High court upholds 2nd ammendment

This is big and sets precedent for future suppression of our rights. This is the DC gun law making ownership of pistols illegal.  Great news!!!

Notice the word "reasonable" gun laws in the arguements of those that are for restricting our rights.

Here is the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
 
You can see where the more liberal judges stand on the issue of "reasonable" and "common sense" restrcitions.  Appointments to the high court are extremely important.  The next 4-6 years could see 2-3 appointments for the next president.

Nope.  I would hope that you would agree this is a good thing.  Also just pointing out, as I had predicted, how certain verbage is dangerous to our rights.

dpms,

Did you READ the courts opinion, or just the headline? Justice Scalia ( as CONSERVATIVE as they come ), wrote the majority opinion. In it HE points out that this right IS, IS I repeat IS subject to "reasonable" restrictions.
 
I would not be concerned about the close vote, or the future make up of the court. Precendents stand in all but the most extreme cases. The court very seldom agrees to even HEAR challenges to precedents, let alone overturns them. Even those who dissented in this case would be very unlikely to vote to hear a challenge to it, now that it has been set.

"and I am disappointed in Scalias statement."
 
Why so? Do you really believe in "any gun, any where, any time"? Do you believe in the rights of criminals, or those mentally incapable of sound judgement, to own guns? How about carrying guns into a court house? Know how many previously, and normally "law abiding" citizens have wreaked havoc in such places?
 
"In fact, the NRA has already said that it will initiate challenges in other cities with laws against gun ownership."
 
Yes, and they will have valid arguements, and be successful in many cases. In many others they will not. You have never heard me suggest that ALL existting gun laws were proper.
 
"A spokesman for Obama has already stated that Obama agrees with the high court ruling for "reasonable" restrictions."
 
He ALSO stated, that he agrees with the protection of gun ownership for sport, and self defense. 
 
"Guess where they are starting?  Illinois!!  Go figure that many cities in Illinois outlaw the ownership of handguns."
 
What does that have to do with Obama? He didn't write, or vote on local ordinances. He was a STATE, and now federal legislator. 
 
"While you are correct about this type of case going before them again, it does show the court is very split and one appointment can sway future decisions immensely "
 
The court has been generally split, throughout history, and in my opinion for the better. It keeps us from sliding to EITHER extreme.

And the NRA has stated it is going to start challenging laws, all over the nation. What's your point? No laws of any kind? The decision takes away the "slippery slope" you fear so much.
 
"Anyone with a pea between thier ears knows what these groups are trying to do to spin this decision to gather support for thier anti-gun cause."
 
And any one with a "pea between their ears", knows the other side will use it to promote their " any gun, any time, any where. " , no restrictions , or responsibilities of any kind, cause as well. Neither side will find themselves particularlly successful.  
 
It was probabley THE best ruling, and majority opinion that could come from the court. And reached BEYOND what most conservatives expected.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

And any one with a "pea between their ears", knows the other side will use it to promote their " any gun, any time, any where. " , no restrictions , or responsibilities of any kind, cause as well.

 
Wrong again.  The pro-gun groups will use this decision to overturn any current laws that prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.  There are plenty of restrictions or responsibilities that exist that will not be challenged.
 
 

"just think of it this way some assss hole that has no common scence god give a horse or a anmial will misconstrue this rueling and say well no one needs a gun"
 
No, read it, and you will see that they CAN'T.  

Why is it that liberals always try to link the NRA to stopping so called sensible gun laws. After over 24,000 so called sensible gun laws don't you think they should have got it right by now? At what point does it become nothing more than harassment of gun owners? Here is the Brady handgun banners president on the decision-----While we strongly disagree with the Superme courts decision, our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undimished. They even have a gun law defense fund set for you to donate to to help them undermine the decision. My dollars will go to the NRA. They don't care if you are Rep or Dem, they only care about your stance on the gun rights of honest citizens.

ORIGINAL: S-10

 Here is the Brady handgun banners president on the decision-----While we strongly disagree with the Superme courts decision, our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undimished.

 
There you go again for those that cannot understand the battle to take away our rights.  Notice the word "sensible".  The Brady organization wants to take away your right to own handguns and they sell it with words like "sensible" and "common sense".
 
As S-10 has said, the 24,000 on the books are not enough I guess.  Those that are for sensible gun laws(besides the ones that already exist) and say they support our rights are ignorant of the fight that we are currently in.

Something else to ponder.  If John Kerry was our president, this gun law would have been upheld and it would remain illegal to own handguns in certain cities and you can bet that many other cities with liberal gun control mayors would be scrambling to enact thier own laws to restrict our rights.
 
This decision was huge. 

Spoon, I don't believe it will ever end with "what they need". NRA and HCI are proffesional lobbiest. If they got there way, they would be out of a job... They all use fear and manipulated statistics to get their support. Wonder what their saleries are?
 
As far as appointing judges, how many people on this board REALLY take the time to learn about the candidates for our judges here in PA? I think our state and local judges effect us more on a day to day basis.
 
Many good points discussed here on this topic.

Did anyone else read the blurb in one of the articles relating to this about a reporting once asking George Buh #1 what his biggest mistake during his presidency was and he stated , "Souter!"  Yep, presidents don't know how their appointments are going to vote and he would gladly take this one back.
 
Anyways, looking forward to seeing the gun ban ordinances going down in a ball of flames finally.  But, I also agree with "reasonable" restrictions such as violent felons and mentally ill people not being able to own firearms.  As has been stated, the fight to define "reasonable" has only begun.

Goby,
 
I don't think for a second, that I'm "better" than you, or anyone else. I DO suspect that I have a better understanding of HOW our system works ( and it DID work in this case ), and WHY it works that way, as well as a greater belief IN our system than yoyu appear to have.
 
I believe strongly in your ( and any law abiding citizens ) right to own firearms. You can not point to ANYWHERE, where I have stated otherwise. I own a few myself.
 
I also believe in your right to do anything you please. PROVIDED that it does not jeopardize the welfare ( physical, or financial ) of me, or my family, or our ability to exercise OUR rights.
 
Take a GOOD look at the "patriot" act. Those black helicopters are just as likely to come from the right, as the left.

Maybe more imprtant than the guns,,if Kerry would have been elected,,,,maybe Iraq wouldn't be such a mess either,,or better yet if Al Gore had got the votes counted right,,the Iraq war might not excist.
 
better days ahead

ORIGINAL: CATMAN610

better days ahead

 
For: