I was really surprised to see nothing here about the supreme court ruling on the gun ban in DC... I'm glad the supreme court made the correct decision here, although it's hard to see how they could have done otherwise. What surprised me was the poor voting 5-4. Clearly the 4 who voted against must not have read the 2nd amendment as neither did Obama. Kind of a blow for him too as he was the one who so strongly favored the ban in chicago/IL. He must feel like a dumbass seeing that something he was favoring turns out to be.... unconstitutional. Like I said, score 1 for freedom!!!!

Re: score 1 for freedom

Obama supported a ban for [B]assault weapons[/B]. But heay guyz, generalizations ftw!

Re: score 1 for freedom

[QUOTE=shosh;618507]I was really surprised to see nothing here about the supreme court ruling on the gun ban in DC... I'm glad the supreme court made the correct decision here, although it's hard to see how they could have done otherwise. What surprised me was the poor voting 5-4. Clearly the 4 who voted against must not have read the 2nd amendment as neither did Obama. Kind of a blow for him too as he was the one who so strongly favored the ban in chicago/IL. He must feel like a dumbass seeing that something he was favoring turns out to be.... unconstitutional. Like I said, score 1 for freedom!!!![/QUOTE]

It's not as cut and dry as you might think. Second Amendment reads as follows:

[QUOTE]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [/QUOTE]

It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it also refers to a well-regulated militia, which opens the door for reasonable regulations/restrictions upon that right. I haven't read the opinion myself and frankly don't trust media reports on court decisions because they often mess it up, but as I understand it, the Court did not rule that an individual has a completely unfettered right to own guns without any government restrictions whatsoever, but did rule that an outright ban on handguns maintained for one's personal safety was unconstitutional.

By the way, this is the first meaningful USSC decision on the Second Amendment in 200 years, so it really isn't as if this was a slam dunk one way or the other. Intelligent minds can disagree on whether or not restrictions upon a person's right to bear arms are "reasonable."

For me, I'm not a gun owner, but I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting or their personal safety, and I've thought about buying a gun to have in my house on a number of occasions. If St. Louis were to ban handguns, I'd probably buy a shotgun instead. Might mean I'd have to replace a bigger chunk of drywall if I ever had to use it, but hey, small price to pay for the safety of my family. Point is, I don't personally think it really infringes my right to bear arms all that much, but I could see how people could disagree. If I actually owned a gun, I might feel differently. I'm really on the middle on this one.

The thing I don't get is when people will amass these enormous arsenals of automatic and heavy artillery weapons for "sport" or "protection." You don't need a rocket propelled grenade to take out a deer, nor do I understand why you'd want one. Non-collectors stocking up gun after gun after gun = people you might want to look out for, IMO. reminds me of a dude I went to law school with that was caught on his way to Mexico with a trunk full of guns who said he was going "to kill all the Mexicans." That's why I think some rational restrictions are OK. You shouldn't be able to get a gun and a turkey sandwich in the same amount of time.

Re: score 1 for freedom

my 2c and i'll come back and add some more (in the middle of smth at work). yes personal safety, hunting, sport etc are good, but the 2nd amendment was created primarily with the security of the state in mind, and yes that is the militia. that is necessary for 2 reasons: protect from outside and inside sources and also ensure that govt doesnt have an entirely free reign and is subjective to the people. so yes heavier guns might also be needed. (i'll come back on this) handguns are also necessary for your safety. you might not get attacked in your house, you might get attacked while you are away, what do you do then? concealed permit ftw or open carry

Re: score 1 for freedom

[QUOTE=shosh;618532] the 2nd amendment was created primarily with the security of the state in mind, and yes that is the militia. that is necessary for 2 reasons: protect from outside and inside sources and also ensure that govt doesnt have an entirely free reign and is subjective to the people. so yes heavier guns might also be needed. (i'll come back on this) [/QUOTE]

Look, if you're going to come back and tell me that you need a bazooka in case you ever need to stage a violent uprising against the government, let me save you some keystrokes by noting that that is exactly the sort of whackjob thought-process I was referring to in the earlier post. If we're ever at a point that I'm contemplating taking up arms against my country, I probably will have already moved to Europe or somewhere in the Caribbean, because I just don't need that kind of hassle when there are tons of other perfectly lovely places to live. It's a non-issue.

Re: score 1 for freedom

the ruling was the only way to go. This will be a precedent to hold up now that at least people can own at least a basic, regular-styled handgun (maybe the checks might get a bit stiffer in some spots as a counter to this)...of course it will be stretched to try and include other things, but keeping it in perspective, rocket launchers, high-powered rifles & machine guns weren't exactly around 200 years ago :lol:

Re: score 1 for freedom

[quote=FM;618734]the ruling was the only way to go. This will be a precedent to hold up now that at least people can own at least a basic, regular-styled handgun (maybe the checks might get a bit stiffer in some spots as a counter to this)...of course it will be stretched to try and include other things, but keeping it in perspective, rocket launchers, high-powered rifles & machine guns weren't exactly around 200 years ago :lol:[/quote]

nor are they necessary. i think special permits should be required for such possessions. my 2c. but generally speaking, everyone should own a handgun. i'm pretty sure the fins do this...or some other nordic country that i can't remember right now...

btw....some interesting tidbit: the NRA opposed this suit from the get go.

Re: score 1 for freedom

i feel like going out and getting myself a Ruger Mini.