Breaking news: U.S. Supreme Court extends gun ownership rights nationwide

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Engrish_Major

It's a non-thinking knee-jerk reaction. Democrat = libral = "they want to take our guns away".

They shall never be taken away!!

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

worlock77

It's a non-thinking knee-jerk reaction. Democrat = libral = "they want to take our guns away".

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Obama's only action as President concerning gun laws was expanding them. I don't understand the correlation between Obama and "taking guns away".Snipes_2

It's a non-thinking knee-jerk reaction. Democrat = libral = "they want to take our guns away".

Show me where Barack Obama was specifically campaigned on or pushed for restrictions of gun rights. I can't say I recall of it being much of an issue with him thus far.

Now if only we could afford those guns and especially the ever rocketing price of ammunition.

It's a non-thinking knee-jerk reaction. Democrat = libral = "they want to take our guns away".worlock77

Exactly! If Obama was so anti-gun he might have received a grade higher than an "F" from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The whole, "he wants to take away your guns," is just another of the baseless charges, kind of like calling him a Socialist, that are levied against Obama by those who really have no clue about what they are saying.

Then again, this is exactly the kind of enlightened discourse that is promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, et al. so, really, what can you expect? The nonsense doesn't fall far from the talking head.

Then again, this is exactly the kind of enlightened discourse that is promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, et al. so, really, what can you expect? The nonsense doesn't fall far from the talking head.-wildflower-

I'd include some others in that list as well. Keith Olberman comes to mind. It's unfortunate that cable "news" has dumbed down political discourse in this country to the level of 30 second soundbytes and grown men screaming at each other for 5 minutes.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]It's a non-thinking knee-jerk reaction. Democrat = libral = "they want to take our guns away".-wildflower-

Exactly! If Obama was so anti-gun he might have received a grade higher than an "F" from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The whole, "he wants to take away your guns," is just another of the baseless charges, kind of like calling him a Socialist, that are levied against Obama by those who really have no clue about what they are saying.

Then again, this is exactly the kind of enlightened discourse that is promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, et al. so, really, what can you expect? The nonsense doesn't fall far from the talking head.

Thank God Elena Kagan is not on the Court.:)

topsemag55

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. linked article

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Thank God Elena Kagan is not on the Court.:)

nocoolnamejim

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. linked article

Bipartisan agreement in action, Jim...leave our guns alone, we'll leave Social Security alone.:P:lol:

Now if only we could afford those guns and especially the ever rocketing price of ammunition.

Lord_Daemon

If anyone thinks that US troops would not fire on their fellow citizens even if unarmed should read up on the Bonus Army. Hoover sent troops to quell an uprising made up of former soldiers who were promised a bonus after WWI. When said bonuses didn't come, they created a camp across from DC and MacArthur (who actually was only in a administrative postition at the time) led Patton and Eisenhower in quelling the riots which ended in 3 dead, 54 injured and 135 arrests. Still, MacArthur disobeyed an order to not cross the bridge and had the camp where the Bonus Army was encamped, completely destroyed.

As far as it is weapons that kill, can someone tell me how an inanimate object picks up a bullet, loads it into the chamber and pulls the trigger by itself. As Austrailia and England has found out, banning guns and collecting them all just moves the weapon of choice to something else. Knives make up the biggest weapon used in England nowadays, at least according to what I read and heard while I was over there recently. It is the user that is the dangerous part of the equation. Guns do not do anything until there is human interaction, period.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Thank God Elena Kagan is not on the Court.:)

nocoolnamejim

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. linked article

Well, that at least we can be thankful for...

If anyone thinks that US troops would not fire on their fellow citizens even if unarmed should read up on the Bonus Army. Hoover sent troops to quell an uprising made up of former soldiers who were promised a bonus after WWI. When said bonuses didn't come, they created a camp across from DC and MacArthur (who actually was only in a administrative postition at the time) led Patton and Eisenhower in quelling the riots which ended in 3 dead, 54 injured and 135 arrests. Still, MacArthur disobeyed an order to not cross the bridge and had the camp where the Bonus Army was encamped, completely destroyed.

As far as it is weapons that kill, can someone tell me how an inanimate object picks up a bullet, loads it into the chamber and pulls the trigger by itself. As Austrailia and England has found out, banning guns and collecting them all just moves the weapon of choice to something else. Knives make up the biggest weapon used in England nowadays, at least according to what I read and heard while I was over there recently. It is the user that is the dangerous part of the equation. Guns do not do anything until there is human interaction, period.

WhiteKnight77

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were killed. President Hoover then ordered the army to clear out the veterans.

The orders came from Constitutional authority, which the military had to obey. Congress didn't start impeachment over it.

Aside from that, Congress overrode a FDR veto to give the veterans their bonus 10 years early.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Thank God Elena Kagan is not on the Court.:)

topsemag55

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. linked article

Bipartisan agreement in action, Jim...leave our guns alone, we'll leave Social Security alone.:P:lol:

It has less to do with that. More like the Republicans won't touch Social Security and Medicare because they don't want to piss off the elderly voters.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It would have made zero difference if she was. She'll be a liberal replacing a liberal judge. You'd have ended up with the exact same 5-4 verdict. [quote="linked article"]Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. worlock77

Bipartisan agreement in action, Jim...leave our guns alone, we'll leave Social Security alone.:P:lol:

It has less to do with that. More like the Republicans won't touch Social Security and Medicare because they don't want to piss off the elderly voters.

Awesome. I'm rather pleased with the ruling.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Wait, So he's not cracking down on gun laws? We can actually keep weaponry without Obummer taking them away? OR did I completely miss something here.

Engrish_Major

Obama has done nothing on gun control because he can't. Congress must make the laws, and the Dems in congress are in no mood to make gun restriction laws (Clintons gun ban lead to a Republican congress for years)as they want to keep there seat, heck many signed a paper saying they will not restrict gun rights to gain voter strength. The supreme court is the only body as of late that has effected gun laws (in a pro manner), and the supreme court is not under the president's control.

[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

-wildflower-

Yeah, because Patrick Henry could envision AK-47's and hollow point bullets. :roll:

Nice false dichotomy there with "conservative/moderate" and "liberal"... The actual politics of the court are much more complicated, and you make it sound as if every conservative justice on the court is reasonable. This is not the case.

Does this overturn the assault weapons ban in CA?

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So you believe the rights the founding fathers gave us were intended to be taken away in the future?chessmaster1989

And yet, throughout all your sarcastic comments, you've done nothing more than assert your interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one; yet you seem to be trying to do so in a round-about way that does not specifically require you to point out that you assume your interpretation to be true. Interesting...

klling people ftw?

However, there are also parts of the constitution that are explicitly stated. sonicare

It's pretty sad that it took the SCOTUS to validate what the Constitution already says.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]However, there are also parts of the constitution that are explicitly stated. Vandalvideo

Does this overturn the assault weapons ban in CA?

xionvalkyrie

This ruling does not strike down any local gun laws, however it does provide a strong precedent to challenge those laws.

[QUOTE="sonicare"] That's a shame. It's almost as if lawyers are inducing their own demand.Vandalvideo

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

worlock77

Try living in a shady neighborhood and you'll appreciate access to firearms.

I guess I am somewhat hypocritical and conflicted about the right to bear arms. I don't think people should be allowed to have assault weapons or heavy military grade weapons. Those are currently illegal. However, I do think that people should - if they are law abiding and no criminal record - be able to own a handgun or such. I have no desire myself to own a gun, but I do support that right.

I read somewhere about the number of guns in the US, but I think a lot of them are hunting rifles and such. I know very few people that own a handgun, but I know many people that hunt and own several rifles for that. Kind of different, I believe.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

QuistisTrepe_

Try living in a shady neighborhood and you'll appreciate access to firearms.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with guns.

SolidSnake35

Try living in a shady neighborhood and you'll appreciate access to firearms.

Some people cannot afford to live in the peaceful suburbs.:|

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

F1_2004

Well, you can own freakin AK47's, at least where I live, just not fully automatic ones, but it isn't hard to make it fully automatic. In fact, most assault rifles are legal, just not in their full auto forms.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]However, there are also parts of the constitution that are explicitly stated. sonicare

That's whatbeing a lawyeris about. Bending the laws to your own advantage and taking advantage of the loopholes.

There's an ancient general principal which is based on protecting the weaker party so any law be it from constitution or a legislation is interpreted to the weaker party's advantage. The source of the law regarding the guns was the constitution itself so lawmakers can't adjust ANY text in the constitution especially the texts regardring public freedoms and rights without increasing them, meaning, they can always increase rights but NOT decrease them. That's an ancient general rule too.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

The issue comes down to personal freedom and exactly how much control you want the government to have over your life. You can certainly make the argument that guns are dangerous and that gun proliferation is a bad thing. I don't own a gun. I likely never will. But I appreciate the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I don't want the government deciding what is best for me. I like to play violent video games. Studies have shown that they can adversely affect people. Would you want the government banning those for public safety? How about certain music that's been shown to be detrimental? How about eliminating bicycles and swimming pools since hundreds of children yearly die from them or suffer severe brain injuries. Would you rather have the right to make those decisions or would you want some bureacrat -supposedly acting for the "greater good" -making those choices for you? Certainly living in any society means some sacrifice, but I'd rather have the chance to make most of my own decisions.

Z0MBIES

Well, you can own freakin AK47's, at least where I live, just not fully automatic ones, but it isn't hard to make it fully automatic. In fact, most assault rifles are legal, just not in their full auto forms.

I don't really care, but if they want to screw up their country even more...Osaka-06

Really? Seriously?:|

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]I don't really care, but if they want to screw up their country even more...QuistisTrepe_

Really? Seriously?:|

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]I don't really care, but if they want to screw up their country even more...QuistisTrepe_

Really? Seriously?:|

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]I don't really care, but if they want to screw up their country even more...Osaka-06

Really? Seriously?:|

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]I don't really care, but if they want to screw up their country even more...Osaka-06

Really? Seriously?:|

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, and this is really top secret stuff here. Gun laws have one minor inconvenience. You see, criminals have an annoying habit of not following the law. (see: Chicago and Washington D.C.) And guns actually do serve as a protection mechanism whether you choose to believe it or not. As difficult as this may be for you to accept, your personal opinion doesn't affect reality.

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Really? Seriously?:|

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"] How do you want me to respond here exactly? Yes...seriously. The "we need to have guns in order to protect ourselves" argument is not something I recognize one single bit. It's idiotic and extremely paranoid.Osaka-06