BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of 2nd Ammendment

[Hunter]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says 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 strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes 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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."</div>


Source

 

[Denny Crane]

A note to Stevens:

Indeed, the founders made a whole Bill of Rights to limit the tools available to government to regulate the citizens, period.

 

[CelticKing]

No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)

The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)

The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>

What the fuck?

I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.


I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...

EXCELLENT idea.

 

[AEM]

The Court got it right!!! It is only fitting that Justice Scalia wrote the Opinion, which I intend to read at my leisure.

 

[AEM]

The Opinion is something of a tour de force for Justice Scalia - and it looks like he had Justice Stevens at a disadvantage, considering that the latter argues on the former's terms.

I love the history being set forth, though there are a couple of things I would have stressed slightly differently on statutory analysis grounds.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

WTF? This is ridiculous.

 

[bbwchingy0007]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)

The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>

What the fuck?

I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.


I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...

EXCELLENT idea.
</div>

Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime.

 

[AEM]

^ Except that they can't outlaw guns absent a Constitutional Amendment, no matter what anyone believes should be the case.

 

[Denny Crane]

We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.

While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)

The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>

What the fuck?

I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.


I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...

EXCELLENT idea.
</div>

Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime.
</div>

Brilliant!

Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime.

(Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough).

What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[AEM]

I absolutely agree with you Denny that when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, he has precisely inverted the right, and should be punished severely.

 

[huevonkiller]

I don't want to ban guns completely for the record.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 08:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I absolutely agree with you Denny that when someone uses a gun to commit a crime, he has precisely inverted the right, and should be punished severely.</div>

Just to be clear, I think if you rob a store and only steal a pack of chewing gum and use a gun in the crime, you should serve at least 10 years.

 

[AEM]

I'm okay with that.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Have you seen how badly guns has fucked the States over? Sure there is the odd shooting in London, and some stabbings, but there is no gang banging (the shooting, not the 3-way). Imagine if the football firms (firms are like radical footy fans for their teams) ran around with Glocks? It would be bloodshed.

It's to late too outlaw guns in the States. One of the worst Amendments in my opinion.

 

[AEM]

Funny that you bring the UK into it, seeing as how Britain's policies directly led to our Second Amendment...

 

[Colonel Ronan]

How long ago was that AEM? There is something about the States and living in the past.

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.

While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.

 

[AEM]

It's not about living in the past, it's in not ignoring the basis of our entire political and legal system. You know, having an actual Constitution that can't be changed so easily.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Have you seen how badly guns has fucked the States over? Sure there is the odd shooting in London, and some stabbings, but there is no gang banging (the shooting, not the 3-way). Imagine if the football firms (firms are like radical footy fans for their teams) ran around with Glocks? It would be bloodshed.

It's to late too outlaw guns in the States. One of the worst Amendments in my opinion.</div>

We have other issues that are the origins of gangs and their violent actions that have nothing to do with guns being legal.

In the '20s, we banned alcohol and had a very similar sort of gang situation (ever hear of Al Capone?), and the Mob still exists today (read up on the NBA Ref busted for fixing games). It's a lot more complicated than just this one example (we ban marijuana, among other things vs. alcohol).

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about living in the past, it's in not ignoring the basis of our entire political and legal system. You know, having an actual Constitution that can't be changed so easily.</div>
Someone from England should be more understanding of why its important not to completely break established legal precedents over a single issue, given their common law system.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.

While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>

You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy.

If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.

While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>

You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy.

If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.</div>

It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.

 

[Vintage]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about it being changed "easily". It's just because the government does not want to send the States into some crazed frenzy.

If this was a case because it is unconstitutional, and because it stops the "Pursuit of Happiness" then wouldn't prostitution, and marijuana be legal? I'm sure that gives people some happiness.</div>

I'm actually fine with that.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.

While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>

You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>

It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div>

Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div>

Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not.
</div>

You'd have to ask a Jeffersonian about that tortuous logic train. Hamilton, later in life the head of a major NY abolitionist society, was unequivocally opposed to slavery on that ground.

Interesting that you bring up slavery though - it comes up in J. Scalia's Opinion. Have you read it yet? It's a bit long and occasionally repetitive, but so are the dissents...