US Supreme Court justices seem favorable to constitutional gun rights for Americans

news.aol ^ | 2008-03-18 20:12:41 | AP/AOL

[BellStar]

I am afraid of governments right to regulate my firearms.

[singfreedom]

I don't know why, but they ALWAYS neglect to say that the leader of the “Brady Bunch” was shot by an absolute, certifiable nut (who should have been executed for shooting our President!)-—NOT by just “a gun”.

These folks want to punish every law-abiding citizen of this country because of a schizophrenic jackass who should have been institutionalized long before he had a chance to shoot anyone!

[BellStar]

I will be darned if I know either!? They also let that “schizophrenic jackass “ out on weekends!

[Jeff Chandler]

When asked to respond, Obama said:

I’m gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see
I’m gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys i see
If I kill all the whiteys I see,
Then whitey won’t be bothering me!
I’m gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I seeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Slowly but surely, they are firing all 5 black people. WATCH UR ASS KEENAN

[BellStar]

PING

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Where rights are dangerous. If rights are too dangerous in purely urban environments, what say we outlaw purely urban environments? Not only are they unconstitutional, but if you can't protect yourself in them they are a threat to health and safety. Let's ban cities!

[singfreedom]

I know. Isn't it just the darnedest thing you've ever heard? When I rail against the justice system, my sis, an attorney, always reminds me that “law” and “justice” are not, unfortunately, always the same thing. That's supposed to make me feel better?

[raygun]

Dunno what to tell you. If a government can legislate tobacco smoke, then what CAN'T it regulate? Eh, I digress, but if the Constitution says:

A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free stste, the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.

EVERYBODY just plain knows that statement is equivalent to:

A well regulated electorate, being necessary to the secuirty of a free state, the right of the people...shal not be infringed.

Clearly one object is lethal and the other isn't. Also, and just as clearly, the founding fathers were adament in thier vociferous proclifivity concerning their views.

Lets just get down to it: anything and everything can be banned by the government.

So how comes Pelosi, Murtha's (or Kennedy - my car killed more people than your gun ever did (so I'll legislate to take your gun) Kennedy) haven't been banned yet?

I allege graft.

[Past Your Eyes]

But only to go to Jodi Foster movies.

[RU88]

I am afraid of governments right to regulate my firearms.

This is a wake up call for all those out there who do not think McCain is conservative enough for your vote. Imagine what a Clinton or Obama appointee would be like. I have a feeling they would make Bader Ginsburg look like Attila the Hun. Let’s face it, the next president could influence the court long after their four year term is done.

[Thrownatbirth]

The Founders obviously meant to bestow gun rights on the individual, especially in a country that was largely wilderness in the 1790's. They knew that a citizen threatened by a wild, raging animal is not going to call a well-regulated militia for help.

Same applies to this sh**hole known as DC.

[Gondring]

It shocked me when they put their whole argument on “Bear Arms”...DC gave up on fighting against the individual right immediately!

[PowderMonkey]

Actually, it had nothing to do with wilderness living, hunting, or fighting off wild savages, etc. The 2nd Amendment was written specifically to address the greatest threat of all, tyranny. - “Fear the government that fears your guns.”

[BuffaloJack]

The urban environment is exactly where the right to keep and bear arms is most important. If you openly possess a weapon, the bad guys are far more likely to leave you alone and seek out victims who are unarmed. They aren’t stupid and their instinct for self preservation is not turned off just because they are criminals.

[ought-six]

I think it will be a 5-4 ruling, with the majority being pro Second Amendment as an individual right above and beyond one’s association with a state militia. That was clearly the Founders’ intent.

Here is the 5-4 as I see it:

5: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy
4: Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter

[Hacklehead]

Dont fall for the BS of the gun rights groups. I thought Gura did a lousy job arguing for the pro gun side. He said at one point that handguns weren’t arms, that he had no problem with govt licencing, trigger locks and other storage requirements, and that “shall not be infringed” could mean “reasonable infringment”. To top it off he was of the opinion that it was ok for govts to regulate arms based on public safety arguments. Other than opposing an outright ban, Sarah Brady would be comfortable with his position. Listen for yourself and decide.

[Brilliant]

I suspect that they will either throw out the 2d Amendment altogether, or they will say we have a right in theory, but that the states have broad authority to regulate it.

You can’t predict the outcome of these cases by the comments at the oral argument. In fact, to the degree that you can, it’s usually because they are thinking the opposite of what they are saying.

[djf]

I’m rereading it now. I’m not so sure about Stevens. He is probing for the difference between “shall not be infringed” and “shall not be unreasonably infringed”.

This is exciting! This is truly historic! We are living in interesting times. I watched a man take his first step on the moon. I watched the Soviet Union fall. I watched the millennium pass.

I expect they will decide it is an individual right. But they will add that it is subject to reasonable restrictions. And they will hopefully that the amendment encompasses two types of rights:
The right for the states to have a militia and
Individual rights of self defense of family and neighbors

[from occupied ga]

But they will add that it is subject to reasonable restrictions

But what's a "reasonable" restriction. To Teddey the fat, Obama, Feinstein, Brady, Earwax, Hillary, etc. it is absolutely reasonable to restrict all firearms to only their beloved police and their hated military. To me reasonable restrictions are if you can afford it then it's reasonable that you have it. When you have a right with restrictions, then it isn't a right.

[djf]

Insane people can’t have guns. People previously convicted of a violent crime where there was a weapon as part of the crime may not have guns.
That sort of thing.