Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[Avatar4321]

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide - Yahoo! News

looks like the Chicago gun ban has been struck down. States need to recognize that Americans have a right to bear arms.

 

[theHawk]

Sadly the four libs on the court would rather see American citizens' rights trampled on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons."

 

[rightwinger]

Have to see where this one goes.

The court abolished broad bans on gun ownership (handgun bans) but left open the use of specifically targeted bans.

 

[Nonelitist]

edited

 

[Nonelitist]

Have to see where this one goes.

The court abolished broad bans on gun ownership (handgun bans) but left open the use of specifically targeted bans.

You can only hope you idiotic, anti-american, criminal supporting jackass

 

[rightwinger]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

I have to side with Righty on this one.... I don't recall him ever opposing individual gun ownership. So... just simmer down!

 

[Wry Catcher]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another banner year for gun sales

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

 

[Nonelitist]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

Ok... so state it here.

State that you support the ownership of guns by citizens without limits... easy statement.

Cmon... do it.

 

[rightwinger]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

I have to side with Righty on this one.... I don't recall him ever opposing individual gun ownership. So... just simmer down!

What I do believe...

1. You are your own first line of defense in defending yourself. The police are there to clean up the blood and find out who did it. If you need a gun to protect yourself....you should have that right

2. There needs to be reasonable restrictions on what you need to protect yourself. The government has an obligation to restrict fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and military grade firepower.

3. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. Felons, mentally unstable and yes, even terrorists should not have open access to weapons

 

[martybegan]

"Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons."

The ability of local governments to regulate firearms has never been in question. What has been in question is outright bans of handguns by municipalities.

I would have liked to see the opinion go even further, and strip away some of the de facto bans such as NYC's gun laws, where the process to even get a gun for household use is setup not to regulate, but to discourage private ownership of handguns (unless you are a cop or a retired cop, then its OK)

 

[Nonelitist]

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

I have to side with Righty on this one.... I don't recall him ever opposing individual gun ownership. So... just simmer down!

What I do believe...

1. You are your own first line of defense in defending yourself. The police are there to clean up the blood and find out who did it. If you need a gun to protect yourself....you should have that right

2. There needs to be reasonable restrictions on what you need to protect yourself. The government has an obligation to restrict fully automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and military grade firepower.

3. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun. Felons, mentally unstable and yes, even terrorists should not have open access to weapons

Ok then, my apologies on this subject.

 

[daveman]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

You mean the ideology that prohibits the individual right to self defense? The ideology that says if we only pass enough gun laws, the criminals will start obeying them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can only hope... isn't that right you dispicable, anti-american, criminal supporting idiot?

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Now HERE is the gun grabber.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Where have I ever posted that I oppose individual gun ownership?

You must have me confused with someone else

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

 

[daveman]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

You do know that every place that has allowed concealed carry, the crime rate has gone down, right?

No. I bet you don't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale and Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

Same old tired failed argument from the left. Cheap hand guns have ALWAYS been available to the CRIMINAL. You and your ilk have claimed all along more freedom would equal wild west shoot outs, increased homicides shootings everywhere as we degenerated into a killing frenzy cause we had access to guns. IT SIMPLY HAS NOT HAPPENED IN A SINGLE PLACE LAWS AVE BEEN RELAXED.

Your claim is full of shit. It always has been. It is born out by the new laws allowing carrying concealed and open across this country with DROPS in crime rates, shootings and murders and NO increase in accidental death rates.

You are one stupid fucker.