Merged - SCOTUS decision on Heller

[K Frame]

No, I think the only thing that it means is that it gave McCain an opportunity to poke his opponent in the eye over the "bitter and clinging to guns and religion" statement.

[Balog]

Nice quote from McCain...

"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

Does this mean that McCain will recognize it?  He doesn't have the best track record in this area.  I wonder if he changed his mind.

If by "changed his mind" you mean "is trying to pander to the people he's been screwing for years" then the answer is yes.

Also what Mike Irwin said.

[wmenorr67]

DU seems to understand that the only ruling was what happened today.  Some have even voiced concerns that it wasn't 6-3 or better.

Wayne LaPierre has also stated that lawsuits are being readied for NYC, Chicago and San Fransisco.  May actually go for inclusion and get a 14th amendment ruling out of it.

[seeker_two]

Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?

What's it like over there?

Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:

1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.

2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.

Thatd be fine with me.

Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!

by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows...... 

[AJ Dual]

Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?

What's it like over there?

Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:

1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.

2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.

Thatd be fine with me.

Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!

by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows...... 

Honestly, I find the "The 2nd Amdendment says what it says, get over it, but lets's call a constitutional convention..." angle refreshing.

It's the way those things are supposed to happen. And it shows that we've dragged a few of our enemies into realizing they need to at least play by the rules.

Also, of course, even if Obama wins with better than 50% of the vote, getting the 2/3rds supermajorites needed in 2/3rds of the state legislatures to do away with the 2nd has got a snowflake's chance in hell for the foreseeable future. 

[HankB]

Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms

And once we've established the precedent that part of the Bill of Rights can be abolished, we can get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment so police won't have to waste time on warrants . . . abolish the 1st Amendment, because some things ought not be allowed to be said . . . etc. etc. 

[Werewolf]

Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms

And once we've established the precedent that part of the Bill of Rights can be abolished, we can get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment so police won't have to waste time on warrants . . . abolish the 1st Amendment, because some things ought not be allowed to be said . . . etc. etc. 

I imagine if that happened quite a few states would consider the covenant broken and abandon the union. Montana has already gone on record with that position.

[longeyes]

For those who want to abolish the Bill of Rights I have one word: SECESSION.

[El Tejon]

How about TREASON instead?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, uh, where's the ACLU been all day? 

Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

So, uh, where's the ACLU been all day? 

Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?

I bet not.

[geronimotwo]

i found this quote interesting.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=ApNQR2r5JP9O6BTsDWSMgYSs0NUE

he must not have read the second amendment.

[Mabs2]

For those who want to abolish the Bill of Rights I have one word: SECESSION.

Yea but which side?  If they secede then we're stuck with the current system...I'd much rather the pro liberty/BOR people secede so we can start over fresh and nice.

[The Annoyed Man]

Congratulations to all of you. A small, but important victory.

[De Selby]

It's important as ever for activists to deliver results now-to prove that all the money and time gun owners have been donating are worthwhile, and to keep the momentum up.

[Mabs2]

It's important as ever for activists to deliver results now-to prove that all the money and time gun owners have been donating are worthwhile, and to keep the momentum up.

My uncle said the NRA was making plans to 'attack' the Chicago and California laws, but that's all I've heard.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

NRA sued Chicago today, see http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13208

[Matthew Carberry]

Anyone nose in over at Democratic Underground today?

What's it like over there?

Not there, but here's my favorite vomit-worthy from the Kos Kidz.

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:

1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.

2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.

Thatd be fine with me.

Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!

by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

I guess they'd be happier if we pushed each other out of windows...... 

Settle down Archie. 

[longeyes]

Yea but which side?  If they secede then we're stuck with the current system...I'd much rather the pro liberty/BOR people secede so we can start over fresh and nice.

I meant that if the 2A is expunged by the amendment process, there is a plausible scenario to be made for OUR SIDE seceding.  The next few years will be momentous in the history of this Republic.

[gunsmith]

Anyone wanna make a bet on whether the ACLU now starts to support RKBA as vigorously as every other individual right?

I would bet the ACLU will still be stalinist.
Ruth voted against it and she used to run the ACLU AFAIK

[K Frame]

Hey, if we're amending the Constitution, I have some crucial changes that need to be implemented, as well!

First Amendment -- Uhm.... strike the entire thing. An anachronism. The Founders never could have conceived of television, radio, or newspaper presses that can print 100,000 copies of a paper in an hour. And we know how destructive a "free" press can be. Don't believe me? Ask Richard Jewell or Steven Hatfill. 

Also, we've all seen what happens when people "peacably" assemble. Riots. And petition the government for redress? What kind of crap is that? Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, and Breyer would like us all to know that the government is infallible, so there is certainly NO need for citizens to be able to petition it.


Third Amendment. Quartering of troops? Holy hell, that's why they build barracks! Another anachronism that needs to go. It just wastes ink and valuable paper every time the government prints a copy of the Bill of Rights.

Fourth Amendment. Once again, the government is infallible. There's no need to believe that they'd conduct unreasonable searches/seizures.

Fifth Amendment? Too many criminals are slipping though this loophole! It needs to be stopped!

And, so forth and so on.

You know, NONE of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights has worked out very well for us. I think it's time to get rid of them all. We need to BELIEVE in the good grace and charm of our government. That will make it work correctly again!

[wmenorr67]

Hey and remember, even Iraqi's can have one AK per household for self defense.

[LAK]

AJ Dual

Honestly, I find the "The 2nd Amdendment says what it says, get over it, but lets's call a constitutional convention..." angle refreshing.

A disaster; if we get suckered into a convention you can bank on a couple of things. Firstly, the media will dig up every single shooting nationwide and saturate the news with the gory details of the deaths of the youngest and most feeble.

And we will get our "clearly worded" and redefined 2nd Amendment.

Unwilling to open their mouths and speak, shying away from being seen as monsters amidth a visual and audio tidal wave of death and suffering, carefully edited, enhanced and presented media - most all of those "pro gun republicans" and "democrats" will be silently waving their arms for the "yays". These same turncoats will be suddenly adjusting their shoe laces and looking at their cellphone menus as the few "nays" - now "radical nuts" - make their last effort.

And bingo; now a clearly worded 2nd, watered down, with chapters of "ifs" and "buts" restrictions, controls and open-ended government options for it to "evolve" later on. Now the law of the Land.

Suicide.

[wmenorr67]

Do you realize what it takes to amend the constitution?

[RevDisk]

NRA sued Chicago today, see http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=13208

Okey, NRA is gonna get a nice check from me.  Doubt their legal wing is tax deductable, but I could care less.  I'm throwing a celebration tonight.

Hell, I'd send every lawyer they got a case of nice champagne if the Hughes Amendment is defeated.   We've seized the initiative, we need to continue.

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:

1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so lets just not argue about it and accept that thats what it says.

2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.

Thatd be fine with me.

You know, I've read this about five times.  Dude, an anti with a logical understanding of the Constitution?   Haven't seen many of those. 

Whoever wrote it is correct.  The 2A says what it says and the only way to change it is a Constitutional amendment.   They are welcome to do so.  Fully above board and all that.  Granted, removing rights enumerated in the BoR is a bad idea.   Unless the next amendment was very strongly worded, there would be 9th and 10th amendment law suits.  Removing the enumeration of the words "right to keep and bear arms" from the BoR would not remove the actual right.  You'd have to remove the words, AND specify that the RKBA is nullified.  IANAL, but I think the logic is correct.

Thoughts?