Is anyone out there outraged by the recent Supreme Court ruling for our right to arms?

Question

Not in the decision but in the fact that four of of the nine Justices voted against our Constitutional right to defend ourselves.

Answer 1

They actually all agreed it was an individual right. The four dissenting judges just thought it doesn't matter if it's individual or not.

Answer 2

i am offended that it was not unanimous.  But have no fear, the impending Revolution will eliminate them.

Answer 3

the right to bare arms was intended to keep us free against an oppressive government...we need the right to own tanks and  aircraft bombers now

Answer 4

It does bother me somewhat that all the judges don't see this as a constitutional right.  Lord help us if Obama gets elected and appoints judges.

Answer 5

I am not at all bothered by it. The gun nuts got what they wanted, and shouldn't complain. Only the gun nuts would be bothered by the four justices who dissented.

Answer 6

I have to admit it suprised me. I was expecting a 6-3 or maybe 7-2 decision for the 2nd Amendment. This is still a major step in the right direction. Already the NRA has filed lawsuits against Chicago, Sanfranciso, and a number of Chicago suburbs to challenge their unconstitutional infringement of our rights. Also, now that the court has explicitly stated the 2nd is an individual right this gives us a solid foundation to start attacking other unconstitutional regulations from. This ruling is absolutely a landmark decision that pushes America in the right direction. While I really did not agree with most of the things president Bush has done in his two terms, at least he managed to appoint some quality justicies. Without them, this case could have easily gone the other way.

Answer 7

I am relieved that the Supreme Court voted the correct way, that they support our Bill of Rights.  I am outraged that it was even an issue.

Answer 8

It frightens me that 4 justices who don't like what the constitution says just decided to "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what it says.    That's a dangerous precedent.   If they can do that to the second amendment, they can do that to the rest of the constitution.   They can just decide that the right to free speech applies only to the states, for example....

There is nothing unclear, amorphous, or complex about the wording of the second amendment.

They didn't have "regulations" in the 18th century - "well-regulated" meant well-equipped. I.e., it meant that the individuals who comprised the militia already had their guns.

"Militia" did not and does not mean "National Guard" - that

"interpretation" is just made-up, by people who wish there wasn't a second amendment. "Militia" means "militia." If they'd meant National Guard they would have written National Guard; if they'd meant armed forces they'd have written armed forces. Militia means just what it sounds like - militia. As in the minutemen, the Michigan militia - or the Concord/Lexington militia who fought the first real battle of the Revolution - against their own country's army who had shown up to take their guns!

The militia is an ad hoc, citizens band, formed to defend the populace against all comers - including the central government.

For such a militia to be well-equipped would require an armed citizenry.

Thus, because the ability to call up a militia is so crucial to a free state, an individual must have the right to keep and bear arms. That's why it says "the right of the people." "The people" in all the other Amendments clearly means individuals - otherwise the other Amendments wouldn't make any sense. Again, if they meant the states, they'd have written the states, not written the people. "The people" means the people.

The Constitution means exactly what it says.

There are also provisions for people who don't like what it says to try to get it amended. I propose that opponents of the second amendment should try to amend the constitution rather than play the game of trying to "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what it says. That would set a dangerous precedent - our rights are protected by a set of words - if you can just deprive some of those words of their meaning, then you can do that to the rest of the words too, and we will have no rights at all.

That said I would oppose such a petition since I agree with the Founders that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state, and thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Answer 9

Anytime a justice (Supreme or otherwise) tries to overturn one of the bill of rights, they should be brought up for impeachment. Whether they are guaranteed to pass or fail doesn't matter, they need to brought before the senate for an impeachment as a matter of course.

Check and Balance the Judiciary for once! Sheesh!