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

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] Are you serious? You are complety disregarding article 2 of the United States Constitution. You being a student at Harvard makes me respect your opinion even less. "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University" - William F. Buckley I agree with that quote.GmasterRED

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] You can't stop them, so why not be armed yourself? Just because somthing is illegal does not mean people won't do it.GmasterRED

Holding a firearm involves responsibility; so each time I walk outside I will have to carry extra responsibility not to hurt people or lose the gun; and I certainly don't want extra attention that comes from having a gun (assuming there is still a significant proportion of people who don't carry guns in public).

I'm not only afraid of what criminals will do but also what "normal" people will do. People who "claim to be normal" can get into a heated discussion with someone and impulsively pull out the gun. Others will flash their guns to intimidate people without actually using it. And if drinking and driving is of any indication, some will assume they can be still responsible with a gun even with reduced cognitive capabilities.

I heard many violent cases in the US are of socioeconomic origins so personally I would alleviate this problem first. Second, perhaps they should consider spending more on law enforcement, which is better than to have vigilantes around if you ask me. Lastly, I can't say the same for some crime-infested neighbourhoods, but common sense and preventive measures greatly reduce chances to be victimized (such as not venturing on small, dimly lit streets and acting badass in public).

Like I said, not every "innocent" person can handle or be responsible with a gun.

Let me remind pro-gun people that I'm not against collecting firearms at home or even in the car, so plz don't shoot me :p

As a student at Harvard Law School, I am qualified to say that every justice that ruled in favor of this monstrosity is a retard rlake

I would not really call that qualification...

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"] Increase in crime is remotely relevant how?Osaka-06

[QUOTE="rlake"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] Cool troll ;)mattbbpl

no but for real, i am a 2L at Harvard, and this is clown court partisan nonsense. in fact, anyone in favor of handguns should be shot. then see how they feel.

also, Judge Roberts is not fit to wash my car, let alone head up the top court of the land. it is disgusting and a mockery of our legal system. end of story.

Don't bother. If they had any reasons, besides the over-used and completely unfounded assumptions (like, "oh, people will get into heated arguments and shoot other people if we let them have guns), they would have elaborated on them already.

NEWSFLASH: This ruling does not expressly permit everybody without a record to carry a gun in public. That's still on a state-by-state basis. It essentially permits, as a baseline, law-abiding citizens to have weapons within in the confines of their homes for the purpose of protection. The states can still enact very stringent regulations on this if they want to.

anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a ***** end of story. rlake

anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. rlake

anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. rlake

Your Harvard Law intellectualism astounds me.

Just kidding. I understand that you're faking. However, I did attend a top 20 U.S. law school (#15 actually), many of the students at which were accepted to Harvard but could not afford it. I asked you a very, very simple question...why can incorporation via the Due Process Clause not be used in this instance, when it has been used to incorporate other amendments by MAJORITY vote in the past?

I just want your informed take on this.

anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a ****** end of story. rlake

Nice statement. Any reasoning to back it up?

Well lots of guns have obviously made America one of the safest countries in the world. More guns should make is the safest right?

(sarcasm)

[QUOTE="rlake"]anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. Elephant_Couple

Your Harvard Law intellectualism astounds me.

Just kidding. I understand that you're faking. However, I did attend a top 20 U.S. law school (#15 actually), many of the students at which were accepted to Harvard but could not afford it. I asked you a very, very simple question...why can incorporation via the Due Process Clause not be used in this instance, when it has been used to incorporate other amendments by MAJORITY vote in the past?

I just want your informed take on this.

pw'ned

[QUOTE="rlake"]anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. GmasterRED

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"][QUOTE="rlake"]anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. sSubZerOo

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] *2nd amendment, Mr. Harvard law school*SgtKevali

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason todispute people who say banning handguns is a good idea by propping up the second amendment as the unequivocal proof that it shoudl stay legal.. When its already restricted in under ways. Just to note I am not taking sides here, I just think this logic is flawed.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

sSubZerOo

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason todispute people who say banning handguns is a good idea by propping up the second amendment as the unequivocal proof that it shoudl stay legal.. When its already restricted in under ways. Just to note I am not taking sides here, I just think this logic is flawed.

It doesn't directly say it, but I'm pretty sure it means small arms (muskets, pistols etc.).

Besides, don't give the RW ideas. I heard about some guy wanting to legally own an M203 grenade launcher. :shock:

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

sSubZerOo

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason to defend people who say banning handguns with propping up the second amendment.. When its already restricted in under ways.

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"][QUOTE="rlake"]anyone who believes in the legality of handguns is a retard end of story. sSubZerOo

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

surrealnumber5

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason to defend people who say banning handguns with propping up the second amendment.. When its already restricted in under ways.

..Thomas Jefferson also thought that the US would stay a agrarian society and never industrialize.. We all know how wrong he was of that.

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

sSubZerOo

Here is the problem with your argument. Essentially, you argue that because some restrictions, like not being able to own nuclear weapons, are present, then all possible restrictions should be present. This, however, does not conform with how our rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights function. Using your argument, one can say that since some restrictions on speech are present, such as restrictions on slander, then all restrictions on speech should exist. As such, your argument can be used to nullify the First Amendment. Since not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, your argument can be used to say that no speech is protected by the First Amendment.

For the sake of consistency, a Constitutional interpretation must be applied across the board without exception and without regard to context.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"] *2nd amendment, Mr. Harvard law school*GmasterRED

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

:| No it doesn't if you read it, its the right to assembly, right to press, and freedom of religion.. That pretyt much covers the whole gambit.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

dkrustyklown

Here is the problem with your argument. Essentially, you argue that because some restrictions, like not being able to own nuclear weapons, are present, then all possible restrictions should be present. This, however, does not conform with how our rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights function. Using your argument, one can say that since some restrictions on speech are present, such as restrictions on slander, then all restrictions on speech should exist. As such, your argument can be used to nullify the First Amendment. Since not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, your argument can be used to say that no speech is protected by the First Amendment.

For the sake of consistency, a Constitutional interpretation must be applied across the board without exception and without regard to context.

The only problem with this argument.. IS the fact that this was accepted fromt he get go with Freedom of Speech, that certain speeches were not protected under the right.. There was no such exception for the second amendment at its creation..

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason to defend people who say banning handguns with propping up the second amendment.. When its already restricted in under ways.

sSubZerOo

..Thomas Jefferson also thought that the US would stay a agrarian society and never industrialize.. We all know how wrong he was of that.

The only problem with this argument.. IS the fact that this was accepted fromt he get go with Freedom of Speech, that certain speeches were not protected under the right.. There was no such exception for the second amendment at its creation..

sSubZerOo

Your point is irrelevant. If you can apply such logic to the Second Amendment, then it follows that such logic must be applied to the First Amendment. There is no if, and, or but about it. There isn't a special set of rules for interpreting the Second Amendment and a seperate special set of rules for interpreting the First Amendment. The same rules must be applied across the board. You can't pick and choose. If you apply one method of interpretation to one part of the Constituion, then that method must be applied to the entire document.

I have the absolute and unlimited right to slay any person that attempts to disarm me.

EDIT: This isn't a right given to me by some document or declaration. This is a right that is given to me by nature. It is a natural right. It is a human right.

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

:| No it doesn't if you read it, its the right to assembly, right to press, and freedom of religion.. That pretyt much covers the whole gambit.

Aw sweet! Going out to buy that Barret .50 cal with night vision scope tomorrow!

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

sSubZerOo

I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure the second amendment is referring to small arms.

.. No it does not it just says that militias are legal and they have the right to bare arms.... The Founding Fathers could never have thought possible that man would have the weapons we have now most likely.. That is the point, its already up to interpretation and if we are going to take it literally it should really include all arms... If not, then there is absolutely no reason todispute people who say banning handguns is a good idea by propping up the second amendment as the unequivocal proof that it shoudl stay legal.. When its already restricted in under ways. Just to note I am not taking sides here, I just think this logic is flawed.

What you're forgetting is that those same founding fathers designated the judicial branch of the government the sole power to interpret the Constitution and the law in general, and the Supreme Court is the head of that branch. The weapons we can own are NOT up to interpretation, because there is already judicial precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment as small arms, which SgtKevail was sort of trying to get across. Not only that, but there are also countless federal laws that prohibit use and ownership of the ridiculous sorts of weapons you're referring to, and judging by the fact that the Supreme Court has never attempted to exercise judicial review over any of these laws, they clearly agree on their constitutionality. Thus, your argument that we could own any weapon depending on how we interpret the Second Amendment is COMPLETELY void. An interpretation of the Second Amendment has already been forged by the Supreme Court in past cases, beginning with Houston v. Moore in 1820 all the way up through the 1980's. The Supreme Court has always viewed the Second Amendment as referring to small arms, and they've said so throughout history.

I have the absolute and unlimited right to slay any person that attempts to disarm me.

EDIT: This isn't a right given to me by some document or declaration. This is a right that is given to me by nature. It is a natural right. It is a human right.

dkrustyklown

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

I have the absolute and unlimited right to slay any person that attempts to disarm me.

EDIT: This isn't a right given to me by some document or declaration. This is a right that is given to me by nature. It is a natural right. It is a human right.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="GmasterRED"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. You need more then just the second amendment to go against the ban.. The second amendment doesn't say handguns, muskets.. It specifically says arms, if we were take literally it should mean that every one should have the possibility of legally purchasing high grade military grade hardware.. Hell nuclear weapons are a form of arms.. Hence the second amendment if taken literally is restricted from the beignning.

sSubZerOo

:| No it doesn't if you read it, its the right to assembly, right to press, and freedom of religion.. That pretyt much covers the whole gambit.

Political namecalling.

Like calling pro-choice people pro-death, and pro-life people anti-freedom.

SgtKevali

Oh I know. My comment was directed at the patent clown**** insanity of equating gun control with being 'pro-criminal/anti-self defence'.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Political namecalling.

Like calling pro-choice people pro-death, and pro-life people anti-freedom.

PBSnipes

Oh I know. My comment was directed at the patent clown**** insanity of equating gun control with being 'pro-criminal/anti-self defence'.

I explained myself above. Also, gun control is not what I was equating with those things. Gun control is absolutely necessary. Gun prohibition, however, is both unecessary and dangerous.

Great day, great news, great step forward for our country.

Elephant_Couple

Yes, it's always a good thing when the Constitution is upheld. It is the lifeblood of all we hold dear, and ideology has no place in the courts.

Constitution > ideology.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Political namecalling.

Like calling pro-choice people pro-death, and pro-life people anti-freedom.

Elephant_Couple

Oh I know. My comment was directed at the patent clown**** insanity of equating gun control with being 'pro-criminal/anti-self defence'.

I explained myself above. Also, gun control is not what I was equating with those things. Gun control is absolutely necessary. Gun prohibition, however, is both unecessary and dangerous.

I understand the difference, but I meant to point out that saying things like that is counterproductive, as it only isolates the other side, rather then opening them up to the debate which is needed.

Yes, it's always a good thing when the Constitution is upheld. It is the lifeblood of all we hold dear, and ideology has no place in the courts.

Constitution > ideology.

topsemag55

Ack! For once I wish I was an American, ideological rhetoric nearly always overrides constitutional law and the notwithstanding act that the Prime Minister gives him allows for the Constitution to be interpeted in any way he sees fit. Gun control is too tight in Canada.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

Oh I know. My comment was directed at the patent clown**** insanity of equating gun control with being 'pro-criminal/anti-self defence'.

SgtKevali

I explained myself above. Also, gun control is not what I was equating with those things. Gun control is absolutely necessary. Gun prohibition, however, is both unecessary and dangerous.

I understand the difference, but I meant to point out that saying things like that is counterproductive, as it only isolates the other side, rather then opening them up to the debate which is needed.

Dialogue is great until one side starts proposing not only ludicrous but dangerous ideas, like firearm prohibition. Then it just becomes wasteful, and I'm not really one to sit around on my ass in a debate or try to reason with people who ignore reality. People who actually advocate prohibiting all law-abiding citizens from owning any firearms fall into that category. Isolating them is, in my opinion, the best option.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

I explained myself above. Also, gun control is not what I was equating with those things. Gun control is absolutely necessary. Gun prohibition, however, is both unecessary and dangerous.

Elephant_Couple

I understand the difference, but I meant to point out that saying things like that is counterproductive, as it only isolates the other side, rather then opening them up to the debate which is needed.

Dialogue is great until one side starts proposing not only ludicrous but dangerous ideas, like firearm prohibition. Then it just becomes wasteful, and I'm not really one to sit around on my ass in a debate or try to reason with people who ignore reality. People who actually advocate prohibiting all law-abiding citizens from owning any firearms fall into that category. Isolating them is, in my opinion, the best option.

It's still a helluva lot more productive to explain to them why they are wrong. Yes, some are beyond reason, but some can actually be persuaded with the proper arguments (especially if you don't demean them, people tend to close their minds once you do that).

It's still a helluva lot more productive to explain to them why they are wrong. Yes, some are beyond reason, but some can actually be persuaded with the proper arguments (especially if you don't demean them, people tend to close their minds once you do that).

SgtKevali

Nice if a door is opened, but most of the time you get a headache from pounding your head against a brick wall.