Gun Rights Upheld

[HoustonRaven]

Thought I'd stir the pot with this one ....

Im sure those on the left will view this as a gun-nut victory and miss the MUCH bigger picture this ruling gave us.

To follow the rule of law is what our courts are meant to do. By sticking to the letter of the law, personal liberty is preserved. If you so choose to not defend yourself via a weapon, that's your right. If you're like me and have a concealed carry permit and feel it's your duty to protect yourself and, as importantly, others around you, then you should have this right as well.

This was a victory for true choice. Not some vague policy like what car you can drive, what gas to put in your car or what lightbulb you should use. This was affirmation on the purist of all forms of choice -- the right to chose how to protect yourself!

[jonboy79]

This is an important ruling. It's our right to protect ourselves agaisnt our government. It's not EVERYONE'S right to carry a pistol in public, and that I agree with as well, but there are instances where it is more then acceptable. I would qualify for a concealed permit here in MD, cash business owner, but I CHOOSE not to, as I feel it would only increase my chances of getting killed. I'd much rather hand over several hundred dollars to a would be robber, even if I did have a gun, then pull it out and decide who is quicker...

But, I'm glad that the courts will continue to allow me that choice, should I change my mind.

[evade6317]

This is such BS, DC has been a gun-free/crime-free utopia for years!

[jonboy79]

HEY JON BOY: Glad to see you over here. We gotta get this forum moving. I know how to do it. Maybe I'll start a Joel Osteen thread-lol. Only kidding.

I always check the 24x7 football forum first, and most often, even though it is BY FAR less visited, becuase I prefer the posters and board style, but it has only been the past month or so that I really started to look at this forum, as it sufferred the same problem, and would go days on end without a post. IF this board could pick up steam, I'd gladly leave over there....

I certainly pick my political/current events topics to chime in on... I like global warming-haha, religion and am becoming more political with every day...

[HoustonRaven]

Im hopeful we all get this thread / area going as well .....

To give everyone up in Maryland some perspective, even the Democrats / liberals here in Texas understand how important this ruling was.

One issue I have with Rush though ... It actually has more impact when there is one justice writing the majority opinion. It's basically saying that all the justices agree on the premise of Scalia's words. That's the most powerful way of issuing an opinion. It says VOLUMES that Kennedy didnt write his own, independent opinion. The swing vote agreed with with the majority in the most powerful way.

[HoustonRaven]

BTW, can this come up again, say if Obamy gets 1 or 2 of his guys on the court?

yes and no ....

Anyone can sue for their particular cause with the hopes it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. It's unlikely a suit will make it in the 4 years Obama will be President. But that scenario changes if he gets reelected. The number of left-leaning judges on the bench doesnt necessarily translate into which case is heard and when.

One thing that is concerning though. Dems will most likely control both houses of Congress and the White House. Look for things like ammunition limits, lower capacity magazines, etc to go along with the largest tax increase in American history.

Also, take a look at The Setting Sun's web page. They have a poll up asking it's reader if they agree with the Courts ruling. When I last checked, it was a huge margin towards those who do agree -- upwards of 80%. The editors are shitting themselves right now! ;)

[Galen Sevinne]

Thought I'd stir the pot with this one ....

Im sure those on the left will view this as a gun-nut victory and miss the MUCH bigger picture this ruling gave us.

not really. I don't have a big problem with handguns. I disagree with the interpretation that the 2nd separates the ideas of militia and self defense. I think the original idea was to make a militia effective, guns were necessary for the citizens. To have one in your house to "defend" yourself doesn't really fit in with that definition.

As my argument is against libertarians and constitutionalists, we live in a different time then when the constitution was drawn. It would be okay for some modern modifications. It seems a bit silly to defend so ardently a 200 year old decree but that being said, I am not dissing the constitution just pointing out that we are not in the times of daniel boone and davy crockett anymore.

I am not sold on the idea that pulling out a gun in a volatile situation makes me any safer. When I was a teenager, we fought with our hands. Kids now use guns and while that might not be the fault of guns, we do need to be cognizant of that trend.

But if having a gun improves your chances of the pursuit of happiness...cool...just don't clean it around me :)

[HoustonRaven]

not really. I don't have a big problem with handguns. I disagree with the interpretation that the 2nd separates the ideas of militia and self defense. I think the original idea was to make a militia effective, guns were necessary for the citizens. To have one in your house to "defend" yourself doesn't really fit in with that definition.

You're ignoring volumes of information, most obviously, The Federalist Papers, that clearly define what the 2nd Amendment's purpose was for the new country. First, it was for basic self defense. Second, it was for the citizens to have the ability (and duty) to overthrow the upstart Gubmint should it turn tyranical. Militia back then didnt mean things like the National Guard (that was formned till the mid-1800's). There were not police departments, FBI, etc to solve crimes. Militia ment meant simply an armed public that could defend themselves and others.

As my argument is against libertarians and constitutionalists, we live in a different time then when the constitution was drawn. It would be okay for some modern modifications. It seems a bit silly to defend so ardently a 200 year old decree but that being said, I am not dissing the constitution just pointing out that we are not in the times of daniel boone and davy crockett anymore.

Its not the stance of Libertarians or Constitutionlists to keep guns for guns sake. They simply want the letter of the law upheld. As it stands, the 2nd Amendment is clear that gun ownership is a right not to be infringed. The proper way of getting rid of the law, should the people do so, is elect politicians who will vote it away. That's the prescribed method as defined in the Constitution. What Libertarians et all have issue with are unelected judges who do not follow the will of the people and instead make their own law (the method that allows judges to apply modern day meaning to old law). Once you can do that with a loaw you dont agree with, it can be done to all laws at any time for any reason. Yes, we certainly do not live in the times of Davy Crockett. But we do live in times of mass murder, mall shootings and serial killers. The method you choose to defend yourself is your business. Just dont deny me the choice should I choose to think differently then you. The proper way to change ANY amendment is through the people, not the judges.

I am not sold on the idea that pulling out a gun in a volatile situation makes me any safer. When I was a teenager, we fought with our hands. Kids now use guns and while that might not be the fault of guns, we do need to be cognizant of that trend.

Sometimes yes, somtimes no. I was mugged in Baltimore 2005 and will tell you if I had a gun, no way was I pulling it out since the shit bags had the drop on me. However, open up any paper out here (or in any state where its ok to carry concealed) and you find dozens of stories of people thwarting crimes by the mere display of a weapon -- and yes, sometimes the use of that weapon. It's now big mystery why states that have liberal carry laws also have a huge decline in violent crime per capita as compared to states that do not. Your safer states tend to be red, carry states while your more dangerous states tend to be blue, with strict anti-gun laws.

But if having a gun improves your chances of the pursuit of happiness...cool...just don't clean it around me :)

Not to worry. I responsible gun owner does not even bring his weapon out around novices. ;)