Supreme Court limits local gun bans

repost

So your argument is "The Founding Fathers could have never predicted modern weapons! They just meant we should own muskets and stuff!"

As if they predicted TV, telephones, the internet, etc. I guess freedom of speech only applies to direct conversations and typeset pamphlets.

Don't discount the founding father knowledge to supplement you lack or knowledge.

You can easily discuss your opinions by face to face conversations, yet you chose to do it through the internet.

More idiocy by a person who likes the freedom of speech.

What ? The 1st amendment doesn't dictate I hang out with some and talk about what seems to be an ocean of things you don't know ( the constitution for starters )

And the second doesn't dictate what arms i use.

Yeah, i know nothing about the Constitution.

no , nothing but laws created affect what gun not if you can have a gun . The 2nd doesn't include anything about the weapon even a howitzer is open to judgment by the laws created .

Thomas is your source of inspiration the least published Judge who always votes with scalia , wow you are a unique legal study . Look up Thomas on the Affirmative action admitting that's how he was able to rise through his early career . He's the least respected justice in the last 40 years but you can be a fan of anyone , Nixon , J W Booth, whoever backs your logic

The "gun porn brigade"!!!!!!!!!!!! Who writes this garbage?

It's actually harder with a shotgun or rifle, think of halways and doorways. Pistols are compact, and have less penetrating bullets than MOST rifles and shotguns. I certainly wouldn't want to fire a 7.62 out of my rifle to kill a criminal in my own home, it'd probably penetrate a few walls or worse, go outside. The 9mm on the other hand, might just stop right at the criminal and be a done deal.

A custom load of salt rocks for my shotty might do the trick though... hmmm

Not according to hand gun statistics , duck hunters are pretty safe and in a remote hunting area . Please google non partisan handgun deaths in the US and find the data that matches the safety you are proclaiming . The 2nd amendment is meant to evolve hence the word amendment

You might want to look at the number of deaths caused by licensed drivers... Hell, they even have to go through a test, register their vehicles, personalized license plates, and a whole network of safety features and rules.

Its quite a shocking way to look at it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that mechanical devices DESIGNED to kill, do so far less killing than mechanical devices DESIGNED for transportation. And we let 16yr olds behind the wheel! Really? Seems a bit disproportionate.

Should we then ban cars and limit their use based on geographic location? What you're suggesting is yes, if you want to go by safety records alone.

So your argument is "The Founding Fathers could have never predicted modern weapons! They just meant we should own muskets and stuff!"

As if they predicted TV, telephones, the internet, etc. I guess freedom of speech only applies to direct conversations and typeset pamphlets.

They predicted changes beyond the constitution as it was first written . See that's why they amended it according to times and state of the union when they choose to rewrite or add on to the document . They didn't predict the right to vote for Black voters or woman , they didn't know about the need for protection from illegal search and the they had to come up with the 14th amendment which is what they used to make today's decision not the 2nd , it was a property rights opinion I would give you a link but I don't think you care to read what the decision actually was and why it's not against guns owners .

>They didn't predict the right to vote for Black voters or woman

yes they did. if you where to read letters sent by jefferson to other delegates this was talked about. his concern (besides making money off their backs) was that it would end in war and cause huge casualties. He was correct in the sense that for every 6 freed slave 1 person died in the civil war.

>they didn't know about the need for protection from illegal search

4th amendment buddy

>14th amendment which is what they used to make today's decision

Yes, but Thomas had a better analysis.

>I would give you a link but I don't think you care to read

You could be more condescending you know.

here is the link you didn't post cause you haven't read it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

If the Constitution should be amended there a means in the Constitution laid out, yet they haven't.

Please tell me how the second is different from the other 26.

They didn't amend the constitution , it has been amended over time , Brown Vs Bord of education . The 2nd amendment was specific to protecting yourself from civil conflicts or the chance the we were attacked by invading countries . The amendments get passed through the branches of government as they become an issue to rule on . The 2nd amendment is different than the 14th by time and the arguments that created it and that's the amendment used as the majority opinion today Among the majority, 4, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy, decided only on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but maintained the proper basis for the decision was the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This is a landmark decision and a victory for gun rights advocates. So all amendments are different as they affect the limits of rights all are guaranteed not just the original intended "voter" Remember booze and women , 18th prohibition and 19th woman get to vote . If you think that all amendments are equal then you must allow for them to be held up under the system that created them . Or just pick the one's you like and screw the rest .

Oh i forgot the 26th amendment was established like 100 years later during the Vietnam war so that voting ages could be lowered to 18 and as low as 16 years old in some states . That's different but yet includes soldiers who were drafted to vote since they had to fight . We suspended the draft but kept the reason for the amendment just in case . Jefferson also wrote alot of letters regarding black people some of which had babies with .

Good comment regarding laser sights. It made me laugh.

Thank you , most of the comments are making me laugh . The gun owner won today and yet they are so fired up it's like they lost their only sexual outlet .

I think you meant unmanned not unarmed.

also, your argument is silly. The government has been making a power play over the last 2 decades to strip Americans of their rights and this is one of the few times that our rights were upheld.

what country are you from?

If you mean by "we", are you part of the oppressors and advocate that resistance is futile. or are you implying that we should just roll over and be in submission to our "masters"?

Seriously.

It's really cute that Americans think gun ownership acts as a check against government power. They're laughing all the way to their AC-130's.

So, you are in favor of gun restrictions? Please, do tell why.

I think you need to do a bit more research on Vietnam man. ;)
The American military cut through those people like ripe corn. It wasn't their fighting skills that cause the US to withdraw. You forget Russia and China hanging around on the other side, years of protest in the states and the sort of intelligent press coverage that Iraq and Afghanistan never got.

yep. and the M1 abrams... people are silly thinking that revolution is possible with small arms.

She seems a bit insecure, no?

I would say dumb. I mean she ruled that its ok for the government to take property for "economic development" ie higher tax revenue. She said that the government can fire people based on their free speach during their own time (even though the cop was probably a douche) and that promotions to qualified candidates are only acceptable if the qualified candidates make up all ethnic backgrounds, even though everyone took the same test. And as far as the second is concerned she is in favor of banning guns.

she is horrible and IMO she should be hung by her toes. What part of the constitution does she not understand?

What can you expect if that traitor Obama likes her? nothing good that's for sure!

I wouldn't call him a traitor. He is just another politician making a power grab. He could have ended the wars by now, which he campaigned. He could have closed GITMO, which he campaigned. He is just another politician looking to strip our rights in favor of a bigger more powerful federal government.

No. There are different interpretations. The idea that the constitution was intended so that Bubba could play cowboy in his front room is only one interpretation of the amendment.

what part says to the contrary?

It was a typical right left split the right being the majority and the majority didn't use the 2nd amendment in it's decision it went around the issue and used the 14th amendment , it's a living document not a set in stone bible , that's why they have" amended" it so many times

Lol, good points, but that would require people take personal responsibility and be held accountable... That's a scary thing supposedly, everyone wants Granny Gov't to wipe their bums

Mufflers vs silencers , one keeps noise and emissions down the other is used to shoot something and not sound like a gunshot ( that's saved for murder and junk ) are you kidding , you want silencers for the glock so it's easy to shoot the criminal without disturbing anyone with noise pollution ? You need to check yourself before you ..... because shot gun shells are bad for yo health "ice cube " . I think you are up late and reaching for straws because silencers aren't gonna get much support from anyone but the Sopranos and they aren't on any more . Even The NRA thinks you are fringe if that's what you are arguing . I'm glad you have bad aim and miss the target ( in making a point ) it let's me rest easy knowing you aren't losing your right to pack in case you get into some situation that requires reasonable force .

yeah... exactly why do you need a suppressed mp5 again?

Need isn't the question. If i wanted one i could get one under the current laws but it would cost around 18000 when its all said and done. Why do people need to burn flags? why do people need to believe in a god? Why do we need search warrants? The country could run without these. Many countries don't have freedoms that we have in the US.

it's a right. or zombie apocalypse.

You obviously know nothing about suppressors. they are LEGAL to own, even build yourself (assuming you pay the $200 dollar tax). And you have watched way to many movies. Suppressors don't silence a gun, they only drop down the decibels. It still sounds like a gun. Supressors are a class 3 item Legally they are similar to a fully automatic firearm, which is also 100% legal to own by non felons and people who live in free states.

Here us a link to the process, http://www.revelationarms.com/suppressors-how.html

> Even the NRA thinks your are fringe if thats what you are arguing.

LOL, you are one ignorant person if yo u believe this.

How many movies do you watch? most of your info seems to come from fiction.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-th...

Agreed. I think everyone expected the right to be incorporated since DC v. Heller, and now the question becomes what kind of restrictions are reasonable. Harsh city handgun ownerships bans like Chicago and DC seem to be out, but I would be surprised if school, government building, and carry restrictions don't survive in some form.

Or let natural selection work it out?

Right after they've already killed the rest of their family

Apparently 4 of them don't but 5 do. Thank goodness. I'd like to see what would happen if... ugh i mean when they try and disarm us. Hell of a lot of people own guns, and aren't ready to hand them over. I know i'm not gonna. Fuck that.

Good thing you don't own a gun! You sound like a terrorist!

how do you know I don't ;)

But you right, I don't! My neck ain't red enough!

Sunblock does wonders doesnt it :)

implying gun ownership = redneck,

oh god, you best be trolling.

oh, and I also have 32 teeth...

Question: do you know if, when you apply for a gun, and they do the background check, if that data is collected and kept by the govt?

I can't find that answer.

my suspicion is that they DO keep it, so if you apply for a handgun, the govt will know you applied for and bought one. They will know what gun dealer sold it, and then what kind of hand gun it was.

so, it's effectively gun registration anyway.

the only way to avoid that is to buy from individual owners without doing any background check. most of my weapons have been bought thru gun shops, so I fear a knock on the door someday.

"most"...not all...

The answer is yes they keep all the info they obtain while doing the background check and the locals pass it off to the feds! Will never ever register because of that and when they move to take all our weapons, those that are registered will be taken first,so don't do it!

Best plan: Have guns they know about, and guns they don't. When they take the ones you registered they'll assume you're unarmed.

Bwa hahaha

I don't currently own a firearm, but when I do get one, and I intend to do so, I intend to purchase one that I'm confident that the gov't will not know I have it, and I will keep it secure to the day (god forbid) that I may have to defend my country from with-in or with-out.

Get ammo now while its available, and use cash, from your local dealer, not friggin walmart

"5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them."
was that typed correctly? maybe it should read "Only a government that is NOT afraid of its citizens tries to control them."

gun control nuts simply cannot understand the notion that the 2nd amendment was explicitely put there for the people to maintain their liberty from the government, and not just for hunting enthusiasts or for personal protection from criminals...although that is how the right is most commonly exercised.

Imagine, if everyone has guns, who the hell is going to try and mug anyone? It'd be mutually assured destruction! its MAD! MAD i tell you! and i love it.