2nd Amendment

[Madison]

My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.

I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it.

[deerayfan072]

My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.

I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it.

The scary part was their supposed reasoning. They have no argument and they are using things that are not in the constitution. I can disagree with Scalia, but when you read his briefs you at least understand where he is coming from and can see his argument, even if it is wrong. With these other Justices you just don't see the Constitutional argument. It is pretty sad.

[houstonherdfan]

AS IT SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION.

However at present it does NOT make his state less safe. The law didn't doing anything to the present laws in NJ. In addition, all the conversation regarding the laws this decision might efect came from other states other than NJ not one mention of this affecting his state. If there was a law in his state that was affected by this then yea I could understand his statement.

once again, you need to reread his statement. He is not saying his state is less safe. Not once, nowhere... you keep adding that out of nowhere. He is saying this effects the safety of all communities. You disagree with this, which is cool... but he says nothing about it making his state less safe.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

how is it that the part of the statement above I bolded makes you believe that he said nothing about it making his state less safe. Me thinks you misread his quote.

He specifically mentions his state and goes on to generalize to the rest of the country.

[treat24]

AS IT SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION.

However at present it does NOT make his state less safe. The law didn't doing anything to the present laws in NJ. In addition, all the conversation regarding the laws this decision might efect came from other states other than NJ not one mention of this affecting his state. If there was a law in his state that was affected by this then yea I could understand his statement.

once again, you need to reread his statement. He is not saying his state is less safe. Not once, nowhere... you keep adding that out of nowhere. He is saying this effects the safety of all communities. You disagree with this, which is cool... but he says nothing about it making his state less safe.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

how is it that the part of the statement above I bolded makes you believe that he said nothing about it making his state less safe. Me thinks you misread his quote.

He specifically mentions his state and goes on to generalize to the rest of the country.

Firstly, you failed to bold "and across the country." Which means that he is talking about the whole country including his state. And you said

The law has not changed in his home state how could it have made his state less safe?"

What he is saying is that his state, and all states could be safer, but the justices put rigid ideology ahead of safety. He is not saying that this decision has made his state less safe than it currently is, rather not as safe as it could be. I am reading his quote correctly.

All of this is just semantics about what this Senator said about it, the main point is that you disagree. He thinks this would have made the country safer. You think upholding the 2nd keeps the country safer. What is more important than this discussion of what this senator is saying is the decision itself, where the votes came from, and their reasoning.

[stomperrob]

Ruling may offer lawyers years of full employment
By Michael Doyle
McClatchy Newspapers
Article Launched: 06/27/2008 12:30:00 AM MDT


tWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's landmark decision Thursday striking down the District of Columbia's gun ban will have wide-ranging legal, political and public safety consequences.

The court's 5-4 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller poses myriad questions for which answers are still a work in progress. Here are some of them.

Q. Does this eliminate all gun restrictions?

A. No. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's majority, stressed that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an "unlimited" right to bear arms. Scalia cited as legitimate long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, as well as bans on carrying firearms into schools and government buildings.

Q. But the ruling will extend beyond Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, right?

A. Yes, although not right away. The latest federal compilation of state and local firearm laws is some 458 pages long, and it was published in 2005, so it's not up to date. An untold number of these existing laws will be subject to challenge. This will take time and money as lawsuits are filed and ordinances are revised.

con't...

rest of article: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9712756

[Omaha Red Sox]

My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.

I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it.

Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.

[deerayfan072]

My biggest concern though is that 4 supreme court justices voted agaisnt the reaffirmation.

I agree, that is very concerning. Should have easily been a 9-0 vote to uphold the constitution. Very scary that 4 voted against it.

Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.

depends on what side of the issue you are on

[Omaha Red Sox]

Actually, I think most votes end up 4-5.

depends on what side of the issue you are on

4-5, 5-4, whatever. I think nearly every time I hear about a vote in Congress, it's always 4-5, 5-4.

Smartass.

[BGbootha]

The second amendment is nothing more than a relic left in our constitution, it is historically mis used and misrepresented. Our forefathers did not write the second amendment in a world view that exists today.

It drives me crazy that we look at the constitution without realizing the historical tenants in which it was written.

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.

I am not sure private gun owners make up a well regulated militia, nor are they necessary to the security of a free state.

But hey, it our constitution and we can't change that right?!? We just need to pick and choose which part of the sentences work for us.

Now that I think about it....how about this....you want to own a gun fine!!! Thats your right thanks to the constitution...but now instead of a background check and all that jazz, you first have to take your gun join a militia and head over to Iraq for a year, when you get back you can keep your gun.

[deerayfan072]

The second amendment is nothing more than a relic left in our constitution, it is historically mis used and misrepresented. Our forefathers did not write the second amendment in a world view that exists today.

It drives me crazy that we look at the constitution without realizing the historical tenants in which it was written.

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.

I am not sure private gun owners make up a well regulated militia, nor are they necessary to the security of a free state.

But hey, it our constitution and we can't change that right?!? We just need to pick and choose which part of the sentences work for us.

Now that I think about it....how about this....you want to own a gun fine!!! Thats your right thanks to the constitution...but now instead of a background check and all that jazz, you first have to take your gun join a militia and head over to Iraq for a year, when you get back you can keep your gun.

That has nothing to do with this ruling. Scalia even said so himself. This has to do with a law that BANNED ALL TOGETHER the rights of people to own guns. You see people talking on the TV (mainly liberals) about how this erodes the background checks and other gun laws. Good luck in the court system trying to stretch this court ruling to mean that you can require background checks.

The reason for the second amendment if you do look at historical significance goes back to the US freeing themselves from Britain. Part of the US has always been your right to protect yourself from the government, by force if need be. They allowed people to have weapons just in case they needed to rise up against the government.