|
| “
|
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first
time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right
to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law
in the nation's capital.
The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that
the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather
than a right tied to service in a state militia.
|
” |
|
Which leaves this Moot. I was half right. The ruling sounds pretty unambiguous.
|
| While we're waiting for the Supreme Court decision on D.C. gun case ... what do you guess? I'll say they ambiguously uphold the Second Amendment, 5-4, leaving the door open for interminable blah-blah-blah.
|
|
As I read this at Drudge moments ago, I saw the 4-5 you commented on. Yep, do you know these folks, or what, Rodge? :)
ReplyDeleteJuice, the reason the court is so punk-ass is because almost anybody can call a decision before hand, based on its politics. The SCOTUS has become, in my opinion, the most dangerous and potentially evil force in the country.
ReplyDeleteI am reasonably happy with the decision, but how come I still feel like it's torch and pitchfork time?
ReplyDeleteRAK
ROdge you've said it all.
ReplyDeleteBecause they seem to have carved off one of the chief reasons for the Second Amendment--the ability to raise a Barn Army and overthrow the bastards.
ReplyDelete"the most natural reading of 'keep Arms' in the Second Amendment is to 'have weapons.'
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
In other words you can defend yourself individually from other individuals, but not from a Tyrant State.
I'm sure there;s a good deal more analysis to come from this Cat, but when it comes to a tyrant state, there are no rights, there are no guarantees. But, now, there will be guns under the bed.
ReplyDeleteLucky us. Kennedy voted for sanity this time around.
ReplyDeleteRAK--I agree. Just seeing the 5 to 4 vote makes me want to shoot someone.
ReplyDeletemary
Should have been 9-0 to us. This is the SUPREME court of this nation, reading a plainly written recognition of a basic human right enumerated as recognized by the founding fathers in the founding document of our nation. And there was any question? Dear jeebus, we need a "neck-tie" party for any who do not recognize the Constitution for what it is. Short blurb at my place. The big bloggers do it so much better than I.
ReplyDeleteSome airhead news anchor interviewing an "expert" asked very seriously if the decision meant that now "the Constitution has trumped policy", like that's a new and bad thing.
ReplyDeleteStrike her from voter rolls and add her to the flogging and hanging list. Add four justices to that list. Add Kennedy to the "flog only" list to make sure he realizes we're watching him and will brook no more legislating from the bench.
Lt. Col. Gen Tailgunner dick