...refers to the justices as "radical," and "extremist."
That's rich.... |
|
Here is one political news story Fox News wont tell you. Obama (our future president) has cured a man of a serious illness. Or at least something he has said in one of his political speeches has some effect on the man. Nester Todd a 72 year old man from Cincinnati Oh has a rare condition known as Elbillug Degenerative Disorder, or EDD. Todd has been suffering from the affliction which slowly erodes the brains neuron processing abilites , basically it eats away at your brain while your still alive. Doctors gave him six months to live last November, but at a Obama Campaign Ralley Todd was attending, he said that during the speech he felt as though his mind was being cleansed. The following day Todd decided to go back to his Doctor who gave him a cat scan. It was a miracle, not only had the disease appeared to go into remission it apparently eradicated it from his entire system. Todd said that when the Senator was talking about hope and change it brought tears to his eyes; and he along with several others believes that the inspiring words of the Senator Obama triggered a healing effect brought on by high levels of hope. http://www.obamacures.com/
Funny, I felt my mind cleansed after I read Scalia's opinion today in Heller.
|
|
|
It's a fair trade if he heals somebody, cuz he makes me sick.... |
|
|
|
|
|
"So I listened to Dianne Feinstein’s comments, and Chicago mayor Richard Daley’s comments and others and realized that they have no logical argument…just the propagation of fear."
Hasn't that been the GOP platform from 2004-present? |
|
|
"The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome." |
|
|
Every City should get a message today the Second Amendment is here to stay. I hope the NRA goes after all gun ban cities. Those Cities are ruining the Bill of Rights. |
|
Seems to me the fundamental premise of the Second Amendment is that the right to keep and bear arms is mostly for revolting against an unresponsive government ("the Second Amendment keeps all the other amendments in force," say my gun-toting friends), something I think both the Left and the Right can get behind.
But in that context, it seems there IS room to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other ne'er-do-wells and malcontents. And therefore a little bit of light regulation of firearms is perfectly reasonable. Like closing the gun show loophole. Like eliminating pistols in big cities.
As I've always said, when the mothers of this country have had enough of school shootings, this nation will get serious about and enact meaningful gun control. But not until then. |
|
Gun-toter here, I'm with you on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. We have the regulations on the books to do that.
Can you tell me what the gun show loophole is? If I buy from a dealer, even if at a gun show, I still have to have the background check. If I buy from an individual, whether or not we are at a gun show, I do not. What you want to restrict is sales between individual American citizens. I don't think that would be Constitutional either.
The no pistols in big cities thing is what was overturned today. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter where they live. |
|
|
A huge percentage of the population IS armed. Where are all the shootings and murders? Sounds like it is a home-rearing problem to me. |
|
the only people that this ruling endangers are criminals,finally a good decision by an idiot court
|
|
|
I guess when all mothers of the country get sick of child rapists maybe they will do something about that also. |
|
Bitter clinger here. Clinging to my Bible and my .45.
These libs are showcasing their hypocrisy in the wake of this decision. They are upset over the Court affirming what the second amendment actually says, yet they claim to be the upholders of our civil rights. Take the ACLU for example, if they were genuinely interested in protecting the Constitution, this issue is probably the most easily litigated, given that there are a whole host of infringements across this nation. If they fought for the Second Amendment like they fight for abortion (not even mentioned in the Constitution you libs!) or the First Amendment, I would be able to have a few cruise missiles or a nuke in my arsenal. Go figure. |
|
|
I've had a chance to watch the news and digest more commentary since I last wrote (and to think about it some more), and I do believe that, given the maddeningly vague wording of the Second Amendment, the court acted correctly. Gun control will truly begin with amending the Second Amendment. Good luck... |
|
GOOD NEWS:
Massive victory for freedom and second amendment rights. Thank God.
BAD NEWS:
Only one votes separated between tyranny and freedom.
BAD BAD NEWS:
If Obama wins...liberal judges everywhere and decisions like yesterday won't be happening.
Vote McCain... he clearly supports guns rights and he is our best chance to maintain some influence over our government and freedom. |
|
The libs never mention a few things concerning gun violence. Thugs usually don't go to the local gun store and wait three days to get a gun. They prefer a back ally purchase out of a car trunk or stealing one out of somebody's car or house.
The police will be more than happy to rush to your house to take a victim report but don't expect them to be there to protect you. Unless by chance he happens to be at your kitchen table drinking coffee the violence to you will be completed and the perp several miles away by the time the first responder arrives. By that time you're dead and/or robbed.
How many swimming pools are in the U.S.? How many pool related deaths are there as opposed to how many child deaths because of guns in the country or how many child deaths because of cars?
I'm really starting to think we need to look into pool control. |
|
I wonder if the Court will have an opportunity to enumerate in detail what those "reasonable restrictions" to which Scalia referred might be, or what criteria we use to decide whether a restriction is reasonable? What is reasonable to Scalia isn't reasonable to Breyer.
Few are discussing the primary reason for gun ownership under the 2nd amendment: to protect yourself against the government. I don't think any strict constructionist can ever discount or dismiss that as a legimate reason to own a gun. |
|
|
I've never been more proud of my country than I am today. That's one persons take. The Supremes did the right thing on the 2nd Amendment case. I hope every American of sound and body rushes to the nearest gun show or shop and exercises their right to bear arms. |
|
Understanding the Second Amendment means to go look at the way things were written in the 18th century.
The first clause of "A well regulated militia," followed by what that militia is for "being necessary to the security of a free state," is subordinate to the declaritive clause of the amendment and what should be done about it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The gun laws already on the books supposedly keep guns out of the hands of criminals and we all know how well THAT works.
There should be no restrictions on law abiding citizens. Switzerland maintains its' neutrality by arming all males that are of military age until retirement and requires that they keep the weapons at home. Almost no home invasions there.
Remember: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
I'll take care of myself, thank you.
|
|
"Don’t expect Obama to provide a meaningful answer to that question." On the contrary, I do expect him to give us a clear response to the question of where he stands on the Heller decision, and we'll get if enough of us continue to insist on it. Next step - Implementation of the 14th amendment (equal protection) in all 50 states and standardized rules for concealed carry of firearms.
Bob Redman |
|
He really lost me with that "inartful" declaration. That's how the Clintons talk. However he comes down now about the Heller decision it will cost him a couple of million votes. All the more reason to press him relentlessly. I feel his pain.
Bob Redman |
|
|
In Switzerland all males are in the reserves for 20 years after their compulsory military service. Physically unfit people or legitimate conscientious objectors are exempt, but must pay a special tax. During this period the reservists are required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle and its ammo in their homes, to periodically go on maneuvers, and to fire regularly. They are trained to kill at 400 meters. No foreign power since France under Napoleon has dared to mess with them. |
|
The wording is plain as day. And, Tom Delay, it actually means that there should be no need for concealed carry permits as the Second amendment is abundantly clear that we have the "right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms". And that right "shall not be infringed". Please look up the definition of "infringe" and you will discover that having to apply for a permit to carry is an infringement on that right.
And since they made no distinction between guns, knives, spears, or any other type of arm, any law restricting any type of weapon (arm) is unConstitutional. That may not be the best idea, but that is what the law actually states. |
|
"there are many more fights and we can’t trust liberal politicians who are in charge of turning this ruling into sound law to do an about face just because the Supreme Court says so."
Yeah, anymore than we could expect you to have shown ANY enthusiasm for the job when runnin for prez. Course you just didn't for chuckles, right? |
|
--
By way of L. Neil Smith:
"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man — and you're not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
"On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it."
---
|
|
--
And thus we see that firearms - and the right to keep and bear arms (RTKBA) - present true conservatives with a critical advantage.
Democrat or (nominally) Republican, if a politician isn't perfectly happy to ram the full Bill of Rights - *AT GUNPOINT* - up the collective anus of our own government in order to protect your individual rights to life, liberty, and property, he's not conservative.
Ignore religion, "compassion," protestations of patriotism, and claims of having sucked at the U.S. Navy's teat for three generations.
If he's not in favor of you strapping on a .45 automatic, buttoning your ugly Hawaiian souvenir shirt concealingly over it, and going anywhere you friggin' please, with as many rounds of ammunition as you please, of whatever type you please....
Then he's your enemy, and any comparison drawn against any supposedly "worse" enemy is plain idiocy.
==========
"The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
Those who interpret this 5-4 win for gun rights as an air-tight excuse to carry concealed weapons, continue loopholes that result in guns being sold to deranged and unhappy students, and other way-out practices, should probably read Justice Scalia's measured comments about the fact that there can still be reasonable limits placed on gun ownership and the bearing of arms.
SJ Doc, is Scalia an enemy? |
|
I guess it's "strict constructionist" or maybe "original intent" when the decision is one you agree with. If you don't agree with it, it's "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism".
This decision overturned every major gun-related decision ever made. I don't know how that constitutes "strict constructionism". Sounds more like "judicial activism" to me. |
|
Tom writes, "Now I’m going to start working on garnering support for concealed carry in D.C."
Oh, that's great. Just what we need, concealed weapons rampant in the nation's capital. Just the thing for the inauguration parade methinks! But let's not stop there, Tom: How about allowing concealed weapons on the White House tour and in the Congressional office buildings. Sure sounds reasonable to me!
Sheesh.
Anyway, Tom, did you ever stop to think that maybe your intrusion into the affairs of the District of Columbia are not appreciated? I guess the notion of states' rights and home rule are only valid for Texas, eh...?
|
|
You'd just as soon go on having guns banned while enjoying one of the highest murder rates in the country....?
What will you say when the law takes effect and the murder rate drops?
Do you really think that people aren't walking around with guns now? They are called "criminals."
What you call an intrusion, the rest of the country calls a "legal precedent." We need you to get our rights restored.
There are some towns where you are required by law to own a gun, were you aware of this?
In the U.S., there is no law requiring you to own a gun, but who are you to tell anybody else they can't own one....?
Nobody.... |
|
|
Paddy O, my comments were strictly about having concealed weapons in the heart of the nation's capital and the ramifications for the safety of our many public servants here, particularly those at the highest levels of government. Have you visited DC? I was recently in a Congressional office building, and I felt the perfunctory weapons check at the door was way too little for the safety of our congressmen. Maybe you need to see one or two of them taken out before you decide it might be a good idea to keep weapons, if not off the streets, at least out in the open where everyone can see you're packin'. |
|
The impact of concealed gun permits is way overblown--by both sides. We've had it in Texas now for years and it hasn't resulted in shootouts in the streets OR in any reduction in crime.
Now there's a move afoot to allow "open carry". Meaning strap em' on in plain sight--just like on Gunsmoke. Forward into the past! |
|