even if guns became illegal to own----the criminals would still be looking to do illegal things, such as purchasing illegal guns illegally......duh.....
I say if they get caught what is the punishment.....without the damn technicalities.......ask the nations 'justice' and it's foundation
do I want to get robbed, beatup, in a car accident that leaves me with feeding tube.....of course not......and I dont want to get shot either----but, tell me this Ms.Feinstein---how can you protect me------you cant.......unless--
you get rid of cars/trucks/buses/planes/boats etc, cut off the hands that rob and beat etc etc.........
there is no if p then q and certainly your equation doesn't balance either......we are more complicated than that.....just show me the plumb line and where it is being taught----then I will hear you.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
CAPITAL REGION Decision brings mixed reactions BY CARI SCRIBNER Gazette Reporter
Local reactions to the Supreme Court guns decision came swiftly Thursday, as many people stayed updated on the arguments leading up to the ruling via the Internet and television. Thoughts ranged from worries about violence to satisfaction about personal rights to concerns about future legal cases. “I’m really displeased,” Patricia Gioia of Schenectady, who is a member of the Brady Campaign against guns, said. “I respect the fact gun owners feel they have to have them, but there’s more chance for violence when people are harboring guns. Society has changed; now, when people fight, they don’t slap each other, they pull out a gun.” An employee at Accurate Arms and Ammo in Schenectady said he believes people supporting a ban on guns are not examining the issue as far as economics. “They have no idea what impact it would have on unemployment [to ban guns],” Tom DiBona said. “The steel and wood manufacturers would be out of business. They should think about this before they act.” DiBona also said he is opposed to the whole idea of people trying to force their ideals on others and background checks do a more than adequate job of controlling sales to potential criminals. “Our gun checks are thorough, there are so many federal checks in place and anything derogatory in a person’s background means they can’t buy a gun, and that’s it,” DiBona said. Albany Alderman Dominick Calsolaro, who wrote the legislation for the Gun Violence Task Force in Albany, said he’s concerned about the future ramifications of the decision. “This may very well lead to more court cases, and I think it opened a can of worms,” Calsolaro said. “California has a partial ban on weapons and now people may push it to the courts to interpret cases.” Calsolaro also said he has extensively researched historical stances on the rights of Americans to bear arms. “A lot of historians debate if those rights refer to individuals or groups, and most believe it did not apply to individuals,” Calsolaro said. “Now those rights are increasingly being applied to individuals, and that concerns me.” John Manger, of Zack’s Sports in Round Lake, said people should be allowed to make their own choices. “We live in a society where people protest everything,” Manger said. “After 9/11, people who never had a gun would have taken a bazooka to protect themselves from violence. I’m really anti-government when they try to tell people what to do, so I think today’s decision was a good one for once.” Jackie Hilly, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said she believes the Supreme Court decision will encourage gun control advocates in New York state to continue to fight for strong gun laws to save lives. “Today’s decision confirms that New York laws are constitutionally sound,” Hilly said. “Legislation to protect public safety, like closing the gun show sales loophole, requiring background checks on fi rearms purchases and banning some assault weapons, are legitimate restrictions. Each of these laws has the reasonable purpose of protecting the safety of the law-abiding public from illegal weapons.” Hilly said the decision rejects the “absolutist view of the Second Amendment” of “any gun, any time for anyone. “The core purpose of the guncontrol movement has always been to disrupt the ability of criminals to get guns,” Hilly said. “Nothing in this decision today changes our ability to continue to do that, and we will do so. Public safety demands no less.”
MIKE GROLL/ THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jeff Gildersleeve shows a customer a handgun at B&J Guns in Colonie on Thursday.
First published: Friday, June 27, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved the long-standing, and often bitter, dispute between those who claimed the Second Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to own guns, and those who argued that the amendment refers to militias, not individuals. In coming down on the side of individual gun ownership, a majority of five justices struck down the Washington, D.C., ban on ownership, ruling that citizens can own guns for self-defense and hunting. While this page has long supported gun-control efforts, we have also supported the right of people to legally possess firearms. The larger issue, then,......................http://timesunion.com/AspStori.....p;newsdate=6/27/2008
The TU has "supported the right to own fire arms?" What a frakkin joke that is. They have consistently tried to remove everything under the sun through various gun control measures. But what can you epect from the editorial board of the TU? Half the time the get the facts as reported in their own paper wrong!
So it boils down to, 'you can own a gun....BUT'!!!! So now we will wait for the 'BUT' to be clarified.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
“The core purpose of the guncontrol movement has always been to disrupt the ability of criminals to get guns,” Hilly said. “Nothing in this decision today changes our ability to continue to do that, and we will do so. Public safety demands no less.”
yeah, how about fertilizer, ricin, ecstasy, heroin,greed, narcissim,gambling etc etc........this wet paperbag is dark very dark......how about the judgements/punishments........it's ALL economics.........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Gun ruling: Activist or what? Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.
Did I hear someone say “judicial activism”? Yes, I think I did. In fact I have been hearing American citizens of conservative persuasion say it for a long time. It is something absolutely to be avoided. Judges are supposed to be neutral readers of the Constitution, not active interpreters, in effect making new law. The making of law is the business of Congress and the state legislatures. I have long suspected the position was not sincere but was merely a cover for protecting other, unstated positions, and now I’m sure of it, because I can’t imagine anything more judicially active than the recent decision by the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment as no court had previously interpreted it, that is, to guarantee “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” And yet conservatives are applauding it. Sen. John McCain called it “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom.” The White House press secretary said, “President Bush strongly agrees with the Supreme Court’s historic decision.” Rush Limbaugh said, “It’s so simple, so strong, so powerful in its simplicity.” A blogger on the right-wing Web site Free Republic said simply enough, “We won.” They love it. Why, I don’t know, since I have never understood the obsession with guns as an indicator of liberty. It just escapes me. That someone might want to own a gun to hunt, to target-shoot, to keep on a night-table to ward off possible intruders, I understand. But that a gun would be taken as the very emblem of American freedom, I don’t get, especially when the real threats to our freedom have become so much more sophisticated. But that’s beside the point. The point is the judicial activism. Judges making new law, which is what this seems to me. Judge Antonin Scalia, on behalf of a five-member majority, declaring that “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” is somehow “elevated above all other interests.” I peer and squint at the Second Amendment, and I cannot find anything in it about hearth and home, much less any elevation. I find: “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.” Further, I peer and squint at all 10 amendments, and I cannot find in any of them a limitation of their enumerated rights to “law-abiding and responsible citizens.” Where do you suppose Judge Scalia got that from? Not from the Constitution. The decision now being the law of the land, how are we going to determine who those law-abiding and responsible citizens are who have a right to keep guns in defense of hearth and home? Also, I noticed that Judge Scalia and four of his fellow judges declared that it was still OK to ban concealed weapons, but I can’t imagine where they got that from either, since I see no such exception provided for in the Second Amendment. They seem just to have made that one up too. Likewise with their declaration that it’s OK to prohibit gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill. More judicial activism, as far as I can tell. More lawmaking by the court. And likewise with their declaration that it’s all right to ban guns from “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Where is the constitutional basis for that? If the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in- fringed, on what basis do you block people with guns from “sensitive places”? And likewise with their declaration that it’s OK to impose conditions on the commercial sale of guns? Where does that come from? And my favorite, that “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” is also OK. How can it possibly be OK if the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? And if it’s OK to ban the carrying of “dangerous” weapons, is not a handgun dangerous? Also, who is to say what is “unusual” in a weapon. Is a machine gun unusual? Is an anti-aircraft gun? So you can just imagine the court cases to come, because it will be up to the courts — local, state, and federal — to interpret all these qualifi - cations and to decide if this or that restriction passes muster. All this stuff the court majority seems to have invented for the sake of political ideology on the one hand and practicality on the other. They wanted to assert that gun ownership is an individual right, as ideology demands, but they also recognized that the right has to be drastically infringed if we’re not going to live in shoot-em-up anarchy. So they invented some law. We will now have the most active judiciary we have ever had. Please note, I do not address the merits of this issue. I do not pretend to know what the intentions of the Founding Fathers were or whether “bear arms” had a distinctly military meaning when the Constitution was drafted. The whole idea of a militia — men with muskets being called up from their farms to defend against redskins or redcoats — is so antiquated that I don’t see how we can rationally apply the original principle to today’s world. If it were up to me we would start over again. As the amendment stands, with all its commas, it’s ambiguous to me. I think Judge Scalia’s analysis of it, with the “militia” part not limiting the “keep and bear arms” part is perfectly plausible, but so is Judge Stevens’ contrary reading. I read one analysis and nod in agreement. Then I read the other and do the same. My concern is with these hyperactive fellows in the majority, all identified as conservatives, making new law and conservatives in general applauding them for it. It’s plain that some concern besides “judicial activism” is at work.
The whole idea of a militia — men with muskets being called up from their farms to defend against redskins or redcoats — is so antiquated that I don’t see how we can rationally apply the original principle to today’s world. If it were up to me we would start over again.
"....to defend against 'towelheads', 'krauts', 'wops' etc..." antiquated? I think not.....we are just as we were then
Quoted Text
As the amendment stands, with all its commas, it’s ambiguous to me. I think Judge Scalia’s analysis of it, with the “militia” part not limiting the “keep and bear arms” part is perfectly plausible, but so is Judge Stevens’ contrary reading. I read one analysis and nod in agreement. Then I read the other and do the same. My concern is with these hyperactive fellows in the majority, all identified as conservatives, making new law and conservatives in general applauding them for it.
It wont be amgituous once we all have to use our eyes for scanning for identity----all calling it 'smart technology' or 'smart militia'---what ever it is called....the fact remains that the consequences are such that the judges fail to send the message of 'think before you act and own up to your actions/reactions'.......guns or no guns there is always vodka and torn sheet and a match........and criminals are still criminals......
the supreme court 'interpretation' is a move to scare and push the pendulum the other way toward 'RealID'........it's a backdoor entrance.......
Quoted Text
They wanted to assert that gun ownership is an individual right, as ideology demands, but they also recognized that the right has to be drastically infringed if we’re not going to live in shoot-em-up anarchy. So they invented some law.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Justice Scalia is correct in interpreting the meaning of the second, our founding fathers knew that an unarmed society would be subject to being taken over by a hostile form of government if the people were disarmed. The second amendment was put into the Constitution to protect us from the government in the event the government didn't follow the will of it's people, the government is getting very close to that right now. They seem to do what they want and don't give a hoot what we the people want or think. What time is the tea party?
In response to the June 26 editorial [“For gun crowd, happiness is a loaded Court”] concerning “Those ‘conservatives’ on the Supreme Court,” I would like to point out what I believe is a basic fact of grammar. A comma is a list separator, as in a grocery list: I need to buy milk, bread, eggs, etc. So for the Second Amendment to read, “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...” means that the people are a separate entity from the militia. One would suppose our forefathers assumed we had the right to arm ourselves in case the need arose to form a militia to keep ourselves free from any tyranny our state was trying to impose. As a footnote, I have a question. I see statistics on all kinds of things. And seeing as gun control is such a large issue with many people lining up on either side, what is the statistic on how many violent crimes are perpetrated by the actual owner of the firearm involved? I would assume about 20 percent, with the rest of the crimes being committed by persons who committed previous crimes by stealing the firearm from law-abiding citizens — those who had already taken a government-mandated course, produced identification and waited for a background check to be performed before taking ownership of his or her fi rearm. MICKEY MARCELLA Mechanicville
I agree with Mr.Marcella. It always appears that the law abiding citizens get penalized for the bad behavior of criminals. Laws are made to protect the innocent from these criminals. But it also appears that it's not working. I also agree that most of these 'gun crimes' are committed by 'criminals'. Not honest law abiding, gun owning citizens. And yet the honest seem to have to give up rights while the criminals continue to commit crimes. And YES the second amendment does allow the people to bear arms. THAT is a no brainer.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I applaud the court ruling that recognizes the rights of the people under the Second Amendment. First of all, there is the right granted by our creator to defend ourselves, our lives and property. Anyone who ever, at any time, relies on the police to protect him is a fool.
There simply are not enough police officers to be almost everywhere at all times to prevent crime -- all they can do is investigate after the crime, and maybe, just maybe, run the simple-Simon-says legal obstacle course perfectly, and get a conviction after the fact. The only person who can provide meaningful protection is yourself, and then only if you have means readily at hand to do so.
Even more important is that the people need to have ready access to guns in order to protect their liberty.
Carl Strock needs to get out from his private fantasy land once in a while. But then what would he write about?
Start over? Is he serious, or just writing to generate some mail to the Gazette? So, the Constituion, which he likes to quote, and say is th emost important document, is wrong? It needs to be rewritten? What a joke.
What I find curious about the anti-gun argumenst is how everything else in the Bill of Rights, and a few amendements beyond, are all "individual rights," but the Second Amendment is the lone exception, which magically becomes a "collective," or "state right." Or how they cite "public safety" in supporting gun bans and restrictions, but when it comes to anything else they scream bloody murder about how thier "rights" are being "violated," and it's all leading to a "fascist state." Not that these nimrods would know a gascist if they came up and bit them on the a**.
Logged
