U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Gun-Rights Case

Originally posted by astmonster


This gov is already screwing the american "citizens" and when guns are gone its really over. make no mistake this case will take guns away...............

Well I hope not, if so then we will have our 2nd civil war.

I just can't see me turning in my firearms or not being able to go the range, hunt, protect myself.

I still think it will be a ruling directed at D.C. only.

Roper

Well one thing my husband said when I told him yesterday about this supreme court case, he said that over his death body the government will take away his gun, as a matter of fact he said he was going to purchase a few more arms and stash them away.

My husband being a retired Marine will never allow any government to take away his right to protect himself even from the government itself is our constitutional rights .

I hope that is millions of Americans with this same sentiment out there because is the government the one to fear its citizens not the other way around.

reply to post by Realtruth


hopefully some of our australian ats members will see your artical and get on to tell the truth of what happened in that country when the government decided to take citizens guns away .the honest citizens complied but the crooks and those that valued their guns didnt----------crime committed with firearms skyrocketed--------the criminals that kept their guns assume now when they break and enter or beat on someone they will not get shot doing it.cant exactly remember the figures but seem to recall a 30% jump in all crimes in the first year after.in canada the government makes it so difficult to get a gun legally that its not worth the hastle and if you let them know what kind of guns you have and they dont like some of them they send their gestapo to take them away and you dont get a cent even if you payed 2 thousand bucks to legitimately buy a rifle at a gun shop.probably the nwo would prefer to disarm us all before they push citizens into the corner where they feel compelled to fight back.

reply to post by Realtruth


Gun rights advocates are in a very strong possition on this one! it is the 2nd amendment 'bill of rights" which are individual rights all men are born with. Not a privlage givin by government such as a drivers license.

reply to post by marg6043


we have some friends in pennsylvania one is a marine presently doing jail time because his daughter got violently raped by a local politicians son-----our marine friend went and found this piece of scum and beat the krap out of him.our friend is in prison for a 5 year sentence------has served 4 so far------the rapist served no time and after recovering from his beating has been continuing to rape whatever girls he takes a fancy too-----his daddy sticks up for the creep and the local cops dont want to cross daddy.

reply to post by NJ Mooch


'WELL REGULATED MALITIA" not organized malitia---all of the people exept a handfull of politians

When i first joined up with this site, i was for gun control laws. My thinking always fell on the lines of, "Less guns out there, less gun crime everywhere."

My mind has been changed. A pistol in the hands of every civilian seems more of a deterant (to me) of violent crime than an unarmed citizentry.

The most compelling argument Ive heard (and its beautiful in its simplicity) is that regardless of gun control, violent offenders and felons will still get their hands on deadly weapons.

We have pretty strick gun control laws in Canada, but it certainly isnt stopping gun crime.

reply to post by NJ Mooch


where does this 'well organized militia" come from? It is 'well regulated" thats like what you see in the preamble--'provide for the general welfare! it's PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE - The Diference is Huge!

reply to post by InSpiteOf


I heard a great quote last night - I wont say where. LOL

It said that if we take away guns from the "honest good people"....we leave guns in the hands of the "criminal bad people"....

It is true. Criminals are not BUYING and REGISTERING guns.

Ok, here is my take on this subject and I think I qualify for knowing guns and criminals well.

I was a law enforcement officer for almost 7 years, I saw quite a bit.

Most people don't understand that a criminal for the most part, especially a violent repeat offender does not think like you and I. Rationally.

I also had the privilege of meeting officers from all over the globe once a year and talked to them about their situations. What I found was extremely interesting. The laws of the land concerning gun control didn't matter to the harden criminals they had and were going to get guns in spite of the laws.

I also had a few officer friends in the UK that ran into criminals with weapons and they had none, so they had to back down.

I don't know the absoluter answer, but one thing I do know is that good people follow laws and criminals break them, so laws that take away guns from good people leave them vulnerable to criminals.

Police can not protect everyone and for the most part are there only to take reports after the fact, even if you have excellent response time like the city I patrolled in (2 min avg), it is still an eternity when it comes to emergencies.

Sometimes good people have to stop bad people, permanently.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]

I have to agree with Real Truth here. I spent some time around law enforcement and saw way too much. The "bad guys" definitely think differently than you and I, and they definitely aren't going to register a gun.
I hope this ruling coming up only applies to DC, but regardless, no town should have their 2nd amendment rights taken from them. Not being able to protect oneself from the bad guys would be just plain scary. They can shoot you, but you can't shoot back? No way. They wouldn't get to shoot first in my house.
I always tell folks that if you are breaking in through a window at 3 am, you darned sure aren't here for a party, and that gives me the right to defend hearth and home. In some states you are still allowed to defend your property, thank goodness.
I have a feeling though, this ruling could indeed have far reaching effects. Let us hope not.

Peace...
KG

There was speculation on the Boortz show this morning that a ruling might only apply federally and therefore only affect DC, leaving to states to take care of themselves.

Even if that is the worst-case scenario, it still sets a dangerous precedent.

If such a ruling does affect the states, and then the Clintons retake power...
Game Over.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


And thats the problem. Disarming the citizenry will only give hardened criminals an easier time at whatever the hell they are doing.

We live in a ruthless society, and regulating honest citizens to death isnt going to make it any better. What I think should happen is a tougher stance on gun crime in both the US and Canada. Make it known to those that commit violent crimes with guns (or attempt to, etc) that your life is forefit, youll spend the rest of it in prision without the chance for parole.

Originally posted by apc
There was speculation on the Boortz show this morning that a ruling might only apply federally and therefore only affect DC, leaving to states to take care of themselves.

Even if that is the worst-case scenario, it still sets a dangerous precedent.

If such a ruling does affect the states, and then the Clintons retake power...
Game Over.

Federal laws trump state laws.


Once a federal law is changed or over-turned, it sets the precedent for all state laws. Judges in states almost never go against the grain of a federal law, set by a federal circuit court and especially Supreme court rulings, because they don't want to have their case over-turned in a higher court.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

How this could be misinterpreted especially in light of the abundance of information we have of the Men who ratified the Constitutiion and the access any of us have to their personal writings and speeches is beyond me. Especially when you take into account the form our Revolution actually took when we went to arms. It is a Right inherent to every man woman and child to be able to defend themselves, whether from each other or from their Government or someone else's. Thomas Jefferson once
said that shooting was the exercise best suited for maintaing the health of one's mind and body. I doubt what he had in mind was the National Guard running around the woods shooiting at trees and meditating while the common man was left defenseless in his own home.

All of this aside, even IF the 2nd Amendment did intend to disarm the general populace in favor for only the State having any means of Offense or Defense (which anyone familiar with the Philosophy of America would immediately dismiss as a soundly ignorant point of view) I would be forced to say that myself, as a Free Man, have never ordained anyone with the power to dictate how I may defend myself and would further insist that no body of men has the right to forcefully disarm me or mine unless somehow I have willingly agreed to become a slave to these men in which case I would promptly end any such agreement.

We must bear in mind that if we are truely free, then no State has the right to inhibit us from doing anything that does not interfere with the Rights of another human being. Last time I checked, owning and being proficient with a firearm was not a violation of anyone's pursuit of happiness except for the Statist Warmongering Pigs in Washington (or on Downing Street if your on the other side of the pond).

Really, how any American could argue for gun control is beyond me, until I take into account our abysmal Government schools and our terrible diets. Then I wonder how most American are even capable of operating their televison sets let alone understanding the philosophical implications of self defense.::

Realtruth that is the real truth right there. Police cannot be everywhere, they are not personal protectors, however that good old .40 is always wherever I am. I know how to use it, and if needed I wouldnt hesitate to put someone down before they got me, or my family. the whole is it a personal right or does it mean a militia is just whitewash. Some crafty politician says well look here it is and here is why, then some person that hasnt learned to think with their own minds sees it and says well that is what he/she said and they made it a law. They know more then me, so that must be true. Our founding fathers fought, and created that document to preserve individual freedom, to preserve a way of life that the people decide, what is best not the government. I believe to truly understand, and be 100% clear on what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the second amendment. You have to sit down and read their writings on the individuals right to keep and bear arms, and what they meant in that time as an organized militia. Those days a militia was the people every able bodied male was part of the militia, and as being such, they INDIVIDUALLY kept arms in their homes in case they were called to serve. Now a days crafty propaganda has labeled militia not attached to the government as extremist. The national gaurd is absolutely not a militia, the national gaurd is the military controlled by the government, not by the people. Our founding fathers would say no no no you got it all wrong, you guys are supposed to keep them in check not the other way around.

This is bordering dangerous territory, what happens if they find that the second amendment isnt an individual right? I really doubt it will stop in DC, I would say they would move forward with that pretty rapidly to the rest of the country. That is the perfect way to gain ultimate control, you cant fight for all your freedoms when you dont have anything to fight with. keep your powder dry.

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
This will come down to interpretation.

1. Who fits the definition of a "Well organized militia" today?

2. Is such a militia "necessary to the security of a free state" today?

3. Does today's militia have arms? If they do does it fit this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?


So now that this is said think about this since I understand this in a few ways.

The answer to #1 would be the National Guard. They are a "well organized militia". I know they weren't around when this was written, but do they fit the definition today? If not, who would?

Answer to #2, yes and no. This one isn't easy since taking away this organized militia goes against the Constitution, but are they needed to protect the states today?

Yes they are since federal military personnel are not allowed to do the work they do on US land. I know that the Guard can deploy and come under active duty commanders, and I know the active duty people can be sent in to support the Guard in CONUS, so is this causing more of a problem by blending the difference in the missions of each organization?

#3 Is easy if you think the Guard is the "well organized militia" of today since they have arms. If you don't think that they are the "well organized militia" post who you think is so we can discuss another organization that should take on this role.

So you have some ideas from me. So who is today's "well organized militia"? I say it is the Guard people. I don't like how they get activated and used as active duty troops since that wouldn't be the way I use them. They should be used in CONUS period. If you want to go overseas go active, otherwise stay Guard.

If you get rid of the Guard who will become the "well organized militia"?

Who makes up these "well organized militias" today? This is where things get interesting. Normal citizens make up the Guard so they should be able to have arms as it says in the Constitution. So does this mean that only the folks in the "well organzied militia" should have this right?

I say yes since they are here to protect the state. I know many citizens want to "keep and bear arms", but this is where interpreting the Constitution gets interesting. People who make up the "well organzied militia" are needed to protect the state. That doesn't include everyone in the state.

Back when the Constitution was written there wasn't any National Guard so this makes sense when you have to deal with the way things were back then. If you look at it this way then this should be a no brainer.

I think that we have been off track for many years since we do have "well organzied militias" in every state, terriroty, and in DC. The Guard takes on this role. Tell me if any other person fits this definition, that is if you agree that the Guard is the best and only definition of a "well organized militia" today.

Where do you get "well organzied(sic) militias"??? It says: "A well-regulated Militia"...
The well regulated part means that the people must be armed to REGULATE the militia.
We had just got finished with a war that started with out of control militias trampling over the rights of the citizens.
They thought that the population needed to be able to control(regulate) the militias. To be able to do that, they needed to be armed.
Also, one of the things that the militias did(in some areas) was to try and disarm the population.
All of this is what prompted the wording used.

Also, the "A well-regulated Militia" bit, is a subordinate clause that gives a REASON for the main clause. It does not mean that there are no other reasons, or that, if the reason should in some fashion disappear, that the right goes away with it.
Think about the way the First Amendment is worded.

reply to post by Realtruth


Yeah I didn't say I understand it. The commentator on the show was clearly more knowledgeable than I on such matters, and that is how they related it. Although I'm probably leaving out some details. Basically the suggestion was made that the court could possibly rule in such a way that only affects DC, or side-steps the issue entirely.

There are some people who always say that they will only be voting for...Mickey Mouse!

36-37 States now have the Right to Carry Guns Laws, and according to some, it only takes 38 States to make it into Federal Law. I doubt if the Supreme Court will rule any better than what they did with Eminent Domain, and now one can look up all the websites about that Decision from this Higher Court of this Country. Again people have decided that in this particular community that it is they who can figurately speaking can "Go to H"!

This is all wasting time again while they confer that other people are not again as smart as they are? Where in the heck is their brain?
Sorry but again, my Arse is not Farking!

Rights And Powers

Despite all the carping and quibbling, the text is unambiguous.

The Constitution clearly delineates and restricts powers granted to the U.S. government. It never refers to any form of government as having "rights", and never claims to grant "rights" to the federal government or any state.

The careful choice of words is not accidental, but very deliberate and essential in resolving any conflict, real or imagined, between government powers and individual rights.

The bizarre notion of "collective rights" is an oxymoron which never appears anywhere in the Constitution -- or in any form of honest or rational discourse, for that matter -- and has no relevance whatsoever to constitutional questions.

The expression "the right of the people" appears in the First, Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. Under no circumstances does it refer in any conceivable way to a government entity, and arguments to the contrary are patently false.

This isn't rocket science. It's obvious enough for anyone willing to read what is written, and now the Supreme Court has chosen to rule once again on this issue.

The legitimacy of all branches of the government of the United States rests solely on the continuing sufferance of the people as prescribed in the Constitution, and faithful compliance therewith.

Any government which would presume to assign itself "rights" and abrogate the very clear restrictions placed upon it forfeits all claims to legitimacy under the Constitution.

With that understanding in mind, I await the court's decision on this matter.