U.S. Supreme Court got it right!

[Guest]

The DC Gun Law has been set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 5-4 decision explained the Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in logical detail.

If you would care to read the entire decision, complete with pro-and-con opinions from the various Justices, the link is

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Guest]

I was pleasantly surprised that SCOTUS affirmed the individual right to bear arms. Hopefully this is the first of many rulings that affirm the rights of the individuals.

[Guest]

Excellent. I saw the decision earlier. This is good.

[Guest]

I was pleasantly surprised that SCOTUS affirmed the individual right to bear arms. Hopefully this is the first of many rulings that affirm the rights of the individuals.

At first I agreed, but then it kinda scared me. The vote was 5-4. That means we came oh so close to having a specified inalienable right denied by the court. Had there been one more Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, or Breyer on the court today, the 2nd Amendment would have been repealed.

This loudly demonstrates the importance of the presidential election. You may disagree with McCain's take on border enforcement or ANWR drilling or campaign financing or any other issues, but remember that if he were POTUS and the situation arose, he would nominate justices similar to Roberts and Alito. Obama voted against both and wants a more empathetic, activist court. Expect a junior Ginsburg or Breyer.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe for anyone, this is the BIGGEST issue you would consider in how to vote for the next POTUS

[Guest]

the issue is an important one because it is a matter of the constitution. the right to bear arms is what prevents us from being taken over by a dictatorial government. when people have no way to defend themselves they are open to a misappropriation of power. the basis for all our freedoms is the united states constitution. an italian friend of mine has a gigantic copy of it framed and emblazoned on her wall....when we ourselves do not protect and defend it, we are doomed.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe for anyone, this is the BIGGEST issue you would consider in how to vote for the next POTUS

If I implied that the 2nd Amendment was the "BIGGEST issue" I apologize. However, I do believe that the makeup of the court is possibly not the BIGGEST, but is certainly one of the most important factors in this or any recent presidential election. Almost by definition, Democrat courts create laws while Republican one interpret. Liberal courts talk of changing mores and international trends while conservative courts talk of original intent.

[Guest]

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

James Madison, while a United States Congressman

Currently we have:

A leader retaining power through stealing the election of 2004 and put into power in 2000 by a coup d'etat, not through democratic elections

the military used to control the civilian population in violation of the U.S. Constitution

the president ordering a US citizen held indefinitely by the military

a shadow government being set up consisting entirely of executive branch officials in violation of the Constitution

government informants spying on fellow citizens

the highest amount of government funds going to military initiatives

taxpayer money being used to subsidize and fund domestic and foreign "defense" corporations

taxpayer money being used to subsidize and fund domestic and foreign military operations: wars, embargoes, training, etc.

a dictatorial ruling clique creating unnecessary, homicidal wars as a way of remaining in power

a dictatorial ruling clique committing crimes and assuming illegal powers and not being brought to justice because of manipulated, powerless legislative and judicial branches

the spread of militaristic values and the increasing power of the military in our society

Thank the Lord you gunslingers are here to protect us.

[Guest]

Currently we have:

A leader retaining power through stealing the election of 2004 and put into power in 2000 by a coup d'etat, not through democratic elections The United States is a federal republic, not a popular democracy. That's what the Constitution calls for, and it has worked pretty well. We keep forgetting that each state is a sovereign entity, and that this isn't one large mega-city. For those who want a popular democracy, that will require a change to the Constitution if is to occur here.

the military used to control the civilian population in violation of the U.S. Constitution The only place I've seen US troops is along the Southwest Border and performing humanitarian relief and looter control at disaster sites. Troops can only be committed once a Stafford Act declaration occurs, and the process for that is very rigid.

the president ordering a US citizen held indefinitely by the military So? If it action met court muster, then...

a shadow government being set up consisting entirely of executive branch officials in violation of the Constitution The Executive Branch works today as it has for a VERY long time under many administrations, including the last.

government informants spying on fellow citizens Are the citizens committing crimes?

the highest amount of government funds going to military initiatives And there have been no more 9/11s since.

taxpayer money being used to subsidize and fund domestic and foreign "defense" corporations And there have been no more 9/11s since. Also, the last time I checked, the moneys kept many US workers employed, and the money-cycle within those communities kept them afloat as well.

taxpayer money being used to subsidize and fund domestic and foreign military operations: wars, embargoes, training, etc. Better over there than within here.

a dictatorial ruling clique creating unnecessary, homicidal wars as a way of remaining in power Are we talking about Pres. Bush, or Pres. Kennedy & Johnson during the Vietnam era, or Pres. Truman during Korea, or Pres. Roosevelt during WWII, or Pres. Wilson during WWI, or Pres. Clinton during Somalia?

a dictatorial ruling clique committing crimes and assuming illegal powers and not being brought to justice because of manipulated, powerless legislative and judicial branches If the other two branches don't go after the third, then what's illegal? Congress has the real power, as they make the laws and dish out the money to enforce them, and the Judicial shows its authority when necessary. The three-cornered hat approach provides the checks and balances, and none of the three are "powerless."

the spread of militaristic values and the increasing power of the military in our society Those values are Duty, Honor, and Country. Are there better ones than those?

Thank the Lord you gunslingers are here to protect us. You're welcome.

[Guest]

:agree: Right on SteveZ :bigthumbsup: from a fellow vet

[Guest]

Nicely put SteveZ.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Never have seen what handguns have to do with the right to bear arms. As a weapon for a well-armed militia, they're pretty sad. And please do remember that the Constitution states it is for a "well-regulated militia," not to protect a household or an individual. A militia armed with rifles and shotguns would be far better for the security of this country than a handgun. A handgun might protect an individual but that is not what the Second Amendment stated:

"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."

So, I'm glad you think the Supreme Court got something right. This is definitely one time when I totally disagree. It seems the arguments pro and con by the Supreme Court are the same-old same-old. Maybe one day the SC will get it right, but it ain't this time around.

(Ain't it fun to disagree? hehe)

[Guest]

(Ain't it fun to disagree? hehe)


It is!

Handguns serve a purpose, especially in tight quarters and as backup weaponry.

Inside a structure there are several concerns with discharging a weapon - noise (can make you deaf for a while), wall puncture (don't want to hurt folk unintentionally), riccochet (same as before), maneuverability (try swinging a 30-36 inch rifle around in a tight corridor or around corners).

Justice Scalia was quite thorough on the historical, analagous and legal analysis. The individual is the cornerstone to a civil guard, and the government - if it has total control over all facets of "arms" - becomes dictatorial. There have been many examples of this in other nations before and after the writing of the Constitution.

The best part of the decision to me is that one was made. This issue has been hanging around too long to be ambiguous, and the Court's decision will lead to further refinement with it as a basis.

[Guest]

Handguns serve a purpose, especially in tight quarters and as backup weaponry.

Handguns serve a much bigger purpose -- they're great for robberies and murders. They're easily converted to rapid-firing weapons for drive-bys nowadays. Sorry, I'd love to see handguns banned throughout the world, not just in the US. Obviously, if I had my druthers, all weapons would be banned. But I'm realistic enough to understand that that ain't gonna happen and the USA needs weapons to survive. I also agree that individuals should be armed not just to protect themselves from other individuals but to prevent a government from depriving us of our rights (of course, we let the legislature take our rights on a daily basis and never say a word). I still stand by my opinion that our "militia" does not need handguns to do this.

I do not believe the government has a right to ban all weaponry. I've seen what happens when the populance is not allowed to own weapons and it ain't pretty. To me, handguns just serve no good purpose in today's world.

I do agree that some decision is better than no decision. The fact that the vote was 5-4 does mean it will be revised several times over the next few decades. Who knows, maybe the Supreme Court will become enlightened enough to even declare handguns illegal in the future. (So, do I duck now or when we meet in person?)

(In case you're wondering, I do own two rifles and a shotgun. I've gone hunting many times both as a child and as an adult. I'm not anti-weapons per se, just anti-handguns totally. However, if you gave me a choice between no weapons anywhere and me keeping my hunting weapons, I'd happily give them up.)

[Guest]

Handguns are also great protection against robbers and murderers. If you have one, just make sure you know how to use it. A handgun in untrained hands is not a good thing.
I think the vote was to close for comfort.

Steve wrote
Justice Scalia was quite thorough on the historical, analagous and legal analysis. The individual is the cornerstone to a civil guard, and the government - if it has total control over all facets of "arms" - becomes dictatorial. There have been many examples of this in other nations before and after the writing of the Constitution.
I agree.

[Guest]

........I'd love to see handguns banned throughout the world, not just in the US.........

The problem with banning anything seems that the demand and cost just gets higher, and as long as thre is a "demand" there will be a "supply." We learned that the hard way in the '20s with Prohibition.

I can remember going to an inner-city high school where zip-guns were made in the shop class (don't know if they got a grade for the manufacture or not). If people want them, especially the bad guys and gals, they will get them.

Many of the handguns in the US are not of US manufacture, and keeping them out would be as hard as keeping out the drugs. Mexico has already learned that, as the gun-smuggling (into MX) business is very active from every direction.

I guess I'd just like to have the same or better advantage as the low-life who thinks my property, llife, family, etc. is there for his/her amusement, profit or sadism. Having the training without the tools is not very helpful.

Gun control truly is about hitting the target, not demolishing the device.

[Guest]

As an independent I have to agree with Steve. we could go a long way to resolve the problems with handguns but some very good friends that lean a little too far left would object. If caught with a hand gun while committing a felony get a fair trial then if found guilty ( execution) problem solved!

[Guest]

Really like this article about a potential handgun ban in Toronto which seems to also address problems in the United States which would crop up. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/18/marni-soupcoff-why-david-miller-is-wrong-about-a-handgun-ban.aspx

I think you are going to have to create better human beings before taking their clubs away from them. :joke:

[Guest]

I opened a political thread by mistake and wish I had not.

Junglejim, I do not even comprehend how it is possible for an informed person to repeat such garbage. If what you say was even minutely close this congress would have impeached him long long ago. But they don't because they know none of this is true.

Stevez Good insight and responses.

redwitch you complain that the legislature is taking away our rights but yet you want this right to own handguns and all guns taken away. How is that different?

Sorry all, I really do my best to AVOID any political discussion, but opened this one in error.

[Guest]

From what i've read, most of what JungleJim said is true. And some members of Congress do want to impeach Bush. But in the interest of the country, and considering his days are numbered anyways, they've dropped the measure to concentrate on trying to get some legislation thru.

I'm as liberal as liberal can be, but I agreed in this case with the Supreme court. As a citizen I feel its my right to be able to defend myself with a handgun.

Speaking of guns, I'm curious about what you all think about something that was on the news the other night. A guy called 911 to report a burgler was breaking into his neighbor's house (he was watching from his own house). He then proceeded to give the burglers warning, and told them if they moved he would shoot, which he did. he killed them both, and the local court refused to indict him. So, essentially, he wasn't in any danger himself, he just killed to people who were burgluring the house next door, and he goes scot free. is this crazy or what???

[Guest]

....Speaking of guns, I'm curious about what you all think about something that was on the news the other night. A guy called 911 to report a burgler was breaking into his neighbor's house (he was watching from his own house). He then proceeded to give the burglers warning, and told them if they moved he would shoot, which he did. he killed them both, and the local court refused to indict him. So, essentially, he wasn't in any danger himself, he just killed to people who were burgluring the house next door, and he goes scot free. is this crazy or what???

I'm sure there's a lot more to this story. The local prosecutor would be the one to decide if the case goes to court or not. If the evidence indicated an unjustified killing, the homeowner would be in deep trouble. If he challenged the persons and they came after him - different story. Shot-in-the-front or shot-in-the-back, unarmed versus armed, threatening or passive - all those factors weigh into this.

[Guest]

I read about this or a similar case in the paper today. This was set in Texas but it ended in a trial. The burglars were two illegals from Columbia. Prior to trial, the shooter claimed he warned them to stop or he would shoot. They didn't stop. He shot them both -- one in the back. At trial, he claimed that he shot them when he felt he was in danger as the burglars came onto his property. The defendant was found not guilty.

Sorry, but this case sickened me when I read it. I don't believe he even remotely felt himself to be in danger. His neighbors certainly weren't since they were out of town at the time of the incident and he knew it. He killed these men and got away with it. People were quoted as calling it "Texas justice." GAG!!!!

[Guest]

That was exactly the case, Red. The whole episode was caught on 911 tape. We listened to him as the operator cautioned him not to go after the guys,but the killer did just that . They were carting goods away from his neighbor's house. He could have done nothing, and they would have gotten away with the loot, but he insisted he wasn't going to let that happen, and he told the 911 person he'd kill them if he had to. And then he did it. It was vigilante justice at its worst. It was just sickening to me that he got away with it - that people thought that type of behavior was okay. It sets a bad precident, to be sure.

[Guest]

Texas seemed like a different country from the US the times that I have been there. Cannot see a jury in many of the blue states going for this kind of thing even though I would see it in many parts of Florida.

[Guest]

chachacha - Well said!!!

[Guest]

That was exactly the case, Red. The whole episode was caught on 911 tape. We listened to him as the operator cautioned him not to go after the guys,but the killer did just that . They were carting goods away from his neighbor's house. He could have done nothing, and they would have gotten away with the loot, but he insisted he wasn't going to let that happen, and he told the 911 person he'd kill them if he had to. And then he did it. It was vigilante justice at its worst. It was just sickening to me that he got away with it - that people thought that type of behavior was okay. It sets a bad precident, to be sure.

To me a worse precedent is if scum believe they can victimize people in their homes in every way possible, and know they can get away with it if they can beat the response times for law enforcement officers. Depending on where you live, the response time can be as short as 1 minute or as long as 20 minutes (or longer), and that depends on what else is going on that the LEO is tasked to take care of. That's why such crimes occur over and over again in certain areas.

If the house next-door is tagged by scum who get away with it because of long LEO response times, you can expect to be next - it's the scum business model and philosophy.

People say a lot of things when they are excited, so what was said to a 911 operator must be taken in context to the situation. Without reading a full transcript of the trial, I'm hard-pressed to judge a person based on how the Fourth Estate summarizes it and packages that summary for sale to media outlets. Too many times people are judged on sensatiionalized or biased reporting, and an examination of ALL the facts (even though it's time-consuming) portrays a different picture of the event.

Sorry, but burglars, home invaders, and muggers go looking for a soft touch and their actions impart great fear and terror into their victims. So, if that fear and terror morphs into a significant reaction against the burlars, home invaders and muggers, there's no sympathy from me. I have always found it strange when these "poor innocent mis-understood outcasts of society" get what they give, they are now defended as victims themselves. When they intiate an action, they had better prepared for an outcome not to their liking.

Personally, that's the kind of neighbor I like. Apparently, so do a dozen others within his community.