General

[Meph]

Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News

Good Court Justices. Here's a treat.

[HurtCow]

Bout damn time. I wonder what the Berkeley intellectual liberals are going to do now.

[netsurferdude2]

Well since they closed the recruiting station, they should open a gun shop in its place.

[Listessa]

Originally Posted by HurtCow

Bout damn time. I wonder what the Berkeley intellectual liberals are going to do now.

Start ing about something new most likely.

Thank goodness.

[drg]

Originally Posted by HurtCow

Bout damn time. I wonder what the Berkeley intellectual liberals are going to do now.

Go shooting maybe?

gun club loc: Berkeley, CA - Google Maps

[pillage]

Originally Posted by HurtCow

Bout damn time. I wonder what the Berkeley intellectual liberals are going to do now.

them.

[RealtorTommy]

I watched the whole thing on CSPAN....Some of the dumb stuff from the D.C. side...just makes you want to shoot someone....

[Azzy]

Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

Yeah... and yeah...

I read the 110 page transcript (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/07-290.pdf).. and I had higher hopes than a decision that says, you can have guns, but we can regulate the hell out of them"

Which, is WHAT THEY ALREADY DO!

So, business as usual.

Heck, that transcript made some of the best arguments I have ever seen for the private ownership of machine guns. But I think they glossed over one huge part. Who were the founding fathers thinking of that the people would take arms up against? Perhaps a government over reaching its powers, a government that started to think that it was the delegator of rights to the people, instead of those rights being lent by a higher untouchable power, and lent to the government for the collective good?

[SHAG]

Hi,

Originally Posted by RealtorTommy

I watched the whole thing on CSPAN....Some of the dumb stuff from the D.C. side...just makes you want to shoot someone....

That's why they want to ban them

My wife's girlfriend lives and works in DC for the census bureau. When Rumsfeld was the DoD head, he wound up living right down the street from her. She said it was the safest the street was in years according to the residents. After awhile she said the protection security would just know who was the resident and who was the non resident. She is still lucky though since her townhouse is surrounded by several foreign national embassies and other high ranking gov't/ foreign national officials. So apparently her hood is pretty safe.

Otherwise, that was very interesting case though. I would have never thought that someone would consider the 2nd amendment a group right. The last time I checked the first 10 amendments are pretty much individual or state rights at the most. I wonder if Ed Randell is running to soapbox now after that decision by the supreme court. He was one of the puppets of the anti gun people. I am surprised he got elected for governor in PA in the first place then didn't turn the state into a NJ in second place.

Just remember they giveth here but they taketh from over there.

Later,
shaggy

[RealtorTommy]

Well from what I see...the whole thing is about why can't a legal handgun be kept in a home for protection or anything else as hunting or target practice...since a shotgun or rifle is allowed......as the 2nd says to be free and bear arms....

Very interesting is that both sides used English Law from before 1790 to state their cases.......