The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[BrianR]

Already Chuck Schumer et al are claiming that the decision does not preclude gun bans by type and the Brady Bill. Sigh. Listen to the mayor for tired, old rhetoric that we've all heard a hundred times before when such laws are repealed or when "shall-issue" permits are instituted.

Blood-baths, shootouts at high noon, the dead piling up in the streets etc. I am tired of it and don't really hear it anymore. Can't the gun grabbers ever think up something new?

[elSicomoro]

I haven't read this thread at all, but I think that the right decision was made. People should be able to own handguns; states should have the right to impose some regulations on them.

I know the right thinks of him as a traitor, but I really like Justice Kennedy...he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by spudcon

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Guess he's finding out whether he was right or wrong.

I initially misunderstood this to mean you thought heaven had institutional religion and a State.

[spudcon]

Nope, just a random comment about those who are extreme at both ends of the issue. I'm sure ol' George doesn't give a damn about the issue any more.

[Radar]

I'm sure he doesn't care about anything anymore.

[classicman]

OH you mean he's a politician, radar?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, BrianR, my impression is no, they can't. Neither their mentalities nor their morals are that good.

Just remember, if you've ever harbored an antigun thought, you've entertained a pro-genocide one. A pro-genocide view strikes me as an immoral one.

In the end, persons unduly afraid of what guns might do to, rather than for, the citizenry ought never to be allowed into office.

[DanaC]

Just remember, if you've ever harbored an antigun thought, you've entertained a pro-genocide one.

Oh purleeease.

In the end, persons unduly afraid of what guns might do to, rather than for, the citizenry ought never to be allowed into office.

And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

[Sundae]

Oh Dana.
You've just proved your genocidal tendencies.

The streets of your ward would run with blood if you had your way. I suggest you resign immediately to spend more time with your family.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Oh purleeease.

And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.

Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.

[glatt]

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by glatt

Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.

From AR15.com

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Justice Scalia then turns to the prefatory clause – “A well regulated militia.”

First, the militia clauses do not give the power to create a militia, as DC argued. The militia clauses of the constitution give Congress the ability “to call forth the militia,” and not to create it. The militia pre-dates the Constitution, for it is merely all able-bodied men who are capable of bearing arms. Justice Scalia then does exactly what I was hoping he would do:

Ah yes, victory. “Well regulated” means disciplined and trained, not federally regulated.

The dissenters both in this case and in the lower court believe that “the security of a free state” meant States in the sense of Florida, Alaksa, etc. Justice Scalia corrects them. “The security of a free state” means “the security of a free polity” – a free nation, etc. Not individual American states.

He also throws a bone to the keyboard revolutionaries amongst us.

All this being said, Justice Scalia wraps up his analysis of the textual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.

Or you could be like Senator Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in the senate, and speak out of both sides of your mouth.


From http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (emphasis at the end is mine)
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

[Griff]

The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.

Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.

Roberts and Alito sure weren't going to vote for the detainees. While tied to the administration, these guys were trying to define how long someone can be choked, not whether or not it's justice.

Kennedy seems to be the one most clearly looking at the issue outside of an ideological haze.

Maybe McCain the 'maverick' could find another Kennedy and keep it towards the center. However, he's making noises like he will cave and appoint another Thomas or Alito, ideological -kissers who love corporate freedom, but have difficulty with the messier questions raised by the Constitutional guarantees against government interference. Guns? Sure. How about porn, abortion, privacy, states rights to enact tougher laws than the Feds?

It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?

It might be worth voting for him just to see what happens.