Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

 

...

Myself, I find restrictive firearms laws to be very damaging to personal freedoms.

Freedom to what, exactly?

But anyway, I think you misunderstood my post.

Owning a gun is not a freedom. It isn't something you should be able to do, period, because it is obviously a mistake waiting to happen. Aren't you sick of school shootings yet?

Guns are dangerous weapons. Only trained professionals should have them, and only where necessary. The general public should not be armed! What kind of mentality is it that dictates it is okay for Joe Bloggs on the street to have a leathal weapon?! And you are defending it!

I can't remember the name of the Michael Moore documentary, but basically it explained how America and Canada have similar gun laws, yet America has around 10,000 shootings a year while Canada has 60.

This means that it isn't actually guns that are the problem, it's Americans. So the best short-term solution would be to take the guns away - after all, we British are no longer coming to invade - and then embark on a long-term program of explaining to the American public why it is a bad thing to want to kill each other.

Of course, you won't and you'll just keep racking up the high school body count.

Where to begin, where to begin...

First of all, even though I enjoy Michael Moore movies, just because Michael puts it in his movie doesn't make it so. However, in the comparison between US and Canadian gun deaths, he blamed TV news and its influence on the American psyche for the difference. So, in the argument put forth, it wasn't that Americans were any less human or more violent by nature than Canadians, but rather that the continual barrage of pro-violence TV programmed Americans to be prone to violent reactions. There may actually be something to that argument, but not to the version that you misquoted.

Second of all, your unsupported contention that owning a gun is not a freedom and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance is simply un-American, if one defines being pro-American as supporting the Constitution and its philosophy of limited government based on enumerated powers. The Framers thought that the freedom to own a gun for hunting, for varmint control, and to gather into a militia to protect one's self, home and property important enough that it was listed in the Bill of Rights BEFORE mentioning one's right to privacy, due process, trial by jury, or even the right to limit government.

You strike me as someone who has a very low opinion of his own capacities and the capabilities of those around him. Perhaps that is part of being British, I don't know. I do know many people who own guns, and have never seen any one of them mishandle them. They store them responsibly and securely, and even when showing them off, make sure that they are unloaded before they bring it into a room where other people are, and again in front of their guests or family. They do not point them at others, even when they are known and shown to be unloaded. In short, they treat their guns with the respect appropriate to a device that can injure or kill someone.

I don't know Joe Bloggs, but if he is an American, then my assumption is that he is competent to manage his own business, and if he has a permit to carry a weapon on the street, then I know that he has been trained to a degree that you might call "professional" and so the fact that he has a gun on him doesn't concern me. If he doesn't have a permit, then he is either an outlaw or a criminal, and since I get along just fine with just about everybody, that doesn't concern me either.

reply to post by doctormcauley


You are absolutely right. We lost. We did not win. It's a smokescreen and no body has bothered to read the entire ruling.
go to LewRockwell dot com

I see your point (and it's a good one) in the sense of antigunners claiming the right to bear arms referred to the militia, police, miliary etc. They can no longer argue that position and it does clarify the point for millions who had been brainwashed by left wing media spouting the same opinion. That can only help.

It's just that I am a total skeptic when it comes to faith in govt. doing the right thing for the people. Their success in fooling the people is evident all around us and the amount of control they have in all aspects of a persons life in this day and age is almost without limit. They have been so crafty at it that most people don't even realize.

I venture to say that not only will SCOTUS bring about a rash of pro gun cases against regulation in every form

The gun lobby already has filed suit against municipalities that have laws similar to the one struck down in the District of Columbia. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, told me that licensing and permitting systems, such as the one long in place in New York City, also could be targeted. “We don’t like the licensing of freedom,” he says. “We consider that the same as licensing someone to go to church or to speak.”

[www.truthdig.com...[/url]

but will also bring a rash of new regulations.

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

www.supremecourtus.gov/ - 16k

Just a little food for thought. I.D. chips imbedded in the frame of every new weapon produced to track it if necessary when investigating a gun related crime. New lists of "sensitive" areas where guns can't be carried.(like outside of your home because SCOTUS only addressed the issue of self defense in the home.)

I'm sure the antigunners can come up with better ones than that and I'm sure we'll get to see them. I think you get my point.

The right to gun ownership is settled. Again, good point.

It wasn't the issue addressed by SCOTUS but they needed to make the statement in order to make the final decision. But ask yourself. Did they need to make the above statements to make the decision. Are there any cases cited after those statements making them relavent to the D.C. case?

The S.C. does not make statements in high profile decisions lightly. There was a definite reason for it and for the sake of "wait and see what happens" I'll end here.

True. There was good come out of the decision, (they gave with one hand). What they took with the other hand (I still say they did that) remains to be seen.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I see your point (and it's a good one) in the sense of antigunners claiming the right to bear arms referred to the militia, police, miliary etc. They can no longer argue that position and it does clarify the point for millions who had been brainwashed by left wing media spouting the same opinion. That can only help.

It's just that I am a total skeptic when it comes to faith in govt. doing the right thing for the people. Their success in fooling the people is evident all around us and the amount of control they have in all aspects of a persons life in this day and age is almost without limit. They have been so crafty at it that most people don't even realize.

I venture to say that not only will SCOTUS bring about a rash of pro gun cases against regulation in every form



The gun lobby already has filed suit against municipalities that have laws similar to the one struck down in the District of Columbia. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president, told me that licensing and permitting systems, such as the one long in place in New York City, also could be targeted. “We don’t like the licensing of freedom,” he says. “We consider that the same as licensing someone to go to church or to speak.”

[www.truthdig.com...[/url]

but will also bring a rash of new regulations.



nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.




26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
www.supremecourtus.gov/ - 16k

Just a little food for thought. I.D. chips imbedded in the frame of every new weapon produced to track it if necessary when investigating a gun related crime. New lists of "sensitive" areas where guns can't be carried.(like outside of your home because SCOTUS only addressed the issue of self defense in the home.)

I'm sure the antigunners can come up with better ones than that and I'm sure we'll get to see them. I think you get my point.

The right to gun ownership is settled. Again, good point.

It wasn't the issue addressed by SCOTUS but they needed to make the statement in order to make the final decision. But ask yourself. Did they need to make the above statements to make the decision. Are there any cases cited after those statements making them relavent to the D.C. case?

The S.C. does not make statements in high profile decisions lightly. There was a definite reason for it and for the sake of "wait and see what happens" I'll end here.

True. There was good come out of the decision, (they gave with one hand). What they took with the other hand (I still say they did that) remains to be seen.

Gary, please forgive me for my error on the last post. It was meant for you.

According to Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

The Supreme Court, the anti-gun lobby, as well as pro-gun supporters have debated and argued the Amendment voraciously. Some anti-gun lobbies have so much as said it is a plot by the NRA to seduce us into thinking that the framers of the constitution wanted ordinary citizens to have guns.

But as one of the drafters of this fine document, one which sets us apart from other nations, Jefferson also stated that it may become necessary for citizens to defend themselves against a government that would limit the freedoms that were fought for against the tyrannical rule of the then British Crown.

Legal opinions aside, history has shown that the unarmed citizen has no defense of his property and well being by independent criminals acting alone or in groups, or a government that would be usurped by such criminals that wish to deprive the citizens of their liberties afforded by the founding of this country and the Constitution which guarantees them.

Hey, I'm just popping in from the UK to say I support you guys on your second amendment.

If you are lucky here the police might arrive in 15 minutes or so if you call them, by that time you could be dead. Even if we could just keep a small calibre handgun at home only, that would make a lot of criminals think twice about committing burglary's or home invasions. As it stands right now criminals can still get guns, they just consider the 5 year jail sentence a risk of their trade.

If world situations got worse, and someone tried an invasion of our country we would be ruined, most people have been conditioned to think we have no right to self defence at all, or are just plain soft. Those of us who would stand to defend our country don't have the tools to do so. I am trained in martial arts, as that is the best I can do, but I am realistic, that will never help me against someone with a gun at a distance, it can only help me not get beaten up by thugs on a Friday night out.

Things have changed in our country in such a short space of time. Just 15 years ago, when I was in the boy scouts we used to do shotgun shoots, everything was done safely, and it was a lot of fun. Now people scream and shout that this kind of thing is disgusting. When my father grew up in the country everyone had guns, he got one as a a teenager. At that time hardly anyone got shot by crazies, it makes me believe that guns are not the problem, the breakdown in society is the real problem.

The NRA and the Congress are taking dead aim at the DC gun ban.

Even since the ruling by the Supreme Court, DC has continued to place unreasonable restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

In part H.R. 1331 will address semiauto firearms and registration.

H.R. 1399 was introduced in March of 2007 and has 247 cosponsors. (For more information on H.R. 1399 and on its Senate companion bill, S. 1001 by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), please go to www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=72&issue=020) This rule (H. Res. 1331) would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting new and burdensome restrictions on its residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Among other things, H. Res. 1331 includes provisions that would repeal D.C.'s ban on many semi-automatic firearms, and repeal the District's firearm registration system, as in H.R. 1399. It would also reduce the District's burdensome restrictions on ammunition, and repeal the District's unique law that allows manufacturers of certain types of guns to "be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect," for injuries caused with those guns. D.C. has used this law to bring suits against the firearms industry, but those suits have now been blocked by the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."

NRA-ILA is fully committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C., and will fight this critically important battle until victory is in hand.

www.nraila.org...

Originally posted by without_prejudice

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Myself, I find restrictive firearms laws to be very damaging to personal freedoms.

Freedom to what, exactly?
But anyway, I think you misunderstood my post.
Owning a gun is not a freedom. It isn't something you should be able to do, period, because it is obviously a mistake waiting to happen.

From what I figure, you both got it wrong & it's something that you should do...The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT, not a freedom. It's derived from the Laws of Nature as Set Forth by the Creator, not a matter of civic policy or public/government debate.

From the Laws of Nature, all creatures born into this world have evolved natural means to either take down prey or defend itself from predators. However, we humans were not so physically well-blessed...We don't have the shells of turtles, no horns, fangs or claws, and we're certainly not speedy enough to outrun most predators in the natural world.

Had we not developed the brains to become a tool-making species, chances were real good that we never would have made it this far. Our brains & the ability to change our environment (by making tools) is really all we have for defense...Even from each other. Therefore, we must be able to at least keep each other on an "even keel" so we can defend ourselves even from each other: If you were denied the Right to "own & bear Arms," as stated in the 2nd Amendment, then you can bet your sweet bippy that you'd be at the mercy of someone/anyone who is so Armed--It would also be a safe presumption that whoever was preying upon you isn't likely to have much (if any) such mercy...

The Bill of Rights are all derived from the Laws of Nature...The Constitution was established by We the People as a contract of employment over our government...They are required to swear/affirm a legally-binding Oath of Office to obey this contract before they can assume their positions...The Bill of Rights is expressly written to tell our employees that these contract terms are not to be degraded in any way because the government, in whole or in part, is not given any authority to do so...The terms of the Constitution, when certain clauses intermix with each other, even denies the People any authority to degrade the Bill of Rights: This is to protect our Rights even from ourselves!
The specific clauses that spell it out are:

Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The word "all" means exactly what it says--The President cannot Lawfully issue Executive Orders or Signing Statements to usurp Legislative Power away from Congress. The Judiciary cannot "interpret away" any such Power from Congress because there is no alternative way to interpret the word "all."

2nd Amendment:
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.

This means that Congress cannot seek to "regulate" or otherwise degrade the 2nd Amendment in any way whatsoever. Since ALL Legislative Power belongs to Congress & Congress can't touch this, not even the People can lobby or Petition for Congress to do so.

The only limitations that can possibly be allowed would apply only to those People that cannot or will not accept the personal responsibility to not violate the Rights of others...Such as those who have committed felony crimes against fellow Citizens & those who are either physically or mentally incapable of the responsible ownership & maintenance of their Arms. In short, practical common sense of personal responsibility is the only requirement needed to exercise your Rights...However, it's not up to what "common sense" the government can "justify," nor is it up to those People who personally choose not to exercise their own Rights, nor up to any People at all to invoke any limitations on Rights that belong to everybody.

Yes, this is the way is should be, but the criminals in government have violated the People in so many ways & for so long already...But should we lose the 2nd Amendment Right to own & bear Arms without infringement, then we have no effective defense to preserve any other Rights that the government wishes to violate.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


I couldn't do anything but give you a star and this


I heard a lawyer talk about the words " will and shall". He said that in the legal world "shall has more authority that "will".

So all here will notice that "shall" is just instead of "will" , making the phrase " shall not be infringed" a stronger statement.

Roper