Disarming the people is one of the most vital steps towards totalitarian rule. I find it humorous that most people who support the right to own a gun do so to protect themselves against some wacko on the street or a home invasion. I'm not sure if this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the 2nd amendment. "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." It was clearly meant to protect you from the government. Big brother is a far bigger threat than a psycho on the loose with a pistol. Why is this never brought up by the people who want this amendment to disappear?
I'll give you my take. The left knows darn well the intent of the 2nd amendment and the mind of the Framers. It's the idea of folks shooting for freedom that scares the shit out of pinko Dems. Who would use arms to take down an oppresive government? Right wingers. It is US they want to disarm rather than criminals.
I believe Australia is now finding that out the hard way. 5 to 4 is still way to close for me. Glad Justice Kennedy got up on the right side of his bed. Our selection of candidates this election really sucks, but the closeness of the court will be a reason for me to not sit out this election, which I have been tempted to do. I would like to keep my constitutional rights as long as possible. I agree with those who say the 2nd amendmant was put in place to protect us from the gov. Why would the gov care if honest citizens want to protect themselves and their property? Seems to me they wouldn't want an armed citizenry if they desire more control, or as a previous poster stated....totalitarianism
The decision will mostly negatively affect criminals who will have to "work" much harder to victimize innocents. There may be a bump up in the number of people who are the victims of accidental shootings from honest gun owners, but this is a small price IMHO for liberty and freedom. Most importantly, our Constitution was trampled on a little bit less today. I pray for the day the Supreme Court will start defending the 10th Amendment.
If you wish to take over - shakespeare said the first thing you do is kill all the lawyers. This famous quote is actually a compliment to lawyers and I think it is should but included in a conversation about gun control. As long as you have the courts and lawyers working you have a chance. When they go you are at the mercy of the army unless you are well armed.
I'm afraid the legal profession and judiciary in general seem more concerned about the "rights" of terrorists held by the government than ordinary citizens. While the federal judiciary lacks the means to enforce its orders and so may be a marginally lesser threat than the executive branch, they are still a threat. They seem to erode our constitutional right to a democratic form of government at will. Whether it is micromanaging the conduct of war or reading the Takings Clause out of the Constitution, they are pretty much the enemy of ordinary voters. This latest Gitmo case is an example. The congress had enacted a specific law withdrawing jurisdiction from the courts for these cases, but the Court just ignored it. The President would be fully justified in ignoring the Court's decision. Let the congress either impeach him or be complicit in handing over more power to the Court.
Bullshit. The Courts questioned the right of Congress in thier suspending aspects of common law, whether they were exceeding the bounds of the Constitution and Suspension Clause. They uphold their learn-ed and considered findings and so they should. Supreme Court Upholds Right to Own A Gun You agree with that, so of course were congress to ever try messing with gun restriction the court would not have been " micromanaging" an executive branch ruling " The police in NO tried to do it in the wake of Katrina before the courts stopped them." Oh, the Court's stopped them so no "micromanagement" there either. But GITMO is micromanaging. Why? Because you don't like A-Rabs and don't agree with the Court questioning Congress of being in danger of enacting arbitrary government in attempting to remove common law from statute without recourse, contrary to the Constitution and outside the bounds of the Suspension Clause? The Court considers the executive branch is overstepping the mark by potentially removing a Court's legal jurisdiction without question. No Court should rebuff the executive branch on Constitutional or lawful specifics? And just where the hell would you go for your right to "micromanage" a democratic form of government at will, when a Court does not "micromanage" any longer, and you wake one day to find your estate got confiscated by acts of Congress, without any accusation made against you, and you are thrown into prison with no right to trial on pretences in statute under suspected terrorist / protecting the people /crap in the form of a patriot act for instance. Or God forbid, they take your gun away! What system can then protect your Common Law rights? The one that tried to remove them? Or the process that denies their violations, each time executive chickens step a little closer home to roost. Courts are the enemy of the people until one is needed.
I think I may be on the same side as STU for the first time. If the U.S. Supreme Ct says the Executive branch is overstepping in GITMO- you can be damn fricken sure these guys are concerned about our fundamental rights being ignored (in reality or potentially) by an over zealous executive/military. The court had to lay this precedent down. Our unfettered right as citizens to get our day in court must not be abrogated in any manner and we can leave no daylight for such a move. The ability to label someone a terrorist and strip rights must very narrowly tailored if it is to be allowed at all. If Habeus Corpus laws are not protected now when would the be? How would we know we could not be stopped screwed with and called terrorists to coverup for police over zealousness. I trust neither republicans or democrats on this one. If the court erred on the side of caution - I l really do thank God. If you do not agreement with me than you never worked for a district attorneys office or other type of law enforcement. They have so much power to screw you - I am amazed it does not happen more often. The courts have to protect our rights very zealously on this one - because the police or the military are in charge of the evidence and the arrest/restriction of movement.
I don't know if I'm speaking for AAA but I think this is a point he'd agree with (or it's one he may have been making). The decision on Gitmo is through the lens of a Court that sees no clear and present danger posed by the imprisoned combatants. I have no doubt that if American subways or malls were being blown up on a regular basis the Court would be less inclined to worry about legal standings and rights. IOW's at this juncture in the War on Terror this was a safe decision. Wanna bet if this was WWll and the issue was internment the ruling would be different? I'm agnostic on this affair. As a libertarian I like the decision but as a pragmatic American I'd probably have a policy of kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Just the fact that Gitmo is a cause celebre' of the left makes me puke when I think how Demo icons FDR, HST and LBJ treated enemy combatants. At least the prisoners at Gitmo get to live and tell about it.