Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

www.cnn.com...



snippet from news source:"Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.
A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection."



Yay! for The U.S. I'm not a big fan of MOST Republican ideas, but i'm behind this one 100%! This isn't Canada, this is the U.S. and I don't think the American public should put up with this (in my opinion) Democrat unconstitutional crap! (taking away the general populations guns I mean)





What are your guys opinions on this?



ps: I think this is a great victory for freedom in The U.S., I think every American should have the right to defend himself and his family!


XxRagingxPandaxX







[edit on 28-6-2010 by XxRagingxPandaxX]

I remember a line from when I was living in the states: "I've never met a Republican who was for reasonable gun control and I've never met a Democrat who was for reasonable gun rights." I forget who said it but perhaps it could ring true today.

This United States Supreme Court decision could indeed have far-reaching implications, basically it has stated that the people have a right to arms, period.

It leaves the question open as to exactly what kinds of guns can be banned, and that probably will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Handguns cannot be banned, hunting weapons never really were banned but the next logical step would be to see if "assault weapons" fall under second amendment protections. Also a much more interesting case would be weather concealed weapons are legal everywhere as well.

This is surely a victory for gun rights in the United States but how big a victory remains to be seen through future cases.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy
Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

In the event where foreign troops entered the homeland you would rescind that statement....

S&F

Im glad to see that our gun rights haven't been completely stopped out.

Score one for the good guys!

SM

I totally agree with gun rights and i think as soon as the government says that you can't own any guns anymore then its really gona heat up.

The only reason the supreme court voted in favor of guns is because even when we make fun of the supreme court members and we call them all kind of names they actually uphold the Constitution because that is their job.

So I was expecting no less. . .

[edit on 28-6-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by SkyMarshall
Ha ha ya me too! It's good to know freedom still rings (to some extent) in the U.S., like you said Sky Marshall "score one for the good guys!"





[edit on 28-6-2010 by XxRagingxPandaxX]

reply to post by marg6043


I agree as well, it's their duty to uphold the Constitution, I would not understand if they would vote againt gun rights.

Originally posted by solarstorm

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

In the event where foreign troops entered the homeland you would rescind that statement....

No,No he would cower and run to someone with a gun to save him..

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

I think that issue actually gets a bit fuzzy personally. Now I should preface this with my own political bias: I am a socialist, and I believe in government regulation of firearms but only to a point.

A growing hobby in Eastern Europe is World War II re-enacting, kind of like how in the United States there are groups that do Civil War re-enacting. The vast majority of the "weapons" used in the hobby would fall under the assault weapons category in the United States, but here they are used for historical purposes and fire blanks. Perhaps something like a collector's permit could be issued for those that wish to own historically important weapons like those used in re-enactments, and there could be a specially regulated permit for militias as well, but this gets into the question of what exactly the US Constitution meant by a "militia" too.

Several states actually allow the private ownership of machine guns if properly registered with the ATF, if the gun was manufactured and owned before 1986. There are also forms and a process for the transfer of these weapons from one individual to another.

I believe these kind of regulations can work to keep assault weapons in the hands of collectors and make them prohibitive to obtain for the casual gun owner, if written properly and enforced fully.

I do think the majority of us would state that prohibitions on gun ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill are very good things and need to stay. I also am for gun registration regardless of make, model or usage. I would advocate for tougher penalties for those that buy guns for felons and felons found with guns: nationwide mandatory prison terms with truth in sentencing clauses would be a good first step.

The right to own guns in the United States is a very important one, but of course comes with great responsibility and those who abuse that right should be subject to severe penalties.

reply to post by solarstorm
Absolutely, then it's down to a matter of survival for our country, and under those circumstances, yes I would take that back.

If you read the dissenting opinion you would see that 4 of the justices do not hold the second amendment in very high regard. The more liberal judges that Obama can pack the court with the more our 2nd amendment rights will be eroded. You see which side Sonia Sotomayor was on didn't you? That is right she was with the 4 liberals that hate your gun rights. More liberals on the court means more restrictive gun control measures are on the way once they have the majority on the court.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by wayouttheredude]

Click here for more information.

Freaking awesome. Everyone should carry a firearm.

And if you see someone commiting a crime maybe you can scare off the attacker by pulling out that gun and fire off some warning shots.

maybe we'd have less people in jail.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


First of all, what do you consider an "assault weapon"? There is no such thing as an "assault weapon", there are only rifles. Secondly what is wrong with the public owning automatic weapons? If I pay my taxes, and don't break the law, why should it not be my right, as reserved in the constitution, to own an automatic weapon? The answer is I should be able to. Remember one thing: Gun control is only about control.

They should ban all guns because criminals would be afraid to use them while robbing your house if they were illegal.

EDIT: Gun control should only mean a nice tight grouping.



[edit on 28-6-2010 by dbates]

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
If you read the dissenting opinion you would see that 4 of the justices do not hold the second amendment in very high regard. The more liberal judges that Obama can pack the court with the more our 2nd amendment rights will be eroded. You see which side Sonia Sotomayor was on didn't you? That is right she was with the 4 liberals that hate your gun rights. More liberals on the court means more restrictive gun control measures are on the way once they have the majority on the court.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by wayouttheredude]

This is also very true but barring some major health issues with the conservative justices I doubt President Obama will be able to pack the court. Justice Thomas will probably serve at least until another Republican is in the White House. Chief Justice Roberts will probably serve a very long time and Justice Scalia will hold on to his seat tooth an nail as long as he is able to serve.

In reality, even if President Obama gets a second term in office, his odds of being able to nominate a justice that tips the balance is relatively small. If by some chance he does end up in that position also, you can bet the process will be a lot harder for him than the nominations to replace the liberal justices have been, the Republican party does not want to see the balance of power shifted and will go to any lengths to make sure of that.

For ONCE, I am grateful for the conservative majority in the Supreme Court! For ONCE!

reply to post by ReVoLuTiOn76


I have to agree with you here. I like my (semi-automatic) military style rifles. They are everywhere present in my region. I went out to the range last week and there were mostly AK variants, and AR variants on the firing line. Even little kids on summer break were out there with dad training with their semi-automatics. It was a good time had by all and you never felt safer or more mutual respect then on the range with a bunch of strangers.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by wayouttheredude]