Well, I can be happy for a conservative Supreme Court for at least this reason...

[outsider]

We have the individual right to own guns and it isn't tied to service in the militia, which most of us knew anyways.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Guns.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[TheZenMan]

Awesome.

[HaloGuardian]

meh, reading Scalia's "affirmative" opinion he sounded like a clueless person debating gun laws instead of the real meaning of the 2nd amendment. He supports laws restricting what type of arms you choose to bear, and regulate and grant you 2nd amendment "rights" license.

[The Bagel]

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/large/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

[TheZenMan]

Oh sorry, I meant to say meh too.

I didn't mean to sound pleased or hopeful in any way. I want you to see me as the cynical mad kid who's dissatisfied with all of life.

That way I can always place blame outside of me.

[HaloGuardian]

I'd rather not give my honest opinion and give a one word answer. I'd rather pretend the ruling was a good thing, when in reality it wasn't. Let's pretend everything is OK, the economy is great, etc. then it will all be ok. The only way we will have real change and freedom is when more people realize the crap that is passed off as freedom really isn't. It has nothing to do with being cynical or blaming people. I am hopeful because I've read many different people's opinions online that are very similar to mine and I believe more people are seeing what I see and want real freedom.

Did you read any of what they court actually said?

[outsider]

They couldn't rule on any of that other stuff. It isn't why it was brought to the SCOTUS. It was brought to the SCOTUS by appeal, which generally is the only way a case can get brought to them for domestic issues unless it was a state vs state issue and the can only make a ruling based on the appeal. So while some of them may have wanted to make it legal to own firearms without any sort of registration that isn't why it was brought to them. It's similar to going to Taco Bell and ordering a bacon cheeseburger.

[HaloGuardian]

The ruling set many precedents which will be used in future cases including the defense of stringent gun control laws. Instead of clearly stating that the government contract (The US Constitution) between individuals and the government acknowledges that you are born with the right to bear arms he clearly stated that arms are only what the government/court says they are. It's not guns that are the same class as military weapons, it's not machine guns, it is whatever peashooter or pellet gun the government decides you can have. That isn't a right, that's a permission slip.

[outsider]

No, what they ruled on is the individual right to bear arms in the affirmative. They expressed some opinions on gun ownership but that isn't what they ruled on. They ruled that a city or a state can't enact a law that denies the right to own firearms and also ruled that one need not store weapons with trigger locks or disassembled. They also acknowledged previous court precedent which courts are prone to do in our judicial system as covering what sorts of arms we may carry. What you would have to do is prove that a weapon is in common use, which should include automatics though they aren't specific in that regards and seem to feel contrary. Which while federal laws may not be appropriate for it state laws would be.

This is opposed to the oddly popular notion that the right was only meant to include those in a militia which means states/cities would be free to ban them.

[HaloGuardian]

Why does it have to be "common use"? It doesn't say that in our constitution.

That is what irked me most about the ruling. He basically upheld the previous rulings and laws limiting what kind of "arms" you choose to bear. It wasn't required that he adress that, but he chose to, and I feel this ruling will cause more harm than good. Now anyone, like myself, who believes that people should be able to own any type of weapons without permission slips (permits) will be pushed aside because, according to Justice Scalia, those rulings and laws were completely constitutional. They weren't.

[outsider]

That's part of the court precedent on the matter that they deferred to since such a ruling had been made.

US v. Miller is where that was made 70-80 years ago.

It wasn't their place to overturn past supreme court rulings as that wasn't what was being challenged. It's why activist judges is a fallacy in reference to the SCOTUS.

[HaloGuardian]

He's setting precedent for future rulings. I'm not saying overturn past rulings, I'm saying don't endorse them.

[outsider]

But that is how our legal system works, plus it wasn't a ruling it was a mention. To get a ruling on it you would have to appeal it specifically and hope the SCOTUS takes the case. They really can't cherry pick what they rule on.

[TheZenMan]

I'd rather not give my honest opinion and give a one word answer. I'd rather pretend the ruling was a good thing, when in reality it wasn't. Let's pretend everything is OK, the economy is great, etc. then it will all be ok. The only way we will have real change and freedom is when more people realize the crap that is passed off as freedom really isn't. It has nothing to do with being cynical or blaming people. I am hopeful because I've read many different people's opinions online that are very similar to mine and I believe more people are seeing what I see and want real freedom.

Did you read any of what they court actually said?

Yes, I did. And I say:


Oh sorry, I meant to say meh too.

I didn't mean to sound pleased or hopeful in any way. I want you to see me as the cynical mad kid who's dissatisfied with all of life.

That way I can always place blame outside of me.

Bitch.

[Wagonburner]

There is absolutely nothing in any previous rulings or the 2nd amendment itself that says the government cannot regulate WHICH guns you are allowed. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. NOT the right to bear whatever arms you can possibly dream up shall not be infringed upon. I whole heartedly agree with this. I love guns. I bet I have more guns than anyone in here, maybe even everyone put together. I still don't think there is any NEED for people to have certain guns. Yet Scalia does sound like he has no idea of gun ownership, I was disappointed in his verbage.
The other thing is common sense would tell you that background checks are a necessity. If you are joe upstanding citizen and you want a gun, you have nothing to hide. I would say that 90% of the people I interact with every day have no business whatsoever having a gun. I can't even begin to tell you every personal anecdote on the idiots are deal with. Then to be able to put a gun in everyone of their hands. I wouldn' tbe here to talk to you. Or I would have killed dozens of people.
Some of he pro-gun people do not realize what life would be like if everyone had instant access to a tool that in the blink of an eye would kill you. Car accident? shooting. Angry over the cost of a mechanics bill? shooting? get fired? shooting(oh wait, that already happens). grades bad? shooting. bank forecloses on your house? shooting. Wife buys the wrong beer? shooting. dad won't let you have the car? shooting? neighbor prunes back the tree in your yard? shooting. I could keep going for pages and pages.

[Wagonburner]

i suppose you want this:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/521601/647097.jpg

or perhaps this:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/521601/647105.jpg

[Roguesqd23]

I bet you granny could put it between your eyes.

The girl on the other hand would be digging glass out of her eye for a week or two after she fired that thing.

[outsider]

Honestly I am in favor of private citizens being able to lawfully own any weapon employed by the government. That said I don't think anyone should have nukes at all. Yes I realize this means nutjobs get their hands on weapons that they ought not to. I also realize that laws as they are aren't stopping this from already occurring and that there is no good way to prevent this from happening.

I draw this from historical context and the words of various people who helped write the second amendment for what their intent was.

I tend to think violent criminals shouldn't be able to own firearms for a period of time, nor should those with certain mental disorders. While on one hand I can sort of get behind gun registration all I think it ends up doing is that it makes it easier to remove weapons from those who obey the law without any significant impact on fighting crime or criminals possessing weapons. I'm not opposed to background checks as long as they only screen for violent crimes. Someone who wrote a bad check shouldn't be barred from having firearms, same as someone who smuggled pepper into jail and got charged with a class c felony of possession of contraband.

[HaloGuardian]

Do kids/disabled people really have the right to keep/bear arms? Can a child/disabled person make decisions, like creating contracts, owning property, or even deciding to take up arms and understand their actions and consequenses?

If they aren't capable of making decisions or capable of owning an "arm" than the local government should decide on a case by case basis that they aren't capable. The same people would also not be capable to go online and purchase an arm, or drive to the store and purchase one. Someone would have to be enabling them, and this person would be forcing an arm on someone who isn't capable of consenting for this to happen. It would be the same principle as a store selling crack to 6 year old, or a teacher sexually abusing a disabled student.

[Wagonburner]

I'm not opposed to background checks as long as they only screen for violent crimes. Someone who wrote a bad check shouldn't be barred from having firearms, same as someone who smuggled pepper into jail and got charged with a class c felony of possession of contraband.

i would agree with this. i know someonewho can't get a gun because he refuses to pay his ex the child support he was forced into. he is super rich and has a trust fund all set up for the kid, gives him $$ all the time, and the kid(who is 14) is totally happy. why? because its like 10,000 a month and she uses it to live off of and doesn't work and none of it goes to the kid.