Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

8 comments

  • 53hawkeye
    *
    0
  • TrinityScrimshaw
    Some will say this is a BAD thing, but how could it not be a step in the right direction?

    Trinity +++
    0
  • GuvamintCheese
    Here is the PDF if you want to read it.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
    0
  • RtWngExtrmst
    Supreme court upholds gun rights

    NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).

    In my view, they are a bunch of stupid jackasses whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.
    0
  • cccooper
    quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
    Supreme court upholds gun rights

    NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).

    In my view, they are a bunch of stupid jackasses whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.


    You got that right. And, as always, still a 5-4 vote.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
    Some will say this is a BAD thing, but how could it not be a step in the right direction?

    Trinity +++

    Because it codifies the power of all governments to license, register, and regulate who can own a firearm and what type of firearm he or she should own.

    Until today, there was a question as to whether States and Cities had that power.

    That power is now granted.

    The power to infringe is now a part of the Constitution.

    How can this possibly be a step in the right direction? It is the direction we have been stepping since 1934.
    0
  • Spider7115
    Big deal. Just like DC, the anti-gun states and cities will impose such strict conditions on gun ownership that it will serve the same purpose as a ban while remaining in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling.

    Did the SCOTUS rule that gun ownership is an unconditional, non-restrictive right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? No. Did they rule that citizens also have the right to possess a gun outside of the home? No. Did they rule that any citizen of legal age, not convicted of a felony and not judged to be insane, shall be granted a concealed carry permit upon request? No. Better yet, did they rule that concealed carry permits are no longer required at all for a citizen to possess a handgun? No. Did they order all states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states? No.

    They're all just a bunch of damned eunuchs. [:(!]
    0
  • TrinityScrimshaw
    Don,

    I guess I better go read the ruling.

    Trinity +++
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?