If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 697
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

20306 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Dec 2002 at 12:00 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



697 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-12-06 12:03:16 PM  
here we go again
 
2002-12-06 12:03:36 PM  
*bang*
 
2002-12-06 12:03:40 PM  
this reminds me:
isn't charleton heston's hand already cold and dead?
 
2002-12-06 12:03:53 PM  
Can you say "appeal"? I can.

/hopes the system works that way at that level...
 
2002-12-06 12:04:56 PM  
Fark me! I'm wearing a T-shirt right now! Ahhh, the police are storming my cubicle...
 
2002-12-06 12:05:28 PM  
This is gonna get good.
 
2002-12-06 12:05:42 PM  
Hoo hoo hoo hooeeee ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
 
2002-12-06 12:05:51 PM  
 
2002-12-06 12:06:06 PM  
Wacky Americans and their guns...
 
2002-12-06 12:06:08 PM  
Pieces of paper do not grant or limit human rights. Only humans do.
 
2002-12-06 12:06:44 PM  
Seriously, though,
The founding fathers roll over once more.
 
2002-12-06 12:06:48 PM  
It will be very interesting to see what happens to this decision on appeal. The Supreme court would almost have to take it under consideration.

It also is no big suprise to me that this happened in California.
 
2002-12-06 12:07:02 PM  
Enough of the various Founders writings indicate to me that the citizenry's bearing arms was a necessity to prevent an in-place government from taking ultimate control.

Of course, with today's armament a "militia" of patriotic citizens bent upon creating an actual government of for and by the people would be slaughtered if the military obeyed the orders from the entrenched power structure to slaughter their fellow citizens.
 
2002-12-06 12:07:03 PM  
Since when is it up to a judge in california to interpret the constitution? Thought that was the supreme courts job.

Was this the same asshole that decided the word "god" had to be excluded from the pledge of allegance?
 
2002-12-06 12:07:17 PM  
glad they outlawed them. Since everyone that would use them to commit a crime cares about the laws.
 
2002-12-06 12:07:32 PM  
Interesting. If it wasn't an individual's right, who was SUPPOSED to bear arms against the government? I just don't get it. Maybe I am the stupid one here...
 
2002-12-06 12:07:33 PM  
NRA whines like a baby in 5...4...3...
Flippin' whiny conservatives.


The flame war was about to start... figured I'd pour a little fuel on it.
 
2002-12-06 12:07:42 PM  
You know what's even scarier? The Charlton Heston Bible Video! Anyone see this infomercial?
 
2002-12-06 12:07:44 PM  
 
2002-12-06 12:07:52 PM  
The 9th District is the most Liberal of all Federal Appellate Courts. It is the court that tried to outlaw the "one nation under God" phrase. This will not stand.
 
2002-12-06 12:07:56 PM  
What about the right to arm bears? It's big in Russia, etc etc...

*gets other coat*
 
2002-12-06 12:08:04 PM  
This is the infamous 9th Circuit. the ones who ruled against the pledge of allegience a few months ago and the same court that has had so many of its decisions overruled by justices who have a modicum of common sense.

who do you fear the most: a 17-year-old gangbanger with a rusty .25 caliber auto, or me, a married father of two with over a dozen shotguns and deer rifles?
 
2002-12-06 12:08:05 PM  
Even though this may be obvious, considering how liberal I am, I agree with this ruling, but I do believe that people should be allowed hand guns for protection in their home.

The thing is, civilians really shouldn't be allowed to handle the type of heavy weapons that the military uses. Why do they need them? The only practical uses for them seem to be hunting and sport shooting, and both of those things I think this country could do without.
 
2002-12-06 12:08:17 PM  
Finally an American that doesn't have his head up his ass...

Let the flamewar begin :P

/flame.
 
2002-12-06 12:08:26 PM  
They didn't ban all guns. They banned military style automatic weapons.

Anyone who thinks something is wrong with that, has something wrong with them.
 
2002-12-06 12:08:29 PM  
What is that in the third from the bottom left???
 
2002-12-06 12:08:47 PM  
Bears have four legs, not two legs and two arms, right?

Oh.
 
2002-12-06 12:09:26 PM  
Good God! Did I have to land beneath Jabba the Hut?
 
2002-12-06 12:09:42 PM  
allright, one quick hit then i'm outta here: what size/caliber arms do gun people think should be the LIMIT? weapons grade plutonium? assualt rifles? anti-aircraft guns?
 
2002-12-06 12:09:42 PM  
Since when is it up to a judge in california to interpret the constitution?

Whoa. I like to think I'm pretty numb to ignorace by now, but...Whoa.

Anybody seen Bowling for Columbine yet?

[adds gasoline]
 
2002-12-06 12:10:04 PM  
Zen monkey: my 30.06 Remington 7600 semi-auto is about 3 times as powerful as an M-16 used by the US military.

an M-16 cartridge is designed to wound. a deer rifle is designed to kill.
 
2002-12-06 12:10:11 PM  
SamHandwich- I think that we all agree about that right to bare arms shouldn't exist...
 
2002-12-06 12:10:26 PM  
Well, more judicial wisdom from the 9th Circuit, the circuit that generates more Supreme Court reversals than anyother court in the land. This one is toast. Even if the Supremes uphold the ruling, the reasoning will probably get tossed.

Altoid: Yes, same court. Not sure about the judge, and too busy to look it up. And any court can interpret the Constitution, but SCOTUS has the final word.
 
2002-12-06 12:10:28 PM  
 
2002-12-06 12:10:53 PM  
this should have a hero tag.
funny how conservatives feel it's o.k. to shred the 1st 5th 14th amendements but the 2nd is sacred.
 
2002-12-06 12:10:55 PM  
Azpenguin:
"Flippin' whiny conservatives."

Actually, it is the birkenstocks sandal wearing peace-dream cry-baby hippies who were whining in the first place. Maybe if they shut their pies holes to begin with....

*firmaproof fire jumpsuit in place*
 
2002-12-06 12:11:23 PM  
"While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military style weapons to be on the streets in our state," said Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general.


As a former candidate for elected office, (and firearms owner) I asked a local NRA official about their stance on the right to own these assault weapons. There pat answer was always the right to bear arms. When asked about the safety of our police officers and other public safety officials, the argument always turned to whether or not I was a true American for suggesting such a thing.

The NRA should get it's head out of it's arse and stop trying to polarize those who understand the right to bear arms and those who believe if you are not armed to the teeth then you are not a true American.
 
2002-12-06 12:11:34 PM  
Repo- I think that's a belly button.
 
2002-12-06 12:12:14 PM  
an M-16 cartridge is designed to wound people. a deer rifle is designed to kill deer.
 
2002-12-06 12:12:15 PM  
Narffran,

The judges didn't hold that the assault weapon ban was legal because assault weapons were something that could be reasonably regulated under the second amendment, they held that it was legal because the second amendmend doesn't really exist in their minds. While the result itself may be upheld, the reasoning is deeply flawed, as even many liberal activist lawyers will tell you.
 
2002-12-06 12:12:19 PM  
"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

right, so "the people" means "the people" in the preamble and the other amendments but not in the second amendment.
 
2002-12-06 12:12:21 PM  
Narffran
I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

Amendment II
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.

Please tell me how gun control is constitutional.
 
2002-12-06 12:12:29 PM  
[adds gasoline]

[Hops in and out of car]
 
2002-12-06 12:12:50 PM  

"Amendment II


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. "

 
2002-12-06 12:13:18 PM  
In all actuality, the biggest barrier preventing the government from "enslaving" the citizens is not a guy's gun. The military, its armaments, and the intelligence structure is far too powerful for that. The biggest barrier is the willingness of a US soldier to obey an order to turn on his fellow citizen. If he were given the order to fire on his fellow countrymen, would he, or would he remember his duty to protect the US against all enemies foriegn and domestic?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun ownership, but do you seriously think that the military might of the US is going to crumble that easily when faced with unorganized resistance?
 
2002-12-06 12:13:20 PM  
Arms, yes. Assault weapons that have no purpose other than to efficiently kill people in large numbers? No.
 
2002-12-06 12:13:25 PM  
I predict over 400 posts to this thread by end of day.

Here's a little insurance:

Guns are for guys who can't get laid!!!!
 
2002-12-06 12:13:31 PM  
There's a reason I got out of california. Oh well, guess the government knows whats best for us. California, New Jersey. What is it about proximity to the ocean that causes a state to want to control every aspect of their subjects lives?
 
2002-12-06 12:13:34 PM  
Doesn't it seem like people who worry that the government will be beating down their doors if they say the word "Taliban" should also want the military-style weapons at their disposal?
 
2002-12-06 12:13:49 PM  
Texasgurl - Shred the 14th Amendment? Affirmative action does that every day... but not for much longer, since the Supremes have taken it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 697 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report