U.s. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In 2nd Amendment Case

overlord1 · March 18, 2008

For those of you interested, and I would hope most freedom loving Americans would be, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments today in District of Columbia vs. Heller. This is the most important 2nd Amendment case ever heard by the Court. At issue is whether Washington D.C.'s prohibition on lawful gun ownership is unconstitutional. D.C. attorneys claim the 2nd Amendment protects only a collective right to possess firearms (such as service in a militia) while the respondents argue it is an individual right just like the other Constitutional amendments. Most legal scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. The writings by the authors of our Constitution also support this thought. Most of the Amicus briefs filed in the case support the individual right theory and I am hopeful that the Justices will agree. The bed wetting, anti-gun liberals fear that if D.C.'s law is struck down it will cast doubt on most gun control laws across the country. I hope they are correct. As a law abiding citizen I should be able to own and carry my firearm whenever and where ever I please with very few exceptions. "An armed society is a polite society".

SKYrado03 · March 18, 2008

All human situations have their inconveniences.

We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse..... Benjamin Franklin

An age old argument....The right of the citizens to keep and bare arms.

When the equation involves people, some fail to realize the responsibilities that come with ownership.

Put me in the, yes column.

s-ten · March 18, 2008

As a law abiding citizen I should be able to own and carry my firearm whenever and where ever I please with very few exceptions.

I agree 100%.

gvbhunt · March 18, 2008

As a law abiding citizen I should be able to own and carry my firearm whenever and where ever I please with very few exceptions.

I agree 100%.

Agreed.

And exceptions being anyplace there are children (schools, parks, daycares, places like that) or anyplace that explicitly posts and prohibits it.

Zembonez · March 18, 2008

As a law abiding citizen I should be able to own and carry my firearm whenever and where ever I please with very few exceptions.

I agree 100%.

Agreed.

And exceptions being anyplace there are children (schools, parks, daycares, places like that) or anyplace that explicitly posts and prohibits it.

I'm sure nobody will all be surprised to find out that I agree!

The first few waves of people coming after MY guns will resemble a new Denali grille.

Of course, I mean that in the politest way!

jnpaddison · March 18, 2008

you can have my guns and ammo - ammo first

edit - theme song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itfms556DgE

Beatles - Happiness is a warm gun ..

marine_devildog801 · March 18, 2008

I work in law enforcement so when i get certified this won't affect me (as i'll carry a firearm and badge everywhere). HOWEVER, until then i'll agree with Jim on this one... They'll be integrated with my front bumper if they try to take my guns. I'll fight for this ALWAYS 100%.

SKYrado03 · March 18, 2008

I work in law enforcement so when i get certified this won't affect me (as i'll carry a firearm and badge everywhere). HOWEVER, until then i'll agree with Jim on this one... They'll be integrated with my front bumper if they try to take my guns. I'll fight for this ALWAYS 100%.

I think this is what your saying.

And, I may be wrong.

But once your certified, you will have to obey the letter of the land, to what jurisdiction your tied to.

And if the perp dosn't have a license to carry, you have to bust'em........right.....wrong?

What about shotguns, rifles,sidearms, that are kept in the home?

gvbhunt · March 19, 2008

What about shotguns, rifles,sidearms, that are kept in the home?

Sounds like breaking and entering. Let them come get them.

"Trespassers get shot then eaten"

or

"This home is guarded by Smith and Wesson 3 days a week. You guess which 3"

carneyman · March 19, 2008

They can try to pry my guns from my cold dead fingers, but my wife will probably shoot them...

SoCalChris · March 19, 2008

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.

The way I look at it, the amendment very clearly states that it is the right of the people, not the right of a state controlled militia to keep and bear arms.

Besides, this was put into the Bill of Rights as a way to keep the government in check. Why would you put an amendment meant to keep the government in check under the control of the government itself?

chakis24 · March 19, 2008

i side with the people, people should be able to own guns. however, i dont think its necessary for people outside of the military to own ak47's, or m16's, or anything of that nature. a pistol/rifle/shotgun even serve their purpose just fine, you dont need an assault rifle for anything, except for mowing down people.

overlord1 · March 19, 2008

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.

The way I look at it, the amendment very clearly states that it is the right of the people, not the right of a state controlled militia to keep and bear arms.

Besides, this was put into the Bill of Rights as a way to keep the government in check. Why would you put an amendment meant to keep the government in check under the control of the government itself?

Chris,

The problem with your argument is that it makes perfect sense and is logical. Logic and good sense to liberals is like kryptonite to Superman; they must avoid it at all costs. It does appear that the Justices were very skeptical of D.C.'s gun ban and seemed to favor the individual right theory. You can read the transcript of the arguments before the Supreme Court at the NRA-ILA website.

marine_devildog801 · March 19, 2008

I think this is what your saying.
And, I may be wrong.

But once your certified, you will have to obey the letter of the land, to what jurisdiction your tied to.

And if the perp dosn't have a license to carry, you have to bust'em........right.....wrong?

What about shotguns, rifles,sidearms, that are kept in the home?

being in law enforcement i WILL have to give my guns up, they'll have a helluva time takin them i'll assure you of that, but if I can't have them i'll be DAMN sure nobody else does. if i do catch someone with guns or whatnot they will go to jail and be punished to the full extent of the law. However, after work I will fight for this freedom 100%. Bein a cop doesn't mean ya have to necessarily agree with what you have to do ALL the time. I guarentee the sheriff himself wouldn't agree with this right being taken away but he's still gonna be the sheriff cause thats what he loves to do.

gvbhunt · March 19, 2008

i side with the people, people should be able to own guns. however, i dont think its necessary for people outside of the military to own ak47's, or m16's, or anything of that nature. a pistol/rifle/shotgun even serve their purpose just fine, you dont need an assault rifle for anything, except for mowing down people.

The true AK-47 is Full auto capable. The ones that you can get at gun shows are not. The M-16 is Full Auto. Both require a class3 firearms license to sell/purchase. Some states also require you to have a C&R license (Curio and Relic) to purchase them. No Average Joe has something like that. You have to go thru quite a bit of background checking from the ATF to get those licenses.

Also, and this reply does not pertain to this quote, "If guns are outlaw'd then only outlaws (law enforcement not included) would have guns."

Just my $.02