US Supreme Court justices seem favorable to constitutional gun rights for Americans

news.aol ^ | 2008-03-18 20:12:41 | AP/AOL

[Centurion2000]

A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself, but the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

No media bias here. I think the libtards are scared sh*tless of this case.

[robertpaulsen]

He traded all of that away for an “individual right” interpretation by the court. Give me that, he was saying, and I’’ll give you anything you want.

[robertpaulsen]

"To put it more succinctly, the 2nd Amendment was written so to provide a last recourse for the general public (we the people aka individuals) to defend themselves against a corrupt government gone bad."

Correct.

However, the Founders knew that simply arming the population (all the militia) was insufficient. Training was required. And training everyone to the proficiency required for battle was impossible.

So they settled on a select group of "well regulated" Militia -- trained, disciplined, organized, armed and accoutered, with officers appointed by each state. It was this "well regulated Militia" that was necessary to the security of a free state, not an armed populace.

Their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.

[Born Conservative]

If rights are too dangerous in purely urban environments, what say we outlaw purely urban environments? Not only are they unconstitutional, but if you can't protect yourself in them they are a threat to health and safety. Let's ban cities!

They can start with Wilkes-Barre...

[Rick.Donaldson]

The government doesn’t HAVE A RIGHT to regulate your guns.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I suspect that they will either throw out the 2d Amendment altogether, or they will say we have a right in theory, but that the states have broad authority to regulate it.
Sorry, they can't just "throw it out". I don't care what they say they can do.

The ONLY way to change the Constitution is by a Constitutional amendment or Congress can change it - and the amendment has to be ratified by a fixed number of states before it takes effect. The Supreme Court can only INTERPRET the Constitution, the President can only EXECUTE it.....

When it comes down to the Supreme Court "interpreting" the Constitution to the point it becomes null and void, it will be time to take up those arms the Left is trying to ban and fight to keep them, and CHANGE the people in office.

[Hacklehead]

“The government doesn’t HAVE A RIGHT to regulate your guns.”

That’s not what OUR SIDE was saying yesterday. We were sold down the river.

[Hacklehead]

“So, with a wink and nudge, the fix is in. It will be declared an individual right that may be reasonably regulated or, as Justice Stevens opined, “It shall not be unreasonably infringed”.

I think that is what the final decision will say. It really wont change or settle anything.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

The Founders obviously meant to bestow gun rights on the individual, especially in a country that was largely wilderness in the 1790's. They knew that a citizen threatened by a wild, raging animal is not going to call a well-regulated militia for help.

Same applies to this sh**hole known as DC.

No, you are wrong.

The right to bear arms has NOTHING to do with the wilderness or wild animals. Thomas Jefferson told us very CLEARLY what the 2nd amendment means. Unfortunately social facists and a intentional dumbing down of our education system has created a very contitutionally stupid american citizen.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

[Rick.Donaldson]

Robert that is utter BS, they did not “settle on a select group” of well regulated militia. The second part of that amendment says that the right of the people shall not be infringed regardless of whom the “militia” happens to be.

So, let me make something perfectly clear to you, gun-grabber... I am a “well trained” militia person - I spent 26 years in the military to defend our country, and your rights to make idiotic statements, but I promise that people like you will NOT take the guns of the people of this country.

You’re what we call a “domestic enemy”.... you’re someone who lives in this country that wants to impose YOUR will on everyone else, because you don’t like that they have guns.

Tough, RobertPaulsen, you’re a TROLL now and that’s all you’ve been in all these threads.

Here, you’re an enemy of the people of the United States.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

To believe Option 1 cannot happen is very foolish. No reasonable person would have ever believed the U.S. Supreme Court would advocate the brutal murder of 1 million plus infants every year.

Prior to that SCOTUS completely stripped the 10th amendment of any real meaning.

What the hell makes anyone believe that SCOTUS will not strip us of our rights under the second amendment?

[JZelle]

Rick,

You the MAN!! Well said and thanks for your service!!

[robertpaulsen]

When the DC Circuit Court declared the right to be an individual right, that was OK. When they declared the right to be fundamental, they went a bridge too far. A law infringing on a fundamental right would trigger strict scrutiny and the DC law probably would not stand.

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court took the case solely to strike down the declaration of a fundamental right.

[allmendream]

“State militia”? The author seems fond of equating a militia with this construct of a ‘State militia’.

Seems a contradiction. That which is of the State is not a militia, and that which is of the militia is not of the State. The meaning of the word ‘militia’ was clear at the time, it meant a levy of free citizens capable of bearing arms; not a state organization.

[bigdcaldavis]

Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

Mass murderers agree: Gun control works.

So how many millions will Herr Hitlery and Brock O’Bomber murder if they weasel their way into the WH?

[robertpaulsen]

"The meaning of the word ‘militia’ was clear at the time, it meant a levy of free citizens capable of bearing arms; not a state organization."

True, but I believe he was referring to the second amendment's "well regulated Militia" which was trained, disciplined, organized, armed, and accoutered, with officers appointed by the state and reporting to the Governor of the state. "State militia" is just kind of shorthand.

[beltfed308]

Too bad Mr. Dellinger didn't use your “only white,property owners are people” argument. That would have really impressed the justices.

[Rick.Donaldson]

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson

That can’t be restated often enough.

[beltfed308]

Well done and thank you for your service! Now you can add troll removal services to your resume. :>)

Fregards.

[djf]

Ginsburg tried.
Scalia shot it down.