Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms

[sly_wolf 199]

And slaves.

Ok, so the context at the time no longer applies ... therefore thinking logically the right to bear arms shouldn't either.

But I guess nothing about law is ever logical.

[Heracles 417]

What's scary about the gun rights ruling is that there are four justices who don't see the right to bear arms as constitutionally protected.

So four of them were logical then.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

no more than the right to vote. or peacefully assemble. and so on.

All overrated.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Even if it wasn't in the Constitution, why must a society ban everything that comes to harm the population? Why not lock us up in soft cells with nice beds, give us children's books to read and feed us through a drip tube.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Booyah (and Steve) would LOVE this thread!

[sly_wolf 199]

Even if it wasn't in the Constitution, why must a society ban everything that comes to harm the population? Why not lock us up in soft cells with nice beds, give us children's books to read and feed us through a drip tube.

I guess it's because government knows that a good part of society does in fact have that child like mentallity and need to be protected from themselves.

Government feels that they have to balance that with what may be the popular pet peeve at the time.

Over the years Government has passed so many rules to protect us from ourselves that it has created some social stress. However I also think its due to a greater percentage people just being plain irresponsible or nuts.

[Heracles 417]

Thank God countries under the globally used and first choice for first world countries - the Parliamentary system - don't give their high-court the same power to run their country. Furthermore, actually allow their politicians to amend their laws to reflect the year 2010 rather than 17 something.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Booyah!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Even more frightening is the 5 justices who seem to have no comprehension of context.

You are wrong. Get over it. Just to add to your pleasant thoughts for today

Recent developments in the right to bear arms...

1. Arizona recently eliminated the need the have a concealed carry permit and now allows ANY adult to carry concealed handguns, they are the third state to do so...joining Alaska and VERMONT (Vermont has ALWAYS allowed anyone to carry concealed handguns and has the lowest crime rate in the US...far lower than our unarmed neighbors to the north in eutopian Canada, lower than Australia, 10 times lower than the UK)

2. Iowa passed a "shall issue" permit system, they previously had a "discretionary system" Now anyone who meets the requirements WILL be issued a concealed carry permit. That makes 39 states with such laws, plus 3 that do not require permits plus 6 that have discretionary permits leaving only Illinois and Wisconson to ban the carrying of handguns. Wisconsin will pass a "shall issue" law next year. They have done so twice before but it was vetoed. Both condidates for Governor in this year's election support the law. It will pass. I suggest you move to Illinois...oops, they may follow suit now given the recent court ruling...oh well, there is always Canada!

3. Arkansas, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virignia, North Carolina all passed l;aws this year making the issuance of permits easier, extending permit validity dates or increasing the number of places persons can legally possess firearms. Oklahoma passed a law preventing employers from prohibiting employees from leaving guns in cars parked in parking lots open to the general public.

Thank God countries under the globally used and first choice for first world countries - the Parliamentary system - don't give their high-court the same power to run their country. Furthermore, actually allow their politicians to amend their laws to reflect the year 2010 rather than 17 something.

Thank goodness we eliminated that system in "17 something"...at the point of a gun. AND STAY OUT!!!!!!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not sure if it was already noted or mentioned, but the Supreme Court did say that certain bans are acceptable, such as in school zones and public buildings. I've always been in favor of reasonable gun regulations and believe that Chicago's handgun ban was far reaching. There's already a push to challenge forbidding those who have a domestic violence misdemeanor on their record from owning guns. I'm hesitant to form an opinion on that specific issue without knowing exactly what would constitute as a domestic violence misdemeanor.

Edited June 30, 2010 by El Buscador

[The_Dude 1,142]

You are wrong. Get over it. Just to add to your pleasant thoughts for today

Recent developments in the right to bear arms...

1. Arizona recently eliminated the need the have a concealed carry permit and now allows ANY adult to carry concealed handguns, they are the third state to do so...joining Alaska and VERMONT (Vermont has ALWAYS allowed anyone to carry concealed handguns and has the lowest crime rate in the US...far lower than our unarmed neighbors to the north in eutopian Canada, lower than Australia, 10 times lower than the UK)

2. Iowa passed a "shall issue" permit system, they previously had a "discretionary system" Now anyone who meets the requirements WILL be issued a concealed carry permit. That makes 39 states with such laws, plus 3 that do not require permits plus 6 that have discretionary permits leaving only Illinois and Wisconson to ban the carrying of handguns. Wisconsin will pass a "shall issue" law next year. They have done so twice before but it was vetoed. Both condidates for Governor in this year's election support the law. It will pass. I suggest you move to Illinois...oops, they may follow suit now given the recent court ruling...oh well, there is always Canada!

3. Arkansas, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virignia, North Carolina all passed l;aws this year making the issuance of permits easier, extending permit validity dates or increasing the number of places persons can legally possess firearms. Oklahoma passed a law preventing employers from prohibiting employees from leaving guns in cars parked in parking lots open to the general public.

Thank goodness we eliminated that system in "17 something"...at the point of a gun. AND STAY OUT!!!!!!!!!

Gary, you and so many of your ilk seem to have a static understanding of the constitution. You have no comprehension of context and fail to take into account the context in which the second amendment was written.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Thank God countries under the globally used and first choice for first world countries - the Parliamentary system - don't give their high-court the same power to run their country. Furthermore, actually allow their politicians to amend their laws to reflect the year 2010 rather than 17 something.

What does the calendar have to do with my right to defend myself?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the language is that it is a right to bear arms, not a right to defend yourself.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Gary, you and so many of your ilk seem to have a static understanding of the constitution. You have no comprehension of context and fail to take into account the context in which the second amendment was written.

It seems a majority of the SCOTUS disagrees with you which would mean YOU do not have the comprehension of context of the constitution. I believe I would trust their opinion over yours and your ilk on this subject.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It seems a majority of the SCOTUS disagrees with you which would mean YOU do not have the comprehension of context of the constitution. I believe I would trust their opinion over yours and your ilk on this subject.

Do you even know what context is? Seriously. They are taking a literal translation of a document that is well over 200 years old and applying it to modern society. You would do well to gain a little context yourself.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Do you even know what context is? Seriously. They are taking a literal translation of a document that is well over 200 years old and applying it to modern society. You would do well to gain a little context yourself.

I know what context is and I am sure the SCOTUS does also. It seems you may not though.