Court hears guns case (Justice Kennedy, Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms")

AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/18/08 | Mark Sherman - ap

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

"A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

I don't think it's very encouraging for a SC Justice to say that the 2nd Amendment, or any of them 'gives' us any rights.

I was always taught that the Constitution limits the powers of the government and that the Bill of Rights only recognizes the inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator.

But, the modern SC, thinks the Constitution (read: government) 'gives' us our rights.

[cbkaty]

BigBadVoodooDaddy - Member since 03/12/2008....

Trolling?

[cbkaty]

Everybody over age 18 should have a submachine gun. Next?

A reasonable position based on the simple fact that our immediate enemies are well armed gangs and terrorists.

[BigBadVoodooDaddy]

Now THIS is an answer.

The analogy you use in the second half of my query makes sense (using an item in a crime), and is something I hadn’t thought of.

Putting it in those terms makes sense.

Thank you for your salient post.

[BigBadVoodooDaddy]

Not trolling, just new to posting.

Only been reading posts here for half a year I’d say, finally deciding to put my thoughts out there, or here.

I promise my post was done with honor and respect.

[Bender2]

Re: Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Of course, he really means only 5-Star Generals have the right to own a firearm.

[RedRover]

Okay, I’ll play.

A crime is committed by a person, not the tool. A person can be savagely murdered with a ballpoint pen or pair of pliers. Any attempt to shift the blame from the criminal to the tool of choice is liberal nonsense.

[nothingnew]

...they were actually chanting "Gun Skill!"

Beautiful Laz......

FMCDH(BITS)

[BigBadVoodooDaddy]

That’s what Condor was getting at and honestly I wasn’t thinking about the issue in those terms. That’s why I asked, because I now see the issue from a different perspective which makes sense.

I’m all for personal responsibility, being accountable for ones actions and all, so your post resonates.

Appreciate the post, sir.

[Travis McGee]

How liberals and conservatives view firearms:

[Travis McGee]

“BURY YOUR GUNS, DEEP!”
By
Lhatsov Amunishun

[samson1097]

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know your questions have already been amply answered:

the NRA has been at the forefront of legislation that does just what you suggest.

Idiot.

He asked a legitimate question seeking opinions. If you don't like someone's post, try and form their opinion of the issue, not their opinion of you. Based on your reply, I think you're a jack-ass, but maybe that's just me.

[xsrdx]

Not trolling, just new to posting.

Welcome to FR - if you can hang with the initial flogging, it's actually a pretty reasonable bunch.

[RedRover]

You’re very welcome.

[RetiredArmy]

When will they announce a decision, any quess?

[ctdonath2]

June.

[RetiredArmy]

Thanks. Gonna be a LONG 3 months.

[Lazamataz]

Very nice. :)

[wastoute]

This is actually discouraging, even I know that the BOR doesn’t GIVE anything, it recognizes rights that prexisted

[vigilence]

The AP strikes again! In their summary at the end they refer to the controversy as being one of individual versus collective rights. The Constitution does not bestow “Rights” to anyone except individuals. Cities, states, schools, churches or your mama have no right to infringe upon your right to own arms. And arms are not just deer rifles, the reasoning being that colonials needed to hunt for meat. Arms, as intended in the Constitution, were meant to protect the citizenry from enemies, foreign and domestic, as the oath of office goes. First and foremost in the founding fathers concern was a fear of tyranny...domestic enemies bent on subjecting the citizens to servitude. Therefore, the right to bear arms is multi-dimensional and regulation subject only to one’s responsible use of them. In fact you can legitimately argue that assault rifles, machine guns etc. should be included since they are small arms and would be necessary to throw off the yokes of tyranny....but that’s another battle for another time.