Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Franklin Richards]

Dumbasses can't even bring a gun to a club without someone ****ing up. And people want to bring one to a presidential appearance?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yep.

Plaxico says hi.

 

[Nivek]

Yeah even then, like it or not this is the president and to bring a gun to the event, legally or not, makes a statement akin to burning a flag in front of a veteran. Constitutionally right but wrong in every other possible way.

The lack of basic respect for authority, the rules of public discourse, and common sense on this topic is enough to make your eyes bleed. People who defend your "right" to bring a gun to an Obama rally are the same people who would point you out to security guards at a Bush rally for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt. Hypocrisy in Neon Letters IMO.

 

[Paradyme]

U.S. Supreme Court to review ruling on gun control law

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.
The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

Evaluating arguments over the extension of the Second Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.

The high court took his suggestion Wednesday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, was part of a three-judge panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January.

Judges on both courts - Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York - said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.

The New York ruling also has been challenged, but the court did not act on it Wednesday. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court. Although the issue is the same in the Chicago case, there is no ethical bar to her participation in its consideration by the Supreme Court.

Several Republican senators cited the Sotomayor gun ruling, as well as her reticence on the topic at her confirmation hearing, in explaining their decision to oppose her confirmation to the high court.

The case will be argued next year.

...
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/62876282.html

...

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

What greater statement would you hope to make by bringing a gun to a protest?

I CAN shoot you in the face with it.

I think that's the only statement to be made with bringing a gun to a protest.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I can't wait for the Supreme Court to further limit our rights to protect ourselves.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Well which are you for?

States Rights or the Right to bear arms?

 

[BlackLantern]

Right to bear arms

 

[Paradyme]

This'll be an interesting ruling. No doubt about it.

 

[Addendum]

Right to bear arms

 

[Kurosawa]

Well which are you for?

States Rights or the Right to bear arms?

Liberals better learn to embrace guns instead of opposing them.

Personally I feel whatever level of Gun Control that police departments advocate is the proper amount.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Well which are you for?

States Rights or the Right to bear arms?

I am against stricter gun control.

 

[Franklin Richards]

So when the Federal Government hands down it's edicts like bailout money and legal gay marriages, everyone will be ok with that? Everyone will accept and not threaten to secede?

Late term abortions are federally legal? Are they ok in South Carolina now?


So even though the majority of the people in Illinois don't want guns in Chicago the federals can make them accept this mandate?

Or are Federal mandates only acceptable when they allow guns?

 

[Manic]

Since I haven't been in this thread before, I think I'll just sum up my opinion about guns before jumping in on any conversations:

I believe the right to bear arms was placed in the Bill of Rights as a means to grant the American people the ability to protect themselves. And for the hell of it, let's say it's for hunting too. Thus, I believe all people should be allowed to own a gun, but I do believe in certain restrictions. I support the 5-day waiting period and a background check before allowing someone to own a gun. I also believe civilians shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of guns or armor-piercing ammunition. You don't need to protect yourself and your family with a gun capable of taking down an oak tree.

 

[Manic]

Since I haven't been in this thread before, I think I'll just sum up my opinion about guns before jumping in on any conversations:

I believe the right to bear arms was placed in the Bill of Rights as a means to grant the American people the ability to protect themselves. And for the hell of it, let's say it's for hunting too. Thus, I believe all people should be allowed to own a gun, but I do believe in certain restrictions. I support the 5-day waiting period and a background check before allowing someone to own a gun. I also believe civilians shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of guns or armor-piercing ammunition. You don't need to protect yourself and your family with a gun capable of taking down an oak tree.

 

[Dude101]

Yes, I see to many kids bringing guns to school or killing themselves with one, if it fires more than one you dont need it.

 

[Paradyme]

Yes, I see to many kids bringing guns to school or killing themselves with one, if it fires more than one you dont need it.

 

[CaptainClown]

I own a gun, I think more people need to own guns. goddamn hippies. I think gun safety should be encouraged as well as limiting the use of insane automatic weapons that a person won't need unless there is a zombie apocolypse

 

[moraldeficiency]

I don't believe in bans on automatic weaponary. The idea of the second ammendment is that the people could oppose the gov. if it came to that. To do that effectively you can't have pistols going up against chain guns. Now I know it's all, "that will never happen", but honestly when you see all the crazy **** that happens in the world, to say it's impossible our gov. could go out of control and need to be changed is just false. I don't think it's likely, but this is how our country was founded. It was important enough to our founders to make it the second ****ing ammendment right after freedom of speech, that's how important it was. To limit that, to make sure that is nulled to the point of never being able to remotely approach what it was created to do, seems wrong on so many levels.

Gun violence sucks, but cars kill more people every year. Plus zombies.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Haven't gun control laws expanded the right, and not minimized it?

Atleast, lately.

I'd still like to know why people think President Obama will take away they're guns.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't believe in bans on automatic weaponary. The idea of the second ammendment is that the people could oppose the gov. if it came to that. To do that effectively you can't have pistols going up against chain guns. Now I know it's all, "that will never happen", but honestly when you see all the crazy **** that happens in the world, to say it's impossible our gov. could go out of control and need to be changed is just false. I don't think it's likely, but this is how our country was founded. It was important enough to our founders to make it the second ****ing ammendment right after freedom of speech, that's how important it was. To limit that, to make sure that is nulled to the point of never being able to remotely approach what it was created to do, seems wrong on so many levels.

Gun violence sucks, but cars kill more people every year. Plus zombies.

Isn't that why there are laws made to restrict bad driving habits? Like drinking while driving, wearing seatbelts, etc.?

 

[Manic]

I'd still like to know why people think President Obama will take away they're guns.

Because there's a group of people out there who think every Democrat wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[samsnee]

I have no problems with guns, but I have a problem with assault weapons. I think they don't serve any purpose except for criminal activity.

 

[Manic]

Isn't that why there are laws made to restrict bad driving habits? Like drinking while driving, wearing seatbelts, etc.?

Yep. Cars are deadly weapons, so they come up with more and more laws and more and more restrictions on them every year to ensure they're used for their initial purpose while posing less of a danger to ordinary citizens. But try to do that with guns by suggesting maybe it's a bad idea to put semi-automatics in the hands of ordinary citizens, and suddenly we're losing our "god given" right to bear arms. Not that the handguns and ordinary rifles have gone anywhere, but gosh darnit, I want to be able to eviscerate the corpses of the deer I'm hunting!

 

[Timstuff]

I don't believe in bans on automatic weaponary. The idea of the second ammendment is that the people could oppose the gov. if it came to that. To do that effectively you can't have pistols going up against chain guns. Now I know it's all, "that will never happen", but honestly when you see all the crazy **** that happens in the world, to say it's impossible our gov. could go out of control and need to be changed is just false. I don't think it's likely, but this is how our country was founded. It was important enough to our founders to make it the second ****ing ammendment right after freedom of speech, that's how important it was. To limit that, to make sure that is nulled to the point of never being able to remotely approach what it was created to do, seems wrong on so many levels.

Gun violence sucks, but cars kill more people every year. Plus zombies.

That's pretty much my attitude towards the whole thing. When the government starts taking the stance of "we need to make sure that the people can't overthrow us," it's a very dangerous road to go down. The founding fathers gave us the second amendment so that we could abolish a tyrannical government by force if we had to, and as long as we can get guns it's very unlikely that a tyrannical government can come to power. If you set the people up to be in a position where they'd have no means to defend themselves against a rogue government though, then you might as well burn the constitution because it's as good as gone.