Major Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Gun Owners

[oldrambler]

I don't own guns, but the more I think about it, the more I begin to realize how incredibly vital of a right it is that citizens owning guns really is.

 

Yes it is :thumb: I don't mind if someone doesn't want to own guns and feels that they don't need them, that is their choice and opinion and I respect that.

Where my problem comes in is when some tell me that I, as a law abiding citizen shouldn't have a right to own firearms if I so choose.

[cch5432]

Vital? I'm not so sure it is a vital right of ours. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and I am a gun owner. I am also for some restrictions on the guns that citizens are allowed to own. I believe the process in which someone obtains a firearm is very important and that only the people who prove they can follow the laws of the United States should be allowed to legally own a firearm.

 

I am not sure why, but I really have been thinking (admittedly, in a fairly-naive manner) that disarming American citizens is an important step to a 1984-like government.

[owsleyking]

It's a case of common sense to me...If a government militia is the only entity allowed to own firearms,then the citizens are at the mercy of said government....and if the 2nd ammendment did not mean for individual citizens to own firearms,then the revolutionary war was fought in vain. Remember the contribution the minutemen played in achieving our freedom.

[John Anthony]

I like it

[halfback20]

I am not sure why, but I really have been thinking (admittedly, in a fairly-naive manner) that disarming American citizens is an important step to a 1984-like government.

 

I just thought the word vital was a bit much. It's an important issue nonetheless.

[AcesFull]

I just thought the word vital was a bit much. It's an important issue nonetheless.

All constitutional rights are vital. When we start allowing simple majorities of local, state, or national lawmakers to decide which parts of the constitution are important, then we will no longer be a free people.

 

I think that our federal government has already crossed that line. The vote in this case shows just how close this nation is to living under tyranny.

[leatherneck]

There is an outstanding chance, IMO, that Barack Obama will be president for eight years, likely nominating several SC justices in the process.

 

RTS, by 2016 or before, you will be lucky to own a water pistol, partner.

 

Which is exactly the reason why the far right people that want Obama to get elected in 08 to set up the election of a very strong conservative down the road better wise up and rethink their logic. If Obama gets two terms, or maybe even one term, and appoints just one liberal justice to the SC, it could make a huge impact on the SC decisions; an impact the far right folks will not like and could take many, many years to correct. I don't agree with McCain on everything (like his ANWR position for example), but dadgummit, he's a heck of a lot closer to by beliefs than Obama is and if a spot comes open on the SC, I think McCain will appoint someone who comes a lot closer to my legal beliefs than anyone Obama will appoint. Make sure you vote for McCain, make sure your family in Ky votes for McCain, make sure your friends in Ky vote for McCain and if you have friends and families in other states (particularly Ohio and the other battleground states), pick up the phone or send them an e mail and ask, no plead, that they vote for McCain.

[Jumper_Dad]

Beaking news just in is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of honest Americans, the NRA and against the D./C. gun ban.

 

Essentially what this means is that American citizens have the right to own a handgun and not just groups ond organizations like the Military and the National Guard. This ruling did not limit this to just D.C. and imo is a Major victory for Gun Owners and the NRA and a Major defeat for some of the liberal lawmakers and wannabe elected officials.

 

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

 

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the ..........

 

Thank you GWB, if either Kerry or Gore had won, this decision would have went the other way.

[halfback20]

Which is exactly the reason why the far right people that want Obama to get elected in 08 to set up the election of a very strong conservative down the road better wise up and rethink their logic. If Obama gets two terms, or maybe even one term, and appoints just one liberal justice to the SC, it could make a huge impact on the SC decisions; an impact the far right folks will not like and could take many, many years to correct. I don't agree with McCain on everything (like his ANWR position for example), but dadgummit, he's a heck of a lot closer to by beliefs than Obama is and if a spot comes open on the SC, I think McCain will appoint someone who comes a lot closer to my legal beliefs than anyone Obama will appoint. Make sure you vote for McCain, make sure your family in Ky votes for McCain, make sure your friends in Ky vote for McCain and if you have friends and families in other states (particularly Ohio and the other battleground states), pick up the phone or send them an e mail and ask, no plead, that they vote for McCain.

 

What if other people's beliefs do not match up well with John McCain? I mean, how can we tell whether or not our beliefs match up with him? He flip flops on nearly everything; The war in Iraq, George Bush's Tax Cuts, Gay Marriage.

[Hatz]

It's a case of common sense to me...If a government militia is the only entity allowed to own firearms,then the citizens are at the mercy of said government....and if the 2nd ammendment did not mean for individual citizens to own firearms,then the revolutionary war was fought in vain. Remember the contribution the minutemen played in achieving our freedom.

 

I believe in keeping the 2nd Amendment as is. The real debate becomes on what type of firearms can the public have, etc.

 

As to your analogy with the Revolution, the reality is that the private citizenry of today would be hard pressed to match the firepower of government militia or army. In the 18th century there was not that large of a difference (cannon aside).

 

One telling historical issue to me is that the 2nd Amendment was conceived and adopted on the heels of the Shay's Rebellion of 1786-7 when a militia of disgruntled veterans and citizens attempted to overthrow a government that was taxing them too much and imprisoning debtors. It was put down by a militia unit that struggled to be placed in the field. This 2nd Amendment came as a result of compromise of both a solid standing army for the central government and a local armed citizenry to defend themselves.

 

The minutemen did not play a vital role in winning the war of Independence. They were at Lexington and Concord, and basically a militia mob held Bunker/Breeds Hill but it was the lack of military discipline from the militia's that hindered Washington and the American efforts for years. It was not until the army was trained and experienced enough did it produce victories like Monmouth, Guilford Court House and Yorktown. (Experience and guerilla tactics had to have helped some in Trenton and Princeton but that was the regular army for the most part)

[Covercorner]

I think that the SCUS got it right, but I think we should drop any pretense that there are ANY conservative Justices. Let's look at what they have ruled.

 

First, they have ruled that the second amendment is an individual right. In my opinion, they got that part right.

 

Second, they ruled that it is permissable to place reasonable restrictions on gun use and ownership. Note that they have NO objection to gun registration, sale restrictions or outright bans on some weapons.

 

Third, they substituted their judgement of what constitutes "reasonable" for that of the duly elected legislative body. That would seem to me to be the very definition of a liberal judge.

 

Bottom line, gun ownership for protection and sport is protected. Bans of some types of weapons, registration of weapons, restrictions on sale conditions are all allowed. Sounds good to me.

 

TA- I think you're dead on. I'm posting this having not read the entire opinion, but have read enought Cour opinions to build up a perception of the Court. If these Conservatives on the court ruled in a truly strict constructionist way, they would have not ruled the way that they did. The so-called Liberals on the court would not have ruled the way that they did either, if they were going in a loose constructionist manner. IMO, this case only further strengthens the perceptioin that politics has invaded our supposedly independent judiciary.

[Hearsay]

I believe in keeping the 2nd Amendment as is. The real debate becomes on what type of firearms can the public have, etc.

 

As to your analogy with the Revolution, the reality is that the private citizenry of today would be hard pressed to match the firepower of government militia or army. In the 18th century there was not that large of a difference (cannon aside).

 

One telling historical issue to me is that the 2nd Amendment was conceived and adopted on the heels of the Shay's Rebellion of 1786-7 when a militia of disgruntled veterans and citizens attempted to overthrow a government that was taxing them too much and imprisoning debtors. It was put down by a militia unit that struggled to be placed in the field. This 2nd Amendment came as a result of compromise of both a solid standing army for the central government and a local armed citizenry to defend themselves.

 

The minutemen did not play a vital role in winning the war of Independence. They were at Lexington and Concord, and basically a militia mob held Bunker/Breeds Hill but it was the lack of military discipline from the militia's that hindered Washington and the American efforts for years. It was not until the army was trained and experienced enough did it produce victories like Monmouth, Guilford Court House and Yorktown. (Experience and guerilla tactics had to have helped some in Trenton and Princeton but that was the regular army for the most part)

 

That is an interesting take on the lack of colonial organized army.

 

The way I have heard other historians put it is that the colonists had very few trained and organized army regulars, and RELIED upon citizen militia to make up the difference. While the militia often ran after the first volley, their mere presence required Cornwallis and Burgoyne to account for them and prevented the immediate overwhelming of colonial forces. In that sense, the militia bought Washington just enough time to train regular army and eventually to secure victory.

 

I guess its all in how you look at it.

[leatherneck]

What if other people's beliefs do not match up well with John McCain? I mean, how can we tell whether or not our beliefs match up with him? He flip flops on nearly everything; The war in Iraq, George Bush's Tax Cuts, Gay Marriage.

 

Oh baloney. Put down your Democratic kool aid, quit accepting Obama's spin ads as Gospel and do some research. Of the three you mentioned, only one has any merit. He has consistently been in support of the Iraq war and is and has always been opposed to gay marriage to the best of my knowledge. If you have a statement from McCain saying he is or has been in favor of gay marriage, I'd like to see it (and don't tell me what his MySpace Page said; here is a link addressing that: http://mike.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/27/633799-hacking-john-mccain) because I have never heard McCain say he is in favor of gay marriage. You provide a link to where McCain stated that he was at one time in favor of gay marriage and I'll admit I was wrong, but I doubt you are going to be able to provide such a link.

 

As for Bush's tax cuts, yes years ago he was opposed to them. And now (and for some time) he has been in favor of the tax cuts. So I'll give you that one. But that sure as heck doesn't qualify as nearly everything. Heck, I'll even throw you a bone and say he flipped flopped on off shore drilling. As I posted in another thread, I think the changing energy situation merited a change in his position and I actually commend him for being willing to re-assess his position on that issue. I wouldn't be in favor of it either if gas was $2 a gallon. I am now.

 

And those two issues(or arguably one issue) are (is) "nearly everything"? Come on. Make credible posts if you want to be considered as credible.

 

Bottom line: There is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever have beliefs across the board that are as liberal as Obama's and there is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever attempt to appoint a justice to the SC that is as liberal as the one that Obama would appoint. The fact that you threw up such a ridiculous post leads me to conclude that my post has you very worried about its logic.

[leatherneck]

That is an interesting take on the lack of colonial organized army.

 

The way I have heard other historians put it is that the colonists had very few trained and organized army regulars, and RELIED upon citizen militia to make up the difference. While the militia often ran after the first volley, their mere presence required Cornwallis and Burgoyne to account for them and prevented the immediate overwhelming of colonial forces. In that sense, the militia bought Washington just enough time to train regular army and eventually to secure victory.

 

I guess its all in how you look at it.

 

Plus, Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox") used militia and irregulars to cause the British big, big problems in South Carolina near Charleston for quite some time.

[the mathemagician]

Which is exactly the reason why the far right people that want Obama to get elected in 08 to set up the election of a very strong conservative down the road better wise up and rethink their logic. If Obama gets two terms, or maybe even one term, and appoints just one liberal justice to the SC, it could make a huge impact on the SC decisions; an impact the far right folks will not like and could take many, many years to correct. I don't agree with McCain on everything (like his ANWR position for example), but dadgummit, he's a heck of a lot closer to by beliefs than Obama is and if a spot comes open on the SC, I think McCain will appoint someone who comes a lot closer to my legal beliefs than anyone Obama will appoint. Make sure you vote for McCain, make sure your family in Ky votes for McCain, make sure your friends in Ky vote for McCain and if you have friends and families in other states (particularly Ohio and the other battleground states), pick up the phone or send them an e mail and ask, no plead, that they vote for McCain.

 

 

Thanks for your political advertisement. But allow me equal time:

 

Make sure you vote for Obama, make sure your family in KY votes for Obama, make sure your friends in KY vote for Obama . If you have friends and family in other states(particularly in Ohio and the other battleground states), pick up the phone or end them an e-mail and ask, no plead, that they vote for Obama.

I agree the Court should be a big consideration when choosing your candidate, and that is the biggest reason that I will be voting for Barack Obama.