Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns

no one cares about the Iraq mess, or 10 trillion dollars of debt, or bush ruining education or tramping on the constitution, but goddammit, don't take away my right to shoot my neighbor!

god bless America.. what a joke

Listen you Wacko Bush hating blame America first Democrats, the Supreme Court Just ruled that I can keep my guns so watch out!

The story didn't say, and I always wonder how to draw the line on what weapons society should allow to its responsible members.

I am not trying to pick a side, but rather trying to figure out how to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not.

Is the line drawn at hand guns? What about semi-automatic? What about fully automatic? How many rounds can be fired in what time frame? How big can the bullets be? What about automatic crossbows? What about exploding bullets. How big can the explosions be? How does that differentiate between a missile that explodes? How big of a missile should be allowed?

How much explosive can be allowed. Are there limits on the weapon in terms of it finding its target? Can integrated circuits be used to recognize targets and explode at the target?

The question is as much about how the line is drawn as it is where the line is drawn.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Is he kidding?? That's EXACTLY what the Constitution is for - to limit the powers of government over the people. What a baffoon.

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Yeah, and where's the evidence that the Framers wanted terrorists covered by the Constitution?

Those four dissenting "justices" (Stephens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter) are guided only by their personal ideology, with no regard for the actual content of the Constitution.

Obama Lies wrote:

Listen you Wacko Bush hating blame America first Democrats, the Supreme Court Just ruled that I can keep my guns so watch out!

Why? You going to go and kill someone?

Coolmind wrote:

no one cares about the Iraq mess, or 10 trillion dollars of debt, or bush ruining education or tramping on the constitution, but goddammit, don't take away my right to shoot my neighbor!
god bless America.. what a joke

If my neighbor's about to harm my family, then no, don't take away my right to defend them. And screw you for showing the flag upside down.

Running Bear wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? You going to go and kill someone?

Not No way... Just want to defend my family...

We'll tell them the same thing we told Santa Anna. "You want our guns, come and get them!"

So do you still need a licence to carry a hand gun? I'm not to familiar with the GUN laws, but I think we should all be able to carry guns aslong as you have no criminal back ground.

IN your FACES LIBTARDS.............LOCK AND LOAD ROCK AND ROLL...........

The Second Amendment is in place to assure the right of the people to defend themselves. It is the Second Amendment that secures all of the other Amendments and the Constitution itself.

The framers were concerned about protecting the people from a government gone wild (much like the liberal democrats would like it to be) and an armed population is a free population.

The facts don't lie. We do have a large amount of legally registered firearms in this country, responsibly owned by law-abiding citizens. The cases of illegal use of "legally obtained" firearms are statistically minuscule.

On the other hand, illegally obtained and misused firearms by gangsters and other thugs are not registered or controlled. I say the illegal users that employ a firearm with malice and forethought (first conviction with no bargaining) should go to jail for life. Don't punish the legal owners (hunters & sportsmen) that abide by the existing weapons laws (some 20 thousand of them).

Too bad the Democratic members of the California legislature are more concerned with public "perception" and maintaining their power base than actually dealing with the social issues that cause violent crime. It's much easier to blame a gun than to confront the people about their lack of responsible child rearing. Any mention of "personal responsibility" has become the third rail of politics in California. That's why democratic liberals are such panderers and liars.

Let Freedom Ring !!!

New England wrote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Is he kidding?? That's EXACTLY what the Constitution is for - to limit the powers of government over the people. What a baffoon.
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Yeah, and where's the evidence that the Framers wanted terrorists covered by the Constitution?
Those four dissenting "justices" (Stephens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter) are guided only by their personal ideology, with no regard for the actual content of the Constitution.

RIGHT ON THE HEAD..........the constitution is set in stone..........the only ones trying to change it are the libtards........what part of shall not be infringed dont the libs understand......the next thing you know they will go to websters and demand the definition of infringed be changed to a more suitable liberal standard........screw the libs all they do is regulate life liberty and rights.........We are a free people not to be enslaved by govmnt......now if they come to your house to enforce their stupid smoking ban and try to imprison you for smoking around kids you can fight back.........nazism will not be tolerated....get ready libs your plan to disarm america is DEAD..........the voters need to wake up and kick your prohibitionist NAZI butts out of govmnt......

HARLEYRIDER1978 wrote:

IN your FACES LIBTARDS..........LOCK AND LOAD ROCK AND ROLL..........

Give me a break! This is a bi-partisan issue. Go to an NRA meeting.(or maybe AA is more up your alley based on your comment)

For the love. Who needs guns? Really, WHO NEEDS GUNS? Please spare me the right to defend myself BS. If guns were gone we wouldn't have all of this killing. No one needs guns any more than we NEED to have cars. Americans are bunch of idiots. What, I change my mind, we do need guns. To get rid of the idiots! But so far it isn't working.....

By and large, this is validation of the status quo which seems to be working except for the extremes at both ends: absurdly strict restrictions and ineffective laws/enforcement leaving guns in the hands of criminals.

this is bad news for the criminals and democrats. watch the crime rate drop in washington d.c. the next few years, especially home invasions.

Before you all start cheering - better seriously think about the individual's right to own and the State's right to regulate that individual ownership. The ruling was against a prohibition on legal ownership.

The fact of the matter is that we need gun control. There has never been any real argument for taking away guns from law abiding citizens. Some people believe that if you take away gun rights then all the criminals in the US won't have guns either; an argument that borders on retarded. We haven't been "invaded" in a very long time, and it's unlikely that will occur anytime in the near future, so assault rifles are unnecessary. Let hunters hunt, let gun hobbyists shoot up the galleries, and let the police deal with illegal carriers. Whether or not we have the right to bear arms now or in the future will not effect criminals ability to gain arms.

It's important to note though that if you carry a gun it is more likely to be used on you than on an assailant.

This was a no brainer decision. The only thing left to ponder is just HOW do we get the dissenting Justices OFF the bench? Breyer,Ginsberg,Souter,and Kennedy(NO surprise here)are a disgrace to the court they sit on and to the people who look to them for WISE and JUST decisions. My fervent wish is a sudden resignation or untimely death for all four of them. To have a dissenting view of so obvious and basic right of the people is more than shameful,it is treasonous. Since these"Justices" are appointed for life we can only hope and wish theirs' to be shortened(God willing)so we can put people on the court that KNOW the Constitution. Not interpret it to fit their personal political beliefs or agenda.