SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!

By a 5 to 4 vote, the supremes have upheld the right of individual citizens to own firearms! All of those who insisted the second amendment appplied only to militias, WRONG! :rambo: :rambo2: :punk: :dancing:


liberal wienie>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects individual gun rights, striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and raising election- year questions about weapons restrictions elsewhere.

The 5-4 ruling resolves a constitutional question that had lurked for two centuries: whether the Second Amendment covers people who aren't affiliated with a state-run militia.

I'm sure Stockingfull will be pleased.

Richard S. wrote::D I'm sure Stockingfull will be pleased.

Wow Richard!!.......Something political we both agree on!!


Edit: Not about Stockingful's reaction but about the decision itself.

It's troubling that the decision would be so close to remove our God-given rights of self defense, as expressed in the second amendment.

That's what gte's me? How come it wasn't unanimus?? The ONE thing that makes the USA what it is is the feddom to bear arms.

Mind you, I'm not a hunter & I don't own a gun, but I sure believe in the right to have one! (or five!)

Well I am a long time gun owner too & applaud the SC decision.......But.....Let's not forget that their decision also makes room for "reasonable" limitations on gun ownership which is equally important .

As a gun owner, I'm all for reasonable limitations and requirements. I think its too easy now to get a gun. You should have to attend a training class and receive training on the use of the gun. Having said all that, its unbelievable to me that four supreme court justices think that U.S. citizens should not have the right to own a gun and keep it in their home. Very sobering and all the more reason that we should elect McCain and not Obama in the fall. The next president will be appointing some new justices.

As I'm reading it " reasonable limitations and requirements" is being left to interpretation and this decision is going to create more problems than its going to solve.

Richard S. wrote:As I'm reading it " reasonable limitations and requirements" is being left to interpretation and this decision is going to create more problems than its going to solve.

I can't imagine how else they could have written their decision Richard, to cover all situations in every municipality in the nation???....... It has to be left a little vague.

Agree to a point Devil but it appears we've gone from the argument of whether it's legal to own a gun to what "reasonable limitations and requirements" are. It's been left to interpretation.... See where I'm going, this is going to create a quagmire of court cases as to what that is for every law enacted at state and local levels.

Richard S. wrote:See where I'm going, this is going to create a quagmire of court cases as to what that is for every law enacted at state and local levels.

I agree with you Richard......I just don't see how the court could written their decision to avoid that happening while still leaving some "wiggle room" for local municipalities to take local factors into account??

LOL, I see what you're up to now Devil. You're setting up your arguments for the inevitable onslaught....

John McCain wrote:McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

Clear and concise as to his position.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.

Huh? WTF does that mean?

In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.

The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

He's trying to play both sides of the field on this issue.

Richard S. wrote:LOL, I see what you're up to now Devil. You're setting up your arguments for the inevitable onslaught....

Wow Richard!!!....I had no such intentions! (I knew we shouldn't have played those chess games!)

(do you dislike watching football games because you are convinced they are talking about you in the huddle?)

As evidenced by CBS and the Like they are in with Chicago Mayor Daley and are screaming that Gun crime is going to EXPLODE anytime now. What they fail to realize ( of course they do, they just hope their viewers are to stupid) is people are not just going to be able to drop into any Gun shop, throw down some cash, walk outside and start shooting people.
Rediculous arguments by Feinstein and her cronies as well.....but I just laughed at them. It was great watching Wayne LaPiere talking about how suits would be filed that day across the country to force them to abide by the Constitution.

This entire Lawsuit was to determine if LAW ABIDING citizens could partake in the Rights given to us, not Criminals! Why are the Mayors of DC, SF and Chi-town so worried? becuase they lose their power over their populace from living or to die depending on Police reaction time or simply walking through a park without the right to protect themselves.

I think a little common sense here would work wonders.........I just can't imagine a legitimate reason for a municipality denying a law abiding, mentally competent, adult citizen the right to own a firearm, for any lawful purpose.
By the same token, I would favor denying that same citizen the right to carry a loaded flame thrower down the streets of Manhattan. (for those who would argue that he should have the right to carry a flame thrower in New York........How about if he wants a private, tactical nuclear weapon?!?.......is there any line here??)
"We The People" have a collective right to defend ourselves against the unnecessary dangers that such weapons pose, don't we?