[tpaine]

"The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun." -- Bet me....

[Orangedog]

read later

[NeoCaveman]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Old Sarge]

Jesus H. Christ!

Which one dies NEXT?!?

[rintense]

This is crap. Complete crap. Like I said yesterday... who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment? The government? How does one revolt against a country and not allow the individual the right to keep and bear arms???? If they think the second amendment does not apply to the individual, then which groups does it apply to? Their non-ruling sets up challenges to every single amendment being about a collective group- not the individual. God Lord, this is socialism!

The SCOTUS are extremely dense and lacking common sense. Instead of sitting on their appointed thrones, they need to come back down to earth and realize that yes, they too, are Americans just like everyone else.

Bastards.

[eno_]

I wonder which side of this issue Scalia, who alos seems never to to have heard of unenumerated rights, came down on?

[Jeff Head]

80+ million Americans say we do have that right, as does the clear language of the 2nd amendment.

Who are they going to send to enforce this blatant, oath-breaking ruling?

That's where this ultimatley leads if they keep pushing it.

[coloradan]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

This sentence is ingeniously poorly worded.

Which of the following meanings will most Sheeple take it to mean, and which does it actually mean?

1. The U.S. Supreme Court (A) declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

or

2. The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that (A) upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

My money says the actual meaning is (2), but most Sheeple will think it says (1). And the criminals at Reuters know this and intend this.

[coloradan]

The gun grabbers at Reuters sure know how to turn a phrase. See my previous post in this thread.

[MamaTexan]

there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun

Technically, they're right.

There is no constitutional right to own a gun.

It's an inalienable one.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It does not appear that this is an accurate account of the ruling does it?

[robertpaulsen]

"The U.S. Supreme Court ... declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun."

"Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco"

Anyone see a conflict in the above two statements? You should.

The USSC let stand a ruling by the appeals court -- the appeals court stated there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

The erroneous conclusion is that since the USSC declined to review the case (WITHOUT COMMENT), they support the appellate court. Not necessarily true.

[Travis McGee]

The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals.

[King Prout]

The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun

< loud roar >
WHAAAAAAAT???
< /loud roar >
Exactly WHAT edition of the US Constitution do the Stupremes use, anywhay? The DNC-produced coloring-book??? Just damn!

[editor-surveyor]

Buy bullets! (then buy more bullets)

[bc2]

molon labe

sooner or later... however I don't think "sooner" is ideal, and I'm not sure "later" is going to be any better.

either way, I'm still confident things will get a lot worse before we make them any better.

[Indie]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun. Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms

Can you say TREASON? This is a very dangerous position for them to state. I would think they would be very worried about their physical security about now. There's a lot of wacko people out there that believe our Constitution was written in pretty simple English, and who might become quite agitated about such rulings and proceed to act in a patriotic manner.

[Antoninus]

According to our courts:

Sodomy: a civil right

Gun ownership: not a civil right

Personally, I don't recognize whatever foreign constitution these courts are upholding.

[unixfox]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

I guess we will just see about that now won't we.

I guess they REALLY do want a 2nd civil war.