Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

chevydriver1123 said:

Good, now its time to challenge all the state bull**** gun laws.

Click to expand...

So true. We can carry concealed in Texas, but open carry is illegal. I suppose they worry about guns in plain sight getting stolen (like a purse snatch). Too bad. It's not their problem, nor their right to ban open carry.

Mickey Shane said:

So true. We can carry concealed in Texas, but open carry is illegal. I suppose they worry about guns in plain sight getting stolen (like a purse snatch). Too bad. It's not their problem, nor their right to ban open carry.

Click to expand...

I never could understand the logic in that.

Mickey Shane said:

Yes, unless you are a convicted felon you have the right to own guns. I believe Chicago and DC are the only areas that have mandated restrictions to the 2nd amendment. Those restrictions need to be abolished.

Click to expand...

What other Constitutional rights can felons be denied, once they've served their sentence? What's so special about the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote that they can be denied, when every other Constitutional right applies to ex-cons?

Korimyr the Rat said:

What other Constitutional rights can felons be denied, once they've served their sentence? What's so special about the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote that they can be denied, when every other Constitutional right applies to ex-cons?

Click to expand...

In many places, they cannot vote as well. Certain felons must notify the public as to where they live.
Their relevant rights were denied thru due process, as part of their sentence.

American said:

Nice try, but you want to interpret the Constitution the way you see fit....and not according to those that authored it.

Click to expand...

Yet the Founders understood that interpretation would be necessary, as not all future things could possibly be included. This is where YOU miss the boat.

Korimyr the Rat said:

What other Constitutional rights can felons be denied, once they've served their sentence? What's so special about the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote that they can be denied, when every other Constitutional right applies to ex-cons?

Click to expand...

See this is why I figure it like this:

If we can trust them to be out among the general public again, then we can trust them with the right to bear arms... after all, they're likely to arm themselves anyway, legal or not.

If we CAN'T trust them with the right to legally bear arms, then WHY the heck did we let them out of prison in the first place???

American said:

You're right, not point in discussing what the Founders obviously said, which leaves little to interpret. Don't think they didn't know their words wouldn't be dissected by posterity.

Click to expand...

But, your overly simplistic argument assumes that the Founders would be cool with you being able to - without restriction - own tanks and nuclear bombs. Something tells me they wouldn't worry too much about such restrictions.

Everyone comes up with these hypotheticals about the way guns protect them, but I've never encountered a situation where I would have felt better with one; and I've lived in large cities more than half of my life.

I think there is a right to bear arms, under the premises of a well-regulated militia. Rifles and handguns are cool. I just don't want one, nor do I need one, nor are you bringing one on my property. Enjoy the decision.

megaprogman said:

Yes. Inane emotionality is a part of human nature and any political system that fails to account for it is flawed, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Emotion should be accounted for, as it is a debate starter. Logic should always be applied in the end.

I think "productive" in the context you are using it is flawed. I don't see society accurately being split between net contributers and net noncontributers. Everyone contributes something, love and comfort to another individual if nothing else. Even people with mental handicap can make life better for someone else.

Click to expand...

Well, I concede that everyone has value in that at least in their own circle of influence their presence is important. The disabled try their best and I exempt them from my stance as they are suffering circumstances beyond their control, by productive however I am using this specifically in the vein of where socialism tries to define the line. To me, if you are able bodied and refuse to live without government handouts you are not productive, this is furthered when we add the fact that someone who is trying to build the best life they can for themselves has to work even harder to pay the taxes that come from it, no one that I personally know would punish those that have life altering disabilities that make maximum productivity impossible.

Now we are getting to the meat of it I think. Stuff that is proven to work in terms of making society better.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and this means the argument is settled, and beyond a shadow of a doubt it is an equal and provable benefit. Back to topic, no one has proven that gun control fits that criteria.

I don't really like it either, but I think its true. I think we have to look at the stuff we like and don't like and engineer solutions taking everything into account if we are going to have a great society.

Click to expand...

I am hoping though that the shock that has been this current leadership, and I will throw in the GOP congress from around '02-'06 as well and the absolutely horrid job they have done will maybe wake people up permanently. I have hope on this because the high court has been hearing many more core constitution issues rather than the niche ones in the nineties, as well I am hearing more talk about proper governance from former fence leaners than ever before. Fingers crossed people.

Goshin said:

See this is why I figure it like this:

If we can trust them to be out among the general public again, then we can trust them with the right to bear arms... after all, they're likely to arm themselves anyway, legal or not.

If we CAN'T trust them with the right to legally bear arms, then WHY the heck did we let them out of prison in the first place???

Click to expand...

You'd trust them with a gun before a vote?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yet the Founders understood that interpretation would be necessary, as not all future things could possibly be included. This is where YOU miss the boat.

Click to expand...

That's known as the Amendment process. If the Constitution needs changed, Amend it. "Interpreting" it out of anything like it was orginally intended to be is not an option, not without Amendments.

Goshin said:

See this is why I figure it like this:

If we can trust them to be out among the general public again, then we can trust them with the right to bear arms... after all, they're likely to arm themselves anyway, legal or not.

If we CAN'T trust them with the right to legally bear arms, then WHY the heck did we let them out of prison in the first place???

Click to expand...

I like the clemency option for former inmates, but the process shouldn't be at the whim of a board, it should be routine and available to anyone and a streamlined process. As well, non-violent felonies should not equal a due process loss of BOR protections upon release from prison.

FilmFestGuy said:

You'd trust them with a gun before a vote?

Click to expand...

Don't think I mentioned voting.... but since you ask, I believe that if we let them out of prison, that all their rights as a citizen should be restored.

If we don't figure we can safely do so, don't let them out.

I would prefer to see crimes like carjacking, forcible rape, armed robbery, and attempted murder carry life-without-parole sentences. Basically anything that involves the threat of death to innocent citizens and indicates a individual who is utterly careless of other's rights and lives.

FilmFestGuy said:

You'd trust them with a gun before a vote?

Click to expand...

What part of his post gave you that impression?

Tucker Case said:

What part of his post gave you that impression?

Click to expand...

My theory on crime, punishment, and restoration of rights is kind of a holistic thing, and it all hangs together.

1. Life without parole for the first offense of any serious violent crime indicating a criminal lack of regard for the lives of others: armed robbery, forcible rape, armed carjacking, hot burglary, etc. (premeditated murder, imho, should usually result in death.)

2. Everyone else is eligible for parole after a period of time, but parole isn't automatic. You have to earn it.

3. Only relatively minor offenders would be paroled, and thus there would be little danger in restoring to them all their normal rights as a citizen.

I don't necessarily support the full restoration of all rights under the current mess, where habitual criminals are sometimes released when there is no reason to believe them rehabilitated.

Goshin said:

My theory on crime, punishment, and restoration of rights is kind of a holistic thing, and it all hangs together.

1. Life without parole for the first offense of any serious violent crime indicating a criminal lack of regard for the lives of others: armed robbery, forcible rape, armed carjacking, hot burglary, etc. (premeditated murder, imho, should usually result in death.)

2. Everyone else is eligible for parole after a period of time, but parole isn't automatic. You have to earn it.

3. Only relatively minor offenders would be paroled, and thus there would be little danger in restoring to them all their normal rights as a citizen.

I don't necessarily support the full restoration of all rights under the current mess, where habitual criminals are sometimes released when there is no reason to believe them rehabilitated.

Click to expand...

You know, except for the fact that I refuse to consider life without parole a legitimate sentence-- you should either have a plan for how to rehabilitate them or you should put a bullet in them-- I like your approach here. There's a reason they're called the Department of Corrections, and that should be their primary purpose in dealing with convicts.

Goshin said:

1. Life without parole for the first offense of any serious violent crime indicating a criminal lack of regard for the lives of others: armed robbery, forcible rape, armed carjacking, hot burglary, etc. (premeditated murder, imho, should usually result in death.)

Click to expand...

The moral issues of this policy notwithstanding, I think it would be impossible to pay for something like this. Unless you're also planning on releasing all nonviolent drug criminals.

Korimyr the Rat said:

You know, except for the fact that I refuse to consider life without parole a legitimate sentence-- you should either have a plan for how to rehabilitate them or you should put a bullet in them-- I like your approach here. There's a reason they're called the Department of Corrections, and that should be their primary purpose in dealing with convicts.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I tend to think that way also, but when I say it Certain Overly Compassionate Persons totally freak out on me. :mrgreen:

Guy Incognito said:

The moral issues of this policy notwithstanding, I think it would be impossible to pay for something like this. Unless you're also planning on releasing all nonviolent drug criminals.

Click to expand...

I tend to favor some form of legalization, along with regulation of supply-chain, for many forms of recreational drugs, so yeah I'd be okay with releasing most drug offenders who had committed no violent crimes or serious felonies. I would consider high-level drug trafficking to be an exception: you don't get that high up in the drug supply chain without killing some folks, whether you got caught or not...

Goshin said:

To be honest, I tend to think that way also, but when I say it Certain Overly Compassionate Persons totally freak out on me. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

That's because they totally miss the "rehabilitate" part while they're stamping their feet over the "put a bullet in them" part. Honestly, for all of the extra crimes in which I'd recommend the death penalty, there'd be far fewer executions than there are now-- because most people would have gotten fixed up before they reached the "put a bullet in them" stage.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yet the Founders understood that interpretation would be necessary, as not all future things could possibly be included. This is where YOU miss the boat.

Click to expand...

There's two sides to this.
Interpretation to clarify terms or whatnot is a certain necessity - but interpretation that broadens the power of the federal government is not.
This is, after all, why there is an amendment process and the 10th amendment.

chevydriver1123 said:

I never could understand the logic in that.

Click to expand...

You have to cover the firearm so it doesn't spook, jump out of the holster and shoot anyone.

Jerry said:

You have to cover the firearm so it doesn't spook, jump out of the holster and shoot anyone.

Click to expand...

:lamo



tencharacters

Tucker Case said:

There were something like 29 shootings in Chicago over the weekend, yet Daley continues to tell us that the ban is working. :roll:

Click to expand...

Bugsy Daley is the type of scum that the founders had in mind when they wanted to make sure that every freeman was armed and knew how to use a weapon

texmaster said:

It nearly was. Thats why its so scary to even consider liberals on the bench. They don't care what the law says. They want to enact social justice in their own image.

Click to expand...

what is most amazing is the BS Breyer has spewed in these two cases. He argues that a fundamental right should be modified based on the current environment. In other words, if you are in a high crime area you might have less second amendment rights than someone living in a peaceful GOP run rural area. Of course, using that logic we could say

1) if a criminal is particularly viscious he should be denied miranda rights and should be tortured while someone who is merely accused of say shoplifting and has no record should be entitled his complete 5th and 6th amendment rights

2) political speech that is more palatable to most people gets more protection than speech that upsets the majority

3) Catholics and Baptists should have more protection under the first amendment than say the Baha'ai faith or wiccans.

Deuce said:

Yes, liberals are generally more in favor of restriction on owning firearms, but it's the "rabid" part that is a fabrication. Saying "Yeah, registering guns is a good idea we should make people register their guns" is not the same as LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS BECAUSE THEY HATE FREEDOM.

Click to expand...

registration is the tool that facilitates confiscation. every group or individual that wants confiscation supports registration. Most of those groups or people also deny that they want confiscation because that would cause even simple minded sheep to oppose their preliminary schemes.

registration serves no useful purpose and many nefarious ones./ If you support registration you support or promote the path towards confiscation even if that is not your current intent