Supreme Court extends gun rights nationwide (5-4 vote) (McCain, attorneys, abortion)

[swagger]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

You can own a million cars, but you need a liscense [sic] to operate them. So if you don't have a liscence [sic], then why would you own a car?

You only need a license if you intend on operating said vehicle on a public roadway. You can drive your vehicle(s) on private property all day long without having to adhere to any laws whatsoever. You could put your six year old behind the wheel legally, if you could figure out a way to do it without putting them in any danger and you ensured that the vehicle stayed off public roads.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

No...you guys are. Please explain to me your need to have a weapon...Do you live in a war zone? And if you say protection...protection from what?

It's in the Constitution, written right in there.

Amazing that 4 members of the SCOTUS ruled AGAINST the 2nd amendment.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

No, the Constitution covers non-Americans too. People means any people within US jurisdiction. In other words non-citizens can own firearms too. But there is nothing new about that, since that has always been possible.

No they are not. Illegals carrying weapons are still illegal and they have no right to do it.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by lmkcin

FOR A WELL ARMED MILITIA...that's the point of the right, not so you and I can have a weapon for the sake of it.

And please explain, why you need or want to own a gun....protection? protection from what?

Hunting for one, sporting games for two and for three, thankfully those that are opposed to guns don't get to decide what someone else's need is.

Why does it bother you if law-abiding citizens want to have a gun, whether to use it or to display it?

Originally Posted by lmkcin

^haha, well the next time your governor calls for the formation of the your state's miltia, you can have your gun.

So, because you can't answer my question as to the necessity of gun-ownership, then I'm going to assume you have no reason to actually own one.

Maybe you think the people should be defenseless against their government, like Iran or N. Korea?

[meson]

Originally Posted by sanrene

<snip>Maybe you think the people should be defenseless against their government, like Iran or N. Korea?

You need a gun to defend yourself against the government?

[summers73]

Originally Posted by meson

You need a gun to defend yourself against the government?

Yep, the people of Germany didn't need a gun to defend themselves against the government back in the 20's and very early 30's, right until the democratically elected tyrants took over. Guess that means they never needed it, right?

[sanrene]

But then again, none of you have justified the need for owning.

When will you understand - we don't need justification, it is a "right", affirmed by SCOTUS.

[meson]

Sounds like some posters here have a death wish....

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by plannine

The decision did not strike down the Chicago laws, just orders the federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

They can still come back with the same result.

No they can't. It was remanded and REVERSED.

[LexusNexus]

Doesn't bother the conservatives that beady-eyed Roberts continues to head lousy decisions that favor conservative causes. The lying imbecile promised to be impartial but every decision leans Right 5-4. Pathetic. I agree with the Dissent. With this ruling, the klan can celebrate.

We have an incredible man as President, someone who can and is doing great things for this country, and we are being dragged down by a backwards conservative segment of the SC. It was inevitable that the Second Amendment would be incorporated and apply to states, but I continue to view the decisions of this Court with disdain because of its Conservative leanings.

As the most enlightened among us know, the conservative ideology stinks.