Showdown: the Supreme Court grants cert for 2nd Amendment case.

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#1
It's all right here.

This story should be one that many here closely watch, considering how many of you-all are firm supporters of the 2nd amendment.

I am too, though I personally do not own any firearms.

If one falls more in line with a 'conservative' philosophy on private gun ownership rights, you'd think that things, preemptively, look pretty good for you. After all, this is a Court filled with some solid conservatives. Personally, I have a very bad feeling here. And this is why.

The Supreme Court has been very good at creating new rights for Americans over the past 50 years, rights that are nowhere stated in the Constitution, but rather derived from it via a rather unique legal interpretation of the document - i.e., the Justices pulling shit out of their ass to reach a conclusion they already wanted to reach before hearing the merits of the individual case.

I greatly fear that this is going to be one of those situations where the Court takes AWAY a right from us. More egregiously, one that is explicitedly enumerated in the Bill of Rights itself.
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#2
It's an impossibility to ever take that right away from us. If there is a group of people that you don't want to piss off, it's a group of armed citizens.

I just want to be president so I can royally fuck up gun laws in this nation and allow automatics back into the hands of our citizens. There should be no special exceptions for police and government agencies to have weapon types that aren't allowed to our citizens.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#3
It's an impossibility to ever take that right away from us. If there is a group of people that you don't want to piss off, it's a group of armed citizens.

I just want to be president so I can royally fuck up gun laws in this nation and allow automatics back into the hands of our citizens. There should be no special exceptions for police and government agencies to have weapon types that aren't allowed to our citizens.
On the contrary, I can very much see them taking that right away from us - doing so by interpreting the language of the 2nd Amendment to really mean that only those who are part of a militia are allowed to privately own firearms. In such a case, theoretically, it would revert to a state's rights issue, where perhaps private ownership would be allowed if your state constitution has such provisions. This would probably mean that the southern states would be okay, but states like New York - where, conceivably, you need to own firearms - you'd be fucked due to the liberal policies of your elected officials.
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#4
On the contrary, I can very much see them taking that right away from us - doing so by interpreting the language of the 2nd Amendment to really mean that only those who are part of a militia are allowed to privately own firearms. In such a case, theoretically, it would revert to a state's rights issue, where perhaps private ownership would be allowed if your state constitution has such provisions. This would probably mean that the southern states would be okay, but states like New York - where, conceivably, you need to own firearms - you'd be fucked due to the liberal policies of your elected officials.
No, it has been specified over the years, except in communist California, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't soley refer to militias. It specifically says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The People" is the populace, not talking about a militia. In the end however, we are all militia.

Anyway, it's an impossibility to take away 300,000,000 privately owned firearms :) They can't put us all in prison, it honestly would get bloody. We are to rise over tryanny. That's our duty as American citizens my friend.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#5
No, it has been specified over the years, except in communist California, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't soley refer to militias. It specifically says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The People" is the populace, not talking about a militia. In the end however, we are all militia.
It has not, to my knowledge, been so specified by the Supreme Court, however. As the highest court in the nation, it pretty much gets to decide how the Constitution is interpreted, no matter if lower courts have ruled otherwise on an issue. If you have a particular case where the Court has stated that the 2nd should be interpreted as referring to every citizen rather than merely militias, I'd like to see it. But, to my knowledge, the Court has been perpetually silent on the issue, which is exactly why THIS case is a landmark one - the Court is finally granting cert to address this issue when it has not ever really done so before.

Anyway, it's an impossibility to take away 300,000,000 privately owned firearms :)
PERHAPS MORE THAN THAT, Sam Adams!

They can't put us all in prison, it would get bloody, honestly. Our Constitution tells us to rise over tryanny, that's our duty as American citizens my friend.
True, but honestly, I don't perceive too many American gun owners to REALLY be the hardcore "from my cold dead hands" folks. I think it'd be more of a situation where folks would just hide their firearms, but not necessarily the "if the sheriff comes to take it, I'm putting a round in him" sort.
 

WaddleDoodle

Creepy? We're the CIA. It's what we do.
Mar 15, 2005
601
0
0
Arlington, VA
#6
Seeing as I'm about a month from getting my first gun....this is troubling on a bunch of levels. I THINK I'd be safe, as a resident of PA ( or by transfering down here to Virginia), but really doesn't bode well.

Course, it could go the other way. Hope it does.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,848
6,935
763
F.U.B.A.R
#7
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land. They can pass all the stupid laws they want, but if they come for mine they're getting them bullets first.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#8
Seeing as I'm about a month from getting my first gun....this is troubling on a bunch of levels. I THINK I'd be safe, as a resident of PA ( or by transfering down here to Virginia), but really doesn't bode well.
I live in VA, and it's troubling to me how the state is turning into a fucking liberal stronghold. Hopefully, the anti-gun nuts aren't gaining too much power. I know that Jean Davis (wife of representative Tom Davis) recently lost her bid for reelection fo the VA senate to Chap Peterson. Davis had sided with that fucking asshole Bloomberg on the gun issue. In fact, one of her attack ads claimed that Peterson 'voted to allow guns to be carried on college campuses.'

To which I said, upon seeing the ad: Right on, Chap Peterson. I think the VA massacre might have turned out differently if we DID allow guns to be carried on campus.

Although sadly, Peterson's wiki does say this: "Petersen recently explained that he supported the current law which makes it a felony to possess a gun on school grounds, but voted for a bipartisan bill, HB 2535, which gave a limited exception to parents with licensed concealed carry permits who pick up their children at school, for just school driveways. That bill was signed into law in 2005."

A little too fucking liberal for me - I don't think it should be a felony at all.
 

distortion9

Satellite Of Hate
Dec 12, 2001
4,925
8
368
NY
#9
Fucking bring it! I've been wanting this shit settled for a long time.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,974
9,822
848
#10
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land. They can pass all the stupid laws they want, but if they come for mine they're getting them bullets first.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
x2 and they no it.


i have been watching this case, it was heard buy the supreme court because a lower court found in favor of the plaintiff (a doctor i believe who sued to protect himself after death threats) it was appealed buy the "state" ie the district of Columbia to the higher court that is the only reason it was heard. i have to do a little research but i do believe that i have read synopsis of the case. stupid short term memory
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#11
They can pass all the stupid laws they want, but if they come for mine they're getting them bullets first.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
:clap::clap::clap: Fucking Right! I hate previous Supreme Court rulings like back for United States v. Cruikshank when they ruled that the U.S. Constitution only restricts the powers of the national government, not at the state level to regulate (restrict / ban) gun ownership and sale.

So, if states and local municipalities can ban weapons, which is our 2nd Amendment Right, then they need to also ban blacks and women from voting in elections since those are also Constitutional Rights of every American from those groups.

Fuck judges and their motives. We are still being restricted from the 1934 gun ban from when mobsters were shooting up other gang members with tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns while running illegal alcohol during prohibition. How ridiculous is that shit? We don't have the organized mob doing that shit anymore because they legalized alcohol again and it got rid of the crime element since they could go legit.

Then the ATF was basically formed so the cops going around busting up alcohol distributors because they would be out of a job if they didn't have something to do and they handed them the anti-gun war to fight citizens over. It was all about jobs during the depression and it fucking stuck.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,848
6,935
763
F.U.B.A.R
#13
Ninety percent to overturn. Should be higher, IMO. But, then again there are people who fear defending themselves. Faggots.