Supreme Court: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

[Zebo]

Regulated means trained and functioning in the context of founders usage. It's still in the dictionary 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. Proof of what they meant is in the writtings Amused provided. They meant people should have arms and be trained in them should SHTF. No can can deny this being honest.

Shit just think about how they overthrew govt. A bunch of farmers with guns got together and took it to the English. Now WTF would they want to restrict that right?

 

[spidey07]

Regulated means trained and functioning in the context of founders usage. It's still in the dictionary 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. Proof of what they meant is in the writtings Amused provided. They meant people should have arms and be trained in them should SHTF. No can can deny this being honest.

I'm liking the idea of a class in school where they teach nothing but firearms, safety and use. Start in middle school. That's another problem that just sorta fixes itself.

 

[Amused]

Regulated means trained and functioning in the context of founders usage. It's still in the dictionary 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc. 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. Proof of what they meant is in the writtings Amused provided. They meant people should have arms and be trained in them should SHTF. No can can deny this being honest.

The problem is, the left is NOT honest. Read the Opinion, especially Scalia's dressing down of Steven's despicable opinion; that the court should MAKE the law, Constitution be damned, rather than interpret the law and allow the People through their reps to make the law.

Steven's opinion is downright fucking scary, and is all coming form the "living breathing document" crap the left tries to apply to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's code for "means whatever the fuck we want it to mean."

 

[Craig234]

First, Mr wall of useless text,

Oh, did you have something to say? Apparently not. Not reading further.

 

[Amused]

Oh, did you have something to say? Apparently not. Not reading further.

Oh boy, that's not even a good dodge.

Oh well, you know you didn;t even have anything close to resembling a valid argument. Just more of the ACLU/Handguncontrol.inc talking points.

And yes, Mr militia, you, me and everyone else ARE the militia refered to in the Second Amendment... THAT is why the right applies to THE PEOPLE. Not the government.

What is even more sad is you can't even admit when you have your ass handed to you in a debate.

 

[Zebo]

The problem is, the left is NOT honest. Read the Opinion, especially Scalia's dressing down of Steven's despicable opinion; that the court should MAKE the law, Constitution be damned, rather than interpret the law and allow the People through their reps to make the law.

Steven's opinion is downright fucking scary, and is all coming form the "living breathing document" crap the left tries to apply to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's code for "means whatever the fuck we want it to mean."

Not on this issue. They are disgusting.

The founders supported the right of people to bear in actions (called American revolution)
The founders supported the right of people to bear in words (all in The Federalist Papers)
The people and it's representatives understood this right for eons (only in 20th century did it even become an issue)

All they do is try and twist words easily debunked. Makes them look stupid.

Oh and no thanks on reading the lefts opinion. I'm feeling good right now don't need that stress in my life.

 

[Taejin]

can the conservatards stop whining about obama taking away guns now? please?

 

[PrinceofWands]

I've read the decision (and all associated documents) twice now. Overall it was pretty much as expected, and I don't see much direct long term good coming from it. In fact, I agree with the dissenters that all Heller and this case really did was open a can of worms that won't be closed until the fed develops and institutes specific self-defense legislation and unifies firearm laws. Not that I'm unhappy exactly...it's a step in the right direction at least.

I am surprised that nobody pointed out what I consider the scariest statement in the entire thing. From page 158:

"As THE CHIEF JUSTICE observed just the other day, it is a foundational premise of modern government that the State holds a monopoly on legitimate violence: “A basic step in organizing a civilized society is to take [the] sword out of private hands and turn it over to an organized government, acting on behalf of all the people.”"

I mean COME ON! Seriously, in one sentence they overturn the ENTIRETY of America. I don't know that I've ever read a more frightening sentence from a government official.

The other thing I noticed is what an absolute STUD Stevens is when it comes to judicial matters (even if he's an absolute idiot on his political face). Seriously, up until he goes all rabid anti-gun his logic and argumentation is FLAWLESS.

I'm also surprised with the amateurish argumentation used by the general dissent. I've coached high school debaters who could have torn them apart on nearly every point. It's like they barely even tried, and didn't try at all to conceal the fact that it had nothing to do with judicial duties, and EVERYTHING to do with personal or political opinion. Truly there was a better refutation of the petitioners by the justices finding for them than there was by those dissenting. it's just really, really sad.

 

[Zebo]

I'm liking the idea of a class in school where they teach nothing but firearms, safety and use. Start in middle school. That's another problem that just sorta fixes itself.

I'm down with that. It's a tool like any other and anything to remove stigma and train proper operation would be a bonus plus you could go straight to the field after school for opening day of dove season while it's still light.

 

[Amused]

can the conservatards stop whining about obama taking away guns now? please?

Hell no. As long as he's president we are one SCJ death away from a virtual ban on guns. The four opinions on the left made that MORE than clear.

 

[Zebo]

can the conservatards stop whining about obama taking away guns now? please?

There is a lot more to bitch about Obama ass raping Constitution.
How many Americans are targeted for assassination w/o due process?
How many secret prisons are set up?
Where are they?
Are they still being tortured?
Why is RedCross not allowed to see them?
How many people are held w/o habeas petition for more than 8 years?
Why do you continue illegal wire tapping?
and on and on.

 

[spidey07]

Hell no. As long as he's president we are one SCJ death away from a virtual ban on guns. The four opinions on the left made that MORE than clear.

In all honesty, I agree about just being one vote away, but I don't think the states would allow it. The last 10 years we have seen more and more liberty restored regarding firearms state law wise. Some kind of amendment would get around it...I hope. Or such a ban just could not happen because of states reps/senators. Reading the dissention is to know the true enemy of liberty.

I also shudder that this isn't a 9-0 ruling. This should be a wake up call, elections have consequences, especially presidential ones.

A metric shit ton of precedent was set today by declaring it a fundamental right.

 

[bfdd]

In all honesty, I agree about just being one vote away, but I don't think the states would allow it. The last 10 years we have seen more and more liberty restored regarding firearms state law wise. Some kind of amendment would get around it...I hope. Or such a ban just could not happen because of states reps/senators. Reading the dissention is to know the true enemy of liberty.

I also shudder that this isn't a 9-0 ruling. This should be a wake up call, elections have consequences, especially presidential ones.

I hope this can further remove some of the retarded ass "gun control" laws in place here in California.

 

[Kirby]

LOL. You prove my point better than I could ask. Too bad you didn't get the post. But it wasn't the post's fault.

The only point you have ever proven is that you get off on the smug satisfaction on being a long-winded blowhard with nothing to say. Maybe one day you'll realize that people here take your opinion only slightly higher than of Dave, but I won't be holding my breath.

You have been proved wrong, over and over again, but for your retard-like persistence I must commend you. It must be tough wallowing in forced ignorance.

Bravo.

 

[Craig234]

Didn't get far on your idiocy, either, and won't on any more you have to say. You have lost any presumption anything you say might be worth reading.

As for the issue for others - it's good to note there are two issues here to discuss that get mixed up a lot.

One is the policy issue - what should be the law, if there were a constitutional amendment. The second is the interpretation of the second amendment, even you don't like it.

The world is a very different place, with 'citizen guns' having a very different use and relation to a 'militia', than was the case in the 18th century.

 

[spidey07]

Craig, regardless of your interpretation your view on the militia aspect has been struck down on numerous rulings outside of this one. To put it simply, that dog just don't hunt.

 

[bfdd]

Didn't get far on your idiocy, either, and won't on any more you have to say. You have lost any presumption anything you say might be worth reading.

As for the issue for others - it's good to note there are two issues here to discuss that get mixed up a lot.

One is the policy issue - what should be the law, if there were a constitutional amendment. The second is the interpretation of the second amendment, even you don't like it.

The world is a very different place, with 'citizen guns' having a very different use and relation to a 'militia', than was the case in the 18th century.

... what's there to interpret?

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.

A militia(or military) is necessary for the security of the country, but the right of our nations citizens to own guns shall not be infringed upon. Pretty fucking easy to understand, they weren't writing all the crazy legalese we see now a days. Pretty straight forward to the point, not a whole lot to misinterpret unless you know you're looking for something that isn't there.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I know it says, "people"...but they meant to say "militia". Damn you framers for your error!!!!

Ahahahahhh....reminds me of this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[spidey07]

Ahahahahhh....reminds me of this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

lulz, you're late to the party. Nick posted that vid way up in the thread.
()

But let's not distract the language wrangling of 2A with this historic ruling. It has the potential to strike down all of the ignorant-sense laws at the state and fed level. It is now a fundamental right.

You don't need permits or permission from the county/state to speak freely (and don't start on the protest/assembly angle, this has to do with ownership), now you don't need permits or permission from the county/state to keep and bear arms.

 

[Craig234]

... what's there to interpret?


A militia(or military) is necessary for the security of the country, but the right of our nations citizens to own guns shall not be infringed upon. Pretty fucking easy to understand, they weren't writing all the crazy legalese we see now a days. Pretty straight forward to the point, not a whole lot to misinterpret unless you know you're looking for something that isn't there.

Well, for a start, the amendment doesn't say "but", that's your word and it changes the meaning entirely.

The way it is written if you want to add word, is 'because a militia is necessary for national defense, the right of the people to bear arms to meet that need will not be infringed'.

Now, there are all kinds of things to interpret. You say there's nothing, but the fact that four interpreted it differently than five says otherwise (and mixed voted in other rulings).

Does 'people' mean some subset of the people enough to meet the need of a militia? As you rush to say no it means every citizen, children are citizens, the insane are citizens.

It doesn't spell any details out. It doesn't spell out the definition of 'arms', either. Muskets used to be effective - now you need jets and tanks and, perhaps, nukes.

When have handguns been a primary weapon necessary for militias? Are US troops issues handguns even today, much less back then?

There's a lot to interpret - but the radical right on the court, at least, rarely seems to interpret, just to inflict their ideology, IMO.

Having said all that, the left on this issue similarly has many who base their 'interpretation' on what they want it to say more than what it says.

 

[exdeath]

Good year for guns:

- AZ allows guns in bars and resturants with alcohol licences provided no alcohol consumed: I can dine at Applebees or Pizza Hut without having to go out of my way to remove my weapon.

- AZ allows conceal carry without permit: I can wear long coats in winter without regard for accidental/unintentional concealment.

- Heller incorporated

Plus many more. Obama getting elected and proving his party's authoritarian ways provided tremendous momentum and awareness for gun rights, thank you lefties

I just bought a case of .223 (AR-15) and .308 (HK91/G3) for a family outing on the weekend of the 4th. Bringing my 7 yr old army obsessed nephew, will be his first experience with real guns.

 

[Amused]

Didn't get far on your idiocy, either, and won't on any more you have to say. You have lost any presumption anything you say might be worth reading.

As for the issue for others - it's good to note there are two issues here to discuss that get mixed up a lot.

One is the policy issue - what should be the law, if there were a constitutional amendment. The second is the interpretation of the second amendment, even you don't like it.

The world is a very different place, with 'citizen guns' having a very different use and relation to a 'militia', than was the case in the 18th century.

The intent of the Second Amendment is clear, Craig. The problem is, YOU don't like it. That why you took the dodge instead of addressing my post. You have NO valid argument.

And the use of guns today in the hands of law abiding citizens is NO different than it was in 1776. Not one bit. Having a standing army does NOT negate the citizen militia, nor the intents of the Founding Fathers. If anything, it makes the Second Amendment and it's guarantee of the people's right to keep and bear arms even MORE important.

 

[Amused]

Well, for a start, the amendment doesn't say "but", that's your word and it changes the meaning entirely.

The way it is written if you want to add word, is 'because a militia is necessary for national defense, the right of the people to bear arms to meet that need will not be infringed'.

Now, there are all kinds of things to interpret. You say there's nothing, but the fact that four interpreted it differently than five says otherwise (and mixed voted in other rulings).

Does 'people' mean some subset of the people enough to meet the need of a militia? As you rush to say no it means every citizen, children are citizens, the insane are citizens.

It doesn't spell any details out. It doesn't spell out the definition of 'arms', either. Muskets used to be effective - now you need jets and tanks and, perhaps, nukes.

When have handguns been a primary weapon necessary for militias? Are US troops issues handguns even today, much less back then?

There's a lot to interpret - but the radical right on the court, at least, rarely seems to interpret, just to inflict their ideology, IMO.

Having said all that, the left on this issue similarly has many who base their 'interpretation' on what they want it to say more than what it says.

Every able bodied man, Craig. As the Founding Fathers made clear, the militia was every able bodied man. That means able minded as well as law abiding. It also means women given our enlightenment about sexual equality.

There is no "interpretation," Craig. Not with the men who wrote it clearing saying it applies to the people in countless texts.

As for weapon types, the standard was clear as well. The law allowed for what a common infantry soldier would carry. They had cannons back then, Craig, yet the Second Amendment never applied to ordinance. Only for personal Arms.

The intent is there for you to see and is completely clear. I've posted it twice yet you ignore it. Why?

Because you have no valid argument. You throw up irrelevant straw men and argue against those instead of the facts.

 

[nick1985]

It doesn't spell any details out. It doesn't spell out the definition of 'arms', either. Muskets used to be effective - now you need jets and tanks and, perhaps, nukes.

Learn the definition between arms and ordinance. This over-the-top counter by anti-gun nuts is debunked over and over again. All that shit you rattled off at the end would be ordinance, not arms.

When have handguns been a primary weapon necessary for militias? Are US troops issues handguns even today, much less back then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_pistol

"The M9 pistol, formally Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9, is a 9x19mm Parabellum pistol of the United States military adopted in 1985. It is basically a military specification Beretta 92F, later the 92FS."


And for Revolutionary War pistols..

http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/Revolutionary-War-Pistols

 

[MotF Bane]

It doesn't spell any details out. It doesn't spell out the definition of 'arms', either. Muskets used to be effective - now you need jets and tanks and, perhaps, nukes.

When have handguns been a primary weapon necessary for militias? Are US troops issues handguns even today, much less back then?

This isn't even funny, it's actually sad. Despite your joyful wallowing in your own ignorance, and your persistence in projectile-vomiting it all through this thread, you still are a voter. The knowledge of the voting populace is the greatest defense of liberty, and I suspect you are well-educated in a sense... but somewhere, you took a wrong turn. Where, Craig, where?