RangerM9 1 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Justices Lean Toward Personal Gun Rights The Associated Press Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 12:20 PM WASHINGTON (AP) -- A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appears to support the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, rather than somehow linking the right to service in a state militia. The Court today heard arguments about the meaning of the amendment and the Districts of Columbia's ban on handguns. But it was unclear what the justices' inclinations mean for the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation. "Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer said. On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra 76 two 2,677 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 sounds promising so far.... I for one think it's absolutely absurd to expect Mrs. GOB to have to carry a very large purse around all the time just so she can defend herself if need be, with her badass Saiga 410 underfolder! She should be able to tote a Lady Smith instead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waltham_41 52 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Its a logical move. The bad guys already have weapons, the ban means nothing to them. All they would be doing by removing the ban is giving the honest citizens a fighting chance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Its a logical move. The bad guys already have weapons, the ban means nothing to them. All they would be doing by removing the ban is giving the honest citizens a fighting chance. +10000000000 why is it that this simple concept escapes the anti-gun crowd?!?!?!?!?!?!? ARGH! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaNoobie 66 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Its a logical move. The bad guys already have weapons, the ban means nothing to them. All they would be doing by removing the ban is giving the honest citizens a fighting chance. +10000000000 why is it that this simple concept escapes the anti-gun crowd?!?!?!?!?!?!? ARGH! Because the ANTI-GUN crowd is Liberal.... and Liberalism is a mental disorder! Only the legally insane would believe that the ignorers of laws (read criminals) are influenced by LAWS. Only the legally insane would believe that a person is safer without ways of defending themselves. ONLY the legally insane would fight against an equal and fair society to promote a tolerance of Shariah Law which would eliminate the rights and lives of many of it's liberal supporters. (Homosexuals and women....) Are these ideas SANE? NO! and you Cannot have a logical argument with a person who is so out of tune with reality. THAT is why this simple equation of: Disarming the good guys = more crime, is so hard for them to understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki0629 55 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 "Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer said. I'm no lawyer and I've never played one on t.v. but I would have countered that the proof of the unreasonableness (is that even a word?) lies in the fact that the restriction has had a negligible impact on crime. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm Don't just compare numbers, take into account the population at the time between 2006 and the ban (1976). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 sounds promising so far.... I for one think it's absolutely absurd to expect Mrs. GOB to have to carry a very large purse around all the time just so she can defend herself if need be, with her badass Saiga 410 underfolder! She should be able to tote a Lady Smith instead. Mrs G O B (AKA Hippie Witch) would like to carry her Star B with 8 rds of 9MM in her purse. If this goes well, MD's ridiculous limits on CCW permits willl fall also, and she will be very Quote Link to post Share on other sites
macbeau 902 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 It looks good thus far... (who here would have figured that a Kennedy would take the lead to support "individual rights" on anything?), but I remain guardedly optimistic... This could result in D.C. being exempted (as not being a state - but if it goes the other way - affecting U.S. Properties in D.C., National Parks, the U.S. VI, Puerto Rico, The Pacific Islands, etc..., but not the states. ) It could be that they recognize an individual right, but recognize "reasonable" restrictions by the States and Feds in lieu of the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause; which has yet to be discussed.... As I said, it's looking good so far - but... Scotus is know for mush-mouthed decisions that get challenged over the decades. SCOTUS is not know for handing down sweeping rulings without giving the States and the Feds a meassure of wiggle room... Well see.... Just my opinion... Macbeau sends... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pevrs114 0 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 The utter drivel about "machine gun bans" just blew me away. The Solicitor General argues that machine guns are banned and illegal (they aren't, obviously, they are taxed). He then goes on to proclaim that if this law is reversed, it could lead to reversal of other federal gun control legislation as it could be deemed unconstitutional in light of a favorable (to us) ruling... which I wholeheartedly agree with and hope will happen! (Won't hold my breath, though). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ready2go 0 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki0629 55 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 I would suggest to Fenty and associates that instead of combating gun violence they focus on violent criminals instead. For that fucknuts to talk about empowering citizens against crime and to fight so hard to ban all guns from the city is the apex of fucking hypocrisy. How these people manage to breath when they have their heads stuck so far up their asses is beyond me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ready2go 0 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 +1 GunnyR Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted March 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 I would suggest to Fenty and associates that instead of combating gun violence they focus on violent criminals instead. For that fucknuts to talk about empowering citizens against crime and to fight so hard to ban all guns from the city is the apex of fucking hypocrisy. How these people manage to breath when they have their heads stuck so far up their asses is beyond me. shit...if the are stupid enough to voluntarily let them in to search and really expect no charges....well...they get what they deserve..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loki0629 55 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 shit...if the are stupid enough to voluntarily let them in to search and really expect no charges....well...they get what they deserve..... Yep. There hasn't been much mention of the fact that they will run tests on any firearm they take and if it comes up as a match for a crime then the people they took it from can be arrested. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaddis 1,689 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Wonder if Fenty would object to his house being searched by the PO-lice? Probably find a few unlicensed gats and crack there too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.