Supreme Court rules gun rights extend to the state and local levels

[Magox]

Maybe one day we will have 9 supreme court robots, who are impartial, not beholden to any political ideology to make these decisions. Why not? All a supreme court judge should do is interpret the constitution as is, plain and simple.

[OCinBuffalo]

But at the end of the day, "The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today." -Justice Stevens' last dissent before retirement. Say what you want about old men/women on the SC, but that guy at 90 is sharp as a tack.

And again, you are hunting for a double standard that doesn't exist.

 

Stevens is giving his interpretation of history, which is not his job. His job is to give us his interpretation of the law, as it is written, no tricks. He has no way of knowing or proving that bearing is as he says.

 

The founders lived in an armed-to-the-teeth world. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel for Pete's sake. These men grew up learning to fence and shoot, as a matter of course. To suggest that they could ever even conceive of a future where personal arms were not carried every day, all the time, is a fanciful interpretation of history. I could easily interpret that they never thought they needed to make a law against some fool taking away of the rights of citizens to defend themselves as they see fit. Personal arms were assumed, which is why they wrote the Second the way that they did. In all cases, the carrying of personal arms is exactly as dependent on your personal situation as it was in 1776.

 

Just ask Rosie O'Donnell, or any celebrity, why her personal security guards bear arms, but she is against individuals who can't afford security guards to avail themselves of the same protection.....that's where you will find the double standard you are hunting for...

 

Hell, I have seen the guy that protects Bruce Willis up close and personal, dude has 2 Tech 9s slung under his jacket like some kind of comic book character. You want to talk about who gets guns? You go ahead and start with Mr. Willis.

[Rob's House]

... that guy at 90 is sharp as a tack.

 

He's touring the facilities and picking up slack.

 

 

I find it interesting how the threat of tyranny is treated as this bygone aberation that exists only in the fears of nuts. I imagine that was the mindset in Europe in the 30s when the people began trustingly thrusting their fate into the hands of their beloved leaders.

[Alaska Darin]

Incorporation is an interesting if not confusing debate.

 

I think the "conservative" wing of the court made an uber liberal swing yesterday.

 

On certain issues, conservatives want to devalue national/federal power, as in the immigration debate. You hear Hannity talk all the time about how Arizona should deal with its own immigration problems and not have to go through the federal government.

 

But on the 2nd amendment rights, its the EXACT opposite. Local cities and municipalities, like Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, have serious, serious gun violence problems. Can you blame their local leadership for at least trying to do something about the problem? Sure, maybe their restrictions don't get rid of all the gun violence, but at least local leadership is doing something.

 

I think Stevens is right. The conservative wing evokes history-justifying how newly freed slaves had to have guns to protect themselves and the 14th amendment by extension incorporates gun ownership to the states. I get the argument.

 

But at the end of the day, "The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today." -Justice Stevens' last dissent before retirement. Say what you want about old men/women on the SC, but that guy at 90 is sharp as a tack.

Stevens is as sharp as a bowling ball. It's no surprise that someone who'd cavalierly express the government taking away a Constitutionally granted right as "at least they're doing something" would think otherwise.

 

I wonder if the fluoride being added to the water makes people so god awful stupid.

 

Yesterday, in the Midwest...

[OCinBuffalo]

He's touring the facilities and picking up slack.

 

 

I find it interesting how the threat of tyranny is treated as this bygone aberation that exists only in the fears of nuts. I imagine that was the mindset in Europe in the 30s when the people began trustingly thrusting their fate into the hands of their beloved leaders.

First of all: I saw Cake in Dallas when I was there. Cool show to say the least. Not always sure what that guy is going for, but, it's certainly entertaining.

 

The founders expected this to be the case. They anticipated it, which is part of why the 2nd amendment was created. They knew damn well that people are complacent, not vigilant, by nature. Nobody wants to think ill of their fellow man. Nobody wants to believe that there are truly evil men and women in this world....because it's scary to think these thoughts. It also represents a character test. One many weak people simply can't all pass.

 

So, even though people in Europe in the 30s could clearly see war coming, again, many of them said nothing, or were all too willing to believe in the BS that was being spoon fed to them by the pacifists, appeasers and/or propagandists. They didn't want to have to pass their character test. They blamed others, they obfuscated, they claimed moral superiority(just like the jackasses of today), anything, rather than admit that war was upon them. We did the same thing here with Japan.

 

IF we had fought WWII in the 30s instead of the 40s, millions of lives would have been saved. Instead, we damned the world to holocausts in Europe and in Asia. And why? Because we did everything we could to avoid calling evil, evil, and standing up to it, until we finally had let it get ridiculous and had no choice but to deal with it.

[ExiledInIllinois]

5-4 along ideological lines. That's a shame. This should be one instance where the law is not that tough to interpret. Should be a 9-0 vote. Really, this is very troubling to see the court split on something that should be pretty clear.

 

I am a liberal that doesn't own any weapons and I think the court ruling was the right one. Sadly, you are right... It should have been 9-0.

 

I am all for letting the chaos ramping up! Then and only something can be done on a grander scale.

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

I am a liberal that doesn't own any weapons and I think the court ruling was the right one. Sadly, you are right... It should have been 9-0.

 

I am all for letting the chaos ramping up! Then and only something can be done on a grander scale.

 

Looks like even your wacko paper agrees with the ruling.

tribune

Chaos ramping up? In Chicago? You have got to be kidding me.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Looks like even your wacko paper agrees with the ruling.

tribune

Chaos ramping up? In Chicago? You have got to be kidding me.

 

I agree with the ruling.

 

Maybe we should turn this country into the Old West, you won't get any argument out of me!