- #1
WheelsRCool
Just for those who may be unaware, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. What's interesting is it was 5-4 ruling.
Not sure which way which leans.SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
russ_watters said:Not sure which way which leans.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
WarPhalange said:I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.
WarPhalange said:I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.
Then put that in the constitution with an amendment because it is not in there now.Ivan Seeking said:I am extremely happy about this and the ruling on the death penalty.
... and never give the State the legal right to kill its citizens, for any reason.
WarPhalange said:Sure, but then they should actually have a militia. Ergo people who want to own guns should be required to sign up for the local militia.
Cyrus said:
OrbitalPower said:Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.
drankin said:This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possesses a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.
WarPhalange said:You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.
EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.
Exactly. The last proposed amendment was thirty years ago in '78 (DC Voting - rejected). Even though society is larger and changing faster than ever before, the amendment process has been nearly forgotten , a consequence of jurists who hold a 'living document' philosophy.D H said:... If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.
Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.WarPhalange said:You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.
EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.
Quick, somebody get the straight jackets out to descendent's of the US Civil war, German and Japanese tyrants caused by WWII, etc.OrbitalPower said:...Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.
mheslep said:Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg
I don't say otherwise, as the free / slave state issue plainly caused the disunion. It is clear that the civil war stopped the confederate tyranny of slavery and it was "overthrown with guns".OrbitalPower said:Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times.
If that is true then the phrase means nothing and no war to 'stop tyranny' has ever taken place. You are temporizing.World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either,
mheslep said:Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungarians_inspecting_a_tank.jpg
OrbitalPower said:Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.
OrbitalPower said:Yes.
I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.
This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.
WarPhalange said:I like how they completely ignored the first half of the sentence, though. You know, the whole militia part.
Cyrus said:You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread.
Cyrus said:What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.
Cyrus said:Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.
Cyrus said:q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.
q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.
q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.
q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.
So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS can't have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?