"Bittergate sparks new look at candidates and guns"

[Polygon]

I apologize if this has been brought up elsewhere, but I just ran across this CNN article on the two Democratic candidate's debate on gun control which has spawned from the controversy surrounding Obama's "small town" remarks. Thought it might be useful for those interested in seeing where the two stand and updates on their platform.

It's funny seeing Clinton trying to ingratiate herself with hunters and shooters in general.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/candidates.guns/index.html

[LaoSexMachine]

They're both peas of the same rotten pod.

[gaijinsamurai]

I think Clinton's remarks, meant to score points with gun owners, are falling on deaf ears. Does she REALLY think we're that gullable?

[Polygon]

Apparently she does, while simultaneously pushing for a ban on "assault" weapons, extensive federal background checks at gun shows, and limiting firearm purchases to 1 a month. Now is the time to buy a firearm before either of the two get in office!

[Buckeye67]

They're both peas of the same rotten pod.

That they are, and McCain's no friend to gun owners either. It's going to be a bad four years.

[Hollis]

That they are, and McCain's no friend to gun owners either. It's going to be a bad four years.


If there is any good to come it will be in the Supreme Court decission coming up. I hope it goes far enough and is clear enough.

[gaijinsamurai]

The prospect of not having a pro-2nd Amendment President next year, no matter who of the three wins, prompted me to rejoin the NRA, after a lengthy absence. As the owner of several handguns and so-called "assault rifles", I have no excuse not to do so.

[Polygon]

Yeah, I was in the same boat. I received an offer to join and a temp. membership card just a few days after Charlton Heston's death. I'll definitely be renewing my membership.

[Hollis]

The prospect of not having a pro-2nd Amendment President next year, no matter who of the three wins, prompted me to rejoin the NRA, after a lengthy absence. As the owner of several handguns and so-called "assault rifles", I have no excuse not to do so.


About time, After all I don't even live in small town, all I have is my guns, religion, and ............................ damn I forgot there was a third thing, Obama said I had.

[Alpheus]

About time, After all I don't even live in small town, all I have is my guns, religion, and ............................ damn I forgot there was a third thing, Obama said I had.

Immigrants. Apparently all small town folks hate immigrants.

[Buckeye67]

If there is any good to come it will be in the Supreme Court decission coming up. I hope it goes far enough and is clear enough.

I sure hope so, but I don't have much faith in the SCOTUS either. I just have this feeling that they'll render a non-decision that tries to pander to both sides of the argument, and does jack to uphold the 2nd Amendment.

I really hope I'm wrong on that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Sure, they could pull a 1939 again, the court that is, but if there was ever a time for 2nd Amendment to go before the Court this is it.

[Hilbert]

I think Clinton's remarks, meant to score points with gun owners, are falling on deaf ears. Does she REALLY think we're that gullable?

She's been learning from Kerry.

[Calanen]

sure hope so, but I don't have much faith in the SCOTUS either


The DC Court got it 100 per cent right. I hope thats what the SCOTUS finds.

Interestingly, in my Bar exam, they asked whether it was constitutional to have two Supreme Courts. I think the answer was no.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Le t me first say, I love my gun. However, the weight of jurisprudence is against the Parker court. They may win, but they are not 100% correct. If anything is true of the 2nd amendment it is that it can be easily and convincingly argued both ways.

[Hilbert]

If anything is true of the 2nd amendment it is that it can be easily and convincingly argued both ways.

How so? If your referring to the "well regulated militia" part of it as so many people seem to draw upon, that merely equated to armed every day townsfolk when it was written. Trying to apply today's context of the militia being the National Guard to that statement is absurd; it's like trying to apply modern military tactics to a 1700's battlefield -- time collision, for lacking a better term. And even if this wasn't spelled out clearly enough, it goes on to put it simple terms modern folk can understand without doing a minute or two of research "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Bongopete]

I dont care! Im just so bitter that I pray I have enough money to go buy some more guns.

[hell]

That they are, and McCain's no friend to gun owners either. It's going to be a bad four years.

Really? I remember reading a statistic once that said no Republican presidential candidate had ever been elected to office without the support of the NRA. I would figure that McCain would have courted them earlier to make sure he would have their backing before the summer, at the latest.

[Hollis]

Le t me first say, I love my gun. However, the weight of jurisprudence is against the Parker court. They may win, but they are not 100% correct. If anything is true of the 2nd amendment it is that it can be easily and convincingly argued both ways.

One can argue, I am pretty sure it has a single meaning. I think that is on reason the court has been very hesitant to review the 2nd Amendment. It can only go in one direction. The question is how far.

Really basically, the Bill of Rights are protections that the citizen has from the government. The Ownership issue is much more than the right to own firearms, it is the right to defend oneself against a despotic government. Self defense has never be successfully defeated, it is standard of basic human rights.



Edited to note, McCain had high NRA marks until recently.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Actually it all depends on how the court defines the right to bear arms, as a collective or individual right. Every Circuit except the 5th (Texas, anyone shocked?) has held the right to be collective. Thus, finding that the individual has no right to bear arms. I am not saying that is right or wrong. But legally that is how it is. Here, the follwoing is some of the case law if anyone is interested.

“Following Miller (1939), ‘it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 102 (9th Cir. 1996).

The court in U.S. v. Warin addressed the issue of collective versus individual rights to bear arms. 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976). In Warin the court was presented with a situation in which the defendant was found to be in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 due to possession of a 9-millimeter gun. Id at 104. Warin was a member of the Ohio Militia. Id. However, it was found that, while the weapon was of a military type, “it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” Id at 106. The court in Warin concluded that “[s]ince the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’ applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.” Id.



I would love to discuss this further, but I am not gonna put my entire brief on the page. HAHA. Unless someone wants to read 20 pages of this crap haha. Again, don't let this discourage you, clearly one can still argure for the Individual right.

Sorry about the fonts, copied from my brief, and suck at formatting or even using the posting system.

[Invisigoth]

The comment might not have been made in the best way, but its not as frivolous as people try to make it out to be.

[rolltide79]

".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The meaning of the Second Amendment seems abundantly clear from its conclusion.

[Sanat-e-naft]

If the law was abundantly clear I'd be out of a job. While it seems clear, it is the parts before and after the quoted section are the tricky part for gun rights.

[RICHICOQUI]

I apologize if this has been brought up elsewhere, but I just ran across this CNN article on the two Democratic candidate's debate on gun control which has spawned from the controversy surrounding Obama's "small town" remarks. Thought it might be useful for those interested in seeing where the two stand and updates on their platform.

It's funny seeing Clinton trying to ingratiate herself with hunters and shooters in general.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/candidates.guns/index.html http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2008/04/04162008.jpg

[IraGlacialis]

About time, After all I don't even live in small town, all I have is my guns, religion, and ............................ damn I forgot there was a third thing, Obama said I had.
Antipathy, Hollis. Antipathy is the third thing Obama said you had.

[Hollis]

Antipathy, Hollis. Antipathy is the third thing Obama said you had.


You sexist dog, what about unclepathy?

[IraGlacialis]

You sexist dog, what about unclepathy?
:cantbeli:That actually took me a while to get.

Would that mean you feel the sensations of your uncle? :|

[Hollis]

:cantbeli:That actually took me a while to get.

Would that mean you feel the sensations of your uncle? :|


Now your insulting my back woods culture............. damn urban elitist.

[FelixA9]

Actually it all depends on how the court defines the right to bear arms, as a collective or individual right. Every Circuit except the 5th (Texas, anyone shocked?) has held the right to be collective. Thus, finding that the individual has no right to bear arms. I am not saying that is right or wrong. But legally that is how it is. Here, the follwoing is some of the case law if anyone is interested.

“Following Miller (1939), ‘it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 102 (9th Cir. 1996).

The court in U.S. v. Warin addressed the issue of collective versus individual rights to bear arms. 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976). In Warin the court was presented with a situation in which the defendant was found to be in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 due to possession of a 9-millimeter gun. Id at 104. Warin was a member of the Ohio Militia. Id. However, it was found that, while the weapon was of a military type, “it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” Id at 106. The court in Warin concluded that “[s]ince the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’ applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.” Id.



I would love to discuss this further, but I am not gonna put my entire brief on the page. HAHA. Unless someone wants to read 20 pages of this crap haha. Again, don't let this discourage you, clearly one can still argure for the Individual right.

Sorry about the fonts, copied from my brief, and suck at formatting or even using the posting system.

If it meant collective why would it even need to be mentioned in the Constitution? Did they really think if they didn't mention it in the Constitution that it would mean the nation couldn't have a defense? The only reason to specifically spell it out would be to insure the INDIVIDUAL has the right. Doesn't do the collective a whole lot of good if the government owns all the guns does it? How else would they keep the boot of a tyrannical government off their necks if they (the People) couldn't individually posess firearms?

[Sanat-e-naft]

I am not saying one side is right and one is wrong, I am just saying that there are arguments that can be made on both sides.

At the end of the day it will all turn on what the Justices feel is the law, and with a very conservative court we can all be hopeful that such a fundemental right is not taken from us.

[IraGlacialis]

... damn urban elitist.
That makes me a sad panda.

Actually, I do sometimes acknowledge myself as a bit of an elitist sometimes, though in a different manner as talked about.
As in, I will admit that I look down upon people who support an issue or candidate, but really have no clue what is going on. *cough*my peers spouting on about Obama's "change"*cough*
Hence why I think people should be given a small and simple test before registering to vote (possibly similar to the immigration test with some current events questions thrown in). So they actually know how the government works and what is going on before picking the next leader of this nation.

I don't care where or what background a person comes from; if they are knowlegeble or hardworking, I consider them elite. You could say that I am a meritocrat.

Oh, and wine shouldn't come from a carton, fast food burgers suck, and American cheese isn't real.

[Calanen]

Have a read of the amicus brief filed by 31 states. Makes a lot of sense.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacTexas.pdf

Btw: Bryanleu, I'm asking you not to read it, because whenever I say 'Constitution' in a sentence you say something like 'I dont comprehends me this jumbalaya guocomle lawyer fancy schmancy speak!'