Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals
Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.
BANG! BANG! BANG!
that's just the kind of thing a nigger would say. are you a nigger? because you sound like a nigger.
The SCOTUS lost all credibility after the 2000 election and after Bush jammed the court with right wing idealogues. They are just a bunch of political hacks with no integrity.
It's not hypocrisy, if you look at the constitution no where does it say that there is an unlimited right to bare arms. The second amendment doesn't state that non-militia weapons can't be regulated.
This is just an act of judicial activism, sort of like when the SCOTUS decided that the votes of the people of Florida were not as valuable as those in other parts of the nation, and refused to set precedence.
In fact, justice Souter, IIRC, stated that there's no evidence of any sort that the framers of the US constitution meant for arms to be completely unregulated.
Banning handguns is something which is sensible when the crime rate gets as high as it is in certain portions of the country. Handguns are easily concealed and can as such deserved special attention from regulations.
Saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people, is bullshit. Show me an instant when a person killed a person with a gun when they didn't have a gun. Show me an instance where an accidental discharge of an unloaded trigger locked gun happened. You can't because it doesn't happen.
While the UK has proven pretty definitively that complete bans of all forms of firearms does not work, there is absolutely no reason why banning certain types of firearms in areas like Philadelphia or DC is a bad idea.
According to Chris Rock we don't need gun control, we need bullet control.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Wait a minute...are you suggesting that this one decision, this one moment in time, exonerates the current administration from all of the countless fuck-ups they've committed over the last seven years?
You, sir, are full of shit. I don't agree with this decision (mainly on principal, but also on the fact that the so-called "originalists" on the court basically reversed about a centuries worth of decisions previously decided), but that doesn't matter. Just take your strawman and go home.
I don't blame objects. I just control the objects as a way to keep the people from getting out of control. That's why we have drivers licenses. Maybe if we required anyone who wanted a gun to have training and regular tests of competence for their guns, and insurance, and register each gun, and get it inspected every year, and require each gun to have safety features the way that cars have antilock brakes, airbags and seatbelts, guns might be dragged back into some kind of safe degree of use. Since Americans demonstrate every year that the unrestrained, even underrestrained keeping and bearing arms is beyond their competence to manage, we need more restrictions on them.
But instead, gun fetishists act like guns don't kill over 29,000 Americans every year.
--
make install -not war
Exactly. An if obama is elected, it will be a disaster. A democrat controlled congress with a noe-marxist democrat president would push us into a bizarro world of entitlement programs crippling the economy with liberties curtailed in every aspect of our lives legislatively. Thank God the court is slightly conservative now.
"Yes, statistics prove that brandishings and the possible arming of people stops of crime."
FYP.
Regardless, owning a gun is my right. I really couldn't give a fuck what your opinion about that is, and no amount of after the fact whinging, name calling (gun nuts?) or fake assertions by you can change that in any way.
I look forward to putting some rounds downrange. Any chance you could send me a picture?
You fucking piece of garbage.
In 2000 Bush was appointed president by a judical coup d'etat.
In 2004 he 'won' Ohio because of rigged voting machines.
Americans are weird
Guns are excellent cos you can shoot all your work mates. Yeah take em to school blow the teachers away.
Crikey you people are just a bit potty
Can you substantiate your claims with facts? Because every statistic and study I have read contradict what you are saying.
Woot, just like how gun nuts lobbying to keep their precious penis-substitutes are partially responsible for all the deaths of people by the hands (sorry, guns) of criminals who really shouldn't have been able to get their hands on one.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
That's the crux of the problem with gun laws in general. Criminals, by definition aren't interested in following the law, therefore, the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.
Yes, it is true that during the temporary transitional phase from war-zone / wild-west to modern civilisation, there is a chance that criminals will hold on to those guns still floating around whilst law-abiding citizens have to rely on the police. Just hang on.
And I think I was trying to say what's in my post above. Anything else is a strawman. Laugh all you want. Small things amuse small minds.
No matter where the guns come from, if you have one, and they are banned or need a license, then police can arrest you. It's much harder for violent crime to occur. Perhaps even if you paired it with a clamp-down on gun smuggling, perhaps you'd have something effective.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
That's just it.
Once a certain success has been achieved as regards removing guns from the general public, it gets to the point where the police are not allowed them either (except for specialised gun squads called in the occasional siege) and do not even want to.
You don't see gun-toting British bobbies, do ya?
Abortions and gay marriage don't provide more little tax payers.
Abortions actually kill an existing little tax payer.
Gay marriages are unlikely to provide any new ones and therefore, should not be encouraged or supported via the legal mechanism of marriage between woman and man.