wrote:
The distinction that the amendment applies to the individual, and not just to organized militias, is HUGE. This is a great victory.
That said, to sum it up, Mr Heller now must be granted a permit for his gun. I still reject the premise that a person needs to apply for their constitutional rights at all.
But in a country where we drift further and further from our constitutional founding, I am pleasantly surprised that we have taken a major step towards constructionalism.
Today is a day to celebrate!
That said, to sum it up, Mr Heller now must be granted a permit for his gun. I still reject the premise that a person needs to apply for their constitutional rights at all.
But in a country where we drift further and further from our constitutional founding, I am pleasantly surprised that we have taken a major step towards constructionalism.
Today is a day to celebrate!
26 June 2008 12:44:57
wrote:
It is one of the first decisions that I can recall when a government entity recognized that "We the People" does not mean a collective but rather we are individuals and the government shall not infringe them.
However, if enough Obamacons have their way, enough "collectivists" will be appointed that this Guaranteed Right will go away.
However, if enough Obamacons have their way, enough "collectivists" will be appointed that this Guaranteed Right will go away.
26 June 2008 14:10:49
wrote:
Its about time the Top court made this call. Way over due. But your right Tom, it didn't go far enough. But I suspect that was planned. it gives more lawyers and judges a chance to make up new idiotic laws that will have to then be fought through the courts, thus keeping many people employed for a very long time.
26 June 2008 15:33:56
Susan wrote:
Good job on the radio today, Tom. Although, because of the baby crying, I missed an important part. Did you address the issue of people with criminal records and people with mental illnesses purchasing (and carrying) guns? I know you don't believe that people should be required to have permits from the gov't to carry or any requirements for people to register their guns, does that apply to the criminals and mentally ill as well? How do you think that should be handled?
(oh, and, I'm not so sure about your idea of having a "death channel" on tv so the public can view executions....you were joking...weren't you? Didn' you watch the movie, "Untraceable"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLYo5tMylQM )
(oh, and, I'm not so sure about your idea of having a "death channel" on tv so the public can view executions....you were joking...weren't you? Didn' you watch the movie, "Untraceable"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLYo5tMylQM )
26 June 2008 16:28:34
Lucente wrote:
Susan,
I didn't address it directly, but I did say law-abiding adults, which would bar felons. I would also not permit mentally ill own weapons, either.
~tjl~
I didn't address it directly, but I did say law-abiding adults, which would bar felons. I would also not permit mentally ill own weapons, either.
~tjl~
27 June 2008 13:12:18
Susan wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Tom. Now, another question. How would you bar felons and mentally ill from owning guns if you don't believe people should have to register or have permits from the gov't for their guns? In other words, if no one knows the person is a felon or mentally ill, who is stopping them from owning guns?
27 June 2008 17:11:58
wrote:
Were you kidding about watching public executions?
I don't think you were. If the system fails one time, with one execution (See The Life of David Gale-- liberal, yes, but important point), then I have to believe the system is flawed and we cannot continue to execute people. Saves us money just to let them rot in jail. Two wrongs don't make a right. Putting people to death in front of a massive television audience sets the stage for "witch hunts." Not to mention the implications it would have on the kids, aka the leaders of tomorrow.
Putting executions on a show would give said show have top ratings, and it would become the old Colosseum. We'd run out of people to execute.
We'd execute innocent people.
My belief is that no man can or should decide when another man (or woman) dies unless it's self defense, which brings us back to the gun laws.
So you believe that criminals shouldn't have guns? Where do you draw the line? What kind of criminals? And, who's to say who's too mentally ill to have a gun?
More liberal doctors who are currently pumping society so full of DRUGS no one knows what's going on?
Another slam-dunk prosecutor looking to make a name for himself to further his political career?
Hate to say it; but it's true.
If criminals want guns, your laws aren't going to stop them.
In other words: Supreme Court ruling doesn't matter.
I don't think you were. If the system fails one time, with one execution (See The Life of David Gale-- liberal, yes, but important point), then I have to believe the system is flawed and we cannot continue to execute people. Saves us money just to let them rot in jail. Two wrongs don't make a right. Putting people to death in front of a massive television audience sets the stage for "witch hunts." Not to mention the implications it would have on the kids, aka the leaders of tomorrow.
Putting executions on a show would give said show have top ratings, and it would become the old Colosseum. We'd run out of people to execute.
We'd execute innocent people.
My belief is that no man can or should decide when another man (or woman) dies unless it's self defense, which brings us back to the gun laws.
So you believe that criminals shouldn't have guns? Where do you draw the line? What kind of criminals? And, who's to say who's too mentally ill to have a gun?
More liberal doctors who are currently pumping society so full of DRUGS no one knows what's going on?
Another slam-dunk prosecutor looking to make a name for himself to further his political career?
Hate to say it; but it's true.
If criminals want guns, your laws aren't going to stop them.
In other words: Supreme Court ruling doesn't matter.
27 June 2008 19:31:07
Google Chrome 5.0.342.3 on 
Phil Koster wrote:
I'm writing a paper for school and am wondering if I may use your comic graphic for a paper I have to have graphics for. If I have your permission will you email me at [email protected]? Thanks so much
Using 
Internet Explorer 7.0 on 
Windows XP
06 July 2010 11:22:41
Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP06 July 2010 11:22:41
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Supreme Court strikes victory for liberty
The U.S. Supreme Court today handed a victory for liberty when it correctly struck down a 32-year-old Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment is a personal right and not a right of the states to maintain militias.
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
It is the most sweeping Second Amendment ruling by the court in U.S. history. Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who are all conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, usually a swing vote, also joined the majority. Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth David Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, all voted to restrict Americans' freedoms.
Seems like an obvious decision to me. After all, why would the First Congress pass a Bill of Rights for the people and include in it a right for the states to form militias? That would make no sense. The Bill of Rights was meant to enumerate some of the rights of the people, not of the government.
I praise today's court decision. Unfortunately, it did not go far enough. The court's decision, while ruling that the Second Amendment was a personal right, said it was not an absolute right, which means there will still be a gun control debate in this country.
So today's victory for freedom will not be the last word, I am sure.
category | Gun Control
author | Lucente