SCOTUS: People have the right to own guns

I think the "strict constructionists" on the court showed they are nothing more than partisan hacks with the ruling today. The fact that they said it was okay to ban guns from schools and government buildings (like the court) showed how hypocritical they are. The framers wouldn't have put the militia clause in the amendment for window dressing.
That said, I really don't think a gun control law, in DC or anywhere else, is going to stop someone from shooting you if they want to. We have laws against drunk driving, murder, et. al. and people still do it.
Guns don't kill people, they just make it easier to kill someone.

 

No shit, it passed. What's the fallout of the SCOTUS revoking a right that has been upheld since it was written? There are millions of guns out there, so how are they going to get them? Armed SWAT teams are going door-to-door to check for millions of firearms obtained prior to becoming illegal? And despite the fact that most people who legally own guns have no criminal record or shown no reason to be searched, we're all going to be searched just because? Let's throw out the fucking Fourth Amendment while we're at it. Land of the free, indeed.

 

I didn't exactly say you did. I said your side, and there was a long discussion about "states rights" that ignored the Eighth Amendment yesterday.

 

How is it hypocritical to say that you have a constitutional right, but that right is not absolute?

 

Can people argue for themselves and not for their alleged "sides" please.

 

Mainly that they declare themselves "strict constructionists" who believe the Constitution says what it says and we shouldn't see the document as a living document. I don't see how you can say gun bans at particular public locations are legitimate, but others aren't. What about public venues? Public transit? Parks?


And Rex? The fourth Amendment has is looking like Swiss Cheese these days.

 

Someone like you always says some dumb shit like that.

Fucker.

 

Much better. Thanks.

 

The Court based its ruling on the right to own a firearm in your own home for the purposes of self-defense. The strict constructionists said that the Second Amendment, if nothing else, has always protected that right. And if you read the opinion (page 57 in the PDF download), you will see that even at the founding, it was never understood to be a complete right to possess any firearm, any place and for any purpose.

 

Why shouldn't I be able to take a gun with me to a presidential speech? Or to the county courthouse? Or my kid's parent-teacher conference?

You can't just say "no gun restrictions at all," because clearly there are situations in which restricting the possession of guns is essential to the maintenance of order. So at that point you have to concede that there are situations in which guns have to be prohibited, and then it just becomes a matter of which situations those are.

 

Just off the top of my head? Roe v. Wade and the "right to privacy."