I am sorry if I missed your true intent in your last post. Nevertheless, As someone who has studied this issue extensively, I have to wonder who it is you think is addicted to guns, and what exactly that means?
Because if it means that gun ownership is critically important to people like myself, then I suppose I am an addict by your definition.
Gun owners are collectively one of the most responsible segments of American society. Again, studies on gun ownership have been done many times, and contrary to much of the opinion on the left, we are not the shortsighted barbarians we are made out to be.
The number of guns in this nation used in crimes represents less than one tenth of one percent of the number of guns as a whole. Now that might be too much for you, but statistically it is a drop in the bucket. I am unwilling to curtail the rights of the tens of millions who are doing it right, in order to have a microscopic impact on those who use guns for criminal endeavors. Neither it seems was the Supreme Court. And that the court found that people have a reasonable right to own a weapon is hardly a testimony against the Supreme Court. Quite the contrary. |
|
|
Classic. Absolutely classic. Anyone curious about the wiring of this boy and the depth of his self-delusion, just read that post! Egomaniac with an inferiority complex. Poster Child Classic. |
|
sloandog writes: Friday, June, 27, 2008 7:23 AM
So Brob
now you can protect yourself and your family from that serial rapist the SCOTUS gave a break to other day
Arch says"
I wouldn't bet on Brobbie protecting anyone from anything. He is a libtard and would gladly let the rapist have his way with his family while he tries to accept and appease the evil power that is in control. Fighting for liberty and freedom is against the libtard religion Sloandog as I am sure you already know. They prove it here every thread. |
|
First of all, I did have a problem with CA Supreme Court ruling--as I do when the judiciary overreaches. I am the principled guy around here. Btw, I don't think they overreached on the cruel and unusual ruling in the LA case the other day.
And I was refering to gun addicts as crackheads. What?! You completely missed that? Come on, buddy, Pretty lame. Guns are like crack to these advocates and agitators. I think guys are addicted to guns.
I understand the lawlessness of those times, and more than most people around here. Still, city dwellers comprised a fraction of the national population in the late 18th century.
Also, I am not a self-appointed crime expert. I'm a self-appointed democracy expert. And I am a self-appointed expert on principle and rational morality. Here's one thing I do know, though: you cannot compare the crime rates of out-of-control towns like DC or Chicago to some white town in GA or TX or wherever. What you CAN do is compare big cities here in America, which have relatively lax gun laws, to crime in big cities elsewhere in the developed world. How do our urban areas stack against London in in terms of violent crime? To Berlin? Tokyo? Seoul?
It is ridiculous to compare the 30K who lived in Philly in the 1790s to our contemporary megalopolises--as if the former were more dangerous and fragile and "lawless" than the latter. Factor in the differences in weapon technologies. And a huge population of uncivilized barbarians--as opposed to that era, when America was the most literate country in the world. And you want everyone packing heat? as opposed to playing the Lockean game of surrendering some of our autonomy for the broader benefits of the social contract?! Whatever, pal..
|
|
3rd Amendent.
December 15, 1791. It prohibits, in peacetime, the quartering of soldiers (military personnel) in private homes without the owner's consent. It makes quartering legally permissible in wartime only, but only in accordance with law. The Founding Fathers' intention in writing this amendment was to prevent the recurrence of soldiers being quartered in private citizens' houses as was done in Colonial America by the British military
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our founders knew NOT to trust government. We even ours. |
|
Laborlawyer wrote;
------------
"Kennedy must be loving this. He is the "decider" on this Court, making him the most powerful Justice. A Reagan appointee who's become a sensible moderate. The irony is delicious."
------------
Laborlawyer,
What it does is establish that liberals such as yourself shouldn't necessarily fear the Supreme Court picks by GOP Presidents.
After all, Reagan picked Kennedy, Bush 41 picked Souter, and Ford picked Stevens.
On the other hand, Republicans SHOULD FEAR nominations made by Democratic Presidents.
Look at Breyer and Ginsburg---they're not moderates---they're partisan left-wing Democrats, dyed-in-the-wool.
As Paddy points out after reading what Stevens and Breyer wrote, what in the heck planet are they from ?
|
|
Your historical ignorance is surpassed only by your ignorance of the Constitution.
America was a pastoral country, but we certainly had cities, and in some ways they were far more lawless than they are today.
I am still waiting for one of you self appointed gun crime experts to tell me why the areas with the most gun freedom have the least crime and those like DC, and LA and Chicago etc-where gun rights are almost non existent-have the highest crime rates, both gun related and otherwise.
That is the problem with you liberals: your sweet utopian intentions trump any data that proves you are wrong. The FBI keeps a record of national gun crime and you will see-if you care to look-that what I am saying is true.
Also, your little diatribe about how this ruling made life better for the crackheads in DC was laughable. Really, how much easier could it be for them? You act as if DC were a stunning example of peace and civility when it has had close to the highest murder rate for years, in SPITE of the most draconian gun restrictions in the country. In short, the system YOU supported was failing misserably.
Here is the thing you folks refuse to understand: criminals do not care about gun laws. They don't. That is why they are criminals. I know you have an almost genetic level distaste for guns or the concept of weapons, but that is your problem.
And please do yourself a favor: re-read the US Constitution because it seems you have missed a great deal.
Oh I'm curious, since you don,t like courts overturning the will of duly elected representatives, how did you feel about the overturning of the gay marriage ban in Ca? The people voted against gay marriage, the legislators backed that call, and the court overturned it. Since you are so concerned with judicial refusal to obey the will of the people, I expect that really ticked you off right?
Why do I think you were fine with that one? Just a guess. |
|
..and a victory for crack-head gun nuts. The SCOTUS saw fit to override the decisions of DC's duly elected city fathers. I mean, gun ownership in rural areas is Americana, but unrestricted in a city, for Chrissakes? This is judicial activism at its worst, pure and simple.
When the 2nd Amendment was framed, America was a weak and fragile frontier country. We had no governmental security to speak of. We were surrounded by hostiles and potential hostiles--English, French, Spaniards, Russians, and, of course, the multiplicity of Indians. And weapon technology (how many rounds could you squeeze off in those days--one per minute? two per minute?) was in a completely different place. Not to mention America was ethnically homogeneous and fundamentally rural.
No, this crowd in the Supreme Court is activist to the bone. They have their views and they shoehorn "the law" into those views, regardless of the original historic situation. It is a sign of the times--the standardlessness and moral relativism of conservatism. America just got a little crazier, a little more soulless, and a lot more stupid. Lets just hope that those of us who raise civilized children are not engulfed by self-anointed, self-appointed, self-important, gun-waving, sulphur-addicted, power-loving, barbarians.
|
|
|
now you can protect yourself and your family from that serial rapist the SCOTUS gave a break to other day. |
|
GOOD NEWS:
Massive victory for freedom and second amendment rights. Thank God.
BAD NEWS:
Only one votes separated between tyranny and freedom.
BAD BAD NEWS:
If Obama wins...liberal judges everywhere and decisions like yesterday won't be happening.
Vote McCain... he clearly supports guns rights and he is our best change to maintain some influence over our government and freedom. |
|
|
An EXCELLENT opinion from the High Court! OsiSpeaks.com |
|
Last night,
Other Townhall Blogs, were the same!
I just thought too much traffic. |
|
The Court's decision clearly establishes that numerous types of gun regulations are lawful. Dudley, I don't know if you are simply being provocative, but you are wrong.
I do expect the NRA and similar groups to file many lawsuits against many governmental entities- cities, counties, states, the federal government. Ironically, many of the same people who bemoan lawsuits by the ACLU will be cheering these suits on, even funding them. But this is part of the cost of freedom. And in the end, most of the laws will be upheld. |
|
|
And not for one second did I ever feel that my right to own a weapon was in jeopardy. And I certainly dont need the NRA to protect my 2nd amendment rights, I have the constitution. |
|
Our Gratitude should go to President Bush for his wise and grand choice of Judges on the Supreme Court.
Having said that, the 5-4 decision, should give us a great pause.
Next election, again with the current narrow rulings, defenitely the next president will replace at least two more Judges, our vote now matter most.
5 People needed to rewrite the Constitution.
Judges matter most, in 08 election.
Regardless, you like John McCain, He will more likely appoint conservative judges, and Congress, and the blue dog Democrats will go along.
If we get even one liberal on the court, things will be quite different for a very long, time.
|
|
|
|
|
You clearly do not understand this Supreme Court decision. It will mean the end of gun regulation of any kind, unless Congress passes laws. That will happen. |
|
This ruling does not instantly vaporize existing law. If you were to go to D.C. tomorrow, you'd find the same laws in effect as yesterday. It will take a few weeks to get the new laws re-written to accomodate this ruling.
Additionally, it will not wipe out all the laws D.C has in place, only the ones that say you can't keep a gun at home, and if you do it needs to be disassembled or in a trigger lock.
You will still need a permit to bring a gun home in D.C. I'm not crazy about that, personally, but they left that intact and Scalia said so specifically. |
|
|
Are you now familiar with DC laws about guns? There aren't any. |
|
Tunneler is right. You are off the rails, but to help you with your misconceptions, today's ruling doesn't change the fact that there are still state and local laws. I can already carry, and do. In all those years, I've never had any need to draw a weapon although there have been times I was glad I had it.
If I were to go to D.C., I would be obliged to abide by their carry laws, so it would be in my best interest to familiarize myself with the laws of any area I plan to be if I'm bringing a weapon.
This is what the law abiding do. However in D.C., I hear the non law abiding people have guns anyway.... Lots of people. Bad people..... |
|
|
"Well-regulated" means a properly trained militia, controlled by the citizenry. Period. |
|
|
Shutup, girl; you can't say s..t about shinola 'til we hear what you say, and you've said zip. |
|
...Art of the Possible;
"Well Regulated" referred to being properly equipped, at your own expense. And to carry it further, after we had won our independence from Great Britain, it was common practice for counties throughout the original 13 states to establish laws that required every able bodied man and boy (age 12 and older) to be "Well Regulated." |
|
|
What a pathetic excuse for a drama queen you've shown yourself to be. |
|
Good observations both on the issue of individual rights and the politicized reactions on both sides.
I think the framers would be very pleased with Justice Kennedy. |
|
|
Don't tell me about your house. You already have a gun in your house. You now gonna be carrying; shoot whoever you're afraid of, unless they shoot you. Boom. |
|
|
....provided they don't break into my house. |
|
|
Nah, I'm just a citizen. Keep an eye out for armed conservatives; keep my kids safe from you. |
|
|
|
|
Court says I can have a gun, Paddy; protect myself from sickos like you. |
|
|
....shows the wisdom of the court in keeping weapons from the mentally infirm. |
|
|
Boom Boom Boom Boom. Gonna shoot ya right down.. |
|
|
both the gun rights and the detainee case have to do with limits on the power of government over the individual, which was a central concern of the US Constitution. And I think both cases were correctly decided. But the same people who screamed to high heaven about the detainee case, love the gun rights case. It is all about the "party line" these days. Just the knee jerk party line, whether left or right. It is really discouraging. |
|
|
|
Obama's campaign is claiming to heal the sick? Read this:
"Here is one political news story Fox News wont tell you. Obama (our future president) has cured a man of a serious illness. Or at least something he has said in one of his political speeches has some effect on the man. Nester Todd a 72 year old man from Cincinnati Oh has a rare condition known as Elbillug Degenerative Disorder, or EDD. Todd has been suffering from the affliction which slowly erodes the brains neuron processing abilites , basically it eats away at your brain while your still alive. Doctors gave him six months to live last November, but at a Obama Campaign Ralley Todd was attending, he said that during the speech he felt as though his mind was being cleansed. The following day Todd decided to go back to his Doctor who gave him a cat scan. It was a miracle, not only had the disease appeared to go into remission it apparently eradicated it from his entire system. Todd said that when the Senator was talking about hope and change it brought tears to his eyes; and he along with several others believes that the inspiring words of the Senator Obama triggered a healing effect brought on by high levels of hope."
http://www.obamacures.com/
Funny, I felt my mind cleansed after I read Scalia's majority decision in Heller. I even felt hope! |
|
Dustoff, my bad.
I was responding to you-and-whose-army, but misread his post title as his name.
You might could have figured that out based on what I wrote, but whatever. No blood, no foul. |
|
In light of your comments above, read the opinion and the two dissents (if you have not already).
Then answer me this question: What planet are Stevens and Breyer from....? |
|
I am in full agreement with this decision. The Constitution clearly provides an individual right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation. The D.C. law was not a reasonable regulation, it was an absolute ban, and as such violated the Second Amendment.
Kennedy seems to be the only Justice approaching the cases this term without ideological predispositions. The others seem hunkered down in a 4-4 left/right split. To me both this case and the detainee case were so obviously correct as a matter of constitutional law; the fact that they both wound up 5-4 shows how deeply divided the Court is.
Kennedy must be loving this. He is the "decider" on this Court, making him the most powerful Justice. A Reagan appointee who's become a sensible moderate. The irony is delicious. |
|
Slavery is prohibited in part because AMENDMENTS were passed changing the original Constitution. If enough people (and states) want to do away with the right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed, not just interpreted away by some future judge's interpretation of consensus.
Unfortunately there will still be a lot of legal wrangling in the aftermath of this decision. I doubt too many localities will voluntarily change their laws until they are forced to by specific court order. |
|
for child rapists! There is no punishment that could cruel and unusual enough for that scum that raped his 8 yr old step-daughter, she will never recover from his depravity.
As for this narrow victory, the idiot mayor of DC said that this does not change the law about carrying handguns in DC. I disagree, the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and it states clearly that citizen have a "right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms" and you do not require a license or registration to exercise rights! |
|
Amendments count too. If you lived when the original document was written, no problem, but now...? No, no,no..... (finger wagging)
This whole argument about "how you feel" is a load of fertilizer. The issue in the death penalty cases for child rape is not about what the text of an amendment means, but whether the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. By it's very nature, the question is about how you feel, and the result would have been subjective no matter the outcome.
The gun ban is a matter of interpretation, not feelings. The libs are, as always, being disingenuous. |
|
|
No, yesterday there was no "feeling" or "belief" about the decision about child rapists. The question was can states make laws within the framework of The Constitution without 5 dolts repealing the 5th and 10th Amendments by judicial fiat. The question of "cruel AND unusual" is obviated by the fact that not only was the death penalty permissible at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was also written in to the 5th Amendment ("...nor be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."), By definition, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual. If anything, the death penalty for child rape is disproportionate in that it is not severe enough, not the other way around. |
|
"It says what it says and is what it is. No reading between the lines."
Dude, I'm sooooo getting a slave! |
|
a Citizen might have a gun instead of just the criminals.
Socialist DNC must hate this one!
Life was far better for the DNC Voter in the good old days when Nichol Simpson could call the police and the State police could show up after the murder to clean the place up.
Wonder if Nichol Simpson might have wished she had a gun to save her life? |
|
....should be thinking about is, "What did the Founders have in mind when they wrote this?"
This evoloving standards of decency, and living document crap is just that. Fertilizer.
The Constitution is words on a page. It does not draw breath; it does not evolve. It says what it says and is what it is. No reading between the lines....there is only blank paper there.
Sorry if I hurt your .....feelings. |
|
ummmm... yesterday you guys were all in favor of making laws based on how you feel. Child rapists are bad, so let's kill them, even though it clearly violates the cruel and unusual punishment and about 200+ years of American judicial philosophy.
Now you're all strict constructionists? What happened overnight?
Obama up by 5 to 17 in major swing states like MN and MI today...
Quick, go give money to your "he done be a negro" campaign ads!
Dolts. |
|
|
My guess is that his coin came up heads on this one. Either that or he felt that even he couldn't support unconstitutionally repealing the 2nd Amendment by judicial fiat as the other 4 dolts attempted. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment (or any other text of The Constitution) like most leftists, there are constitutionally provided ways to repeal it. Try that. |
|
So are BOTH of you dummies. Yes I said dummies.
Anyone who starts off with a insult shows their true smarts or lack of!
If you wish to make laws on how you feel, then were in trouble.
|
|
Dust:
I think that the evolving standards of decency excuse to discover new rights in the Constitution is an example of Justices using their feelings and hearts when they should be using their minds.
I think the judicial branch is supposed to be limited to applying the text of laws to situations that arise and that the content of text is entirely outside the judicial branch's purview.
I think that legal decisions requires thought, not feeling, whereas dictatorship and anarchy require the reverse.
I feel sad for you -- for the huge mass of people like you, too -- because of you cannot think your way to this. |
|
"I still don't like him. He plays both sides."
That goes along ways to explain why dolts like yourself are in over your head discussing Supreme Court decisions: the justices are not "playing" for any "side."
"It's about the law, not how you feel."
Except that yesterday and last week, it was about how you "feel."
"I feel that child rapists 'deserve' to die."
"I feel that today's decision is going to result in more American deaths--the law be dam*ed!"
|
|
|
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...... |
|
What do you think of
Justice Kennedy now?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I still don't like him. He plays both sides.
It's about the law, not how you feel.
|
|
|
this case goes the other way. |
|
A pillar of the Bill of Rights has just survived judicial tyranny... by yet another 5-4 vote?
We are indeed on the edge of the knife. |
|
|
...200 years ago, "well-regulated" was understood as some minimum level of competency and safety--a community standard--and "militia" was understood as the population (the demographic) that used firearms in daily life--adult men. That is what was understood by the average citizen--the average citizen that the Bill of Rights was written for. |
|
Getting into your own blog?
I find it exasperating that there is no way to contact the Web Master on Town Hall if there are technical problems.
For the last two days, when I attempt to access my personal blog, I am taken to a blank, white page.
Anyone else having this problem? |
|
|
|
|
There, that got your attention, libs. |
|
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting...
It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
|
|
|
I don't think it will change very many laws (other than Draconian bans like the D.C. law) but it does draw a line in the sand on how far the courts can go. And trust me, those four dissenters would go pretty far. |
|
My complaint is the continued support for bans on so-called "uncommon" militia weapons.
The government created the rarity of full-auto individual weapons by criminalizing possession of any such weapon not registered by 1986.
They now rely on that artificially created rarity to justify the continued ban on what is today's equivalent to the 1776 military musket.
And spare me the nonsense about "would I want my neighbor owning a machine gun?" My neighbor can legally own one now, but only if he is rich enough to spend better than $10,000 for one of the very few legal weapons permitted us presumably lawless civilians. |
|
I am wondering and would like to know how this ruling will effect current gun bans in California and other gun legislation in the other states.
drgary |
|
Relies real heavily on semantics and cases from the post-progressive era. Completely ignores intent of the Founders.
Nice to see Kennedy went the correct direction on this one. |
|
Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg...
How is that even possible? Can these 4 even read?
Maybe they think they are just smarter then the Founding Fathers?
The Constitution is clear on this issue. |
|
|
|