Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

[Homyrrh]

Shaping up to be a big news day. Hooyah gun rights.

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html))
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the District, but it spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns.

But the long-awaited decision did not necessarily mean that gun laws from coast to coast, many of them far less restrictive than Washington’s, would be swept aside.

Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted 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.” Joining him were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The high court’s ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the scope of the Second Amendment, and the first ever to directly address the meaning of the amendment’s ambiguous, comma-laden text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The court concluded that the amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but it also said that the right is not absolute, opening the door for more fights in the future. Lawmakers across the country may look to the decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to satisfy the demands of constituents who say there is too much regulation of firearms now, or too little, depending on the sentiments in their regions.

In March 2007, Washington city officials expressed disappointment and outrage when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the city ordinance. The Supreme Court ruling is sure to prompt work on a new ordinance that can withstand high court scrutiny.

The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second Amendment, in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the Constitution did not protect any right to possess a specific type of firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.

By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much more “mainstream,” if that term can be used in reference to gun-control issues. When the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they were accepting the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, they indicated that they would go to the heart of the long debate.

The question, they said, is whether the district’s restrictions on firearms “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his job protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of Columbia’s law after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was rejected.

When the case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr. Heller’s lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment precluded any kind of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on the shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable, and in answer to a question from the justices, so, too, might be a prohibition on guns in schools. Some of the justices signaled during arguments that they thought the District’s near-total ban on handguns went too far.

A legislature “has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms,” Mr. Gura argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.

The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private possession of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be kept either in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock.

Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18, asserted that “the people” and “the militia” were essentially the same, and that the Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms only in connection with their militia service.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal government, argued on behalf of the individual-rights position, which has been the Bush administration’s policy. But he said that the appeals court had also gone too far in overturning the ordinance and that the right to bear arms was always subject to “reasonable regulations.”

[Vong]

Guns don't kill people, Supreme Court Justices do.

[MadsenOMC]

One day Kennedy is some people's worst nightmare, the next day he's their best friend.

Whenever I read the 2nd Amendment, I can never find the part that declares every person has the right to own a handgun.

[Homyrrh]

Guns don't kill people, Supreme Court Justices do.
...and consequently the U.S. Consitution, right? ;)

[Homyrrh]

One day Kennedy is some people's worst nightmare, the next day he's their best friend.

Whenever I read the 2nd Amendment, I can never find the part that declares every person has the right to own a handgun.
They should not EVER. But not every person doesn't have the right if you'll excuse such a grossly blatant use of a double negative.

[MadsenOMC]

But not every person doesn't have the right if you'll excuse such a grossly blatant use of a double negative.

Hmm, after careful consideration and consultation with my attorney, I'll allow it.

[Homyrrh]

Hmm, after careful consideration and consultation with my attorney, I'll allow it.
Much obliged.

[Criminal Rock]

Foolish traditions...

[Homyrrh]

Foolish traditions...
Right to bear arms?

[QUENTIN]

I do think the intention was for well-regulated militias to have the right to keep and bear arms, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. But the wording is pretty imprecise and open to interpretation, it can be read either way.

[Homyrrh]

I do think the intention was for well-regulated militias to have the right to keep and bear arms, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. But the wording is pretty imprecise and open to interpretation, it can be read either way.
Yeah, but I think an individual who passes appropriate screening should be entirely eligible.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, but I think an individual who passes appropriate screening should be entirely eligible.
And I feel this fulfills the "militia" terminology.

Someone who feels so convicted by the corruption present in our government would seem a fervent supporter of the ruling. Checks and balances, right?

[countchocula]

No one in the world needs a gun. All guns should be destroyed. Owning a gun should be a felony. Hunting is an ignorant pastime.

Sure, guns don't kill people, but it would be hard to shoot someone without a gun. The 2nd Amendment is fucking stupid. It should be expurgated from the Constitution entirely.

[Criminal Rock]

Right to bear arms?

Kinda sorta... I was just commentating is all. I read the 2nd amendment and I wonder how useful it actually is in todays society for the average Joe like myself.

I'm not against the right to own a firearm (specifically a handgun, shotgun, etc) if totally and completely necessary (like if you're a cop, or military personnel). But endorsing an ideal as old as this is, to me, endorsing a tradition just for the sake of endorsing a tradition.

Gun control needs reform in America, and in my opinion, this is a step backwards.

[MadsenOMC]

No one in the world needs a gun. All guns should be destroyed. Owning a gun should be a felony. Hunting is an ignorant pastime.

Sure, guns don't kill people, but it would be hard to shoot someone without a gun. The 2nd Amendment is fucking stupid. It should be expurgated from the Constitution entirely.

Or, like Chris Rock says, bullets should cost $5,000.

[SpoonMan999]

No one in the world needs a gun. All guns should be destroyed. Owning a gun should be a felony. Hunting is an ignorant pastime.

Sure, guns don't kill people, but it would be hard to shoot someone without a gun. The 2nd Amendment is fucking stupid. It should be expurgated from the Constitution entirely.

If it weren't for normal people owning guns this country wouldn't exist. The 2nd Amendment is part of what makes America "land of the free."

[MadsenOMC]

If it weren't for normal people owning guns this country wouldn't exist.

You mean like well over 200 years ago?

[SpoonMan999]

You mean like well over 200 years ago?

As Americans we have a responsibility to overthrow the government should it exploit the people like the British did. If we give up our right to bear arms we give up any hope of upholding this responsibility.

[MadsenOMC]

As Americans we have a responsibility to overthrow the government should it exploit the people like the British did. If we give up our right to bear arms we give up any hope of upholding this responsibility.

Do you believe people should be allowed to own automatic weapons?

[Vong]

As Americans we have a responsibility to overthrow the government should it exploit the people like the British did. If we give up our right to bear arms we give up any hope of upholding this responsibility.

Yes, and the government will belly-up easily with a small militia going up against the U.S. Army.

The days of revolting and overthrowing a government through its citizens in an advanced Western capitalist country are far gone.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

People are so clueless. The 2nd Amendment was designed in case the new government didn't work and the people could rebel against it. The founders never stated that the right to bear arms is an essential human right, hence the ambiguous language used in the amendment. If the people wanted to rise against the government now they would fail miserably.

Here is the biggest irony: politically, the same people who support gun rights also support a large military. In other words, the people who always cite the 2nd Amendment are clueless as to how it came about because they would also support their right to overthrow their own government.

[Homyrrh]

You mean like well over 200 years ago?
Whenever.
Do you believe people should be allowed to own automatic weapons?

Is this a joke? Or an honest question? I don't see anyone mentioning the availability of automatic weapons to the general civilian populace as appropriate. Hell, grunts use three-round bursts now anyway.

[SpoonMan999]

Do you believe people should be allowed to own automatic weapons?

I do indeed, with proper screening of course. I for one enjoy shooting at a target range and, once I'm in a better financial opinion, would like to start collecting guns. However let me add that simply having one outside of your home not in a locked case should be a felony.

Yes, and the government will belly-up easily with a small militia going up against the U.S. Army.

The days of revolting and overthrowing a government through its citizens in an advanced Western capitalist country are far gone.

During the revolutionary war hundreds of men defected from the British army and fought for the colonies instead. If things get as bad as they were back then I'm sure you'll see a repeat.

[Homyrrh]

If one supports the paramount importance of the military and its effectiveness for defense of a nation, why wouldn't that person also choose to support gun rights for defense of the civilian population in the extreme case that the government utilizes that military woefully against its civilian population?

Not likely, but logical.

[Homyrrh]

I do indeed, with proper screening of course. I for one enjoy shooting at a target range and, once I'm in a better financial opinion, would like to start collecting guns. However let me add that simply having one outside of your home not in a locked case should be a felony.



During the revolutionary war hundreds of men defected from the British army and fought for the colonies instead. If things get as bad as they were back then I'm sure you'll see a repeat.
Civilian autos is asking for a backfire (no pun intended...).

[SpoonMan999]

Civilian autos is asking for a backfire (no pun intended...).

I advocate it only with very heavy screening, including for shop owners and empoyees, the condition stated above. The only place they would be allowed to be fired would be at a firing range.

Canada is very relaxed on gun control and look at how low the rate of death is there by guns. Look at the crime rate compare to just one city in the United States.

[Vong]

During the revolutionary war hundreds of men defected from the British army and fought for the colonies instead. If things get as bad as they were back then I'm sure you'll see a repeat.

Americans are comfortable today having their (albeit outdated) Constitution shit upon and they themselves being shit upon. The only thing that would make them budge is if they were being executed for political crimes. This is far from ever happening...unless the American political system crumbles under it's own aged weight and chaos were to ensue.

[MadsenOMC]

Is this a joke? Or an honest question? I don't see anyone mentioning the availability of automatic weapons to the general civilian populace as appropriate. Hell, grunts use three-round bursts now anyway.

I wasn't talking to you, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to be a smartass. I guess I should expect it from you. I was wondering where he draws the line. Should everyone be able to buy whatever gun they want in America? Is that a constitutional right? That is what I was getting at.

[MadsenOMC]

If one supports the paramount importance of the military and its effectiveness for defense of a nation, why wouldn't that person also choose to support gun rights for defense of the civilian population in the extreme case that the government utilizes that military woefully against its civilian population?

Not likely, but logical.

Is this the NRA's position?

[Moviefan1234]

When the constitution was written people needed guns to provide food for their families. Fortunately for us, we don't need to go hunting for our food anymore. We go to the grocery store, guns are not needed in America.

[Homyrrh]

Is this the NRA's position?
I was just refuting the statement that the two stances were in opposition to one another. Otherwise here (http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx)is a link to the NRA's "About Us" page.

[RicochetShaw]

When the constitution was written people needed guns to provide food for their families. Fortunately for us, we don't need to go hunting for our food anymore. We go to the grocery store, guns are not needed in America.



I respect you, MF, but you're waaaaaaaaaay off base here. Take a look at the 2nd Amendment... has NOTHING to do with food or hunting.

[SpoonMan999]

I respect you, MF, but you're waaaaaaaaaay off base here. Take a look at the 2nd Amendment... has NOTHING to do with food or hunting.

Pricisely, in my opinion it ties right into my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I have a right to protect myself protect my life and my freedom. And by banning guns you're not taking guns out of the hands of criminals, you're taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals will get guns no matter how man laws or bans we place on them...and I have every right to fight back should someone break into my home.

[MadsenOMC]

I have a right to protect myself protect my life and my freedom.

Is this how you interpret the 2nd amendment?

[Homyrrh]

I wasn't talking to you, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to be a smartass. I guess I should expect it from you. I was wondering where he draws the line. Should everyone be able to buy whatever gun they want in America? Is that a constitutional right? That is what I was getting at.
I asked whether it was a joke in the same smartass nature you've accused me of using. Because I feel the American public cannot quite be trusted with full-auto rifles, and hope others see that lapse in competence as well, I assumed you were being sarcastic.

And I am often a smartass. It's unfortunate.

[cuddleworthy]

One day Kennedy is some people's worst nightmare, the next day he's their best friend.

Whenever I read the 2nd Amendment, I can never find the part that declares every person has the right to own a handgun.

Webster's definition of "militia":
b: a body of citizens organized for military service

Citizens is mentioned, rather than military force. Also to add:

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-- Thomas Jefferson

When the constitution was written people needed guns to provide food for their families. Fortunately for us, we don't need to go hunting for our food anymore. We go to the grocery store, guns are not needed in America.

And also, to use as self-defense. A great majority of people used their own arms, often times in their own militias, against the British in the Revolutionary War.

[SpoonMan999]

Is this how you interpret the 2nd amendment?

Why do you bother asking that when I just stated that it is? The amendment does not say this specificaly but I'm fairly certain this is what our fore fathers intended when they wrote it.

And on Hom's sarcasm I can probably go search for at least three or four times you've used the same smart-ass attitude with me so don't even start with that.

[MadsenOMC]

Webster's definition of "militia":
b: a body of citizens organized for military service

Citizens is mentioned, rather than military force. Also to add:

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-- Thomas Jefferson

What's your point?

[MadsenOMC]

Why do you bother asking that when I just stated that it is? The amendment does not say this specificaly but I'm fairly certain this is what our fore fathers intended when they wrote it.


I'm fairly certain your interpretation is totally wrong.

[SpoonMan999]

What's your point?

His point is reiterating mine, he have a right and responsibility to fight back.

[Homyrrh]

Why do you bother asking that when I just stated that it is? The amendment does not say this specificaly but I'm fairly certain this is what our fore fathers intended when they wrote it.

And on Hom's sarcasm I can probably go search for at least three or four times you've used the same smart-ass attitude with me so don't even start with that.
I read that earlier, but I try hard no to use that argument. Three, four times today actually. What's wrong with making others feel stupid for one post? It just goes back and forth.

[MadsenOMC]

His point is reiterating mine, he have a right and responsibility to fight back.

You act like fighting back is routine, something that has happened before and will happen again. A regular occurrence.

[Moviefan1234]

I respect you, MF, but you're waaaaaaaaaay off base here. Take a look at the 2nd Amendment... has NOTHING to do with food or hunting.

Along with the militia that was the basis for the need for weapons. They had to hunt for food. Without allowing guns, they never ever would have been able to survive.

[SpoonMan999]

I read that earlier, but I try hard no to use that argument. Three, four times today actually. What's wrong with making others feel stupid for one post? It just goes back and forth.

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Homyrrh]

His point is reiterating mine, he have a right and responsibility to fight back.
Didn't Jefferson not only contribute to the Constitution, but write the Declaration of Independence declaring a fully-concious militancy, if necessary, against the King's reign.

[SpoonMan999]

Didn't Jefferson not only contribute to the Constitution, but write the Declaration of Independence declaring a fully-concious militancy, if necessary, against the King's reign.

Absolutely, I believe it was Jefferson who penned the Declaration wasn't it?

[countchocula]

So when kids use guns, whether accidentally or because they want to kill their classmates, that's okay because you need protection. Do you know how many "law-abiding" citizens snap and kill their families or their neighbors? It's not worth it. Gun control should be policed very strictly. I know that my position is extreme, but no one needs a fucking gun. And you're going to need more than a pistol in your sock drawer to overthrow the government.

I'm sorry, but Ted Nugent can learn how to live without shooting things every day.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah...as I said ;) But he did so knowing we as American citizens would have to take up arms.

[SpoonMan999]

Yeah...as I said ;) But he did so knowing we as American citizens would have to take up arms.

Sorry, been reading Inspection Requests all day and the words are starting to blur together.

So when kids use guns, whether accidentally or because they want to kill their classmates, that's okay because you need protection. Do you know how many "law-abiding" citizens snap and kill their families or their neighbors? It's not worth it. Gun control should be policed very strictly. I know that my position is extreme, but no one needs a fucking gun. And you're going to need more than a pistol in your sock drawer to overthrow the government.

I'm sorry, but Ted Nugent can learn how to live without shooting things every day.

No it's not ok, and nobdy here said it was. And a pistol in your sock drawer can do a lot when it's a few million pissed off people carrying them. And like I said, if someone realy wants a gun they'll get it no matter how many regulations or bans we put on them.

[cuddleworthy]

Absolutely, I believe it was Jefferson who penned the Declaration wasn't it?

Along with Adams and Franklin.

So when kids use guns, whether accidentally or because they want to kill their classmates, that's okay because you need protection. Do you know how many "law-abiding" citizens snap and kill their families or their neighbors? It's not worth it. Gun control should be policed very strictly. I know that my position is extreme, but no one needs a fucking gun. And you're going to need more than a pistol in your sock drawer to overthrow the government.

I'm sorry, but Ted Nugent can learn how to live without shooting things every day.

Sigh. That's totalitarian thinking. Do you think most criminals buy their weapons from regular gun shops? The few idiots who shoot up their school do, but most criminals get their weapons from black markets. Which any type of government is bad at eradicating. The government cannot police even our own border or run the post office correctly.

[RicochetShaw]

He did write most of the Declaration, but I don't think he was a contributing writer to the Constitution. He was in France during the Constitutional Convention.

[RicochetShaw]

Along with the militia that was the basis for the need for weapons. They had to hunt for food. Without allowing guns, they never ever would have been able to survive.


Relevance?

I'm pretty sure we're talking the Constitution, here, and there's nothing about food or hunting in it.

[MadsenOMC]

Sigh. That's totalitarian thinking. Do you think most criminals buy their weapons from regular gun shops? The few idiots who shoot up their school do, but most criminals get their weapons from black markets. Which any type of government is bad at eradicating. The government cannot police even our own border or run the post office correctly.

Two most popular ways for a criminal to get a gun, according to one study:

1.) Straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.

2.) Sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

[The Postmaster General]

I don't mind guns. As for the hunting comment, my grandfather was a hunter, and lived 60 miles from the nearest place to purchase meat. Hunting worked for him, considered he was always snowed in for 4 months in winter, and processed/packaged meats contain additives that cause them to go rancid even in the freezer. I always respected his decision. He owned a rifle and that was about it. He gardened vegetables most of the summer, hunted in the Winter, and was strong enough to get back to work on his property in Spring.

It wasn't the life for me, but he made a good life for himself, and I see the difference between him as a gun owner and some teenage kid who buys a gun at school, or some gangbanger who buys an automatic weapon from a backdoor at a gun show.

That's where I point at my uncle-in-law who moves guns up from South America, is basically a nutso that likes hearing shit blow up, hunts even though he's less than 5 miles from a meat market, and frankly worries me with his drinking and tendency to shake his chamber around.

Personally, I don't like the idea of liberties being taken away from us. I don't like the government telling me I can't own something because it can be used to harm others. The second amendment isn't even a factor for me. We aren't talking about arms, we are talking about an EXTREMELY basic design used to fire a projectile. This is the same type of weapon you can make with $30 and a trip to home depot, and probably make with better effect to harm people.

The problem is with things being designed with an intent solely to break the law. That's why the "I deserve automatic weapons" POV bugs me. It's the same way I feel about cars that are designed to be raced, being made for normal use. Just as I don't think a citizen with no intent to stay within the law, such as Hulk Hogan's son, should have access to a car designed to be raced, I don't think citizens should have access to weapons solely designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

In the Midwest, you practically need to fill out forms resembling house loans in order to buy really simple cold medicine. This is to track the manufacturing of methamphetamines. As annoying and aggravating as it is, it does seem to have a positive affect. I just don't see why we can't further apply this type of sales to guns if we apply such sales toward people who are sick and want medicine.

Probably one of the most exemplary problems with America is we have constitutional amendment used to fight for the unlimited rights of people who want to own guns, but not an equivalent amendment for people who are sick.

[countchocula]

Well said, Bubba.

[Moviefan1234]

Relevance?

I'm pretty sure we're talking the Constitution, here, and there's nothing about food or hunting in it.


But that is my relevance RicochetShaw. Along with the need to protect their homes from the British, using weapons was their food source. It was one of the only ways they could gather meat. Those reasons are why the right to bear arms is in the constitution. Obviously as you and I are both full aware protecting themselves and families from the British was the first thing they worried about, but don't be mistaken about their need for getting meat. You needed a gun at the time to kill a deer, elk, bear, turkey, etc. Today though times are a changin,' it's time we get rid of guns.

[boombche_stum]

So when kids use guns, whether accidentally or because they want to kill their classmates, that's okay because you need protection.

No one would ever say a kid killing classmates, or any murder for that matter, is okay. But why blame it on guns? Is the solution to ban guns and just hope violent crime drops afterward? Why not take a look at some of the key issues and components as to WHY these kids snap and do these horrendous things (Parental issues, bullying, etc.). I always get tired of people blaming weapons as the souce of our problems when realistically the issue isn't any weapon... it's a societal issue. America is infatuated with violence, you know it and I know it... we take a hands off attitude towards violence more so than sex in the public sphere... there are obviously reasons for this but instead of trying to figure out what these reasons are, poeple just shout "Gun control" and think that will cure our ills. I beg to differ.

Do you know how many "law-abiding" citizens snap and kill their families or their neighbors?
Yet again, is this the fault of the gun? The Gun manufacturer? Or the person? And if so, do you think taking guns away would make some people less volitile or less prone to commit an act like this?

It's not worth it. Gun control should be policed very strictly. I know that my position is extreme, but no one needs a fucking gun. And you're going to need more than a pistol in your sock drawer to overthrow the government.

I'm sorry, but Ted Nugent can learn how to live without shooting things every day.

I think ANYONE who wants to own a gun should be subjected to incredibly strict background checks and be FORCED to go to a training/safety course. If the person has ANY history of mental issues, violent crimes, sexual crimes, etc... they should not under any circumstances be able to own a gun. Outside of that however, if someone is a perfectly well suited law biding citizen, they should be allowed to own a gun. And I think it is quite clear what the Founders were trying to say, especially if you look at the first draft of the Second Ammendment:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This is quite similar to common law of self defense and has its roots in the 1689 English Bill Of Rights which granted individuals the right to PRIVATELY own a gun for lawful purposes. Also, the wording, specifically the use of "the people" (And especially in the context of the Bill Of Rights) I would argue grants an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, not just a state/militia right..... Something else I also find odd is no one seems to get the point that if we are not allowed an individual right to keep and bear arms, how could any one state bring together an armed militia to stand up to a Federal Government?

[SpoonMan999]

This is quite similar to common law of self defense and has its roots in the 1689 English Bill Of Rights which granted individuals the right to PRIVATELY own a gun for lawful purposes. Also, the wording, specifically the use of "the people" (And especially in the context of the Bill Of Rights) I would argue grants an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, not just a state/militia right..... Something else I also find odd is no one seems to get the point that if we are not allowed an individual right to keep and bear arms, how could any one state bring together an armed militia to stand up to a Federal Government?

I have brought up the point a few times that we have the right and responsibility to defend ourselves from oppression, even if it comes from our own government.

[MadsenOMC]

From a Chicago Tribune editorial about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling:

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,478588.story

[Homyrrh]

From a Chicago Tribune editorial about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling:

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,478588.story

If this is becoming a grander argument:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[MadsenOMC]

So is the editorial board wrong? Did the founder's actually mean that every American citizen has the right to own whatever firearm they want for whatever reason they want?

[Homyrrh]

So is the editorial board wrong? Did the founder's actually mean that every American citizen has the right to own whatever firearm they want for whatever reason they want?
The editorial board is just that, subjective. One cannot substantiate a platform based on what a journalist feels.

All reasons aside for obvious issues, specifically concerning an even greater ambiguity, "they" meant for the citizens' right to "bear arms" (most likely for the reason of preservation of property and defense).

[MadsenOMC]

The editorial board is just that, subjective. One cannot substantiate a platform based on what a journalist feels.

All reasons aside for obvious issues, specifically concerning an even greater ambiguity, "they" meant for the citizens' right to "bear arms" (most likely for the reason of preservation of property and defense).

I guess you read the amendment itself differently than I do.

[Homyrrh]

The editorial board is just that, subjective. One cannot substantiate a platform based on what a journalist feels.

All reasons aside for obvious issues, specifically concerning an even greater ambiguity, "they" meant for the citizens' right to "bear arms" (most likely for the reason of preservation of property and defense).
...and does not have to include anything beyond a means of defense (i.e. - automatic firearms).

[Homyrrh]

I guess you read the amendment itself differently than I do.
I figured that was the root of the issue--interpretation of the Constitution.