Gun rights ruling: agree or disagree ?

I’m still very unsure about this subject but I do know that I don’t take an extreme position either way. I also know that the Second Amendment’s purpose was to guarantee that the citizenry could protect itself against a tyrannical government, foreign invader or hostile native. It’s purpose was not to put an AK-47 in the hands of every hotshot who wants one (and I do not mean to imply here that those who support this ruling want that).

I’m from the Hood(Oakland, California). Everybody has guns that are illegal here. It does not make a difference in poverty stricken neighborhoods. THINK ABOUT IT.

yea’ its ok, for people to go hunting and for self protection but like its been said, need stricter laws, and not something stupid like allowing them at the bars

yea’ its ok, for people to go hunting and for self protection but like its been said, need stricter laws, and not something stupid like allowing them at the bars

If people want guns…let them have guns. I do agree that stricter laws should happen. But sadly enough, I do know that it wouldn’t make a big enough difference. People are going to do whatever they want.

I disagree. There has to be a way to control all this shooting that is going on in our country.

I don’t have a problem with gun ownership for self-defense and hunting. But if we’re going to allow gun ownership, it needs to be much more strictly regulated.

We regulate every other major industry whose products kill people. Why should the gun industry be any different?

agree guns are awsome

From the opinion: “…the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

I think that the Court was correct in its ruling. The laws don’t seem to stop the criminals from having guns but do consume considerable law enforcement time doing background checks and trying to make sure that law abiding people follow all the rules and procedures for owning guns. Then there is also that little thing known as the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to bear arms.

I agree totally with this issue with gun rights. I think that Americans should have the right to own a gun for self defense or hunting because, how would they survive without one? No one should take that right away from anyone who own a gun. They need a gun to protect themselves. So, hopefully no one will give me a zero on this answer.

mjax, you want guns to be regulated MORE?! if I buy a gun, I have to have a background check and a criminal record check, I have to be fingerprinted, I have to apply for a license, I have to GET that license, I can’t have it with me when I’m out and about, if it’s in the car with me, I need to keep it separate from any ammunition I have. when I buy a gun, I have a waiting period I have to go through, I have to register that gun with the government, and I don’t even get the gun if I don’t pass the checks. oh yeah, and after I jump through all those hoops, (which cost MONEY,) I have to pay for the gun, too. the only thing I can think of that would be MORE regulation is if a government official came with you anytime you used it, and yelled at you if you broke a rule.

Same here, I’m proud to be a gun-clutching, Bible-clutching American !!

One of the worst rulings the supreme court has ever made. It was purely political. Amazing how the conservatives don’t think these 5 supremes were being activist judges. But any judge that overturns a law in their favor is immediately attacked as an activist. The stench of hypocrisy is disgusting.

The second ammendment is clear in what it says. There is no separation between the subject (the need for a well-regulated militia), and the subordinate clause (the right to bear arms). They do not stand separate and apart. What people don’t even realize, is this court has now overturned prior supreme courts that have already defined the second ammendment as a right of the state to maintain a militia, and not an individual right to gun wonership. And they did that without providing any new evidence to overturn the prior SCOTUS rulings Clearly an abuse of power..

Even the ruling itself is contradictory. It still says that the state has the right to regulate, but not ban. The DC law did not ban all guns, just handguns. But this ruling still allows for gun regulation. So who gets to draw that line? It seems these activist justices not only get to rule on its constitutionality (which they still got wrong), they get to write the law too.

As Stevens said in his dissent: “The Court 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the courts opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

Scalia is a political hack, and his opinion is a joke. He doesn’t give a damn about the real intent of consitutional law, but only how conservatives can benefit from such rulings. To say that the ammendment refers to anything other than the states right to maintain arms for military purposes is ridiculous, and this court has completely reversed every other ruling SCOTUS has made on the subject. There was nothing new in this case that was not addressed in prior rulings, and therefore should not have even been heard.

But we have seen since 2000 that the conservative majority on the court only cares about maintaining political power, and cares nothing for the actual rule of law.