View Full Version : Supreme Court Hears Agruments on 2nd Amendment Today
KG4JYD
03-18-2008, 11:23 PM
Summary: Justices on Right to Own Guns
By The Associated Press – 1 hour ago
MAJORITY AGREEMENT: A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared ready Tuesday to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the Second Amendment's reference to service in a militia.
NO CONSENSUS: But they appeared less ready to agree on the case they were arguing — whether Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
THEIR WORDS: "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
SOURCE:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilsapI32_pIl1L-1IodeciFbGykwD8VG3N2G1
LIB media gets it wrong, what's new.
http://newsbusters.org/node/19966/print
Summary: Justices on Right to Own Guns
By The Associated Press – 1 hour ago
MAJORITY AGREEMENT: A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared ready Tuesday to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the Second Amendment's reference to service in a militia.
NO CONSENSUS: But they appeared less ready to agree on the case they were arguing — whether Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
THEIR WORDS: "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
SOURCE:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilsapI32_pIl1L-1IodeciFbGykwD8VG3N2G1
These simple statements from Roberts and Breyer support my points on the broad second amendment issue and this particular D.C. case. In addition, Justice Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."
It'll all be over soon.
Next please...
w7act
03-19-2008, 02:05 AM
LIB media gets it wrong, what's new.
http://newsbusters.org/node/19966/print
After listening to the C-Span coverage this morning it sounded to me that the Supreme Court's position is that D.C. arguement is about to be flushed down the Crapper.
Whats next, the anti-gun folks saying that Justice Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." is actually saying only Generals have the right to bear arms?
I'm sure the Military Generals will agree, along with quite a few Amateur Radio Generals. The only question, will it prevent others from taking that Extra exam at the risk of losing their pop-guns.
(Couldn't resist)
Whats next, the anti-gun folks saying that is actually saying only Generals have the right to bear arms?
I'm sure the Military Generals will agree, along with quite a few Amateur Radio Generals. The only question, will it prevent others from taking that Extra exam at the risk of losing their pop-guns.
(Couldn't resist)
I don't see in the amendment where it says that you must belong to a militia, but it looks to me that the general allowance of firearms must be allowed so militias can draw from these groups of gun owners in the event that they are needed. It looks like DC should be able to regulate and pick and choose who gets one, but they cannot ban across the board gun ownership. They will need to show specific cause for why they reject a certain individual of getting a gun and not show why he was not accepted as being licensed. i.e. They will need to show a blemish or blemishes on the applicant's record.
But this does not appear to be an individual right.
After listening to the C-Span coverage this morning it sounded to me that the Supreme Court's position is that D.C. arguement is about to be flushed down the Crapper.
Then I guess NYC won't be far behind. I suppose I should start pricing .38s now.
:D
KU0DM
03-19-2008, 01:45 PM
Was listening to NPR last night, coverage on all that.
Someone made the defense about how they need to carry firearms in State and National parks for protection. When asked why, the answer came that armed criminals roamed the parks in disguise to mug tourists.
I can see the headline now...
"Bear pulls 9mm on man, takes wallet"
The park rangers talked about how when they respond to disruptions, or little fights among tourists, campers, etc. the situation can easily go from bad to worse when one of them has a gun.
What are you gun owners so fraid of? You do say you own a gun for protection? Right? Isn't your master/president supposed to be protecting us on the home front? Isn't that the point of the War on Terror? Since our president is so focused on keeping his people safe, why do you feel so insecure as to need a gun to protect yourself?
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801354_pf.html
What are you gun owners so fraid of? You do say you own a gun for protection? Right? Isn't your master/president supposed to be protecting us on the home front? Isn't that the point of the War on Terror? Since our president is so focused on keeping his people safe, why do you feel so insecure as to need a gun to protect yourself?
Because the courts have also ruled that in the event you call 911, and don't get a response, well....that's just too bad. They have no duty to respond.
Because when you call 911, and the matter will be decided in seconds, the police (read - government) are only minutes away.
W3MIV
03-19-2008, 04:47 PM
Was listening to NPR last night, coverage on all that.
Someone made the defense about how they need to carry firearms in State and National parks for protection. When asked why, the answer came that armed criminals roamed the parks in disguise to mug tourists.
I can see the headline now...
"Bear pulls 9mm on man, takes wallet"
The park rangers talked about how when they respond to disruptions, or little fights among tourists, campers, etc. the situation can easily go from bad to worse when one of them has a gun.
What are you gun owners so fraid of? You do say you own a gun for protection? Right? Isn't your master/president supposed to be protecting us on the home front? Isn't that the point of the War on Terror? Since our president is so focused on keeping his people safe, why do you feel so insecure as to need a gun to protect yourself?
What an asinine post!
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801354_pf.html
Please put the answer back in your pants.
This man should be given the amount of government money it would have taken to prosecute this criminal, had he not killed him.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/03/19/suspectdead_0320.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
KB9BVN
03-19-2008, 05:33 PM
Was listening to NPR last night, coverage on all that.
Someone made the defense about how they need to carry firearms in State and National parks for protection. When asked why, the answer came that armed criminals roamed the parks in disguise to mug tourists.
I can see the headline now...
"Bear pulls 9mm on man, takes wallet"
The park rangers talked about how when they respond to disruptions, or little fights among tourists, campers, etc. the situation can easily go from bad to worse when one of them has a gun.
What are you gun owners so fraid of? You do say you own a gun for protection? Right? Isn't your master/president supposed to be protecting us on the home front? Isn't that the point of the War on Terror? Since our president is so focused on keeping his people safe, why do you feel so insecure as to need a gun to protect yourself?
Hey Duncan, how's the quest for Eagle Scout coming along? Did you earn the Rifle or Shotgun merit badge? I didn't know many 13 year olds even listened to the radio anymore, don't believe everything you hear.
BTW Duncan, you can be critical of the President any time you want, just try to be a little more mature about it. I know from around here you are getting some very poor examples, but try to remember you are a Life Scout and what you learned during your Citizenship studies.
I sometimes carry a pistol with me when I am out backpacking, more for troublesome varmints than bad guys though. Most bad guys won't go that far into the woods.
Good luck with your scouting, and I hope to catch you on the air sometimes.
73
KG4JYD
03-19-2008, 05:35 PM
Someone made the defense about how they need to carry firearms in State and National parks for protection. When asked why, the answer came that armed criminals roamed the parks in disguise to mug tourists.
I can see the headline now...
"Bear pulls 9mm on man, takes wallet"
Hmm... here is one that I happen to know of just off the top of my head. Ocala National Forest (Florida) has become overrun with homeless, transients, counter-cultures, and hippies. No one is supposed to stay overnight in the park without a permit but these people have been there for months or years. The staff is so limited (and they are not really a police force) that when they make these people leave they will just wait and go to another part of the forest.
People have been raped and KILLED in the Ocala National Forest just while out on a day hike. If any of them had weapons on them perhaps that wouldn't have been the case. In fact one guy was shot while hiking. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Of ALL places, rural national forests and parks is the one place it absolutely without a doubt makes sense to carry a firearm.