Quote :

"Well the whole defending your home is is best with a handgun is a little far fetched IMO. I keep a bat and giant flashlight near me and I fee just as safe."

Because you feel safe, you are?

Someone comes in with a shotgun. Good luck.

I KNOW!

FIRST SHINE THE FLASHLIGHT AT THEM AND THEN BAD GUYS STOP LIKE DEERS ON THE HIGHWAY! THEN YOU CAN USE YOUR BAT TO HARASS HIM INTO SURRENDERING HIS SHOT GUN!

GREAT PLAN!

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 1:25:37 PM

as a card carrying liberal who likes the Bill of Rights...

i'm quite happy with this ruling and the majority opinion.

6/26/2008 1:30:36 PM

Quote :

"Not to be an ass, but how could you possibly interpret those as collective rights? How? Who are the people? They are individuals, not a collectivist mass and there is no interpretation of founding intent which would have implied that they should be treated as such."

all i'm saying is that when the court was hearing this case back in March or April, they were extensively discussing and questioning on this point. If it could "not possibly be interpreted" as any other way, then they wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it.
obviously they eventually came down to agreeing it was an individual's right, in this case.

6/26/2008 1:32:27 PM

^^^ and the chances of that happening are....

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:33 PM. Reason : less than TV drama's want to make you believe]

6/26/2008 1:32:47 PM

have you checked the time between cases at the supreme court level?

^ once is enough, my friend.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 1:33:17 PM

Quote :

"Still reading. This is undeniably precedent setting. It is not, however, revolutionary."

I agree. It's certainly much broader than I was expecting.

6/26/2008 1:36:25 PM

^ do you guys read the whole Opinion? I wish I had time to

I hear that this is a broad ruling, explain. Is that because it sounds like SCOTUS leaves overturning all gun laws open for another court?

^^ honestly? that is your answer? one time is enough? what is this 7th grade sex ed?

And the whole collective/individual argument is a little m00t. Would it not be fair to say the Constitution is protecting both set of rights?



[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 PM. Reason : too many forums]

6/26/2008 1:45:49 PM

of course they wait till AFTER i leave the district to strike down the gun ban

6/26/2008 1:51:26 PM

Seung-Hui Cho would be proud

6/26/2008 1:53:45 PM

yeah, we wouldn't know who he was if someone else had a gun.

6/26/2008 1:54:41 PM

i prefer not to mention his name because that makes people remember him and he doesnt deserve that

6/26/2008 1:54:47 PM

Quote :

"Seung-Hui Cho would be proud"

Wow. You can't go a single post without being a cravenly despicable human being.

6/26/2008 1:58:07 PM

Quote :

"yeah, we wouldn't know who he was if someone else had a gun. "

Sad that you can remember his name but none of the real victims. Guess that ban of firearms on campus didnt really protect the innocent did it.

6/26/2008 2:04:08 PM

I have been to the Virginia Tech Memorial several times and it is why I am so ardently anti-handgun. A handgun is the weapon of choice for criminals,gang members and terrorists. If Cho had only been able to purchase a long gun, he would have never made it anywhere on campus without being spotted. I support the right to bear arms, just not handguns.

6/26/2008 2:09:28 PM

Quote :

"If it could "not possibly be interpreted" as any other way, then they wouldn't have spent so much time discussing it."

I don't think there was any contention over what "the right of the people" meant. Standing on its own it protects individual rights and has pretty much always been interpreted that way. The real debate was what effect the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" had on the latter. The DC v H decision essentially said that it was a matter of intent, but not limitation, and that the amendment was to be viewed as an individual right.

6/26/2008 2:11:50 PM

Quote :

"If Cho had only been able to purchase a long gun, he would have never made it anywhere on campus without being spotted. I support the right to bear arms, just not handguns."

Because no one has ever thought of this issue before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

6/26/2008 2:16:11 PM

columbine kids used sawed off shotguns.


What a horribly weak argument.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 2:18:19 PM

im quite happy with this ruling, i cant believe it was 5-4 though. thank God for those 5 conservatives who knew how to read the constitution instead of re-writing it.

6/26/2008 2:33:50 PM

What a great way to bolster an argument. Taking an otherwise normal weapon (shotgun) and making it concealable is such a threat to society that it has been totally prohibited under law. Inadvertently you acknowledged that concealibility is the factor that makes it inappropriate for small firearms to be made available, as they are of little use other than committing murders and robberies.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 2:35:47 PM

dude you missed his point. his point was that it doesnt matter if its a handgun or a rifle, a nut is gonna do what a nut is gonna do

6/26/2008 2:37:00 PM

Quote :

"thank God for those 5 4 conservatives and a swing liberal who knew how to read the constitution instead of re-writing it."

Anthony Kennedy is not a conservative.

6/26/2008 2:37:16 PM

cool

6/26/2008 2:39:40 PM

So...

It is legal for any home in the US to have a (usable obviously) gun in it.


Is that the general idea of this shabam?

6/26/2008 2:43:02 PM

if you are not a felon, yes. You have a right to own a firearm.

6/26/2008 2:55:48 PM

Quote :

"What a great way to bolster an argument. Taking an otherwise normal weapon (shotgun) and making it concealable is such a threat to society that it has been totally prohibited under law. Inadvertently you acknowledged that concealibility is the factor that makes it inappropriate for small firearms to be made available, as they are of little use other than committing murders and robberies."

I know context isn't your strong suit, but the point is simply that your objection doesn't work.

In simple terms, murder is illegal. If I'm going to go commit murder, something very illegal, what exactly is stopping me from circumventing the prohibition against handguns (which would exist in your perfect world) by simply modifying a gun you claim is "acceptable?" Even if it is "illegal."

Banning handguns does little to stop actual criminals from committing actual crime. Even assuming it to be effective, it's laughably trivial to circumvent.

Meanwhile, your last sentence is just idiotic. Of "little use other than committing murders and robberies?" And, oh, right, self-defense. A handgun is clearly useless for self-defense.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 3:03 PM. Reason : >.<]

6/26/2008 3:01:41 PM

i love the pic on cnn.com right now. the gun supporter thinks the right to guns is in the constitution

6/26/2008 3:05:50 PM

according to the supreme court, it is.

6/26/2008 3:07:12 PM

a handgun ban for a specific city is a ridiculous thing anyway.

6/26/2008 3:10:32 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm

Quote :

"The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - which supports gun control - said the decision would "most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws"."

I loled.

6/26/2008 3:30:34 PM

I love how lazy editors love to use a picture of a gun pointed at the reader for gun stories:

6/26/2008 4:11:10 PM

i dont know if thats them being lazy, or trying to throw in their own personal bias or what

6/26/2008 4:12:50 PM

think of all the readers who don't know what a gun looks like

6/26/2008 4:22:13 PM

I'd rather laws be made (or enforced) so that people with histories of mental problems couldnt buy guns.

then VA Tech would have never happened.

6/26/2008 5:14:26 PM

a few visits to a school councilor aren't gona show up on the radar for the clerk at a gun shop.

6/26/2008 5:17:04 PM

its not like it would be that hard to get them without going the legal route anyways

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2008 5:19:40 PM

^ I don't really think that's all that valid of an argument. A hardened criminal can easily get guns, but I don't think the psycho who just flipped out is going to go through the necessary networking it takes to get a gun illegally. You don't just walk in to a trailer park and announce you want a gun, and expect people to take you seriously. You usually have to know someone who can vouch for you, and an otherwise good student who happens to be insane is not likely to know many people in the shady underbelly of society.

6/26/2008 5:29:41 PM

Charles Whitman was in a tower shooting with a rifle for 96 MINUTES at the University of Texas before he was stopped...and he did most of his damage with a "hunting rifle"

no underground criminal network connections needed to get a couple rifles...just some money and access to a walmart

6/26/2008 5:33:27 PM

At least that was true when the old man was still alive. Sam Walton's kids are a bunch of liberal pussies.

6/26/2008 6:54:10 PM

SO GOD DAMN HAPPY RIGHT NOW.
I mean, sure, now Chicago and San Francisco are going to be annoying and similar fights are going to need to be fought around thos cities, but GOD DAMN does this feel FANTASTIC right now.

6/26/2008 9:31:33 PM

I enjoy my right to be able to defend myself against a tyrannical and abusive government through armed means. The Bush Regime reminded me very well why we should be armed in case our rights are trampled on.

6/26/2008 9:58:31 PM

^^ Well put. I, too, am very happy!

^ What a hideous contortion.

6/27/2008 12:31:36 AM

Yeah, it's so hideous that to actually know what the amendment was written to address.

6/27/2008 12:38:30 AM

^ (1) You had to get your Bush derangement syndrome shot in, and (2) the Democrats are most likely to take away your individual rights--look how they're foaming and flailing already about the holding at issue.

6/27/2008 12:44:05 AM

Quote :

"Well the whole defending your home is is best with a handgun is a little far fetched IMO. I keep a bat and giant flashlight near me and I fee just as safe. "

haha

maybe if the intruder is Helen Keller.

Quote :

"Taking an otherwise normal weapon (shotgun) and making it concealable is such a threat to society that it has been totally prohibited under law. "

In related news, that crazy motherfucker would've certainly given a rat's ass whether or not sawing off a shotgun was illegal.



I mean, fucking come on, dude. I figured even you were smart enough not to make an argument THAT dumb.

Yeah, he had been clinically determined to be batshit crazy, and there could've and possibly should've been some controls in place to deal with that issue and keep him from buying a firearm. legally (although I suspect that he would've ultimately just bought one illegally, out of the trunk of a car somewhere). Saying that generally restricting the legal purchase and ownership of handguns would've prevented that disaster is just fucking stupid, though.

If anything, allowing CCP holders to carry on campus like they do almost everywhere else could likely stopped the massacre (you can rest assured that he would've been a dead motherfucker long before he shot 3-4 dozen people if I'd been in one of those classrooms with my .45, and there are plenty of people like me who would've put a stop to it before so many people died).

Quote :

"Inadvertently you acknowledged that concealibility is the factor that makes it inappropriate for small firearms to be made available, as they are of little use other than committing murders and robberies"

dude

the shit you say is 10x dumber than the most retarded thing that hooksaw or treetwista has ever said.

i mean, do I REALLY have to explain what's so goddamned idiotic about this statement, or can you just re-read what you just wrote, make the Carl-face, and understand why you're wrong?

6/27/2008 1:51:04 AM

^ Can one thread be made without my username being taken in vain, for God's sake?!

6/27/2008 2:01:25 AM

Quote :

"Charles Whitman was in a tower shooting with a rifle for 96 MINUTES at the University of Texas before he was stopped...and he did most of his damage with a "hunting rifle" no underground criminal network connections needed to get a couple rifles...just some money and access to a walmart"

That makes an interesting story, as stories detail events like this that are highly unusual. The reality is that several hundred people across the US will die today and everyday from otherwise preventable handgun related crime. That's the issue for debate on handguns. Every month another 9/11 worth of victims.

6/27/2008 2:03:04 AM

Quote :

"SO GOD DAMN HAPPY RIGHT NOW."

Me too. But amazed that the Second Amendment barely squeezed by with a 5-4 vote.

With a couple of grizzled old lefty judges about ready to meet their maker, it's all the more important to not give Obama the keys to the White House.

"..but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." -Justice Antonin Scalia

Most of the Framers thought the Bill of Rights was a redundant extra. They felt the gov't would never exceed its specifically enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights was supposed to merely recognize our rights, not bestow them. And now 200 years later, we have to constantly fight off these hounds of gov't tyranny from mauling our most basic of rights - self preservation.

One single man- Arthur Kennedy- was the deciding factor over de facto citizen disarmament.


Reading the dissenters really opens your eyes as to how eager they are to strip away your rights...

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the
common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." -Justice Stevens, dissenting.

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

Thomas Jefferson: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353


Justice Stevens would have you lose your right to own a gun because of a tortured justification from a dictionary definition:

"The term “bear arms” is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.” 1 Oxford English Dictionary 634 (2d ed. 1989).

Dissenting Justice Breyer fails to see that the gov't doesn't confer our rights upon us, it simply recognizes those rights that belong to us already as members of the human race.

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

Again, Justice Stevens: "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."

He sees the second amendment as not recognizing an individual right of gun ownership, but a right of the state to use its citizenry as soldiers. The state doesn't have any rights, only individuals do.

Keep in mind that this bunch of dissenters was the very same justices who attacked your right to hold property in the Kelo decision.

The Supreme Court has given itself more and more power through the years. Vote for Obama, and he will add even more of these liberty-hating characters to the court.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 2:09 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 2:08:22 AM

like i said the supreme court is definitely conservative enough right now for shit like this to always pass

6/27/2008 2:17:14 AM

^^

Quote :

"But amazed that the Second Amendment barely squeezed by with a 5-4 vote."

You are absolutely right.

^ So, what happened with the child rapist death sentence et al? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 2:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 2:26:13 AM

Holy crap our major cities have some painfully stupid mayors.

NPR's interviewed a couple of them, and they all gave me the impression that a) they can't think rationally, and b) honestly don't give a crap about the Bill of Rights.

6/27/2008 7:38:00 AM