
There have been more than a handful of challenges brought upon the Supreme Court since the early 1800s and all have been decided as the 2nd Amendment being an INDIVIDUAL , or citizens right versus a COLLECTIVE, or states right.
Concerning a "well regulated militia", the militia clause is just that - a COLLECTIVE, or state militia being ultimately formed from these ever-perpetually armed PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS/citizens IF EVER NEEDED.
UNLESS NEEDED, no militia needs to be formed, and private INDIVIDUALS/ citizens maintain the perpetual INDIVIDUAL right, and that right is " the right of the people to keep and bear arms", which shall not be infringed.
THAT is what the SCOTUS interpreted. I didnt vote away anything. How hard is that to understand? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:05:22 PM |
when they vote away EVERYTHING that really matters.
Don't think I need to say that you're opening yourself up for the deluge here because I think it's intentional. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:08:53 PM | Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 & 16.
Army National Guard, Naval Reserve, Air National Guard; Militia.
Bear Arms; Military phrase in 1790.
We the people. . . "State"
You are all so concerned over the second Amendment, which has never really been a serious concern, since the vast majority of Liberals don't want to take everyone's guns, just like the Vast majority of Conservatives don't want everyone, including criminals to own guns. Yet, you have let the Bush Administration trample on the fourth Amendment, which is far more significant. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:21:56 PM | Youre quoting the Militia Act of 1903 to pro-2nd Amendment posters?
The establishment of the National Guard does NOT usurp the 2nd Amendment in any way...it only enhances the OPERATIVE clause of the 2nd amendment, which states "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall NOT be infringed."
The justification clause being"a well regulated militia" is enhanced by the formation of the National Guard, being armed & funded by the states & federal government. THAT IN ITSELF flies in the face of the operative clause, which contains the very important word PEOPLE.
Other examples in that same Bill of Rights:
The right of the PEOPLE to petition the government
The right of the PEOPLE to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
The justification clause of the 2nd amendment could not be rendered obsolete by the establishment of the National Guard, because Congress has had no constitutional obligation, for instance, to properly train a militia, or to demand that it be armed.
Most importantly, doing so doesnt automatically "repeal" any part of the 2nd Amendment. It's just another blanket on the bed.
Further, the Militia Act of 1903 contains a key controversial provision, which struck down the written item "requiring all able-bodied adult white male citizens from 18 to 45 to arm themselves".
That is in direct contradiction to the definition of the word PEOPLE as referred to by the framers. PEOPLE arent white dudes from 18 to 45...PEOPLE are the PEOPLE.
If NOT for the Militia Act iof 1903, it would still be a REQUIREMENT to arm yourself, rather than it being a right. Also, only white males from 18 to 45 were REQUIRED to be armed.
EVERYBODY ELSE had the OPTION to arm themselves.
That is where people mis-read the intent of the meaning of the word "MILITIA" & believe it is exclusive as far as gun ownership.
In essence, the Militia Act of 1903 actually ENHANCED the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment - the individual right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms. ..militia or no militia, nor age, race & sex.
You are all so concerned over the second Amendment, which has never really been a serious concern, .....
Its a concern to us. Again, this is what happens when you do not show proper vigilance or properly watchdog an inalienable right granted by the constitution. Someone somewhere WILL take that right away with no regard for anyone's personal liberty - only wanting to impose their own selfish wishes on others. SCOTUS put a stop to this. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:47:33 PM | I was quoting the Constitution.
Your side won. SCOTUS was wrong, but that is irrelevant now. I don't care about the gun issue. No one is out to take my guns, NO ONE. It isn't about GUNS. It is about the fact that NeoKKKons have now made the Constitution nothing more than a piece of paper. If the Constitution isn't sacred, then who is to say they can't ignore the rest of it as well. Your guns won't protect you from that.
RIP US Constitution. . .
Deceased: Article 1, Article 3, Amendment 1, Amenement 2, Amendment 4. . . | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:52:28 PM |
It is about the fact that NeoKKKons have now made the Constitution nothing more than a piece of paper.
Indeed they've regarded it as such, but let's not forget that Clinton's Omnibus anti-terror act and plenty of others have, as well. Nobody in the federal behemoth has any respect for the constitution, nor have they for many decades and many administrations.
I hate the neo-Trotskyites just as much as you do, but I know that "the loyal opposition" is no better. So do you, deep down. You're cognizant of history, I've read your posts. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:54:50 PM |
I was quoting the Constitution.
None of these terms are present in the Constitution:
Army National Guard, Naval Reserve, Air National Guard.
Geez. All this ruling did was define the right for an INDIVIDUAL to keep a handgun in THEIR HOME. Nothing else was overruled. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:28:21 PM | | Article 1, section 8, clause 15 & 16 define a militia. The aforementioned Military organizations are what is defined by the Constitution as "militia." | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:29:39 PM | http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27React.html?pagewanted=print
Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage
June 27, 2008
Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
Gun-control advocates across the country reacted with shock and outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns today, saying the ruling would threaten gun-control measures in other states.
If there was any doubt that other bans would be in peril, the National Rifle Association quickly put those questions to rest when it announced shortly after the ruling that it would file a flurry of lawsuits challenging restrictions in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs. The law in Washington, which spelled out rules for the storage of weapons and made it extremely difficult for most people in the district to legally possess a handgun, was among the strictest in the nation.
“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of freedom,” Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., said in a statement.
In its 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain regulated militias. It also said that the District of Columbia’s requirement that lawful weapons be disassembled or limited by trigger locks was unconstitutional because it made them virtually useless.
In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a staunch supporter of gun control, called the decision “frightening” and said he was bracing for a fight with the gun lobby, which has long criticized the city’s ban on the sale and registration of handguns for everyone but police officers and a handful of others. Enacted in 1982, the law was created in response to the murders of two police officers and the assassination attempt on former president Ronald Reagan.
“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” he said at a news conference. “If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets.
“They’re changing the rules,” Mr. Daley said of the Supreme Court. “Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?”
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, which also restricts the owning of guns, reacted strongly to the ruling, saying she was “viscerally affected” by it and worried for the nation’s safety.
“I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate,” she said. “And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.”
The ruling was quickly seized upon by John McCain, who in recent months has tried to repair a fractured relationship with the gun lobby stemming from his support of regulations on gun sales at firearm shows and other restrictions. Mr. McCain praised the decision today, and used it to renew criticisms of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.
“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” Mr. McCain said.
Mr. Obama, however, was more careful and moderate in his statements about the ruling, saying it would provide “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions” across the country.
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” he said. “The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.” | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:30:57 PM | Oddandy;
Agreed! BTW, though we likely will disagree on a variety of topics, you earned my respect in the other thread as well. . . Doesn't mean we won't argue, but I do respect you and know that, from your posts, you are who you say you are.
Ex I | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:45:30 PM |
Oddandy;
Agreed! BTW, though we likely will disagree on a variety of topics, you earned my respect in the other thread as well. . . Doesn't mean we won't argue, but I do respect you and know that, from your posts, you are who you say you are.
Ex I
Right back at ya, bro. If we were local we'd hang out together and rib each other in good fun on our disagreements. We both know the other's heart is in the right place, each of us thinking the other is just off on some things  | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:55:05 PM |
exodusi1 said:
Article 1, section 8, clause 15 & 16 define a militia. The aforementioned Military organizations are what is defined by the Constitution as "militia."
No, not at all. What you say is not true.
Article 1, section 8, clauses 15 & 16 DO NOT DEFINE the militia. What these clauses do is define Congress's power over the militia. The definition of what the militia actually is is defined in US code, as I have pointed out in a previous post.
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag83_user.html#art1_sec8cl15 | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 6:03:03 PM | The PEOPLE are the STATE
Yes and the people abide by the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms. This is a wonderful day in history!!!!!! God bless America and the supreme court this day for a job well done. Remember always if you make it a crime to own a gun,then only criminals(like the ones at columbine,etc) will have them. If any of the faculty had guns, maybe most of those kids would be alive today. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 6:07:55 PM |
exodusi1 said:
Blackwater did, in New Orleans.
Blackwater is Bush's SS.
They don't care about your "right" to own a gun, because if they chose to take them, there isn't anything you could do about it. Small arms are no match for an M1-A1 or an Apache. I'm assuming you are referring to the gun confiscations in New Orleans.
Blackwater was NOT involved in those confiscations.
The firearm confiscations were conducted by local law enforcement, imported law enforcement (several states sent LEOs to help), and the National Guard. The Mayor of New Orleans gave the order and people in other GOVERNMENT agencies carried out the order, not people from Blackwater.
Your claim that Blackwater is President Bush's SS is... not based in reality.
They maybe some day become that, though that certainly has not happened yet.
Besides, there are other alphabet agencies that have been acting like that quite well, thank you! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 6:29:42 PM | The gun issue is a good example of what's wrong with both parties. The far right uses it as a sledge hammer against anyone who doesn't own a gun and manages to alienate half the country in the process. Rather than browbeat everyone, they should be building more ranges. The only people who don't shoot or own guns are people who've never been to an outdoor range on a nice day. But there's little chance they'll ever go if they're already pissed off after arguing about it.
 | |
|
| |
|
| Page 2 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
The supreme court got it right!