2nd amendment goes nationwide!!!

[lincoln8740]

Great victory for freedom!!!



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...pphu-container

[firstandten]

I don't understand what the big deal is. Folks such as yourself have been going ballistic ever since Obama became president thinking he was going to take your guns from you , or take your bullets, or put you government re-education camps to teach you the joys of life without guns, whatever.

I challenge you to find any statement, speech, op-ed article where Obama said he was going to take your blessed toys from you.

Calm down 2nd amendment folks, regardless of the Scotus decision nothing was going to affect your ability to go out in the woods and shoot at creatures that can't shoot back any time soon.

[MCP-001]

I challenge you to find any statement, speech, op-ed article where Obama said he was going to take your blessed toys from you.

Calm down 2nd amendment folks, regardless of the Scotus decision nothing was going to affect your ability to go out in the woods and shoot at creatures that can't shoot back any time soon.

Obama's record on the Second Amendment speaks for itself.

Remember this?

And as for hunting, why do the anti's feel that the only reason for a firearm is to hunt? Why doesn't self-defense ever come to mind?

[firstandten]

Obama's record on the Second Amendment speaks for itself.

How does his record on the second amendment speaks for itself ??

Please enlighten me.

[MCP-001]

How does his record on the second amendment speaks for itself ??

Please enlighten me.

Again, the information is included in the post.

I'm not going to hand-hold anyone through a debate on about the Second Amendment.

[firstandten]

Again, the information is included in the post.

I'm not going to hand-hold anyone through a debate on about the Second Amendment.

My bad, I missed the link, I think out of all you provided this is the important point


Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions."

It should be up to the local communities to decide on the extent of gun control. Again he is not saying to get rid of the second amendment. I don't see that as him wanting to take away your guns . As an Illinois legislator there is a reality that illegal guns in Chicago are out of control. So you go back to that to prove a point that he is against the second amendment and wants to take away your guns. As a candidate for president or since he's been president what has he said to lead you to believe that he wants to take away your guns.

Living in Detroit, if I have criminals with more firepower than the police the second amendment is just some abstract statement to me. The reality is that I want those guns off the street and the thugs put in jail.

[Detroitej72]

I don't understand what the big deal is. Folks such as yourself have been going ballistic ever since Obama became president thinking he was going to take your guns from you , or take your bullets, or put you government re-education camps to teach you the joys of life without guns, whatever.

I challenge you to find any statement, speech, op-ed article where Obama said he was going to take your blessed toys from you.

These sort of people read radical Internet sites and believe the propaganda that is put out. Then, you got the mainstream media, like Fox and AM radio that play upon these fears and it adds a certain amount of credibility to those who choose to drink the kool-aid.

There never was any plan by Obama to seize guns from personal citizens, yet I personally know 14 people who buy into this myth. And, judging by their jokes, the biggest reason they buy into the lies is because we have a black president with an ethnic sounding name, therefore, he must be anti-Christian and anti-American.

[MCP-001]

These sort of people read radical Internet sites and believe the propaganda that is put out. Then, you got the mainstream media, like Fox and AM radio that play upon these fears and it adds a certain amount of credibility to those who choose to drink the kool-aid.

There never was any plan by Obama to seize guns from personal citizens, yet I personally know 14 people who buy into this myth. And, judging by their jokes, the biggest reason they buy into the lies is because we have a black president with an ethnic sounding name, therefore, he must be anti-Christian and anti-American.

See my post above for link about Obama's prior actions regarding this.

[Bobl]

I don't understand what the big deal is. Folks such as yourself have been going ballistic ever since Obama became president thinking he was going to take your guns from you , or take your bullets, or put you government re-education camps to teach you the joys of life without guns, whatever.

I challenge you to find any statement, speech, op-ed article where Obama said he was going to take your blessed toys from you.

Calm down 2nd amendment folks, regardless of the Scotus decision nothing was going to affect your ability to go out in the woods and shoot at creatures that can't shoot back any time soon.

Well written. Now, how does one join a "well regulated militia"?

[Zacha341]

Not so clear cut!! Gun ownership and CCWs are up for example in Detroit [[a democratic strong hold), and I don't think that it's in response to Obama fear ala gun grabbin'.

I think something a bit nearer and dearer is a motivator: CRIME.

Oh, another point: the average Detroit deciding to bear arms [[CCW or in-home protection) is not a NRA member or repub [[smile).

I don't understand what the big deal is. Folks such as yourself have been going ballistic ever since Obama became president thinking he was going to take your guns from you , or take your bullets, or put you government re-education camps to teach you the joys of life without guns, whatever.

I challenge you to find any statement, speech, op-ed article where Obama said he was going to take your blessed toys from you.

Calm down 2nd amendment folks, regardless of the Scotus decision nothing was going to affect your ability to go out in the woods and shoot at creatures that can't shoot back any time soon.

[Sstashmoo]

From the article referenced: "By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges."

Typical ploy. Grant you something you already have, before they take something away.

[lincoln8740]

From the article referenced: "By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges."

Typical ploy. Grant you something you already have, before they take something away.

I really don't have a problem with this portion. It is now an established right and liberal communities will now have to think twice before they pass some bat-shit crazy law like they did in chicago or DC because it will be very expensive to defend and they are on the hook to prove why the rights of its citizens should be abridged.

[Detroitnerd]

Part of the problem with the discussion of the Second Amendment is often -- dare I say it? -- the very people who are pro-gun. There is an uneducated, macho, chest-thumping, strident, nativist streak running through that set that turns off a lot of people. It's a classic case of some people being their own worst enemies.

[MCP-001]

Part of the problem with the discussion of the Second Amendment is often -- dare I say it? -- the very people who are pro-gun. There is an uneducated, macho, chest-thumping, strident, nativist streak running through that set that turns off a lot of people. It's a classic case of some people being their own worst enemies.

Those are the people the MSM WANT to interview.

It causes friction, which generates viewers/listeners/readers.

Why interview someone well-spoken like John Stossel or John Lott if they won't generate buzz?

[Detroitnerd]

Why interview someone well-spoken like John Stossel or John Lott ... ?

Because Stossel is a gaping azzhole.

[Detroitnerd]

Those are the people the MSM WANT to interview.

It causes friction, which generates viewers/listeners/readers.

Why interview someone well-spoken like John Stossel or John Lott if they won't generate buzz?

Seriously, though, it's not just the MSM. It's something I encounter on this forum quite a bit.

[MCP-001]

Seriously, though, it's not just the MSM. It's something I encounter on this forum quite a bit.

I won't speak for other forumers here [[yes, I did catch the sarcasm above).

But I have observed this first hand on most of the media outlets that have gotten the "man-on-the-street" take on this ruling.

[Detroitnerd]

I won't speak for other forumers here [[yes, I did catch the sarcasm above).

But I have observed this first hand on most of the media outlets that have gotten the "man-on-the-street" take on this ruling.

That is something you seldom see. Point taken. But I still think the gun-rights folks should smooth their act out a little, make their points, and stop framing it as a front in the "culture wars" or something.

[rb336]

Why interview someone well-spoken like John Stossel or John Lott if they won't generate buzz?

John Stossel is well-spoken? If you consider vitriolic demagogging well-spoken, I guess you are right

[Mikeg]

I don't understand what the big deal is.

The "big deal" is that there are 4 US SC Justices who believe there is wording in the Constitution and its 2nd Amendment that can be interpreted to allow a restriction on the rights of any law-abiding citizen to legally own a gun for self-defense - regardless of where they live.

[Retroit]

Part of the problem with the discussion of the Second Amendment is often -- dare I say it? -- the very people who are pro-gun. There is an uneducated, macho, chest-thumping, strident, nativist streak running through that set that turns off a lot of people. It's a classic case of some people being their own worst enemies.

The only gun owners you need to worry about are the criminals. Most gun owners that I associate with are educated, humble, law-abiding, and proud to be American.

[Zacha341]

And there are gun owners who just not willing to not be a victim in their homes et al. Responsible gun owners do not ALL subscribe to the SAME world view or politics. For sure they are not all republicans or NRA charter members!

Neato and convenient if they where all the same -- convenient especially to those who want to "sum" up and ascribe a partisan rubric to all gun owners in one manner or another!

The only gun owners you need to worry about are the criminals. Most gun owners that I associate with are educated, humble, law-abiding, and proud to be American.

[Gannon]

Part of the problem with the discussion of the Second Amendment is often -- dare I say it? -- the very people who are pro-gun. There is an uneducated, macho, chest-thumping, strident, nativist streak running through that set that turns off a lot of people. It's a classic case of some people being their own worst enemies.

Nah, there are plenty of reasonable gun owning and toting people...who are wise enough to keep quiet around folk who assume that anyone who dares to bear arms is an uneducated, macho, chest-thumping, strident, nativist streaker. It is not worth the effort necessary to surprise, educate, and paradigm-shift their detractors. Too much a shock when you shake someone from their world-view.


This is a good decision from the Supreme Court, biggest deal is they clarified who was covered by this amendment, mere Militia members or everyone. It is clear they said everyone has the right to keep and bear arms via the Constitution...

[Detroitnerd]

Yeah, I'm talking about this sort of stuff ...

http://www.zazzle.com/when_you_pr~~~...55523749780563

[Papasito]

"By a 5-4 vote"

That's pretty damn close.
Swap out one more Justice in the next couple of years, and the direction of the country, and the interpretation of the Constitution, will drastically change.