It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

page: 2
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Alphard
 


I guess that is why we are called Yankees.

Firearms are a fun sport. Try hitting a target 1000 yards away with an object much smaller than a pencil. Very challenging.

You should try it before you knock it. It almost becomes an addiction shooting long range targets. Kind of like golf, but a lot more challenging.

A bonus is you can use your firearm to defend your home from criminals. Just because you haven't gotten mugged or invaded doesn't mean you won't in the future. I like to live by the motto:




I'd rather have it and not need, than need it and not have it.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
lol, this is my favorite part:


In dissent, 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.


Uhh... yes, that's exactly the choice the Framers made... This is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about, limiting the governments power over the people. Mr. Stevens needs to find some other place to practice totalitarian governing.

Now, as to what I think of the actual ruling, I think it's more of an illusion than anything else. A simulated victory for the people if you will. To err on the side of accuracy, they should state we have the right to apply for gun ownership. Just like we all have the right to apply for a credit card, we still have to be approved.

"Hey guys, lets give a few of our friends some guns, so everyone shuts up on this issue..."



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by guppy

And yes people have no idea how lucky they are that we have this right. Otherwise we might have been speaking Japanese or Russian. Both countries wanted to invade the US. They both were not afraid of our military. But they were afraid of the citizens who would be armed. The price to fight every square block would be too much.

God Bless America.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by guppy]


China Actually tried to invade back in the 1850's sent 3 warships to California after hearing of their people being mistreated working on the gold rush mines. The people of Monterrey welcomed them with such kindness that the chinese dismantled their ships and became Americans! Don't think the illusion of American oppression would hold up much if an army actually landed here. but I digress, nice way to feign being for the people SCOTUS.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Alphard
People in Europe have more strict weapons regulation.. and we have more liberties than the Americans do...


Yes, mods, I know that this is a one line response, but I think that the quote above pretty much speaks for itself.



Absolutely. Thousands of gun-deaths a year, and the dumb-arsed Yanks still haven't learned.

What disgusts me more is the "yay we get to keep our guns and keep killing people!" posters. Honestly, that's insane. I would fear to walk to the corner shop in America. Oh no, i'd just get a gun, like everyone else.

 



Before you start heading down the wrong path, please review the link below


Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 6/26/2008 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
here is the judgment
www.scotusblog.com...



[edit on 26-6-2008 by greenjuice]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by doctormcauley
 


The case did not dispute the right for jurisdictions to require registration and licensure, so the the court did not strike those requirements down, however, the court did rule that these requirements cannot be applied arbitrarily and that barring some other disqualification, registration and licensure cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

blogs.usatoday.com...



[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
edit.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by greenjuice]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


I think you misunderstood my post. His post is dripping with irony. The poster claims to have more rights in his country than we do in the US while also citing strict gun laws. In reality, his country just has more freedoms that *he* supports, but its a matter of opinion whether they actually do.

Myself, I find restrictive firearms laws to be very damaging to personal freedoms.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


People don't need guns to commit murder. Of all the arguments against gun rights, this is the most ignorant. If banned, the only people who would actually give up their guns are those who would never think of using them to harm others. What a gun ban accomplishes, is making good, decent citizens defenseless against the types of people you speak of. In fact, I'm a bit offended by your rash generalization of Americans as a bunch of murderous villains.

Guns don't need to be taken away, punishment for gun crimes needs to be made more severe.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Absolutely. Thousands of gun-deaths a year, and the dumb-arsed Yanks still haven't learned.


I presume that this statement means that you won't be petitioning the government for a visa or a green card or citizenship any time soon.

We "dumb-arsed Yanks" can at least be grateful for that.

[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Good news indead, but the battle still is on going. Just remember that the court was split along party lines. The next president will apoint new judges. The verdict can be reversed if the make up of the court changes. Remember to vote in Noveber.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I can't express my relief that the SCOTUS has finally taken a formal stand proclaiming definitively that the 2nd ammendment was NOT up for re-interpretation by political expedience.

Maybe they were drunk! I have to admit, I would have bet they would betray the Constitutional intent..., I am happy to apologize for my lack of good faith.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


"Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

So assuming you pass the background check... you GET ("permitted" to register your firearm and get a license (permit)...

Basically, you now need a permit to own a gun. The Government decides who get the permits and how many and the duration of the permit....

In fact, if you "permit" yourself to register your gun you just 'might' get a license


This Ruling is total BS doublespeak. Delphi technique at it's best.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by doctormcauley
 


Perhaps it isn't the best ruling in terms of construction - HOWEVER - it has done one thing the SCOTUS had been avoiding since 1791 - they have agreed with the Framer's intent. As long as that intent is uncontested, the spirit of the law can be invoked to rectify any future transgressions.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


I think you misunderstood my post. His post is dripping with irony. The poster claims to have more rights in his country than we do in the US while also citing strict gun laws. In reality, his country just has more freedoms that *he* supports, but its a matter of opinion whether they actually do.

Myself, I find restrictive firearms laws to be very damaging to personal freedoms.


Freedom to what, exactly?

But anyway, I think you misunderstood my post.

Owning a gun is not a freedom. It isn't something you should be able to do, period, because it is obviously a mistake waiting to happen. Aren't you sick of school shootings yet?

Guns are dangerous weapons. Only trained professionals should have them, and only where necessary. The general public should not be armed! What kind of mentality is it that dictates it is okay for Joe Bloggs on the street to have a leathal weapon?! And you are defending it!

I can't remember the name of the Michael Moore documentary, but basically it explained how America and Canada have similar gun laws, yet America has around 10,000 shootings a year while Canada has 60.

This means that it isn't actually guns that are the problem, it's Americans. So the best short-term solution would be to take the guns away - after all, we British are no longer coming to invade - and then embark on a long-term program of explaining to the American public why it is a bad thing to want to kill each other.

Of course, you won't and you'll just keep racking up the high school body count.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


About 40% of the 17,000 yearly murders in the US yearly are NOT committed with firearms. That's a pretty large number and fully supports what you say. Deranged idiots will find the means to kill regardless of the weapon. Most of them can get illegal weapons, anyway. All an anti-individual ruling would have done is deprived the 99.99% of the 100+ million gun owners who are law-abiding citizens of their rights.

The one thing I think many antis also fail to realize is that if the 2nd amendment is struck down, what does that potentially do to your OTHER rights in the Bill of Rights? It would mean that the Bill of Rights has about as much value as used toilet paper (and its heading that direction already, it really needs no more help).

Believe me, anti's, one day the government will come for a right you DO care about and you're potentially making that EASIER by attempting to aid the government in setting the precedent of stripping individual rights under the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


People don't need guns to commit murder. Of all the arguments against gun rights, this is the most ignorant. If banned, the only people who would actually give up their guns are those who would never think of using them to harm others. What a gun ban accomplishes, is making good, decent citizens defenseless against the types of people you speak of. In fact, I'm a bit offended by your rash generalization of Americans as a bunch of murderous villains.

Guns don't need to be taken away, punishment for gun crimes needs to be made more severe.


That's true, they don't.

But a split-second's mistake is much easier to make when all it takes is to pull a trigger.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by doctormcauley
 


All rights are limited to some degree, so I guess if you insist upon pessimism, then you will live a life of abject misery.

The key issue here is the individual right has been affirmed.

The NRA is announcing as I write that they will be filing lawsuits in numerous American cities to strike down their draconian gun laws.

You may see double speak, but I see the opportunity for massive change with regard to the 2nd Amendment and the crippling of the leftist elite who cannot bear to see freedom flourish.

I get the impression that you can't see the good in this ruling because you are mortified that the 2nd Amendment has been upheld and interpreted as it should have been from the beginning.

The battle has been won, but the war is not over. I will bet that there will be future challenges to further strengthen the 2nd Amendment.

We have not attained Utopia, but make no mistake, this is a great day for America!

Hallelujah!



[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Aren't you sick of school shootings yet?

Ignorance truly knows no bounds. Not one of the guns used in any school shooting was legally obtained by the shooter. For these shooters, a blanket gun ban changes nothing... they will still obtain their weapons illegally. I think you're confusing gun legality with gun availability.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


I'm defending it because of my own experience. I live in a very, very heavily armed area of the United States. I have absolutely NO fear that my neighbors across the street are going to go on killing sprees. I have absolutely NO fear of walking down my street unarmed. Why? Its the reason you state: people are the problem, not firearms. Firearms are ingrained in the culture of this area and we know how to use them responsibly. There is no reason to remove them.

The overwhelming majority of firearms owners in this country absolutely ARE responsible enough to own firearms. Only a tiny fracton will ever use them in the commission of a crime. As the old saying goes, 200 million US firearms didn't kill anyone yesterday. Or the day before. Or the year before. Or ever.

Punish the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]




top topics



 
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join