[manimal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

just like how the 4th amendment applies to the states via the 14th amendment.

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

http://www.wgntv.com/wgntv-daley-handgun-ban-june26,0,7364183.story

Daley said the violence last weekend, 54 people shot, at least 10 of those people dead, shows the need for the city's handgun ban to remain in place.

Because the ban is obviously working so well Daley is such a tool. The stats on the above referenced shooting are not yet available but i can almost guarantee that the weapons used were not obtained legally. if this rings true it pretty much nullifies the purpose of stringent gun control laws.

 

[$tinkle]

does this mean the cia will send moar gunz to chicagoland?

 

[Silver]

Nice to see you support activist court decisions.

 

[manimal]

Nice to see you support activist court decisions.

only when they're congruent with my world view

and yes, i love "activist" that support the constitution.

 

[$tinkle]

Nice to see you support activist court decisions.

how, exactly, is equally applying a right enumerated in the constitution activism? isn't like they said only 3/5ths of chicagoans can own guns, or that pearl handles must be sold in equal number as matte finish

 

[Silver]

only when they're congruent with my world view

and yes, i love "activist" that support the constitution.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm shocked (not really) to discover that.

 

[manimal]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm shocked (not really) to discover that.

The 2nd Amendment only applies to all US Citizens...i suppose Chicago-ens aren't US Citizens?

it seems to me the SC is just doing their job...you know, upholding that pesky Bill of Rights.

 

[$tinkle]

The 2nd Amendment only applies to all US Citizens...i suppose Chicago-ens aren't US Citizens?

not to undermine your point, but i believe the constitution applies beyond simple citizenry.




this post may come back to bite me

 

[Pesqueeb]

not to undermine your point, but i believe the constitution applies beyond simple citizenry.




this post may come back to bite me

Indeed. Quoted for future use.

 

[$tinkle]

^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

crap...

 

[sanjuro]

Damm it.

Manimal beat me to posting it. I wanted the thread title to be:

"Gimme Back My Bullets"

 

[manimal]

not to undermine your point, but i believe the constitution applies beyond simple citizenry.

...but should it?

we'll save that one for later as my worm can opener is missing at the moment.

 

[X3pilot]

...but should it?

we'll save that one for later as my worm can opener is missing at the moment.

 

[Pesqueeb]

...but should it?

I'm sure that by the time they got around to it the writers of the Constitution had forgotten all about this little statement.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Oh wait, I forgot they were only talking about white males.

 

[manimal]

I'm sure that by the time they got around to it the writers of the Constitution had forgotten all about this little statement.

Oh wait, I forgot they were only talking about white males.

good job at the typical jump to assumed racism by your kind...i'm referring to the debate on whether the legal benefits of our constitution cover those in the country illegally for all situations. ie: illegal alien turned terrorist receiving taxpayer funded legal representation

 

[sanjuro]

Because the ban is obviously working so well Daley is such a tool. The stats on the above referenced shooting are not yet available but i can almost guarantee that the weapons used were not obtained legally. if this rings true it pretty much nullifies the purpose of stringent gun control laws.

I'm still in debate about this.

Obviously illegal gun possession is a huge problem, but two notable massacres, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech, were done with legally purchased guns.

I know the response is for regular citizens to be able to carry, but I'm not sure that is the solution either.

 

[$tinkle]

I'm still in debate about this.

Obviously illegal gun possession is a huge problem, but two notable massacres, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech, were done with legally purchased guns.

I know the response is for regular citizens to be able to carry, but I'm not sure that is the solution either.

sleep-deprived 20-somethings who just come off a 8 hr 1st-person shooter gaming bender packing? what could possibly go wrong?

 

[MMike]

That's it. Defend the constitution no matter how stupid it may be.

 

[manimal]

That's it. Defend the constitution no matter how stupid it may be.

you just want americans to be unarmed so you and your kanuck friends can invade and steal our milk jugs so you don't have to get it in a bag! (wait..do you guys still get milk that way?)

 

[Westy]

Local gun laws really are stupid as it is so easy to get guns with a 20 mile drive.

I'm fairly neutral in my opinions on gun control but it has always seemed silly to me to defend the constitution as though it were some sacred infallible document. Keep things in perspective and it is clear that the second amendment was written to protect to right to bear muskets. It was never written with the consideration of powerful and accurate handguns, although deadly ,rather useless in an organized means of defense (militia).

 

[Nick]

I say bravo SC.

 

[MMike]

Local gun laws really are stupid as it is so easy to get guns with a 20 mile drive.

I'm fairly neutral in my opinions on gun control but it has always seemed silly to me to defend the constitution as though it were some sacred infallible document. Keep things in perspective and it is clear that the second amendment was written to protect to right to bear muskets. It was never written with the consideration of powerful and accurate handguns, although deadly ,rather useless in an organized means of defense (militia).

Filthy commie

 

[Nick]

Local gun laws really are stupid as it is so easy to get guns with a 20 mile drive.

I'm fairly neutral in my opinions on gun control but it has always seemed silly to me to defend the constitution as though it were some sacred infallible document. Keep things in perspective and it is clear that the second amendment was written to protect to right to bear muskets. It was never written with the consideration of powerful and accurate handguns, although deadly also useless in an organized means of defense (militia).

Really? That is clear?
I always thought it was ensure that citizens could not find themselves defenseless against those who would wish to harm them, even if that might be their own government.

 

[Westy]

Really? That is clear?
I always thought it was ensure that citizens could not find themselves defenseless against those who would wish to harm them, even if that might be their own government.

You are correct. And with that thought in mind why do we not have the right to bear machine guns, anti aircraft missiles and shoulder fired anti-armor rockets? Wouldn't that be necessary to defend ourselves from our own government if neccessary?

Those are all new technologies that the constitution was not written to consider, just like effective handguns. We have basically altered the original intent for practical reasons, why couldn't ruling on handguns be bent for practical reasons?

 

[$tinkle]

And with that thought in mind why do we not have the right to bear machine guns, anti aircraft missiles and shoulder fired anti-armor rockets?

i think we do have that right.

the bugaboo here is getting necessary permits/licensing to exercise the right

bait <-> switch

 

[Pesqueeb]

good job at the typical jump to assumed racism by your kind...i'm referring to the debate on whether the legal benefits of our constitution cover those in the country illegally for all situations. ie: illegal alien turned terrorist receiving taxpayer funded legal representation

Easy there Officer-jump-to-conclusions. What I was referring to is the contradiction between &#8220;all men created equal&#8221; and the later statement about how slaves only count as a 3/5 vote, which actually supports the point I think Westy is trying to make, that times and opinions change. The Constitution is supposed to be a "living document" that can be changed to reflect those changes. Its not written in stone for fvcks sake.

If anyone is in this country, as you suggest, the constitution certainly should apply, legal or not. In fact I find the notion by "your kind" that people we are capturing or giving the experience of extraordinary rendition, or at gitmo, should not be protected by the constitution absolutely morally reprehensible in the highest degree if you actually believe in things like the Constitution, Deceleration of Independence, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, etc. For someone to somehow suggest that these things don't apply to others on our soil or in our custody don't apply because they aren't "citizens" is taking the lowest moral route and is grand hypocrisy by the "Greatest Democracy in the World".

Personally I do believe this country is great, I just think its about time we actually prove it.

 

[dante]

I'm sure that by the time they got around to it the writers of the Constitution had forgotten all about this little statement.

Well, since that was actually the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution was written 10 years later, they very well may have forgotten that little statement...

 

[dante]

Because the ban is obviously working so well Daley is such a tool. The stats on the above referenced shooting are not yet available but i can almost guarantee that the weapons used were not obtained legally. if this rings true it pretty much nullifies the purpose of stringent gun control laws.

I will bet you $1m that the weapons used were *at one point* purchased legally. You know, bought by a straw buyer buying hundreds of handguns legally down in certain states and then transporting them up to Chicago, NYC, etc.

 

[manimal]

I will bet you $1m that the weapons used were *at one point* purchased legally. You know, bought by a straw buyer buying hundreds of handguns legally down in certain states and then transporting them up to Chicago, NYC, etc.

and i'll bet you $1m that crude oil was once a fossil..... no kidding. it's not like there's some gun manufacturer out there making guns and selling them to felons. we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals through stringent laws so why are we going to make it near impossible for the law-abiding citizens obtain them as well?

 

[dante]

and i'll bet you $1m that crude oil was once a fossil..... no kidding. it's not like there's some gun manufacturer out there making guns and selling them to felons. we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals through stringent laws so why are we going to make it near impossible for the law-abiding citizens obtain them as well?

Maybe by allowing states and cities to go after those who are selling the guns to straw-buyers in the first place? You know, like NYC going after gun stores in VA (that the NRA went nuts over). Or how about holding the original purchaser of the gun 100% liable for anything that the gun is used for? Or a national database to see who is buying hundreds of handguns every week from one or two different gun shops in lenient states?

Or any of the other plethora of ideas that the NRA is 100% against?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Well, since that was actually the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution was written 10 years later, they very well may have forgotten that little statement...

I know, that why its ironic.

 

[sanjuro]

and i'll bet you $1m that crude oil was once a fossil..... no kidding. it's not like there's some gun manufacturer out there making guns and selling them to felons. we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals through stringent laws so why are we going to make it near impossible for the law-abiding citizens obtain them as well?

I blame the gun shops, like the one who allowed a Bushmaster XM-15 to be shoplifted by the Beltway snipers.

 

[Westy]

i think we do have that right.

the bugaboo here is getting necessary permits/licensing to exercise the right

bait <-> switch

Having the government control who has the ability to defend themselves against the government. Brilliant!

 

[BurlyShirley]

I can't understand why people are so comfortable ceding away any rights (whether constitutionally guaranteed or not). We are free to make only so many choices as to how we want to live in this society, and Im not in any hurry to limit them further. Since it has been proven that people who acquire firearms through legal channels are largely law-abiding, this issue becomes one akin others like legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, etc. That is to say, the choices others make... whether or not to pack heat or abort a fetus.. are highly unlikely to influence your way of living or your own personal freedoms. Thus opposition to such freedoms for others are the result of visceral reaction, not of a rational process.

To put it in simpler terms. Faggots and gun nuts both creep me out a little, but they aren't hurting anything, so let them be.

 

[KavuRider]

I can't understand why people are so comfortable ceding away any rights (whether constitutionally guaranteed or not). We are free to make only so many choices as to how we want to live in this society, and Im not in any hurry to limit them further. Since it has been proven that people who acquire firearms through legal channels are largely law-abiding, this issue becomes one akin others like legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, abortion, etc. That is to say, the choices others make... whether or not to pack heat or abort a fetus.. are highly unlikely to influence your way of living or your own personal freedoms. Thus opposition to such freedoms for others are the result of visceral reaction, not of a rational process.

To put it in simpler terms. Faggots and gun nuts both creep me out a little, but they aren't hurting anything, so let them be.

I agree, 100%. Awesome post!

 

[X3pilot]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do we seem to leave the first 13 words out on purpose sometimes?

 

[MMike]

Said it before, I'll say it agai, "a right" to do something doesn't mean it's smart. If there were a new proposal that would make it unconstitutional to shave your head with a cheese grater and that it was forbidden to climb the stairs in the empire state building while giving a piggy back to rosie o'donnell, would that really be so bad?

You no longer need to protect yourself from your govt. Some of you apparently need to be protected from yourselves.

Shrouding your enthusiasm for firearms in "constitutional hand waving" is dumb. You just like guns. It's a hobby. It's nothing more sacred than that.

 

[1453]

I'm fairly neutral in my opinions on gun control but it has always seemed silly to me to defend the constitution as though it were some sacred infallible document. Keep things in perspective and it is clear that the second amendment was written to protect to right to bear muskets.

It is illegal to "bear" a musket in Chicago.

And you are right, with the advancement of communications, free speech should clearly not apply to the Interwebs, and we should probably rethink the 14th amendment about granting citizenship to illegal aliens' kids, since it is clear that the 14th was written for the descendants of slaves.

 

[manimal]

You no longer need to protect yourself from your govt. Some of you apparently need to be protected from yourselves.

that's like saying, "measles has been all but eradicated so i don't need a vaccination."

do you think the canadian government would be able to protect you if we invaded maple land? it's not just for protection against a tyrannical government but also for protection from foreign enemies. i don't expect you to understand what it takes to protect your family/community but it COULD happen.
do you think your local authorities are prepared to handle a large scale terrorist attack in your area? this is the world I live/work/train in and i can assure you that there are not enough of "us" to protect all of "you".

so like burly said...(very well, i might add), if people like me having guns doesn't affect you then why make a stink about it? let us be paranoid and unrealistic while you enjoy life in your peaceful, unoffensive little world. just hope that you never hear "i told you so" from a gun nut.
(for the record, i'm not a gun nut, i spend my $$ on bikes. i'm a firearms instructor and preach gun safety through exposure and experience. i am, however, a big proponent of keeping my little piece of paradise protected from anyone wishing to do harm to it/us.)

 

[BurlyShirley]

Shrouding your enthusiasm for firearms in "constitutional hand waving" is dumb. You just like guns. It's a hobby. It's nothing more sacred than that.

What is sacred is all in the eye of the beholder though. I am sure for many, that protesting and writing anti-government literature is nothing more than a hobby or cry for attention, but that doesn't mean freedom of speech and the press ought to be trivialized. Like it or not, the idea of self sufficiency is part of our national identity (however unrealistic that ideal may be in modern times). Is it possible that, as a Canadian, you're simply more willing to rely on the police than yourself for personal protection, because you didn't grow up in a society that emphasized doing anything otherwise?

So maybe an outsider's view can be perfectly rational, but still miss the point.