Reply With Quote
Not really, but everyone is en led to an opinion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...rpc=22&sp=true
The ruling heard round the world.....
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.
The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Cons ution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.
Not really, but everyone is en led to an opinion.
90 years from now, trust me.
I'll be dead, so why should I care?
It's still the rootin' tootin' Wild Wild Wild West in USA, beacon of planetary civilization.
The gun mfrs/dealers are encouraged to sell anything to anybody (ie, the status quo).
It's all about money, not about self-defense.
Self-defense is to 2nd Amendment as WMD is to Iraq.
$-grubbing hidden behind lying pretexts.
I personally thought the DC law was overly broad. I certainly believe that the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation (and we can argue what reasonable is), but that law basically made it impossible to own a weapon for self defense at home.
You can chalk this one up on the plus side of this administration.
so, who here turned their guns over because of the DC law?
Hmmm, tell me again how Bush voted on that case?
Roberts is 53Hmmm, tell me again how Bush voted on that case?
Alito is 58
They are his nominees. They are the two youngest members of the court.
Significant choices, no?
If Bush had lost either of his elections, this vote WOULD have gone the other way.
Speaking of legacy...
Yoo Won’t Answer Whether President Can Bury Detainees Alive»
.Today, the authors of the Bush administration’s torture policies, David Addington and John Yoo, are testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) asked Yoo whether the president could bury a detainee alive, Yoo stonewalled and ultimately refused to answer the question. He also refused to say if there was any torture tactic the president was prohibited from using. Transcript via Muckracker:
CONYERS: Could the President order a suspect buried alive?
YOO: Uh, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I’ve ever given advice that the President could order someone buried alive…
CONYERS: I didn’t ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive.
YOO: Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don’t think a President — no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that.
CONYERS: I think we understand the games that are being played
Think Progress
hahaha that's a good one. Im glad Conyers brought it up, maybe they can start doing that to the detainees.
Fairly and appropriately said, sir.
The next president, who will presumedly have two terms, is predicted to get three picks, if my memory of what the supreme court analyst said the other day is correct.
Definitely something to think about, no matter what your leanings are.
Ask any of Hillary's former supporters if they want McCain making those picks and you can easily figure out if the "bitter Hillary supporter voting for McCain" bit passes the plausibility test...
In SF CA they are naming a raw sewage treatment plant, “The George W Bush” sewage plant…See liberals can have a sense of humor...Its not against the law...
This sounds reasonable to me.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Actually that is a ballot initiative in SF, not a certain thing.
Still kinda funny.
Reaga-messiah got an airport, Bush gets... poop.
Exactly what I meant by reasonable regulation.
"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Any cops or u/c agents going to gun shows to enforce these laws, to sting pushers?
Law is law, but enforcement, as dubya's Exec as repeatedly shown, is often a joke.
no president is going to raid any of these gun shows.
confiscating weapons and busting everyone would make for the perfect storm.
no pres. will do that.
yeeeeeeeehaw!
the liberal s on this board crack me... it is amazing they wipe their own ass... everything single thing... they want to government to control or regulate... i have a feeling it is just so they can about it... if they controlled their own actions they would have no one to blame
I wonder how any justices could have dissented in the first place.
Washington DC is a hole, murder capital of the country. BTW, they havent been able to own handguns since the 70s, yet 85% (or some number close to it) of all homicides were commited with one.
It was ridiculous then as it is now.
The ban is a major reason it is the murder capital. Criminals know they are outmatched for law abiding citizens. When law abiding citizens are armed, the pussie criminals go elsewhere.
such a stupid myth
No matter what happens, no matter who is president, no matter what justices they nominate (short of an abortion like a Harriett Myers who wouldn't know her from her gavel in the court) there are certain things that will always go a certain way in america.
This is one of them. Just like abortion....no way in a bajillion realities will abortion ever be illegal in the states. Get a grip people. Were you really surprised over this ruling? Were you surprised the way they gave us a grey, cloudy ruling, that will probably lead to alot more nonsense and waste of taxpayer money? But the status quo remains...Hmmm....very unforeseen....not.
There was a lot of crime before the ban too.
John Conyers is a freaking idiot who has no business being in Congress. He is a miserable human being.
It's really brilliant that the Supreme Court (in another recent 5-4 decision) wants to convey cons ional rights upon enemy combatants who are neither U.S. citizens nor uniformed POWs. They really should not be allowed the protections of the Geneva Convention either.
Back to the subject at hand, the Bill of Rights should be for each and every individual U.S. citizen across the board. The 2nd amendment is one of those rights. The court made a correct ruling for a change because the DC ban was not cons utional. The DC ban was a bad law and was not effective.
Anthony Kennedy seems to like the power of being the swing vote.
On to San Franciso - time for some "Common Sense" litigation to bring down the uncons utional "Common Sense" city gun laws championed by another idiot named Nancy Pelosi aka "Stretch".
Last edited by Harry Callahan; 06-28-2008 at 04:48 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
