TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Second Amendment FOR the people!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Second Amendment FOR the people!

post #1 of 44
6/26/08 at 7:38am
Thread Starter 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

Reply
post #2 of 44
6/26/08 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
I have to say I'm happy about this as well.
Reply
post #3 of 44
6/26/08 at 8:15am
Allright!!!

I can assure you the crime rate will go down there too.
Reply
post #4 of 44
6/26/08 at 8:35am
Finally, ONE good decision by SCOTUS.
Reply
post #5 of 44
6/26/08 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Finally, ONE good decision by SCOTUS.


And it's about time, too.
Reply
post #6 of 44
6/26/08 at 11:25am
This is an historic decision, and frankly, I was in major angst that this is the court that had decided to rule on it. This court has made some pretty flaky decisions. But, five of the justices saw the light of the Constitution and carried the day. I wish it had been all nine, but I'll settle for this. Regardless of my personal feelings about handguns -- I don't own one and have no desire to -- I think this is an important right that would have been a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to flush down the toilet.
Reply
post #7 of 44
6/26/08 at 1:05pm
I applaud this decision.

To be honest, I had some doubts as to whether or not the ban would be lifted. My reasoning for this had to do with San Francisco voters passing a handgun ban. This ban was struck down by the California state appeals court because the city ordinance couldn't overrule state law. Since Washington DC isn't city within a state but a rather a district, I didn't know if the ban there would be overturned or not. I'm happy it was.
Reply
post #8 of 44
6/26/08 at 2:10pm
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme....2.757471.html

Looks like Chicago's gun ban will be next to go now. Than San Francisco, my favorite city. LOL
Reply
post #9 of 44
6/26/08 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
This is an historic decision, and frankly, I was in major angst that this is the court that had decided to rule on it. This court has made some pretty flaky decisions. But, five of the justices saw the light of the Constitution and carried the day. I wish it had been all nine, but I'll settle for this. Regardless of my personal feelings about handguns -- I don't own one and have no desire to -- I think this is an important right that would have been a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to flush down the toilet.
When I first heard about the decision, I only knew that the court had decided to strike down the ban. I found out later that it was a 5-4 decision. It speaks volumes about the 4 liberal justices on the court. Each justice swore an oath to defend, protect and uphold the US Constitution, not to advance a political agenda. The court came within *1* vote of scrapping the 2nd Amendment.
Reply
post #10 of 44
6/26/08 at 2:13pm
Pretty scary thought isn't it KTLynn?
Reply
post #11 of 44
6/26/08 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Pretty scary thought isn't it KTLynn?
Absolutely. Except for a few "bright spots" like today's ruling, this Court's been a disaster.
Reply
post #12 of 44
6/26/08 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
, this Court's been a disaster.
It's why I think the Constitution should be ammended so that Supreme Court Justices serve limited terms.
Reply
post #13 of 44
6/26/08 at 4:23pm
Thread Starter 
It really is scary that there were/are 4 Supreme Court Justices who would just scrap the 2nd Amendment because they don't like it. I've been reading the Opinion of the Court off and on today (for some reason they still think I should work instead of reading the 157 page document), and Scalia makes it abundantly clear where they got the opinion they did, why the right belongs to the individual and not just a "militia", and even why it's a non-argument to say that the firearms then and now are so vastly different that it no longer applies. Yet, I've heard that the dissenting Justices (or one of) have said that this is overstepping and is jurisdictional legislating. So, it's not OK to uphold the Constitution, but doing away with one of the Bill of Rights isn't jurisdictional legislating?

The SCOTUS ruling does not automatically overturn all gun control laws. However, it does say that legislatures cannot arbitrarily ban firearms from the citizens. The bans on the weapons and on who can own them (i.e. felons) must be specific so as not to infringe on the rights of the majority. Makes total sense to me!
Reply
post #14 of 44
6/26/08 at 5:37pm
As much as it was a close decision, one has to realize that until now, conservative as well as liberal courts have not made such a decisive decision in the history of the country.
Reply
post #15 of 44
6/26/08 at 6:00pm
They finally got it right! Could it be that someone finally READ the Second Amendment. I saw one judge say in an interview that he had never actually read the Constitution as a whole, but he was not a Constitutional Law lawyer, he had a different specialty. I was appalled!
Reply
post #16 of 44
6/26/08 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kat2 View Post
I saw one judge say in an interview that he had never actually read the Constitution as a whole, but he was not a Constitutional Law lawyer,
Are you SERIOUSLY talking about a JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES?!?!?!?!? I just can't wrap my mind around the concept. It's just too, too, --- I'm sorry, words fail me. The document isn't that long. If this justice can read the paper, he/she can read the Constitution.

Do you mind sharing which one (or is the answer irrelevant at this point)?
Reply
post #17 of 44
6/26/08 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
It really is scary that there were/are 4 Supreme Court Justices who would just scrap the 2nd Amendment because they don't like it. I've been reading the Opinion of the Court off and on today (for some reason they still think I should work instead of reading the 157 page document), and Scalia makes it abundantly clear where they got the opinion they did, why the right belongs to the individual and not just a "militia", and even why it's a non-argument to say that the firearms then and now are so vastly different that it no longer applies. Yet, I've heard that the dissenting Justices (or one of) have said that this is overstepping and is jurisdictional legislating. So, it's not OK to uphold the Constitution, but doing away with one of the Bill of Rights isn't jurisdictional legislating?

The SCOTUS ruling does not automatically overturn all gun control laws. However, it does say that legislatures cannot arbitrarily ban firearms from the citizens. The bans on the weapons and on who can own them (i.e. felons) must be specific so as not to infringe on the rights of the majority. Makes total sense to me!
I was going to say something similar to this, but Heidi said it much better. But why on Earth was this NOT a 9-0 decision. OMG, who are these people???!!!
Reply
post #18 of 44
6/26/08 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kluchetta View Post
I was going to say something similar to this, but Heidi said it much better. But why on Earth was this NOT a 9-0 decision. OMG, who are these people???!!!
Because of the way it was written, the argument has gone back and forth regarding the well-regulated Militia part. Is the right for an individual to bear arms or as a part of a militia does one have the right to bear arms?

"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."
Reply
post #19 of 44
6/26/08 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Because of the way it was written, the argument has gone back and forth regarding the well-regulated Militia part. Is the right for an individual to bear arms or as a part of a militia does one have the right to bear arms?

"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."
Interesting...in my mind, the difference is the definition of the word "militia". Do you think?
Reply
post #20 of 44
6/26/08 at 9:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Because of the way it was written, the argument has gone back and forth regarding the well-regulated Militia part. Is the right for an individual to bear arms or as a part of a militia does one have the right to bear arms?

"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."
If you read the majority opinion (or even the first 25-30 pages :blush) it completely dispels that entire argument. Here's just one small part, dealing specifically with the "the right of the people" part:
Quote:
“Right of the People.†The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.â€
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people†two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the peopleâ€). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective†rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Reply
post #21 of 44
6/27/08 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
If you read the majority opinion (or even the first 25-30 pages :blush) it completely dispels that entire argument. Here's just one small part, dealing specifically with the "the right of the people" part:


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Agreed - it is the first court that has come out definitely in a direction. All previous ones have wavered which why it has been an issue for the last 210 years.
Reply
post #22 of 44
6/27/08 at 9:38am
I think the 2nd amendment is ridiculous, and they need to scrap that! Why should people have the right to have a gun?!?!?! If nobody had a gun, there would be no reason to need a gun for protection.

I personally believe when they wrote the constitution they had no idea that in this type of society people would be quoting it to be allowed to own a handgun.

The consititution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect modern society. It's ingrained to Americans as being almost sacred though - it should be JUST a piece of important history, not the basis of all current law decisions.

And I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but that's all I have to say, so I don't plan to come back and argue with anyone It's just my opinion.
Reply
post #23 of 44
6/27/08 at 10:39am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
I think the 2nd amendment is ridiculous, and they need to scrap that! Why should people have the right to have a gun?!?!?! If nobody had a gun, there would be no reason to need a gun for protection.

I personally believe when they wrote the constitution they had no idea that in this type of society people would be quoting it to be allowed to own a handgun.

The consititution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect modern society. It's ingrained to Americans as being almost sacred though - it should be JUST a piece of important history, not the basis of all current law decisions.

And I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but that's all I have to say, so I don't plan to come back and argue with anyone It's just my opinion.
I won't flame you at all Sarah. You're from a country where guns are banned, so the cultural idea that guns are important is a totally foreign concept. I understand that.

Here's the thing - as far as self-protection you're right. If no one, including the criminals, had guns then the idea of having one for protection would be ludicrous. Thing is, even in countries where handguns are banned from the general population (i.e. Great Britain, Australia), there is still gun violence. The criminals still manage to get them.

I don't own a firearm for self-protection. I own one for sport - competitive target shooting. The only thing ever done with MY firearms is paper punching.

The Founding Fathers couldn't have possibly imagined the internet or video cameras or many of the technologies that we have today. I don't think that negates the Freedom of Expression just because in their time a person would only be able to express themselves to a small population of people they knew personally, while today anyone can be "heard" worldwide by thousands (if not more, depending on the platform) via the Internet. I'm sure they didn't consider the radical Islamists that are targeting the US based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the Freedom of Religion doesn't still have merit. Same could be true of all of the Bill of Rights. All of them are still applicable in today's time even with the huge changes in technology and society.
Reply
post #24 of 44
6/27/08 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
..... Why should people have the right to have a gun?!?!?! If nobody had a gun, there would be no reason to need a gun for protection.
I urge you to check the violent crime statistics in countries where the ownership of guns is prohibited. The statistics are interesting, to say the least.

Quote:
The consititution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect modern society. It's ingrained to Americans as being almost sacred though - it should be JUST a piece of important history, not the basis of all current law decisions.
You're 100% wrong on that. The writers of the Consitution knew human nature, human history, and government very well; much better than we do today, I think. Their thinking has stood the test of time. The U.S. is the only country to have a government and a constitution that has stood for a couple hundreds of years and more. And look at all the countries that seem to find the need to revise their constitutions from time to time to "reflect modern society" -- Mexico, Columbia, Italy, Turkey, .... all the countries that take their consitutions lightly are countries with shaky governments where the people's rights are often trampled upon, where the people have no trust in their legal systems, where the military often make the decisions, .... I could go on and on about the dangers of revising constitutions anytime they don't seem to fit in with modern thinking. It's often the modern thinking that's at fault, not the Constitution. I make no apologies, I make no qualifications, but you are 100% wrong in that post. I'm not flaming you personally, but I really do hope you reconsider your opinion because all the evidence we have accumulated to date says that your opinion, if implemented, would be the death of the U.S.A. as we know it, and the rights of its citizens as we treasure them.
Reply
post #25 of 44
6/27/08 at 11:23am
I agree with you Coaster.

I can say unequivocally, if they scrapped the 2nd Amendment you would have a Civil War in the United States.

No way would I want to live in a country where the military government and the criminals were the only ones that had guns. And I don't even own a gun.
Reply
post #26 of 44
6/27/08 at 1:43pm
I'm sorry but why does ANYONE need a hand gun??!! Unless you hunt you do not need a gun. The court was wrong. The gun bans are needed to curb violence, now gun violence will no doubt rise in DC. This is truly a sad day.
Reply
post #27 of 44
6/27/08 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess View Post
I'm sorry but why does ANYONE need a hand gun??!! .
I don't have a gun, I don't want a gun, I don't need a gun. Yet, I applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the spirit and the word of the U.S. Constitution.

It's not about guns.

It's about freedom and liberty and the rights of citizens guaranteed by their contract with their government.

And the judicial branch of the government upheld that contract.
Reply
post #28 of 44
6/27/08 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I don't have a gun, I don't want a gun, I don't need a gun. Yet, I applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the spirit and the word of the U.S. Constitution.

It's not about guns.

It's about freedom and liberty and the rights of citizens guaranteed by their contract with their government.

And the judicial branch of the government upheld that contract.
Amen Tim.

I personally have no use for guns either. I've never fired a gun in my life. But folks please understand what others have touched on.....CRIMINALS WILL GET GUNS, regardless of how much gun control there is! Look at Great Britian, or Washington DC, Chicago or other places with strict gun control, hasn't exactly stopped gun violence in those places. Long live the 2nd amendment.
Reply
post #29 of 44
6/27/08 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess View Post
I'm sorry but why does ANYONE need a hand gun??!! Unless you hunt you do not need a gun. The court was wrong. The gun bans are needed to curb violence, now gun violence will no doubt rise in DC. This is truly a sad day.
Actually, Kentucky went through all of this about 14 years ago. Millions were spent on studies, and when it was all over, not only were handguns permitted, but a concealed carry permit program was put into effect. They found that in 1993 handgun violence perpetrated with a legal handgun by it's legal owner was in the single digits....4 I think; out of nearly 3000. Most gun violence is with illegally obtained guns (that a ban will not prevent) by criminals and other individuals who could not legally have them (that a ban will not prevent). And the real kicker of the study; criminals were LESS LIKELY to enter occupied homes out of fear that the owners may be armed.
Reply
post #30 of 44
6/27/08 at 2:00pm
Funny how people in the U.S. who can't agree on politics CAN agree on the Constitution. Maybe Sarah could learn something from that. The Constitution transcends politics; it transcends differences; it transcends changing times. I think that's something worth having and keeping as the foundation of one's government.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Second Amendment FOR the people!