Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

[Russell Kanning]

the comments are amazing .... they seem worried to "let" people have too many guns or too many kinds ... and 5-4 ... so it may be possible for some people, some of the time, to have certain guns ... in that part of the empire?

[mackler]

bad ju ju is what you get when someone "smites" you.

[Romak]

I wonder what constitutes too many guns. I have a friend with over 500....is that too many??? His are really big and mostly black, so I guess to those with small testies that may be a bit frightening...Maybe I should talk to Grasshopper and get him to paint all mine pink so they arent as scary.

[Puke]

Yeah, the 5-4 is pretty scary.
What a bunch of fucking asshats.

[Pat K]

"In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Stevens is a liar or a fool, there is plenty of evidence
that the framers wanted to limit the governments
"tools".
These were radicals who had just blown peoples heads off
for putting a tax on their breakfast drink.


His quote shows he believes that we are cattle to be
controlled by the tools of our betters.

The decision itself is what I expected.
Just a small step away from the status quo
while still leaving way to much open to government
interference.

[error]

OK, I've made my opinion known.

[Russell Kanning]

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right ..... barely

[Dylboz]

bad ju ju is what you get when someone "smites" you.

It's the effective ingredient in Homeopathic remedies.

[erisian]

The real victory was that it was affirmed as an individual right, like it is in the NH Constitution. That's huge.

Now we can remind our politicians to recall,
whenever they are considering legislation,
that we have the right to be armed.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

The real victory was that it was affirmed as an individual right

When a man attacks you and you have to use lethal force to defend yourself, I don't declare it a "victory" if you overpower him. I consider it a shame that you were attacked in the first place. 200 years of common sense and command of the English language made it clear - it's an individual right.

like it is in the NH Constitution. That's huge.

The New Hampshire Constitution is clear that, like the freedom to choose your own God, it's an individual right. That said, the New Hampshire government people don't allow felons, who deserve their own God, to carry guns, nor do the Federal people. Either (despite the affirmations of individual rights) they don't CARE what your rights are, or felons aren't "individuals". Just remember, blacks weren't "people" either, at some point in the history of the US. They were 3/5, if I've remembered the Constitution correctly...

Gun ownership wasn't affirmed today - government encroachment into rights was told what it has, is and will be doing violates the Constitution. What that means is that they've now been told by 5 more people that what they're doing is wrong.

I don't think for a second that this is a victory.

[Giggan]

Our new 2nd Amendment:
                               
                                                                                                              ^some
A well reulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed quite extensively, but not entirely forbidden.

Cool, this is just like Animal Farm.

I like how they ignored 'and bear' by saying carry could be restricted (ie prohibtied). I don't know if they called it restricted or regulated, but some evil legal word.

They could have just voided the whole thing saying none of the states are free anymore, so it doesn't apply.

[freedominnh]

They are the same dinks pimps and whores that gave us Kelo Decision  in June '06 (channelled by Dawg R.I.P.).   Probably same split with Roberts replacing O'Connor. 

[Russell Kanning]

Animal Farm .... exactly

[KBCraig]

The amusing part of the 5-4 split, was that even the minority held that the 2nd is an individual right.

That's right: the vote was 9-0 that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. And yet somehow Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer found that the DC total ban didn't infringe that right. And Kennedy had to be persuaded to the majority by way of a milquetoast ruling.

[Dylboz]

"In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Stevens is a liar or a fool, there is plenty of evidence
that the framers wanted to limit the governments
"tools".
These were radicals who had just blown peoples heads off
for putting a tax on their breakfast drink.


His quote shows he believes that we are cattle to be
controlled by the tools of our betters.

The decision itself is what I expected.
Just a small step away from the status quo
while still leaving way to much open to government
interference.

This is all I've been able to talk about all day. While the mendacity of politicians can never be underestimated, this phrase is by far the wort case of outright lying I have ever encountered in over two decades of watching the slow, horrific, train wreck that is the inevitable implosion of our republic. A bald faced, unabashed, shameless and disgraceful LIE. The concept of intellectual dishonesty is in another universe, disgusted even to be associated with Breyer's statement and looking with wide-eyed hope to Brittney Spears for moral guidance. Stalin would blush. Goebbels wouldn't even be able to utter such a statement with a straight face, let alone commit it to posterity by actually writing it down. Even American public school graduates are shaking their heads in dismay over this obvious (even to them) denial of the fundamental character of the Constitution as a document intended to circumscribe the powers of the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was created expressly to limit the power of government to impinge on the natural rights of of human beings, which precede any government. Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even arch Federalist Alexander Hamilton said as much, and the Founder's intent to make "a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons" was, and IS, absolutely clear. Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, Anti-federalist papers, even Paine's "Common Sense," etc., etc., etc...

Anyway, W is right. The Constitution is nothing but a God-damned piece of paper. If it was anything else, this case would have been dismissed in one sentence, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to grasp?"