Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsThe Supreme Court said on Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
358 Views Share Story 80 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
Other Related Articles: All »
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 285 of 401 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned93 Replies
-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have yet to see the far reaching effects of this decision. If we have an individual right to bear arms and individual rights to vote then since it's been decided that no roadblocks such as taxes, tests can infringe on our voting rights, then by inference can we say no barriers can be placed upon individuals who wish to buy a gun? No license, no tax, no registration, no background checks, nothing will be imposed that will create a chilling effect on our right to bear arms.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As a DC resident, I'm p!ssed almost beyond words, horrified and disgusted. We've been fighting for statehood most of my adult life, and wouldn't you know racist wingjobs (who rarely venture from the Hill, they are scared so silly to be surrounded by all the poor "colored" folk here) would give us (that is, them) greater access to guns before giving us statehood. I can't even focus right now, I despise these people so freaking much. I don't wish this on them but I forsee a dark Columbinesque payback resulting from this decision. The last thing violent, war-loving wingers need is access to more weapons. This will backfire in a big way. And Roe v Wade is next if flipflop Mac and his stepford wife Cindy (aka Drug Addict Barbie).
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA, the DC law: "Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks"
I am okay with this as long as they enact a law that requires criminals to give the victims a time out so the victim can reassemble the firearm and load it.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no problem with your suggestion, as long as they stiffen penalties for accidental shootings. As a gun owner, there is no excuse whatsoever for an accidental shooting. It is neglect, demonstrates lack of responsibility, and if it involves a child, criminal.
I do not look at gun ownership as a right, I look to it as a responsibility. Each gun owner needs to be diligent in their responsibility to owning a gun(s). If they fail in that responsibility, they should be held accountable.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jumpmaster
"I am okay with this as long as they enact a law that requires criminals to give the victims a time out so the victim can reassemble the firearm and load it"
But a law like that would require criminals to go through some kind of licensing processes. Registration and training and such.
Hey it works on paper!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finally, SCOTUS is affirming what our founders wrote as they framed the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the proper context. In the decision, they wrote:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." --SCOTUS 6-26-08
The real judicial activists included Stevens, who looks only to precedent, and doesn't consider errors in precedent. It's a good day for law-abiding American citizens.
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." --SCOTUS 6-26-08
That is a pretty radical deviation from what the 2nd Amendment states....
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Neophile1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Full ruling here (PDF)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads...
Reply -
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the problem with carrying a gun for self defense.. and i do and train.. is..
the bad guy alway has the jump... he USUALLY determines the where and when... ANY hesitation or bad judgement on your part ususally gets you dead....
it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be on high alert all the time.. and many robberies occur where you might least expect it....
home invasion.. do you answer the door gun in hand.. i'd bet not... i have one close.. in almost every room of the house.. but i also have no little children.. just me and momma...
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mdiar, I agree it will probably stay about the same. Most of the gun crime is committed by gangbangers, who generally shoot each other. 90% of homicides are committed by convicted felons, so the gun ban was mostly useless.
What I do expect is more people protecting themselves in the event of home invasions. Now that they know people can be armed, maybe criminals will be a little more careful.
Reply -
birddog54Comment removed: Abusive
-
Neutral
mrbs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
short term say a 1 to 2 yrs it will.it may even peek up a bit artificially because of someone cooking the books and finding ways to call some home defence incidents crimes.then it will fall off.quickly too.once the populace truly figures out the rules and that they can actually have one.i still live in an area where we have a almost 0 violent crime rate and almost no theft and we leave the doors unlocked.its because if you decide to break in where we are at you have a 70% chance of picking a home that has multiple firearms,and almost nobody gets shot accidentally either.oh once in a great while somebody gun goes off while cleaning it or they were doing something stupid but no one mistaken identity cases of someone getting shot looking for help because out here we assume someone is looking for help first.how do we get away with that.simple ..none of us can remember the last time someone was stupid enough to try to break in.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
koranagirl1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, there are certainly a large number of jurisdictions that have passed strict gun control laws, so a number of people believe that guns can be outright banned despite the wording of the Constitution which is fairly vague. (The right of the people to bear arms... shall not be abridged). What does that mean now we have soooo many options. 200 years ago you got to carry a gun. Now we have mace, pepper sprays, tazers, all sorts of goodies.
Are the laws that say civilians can't carry mace or pepper sprays also unconstitutional? We have those in Chicago. You can't buy that stuff here, even though it's a non-lethal alternative to a gun and requires no training to use.
And why can't we ban guns, but only allow tazers? Why aren't the police only carrying tazers so they no longer kill anyone? (or almost no one). It seems that the police now use tazers when they shouldn't be using a weapon at all. And they're still using guns as weapons and killing people.
Reply -
Neutral
bill29361 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is so interezsting is that time and time again we heard the ACLU supporters claim that the ACLU helps to support the Second Amendment, even though the gun owners know the truth. Note the former head of the ACLU legal department (Ginsburg) voted against it.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nikkibabe, had even one person been armed at VA Tech, fewer people may have lost their lives that day.
Schools used to always keep a gun on hand for protection against all kinds of predators. Only in the late 20th century did the anti-gun movement really emerge. It was mostly a response to assassinations in the 1960s (the machine gun response was mostly due to outcomes of alcohol prohibition and gangsters).
People are mostly responsible and trustworthy, and our founders recognized this--and depended on it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Authoritarian? Allowing guns to be owned by the general populace is about as un-authoritarian as you can get. It allows for the people to revolt against the government in a rather violent way if such a thing becomes necessary, adding a check on government in general. Authoritarian regimes don't arm the citizenry. They disarm them. Of course not all disarming is in the name of authoritarian regimes... but an authoritarian government is extremely unlikely to rule that the citizenry has the right to own weapons if they wish too.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poulenc, Watch "Innocents Betrayed."
And stick to THIS decision. I don't always agree with Scalia, but on this issue, which I had researched myself, his decision was sound.
Even the Centers for Disease Control and National Academy of Sciences found that gun control does not stop violent crime.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was referring to Scalia's originalist argument in general, which he changes to suit his needs.
If Americans believe in a strict originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" then, agreed, every American should be allowed to carry a breech-loading musket.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More than that every one who has a gun or rifle should make themselves available to being called up for service in that 'Well Regulated Milita' the court majority seems to have forgotten even though those are the very first words in the ammendment.
Reply -
Neutral
bill29361 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually most American at the time owned rifles vice muskets. You see most own weapons for hunting. and if you knew anything about firearm you would know the main reason that a person who depends on a firearm for putting food on the table would prefer a rifle.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In India, not even police officers carry guns except at the rank of Sheriff's counterpart in USA.
Colleges there turn out top notch technical & medical professionals without having to worry about some psycho walking in and shooting everyone!!!!!!!!!!
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nikkibabe,
Mahatma Ghandi actually stated: ""Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
He obviously didn't agree with you.
The very people who want to limit our constitutionally-guaranteed rights will, in the next breath, condemn police and military for brutality and corruption.
Our founders were against standing armies. And India has suffered enormous violence. The Hindus have been overrun by others who slaughtered them.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Meme: "...The very people who want to limit our constitutionally-guaranteed rights will, in the next breath, condemn police and military for brutality and corruption...."
One is not saying that NO ONE should own firearms; obviously, those entrusted with peace-keeping and those in combat SHOULD (the latter by definition, as it were).
I DO have a hard time understanding the sense of possible/imminent threat that so many seem to share, the solution for which is usually posited as self-armament.
I live in a big city; and the idea that more of my fellow citizens rather than fewer might carry guns frightens me.
(By the way, I DO appreciate your sincere wish to enlighten me, as you see it....)
Reply-
Neutral
mrbs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
obviously, those entrusted with peace-keeping and those in combat SHOULD (the latter by definition, as it were).
that was not the entire intent.part of the intent was for the populace to take down the government if it became necessary.those entrusted with peace keeping or in combat became untrustworthy.
Reply -
Neutral
nonparted1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
pouleno " I live in a big city; and the idea that more of my fellow citizens rather than fewer might carry guns frightens me."
u and others that have the mentality that gun bans would actually work is ludicrous.
do u think criminals would turn in their guns if the verdict had a different outcome. NOT. (this is where ur thinking on gun bans are unrealistic)
most gun violence is committed by people that have no regard for life.
i think for gun ownership other than a back ground check there should be a mandatory firearms safety and shooting classes before being issued a license. if u dont pass, u dont own until u do
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It depends on which part of the city that you live in.
Beverly Hills and Compton are both within the greater Los Angeles area. If I had to live in Compton, you had better believe that I would be packing.
Live or work in Compton for a while and you would have a different understanding of the sense of possible/imminent threat.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
side of Palm Beach where the Kennedys used to live.. OK...
west of the I-95 and Dixie Highway.. NOT OK....
within about 5 miles the entire demographics change.....
when I go to the latter area, to appraise real estate.. I pack enough on me and in my truck to start a war....
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jump, I take your point, but...I travel on the subway several times daily. My fellow subway riders represent a great cross-section of the local population.....
...I would thus prefer my fellow riders to have fewer than more guns.
Actually, I'd prefer that none have any.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user21 Replies
-
-
Neutral
DaneL1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try this one. "A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Now, ask them if this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people.
I thought this was a good one I read.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its brilliant, actually. Lets amend the Constitution and add it... its true in today's world and book burning has happened in the past. Add another layer of security to the books and our right to read them as well as having a sort of funny Amendment that puts the second in context.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nice try Jordan but thats not what it says. you get an A for effort though.
the Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right to keep and bear arms by individuals. It also refers to a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms."
not that hard to understand, an individual right to keep and bear arms. very proud to be an american today
Reply -
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jordan11
That is a pretty radical deviation from what the 2nd Amendment states....>>>>
In the context of what the founders considered to be a militia, it's a correct decision. The framers considered the militia to be the common man, trained in firearms from childhood & ready to take up arms against enemies alongside their countrymen.
even if the enemy is your own country, an ability to arm yourself against an out of control government something the founders of this great country were trying to protect against.
Reply -
-
purposeComment removed: Retracted by user
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the decision still leaves open the possibility of REGULATION...
i wonder to what extent..
it was actually kind of scary and an eye opener.. when i got my concealed carry permit.. the PROFICIENCY test consisted of
going to a range...
picking up a loaded weapon from a bench..
firing one shot at a target 10 feet in front of me.. hitting it WAS NOT REQUIRED....
placing the weapon back on the bench ...
getting my presigned certificate..
there were at least 4 women and men in the group i was with.. that had NEVER PICKED UP A WEAPON BEFORE..
yet these people were declared proficient... WOW...
even if someone is attacking me.. i hope these people IF ARMED.. leave it concealed..
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.