PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment



Red
06-26-2008, 10:03 AM
Yay Constitution (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)

Finally recognizing that the founding fathers didn't intend the 2nd ammendment to be for Big Government to Arm itself in order to protect itself from the people, but rather for the PEOPLE to protect themselves from big government.

The Big Government that we see today and the bigger government that will come if the anti-constitutionalists Obama wins and works hand in hand with Pelosi and CO. to fuck us in the ass, is exactly what we will need to protect ourselves from.

Now States will seriously have to re-examine their gun laws, like Maryland where you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you have PROOF (how the fuck) that you have been threatened. A ridiculous law, waiting til the shit hits the fan before you can apply for one.

Itch
06-26-2008, 11:03 AM
About time the courts got it right!

zero
06-26-2008, 11:41 AM
Yay Constitution (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)

Finally recognizing that the founding fathers didn't intend the 2nd ammendment to be for Big Government to Arm itself in order to protect itself from the people, but rather for the PEOPLE to protect themselves from big government.


Exactly. I don't understand this debate on whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation. Isn't the purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the individual person, not that of the state. Why would the founding fathers, who cherished liberty, protect a "government right" within the bill of rights?

Italian Jew
06-26-2008, 01:39 PM
Could it be both?

Let's go ask the founding fathers...oh wait...they died a couple hundred years ago. Damn, now we have to have idiots arguing it is one way and not the other. It mentions a militia, and it mentions personal rights, so it probably means people should be allowed to get guns, but for a purpose of defense in some way or recreation. The problem is when people get guns and use it to attack or kill other people. I can safely assume that the founding fathers had not intended for the protection of firearms to encompass this. The government just needs regulations that prevent people like this from getting guns, however, since you cannot foresee the consequences of selling a gun to someone without a record of some sort and they go out and shoot people, there is really nothing you can do. Just gotta hope people don't abuse their rights (psh...yeah ok). Shit will happen either way.

Let's take up the Confederate flag again boys! The government is going to get us!

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/75/1confederate17315870059my3.gif

LegalSmash
06-26-2008, 07:05 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290

there is the case.

regulation is allowable, and its not unconstitutional, but outright bans go to far. - general gist.

Slavic
06-26-2008, 09:01 PM
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290

there is the case.

regulation is allowable, and its not unconstitutional, but outright bans go to far. - general gist.

Yeah bans are completely anti-constitutional, its a good thing that part of the gun control issue got cleared up.

Regulations, in my opinion, should still be kept intact, but not some of the ridiculous ones out there. Regulations should only be kept to stop sales of guns to those with criminal convictions, and also to stop undocumented gun exchanges.

broncoty
06-27-2008, 12:25 AM
OORAH!

Red
06-27-2008, 09:59 AM
Agree, regulations to prevent guns being sold to criminals/retards etc must be kept in place.

But no more outright bans like in D.C. or Chicago.

The next regulation I could see getting challenged the the concealed weapons permit.

Here in MD you have to have had your life threatened to carry one. Which is kind of asinine, waiting until the shit hits the fan before you can carry one, seems backwards.