Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

Happy dance...happy dance...

Though it should never have had to go to the SCOTUS in the first place...though it does my heart good to see at least five of them know what the Constitution is supposed to be. And as long as its five or more, we're golden.

Happy dance...happy dance.

Oh dear, oh dear. Only the US could consider this a step forward...

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


this was very good news...not about guns,but that at least one of our rights is still there..


we need NESARA ASAP imo

things are changing...join the winning team...the light

www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.nesara.us...

reply to post by Smokersroom


I'm guessing here, you disagree with the decision?

So which freedom would you defend? Just curious...

Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Freedom to be safe in your own home? Something else? Or maybe you'd just prefer that nannystate take care of everything for you? Including choosing which freedoms you have.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Smokersroom

 

I'm guessing here, you disagree with the decision?

So which freedom would you defend? Just curious...

Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Freedom to be safe in your own home? Something else? Or maybe you'd just prefer that nannystate take care of everything for you? Including choosing which freedoms you have.

Freedom is what you make of it. Unfortunately this is one freedom that will ultimately see people dying.

I think you have to learn to walk before you can run.

Originally posted by seagull
Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble? Freedom of religion? Freedom to be safe in your own home? Something else? Or maybe you'd just prefer that nannystate take care of everything for you? Including choosing which freedoms you have.

That's the real issue, isn't it? If they can nullify the 2nd Amendment and the rights it protects, what's to stop them from nullifying the others. Be careful of that slippery slope.

There's also another point that needs to be made. The 2nd Amendment doesn't actually grant the right to individual firearm ownership, just as it doesn't really grant any other rights. It recognizes and protects them from the government (or, at least, its supposed to). If the 2nd Amendment were stripped away tomorrow, you would still have that right, subject to the local and federal laws on the books. There would just be nothing stopping them from passing a complete gun ban.

reply to post by Smokersroom


Should we ban cars? Well over 40,000 Americans are killed in automobile accidents yearly. In comparison, 30,000 are killed by firearms and a very large portion of these, while no less tragic, are suicides.

Its like the point I made about assault rifles above. There are as many people killed in bicycle accidents (about 700) every year as by rifles of ANY type. It certainly puts that particular debate into perspective, something that the gun-ban lobby doesn't bother doing.

More perspective? Every year in the US, around 11,000 murders in the US occur where the victim was killed by a firearm. Also, every year in the US, around 13,000 Americans in the US over the age of 65 die simply by falling. That particular statistic can be found in the following article:

seniorliving.about.com...

[edit on 27-6-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by riggs2099

If this happens there will be alot of dead americans because a military force would be much better at handling thier weapons than alot of trigger happy fools running around shooting at anything.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

There is no country on earth that can currently drop enough soldiers into any largely populated city in the USA that could overwhelm the existing firepower in that city. Have you ever seen the stats on how many guns are in the hands of private citizens? And even that is a guess. I keep weapon and ammo safes. Many of us are also former members of the armed forces. Many of us regularly take friends and family to the range to teach them how to safely operate and use various firearms. Oh and don't forget how many people hunt and maintain rifles that are very effective hundreds of yards out.

The only way this country will be taken over is by the very means they are doing it as I type this sentence.. Keep the citizens fat and happy while passing any law you want with nobody even caring about it. The one good thing about an economic recession/depression is that more people are starting to pay attention to what the government is doing with their money.





[edit on 27-6-2008 by on_yur_6]

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by riggs2099

 

...and those of us ( myself included) who preach against not owning guns just may look to our american counterparts for protection.

Wouldn't be the first time........


[edit on 6/26/08 by BlackOps719]

You beat me to it!

Originally posted by Smokersroom
Freedom is what you make of it. Unfortunately this is one freedom that will ultimately see people dying.

Could you please tell us how this will lead to "more people dying?"

This is if the first (I believe, but could be wrong) major decision on the Second Amendment since 1790. Since that time, most thinking on the Second Amendment is that it did confer an individual's right to possess a firearm. What the decision yesterday did was not grant a new right to the people, but rather confirmed a right we've considered ours for 220 years. Further, the decision did not say that states and localities did not have the right to regulate the ownership of firearms; Scalia's opinion confirmed their authority to do so. The opinion allows states and cities to regulate gun ownership, but does not allow them to legislate them out of existence.

I am so hyped about this good news, that I just joined the NRA to give them my support in the good work that I feel that they do. I have been planning on joining soon anyway, put this just pushed me a little earlier than I had planed.

I don't even own a weapon yet, but that is on my agenda as well. I intend to purchase one in the next few months. I am counting on my friends to guide me in the right direction on that.

I have been reading this thread since Grady put it up. It is so exciting to read all of you and to see so many lovers of our Constitution in one place. It has renewed my faith in all the "true patriots" that are actually out there. Sometimes it seems that patriotism is fading, but then when something comes up to bring it to the forefront, it can be overwhelming how wrong I was.

Any way, if I could, I would do the Happy Dance with Seagull!



[edit on 6/27/2008 by PORCUPINEPIE]

Originally posted by Smokersroom
Oh dear, oh dear. Only the US could consider this a step forward...

Yes it is a step towards liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.



Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"



-- Benjamin Franklin



Roper

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Praise Jesus!!!

reply to post by PORCUPINEPIE


Save your money and dont renew your NRA membership. They are the largest gun control organization in the country.

If you want to support 2nd Amendment rights, check out Gun Owners of America.

reply to post by slackerwire


I beg your pardon.

The NRA is the most powerful and effective defender of the Second Amendment in the country.

They are not the most radical, but if it were not for the NRA, the Second Amendment would have been rendered meaningless years ago.

It is the NRA that has led the charge and has effectively educated the public regarding their rights.

The NRA is the most effective organization with regard to safety and firearms training and I believe that it is safe to say that every police officer in this country is trained either directly or indirectly by the NRA.

The NRA is the most active supporter of the the shooting sports and hunting in the country.

The GOA is a good organization. I have held an annual membership in their organization off and on for many years.

I encourage others to join the GOA, but the GOA cannot hold a candle to the NRA when you consider the range of services provided or the strength of their legislative clout.

Your statement is not only ill-informed, it is malicious and irresponsible.


[edit on 2008/6/27 by GradyPhilpott]

Who's leading the charge?

NRA sues to overturn S.F. gun ban in public housing

The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.

www.usatoday.com...

As usual, the NRA defends the Second Amendment without discrimination.

[edit on 2008/6/27 by GradyPhilpott]

Now time for the government to plan another terrorist attack by abusing this new law... Then NO ONE will have guns...

Originally posted by Skipper1975
we need NESARA ASAP imo
www.nesara.us...

Ummm...Hate to burst this particular bubble, but you didn't post the real NESARA. The original NESARA is only a proposed Bill to get the US economy back on the track that it never should have strayed...That's it. The link you posted is trying to go too far beyond NESARA's stated purpose by trying to fraudulently replace the current government. Go ahead & track down what kind of donations it takes in & really track down what (if anything) positive actions they've performed. The reason that Congress doesn't really look at the proposed Bill is because the fake NESARA draws too much negative attention towards the real McCoy.

Originally posted by doctormcauley

This is horrible, they ruled that we can own guns, but must get a permit (in D.C.)...

However, it is up to the Government to decide whether or not to issue any
permits, and how many.

Please guys, Read the Ruling itself. It is scary; the amount of double-think they use... Good ol' Delphi technique

I haven't stayed up to date on the gun laws and I know they vary from state to state. In Massachusetts in 1978 I had to have an FID for rifle or shotgun and a pistol permit for handgun. Though I had no problem getting them I was finger printed for the pistol permit. All guns had to be unloaded and in plain sight when being transported. As best as I remember I could've been denied for a criminal record or mental illness.
There wasn't a limit on how many could be issued.

In Arizona in 1984 the only resriction was on handguns and that only concerned carrying a concealed weapon, permit needed. You could carry a loaded pistol on your hip into a public establishment and though you might get some stares (there are antigunners in Az.) it was acceptable.


"However, it is up to the Government to decide whether or not to issue any permits, and how many."

This is the statement that concerns me. I assume you speak of the Federal govt. Does it apply to FIDs and does it apply at all to the states?

The "how many" part sounds new and the same question applies.

Finally, what are the reasons given for denying permits? Are they the usual mental illness and criminal record or have they added to the list?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court did find a way to chip away at the second amendment because they and many states as well do it every chance they get. If they did chip away this time it's amazing to hear
from so many happy gun rights people about the great victory in the Supreme Court. I truly hope they weren't fooled again. By "fooled again" I mean having to apply for permits in the first place. Let's be real, the term "apply for permission" already negates any "right". But the govts. (sneaky as they've been in the past) are experts at giving with the one hand, taking with the other, and keeping the populace happy at the same time. Could it be the same in this case? Or could it be worse? This time the people are not just happy they are overjoyed with a great victory.

Thank you for your post doctormcauley. You have piqued my curiousity on this matter and I will look into it further. Hope to read more about it from you as well.

reply to post by Smokersroom


Indeed freedom is what you make of it...or what you're allowed to make of it. The group of men that framed our Constitution knew that only too well, having lived with an authoritarian monarch, or monarchs, all their lives. The second amendment was written to aid in the protection of those rights, as were all of the others in the Bill of Rights.

I choose to make of my freedom the ability to protect, if need be, those other Rights that were granted to me by the Constitution.

If you choose to allow your rights to be eroded in the name of Public Safety, that's, of course, your porogative. Just don't expect me,or many Americans, to follow along with our British cousins.

So, Happy dance...happy dance...happy dance.

Porcupine...as long as you don't mind me stomping on your toes, you are welcome to join me....

[edit on 6/28/2008 by seagull]