Okay Gun Lovers, Happy Now?
[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o]
SCOTUS says we can own guns for hunting and self-defense. DC’s 32-year-old ban on handguns is struck down as was the District’s requirement that guns be equipped with trigger locks.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
Predictably, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas voted with Scalia. Please, Justice Stevens, don’t retire until there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Alan why’d you post this video? You’re just giving the Lennon Murder Truth guy a reason to call the show. I really don’t think he’s plugging the site for money as much as he’s doing it bc this is what he really believes and really wants people to know. Kind of scary, but to each his own I guess.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The people that whine about their 2nd Ammendment don’t care about the 4th…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The Supreme Court ruling I’m most interested in is the one banning the death penalty for child rape crimes. The death penalty is allowed for treason, espionage, and terrorism but not child rape. That doesn’t make any sense. Security of the country is more important than the security of our children? That’s BULLSHIT.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I care about all amendments. And I am currently happy about this.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
here’s a link to the child rape/death penalty issue
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_CHILD_RAPE_EXCERPTS?SITE=INLAF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
June 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I’m not a fan of the 19th Amendment WFG and Cheryl.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
haha just kiddin’…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
LOL, Fury. You’re cruisin’ for a bruisin’, bro.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Banning guns or fighting to have them banned is a losing argument for Liberals because it defies “Common Sense.” Criminals don’t respect the law. They will get a gun to give them an advantage over innocent people. They congregate where the authorities are least likely to be. Crimes are usually done where it is more “Convenient.” Banning private citizens from protecting themselves makes crime more convenient. Common Sense would tell you that DC is a convenient store for crime because the citizens are probably unarmed. Liberals will lose time arguing this case. Stay focused on issue we can win like “45 Nuclear Plants with no where to store the waste.” Stay focused on “Why the Surge is like putting a lid on popcorn and why we can’t stay 100 years in Iraq.” Smart Energy policy and no endless war are issues Democrats can win. Guns make innocent people feel safer in the right hands. Criminals don’t follow laws.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I bet [not on line lol]every justice HAS a loaded gun in their home !
Revolution at the polls! Vote the BASTARDS out !
YES, the justices too !
LIMIT ALL elected, and judges, and government positions !
THEY ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THESE POSITIONS, WE THE PEOPLE ARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
The people living in crime-ridden neighborhoods because the government won’t protect them are exactly the people that need guns at home for protection.
And why is it that predominantly black communities suffer the most violence and are governed by democrats? What is the democrat’s plan to stop the violence in black communities such as south central, philly, chicago, etc.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I”ll give up my guns when the criminals don’t have theirs.
That will be NEVER!!!!!!!!
Besides Islam wants to blow us UP !!!!!!!!!!!
BUT: liberals think its ok for Islam to have bombs,don’t they?
Its the liberal way.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Cecil is correct about guns…I think regulating them and even banning “cannonlike” assault weapons is probably reasonable though.
Cheryl, I think the death penalty for certain heinous crimes against children is probably justified. I don’t know about just a “normal” molestation, but a brutal rape? I don’t think it’s out of bounds at all. If I was a parent of a young child I just know I would let very few people even touch my child. :) You have to be careful! Lots of bad people around.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
My goodness, Alan. You almost sound diappointed(?)
June 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
It’d be interesting to see statistics on the frequency with which law-abiding citizens are menaced by gun-toting criminals, versus the frequency with which mindless youths shoot each other up over drug turf, girlfriends, and sheer idiocy.
Though, frankly, I think the problem with violence in black communities begins with teenage girls having children and not having spouses.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Cheryl, both candidates agree about child rape and the potential use of execution:
Obama:
“I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old, is a heinous crime…and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our constitution.”
McCain:
“As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing.”
June 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Liberals don’t want terrorists to have bombs either. Regardless of whether they are Moslem or Christian.
But, according to many who should know, the best ‘gun’ for home protection is a shotgun, not a handgun.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Hey. We get to keep our guns! Now can I have my privacy back?
June 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Yes I am, thank you for asking.
Very Respectfully,
A Gun Lover
June 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Every Conservative knows “Size Matters” when it comes to pleasure and protection. That’s why they all want the biggest cannon they can find. Every Liberal knows the key is how you use your gun to get her done. What would women do without our “Common Sense?” You wonder why so many Conservatives are rich, old, angry and their wives are looking to cheat? They never learned the life lessons they needed to know. Lesson number one is “Size Doesn’t Matter” if you know what you’re doing. The rule applies to shotguns and handguns.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Wow Cecil, I am surprised at what a distorted view you have…on both topics.
And can you honestly say that there are no “rich, old, angry and their wives are looking to cheat” liberals out there? If you can then I would say that you need to check yourself into a psycho ward….excuse me metal health facility.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Now that the 2nd Amendment is upheld, which I support, what do Republicans have to scare voters with? They can no longer claim that Liberals will take your guns away if you vote for a Democrat. By the way, it was the so-called liberal activist court that upheld the 2nd Amendment.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I can think of something….the fact that you want to bring a man and his wife who hate this country and have known terrorist ties all the way to the White House. That sure scares the hell out of me.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Radio talk show host Michael Reagan’s weak, perfunctory and disingenuous “apology” to Mark Dice for encouraging the activist be murdered for sending 9/11 truth material to U.S. troops.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Some Americans are suffering from a memory problem. They have forgotten about all the fired, resigned, or disgraced members of the Republican Party or the Administration. Have we forgotten that Tom Delay and the leaders of his political action committees James W. Ellis, Warren M. RoBold, and John Dominick Colyandro broke the Law in Texas by funneling corporate donations to Republican’s in both Texas and at the Federal Level? Tom Delay had a Deputy Chief of Staff, Tony Rudy plead guilty of conspiracy to corrupt members of Congress. Then there were all the close relationships with Jack Abramoff who also plead guilty to crimes against the citizens of this nation. Did we forget the outing of covert CIA Agent V. Plame? Have we let go of all the blatant conflict of interest that Ex-CEO’s or Ex-Industry Lobbyists who are now Republican Representatives or Senators and even the Presidential Appointees have brought to our now semi-fascist (Corporate Influenced Government or Government for the Corporation by the Corporation) system of governance? Are we complacent with the connections of Condi Rice with Oil Co.’s or VP Richard Chaney’s Halliburton connections? Have we given a pass to Alberto Gonzales and other Justice Department or Pentagon violations of the public trust via the disregard for the Rule of Law, our Constitution? Should voters give a pass to the political party that brought us D. Rumsfeld’s mismanagement and poor judgment? Will we give a pass to the fact that GAFTA passed by 5 Republican votes, which were put in place by Tom Delay’s illegal actions? Both Liberals and Conservatives have described GAFTA and NAFTA as an attack on US Sovereignty and our labor market. Yet it has been the free market Republicans who pushed NAFTA on Clinton to sign and pushed GAFTA on our nation during G.W. Bush’s reign. Why should Republicans be rewarded for a long list of sins upon the Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of the USA? Have we no memory or the deregulation led by Republicans that have allowed Oil Speculators to run wild or World Com, Tyco, Enron, Adelphia, ImClone Systems, Arthur Anderson, Cendant, Health South, and many other immoral business actions of the “free market”? We should take into consideration the sins of Carl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, David Vitter, Bill Frist, Dusty Bono, Tom Delay, Bob Ney and his chief of staff, Randi Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens, Jack Abrimhoff, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts University Heads that resigned in disgrace, Bernard Kerig, John Yoo with his torture memos and the other administration members that have contempt of Congress charges filed against them. They have displayed for the entire nation their version of the moral high ground and it is sinking in the mud of betrayal.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hey Karma McCain is a pig…
June 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Why can’t liberals leave our rights alone!!!????
I LOVE MY GUN!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLLLLLLLLLL
June 26th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I feel sorry for Alan. He’s going to get calls about this.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Well, how about legalizing revenge killings, huh? Like “vendettas”. I’d like that a lot better than a government having the authority to kill people. It just makes my blood run cold.
But hey, some dad wants to put a bullet through the head of some sicko that f***ed with his kid? Fine by me. It’d have to be properly supervised, of course.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Truth and common sense prevail! Hopefully the panty-waist liberals now have their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It’s very simple, the government wants us to believe we can depend upon them. However, law enforcement officers are not omni-present. They can’t be everywhere all the time. So if the government can’t provide me and my loved ones with 24-7 protection, and the liberal swine dislike me having firearms, that also tells me that i’m somehow obligated to become a victim. So if you don’t like our God, constitution, individual liberties, and seperation from government dependence….that’s to damn bad P A L !
June 27th, 2008 at 12:56 am
You can say what you want about the 2nd amendment, I agree with Ted nugent when he said “you have to worry about the four who voted to change the constitution”
most of you wont be satisfied until the usa is in the same boat as Dur fuhr /sudan
June 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Wow FuRyUs a highly intelligent comment.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
sky,
There is a reason it is called a penalty. It is not revenge it is punishment for what they did. There is a huge difference. Not to mention that if these sick people are put to death then they can never commit that crime again. How would you feel if some child you knew was raped by a 32 year old man who had been caught doing that same thing before? Would you not have wanted him stopped before he could hurt someone else?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Guess what, the 2nd Admendment was written back in the day when there was little police protection or law enfourcement outside of the cities. The words “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” where for those needing weapons to protect themselves out on the frontier, the wilderness, and down the river by themselves. When Daniel Boone entered Kentucky there was not already a military in there, his party was it as was countless other groups that followed.
A “Militia” referrs to police or military was required for the security for the new nation and towns. The Founding Fathers were referring to how citizens during the American Revolution War formed together to form a militia. The right to bear arms therefore in this amendment refers to only militia use such as military, police officers, and people with simular possitions. It also limits people coming together for policing or military type activity for those who are regulated by the government.
For those who forget the 3rd Admendment backs up my arguement on the 2nd Admendment. Why? It says basicly that unless in time of war and “prescribed by law” a soldier does not have to be living in your house. So if the 2nd Admendment was referring to individual freedoms only then why does it have the word “Militia” in it and followed by the 3rd Admendment?
It does not refer to public owning guns as people in those days or today. It also does not say someone can not own a gun. It does say that a large group of people with guns can not get together to form their own militia. It is up to each state to pass laws on gun control as the 10th Admendment states.
Sorry the states can limit what guns you can have. If New York wants to limit everyone there to a certain type of hand gun, have to be at least age 21, and have to carry around a gun licence all the time then it should be legal.
In my view one should have to be at least 18 or 21 prior to owning a gun and have to carry a gun license when you carry your gun. That’s why no one would like me in politics because I would be extremely strict on guns. I would take everyone guns away. I would tax beer and tobacco through the roof too while lowering the gas tax. I would lower crime rate and gas prices.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
You are the only person I’ve ever seen use the third amendment in relation to the 2nd to argue a point for or against stricter gun control.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Yes, I am happy! What a great start!
“A Republican”: The Bill of Rights is not in priority order. They were present as a whole package of 12. Ten were adopted immediately, one got adopted in 1992 (now it’s the 27th!)
“The Militia” is defined in US Code, Title 10, sect. 311. Essentially, it’s almost everyone. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311)
In the end, it doesn’t matter if you like or dislike my (our) right to own a usable gun. No more than it matters if you dislike the rights of Nazis to espouse their beliefs. These are rights of “The People.” The Second Amendment limits the government’s power, just as the First (and the Third) do!
June 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm