2nd Amendment validated by Supreme Court

[Dinsdale]

Time to remove at least one SC "Justice" from the bench --

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, 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."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined,
but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government.

If an SC "Justice" is either A) Ignorant, or B) Flagrantly dishonest about historical context to make a ruling, he is no longer fit to hold the position.


It's not just about defending your home -- it's about defending your rights. Nanny staters will ALWAYS lie/ignore this intent of the Framers... unl;ess of course George Washington doesn't count as a "Framer"... then again, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said the same thing... but what the hell do the guys who WROTE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION know about its "intent"?


But continue to sit down and do what you're told, like good little sheeple do. I mean, why would anyone who's hitting you up for trillions of dollars every year ever want to infringe on your right to do something about it?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[quote="Roach"]"... have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes. "

Actually, Americans have the inalienable right to own guns for whatever and wherever fucking reason they want. The SC statement sounds like they're trying to narrowly define the 2nd.

But of course, go ahead and paint this as a 'win", because the government decided not to take your guns away.

[Left Seater]

Glad to see the NRA will be filing additional suits to roll back local unlawful controls.

[BSmack]

It's not just about defending your home -- it's about defending your rights. Nanny staters will ALWAYS lie/ignore this intent of the Framers... unl;ess of course George Washington doesn't count as a "Framer"... then again, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said the same thing... but what the hell do the guys who WROTE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION know about its "intent"?

I'm pretty sure the framers saw the vehicle through which individual rights were to be defended as the state government. But that concept disappeared with the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

Just the same, I'm glad this ruling came down. Outright prohibition is bad policy. As the murder rates in DC will tell anybody.

[Mister Bushice]

But of course, go ahead and paint this as a 'win", because the government decided not to take your guns away.

As long as we can still hunt canadians if we want,

That's a good thing then.

[Tom In VA]

What's interesting is - now what are "reasonable limitations". These are the discussions going on now.

So we've leaned more towards a proper interpretation of the amendment, in my opinion anyway, but how "literal" do we get.

Felons.
Automatic weapons ?

I mean if the framers penned this amendment to insure that individuals could protect themselves from a tyrannical government - doesn't that provide that individuals should be enabled to arm themselves with similiar weapons ? I really think those Stryker's are killer. Of course they're cost prohibitive to ME, but maybe I could afford one of these to protect my crib.

[Diego in Seattle]

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Yeah....everyone is a Harry Callahan. :roll: X infinity.

[Cuda]

That's something for you to keep in mind next time you're in a pre-schooler's bedroom, Pedo

[smackaholic]

No, dumbfukk. Everyone is not a harry callahan.

Got any intelligent arguements?

What I would really like to see happen is a modification to the 2nd amendment, if that is legally possible, or an outright new amendment striking the "well regulated militia" clause that the anti gun folks cling to.

It should say that adult citizens have the right to bear whatever fukking weapon they want, unless they have been shown to be mentally incompetent to do so or have a violent criminal record. They would also have the right to bear it pretty much wherever the fukk they want. Restrictions on where they might bear would be extremely limited. Commercial airline flights would be one. Pretty much any public place would be OK to carry. Private property would be up to the owner of said private property.

[Diego in Seattle]

No, dumbfukk. Everyone is not a harry callahan.

Got any intelligent arguements?

Plenty. Too bad you're shooting balnks with your following garbage:

What I would really like to see happen is a modification to the 2nd amendment, if that is legally possible, or an outright new amendment striking the "well regulated militia" clause that the anti gun folks cling to.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of the pesky 4th amendment while we're at it (since cops can't possibly catch criminals while it's in place)? And while we're hacking the founding father's intents, why don't we get rid of the 14th amendment (after all, conservatives don't really mean to treat everyone equally)? Perhaps we should just save time & just destroy the constitution in it's entirety. I'm sure that would be fine with the current White House occupant.

It should say that adult citizens have the right to bear whatever fukking weapon they want, unless they have been shown to be mentally incompetent to do so or have a violent criminal record. They would also have the right to bear it pretty much wherever the fukk they want. Restrictions on where they might bear would be extremely limited. Commercial airline flights would be one. Pretty much any public place would be OK to carry. Private property would be up to the owner of said private property.

Why restrict guns on airplanes? You've already said in your first sentence that American muzzies should have the right to bear these:


Has your IQ ever hit double digits?

[Dinsdale]

And while we're hacking the founding father's intents

Fucking priceless.

Like the anti-Constitution folks who try and spin the word "milita" into their rhetoric, when in fact it's very well documented that "milita" in the late 18th Century meant "a citizen."


I'm just wondering how this is interpereted as "hacking the FF's intent":

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined,
but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government.

It boggles the mind that anyone would even try to put a spin job on such a clearly worded "intent."

[smackaholic]

No, dumbfukk. Everyone is not a harry callahan.

Got any intelligent arguements?

Plenty. Too bad you're shooting balnks with your following garbage:

What I would really like to see happen is a modification to the 2nd amendment, if that is legally possible, or an outright new amendment striking the "well regulated militia" clause that the anti gun folks cling to.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of the pesky 4th amendment while we're at it (since cops can't possibly catch criminals while it's in place)? And while we're hacking the founding father's intents, why don't we get rid of the 14th amendment (after all, conservatives don't really mean to treat everyone equally)? Perhaps we should just save time & just destroy the constitution in it's entirety. I'm sure that would be fine with the current White House occupant.

I'm not big on fukking with the constitution, in general. I'm just tired of the gubmint misinterpreting the fukking thing. Another one I'd like to see modified is the lib's favorite all purpose constitution ass raping tool "interstate commerce".

It should say that adult citizens have the right to bear whatever fukking weapon they want, unless they have been shown to be mentally incompetent to do so or have a violent criminal record. They would also have the right to bear it pretty much wherever the fukk they want. Restrictions on where they might bear would be extremely limited. Commercial airline flights would be one. Pretty much any public place would be OK to carry. Private property would be up to the owner of said private property.

Why restrict guns on airplanes? You've already said in your first sentence that American muzzies should have the right to bear these:


yes, I think they do have that right. I might go for some sort of required training for weapons as badass as that one for the same reason that one requires special training to fly a 747.

Has your IQ ever hit double digits?

maybe, when I drink heavily. the rest of the time I like to think of double digit as "your house" and try to stay clear.

[Q, West Coast Style]

Oddly enough, I agree with the Supreme Court on gun control from a legal perspective. At the same time, if this is YOUR ISSUE. If you are a gun nut like Chuck H. You are a coward. You are a freaking LOSER. You are a chicken shit. Afaid the boogy man is going to take your guns. BWAHAHAHAHAH. Nice way to go through life.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Not so much pushing back by the lefties on this in 2008.

They realize that after 8 years of Bush, that whole "resist tyranny" element of the 2nd doesn't sound so bad after all.

Get it, Right Wingers? Guns ain't just for shooting burglars any more.