Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11  
    Vepr
    Guest
    Sounds like they made the right decision. :D

    10:13
    Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Destroyer of Worlds Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
    Posts
    5,407
    Supreme court did it right.

    Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
    Written by Brandon Long
    Thursday, 26 June 2008
    US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns, strikes down DC handgun ban.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive 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.
    http://www.wmgt.com/index.php?option...1491&Itemid=57
    The NRA web site is heavily overloaded, really slow if you can get on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    gator
    Guest
    There was something missing from my quick scan of the ruling.

    The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    There was something missing from my quick scan of the ruling.

    The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.

    Why would you even have looked for that?
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    Why would you even have looked for that?
    You are right in that the actual case did not raise the issue but the Court investigated the intent of the 2nd and chose not to comment on what I think is the real intent of the Amendment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    The ruling talked about the 2nd in tems of personal defense and protection but I did not see anything about the real intent. The intent to enable the people to hold the government responsible for abuse.
    I would think that the government would generally frown on people raising arms against it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you authority to shoot cops if you think they're violating your rights.

    In fact, I would suppose that people who choose to raise arms against their government would probably ignore the Supreme Court on this issue. People who engage in rebellion rarely look for legal precident to do so. The issue is moot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    I would think that the government would generally frown on people raising arms against it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you authority to shoot cops if you think they're violating your rights.

    In fact, I would suppose that people who choose to raise arms against their government would probably ignore the Supreme Court on this issue. People who engage in rebellion rarely look for legal precident to do so. The issue is moot.
    The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

    The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

    Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

    The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

    Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.
    I don't dispute that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was (in part) to enable citizens to protect themselves against the government. But the political reality is that no government is going to authorize use of force against its enforcement of its own laws. Further, if someone doesn't recognize government authority in one field, then they probably won't recognize government authority to limit gun ownership either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    The issue is the real reason the Second was incorporated into the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers are very clear on this.

    The Revolution was initiated because the government tried to take weapons away from the people. At least that was the reason for the first conflict at Concord. The government (the British) tried to take the weapons away because the people were threatening to use them due to government abuse, not personal home defense.

    Don't make me use the Goggle thing to show you the quotes from the Founding Fathers.
    A few quotes from Thomas Jefferson on the matter would be in order.Don't you think ?

    Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Quotes on a free people!

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    ...............................................
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
    ...........................................
    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

    The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
    I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

    I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
    .................................................. ..
    http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

    Last edited by megimoo; 06-26-2008 at 12:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    I don't dispute that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was (in part) to enable citizens to protect themselves against the government.
    I think you are mising something here. It is not only protection from the govenment but to enable the citizens to move against the government if the government becomes abusive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •