Great Day for the 2nd Amendment

Published on June 26, 2008 By Island Dog In Politics

Today is a great day for the 2nd Amendment and America. The Supreme Court has struck down the DC gun ban and upholds the right for Americans to bear arms.

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

Comments (Page 1)

ParaTed2k

on Jun 26, 2008

Yes, it is a good day! The high court upheld our right to own a legal product, defend ourselves from thugs and participate in hunting.

Of course the "no right is worth defending" left wing of the court voted against the Constitution, but that's to be expected.

CharlesCS

on Jun 26, 2008

Of course the "no right is worth defending" left wing of the court voted against the Constitution, but that's to be expected.

Most likely the same people who claim Bush is destroying the Constitution. I guess they dont like someone else doing it for them.

Dr Guy

on Jun 26, 2008

5-4? Barely.

Sodaiho

on Jun 26, 2008

Personally, I have no real issue with gun ownership by private individuals, yet they are intended to be lethal weapons and therefore should be regulated. The problem I see is the NRA defending to the teeth every nut and wacko wanting to of machine guns, assault weapons, and the like. Moreover, there are people who just should not have guns, the criminally insane, felons, and other unstable persons. The difficulty is that we can not always know before hand whether someone has the stability or the common sense to properly possess a weapon. Lastly, while we can own guns, it is always another question whether we should own a gun. Accidental deaths by privately held guns are a serious problem in the United States. So, much like that other lethal silliness, smoking, you can smoke, but is a serious question whether you should. And those around you have pretty strong ideas about you if you do.

Be well.

Island Dog

on Jun 26, 2008

Dr Guy

comment 3

5-4? Barely.

Another reason not to vote for Obama.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 26, 2008

Sodaiho:

Actually, except for the "assault" weapon part, this IS the position of the NRA. It is also the position of the court decision today.

Sodaiho

on Jun 26, 2008

ParaTed2k, The NRA has a long history of opposing nearly every measure limiting gun ownership. They even opposed laws requiring trigger locks. Their position is clear: don't come between a person wanting a gun and a gun manufacturer/distributer. If this were a reasonable organization I might support their efforts. I see from their website they even fight the regulation of gun shows where pretty much anyone can buy a gun. Don't you think a little oversight might be a good idea?

See ya.

IanTyger

on Jun 26, 2008

I will point out at this juncture - SCOTUS declared DCs trigger lock/safe storage requirement unconsitutional on the grounds that a non-functional firearm is not a useful self-defense tool... So it's hardly surprising the NRA has supported that...

Trigger lock laws are a feel-good gesture and nothing more.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 26, 2008

Sodaiho:

Their position is clear, in fact they make it clear on their website. Your ignorance is also clear.

The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.1

NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write.2 When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department, opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting and defensive ammunition.3 The sponsor of the earlier bill, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), felt that his original goals were met by the NRA-backed bill that became law. "Our final legislative product was not some watered-down version of what we set out to do," Biaggi said on the floor of the House. "In the end, there was no compromise on the part of police safety."

That's part of the page on their site... If you care about facts, you might want to follow the link and learn a few things before you spew on.

dynamaso

on Jun 27, 2008

Here is a point of view from a non-American: the more guns in the hands of private citizens, the more likely they are to shoot each other. Everytime we see a report of another person going crazy with a firearm, we wonder when America will finally see the folly of their gun laws.

Why a private citizen needs a handgun is absolutely beyond me, 'inalienable right' or not.

Scotteh

on Jun 27, 2008

Agreed dynamaso.

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2008

Everytime we see a report of another person going crazy with a firearm, we wonder when America will finally see the folly of their gun laws.

And half the time, those reports are from countries with very strict gun control laws. Or committed by people with illegal guns here. Which just goes to show that the issue is not guns or the ownership, but the illegal use of them regardless of laws. Everywhere.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 27, 2008

Dynasmo:

In the immortal words of Col. Sherman T. Potter (M*A*S*H), HORSE HOCKEY!

Every year, the forests, fields and rolling hills of Wisconsin become basically freefire zones for well armed men, women and teenagers. Their numbers rival the population of Milwaukee. If your assertion were true, there would be gun shot statistics equal to that of Milwaukee, but guess what, there are very few incidents.

On the other hand, it is illegal to carry a firearm in Milwaukee, yet this ban has yet to reduce the gun related incidents in the city. In fact, every time they tighten the gun laws in the city, gun crime increases. On the other hand, cities in the US that have reduced the restrictions on gun ownership and concealled carry have ALL seen a significant decrease in gun related incidents.

Just because you or I might not choose to participate in a right does not negate the right itself... and repeating propaganda that has been disproven time and time again doesn't change anything.

SanChonino

on Jun 27, 2008

I think I'm going to start packing a flamethrower rather than a handgun.

I mean, it's my right after all, isn't it?

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.

It never says what kind of arms I can bear, right?

No, perhaps I'll carry the severed limb of my last attacker. Then I'll really be bearing 'arms'.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 27, 2008

Sancho:

I think I'm going to start packing a flamethrower rather than a handgun.

I mean, it's my right after all, isn't it?

That's one of the things I really liked about this ruling. The Supreme Court did reaffirm our right to own guns, but they also acknowledged that there are limits to all rights. It's funny, most people are able to understand the limits of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press and other rights, but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, most the arguments I hear are "all or nothing" propositions. While the majority seemed to be able to see it pretty clearly, the dissent couldn't seem to see it at all.

No, perhaps I'll carry the severed limb of my last attacker. Then I'll really be bearing 'arms'.

I'm sure wildly brandishing a severed limb would be pretty effective in warding off would be attackers or bandits! ;~D

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!