SCOTUS upholds individual right to own guns

[PLC1]

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.
The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a new round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country.

The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

So, where does the individual's right to bear arms end? Is it absolute? What do you think?

 

[Andy]

Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns



So, where does the individual's right to bear arms end? Is it absolute? What do you think?

Absolute. That's what it says. That's what it means.

 

[poptart]

I hope it means that every sane individual without a felony record can buy and carry guns without undue restriction. I have no problem with a quick background check to make sure I am sane and not a criminal. But long waiting periods,laws restricting what type of guns I can own are not legal.

 

[Andy]

I hope it means that every sane individual without a felony record can buy and carry guns without undue restriction. I have no problem with a quick background check to make sure I am sane and not a criminal. But long waiting periods,laws restricting what type of guns I can own are not legal.

It doesn't matter. If a felon wants a gun, there are a billion ways for him to get one.

The key is, easy access to firearms for citizens. If every citizen has a weapon, felons won't be stupid enough to try anything anyway.

 

[GenSeneca]

So, where does the individual's right to bear arms end?

At the point where Liberal Judges become the Majority.

Don't kid yourself into thinking anything from the court is absolute, all they did was set precedence for future cases... at some point this ruling will come into question and may get overturned.
------------------

The right to bear arms is the "First Line" of personal defense.
The right to bear arms is the "Equalizer" for Victims and Criminals.
The right to bear arms is the "Last Resort" methodology for throwing off the chains of an oppressive state.

Important to note that ARMS means far more than just guns... the Founders had guns, they would have specifically said "Guns" if thats ALL they wanted the citizenry to possess. They knew better...

I think the laws preventing military and police grade weapons and armor from reaching the citizens are unconstitutional and should be eliminated. I know such talk scares the bejeezus out of Liberals but if they really do fear a Fascist-Right-Wing-Republican-Police-State... they should agree that the option should be open.

 

[PLC1]

At the point where Liberal Judges become the Majority.

Don't kid yourself into thinking anything from the court is absolute, all they did was set precedence for future cases... at some point this ruling will come into question and may get overturned.
------------------

The right to bear arms is the "First Line" of personal defense.
The right to bear arms is the "Equalizer" for Victims and Criminals.
The right to bear arms is the "Last Resort" methodology for throwing off the chains of an oppressive state.

Important to note that ARMS means far more than just guns... the Founders had guns, they would have specifically said "Guns" if thats ALL they wanted the citizenry to possess. They knew better...

I think the laws preventing military and police grade weapons and armor from reaching the citizens are unconstitutional and should be eliminated. I know such talk scares the bejeezus out of Liberals but if they really do fear a Fascist-Right-Wing-Republican-Police-State... they should agree that the option should be open.

I'm not sure even the NRA believes that every citizen has the right to possess military hardware.

Yes, arms means more than just guns. If the Second Amendment is absolute, then you and I have the right to keep missiles, bombs, whatever on the ready. I should be able to have a tank in my front yard if I want, and keep it fully armed. Do you think that the SCOTUS really meant that? Does even the most rabid anti "liberal" believe that?

If so, then we need some serious changes to the weapons laws, don't we?

 

[poptart]

It doesn't matter. If a felon wants a gun, there are a billion ways for him to get one.

I ment legally. Anyone who lives by Chicago knows that they outlawed guns for years. But that never stopped the gang bangers with UZI's.

But I do want the right to own a AR-15, mini-14 and the like. If the criminals and the cops have them, then I want to have them. The right of home/self defence will be meaningless if I have a 38, and they have m-16's. And with the Iraqis teaching americans how wonderful bombs can be made from anything, then your comments about grenade launchers is moot. Any smart kid can make a bomb that would take out there school.

 

[GenSeneca]

Does even the most rabid anti "liberal" believe that?

I'm not anti-liberal... I'm Pro-Freedom.

The RKBA is the only right that can guarantee the citizens all their other rights be protected from an oppressive government. Eliminate the citizenries ability to defend themselves and government can trample any civil liberty or right they want.

If the Second Amendment is absolute....

I have already acknowledged that nothing is absolute where our Constitution or laws are concerned. Restricting our rights has become more important than protecting and preserving them. For all the blustering you heard from the left about FISA being Unconstitutional, they nevertheless voted to re-authorize it.

Do you think that the SCOTUS really meant that?

I believe the Founders meant it that way. Do you disagree? After all, they knew a thing or two about oppressive government and what it takes to break free.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure even the NRA believes that every citizen has the right to possess military hardware.

National RIFLE Association. They concern themselves with guns because all other arms have already been restricted or banned from the public.

Does even the most rabid anti "liberal" believe that?

I'm not anti-liberal... I'm Pro-Freedom.

The RKBA is the only right that can guarantee the citizens all their other rights be protected from an oppressive government. Eliminate the citizenries ability to defend themselves and government can trample any civil liberty or right they want.

If the Second Amendment is absolute....

I have already acknowledged that nothing is absolute where our Constitution or laws are concerned. Restricting our rights has become more important than protecting and preserving them. For all the blustering you heard from the left about FISA being Unconstitutional, they nevertheless voted to re-authorize it.

Do you think that the SCOTUS really meant that?

I believe the Founders meant it that way. Do you disagree? After all, they knew a thing or two about oppressive government and what it takes to break free.

 

[Bunz]

I am quite happy with the decision SCOTUS made on this. It needed to happen long ago, now I am quite angry with the SCOTUS on thier Exxon Valdez spill decision, but that is another thread.

I have long thought that it was never the intention of the drafters to deny citizens the right to own and carry firearms. Especially when it comes to self defense and food gathering.

 

[PLC1]

National RIFLE Association. They concern themselves with guns because all other arms have already been restricted or banned from the public.

The NRA is one of the strongest voices in favor of the second amendment, isn't it? If all other arms have been restricted, doesn't that impinge on second amendment liberty?

I'm not anti-liberal... I'm Pro-Freedom.

The RKBA is the only right that can guarantee the citizens all their other rights be protected from an oppressive government. Eliminate the citizenries ability to defend themselves and government can trample any civil liberty or right they want.

Yes, I can see a citizen militia fending off the federal governemnt that existed in the 18th. century. I'm not so sure that could happen today, regardless of how the right to keep and bear arms might be interpreted.

I have already acknowledged that nothing is absolute where our Constitution or laws are concerned. Restricting our rights has become more important than protecting and preserving them. For all the blustering you heard from the left about FISA being Unconstitutional, they nevertheless voted to re-authorize it.

No, nothing is absolute. The right to bear arms is no exception. I have read some opinions that it should be absolute, in order to allow the citizenry to protect itself from a despotic government, but I'm not so sure I am ready to see just anyone able to keep and bear such things as RPGs, SAMs, heavy artillery, hand grenades, or bombs. The question remains: Just where is the line between the right to bear arms, and the right to public safety?

I believe the Founders meant it that way. Do you disagree? After all, they knew a thing or two about oppressive government and what it takes to break free.

Yes, they certainly did know a few things about oppressive government, and we'd be wise to study their experiences and the reasons why the Bill of Rights was signed into law. Sometimes, I wonder if such a bill could be passed today, how many citizens know what is in it, and how many would vote for it if they had a chance.

In the matter of weapons, technology has changed since the 18th. century. I think those who picture the citizens of this country taking over by force of arms and deposing a dictatorial regime in the 21st. century are not being realistic, but that's just my opinioin. I could be wrong.

 

[GenSeneca]

The NRA is one of the strongest voices in favor of the second amendment, isn't it? If all other arms have been restricted, doesn't that impinge on second amendment liberty?

"The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," NRA

They don't concern themselves with anything other than handguns, rifles and shotguns.

Yes, I can see a citizen militia fending off the federal governemnt that existed in the 18th. century. I'm not so sure that could happen today, regardless of how the right to keep and bear arms might be interpreted.

Even if it were hopeless, I'd rather die fighting.

No, nothing is absolute. The right to bear arms is no exception. I have read some opinions that it should be absolute, in order to allow the citizenry to protect itself from a despotic government, but I'm not so sure I am ready to see just anyone able to keep and bear such things as RPGs, SAMs, heavy artillery, hand grenades, or bombs. The question remains: Just where is the line between the right to bear arms, and the right to public safety?

Your comment about "just anyone" - Nobody, to my knowledge, is suggesting anything of the sort.

Whats scary is the right to "keep and bear" can be worked around by making laws that say we cannot "buy or use" arms of any kind.

Yes, they certainly did know a few things about oppressive government, and we'd be wise to study their experiences and the reasons why the Bill of Rights was signed into law. Sometimes, I wonder if such a bill could be passed today, how many citizens know what is in it, and how many would vote for it if they had a chance.

With our current politicians... It would be like all the rest of their legislation - Garbage.

In the matter of weapons, technology has changed since the 18th. century. I think those who picture the citizens of this country taking over by force of arms and deposing a dictatorial regime in the 21st. century are not being realistic, but that's just my opinioin. I could be wrong.

Would you stand a better chance WITH or WITHOUT weapons?

 

[PLC1]

Your comment about "just anyone" - Nobody, to my knowledge, is suggesting anything of the sort.

Isn't that what the term "absolute" means? I read a couple of posts saying that the second amendment was absolute.

Whats scary is the right to "keep and bear" can be worked around by making laws that say we cannot "buy or use" arms of any kind.

Yes, that would be a creative way around the right to bear arms. The government has shown a penchant for creative ways around what they know they should do, hasn't it?

With our current politicians... It would be like all the rest of their legislation - Garbage.

Our current governmet would no doubt debate something totally irrelevant, and never get to anything like the bill of Rights. When they did pass something, it would weigh four hundred pounds, take up ten thousand pages of fine print, and mean very little.

Would you stand a better chance WITH or WITHOUT weapons?

Good question. I don't think the citizenry would stand a chance in a fight with the government regardless of what weapons they had. For one thing, a battle would require unity.

 

[GenSeneca]

Isn't that what the term "absolute" means? I read a couple of posts saying that the second amendment was absolute.

None of which you can attribute to me. I have said several times that nothing is absolute and specifically cited the 2nd as an example.

I don't think the citizenry would stand a chance in a fight with the government regardless of what weapons they had. For one thing, a battle would require unity.

So if you can't win, don't fight? Just go gentle into that good night?

Yes, that would be a creative way around the right to bear arms. The government has shown a penchant for creative ways around what they know they should do, hasn't it?

I was specifically referring to Obama and his Anti-Gun platform:

Obama indicated on a pair of Independent Voters of Illinois questionnaires that he supported banning the "manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." - Newsweek

 

[Jeugenen]

CONSTITUTIONAL HERETICS ARE THE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Presently, the judicial, legislative and executive branches of America's Constitutional government, "by the People and for the People", are comprised of two distinct classes of people: patriots and patriophobes. The patriots love and cherish their Christian culture and Constitutional law, and the patriophobes fear and hate it.
The ideology of the patriophobes is Neo-Marxism. Historically, it was introduced to America at the end of World War II, when millions of pathetic Marxist refugees from Nazi Germany and Russia were trustingly accepted as immigrants.
The greatest threats to the “Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of the American People are not from murders and other common outlaws, but from criminal elements within the highest levels of government. The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms was added to the Constitution to make government leaders fear the People; and, in cases where they governed against the democratic majority will of the People, a means to rise in bloody revolt against them. The minority of Constitutional heretics now serving like self-appointed legislators on the Supreme Court, notoriously attempting to somehow abrogate the dreaded Right to Bear Arms, is a good example of why there is such vital need for this Second Amendment to the Constitution.
If the American People cannot peacefully restore their Christian culture and Constitutional Law by Cultural War, then they shall resort to the extraordinary bloody revolutionary powers granted to them by the Second Amendment to their Constitution.