Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 26, 2008
Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET
Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits
(March 19) WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
I agree with this decision. I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I have long believed that Gun Control Laws, as written, only protect the criminals, and leave us law-abiding citizens up a creek. I have never owned a gun. It is a personal choice for me, but since I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I woke up one day and decided I DID want to own one, I don't believe I should be restricted by government. I am fully willing to go through any registration process that is set out, and see no problem with background checks and waiting periods.
UPDATE: Before you think that I'm a non-thinking NRA Member, I part company with the NRA, and quite frankly, get angry with them for not going for the middle. I don't believe that a lot of people who oppose guns want to literally take them from gun owners. I believe that a lot of them would just love to sit in a room with the gun owners from the rural and plains states and just ask them:
Why do you let the punks pimp you the way that they do?
I, for instance, don't believe it's a hardship to limit gun ownership to one gun a month. No sane person needs more than one a month. You a collector? You get to collect 12 a year.
I also believe gun shows should be very regulated. I believe it SHOULD be easy to trace a gun from the moment it rolls off the assembly line. And, if you're a law-abiding citizen, you should want that too.
Why let those who are shady pimp off of you by yelling 'Gun Rights'. It's not right. The decent gun owner needs to stand up to the sleaze. They need to detach themselves from the sleaze, understanding that compromise doesn't mean you'll be turning in your guns.
Posts
6 comments:
The whiny liberal government in Washington, D.C., which has been controlled by real crackheads like Marion Barry and other nefarious characters for too long. The new message is: You criminals break into my home, and I will blow your fucking head off. No citizen can count on the police to protect them, and the druggies in government WANT home break-ins so that the drug users can steal money for their drug habits!
So where does Mr. Bush, the sometime liberal and sometimes conservative president, fit in? Of course, Bush appointed constitutional conservatives to the court. If that Traitor John Kerry had been elected President (or the Gulfstream liberal Al "Oil for me only" Gore, for that matter), then the jackboot thugs in Washington, D.C., would be knocking on doors right now to pick up all guns just like the shithead New Orleans police did DURING the Katrina aftermath.
Why did New Orleans police pick up the guns? Because the shithead thieves who stayed behind to loot the homeowners after the storm were getting the fuck shot out of them by lawful citizens with their shotguns. For any liberal ingnorant shitheads, Louisiana has a law. Anyone breaking into a home can be killed (i.e., blown to fucking smithereens) by the homeowner. Also, a driver is allowed to shoot and kill anyone trying to carjack him or her in Louisiana.
So, thank you, Mr. Bush. We are indebted to you.
Interesting how the Supreme Court Upholds the Second Amendment but the Senate is getting ready to pass the FISA Bill that allows the telecommunication companies to be granted immunity for allowing Americans to be spied on.
Freedom Fighters United
F.A.I.T.H.
(Fighters Against International Tyranny and Hatred)
Interesting how the Supreme Court Upholds the Second Amendment but the Senate is getting ready to pass the FISA Bill that allows the telecommunication companies to be granted immunity for allowing Americans to be spied on.
Freedom Fighters United
F.A.I.T.H.
(Fighters Against International Tyranny and Hatred)
For once, I think the Supreme Court got it right. Numerous studies have indicated that only a small sample of the general population actually uses firearms to engage in criminal activity. It's not as it a bunch of ordinary citizens went berzerk one day just because they came across a firearm. Generally, the cats who commit violent crimes with firearms already had criminal tendencies and/or were already engaged in other illegal activities in the first place.
Though I'm not a gun owner myself, I was never down with the idea of drafting/enforcing legislation which punished everybody for the antics of a much smaller subset.
I was going to write one of my famous speeches....lol
But Rikyrah covered most of it for me. Co-sign.
Mayor Fenty, Mayor Daley, and Chief Bratton are like the political Three Stooges on this. They can't possibly be serious. They claim that they need to maintain these laws in order to protect their Cities. That's nonsense!!! When these laws were in place, they did nothing to improve the safety/crime rate of their cities. These three cities- Chicago, D.C., and L.A.- are some of the most crime ridden in the nation. These laws have very little impact on improving crime rates and safety, and these local officials know it. Gun restrictions have very little impact on the criminals...as most get their weapons on the Black Market. Now there is an issue with straw purchasing...but that can be dealt with, if State officials would increase the penalty for straw purchasing. If you provide a felon with a weapon... you go to prison for 3-5...no exceptions. You should get additional time if said felon takes that weapon and commits a crime with it. They should have a sign in every gun store warning straw purchasers...and should make them sign an agreement/affidavit, so they won't be able to say they didn't know about the law & they were not warned.
These laws primarily impact law abiding citizens....preventing them from defending themselves, while the criminals are allowed to run wild. The Police Chief in Chicago just recently had to provide officers with higher powered weapons, because they have been outgunned by thugs. That was WITH the gun restrictions in place. That's because the gun restrictions have nothing to do with stopping the criminals...who are going to have weapons anyway. It only leaves law abiding citizens vulnerable in their own homes.... notice the increase in home invasions over the past several years.
I guess these local officials want citizens to be totally dependent on their police force when someone is breaking in. But I am here to tell you.... you can't rely on Police. In urban areas... you can count on a wait time of 5-10 minutes for a police response. For a burglar alarm or panic alarm.... it can take as long as 15 minutes for a police response. That's 5, 10 or 15 minutes where you can be killed, raped, tied up, kidnapped, forced to go to an ATM to withdraw money, etc.
In a suburban or rural area, police response times can be even higher...because State Police/Sheriffs are spread pretty thin. Not enough officers working at any given time.
Tell that woman from Nashville Tennessee that she can't defend herself....after she had to wait hours for a Police response to report her crazy ex-boyfriend who broke in once and was going to come back to kill/harm her.... it took them hours to respond after being called numerous times...and after 911 operators basically told her (out of earshot) to go screw herself.
Hell no you shouldn't depend on Police. Every home needs that 15 minute insurance policy.
And in a natural disaster...you can forget about the Police. 2 Words... Hurricane Katrina. Police forces are often incapacitated after major disasters... hurricanes, major tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, massive terror attacks, etc. Communications are jammed....and there are not enough officers to respond even if you can get through to 911. Most Police departments are under strain under normal conditions... so any serious incident really knocks out their resource capacity to respond to something else. After a big earthquake...the roads are going to be out...along with communications being jammed...esp. 911 Call Centers, and Electricity being out. So even if you could call police... they can't always get to you. You are on your own.
When the rioting & looting starts... you better have a way to protect yourself, your home and family. You better have a food/water stash to last you 3-4 weeks....and you better be able to protect it.
And oh yeah...that Mayor Fenty... I don't know where to start with this guy. Is he serious?
D.C. is like the Wild West WITH... WITH THE HANDGUN BAN IN PLACE. The only thing that the ban has done is prevent the law abiding vulnerable citizens from having a handgun in the home to protect themselves from the thugs. It has done nothing to stop the thugs from terrorizing the city. The D.C. police damn sure can't protect the people. Things got so bad in D.C. recently that Police had to set up roadblocks to try to slow the carnage.
And it's the same all across the Country.
Take a listen to this 911 call. This happened several years back.
Piper davenport,
I agree, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency with the Supreme Court lately...mostly from the conservative wing...Scalia and his backup singers.
Post a Comment