You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#4181 Re: The Garden » 2nd Amendment ruled individual right by supreme court » 899 weeks ago
This is a great day for freedom and liberty in America. For decades, morons who have no understanding of the constitution or guns in general have been trying to strip us of one of our most important rights just to feel good. Without turning this into a heated political debate, it's great to see that some people are still interested in keeping the ideals of the founding fathers alive.
#4182 The Garden » 2nd Amendment ruled individual right by supreme court » 899 weeks ago
- Randall Flagg
- Replies: 12
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_ … cotus_guns
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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 basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, 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."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
#4183 Re: Guns N' Roses » Chinese Democracy Elimination- Round 1 » 899 weeks ago
I voted for If The World. The song does nothing for me.
#4184 Re: The Garden » Had a medical emergency last night » 899 weeks ago
glad to hear you're alright
#4185 Re: The Garden » Who should be the Democratic VP choice? » 900 weeks ago
Obama needs someone in his camp who knows at least something about the military. I think his best bet is Jim Webb. Not only would he have a respected leader who could advise him on military policy, he'd also have a great shot at taking Virginina and possibly other southern states by proxy, helping him cut into GOP areas.
#4186 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 901 weeks ago
Am I the only one who doesn't want a reunion? Don't get me wrong, I think the UYI lineup(with Izzy) was the greatest incarnation of GN'R. Adler's cool and all, but there is no way he could handle a real tour without getting all doped out and fucking up. But I want to hear Chinese Democracy. UYI 2 is my personal favorite, so I really dig the direction Axl has gone with CD. I love VR and what Slash and Duff do, but I think Axl is really onto something here with the 6 or so songs we have heard. Which brings us to a junction. Why should/would Axl abandon his "new" band when CD is finally released and GN'R gets some modern attention? As Axl said in 02, creating this band from scratch is something that takes some time, no one has ever really done that before. It's an assumption that Slash, Duff, Izzy and Axl still have that chemistry needed to make great music. Alot has changed in 10 years, and who knows what kind of stuff they'd make.
Simply having a reunion so that some fans (I say some because there are still alot of supposed diehards he can't/won't shell out a few bucks to go see a band they supposedly love) can say "Wow, this is awesome. It's just like 1993 again!" Thanks, but no thanks. I have plenty of boots and audio of those shows. I'd only ever be ineterested in a reunion if they were going to make new music, and no one knows if they have the chemistry, let alone the civility and desire to get back together.
How many people are pissed at Axl for his money grab in '06? Yet the same people who bitched about the tour in '06 are willing to pissaway more money at what would be an obvious money grab. We essentially got 3 albums from GN'R. Most of which was made before they "made it." As soon as they were truly in the spotlight, they imploded and gave us the Spaghetti Incident. Yet somehow, some fans think this time around it would somehow be different.
I'm a fan of Gn'R and will support the band in whatever form they exist. I just think that the music Axl has made the past 8 years is worth a lil more than a push by some fans to time travel back to 1993. And finally, if they were ever to reunite, knowing Izzy would never committ to a full tour, what makes you assume Axl would choose who the rhytm guitarist is? Why couldn't Dave Kushner fill in the duties. I'd find that just as likely if not moreso than anyone else as the chemistry and relationship he has the actual band. Axl would always keep Dizzy and if need be, Pittman.
#4187 Re: The Garden » Little Known Facts About America » 901 weeks ago
I didn't call you crazy. Although I think you're inclined to buy into conspiracy babble. Just like some people like to be scared, so they goto horror movies, some people like to believe life is more complex than it really is, so they seek out stuff to make it appear more interesting.
#4188 Re: The Garden » Little Known Facts About America » 901 weeks ago
You know Polluxm, sometime you can post really great stuff and then you post this garbage. Either you have a very poor understanding of the US government or you just choose to believe the wackiest shit out there. Nothing written from the Senate is a law. Just because some Senator wrote an opinion down doesn't mean that it's how the country is. Laws have to be written, voted on and then signed by the President. But hey, if believing the US is controlled by some organization like the Illuminati or whatever you're calling it today makes you feel better, I say go for it.
#4189 Re: The Garden » Obama names a Kennedy to help pick vice president » 901 weeks ago
Powell has no interest in being the VP. However, if McCain were able to lure Powell in, Obama would go bye bye.
#4190 Re: The Garden » New McCain Speech acknowledges Obama as DNC nominee » 902 weeks ago
Neemo,
The President doesn't have to be an expert on the economy as managing the economy isn't his job, managing the military is.
Pasnow,
Clinton didn't win in 92, Bush lost. I'm not saying Clinton was a bad President, although he was a horrible CiC and did great harm to the military in terms of numbers and pay. Clinton won in 92 because Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote and stripped many votes from Bush. Nader got 3% in 2000 and Democrats claim he stole it from Gore. Bush barely lost in 92 and had an opponent that took alot more than 3% of his voting base. Clinton didn't win half of the popular vote, which is something people should remember when they attack Bush for 2000.
Edit: And Bush wasn't a draft dodger. He served his time, honroably in the guard. I know people have tried to claim otherwise, but we saw what happened when Dan Rather ran his bogus report. You can attack people who serve in the reserves and guard if you want, although I wouldn't advise it as they still do their part and do what 99% of the rest of the country won't Kerry may have been on active duty in Vietnam, but he was a coward who served only a month and got out of country for what literally amounted to scratches and "used the system" against his peers and commanders wishes to get out. Gore served in Vietnam too with a personal body guard at his side. I'm not going to attack anyone's specialty in the military, but I find it a damn shame that military srervice seems to be the exception among our politicians and leaders anymore rather than the norm. If these so called patriots really cared about service to their country, they could at least serve for a few years after college before embarking on their political careers. That attitude of those like Romney who think simply being active in politcis is equal to the service of military members or those who claim they support their country by going to college make me sick. I'm in no way saying only people who were in the military can be patriots or serve their country, but when you reap personal gain for all of your actions with no real risk, I find it hard to label that as service to country.