We have the right to bear arms!!!!

[Lustalbert]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

 

Discuss. I say by page 2 we are in the kitchen.

[Pedro1647545510]

Sweet, about time. I think it's a step in the right direction.

[twistedfocus1647545489]

Next, we can bring back the right to arm bears!

http://designsbymike.info/images5/retroranger2267395.jpg

 

Seriously though, they're on the right track. On to page eleventy.

[Putty]

I wish I owned a gun store in D.C right now.....sheesh!

[sol740]

Meh, shotguns are the best home defense weapons imho, but law abiding, decent citizens deserve to be able to own handguns. The only restrictions to gun ownership should be to convicted, violent criminals. Though they'll get them illegally anyway.

[Pedro1647545510]

I wish I owed a gun store in D.C right now.....sheesh!

Owed or Owned?

[BloodRed]

That is great to hear. I am glad someone has finally listened and stood up for our rights.

 

And yes, opening a gun store in DC would be killer right now.

[SPLN SUX]

"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."

 

 

Does anyone else read this as the people OF the well regulated militia have the right to bear arms, and shall not be infringed? It would mean to that only those within the militia have the right, and those not pledging thier loyalty to the free state would not.

 

It was written before we considered ourselves a united country, infact we were a plot of "free" City States in a new world.

 

Secondly, it cites "being necessary to the security of a free state"... i see this as security from tyrany of an empire, not security of your personal property. If there is a threat of invasion, then i believe its ok to arm every man and woman for the cause of defending thier territory.

 

I also think its important to note that modern English is not the same as "Old English" If you read the constitution, you pretty much need a dictionary to figure out what the hell its saying. When interpreting this stuff, you have to do so with historical conditions in mind, and not strait out.

[Putty]

Owed or Owned?

 

Fixed.....

[jeffmeden]

Please (for everyone's sanity) just take the SCOTUS opinion for what it's worth and don't dig this debate up again! Kitchen by 5pm...

 

"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."

 

 

Does anyone else read this as the people OF the well regulated militia have the right to bear arms, and shall not be infringed? It would mean to that only those within the militia have the right, and those not pledging thier loyalty to the free state would not.

 

It was written before we considered ourselves a united country, infact we were a plot of "free" City States in a new world.

 

Secondly, it cites "being necessary to the security of a free state"... i see this as security from tyrany of an empire, not security of your personal property. If there is a threat of invasion, then i believe its ok to arm every man and woman for the cause of defending thier territory.

 

I also think its important to note that modern English is not the same as "Old English" If you read the constitution, you pretty much need a dictionary to figure out what the hell its saying. When interpreting this stuff, you have to do so with historical conditions in mind, and not strait out.

[RedRocket1647545505]

+1 for gun crew. However, they still upheld the right to ban 'military weapons'.

 

Not a complete victory, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

[Lustalbert]

Opinion of the Supreme Court of The united States of America

 

157 Pages. If you have ADD, dont even bother.

[Putty]

I want a military weapon

[Archie]

I believe the vote was only 5-4, so I guarantee we will see this in the SC again.

SPLN - I like your statement of "security from the tyranny of an empire", whether it be foreign or domestic. I think this may be the most important reason we have this freedom.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I believe the vote was only 5-4, so I guarantee we will see this in the SC again.

SPLN - I like your statement of "security from the tyranny of an empire", whether it be foreign or domestic. I think this may be the most important reason we have this freedom.

 

We probably won't see them touch the 2nd again in our lifetime, though I agree; it'll be revisited at some point.

[Scotty2Hotty]

+1 for gun crew. However, they still upheld the right to ban 'military weapons'.

 

Not a complete victory, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Amen. :nod:

[Science Abuse]

It only won 5-4?

[TTQ B4U]

good move IMO. general public has no business owning anything that's military. not unless their ass is over in the Middle East. how many guys have wrecked a nearly race bred Evo or STi thinking they can drive a race car....I don't need that same level of intelligence owning a gun of signifcant firepower on my street. we already have enough people who think the have a 12" dick.

 

I do agree with the ban being overturned though.

 

 

+1 for gun crew. However, they still upheld the right to ban 'military weapons'.

[Skinner]

looks like MT will remain a state for now.

[kenny]

Machine guns need to be legal to manufacture again.

[smokinHawk1647545499]

Machine guns need to be legal to manufacture again.

yes!!, if not when shtf we will die sooner, then with rpg's and full autos.

[RangerTurbo]

good move IMO. general public has no business owning anything that's military. not unless their ass is over in the Middle East.

 

It's only military now because guns with the happy switch have been so heavily taxed and banned up to date. Had none of the unconstitutional bans and laws ever been set in place full automatic guns would be as common place as semi-auto guns.

 

As for another point, the citizens were supposed to have equal access to whatever weapons the Military used in the instance an overtaking by the governmen/military were to take place. This was to give us an equal fight against tyranny and big government.

 

 

Now, since you don't believe I should own a machine gun. I don't believe you should have the freedom of using your computer to make public such unconstitutional and un-american drivel. Lets restrict your first amendment right and see how you take it.

 

 

Does anyone else read this as the people OF the well regulated militia have the right to bear arms, and shall not be infringed? It would mean to that only those within the militia have the right, and those not pledging thier loyalty to the free state would not.

And in order for a Militia to be formed, the members themselves must have their own arms, not supplied by anyone else. Eligible members being men of ages 16-65. The general populace of people that this decision goes to benefit are MEN ages 16-65. Kinda funny how that works ain't it?

 

 

It only won 5-4?

Yah, we have 4 un-American Judges.

[TTQ B4U]

Well thankfully the bans and taxes were put in place as I am going to stand behind my belief that the common folk of today do not need fully automatic guns. I think it's pretty obvious having even semi-auto ones is difficult enough for folks to handle. Again, if you're not active military in combat then you don't need such a weapon period.

 

As for the point of citizens being able to have equal acces.....ah....maybe back in the days of Ben Franklin we had to worry about gov't military takeover by our own law makers, but let's fast forward to world of today. We as a group of citizens hardly need to worry about fighting our own gov't with guns. Such a threat no longer exists and even if it did, you're all fucked as we can barely organize a parade to support civil rights for minorites let alone ban together to take on "big brother" that is so feared by the extremests that belong in Waco, TX. No thanks, Larry, Daryll and Daryll are just going to have to stick to a buck knife and a double barrel shot-gun in the back of their pick-em up truck.

 

Times change and laws should too. You want to own a handgun, fine. You want a fully auto M16....go enlist and deport yourself to the land of Islam and do some good with it. Then you can honestly say you're doing something American. Drivel may be what you call it, but I say it's BS when folks say they need these guns for protection or hunting. Most of them barely have a job that precludes them from using the 1040EZ form, thus they have better things to be spending their time doing than firing off rounds from a gun that has no practicle purpose in a city of folks contributing to society in a productive manner.

 

It's only military now because guns with the happy switch have been so heavily taxed and banned up to date. Had none of the unconstitutional bans and laws ever been set in place full automatic guns would be as common place as semi-auto guns.

 

As for another point, the citizens were supposed to have equal access to whatever weapons the Military used in the instance an overtaking by the governmen/military were to take place. This was to give us an equal fight against tyranny and big government.

 

Now, since you don't believe I should own a machine gun. I don't believe you should have the freedom of using your computer to make public such unconstitutional and un-american drivel. Lets restrict your first amendment right and see how you take it.

[RangerTurbo]

I'm sorry, you right to free speech was banned, what were you trying to say?

[Archie]

good move IMO. general public has no business owning anything that's military. not unless their ass is over in the Middle East. how many guys have wrecked a nearly race bred Evo or STi thinking they can drive a race car....I don't need that same level of intelligence owning a gun of signifcant firepower on my street. we already have enough people who think the have a 12" dick.

 

I do agree with the ban being overturned though.

 

If next week Bush delcared marshal law and turned the U.S. into a police state, your views would change. Don't think fascism could happen? Read a history book, the military has and will be used to control the public at some point... Wouldn't you like to have a fighting chance? Or will you just fall in line and become a slave?

 

A clause in the patriot act states (in laymans terms) that the president can declare marshal law for something as minute as "a threat to America's infrastructure".