Bahahahha! That would be you, blindly spewing bullshit, while lying, dodging, and denying everything said to you. Case in point - this entire thread.
for someone with an interest in the truth, not blindly spewing.
You didn't refute anything, and I didn't "come back into the thread." I, unlike you semi-unemployed right-wing fools who get paid for doing nothing, actually spend my work day working.
Yep. Law abiding citizens in Chicago and other cities where handguns are banned are now afforded the right to endanger themselves and their families.
The facts say otherwise.
Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86% were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).148
Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.149
Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the
predator.150 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.
You are 100% wrong.
You didn't refute anything, and I didn't "come back into the thread." I, unlike you semi-unemployed right-wing fools who get paid for doing nothing, actually spend my work day working.
Best USA news I've heard in years. This is huge!
There can be do doubt that the principal proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant to end the disarmament of African Americans in the South. In introducing the bill, Senator Trumbull described its purpose as securing to blacks the privileges which are essential to freemen. He then pointed to the previously described Mississippi law that prohibit[ed] any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms and explained that the bill would destroy such laws.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe writes that “the Slaughter-House Cases incorrectly gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause.” Similarly, Yale law professor Akhil Amar has written “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that Slaughter-House is a plausible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment
Try again, and this time don't make up my position with lies to make straw men because you can't make an argument or respond to what I said, not what you make up.
Fifth, the 39th Congress response to proposals to dis-band and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of thesemilitias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen, supra, 2021. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members right to bear arms, and it was ultimatelydecided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, §6, 14 Stat. 485, 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 6869; Cramer 858861.
Keep spinning. The incorporation consequences are understood. Read the damn ruling.
I also like how the brady campaign is being labeled a hate group now. Since they oppose a fundamental civil right.
The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.
Wow! Gura (the attorney) doesn't waste any time. The precedent has been set, now it's time to knock down the gun laws one by one.
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=329
:thumbsup:
I hate to break up hate-fest, but looking at the actual facts of the case, this was more on if a state could totally ban handguns, then anything else.
It seems this, as with many SCOTUS cases, was a technical case on the fine-print of the law, which would probably explain the close decision. It wasn't a " OMG, they ruled on a broad topic and banned my guns!". They ruled on a narrow technical detail. That's what the SCOTUS does. But I guess that makes it too hard for people to understand, so it gets condensed down to the "they ruled against guns" or " they let us keep our guns".
(Inserted by Fern from another of the member's posts) Dude, these are technical "rule of law" type of cases, that deal with edge cases and the like. This isn't a "take my guns away from me" case. This case was more about the 14th amendment instead of the 2nd.
And you might note that nowhere does it say that you can't effectively ban handguns, by imposing ridiculous permits/costs/paperwork to effectively prevent people from doing it. (which is kinda stupid IMHO, but whatever)
I first read your post yesterday and was inclined to agree with you about this being just a "technical case". But after more reading and contemplation I must disagree.
I think you confuse the 'forest for trees'.
The trees being numerous technical points put forth in suport of the decision. Their decision is, of course, the 'forest'.
I think when focusing on the forest the real significance of the decision is revealed, as well the scary nature of the dissenters position on the 2nd Amendment.
Bottom line: the dissenters on the court are taking the position that state's do not need to honor the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. That they can possibly support that position is scary - they would pick and choose which rights we actually have, using technical artifices to support it. And that they would labor to employ mere technical points to push that view is of no less concern.
In Steven's dissent his argument that the 6th Amendment (right to speedy trial etc) has not been required to be (completely) uniformly apllied by the states so therefore states can outright bans guns is, IMO, incredulously stupid. He acts as though states are outright banning trials and moving the accused staright to prison. But he himself can only muster insignificant differences in trials of states and that of the federal courts. We know that because of (permisable) reasonable restrictions on gun ownerships there will be differences between the states just like there is with the 6th A. His argument does more to support the majority than his own position.
I agree with others who say this case is scary. In this instance, those on the left in the court have revealed a willingness to to deny us rights enumerated in the Constitution - Those rights they do not like. And they would use the states as a vehicle to quash them. Would those left leaning members of the court allow states to quash the right to Vote, or Due Process, or Free Speech? No. But somehow they feel free to quash others they don't now like (like the 2nd).
In their attempt to horribly misconstrue the 14th to suit their purpose, they have decided that states need not follow federal law. This is a curious corollary to their position, for if states can trump the highest (federal) law of the land, what other federal laws can they overrule?
Finally, and I think this was addressed previously - No, states cannot effectively ban guns by burdensome regulation. As with other rights those regulations/restrictions must be reasonable.
Fern
Hi, I'm a well-regulated militia named Craig. I hear you're a well-regulated militia too, what's your name? What is the name if a lot of people who are each well-regulated militias joined up into one group? Maybe we could capitalize the words and that would show it was a group. So all we individual well-regulated militias, who are clearly each one person, make a Militia.
Oh, wait, I think I see the problem. The words "well-regulated militia", *put in the amendment and defining it*, are written in a special ink that is invisible to some people.
No wonder they look at the second and see only an "individual right". Of course, what they WANT it to say blinds them to what it DOES say far more than the invisible ink does.
When I read it, it says nothing about a well-regulated militias, and does say that we have the right to a well-groomed blonde.
Indeed, I'm starting a group called the NBA, the National Blonde Association, which will become the strongest grass-roots lobbying group in the country, furthering my interpretation of the right to a blonde. It clearly says that, and if you say it doesn't, you're clearly an America-hating liar, just like those people who claim there's invisible ink saying the right is for the protection of the right of a well-regulated militia to exist.
This is the same mob mentality that can morph the constitution to say anything the mob wants. When it gets tired of some of the press saying things it doesn't like, like that Katie Couric gotcha-attacking Sarah Palin to make her look bad, we can just define the first amendment to allow us to burn a few of them at the stake. Freedom of the Press didn't mean freedom of the Press the mob hates!
It may take a while, with the mob pressuring politicians to appoint justices who hold radical views and the politicians pandering to the mob to get elected, but it can be done.
Indeed, with the 5-4 decisions for years now, especially after Bush appointees, it has now.
And if the court gets even more radicals and those decisions become 7-2 and 8-1, they won't even seem radical to the mob - not that the mob understand they are now.
Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three indispensable safeguards of liberty under our form of Government. 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete. Ibid.
Among other laws already facing lawsuits or expected to be challenged:
_Age limits that bar people younger than 21 from buying or owning guns.
_Lockbox and trigger-lock requirements to keep guns away from children.
_One-gun-a-month purchase limits in California, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia.
_Georgia's prohibition on carrying guns into churches.
_Bans on guns in bars.
_California's outlawing of certain handguns.
_Assault weapons and ammunition bans.
_Federal and state prohibitions aimed at keeping domestic violence offenders from having guns.
But he said attempts to eliminate carrying restrictions probably will fare better because gun rights advocates can argue that their right to self defense means that they should be able to carry their weapons almost wherever they want, with exceptions for government buildings and schools.
Drawn-out permitting processes in New York and elsewhere also are ripe for a challenge, Volokh said. "I think a court will have no problem upholding a one-, two-, five-day waiting period," he said. "But if you're talking about a five-month wait, then a court may find it's a substantial burden."
I'm amazed it was 5-4. rather scary.
sad part is guns ARE going to be banned in the next 50 years. i fucking guarantee it.
also didn't studentmayer say she would not vote against banning guns?
I wouldn't be so sure. (Note: Alabama is considered "permissive may issue" see second map)
39/50 states are shall-issue or unrestricted. Up from 8/50 less than 30 years ago. Guns aren't going anywhere, and gun control nuts are an ever-decreasing minority as their theories are repeatably proven wrong. For starters, where are the wild west gun fights that were predicted when shall-issue laws were adopted in multiple states?
What it comes down to IMHO is mentality. In general, gun control advocates are scared. Gun freedom advocates are not. At the end of the day, the representative and ever growing majority of responsible, confident, reasonable gun owners rule the field over the fear inspired by a few psychotics.
Sotomayor said in her confirmation hearings that she supported the second amendment. She of course voted against it at her first opportunity.also didn't studentmayer say she would not vote against banning guns?
I'm amazed it was 5-4. rather scary.
sad part is guns ARE going to be banned in the next 50 years. i fucking guarantee it.
also didn't studentmayer say she would not vote against banning guns?