June 26, 2008Gun threadThis is the place to talk about packing heat now that five Supreme Court justices have ignored the language of the constitution and overturned precedent. You can read the decision (157 pages) provided by SCOTUSblog (where interesting rapid-fire analysis is already taking place). It's not on the Supreme Court site yet. |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorials
Letters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
June 26, 2008
Gun thread
This is the place to talk about packing heat now that five Supreme Court justices have ignored the language of the constitution and overturned precedent.
You can read the decision (157 pages) provided by SCOTUSblog (where interesting rapid-fire analysis is already taking place). It's not on the Supreme Court site yet.
Comments
[June 26, 2008 11:07 AM]
HenryI think the Roanoke Times is violating the First Amendment by printing articles criticizing the President. Clearly, the Constitution never intended for newspapers to criticize Republican presidents.
[June 26, 2008 11:53 AM]
BUDa question... what type oF security do you think the judges on the Supreme Court have?? I would think a tad better than the average DC citizen- wouldn't you? Now imagine the nerve of a judge telling these citizens YOU have no right to protect yourself with a handgun... It rises to the level of the limo libs demanding DC public schools be funded and funded and funded with your tax dollars while sending their kids to SIDWELL FRIENDS private school OH WELL all I can do is repeat the cheer which went up as LADY GODIVA would ride by in the parade...HOORAY FOR OUR SIDE!!
[June 26, 2008 12:32 PM]
MerkI think DC just got a whole lot safer.
[June 26, 2008 12:37 PM]
Dopavash : →http://www.opencarry.orgHow in the world can you say that they ignored 2a? The right to keep AND bear arms will not be infringed. How is that mistakable? I believe it is YOU who is ignoring the Constitution, not the Majority in the Supreme Court.
[June 26, 2008 1:20 PM]
HenryLet's see what Obama thinks. He thinks he'll have the waffles.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
Inartful indeed.
[June 26, 2008 1:31 PM]
Ed S.Yeah, I'm not sure what part Christian thinks they ignored. Other uses of "people" in the Constitution? "shall not be infringed"? The common sense that people enjoy rights?
I'm also not sure why this would be the place to talk about "packing heat" when we want to talk about the Heller opinion. As that case was not about "packing heat".
[June 26, 2008 1:35 PM]
C Ramsey"now that five Supreme Court justices have ignored the language of the constitution and overturned precedent."
Grapes anyone? Sounds like there are plenty of sour ones available.
To quote the Times, the Supreme Court got it right again. The argument now underway, that this ruling will allow felons to buy guns and machine guns will be for sale at Wal-Mart are just liberal fear mongering and political pandering.
All this does is guarantee that the government can't institute an absolute ban on guns. In other words, the government can't make exercising a Constituional right illegal. But the majority was careful to explicitly note that the ruling does not "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."
Contrary to the Court's reasoned decision in this case, the anti-gun argument just makes no sense. It would be like having a first amendment that guarantees the people's right to a free press, but then allowing localities to make it illegal for individuals to own a newspaper. Would anyone accept an argument that the police, military and other government officials should be able to have newspapers, but the average citizen shouldn't have access to them?
For the life of me I just can't reconcile the reasoning of some of the high profile liberals like Dianne Feinstein, who, in criticizing the ruling, says "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
I'm sure the media will praise her for taking a progressive stance. Yet strangely, when Antonin Scalia voiced a similar thought in reference to the decision to allow suspected terrorists to challenge their detention, the media ridiculed the statement as "hysterical ranting" and called the dissent "blistering and overheated."
So as near as I can tell from reading the Roanoke Times, the far left thinks allowing non-criminal citizens to own handguns poses a greater threat to society than does releasing suspected terrorists, or convicted drug dealers for that matter.
[June 26, 2008 2:45 PM]
AnonymouseI find Dianne Feinstein's statement hypocritical since she possesses a Concealed Weapons Permit.
Why does she need it if she is safe without it?
I would think this would be more of a discussion on the ruling and what it pertains to than to say lets discuss "packing heat".
By the way I feel the ruling was justified. Now we will have to sit and wait to see what other cases come up.
[June 27, 2008 7:00 PM]
Jimsurely you said that just to get a rise. precedent lies with the Constitution, and it unambiguously states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
for all of you anti-gunners out there.....you lose. Even if the courts decision was different, the people wouldn't follow it. It's called an American liberty.