Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jai Secretjve
69 Followers
entropyfan
30 Followers
captininsanity
34 Followers
Jordan Angelo
2 Followers
spritomJun 28, 2010
About time. Though I expect many of the same gun control laws to simply be wrapped up in marketing titles such as "common sense" and the like when in fact they would not be common sense.
rjeyJun 28, 2010
The five conservative-moderate justices voted in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed.
Shocking, liberals wanting to cut out personal freedoms. Who would have thunk it. /s
randyzaiaJun 28, 2010
Progressives don't like the 2nd Amendment so they simply decide to ignore it.
cme884Jun 28, 2010
One could just as easily say that conservatives conveniently neglect the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
rlbond86Jun 28, 2010
Have you read the 2nd amendment recently? Many people, myself included, read that to indicate that the main purpose of bearing arms is for readiness of the militia. Since militias aren't used anymore, guns need to be regulated. To imagine that we ignore the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. You can't deny that its intended meaning is ambiguous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
newesJun 28, 2010
Militias aren't used anymore because there hasn't been a need for them lately. But you still need to keep population ready incase a militia is needed some time in the future.
atarioJun 28, 2010
It was written with the idea that there would be no such thing as a standing army -- whenever military action was needed, volunteers (and their guns) would simply spring up and do what was needed. Not too bad an idea when your megaweapon is a cannon.
But is that what you're looking for, today?
If what you're proposing is to disband all military forces, and distribute all their rifles (and battleships, and jet fighters, and nuclear cruise missiles, and whatnot) to Chester "Hey Watch This, Y'all" McGillicuddy next door and his brethren all around you, then we can talk. Till then, all this "we're gonna keep the gubbmint in line with our popguns" prattle is meaningless bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rc212vJun 28, 2010
Don't get it twisted. Conservatives don't like certain personal freedoms, liberals dislike others. Both of them will attempt to take away personal freedoms given the opportunity.
designerutahJun 28, 2010
Genady: Though I'm not conservative, I do get their argument in terms of abortion. And it's not revolving around taking away a woman's right to do something with her body (hint: the DNA is not hers). They are viewing it from the stance that the fetus (soon to be baby) is what is being denied rights. If you're going to bring up what conservatives want to control, at least get their arguments right. See Bigterguy's post... he's got the right idea on their list of bad freedoms!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stormtrooprJun 29, 2010
He said non-religious. Half the things you guys listed (selling organs/sex/abortion) are mostly rooted in that s**t. I have many conservative friends and they are all for organ donation/stem cells/legalization/pro-choice/gay rights.
f**k the two-party system.
randyzaiaJun 30, 2010
Most people opposed to selling organs are the mindless liberal bureaucrats that believe that saving no one is better than letting rich people save themselves by buying organs.
I know of not a single non-religious conservative that is opposed to selling organs, early-stage abortion, taking drugs, etc..
brandozillaJun 28, 2010
It is absurd that 4 Supreme court justices could actually dissent in this case.
tyisownedJun 29, 2010
Either way, if you are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the constitution, then you should be allowed that right, regardless of wherever you are.
its420somewhereJun 28, 2010
"i'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands"
skippydoorknobJun 28, 2010
"i like to use quotation marks and all lower-case letters"
greaseddeafguyJun 28, 2010
a victory for individual rights. i hope jim brady s**ts his poop bag.
mrsurfboardJun 28, 2010
It's not Brady, it's his **** wife.
pmurder187Jun 28, 2010
One key centerpoint of closing down a free society which many dictators use is the development of a paramilitary force not answerable to the citizens such as Mussolini's Black Shirts or Hitler's Brown Shirts, its almost part of a dicators blueprints. Those groups then use intimidation by means or violence to silence dissent among the people. Gun control is then brought in as a way to keep citizens from fighting back against these thugs invading houses and assaulting dissidents. An armed citizenry is needed mainly to stop this course of action which has happened so many times in the past. Relying on historic examples, this is a subject Naomi Wolf has talked about in depth in her book and documentary "The End Of America"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_America:_A_Letter_of_Warning_to_a_Young_Patriot
DOCUMENTARY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO9hmFqr-2Y
picaloJun 28, 2010
if you try to control guns, you're trying to control people....and you wont do that :)
bigdorkaramaJun 28, 2010
Why are there people here saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable right?
devin82mJun 28, 2010
Yay! They finally upheld the law instead of trying to change it.
murrdpirateJun 28, 2010
I do believe that people should be able to own guns, but I also believe in state's rights. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a restriction on what the federal government could do, not what state governments could do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phaedrynJun 28, 2010
Really? Does that include the Tenth Amendment (you know, the last one in the Bill of Rights)?
murrdpirateJun 28, 2010
The tenth amendment says that whatever powers are not given to the federal government are given to the states (unless otherwise mentioned). It doesn't say the bill of rights applies to states.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
llllllllllllllJun 28, 2010
Scary that there are 4 leftist assh**es on the United States Supreme Court who would deny Americans a right that is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights....wtf !?!
NOW do you see why leftists are so dangerous?
opiebreathJun 28, 2010
As a liberal I do support this ruling, however I think many voted the way they did out of blind dedication to their party, leftists and rightists.
krisdahlJun 28, 2010
Conservative judges (or at least Republican) do the same thing, but on different issues. Often first ammendment issues involving religioin or free speech. Liberal and Conservative politicians and judges are happy to try to take away your rights, they just argue about which ones.
ferretmanJun 28, 2010
Good job Supreme Court!
The only concern I have is that somehow this was a 5-4 decision. What part of "shall not infringe" do those 4 dimwits not get?
shapedyJun 29, 2010
Fed/State.
rdldr1Jun 28, 2010
This just in; In light of the recent supreme court ruling, Mayor Daley of Chicago bans all bullets and ammo.
korvan504521Jun 28, 2010
oddly enough, this is probably legal. they could also just tax the hell out of the sale of them.
dimensioJun 28, 2010
"oddly enough, this is probably legal."
Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner
megadan76Jun 28, 2010
This is crazy and dangerous. A group of old, rich, men (and two token women) uphold some ancient document out of regard for "tradition" and "history" and ignore modern day implications - that there is NO REASON to own a HANDGUN in a CITY unless it is is to COMMIT A MOTHERf**kING CRIME. How much more clearly can this be made? f**k the past, we need to think about actual, modern realities here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smaulzJun 28, 2010
You're not welcome here, please see yourself out.
dimensioJun 28, 2010
I am curious; have you any actual rational argument to offer, or do you mistakenly believe that dishonest hyperbole constitutes a valid justification of your position?
megadan76Jun 28, 2010
Hi Dimensio,
perhaps you read too far into my off the cuff remarks.
Take this statement at face value: "Using a gun to defend yourself against crime is still a violent activity."
It has nothing to do with rights, or victimization. It merely states that using a gun is a violent activity, full stop.
"You all claim that the best method against gun crime is for EVERYONE to have a gun"
Demonstrate that all who oppose your unreasonable position advocate such:
"innocent people need the tools to defend themselves" - Five35
"The only reason guns are banned, or heavily regulated, is because the police don't want people defending themselves." - satan666
"Full incorporation of the Second Amendment is well past due." - PhaedrynPhaedryn
Ample evidence in this thread alone, but again you may be reading too far unto it.
I am suggesting an utterly different paradigm, one in which citizens do not need guns to protect themselves from violent crime, as both A) criminals will be incredible hard pressed to find a gun, as such a thing does not exist except in the hands of law enforcement, and B) a well run society implements social planning, free health care and education, and harsh punishment for those violating the rights of others in violent and disruptive ways, while affording no punishment or control over actions which effect no one except the self.
Clear as mud?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioJun 28, 2010
""You all claim that the best method against gun crime is for EVERYONE to have a gun"
Demonstrate that all who oppose your unreasonable position advocate such:
"innocent people need the tools to defend themselves" - Five35
"The only reason guns are banned, or heavily regulated, is because the police don't want people defending themselves." - satan666
"Full incorporation of the Second Amendment is well past due." - PhaedrynPhaedryn"
None of the statements that you have quoted advocate "everyone" having a firearm.
stormtrooprJun 29, 2010
"A) criminals will be incredible hard pressed to find a gun, as such a thing does not exist except in the hands of law enforcement"
Won't happen. Even if it did, do you really think that the people that work in law enforcement are the cream of the crop?
seltaeb4Jun 28, 2010
I think there's an increasingly popular misconception that progressives are against gun rights.
With any right comes a responsibility. If we all act responsibly, it's better for ourselves and everyone else.
Not a bad principle, no matter the subject.
lormendiJun 28, 2010
Hear hear! I am also quite liberal/progressive, and I've always thought gun control was fruitless. People who use guns to commit crimes dont give a s**t if its legal or not.
So the conservitards need to quit acting as if this is solely their issue.
honukaiJun 28, 2010
Dugg for conservitards.
phydeaux70Jun 28, 2010
To the 4 judges who voted against this,
We just aren't going to see this in the same way. You see...........there simply isn't enough room up your ass for both of our heads.
It's about time we start to have some tests for judges to see if they can understand what the Constitution is about. This lifetime appointment thing is a joke. Kind of like career politicians, only worse.
p5ychoJun 28, 2010
Happy dying !!
dimensioJun 28, 2010
Have you any rational argument to offer?
p5ychoJul 1, 2010
I live in Europe.
The US deathtoll by firearms is 1500% higher than over here.
dimensioJul 1, 2010
"The US deathtoll by firearms is 1500% higher than over here."
Do you believe that homicides committed without the use of a firearm are acceptable?
chuckdeesJun 28, 2010
So right wingers are for states rights, unless they don't agree with laws states enact?
mtmankeithJun 28, 2010
Ding ding ding... we have a winner here folks...
exactly...
wait till the whine/gloat over the Az. law if it get's overturned/upheld.
dimensioJun 28, 2010
States do not have rights.
tsk05Jun 28, 2010
How about states rights where they don't violate the Constitution?
megadan76Jun 28, 2010
Oh wait, I have a solution. Let's get big on Digg's other fascination besides guns and religion, WEED!
It should not only be legal, it should be mandatory. Then you can have all the guns you want; if everyone is stoned all the time it's likely they won't be as interested in violent crime.
Problem solved!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
455holeJun 28, 2010
Great. As soon as this goes into effect i'm getting a handgun and signing up for target practice. Now we just have to get around the unconstitutionality over the taxes that infringe on my right to bear arms.
spritomJun 28, 2010
Why would taxes be an infringement? It's just a little bit of money. And we'll add them to taxes for voting, speaking, going to church, not going to church, not talking to the police, and assembling.
/s
jphrJun 28, 2010
An SC which proved beyond doubt already that they do not understand democracy (in allowing corporate funding on political issues) goes on to prove that they do not care about public interests or common sense for that matter. Ideological pureness regardless of the consequences.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
redwhitebemusedJun 28, 2010Submitter
The Supreme Court is not supposed to care about public interests or what your opinion of common sense consists of.
dimensioJun 28, 2010
Please explain your assertion. In what way does affirming that state and city governments may not infringe upon the Constitutionally protected liberties of citizens demonstrate a lack of concern for "public interests"?
seculrprogrsiveJun 28, 2010
If liberals could get on the right side of this issue, the right wing would be doomed.
brassbudJun 28, 2010
I volunteer to be first arrested for openly carrying a firearm in Chicago. Can change the laws if you don't break 'em.
deakerJun 28, 2010
Perhaps now Illinois can work on some concealed carry laws. Nah, they will spend all of their legislative force coming up with new restrictions on gun ownership that will skirt the ruling.
For those of you who don't know: Chicago politicians basically control the Illinois General Assembly through sheer numbers and the Speaker of the House.
Closed AccountJun 28, 2010
Bloomberg will twist this into some absolute twilight zone nonsense.
dralezeroJun 28, 2010
"Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of all firearms for self-protection" /fixed
irvman21Jun 28, 2010
Well at least five justices have common sense. Partisian hackery is the only explanation for the dissenting votes.
faderprimeJun 29, 2010
Its SCOTUS not USSC.
magic6435Jun 29, 2010
Im sure the city that had 55 shootings in one weekend is going to be thrilled about more weapons on the street...
csstudentJun 29, 2010
This happened in a city where it was illegal to own handguns. It just goes to prove the point that criminals don't care about the laws. This ruling only helps lawful citizens obtain a gun.
magic6435Jun 29, 2010
Were exactly do you think these guns originally came from. They were not smuggled out of smith and wesson manufacturing lines. they were legally purchased.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spritomJun 29, 2010
@magic6435
I am not saying such.
I am saying that:
* there have been claims by many areas that their own crime rate is due to the influx of guns from surrounding or, in some cases, neighboring areas
* academic peer-reviewed research of these multiple cases has shown that comparable areas that are claimed to have a higher per-capita gun ownership still have a lower crime rate than the claimed "gun control" area.
A non-apples-to-apples comparison would not muster a successful peer-review.
csstudentJun 29, 2010
@magic6435
the4thaggieJun 29, 2010
Our government did something right for a change? 1st time in over a decade.
karmashockJun 29, 2010
To the gun control people, we have a constitution and the means to change it legally. If you believe in the law at all, then you believe that you should go through the legal process to change the constitution if it says something you disagree with.
Go ahead and change the constitution. Have a vote. See what the American people think.
We both know you'll lose and lose huge. Which means if you disagree you're really disagreeing with democracy and government by republic. Instead what you'd rather have is some kind of secular theocracy... where in a given philosophy is imposed on the people by fiat that they have no right or ability to alter by any means short of killing you all.
We have the right to be dangerous. That is a personal right just like the freedom of speech. It is inherent in our rights as citizens. Only peasants have their weapons taken away by their lords. THIS is what citizenship means. I don't really think the democrats have any notion of the concept of citizenship. They tend to view all Americans as vassals of the state which si why they take immigration so lightly. They don't seem to care whether the people they're bringing in to the society have our interests in mind or are even good for the country in the first place. No, just more fodder for the system.
The guns, our rights, and the very nature of the country are all intertwined with each other. There is nothing barbarous about it. It all comes down to whether you believe in individual rights or not. The democrats do not. They only believe in group rights. The individual is nothing. That is completely against traditional US values and is more in line with marx. That's where this all leads again and again and again.
chijim70Jun 29, 2010
Stop praying to the false dichotomy. TONS of democrats own guns and are for gun rights. I personally know many. Hell, I know 2 lesbians that'd take you out no problem if you broke in their homes and then go right out and work on a grass roots socially liberal campaign the next day. Stop watching the idiot box and believing that everyone fits in these neat little categories. They don't...
Personally I'm neither and not even libertarian. I think things that fundamentally oppose every party I know of in one way or another. I will say this though, aside from your rant about dems I fully agree with you. I just wish you didn't buy what they tell you to think...
karmashockJul 1, 2010
Saying democrats are pro gun control is not a false dichotomy. Every democrat president has been pro gun control in living memory. Areas that are "blue" are rife with gun control legislation where as places that are "red" have none.
To say that gun control has nothing to do with the democrats is to say you don't know what you're talking about. Conclusion... you don't know what you're talking about.
As to me buying things, I've done nothing of the kind. Anyone can see if they open their eyes. I love in Los Angeles. 99 percent of the democrats I talk to here which is about 70 percent of the people are pro gun control. 100 percent of the republicans I talk to are anti gun control and the independents are the usual mixed bag.
You're clearly "unaffiliated"... that's great. But the system doesn't work like that. You separate from the parties and you get run over by them. So just imagine everything you care about and understand you'd get torn apart without a party that cared about one of those issues one way or the other. Going solo on this stuff is like going solo in a war. It's a great way to get pointlessly killed while accomplishing nothing. You need to work with people and form a common defense/offense one way or the other... or nothing you do will be effective.
hitnflyJun 29, 2010
Ban gun, there will be no StarWars in future.
jpopJun 29, 2010
If guns were as accurate as the blasters depicted in the Star Wars movies, I'd be for banning them too...
samellensJun 29, 2010
USSC? You mean SCOTUS?
amnesianJun 29, 2010
Life sentence for those carrying unlicensed weapons. That'll scare those gangbangers.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2010
Republicans in 1958: "Democrats are a'comin' to take 'er guns!"
Republicans in 2010: "Democrats are a'comin' to take 'er guns!"
At what point do these idiots realize that nobody gives a f**k about the guns that crazy rednecks tote around with them all the time. There are no reasons for private citizens to carry around or own automatic weapon caches.
Accept it.
Get over it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbjoeJun 29, 2010
I love the constitution. My favorite part is that whole 3/5's of person thing.
filovirusJun 29, 2010
Digg me down liberals, I really could care less. Today I paid my house off and now have ZERO debt @ age 40. The mortgage payment that would have went to Citi next month can now buy me a nice shiny Kimber Tactical Pro II. 15 year mortgage paid in 10 FTW.
statistoneJun 29, 2010
I don't need a law to tell me I don't need a handgun. Common sense tells me that!