“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

First smart decision they have made in years.

5-4 for the win. Kinda close.

Should we celebrate by posting pics of our guns in this thread before it gets taken over anyway by silly unarmed canadians?

you beat me to posting it. DAMN if this isn't starting to look like a very good day.

On another forum (fark), we've got the folks who are appalled falling into two major arguments:

1 - they read something into the Constitution that isn't there or removed something. Depends on the person. This appears to be patently false when you read the dissenting opinions as at least one (haven't read them yet) focuses more on stats than the wording.
2 - this is only going to open things up for more lawsuits in the future. Why yes, yes it is. This is a good thing as it'll likely strike down more unConstitutional laws.

Too bad they also decided to vote to let that piece of ant shit child rapist live.

Yes.

And hopefully, he'll "live" in General Population.

Yayyy - when's the next gun show in town, I need to buy more?

Love this countrys gun laws. England is way to anal about guns just because one psycho dude went on a rampage and shot a bunch of people in the 1980's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

Yes there is less gun crime in the UK. BUT - all of the bad guys have guns and most of the good guys don't, so what crime there is becomes particularly one sided in the bad guys favor.

Unfortunately your home country and the home of my ancestors is doomed to become a third world Sharia-ruled shithole it seems.

It was a good decision. Unfortunately it seems narrow.

The decision still leaves an awful lot that has to be fought for another day. The decision only involves federal law and federal territory (Washington D.C is a federal city).

The very scary thing is that we are only one vote away from having the individual right of gun ownership taken away.

I haven't looked at the dissenting opinions yet. I'm almost too scared to take a look.

Anyone see the DC Mayor, Thumbing his nose to the Supes by saying, "Well this only applies to having one in your home..."? Duh, how you going to get it home?

I haven't had time to read the ruling, but I agree, if Bush hadn't gotten his two (Sorta conservative) Appointments, we would have lost the 2A today.

Hopefully, McCain will put a very strict constructionist on the Supreme Court during his term that will ensure the sway towards the People and not the Gov't. That is if he wins.

From what I've seen of them, they're weak - at best. Haven't read them all - but I do have the entire thing ready to print out so I can read it all later.

As for the other laws that need to be challenged, I think that's a good thing. It gives those with grievances the ability to challenge the unConsitutional laws and get them over-turned - which sets precedent and can let a lot of this be done locally rather than nationally.

Here's some gun porn in celebration of the ruling

A key statement from the dissenting opinion.....

"As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia."

The further I read the dissent the worse it gets.

It is absolutely clear that the leftists on the Court believe the Second Amendment applies only to the use and possession of firearms by the military.

Any gun owners who still want to vote Democrat better get used to the idea of being a former gun owner in the near future.

Another quote from the dissent disagreeing with the majority opinion....

"Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.""

Yes, that was way too close to comfort. That's one would be Obama appointed Supreme Court justice away from losing our rights.

Think about that.

Jesus...can't we just give the libs New York and New England and let them start their own country so we can have ours back? Hell, give them CA too, just let us have equal usage of the port of Los Angeles.

Whoo hoo!! I'm gonna go buy me some grenades too!! Sweet!!

That was my argument before. Whether you're for or against guns - and I'm for (responsible) gun ownership - and whether people like it or not, that seems to be what the words used in the Second Amendment say. Otherwise, why would the militia even be mentioned?

That's what the four leftists on the Supreme Court interpret it as saying.

You obviously haven't read the majority opinion or the opinion handed down by the District Court of Appeals.

Wilmac - Since you can never formulate an actual valid argument to anything, can you please just stfu? You have really been showing your trollish nature of late...

Blue - I've said it before, that the SA's intention was so that the individual has the right to protect him/herself in addition to raising a milita for broader service. How can you protect yourself from a "tyrannical governing body" if you need to seek out approval from that very governing body? The supreme court addresses this very question in their findings and it was one of the reasons they ruled they way they did. It's nonsensical to believe that "the people" and "a milita" are not one and the same, and the SA gives the government the ability to "call up" the milita, not create one. The militia of the people is always in existence.

Troll? I've made, like, three posts in four months or something.

Now, excuse me, but I have a trunk full of AK's I've got to sell on Constitution Ave.

I rest my case. You have nothing at all to add to the discussion, yet feel your snide remarks are worthy of posting. Why even bother posting if that's all you are going to do?

I'm done with it anyway, you're a troll, i'll not feed you any longer.

Good. Pull the pins, drop the spoons, and shove as many as you can up your ass.

Typical WilMac. The ruling clearly states that things like hand grenades and tanks are not covered. :rolleyes:

From the egomaniac, Justice Breyer's dissent.....

"The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today’s decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today’s decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission."

He is wrong about that. I even wonder if he was even aware of the contents of the majority opinion.

The majority opinion clearly stated that the decision applies to federal law. It also stated that government has a right to make restrictions regarding gun ownership.

The decision also doesn't incorporate itself onto the states.

How did this fucking guy get to the Supreme Court?

He went on to say....

"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion for the group but Breyer had to stick in his two cents.

These left wing justices clearly believe that American citizens have no right to defend themselves in their homes with firearms.

That sentiment repeats itself numerous times throughout the dissent. It also doesn't even include the caveat of "crime ridden areas" when mentioned previously.

This country is surely in for very scary times in the future if these people get control of all three branches of government.

Read this on FARK's discussion thread...

"Why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

Both of those are some of the worst things I've read. Seriously.

On the former, the SCOTUS' job is to uphold the Constitutionality of the laws. That's what they're there for. Secondly - how is this dangerous? If the law is unConstitutional, it should be recinded. No if's, and's, or but's.

On the second - the right, as they interpreted it, has absolutely nothing to do with need nor self-defense. It's about whether or not this is an individual right.

It's like he wasn't there.