Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  Presidential Decision 2008: News & Views    Happy Now? The Supreme Court Says We Can Keep Our Guns In Our Homes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Member
Posted
 
Posts: 2783 | Registered: Thu 29 May 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of ettnes
Posted Hide Post
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
 
Posts: 389 | Registered: Mon 26 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of goshtac
Posted Hide Post
I was personally quite pleased with the outcome but not with the final 5-4 ruling. It just shows us how close we came to losing more of our constitutional rights due to some of the activist judges we have.

Hopefully this decision will make the anti-gun crowd back off on their rhetoric for awhile, but I doubt it.
 
Posts: 717 | Registered: Thu 09 November 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Far East Ambassador and Cultural Liason

Has Been 4
Picture of GunnyRet03
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by goshtac:
I was personally quite pleased with the outcome but not with the final 5-4 ruling. It just shows us how close we came to losing more of our constitutional rights due to some of the activist judges we have.

Hopefully this decision will make the anti-gun crowd back off on their rhetoric for awhile, but I doubt it.


Yeh and NoBama just has to figure out what side he sits on, on this issue. He has already done a 180. I think there is a North Easterly breeze...
 
Posts: 12808 | Registered: Fri 05 September 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Picture of Tinukedaya
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey


Most cases heard by the Supreme Court are 5-4 rulings. They don't bother hearing the case unless it is a controversial topic and this one is no exception.

The fact that the Second Amendment is so unclear in its wording made things even more difficult. I live just outside of Washington DC, so I understand what the mayor was trying to do. A whole lot of sensless killing going on and he's just trying to stop it somehow.

Personally I agree with the ruling though. I just hope Fenty can come up with another way to reduce handgun violence in the capital.
 
Posts: 197 | Registered: Tue 17 June 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Far East Ambassador and Cultural Liason

Has Been 4
Picture of GunnyRet03
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Personally I agree with the ruling though. I just hope Fenty can come up with another way to reduce handgun violence in the capital.



that will happen when the citizens are able to arm themselves.
 
Posts: 12808 | Registered: Fri 05 September 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Picture of Tinukedaya
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GunnyRet03:
quote:
Personally I agree with the ruling though. I just hope Fenty can come up with another way to reduce handgun violence in the capital.



that will happen when the citizens are able to arm themselves.


The only big problem I have with that statement is kids. No matter what anybody says, guns are dangerous to have around little kids.

You could say that they need to teach their kids to respect the guns, or proper handling. But I don't care how great a teacher you are, you will not be able to teach a 3 year old not to shoot herself in the head. Nor will you be able to teach another 3 year old to not shoot another 6 year old kid.

You could also say that people should keep their guns locked up where they are safe. But then what are you going to do when the gang busts through your door and shoots you with their handguns before you can get you gun safe unlocked?

I just think that the problem is more complicated than to be fixed by a simple "let everybody have guns then nobody will get shot" moto.
 
Posts: 197 | Registered: Tue 17 June 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of leekujawa
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
Yup, a couple more liberals on the court and you gun guys are out of luck.
 
Posts: 4940 | Registered: Thu 10 March 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post


Picture of hooah71
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
Yup, a couple more liberals on the court and you gun guys are out of luck.


Wouldn't that make you really happy, cannot say what I really want since this is a PG site, if the Supreme Court took away a right that is protected under the Constitution? Tell me master Leek, how do you enjoy that free speech of yours?
 
Posts: 4577 | Registered: Tue 22 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Basic Training
Picture of Tinukedaya
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hooah71:

Wouldn't that make you really happy, cannot say what I really want since this is a PG site, if the Supreme Court took away a right that is protected under the Constitution? Tell me master Leek, how do you enjoy that free speech of yours?


I believe the real purpose of the Supreme Court in this case was to determine if the Second Amendment, which says this:

"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."

gave ALL people the right to bear arms, or just the militia.

I do find it interesting that people certified as insane are unable to bear arms despite no mention of insane people being an exception in the Second Amendment. The court has to decide when it is reasonable to be able to limit peoples' rights and when it is not. In this case, they found that it is not.
 
Posts: 197 | Registered: Tue 17 June 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of ettnes
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
To add to this.

Can you imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed just one Justice? We most likely would have lost one of our most basic Constitutional rights today. Soo...

With possibilitly two Justice seats opening within the next presidents 1-2 terms, who would you favor to appoint the more strict of Constitutionalist judges?

Personaly I see McCain appointing moderate to slightly conservative, while Obama would go with the activist type.
 
Posts: 389 | Registered: Mon 26 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of leekujawa
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hooah71:
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
Yup, a couple more liberals on the court and you gun guys are out of luck.


Wouldn't that make you really happy, cannot say what I really want since this is a PG site, if the Supreme Court took away a right that is protected under the Constitution? Tell me master Leek, how do you enjoy that free speech of yours?
I love my free speech and practice it all the time, in case you didn't know. I have owned firearms all my life, and some are very valuable pieces in fact. However, I don't consider myself a gun guy since I am not an NRA member, nor do I agree with their politics. I'm a GDI gun owner. Also, this is not a pro-gun site. Nowhere does it say that in it's rules or guidelines. It's a site for members to sound off.
 
Posts: 4940 | Registered: Thu 10 March 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of leekujawa
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
To add to this.

Can you imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed just one Justice? We most likely would have lost one of our most basic Constitutional rights today. Soo...

With possibilitly two Justice seats opening within the next presidents 1-2 terms, who would you favor to appoint the more strict of Constitutionalist judges?

Personaly I see McCain appointing moderate to slightly conservative, while Obama would go with the activist type.
I doubt if it would have happened with Gore or Kerry, but it most certainly will with Barak, and he WILL be our next POTUS. Can't wait to hear you gun guys cry when he does.
 
Posts: 4940 | Registered: Thu 10 March 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post


Picture of hooah71
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tinukedaya:
quote:
Originally posted by hooah71:

Wouldn't that make you really happy, cannot say what I really want since this is a PG site, if the Supreme Court took away a right that is protected under the Constitution? Tell me master Leek, how do you enjoy that free speech of yours?


I believe the real purpose of the Supreme Court in this case was to determine if the Second Amendment, which says this:

"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."

gave ALL people the right to bear arms, or just the militia.

I do find it interesting that people certified as insane are unable to bear arms despite no mention of insane people being an exception in the Second Amendment. The court has to decide when it is reasonable to be able to limit peoples' rights and when it is not. In this case, they found that it is not.


I have no problem with that.
 
Posts: 4577 | Registered: Tue 22 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning"
Picture of Raunchy
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
To add to this.

Can you imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed just one Justice? We most likely would have lost one of our most basic Constitutional rights today. Soo...

With possibilitly two Justice seats opening within the next presidents 1-2 terms, who would you favor to appoint the more strict of Constitutionalist judges?

Personaly I see McCain appointing moderate to slightly conservative, while Obama would go with the activist type.
I doubt if it would have happened with Gore or Kerry, but it most certainly will with Barak, and he WILL be our next POTUS. Can't wait to hear you gun guys cry when he does.


Say, aren't you the same guy who was betting the farm that Hillary would be our next president?
 
Posts: 2916 | Registered: Mon 30 October 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Resistance to reason is futile"

"Spolia Opima"
Picture of Locutisprime
Posted Hide Post
Here you are again with the Obama cheer leading campaign Leek. I think we ought to all chip in and buy you a letter sweater and some pom poms buddy.

This is a thread about today's Supreme Court ruling on the right to keep and bear arms. Mainly the right to keep them, including in the federal liberal whaco city of DC.

5 to 4? No big deal, most of their big cases are 5-4 decisions. Just like the one two days ago on not allowing the death penalty for child rapist.

Either way, this is the presidential election forum, so how and why is the Supreme's decision on the second amendment a qualifier. Unless of course, it is permitted to be twisted into a pro Obama campaign blog, as it has already begun to slide towards.
 
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Tue 22 April 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post


Picture of hooah71
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by hooah71:
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
Yup, a couple more liberals on the court and you gun guys are out of luck.


Wouldn't that make you really happy, cannot say what I really want since this is a PG site, if the Supreme Court took away a right that is protected under the Constitution? Tell me master Leek, how do you enjoy that free speech of yours?
I love my free speech and practice it all the time, in case you didn't know. I have owned firearms all my life, and some are very valuable pieces in fact. However, I don't consider myself a gun guy since I am not an NRA member, nor do I agree with their politics. I'm a GDI gun owner. Also, this is not a pro-gun site. Nowhere does it say that in it's rules or guidelines. It's a site for members to sound off.


But you're willing to let fanatics to take away what's protected under the Constitution. Real sweet idea. Maybe when these here guns get banned you can move to China to practice that free speech of yours since that will be the next target. And if you cannot see that, I'll buy you some glasses.

quote:

It's a site for members to sound off.


I'm now not allowed to comment on your grand wisdom now? Roll Eyes It's called free speech and I'm using it.
 
Posts: 4577 | Registered: Tue 22 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post


Picture of hooah71
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
To add to this.

Can you imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed just one Justice? We most likely would have lost one of our most basic Constitutional rights today. Soo...

With possibilitly two Justice seats opening within the next presidents 1-2 terms, who would you favor to appoint the more strict of Constitutionalist judges?

Personaly I see McCain appointing moderate to slightly conservative, while Obama would go with the activist type.
I doubt if it would have happened with Gore or Kerry, but it most certainly will with Barak, and he WILL be our next POTUS. Can't wait to hear you gun guys cry when he does.


But the last time you said something like this, it was Pantsuit going to be the next CinC and "we can take that to the bank". We're still waiting on that.
 
Posts: 4577 | Registered: Tue 22 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Picture of BrandonKnight
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
but it most certainly will with Barak, and he WILL be our next POTUS. Can't wait to hear you gun guys cry when he does.


It wouldn't sound half as bad as all the crying you and others have been doing for the last seven and a half. I wouldn't be so sure he is goingto be the next Pres. He keeps running his suck on how he is going to tax this and that then he is goingto shoot himself in the foot. And if he does get elected, I am sure he will be another Jimmy Carter, and we all know how bad that was.
 
Posts: 930 | Registered: Wed 13 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post


Picture of hooah71
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raunchy:
quote:
Originally posted by leekujawa:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
quote:
Originally posted by ettnes:
Not really. A 5-4 ruling Eek That is really freakin scarey
To add to this.

Can you imagine if Gore or Kerry had appointed just one Justice? We most likely would have lost one of our most basic Constitutional rights today. Soo...

With possibilitly two Justice seats opening within the next presidents 1-2 terms, who would you favor to appoint the more strict of Constitutionalist judges?

Personaly I see McCain appointing moderate to slightly conservative, while Obama would go with the activist type.
I doubt if it would have happened with Gore or Kerry, but it most certainly will with Barak, and he WILL be our next POTUS. Can't wait to hear you gun guys cry when he does.


Say, aren't you the same guy who was betting the farm that Hillary would be our next president?


His record isn't particularly too impressive RiverRat. Big Grin
 
Posts: 4577 | Registered: Tue 22 May 2007