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: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
Americans are not the brightest people on this planet. They will eventually kill us all thanks to thier trigger happy ( we are so big and bad) attitude. They are more like cowards that act big but only when they have a weapon ( more technologically advanced or just bigger) to back thier play.


I take personal offense at this statement.

You know not whereof you speak and I think our internal affairs are none of your business.

You have a right to speak your mind, but you should be cautious of whom you insult and abide by the rules of civility.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


I agree completely, particularly in this country where we already have an enormous black market for illegal goods of all kinds, including illegal weapons.

That won't stop with a gun ban. If anything, I believe that you'll start seeing small-scale, yet quite sophisticated illegal weapons manufacturing occur pretty quickly. It already happens, but they're usually pieces of junk slapped together in someone's bathroom that occasionally severely injure or kill the user. But the well-financed gangs and criminal organizations will likely begin manufacturing decent ones in the backcountry if a ban occurred, much like what happened with alcohol prohibition in the 30s.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder
reply to post by riggs2099
 


Thank you for clarifying, I am more able to understand your point of view now.. and I will actually concede this scenario to you sir.. although, I still think that an invading armed force(high tech and all) would get very bloodied..
Also My first reply to you may not have been "Very smart" But it was actually meant to give a chuckle...
You have your opinion, And I have mine.. we may not agree, but hopefully on occasion we may differ with humor thrown in to take the edge off...

Sorry for the not very smart comment and yes we well have differing opinions and also your correct in saying a little humor helps to take the edge off. Besides no matter who thinks thier right we all have to live in this stupid world and maybe one of these days we will all band together against a common a enemy...and those of us ( myself included) who preach against not owning guns just may look to our american counterparts for protection.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Here is an excerpt of Antonin Scalia's decision in this landmark ruling. Unlike the four dissenter's, who didn't bother to try and quote any part of the Constitution to back themselves up (because they knew they had nothing to back up their ultra liberal beliefs), Scalia quotes and makes reference directly out of the Constitution:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

...

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 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.


Source: blogs.usatoday.com...

Excellently written!


[edit on 26-6-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


LOL.

Yeah it always freaks people out when they've got me pigeonholed as a cardboard-cutout liberal and the subject of gun control comes up.

I've been shooting since I was about 8, and I am as pro 2nd Amendment as they come.

I'm a card-carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU, some people find this inconsistent, I don't.

Between the two of them I figure I've got all of the BoR covered



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I'd still like to hear the justification for any gun control whatsoever.

Obama wants "reasonable" gun control laws. Anyone ever notice whenever a politician wants to place "reasonable" restrictions on our freedoms, reasonable is that last thing they are?

The 2nd doesn't say " the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be reasonably infringed".

It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the government feels the need to regulate said arms".

Shall not be infringed is very clear.

Those who dissented should be brought up on charges of violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by slackerwire]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Sorry guys hit the wrong button

But thank you sir for the above post.. And Yes I agree with you that we all do have to live in this world, And one of our greatest tools nowadays is the internet, this is where we can engage people from all over the world in differant conversations, arguments, whatever... and guesse what?? It is usually the regular every day "joe", not the friggin pollititian or "state sponsored mouthpiece"
So as I have said before we may dissagree, but at least we are able to converse..
And as far as the USA is concerned, You may not like guns, But for us it is a right given to us in our constitution..
But so is the right for FREEDOM of speech.... And what us "gun nuts" are so afraid of, is if our government can take or infringe on just one of our Constitutional rights(IE the RIGHT to bear arms) then what is to stop them from infringing or even getting rid of our RIGHT to FREE SPEECH????
so you may not agree with our love for fire arms, But do you agree with our Love to Freely express ourselves, through whatever medium of comunication we desire???
Just trying my best to explain this is not just about guns, but about our rights as american citizens..(prob.did a poor job of it)

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


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



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog

May I humbly ask if my reasoning is correct on this. Now that DC residents are allowed to have a gun in their home, burglars are going to assume that home owners are armed. Thus they will be more likely to arm themselves whereas in the past they might have not done so. As a result, I now need to arm myself to protect my family against this now increased threat.
I'll probably going do it cause it seems the responsible thing to under these circumstances, but it's in my opinion an unnecessary catch 22. No matter where you stand on this debate, it seems to me inevitable that some lives will be lost whilst others will be saved with this new law. Tough tough math to digest in the long run.


My predictions for DC in the coming months:

  • A very strict licensing system, barely legal within the confines of the ruling, will be implemented almost immediately.
  • Crime will drop dramatically, except possibly in already gun-crime-riddled areas.
  • Despite the crime drop, police will become more militant, needing to 'protect themselves' from the people they are pledged to serve and protect.
  • Every gun-related crime will be sensationalized by the media, making the police's needs to be more easily accepted by the population.
  • Eventually, people will learn that their city is not going to explode from this.


At least, these are my guesses.


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


perhaps the good Brit would like to tell everone here how intensly bad the petty crime is in England(car and home invasions, assaults and yes shootings) and how the drug dealers rule the roost in the cities and thugs and pikeys terrorise the countryside. This coming from a country who invented press gangs to rape and pillage the west indies and raped the Native Americans and stripped them of their lands and dignity...after all we were "british" for many years. you're probably proud of your commonwealth but how did you aquire it....with guns ablazing. try that here...now.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


LOL.

Yeah it always freaks people out when they've got me pigeonholed as a cardboard-cutout liberal and the subject of gun control comes up.

I've been shooting since I was about 8, and I am as pro 2nd Amendment as they come.

I'm a card-carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU, some people find this inconsistent, I don't.

Between the two of them I figure I've got all of the BoR covered



The calling card of any truly intelligent person is their ability to form their own opinions and not simply follow a party line.


I am very conservative about some things and suprisingly quite liberal in others.

Either way I salute you for being an individual and for making up your own mind. I usually try and follow the rule of practicality and common sense when forming an opinion, but we all make mistakes from time to time.

Anyway, not to derail Mr. Philpots thread. Back to business.



[edit on 6/26/08 by BlackOps719]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


I never consider a tangential discussion as a derailment. Sometimes tangents are the only way to cover all the bases, which of course, are belong to us.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
My predictions for DC in the coming months:


I agree with parts 1, 5, and especially 4. Every gun crime will be cast in the light of the SCOTUS decision. I am willing to wager you will hear lines like, "The thirty-first murder since the Supreme Court decision..."



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by TheRedneck
My predictions for DC in the coming months:


I agree with parts 1, 5, and especially 4. Every gun crime will be cast in the light of the SCOTUS decision. I am willing to wager you will hear lines like, "The thirty-first murder since the Supreme Court decision..."

I also agree with the above "predictions" and I also See alot of law suits in the future especially when the first victim of a home burgulary In the DC. area shoots the guy (or gal) in self defense...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex

The "feds" are not limiting the death penalty. The 8th Amendment does. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. That itself imposes a limit on what punishments a state may inflict, including in how the death penalty is applied.


I don't want to derail this thread into that decision, but suffice it to say that I m pretty much pro-death penalty. So, in my opinion, the majority would be the 'offenders' in that case.


I am willing to wager you will hear lines like, "The thirty-first murder since the Supreme Court decision..."


I think one of us should start a new thread just to document that. We both know it will happen...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SideWynder
 


Yep. That's the tactic they'll use now. While this case affirms a constitutional right to own a firearm for self-defense, unfortunately, it does not provide immunity from civil lawsuits for exercising that right. They'll twist it so that the criminal perpetrator is actually the victim, as they do already. That firearm may save your life, but the anti's do their best ensure that it costs you everything else you own if you're forced to exercise that right.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
If I may add one more prediction to what will happen in my city with the caveat that as I have already noted I am far from an expert on this topic.
I suspect this will also lead to a greater "trigger happy" disposition within law enforcement.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by doctormcauley
 


The United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms under the umbrella of a "well regulated militia". Thus the permit or licensing of these arms are the "regulating" of them per the Constitution. The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms without check.

This could have been interpreted as our state national guards were the well regulated militia, we are fortunate the SCOTUS used the traditional intent of the constitutional law.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
If I may add one more prediction to what will happen in my city with the caveat that as I have already noted I am far from an expert on this topic.
I suspect this will also lead to a greater "trigger happy" disposition within law enforcement.


I am not so sure that this will happen, As the court ruling did not give express permission for everyone to go out and get guns in DC, It basically said that you have the right to now apply for a permit to have one in your house..
Mass, had a law simular to that, you were not allowed to buy hand gun ammo, nor were you allowed to actually buy a hand gun without a permit.(which was very hard to get) nor were you allowed to have a handgun outside of your abode.. So how you got the gun home to begin with and where you bought it was never explained..
But if you happened to somehow have a hand gun in your house it was leagal... LOL...
the cops in Mass. were not any more trigger happy than anywhere else. I see the same for DC. Because they will come to realize that DC. is not going to become the "Wild West" Just because LAW ABIDING citizens Can now "leagaly" have a handgun in thier house..
Personally, I would be more wary of shotguns in the home than a pistol..

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


When Florida instituted a concealed carry law, the anti-gunners predicted blood in the street.

Guess what?

Crime went down across the board.

More guns, less crime.

www.nraila.org...

[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join