Supreme Court Ruling

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Here is some food for thought. If tomorrow your family is in danger, how will you protect them with a gun if you do not own a gun.



I guess it is all a matter of perspective and on what side of the gun one sees themselves most likely to be on. I am much more worried about a thug with a gun shooting me (or a loved one) than not having a gun myself to protect myself. This is mostly because I expect to not have enough fair notice or chance to intervene if a thug with the gun is about to shoot me (or a loved one).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am much more worried about a thug with a gun shooting me (or a loved one) than not having a gun myself to protect myself.



I agree. Some more food for thought. If guns were outlawed, like drugs are, would that stop people from owning guns illegally? We know how well the war on drugs works. Drugs are illegal and nobody in the USA purchases, uses, or sells drugs. Drugs are illegal.





Tom
 
Guns have been outlawed for years in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other American cities. That hasn't reduced the number of gun-related crimes. The criminals still find a way to obtain them.
 
Suprised no one posted this yet. The Second Amendment ala "Family Guy"



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlRqZFGM5do&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlRqZFGM5do&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Ryan, I think you need to clarify what you've said...



I think people who carry guns are cowards.



Are you saying that you think law enforcement officers, service men and women, and citizens who legally carry weapons for self-defense are cowards?
 
There is no misconception of the second ammendment if you don't corrupt the original meaning of a "militia".



When your neighbors left their house carrying a rifle and kit bag and each and every one of their neighbors joined the procession as it passed their house that was a militia. Intent on standing together for their rights.This is not an interpretation, this is what it meant.



We will never see that again in this country because everyone is too consummed by their own little personal problems to see that their right to live their life as they wish is slowly going down the drain.
 
The Supreme Court frequently oversteps its bounds interpreting the Constitution, and that overstepping can swing in any direction, on any given day, given the nature of the case, and the makeup of the court.



What I look for, when reading court decisions, is blatant dishonesty in the written opinions. I am always disappointed when I see it, because like most people, I want to believe that holders of lofty judicial posts have some allegiance to the truth. Alas, they are human beings, and while they may be intellectually gifted, they are every bit as failable as the rest of us.



From Justice Stevens dissenting opinion:



"The Court 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy ... [and] I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."



Refutation of this point is trivial:



1) The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution expressly to prevent government from infringing pre-existing rights through legislative or judicial action.



2) The various writings of the framers, the historical background, the text of several state constitutions, and academic texts such as Black's Law Dictionary make it very clear that they intended government would not be able to infringe on individual ownership of weapons for self defense and defense against abuse by government.



So, to me, Steven's comments are nothing more than a political statement, rather than a statement of fact.
 
Stevens states that the 2nd was not intended to be a tool that was used to "disarm" the government from being able to limit people's rights to firearms.



BS.



The 2nd was all about letting people keep their firearms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government (such as was created when the SCOTUS ruled that states could take away property from individuals inorder to improve tax receipts).



Stevens has basically stated that firearms ownership is strictly at the whim of Congress. Right. That's why the "right to keep and bear arms" is in the BILL OF RIGHTS.



Vermont and Connecticut both have versions of the 2nd in their constitution that state an individual right to firearms. Why is this significant? Their constitutions were ratified before the Bill of Rights was.



Montana's entrance to the Union was done by treaty. In the treaty there is an explicit right to an individual owning firearms. Why is this significant? Two reasons:

1) Montana's treaty was ratified long before the "collective rights" theory came into existance

2) Montana's entrance to the Union could have been legally null and void under contract law if the SCOTUS ruled any way other than they did.



I carry a firearm because carrying a cop is a bit of a hassle.



I keep firearms at home because I am not always there, but my wife and kids are there.



I own firearms because it's my right. Just as I exercise my 1st amendment rights on MyST.com, I exercise my 2nd amendment rights.



My nextdoor neighbor is a deputy sherriff. I don't trust that he could respond in an emergency as fast as I could.



The nice thing about Scalia's decision is that it does a pretty good job of precluding a future "Assault Weapons Ban", (because we all know how many times a bayonet mount killed somebody) or a .50 caliber ban. An argument "could" be made about NFA stuff as well, but that is another can of worms for another day.



Yes, I read all 157 pages. This website is one of 4 forums I visit daily. The other three deal with firearms. I know my stuff.



No offense Ryan (my name is Ryan as well, so you can't be bad), but firearms carrying or ownership is not cowardly. Look at the Police and Military people. Look at the hero's of old. Firearms ownership is one of the greatest honors and has some of the greatest responcibilities in human history. In your hand you can control life or death. In the United States, more than 270 million firearms are in private ownership (2007 ATF estimate). There were 10,100 firearm homicides in 2005. That is .00375%.



I personally own at least 13 (I will not give my total for obvious reasons, yes I know the real total and can rattle all of them off), more than 4 handguns, atleast 1 shotgun, more than 5 bolt-action rifles, and several semi-automatics, including the "dreaded" AK-47 (with folding stock, 30-round magazines and the deadliest feature, a bayonet mount.... oh the horror!). Most of my firearms are military surplus. I love history, especially WWII. Yes, I have a Garand. I also have more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition.



HR1022 (odd number for a gun control bill) would ban atleast 3 of the firearms I own (AK-47, M1 Garand, CZ-82 - it has a hi-cap magazine). Glad it's going NOWHERE.



The SCOTUS got the ruling right. It should have been a 9-0 decision. THere are (4) justices with a cranial-rectal inversion.

 
Looks like some other judges are already taking this ruling to heart:



Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack

Moon Says No Longer Possible For Police To Protect Citizens



posted June 27, 2008



General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."



He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself." The woman moved back in with her mother after the May 4 incident on E. 17th Street.



Judge Moon said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have a right to purchase a weapon to defend themselves, their families and their homes - unless there is some disqualification that prevents them from owning a weapon."



He said, "All area of our city are subject to crime, and some areas have very high crime rates and need to be 'overpoliced.'"



Judge Moon said Coolidge Park is one area that needs to be "overpoliced." He said, "I frequently hear of break-ins, thefts and robberies to tourists and citizens in that area. Having a high police presence there is one way you are going to abate it."



Judge Moon raised the bond for Dewayne Beard from $65,000 to $130,000 on especially aggravated robbery and from $15,000 to $50,000 on theft. He bound both cases to the Grand Jury.



The woman said she was driving on E. 17th Street when Beard came riding up on a bicycle and pulled a gold handgun on her. When she refused to get out of the car, he began hitting her in the head with the gun.



He then pulled her out and drove off with her gold 2001 Toyota Corolla.



Police found the woman semi-conscious with severe head injuries. She had to have eight stitches in her head and 10 stitches in her leg, where she was also hit.



Police located Beard at 4724 Tomahawk Dr. and arrested him as he walked out of the residence. He told officers the stolen car was being driven "by one of my goons."



Officers located the vehicle a couple of blocks away on Bella Vista Drive. Blood was found inside the vehicle, and the woman's purse was also inside.



Beard said he threw the gun out of the window while driving through Highland Park.



Beard was allowed out on an OR bond when the case was not ready for a hearing within 10 days.



On May 31, he picked up new charges of aggravated rape and aggravated burglary.



A woman said she was lying nude in her bed and a man began performing a sex act on her. She said when the man then began having sex with her using a condom, she realized it was not her boyfriend.



She said she pulled the sheets up and saw it was Beard.



That case was bound to the Grand Jury earlier.
 
When will all the people screaming and crying over the 1st, and the 3-12th amendments realize that there will be NO protection from the powers that be WITHOUT the protection of the 2nd amendment?





There is a very good reason our forefathers place the amendments in the order they did.



 
You are correct, Dale.



If an intruder breaks into your house, your 1st amendment, or 4th or 24th is not going to protect you or your family.



You can scream about a right to free speech to the guy all you want. Scream it if you want as he is strangling you to death.



Me, I'll let the person know that I use all of the amendments equally. One hand on the phone, one on my handgun. It'll be the one that holds 13 rounds. Hopefully, when the police arrive, I'll still have all 13 in the firearm.
 
I could pull out the semi-auto AK with (6) 30 round mags and folding stock.... and the deadly bayonet mount.



Or maybe the Yugoslavian SKS with the dreaded grenade launcher....and bayonet...



Or maybe the 20GA with plug removed.... 5+1 shots.....



I'm seriously considering getting a Walther P22 with Supressor. Maybe an AK74 SBR Krink.
 

Latest posts

Top