The Power of Citizen Journalism
 
News» Top News» Latest News» Post News ($) Blogs» Top Blogs» Latest Blogs» Post Blog» Images» Top Images» Latest Images» Upload Images» TV» Groups» View Groups» Create a Group» Live Events» Alerts» Create an Alert» Manage Alerts» How do I ...» Get paid to report news» Post blogs» Upload images» Embed video» Join/create groups» Vote on news & images» Comment & debate»
 

article imageSupreme Court Rules On Second Amendment 'Protects An Individual Right'

Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos in Politics | 68 comments | 826 views
Join our team to voice opinions, share images, get paid to report news and more!
Email Print Share
Subscribe to author

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional
In a 157 page ruling the Supreme Court has issued on the highly controversial District of Columbia v. Heller, the court in a 5 to 4 ruling says the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun in their home.
The PDF file of the 157 page ruling can be found here.

The Supreme Court's ruling strikes down the ban that District of Columbia has had imposed since 1976, which banned the people from owning a gun in their home and had the requirement of any gun owned, except businesses, had to kept unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock.

Guns still must be licensed and the Court left the bans on carrying a concealed weapon and the laws preventing felons or the mentally retarded from owning a gun. They also left in place existing laws which bar guns from schools and Government buildings.

I will be updating this as I go through the 157 page ruling.

[Update] Here is one specific quote from the Supreme Court opinion:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”


This is the first time the Supreme Court has conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since it was ratified in 1791.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority in which he stated that the that an individual right to bear arms is affirmed by the historical narrative before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

He continues to say that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home".

[Update #2] You can read more about Dick Anthony Heller, who is at the center of this case, here.

He was the man that sued the District of Columbia because they wouldn't allow him to keep a handgun in his home.

[Update #3] Another clear quote from Justice Scalia, where he makes the point that, "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. 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."

The four Justices that joined Scalia to make it a majority opinion are, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

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.


That quote which is the Second Amendment is the whole basis that the Court was charged with deciding the actual meaning of. Whether it allowed individuals to bear arms or whether it meant only a regulated militia, or Army as a group.

That question has now been answered without ambiguity.

[Update #4] McCain issued a statement on the Supreme Court ruling:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.


[Update #5] Page 60 to 61, the court specifically addresses handguns by stating:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.


They go on to address Washington DC's law to keep handguns rendered inoperable.

[Update #6] On page 67 they deal with the issue of Heller himself and state categorically, "In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

As the opinion reads, they separate each individual argument, they also address the dissenting opinions in the main opinion, explaining why they take issue with those dissents and why they ruled as they did.

[Update #7] For balance since I showed John McCain's reaction to this Supreme Court ruling, here is Barack Obama's statement:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
article:256608:14::0
2 subscribers
Subscribe to this thread
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #1
    I just read this...another quick grab, Sue!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #2
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    I just read this...another quick grab, Sue!


    Thanks, I am still reading and reading. Haven't gotten to the dissents yet.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #3
    @ Susan Duclos
    Thanks, I am still reading and reading. Haven't gotten to the dissents yet.


    I'll be waiting for the updates!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #4
    Already added 2 updates. More to come...
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #5
    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.


    Well, thankfully, they chose to not change the way that it reads! If they had changed it in any form...there WOULD be a rebellion!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #6
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Well, thankfully, they chose to not change the way that it reads! If they had changed it in any form...there WOULD be a rebellion!


    Yup, starting on page 22 of the opinion, they start breaking down the wording and take issue with Justice Stevens interpretation.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #7
    @ Susan Duclos
    Yup, starting on page 22 of the opinion, they start breaking down the wording and take issue with Justice Stevens interpretation.


    I'll have to read more of it later.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #8
    McCain's statement about the ruling added as an update
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #9
    today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Johnny Simpson
    #10
    Did it occur to anyone that the Supreme Court was making a constitutional ruling on the constitutionaly of the Constitution itself, and one more dissenting justice could have ruled the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional?

    Last I checked, amending the US Constitution took 2/3 of the House and Senate, as well as the ratification by 38 states (remember the ERA amendment failed on the state level?).

    What's the point of having a Constitution, or even a Congress, when it seems more and more that courts are dictating what is and what is not the law, despite what Congress, state legislatures and We the People vote on in ballot referendums?

    Where is the balance of power?
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #11
    In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance. (CNN)

    We already knew the majority opinion from Congress.

    But with Heller suing the state over the ban, the Supreme Court had no choice but to take this issue on headfirst.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #12
    Updated added about specifics in the ruling on handguns.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #13
    @ Susan Duclos
    Updated added about specifics in the ruling on handguns.


    Interesting.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #14
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Interesting.


    This whole ruling is interesting. They didn't leave many stones unturned from what I am reading.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #15
    @ Susan Duclos
    This whole ruling is interesting. They didn't leave many stones unturned from what I am reading.


    I can see that. But better to address every aspect of it instead of doing a half-assed job, ya know?
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #16
    Because he died before he could see this ruling....for Heston. Added his picture to the top .
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #17
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    I can see that. But better to address every aspect of it instead of doing a half-assed job, ya know?


    I totally agree. Previously courts have avoided having to specifically rule on certain aspects, making their rulings very narrow. This time they got down into everything from the literal meaning of the Second Amendment to the issue of handguns themselves being the most popular choice of self defense.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #18
    That's an awesome photo of Heston!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #19
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    That's an awesome photo of Heston!


    Yeah, He has got to be smiling down about now.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #20
    @ Susan Duclos
    Yeah, He has got to be smiling down about now.


    I hope so! Now, I have to wonder how many of the NRA members are having parties to celebrate this! LOL!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #21
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    I hope so! Now, I have to wonder how many of the NRA members are having parties to celebrate this! LOL!


    Here is their site... scroll a little to the blue..
    http://www.nra.org/
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #22
    Cool! Lots of links there to boot.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #23
    Hopefully the last update added. Obama's statement.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #24
    We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system,


    Common sense laws? Give me a frigging break.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #25
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Common sense laws? Give me a frigging break.


    Take a good look at Obama's previous statements. Does the guy EVER stick to what he says?

    Gone to lunch, see ya later.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #26
    WHOOAHH!

    They got it right for a change!
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #27
    @ Susan Duclos
    Take a good look at Obama's previous statements. Does the guy EVER stick to what he says?

    Gone to lunch, see ya later.


    Enjoy lunch!

    What a maroon. Geesh.
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #28
    Cool.
    Now fools, as well as criminals, can blaze away at each other in the capitol...
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Johnny Simpson
    #29
    Yeah, it's a shame criminals don't have a monopoly on handguns in DC anymore, huh, Jedediah?

    Like Dirty Harry said, nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot.

    I predict a drop in home invasions and burglaries when DC finally scraps the ban. Then again, like police departments elsewhere, they could just hold up the permit process indefinitely, making a ban in effect.

    Then Jedediah could be happy again that only scumbags with mile-long rap sheets can have handguns in DC.

    Right, Mr. Clampett?

    "I'd like an argument, please..."
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #30
    Clearly, any damned fool who wants to is entitled to carry a weapon, johnny. That may or may not include yourself; but I am not a believer.
    Most people should not have access to any kind of weapons. We are--as a rule--too stupid to use any kind of self-discipline--any discipline other than brute force.
    Now we can all be a trigger-pull away from controlling our space--absolutely...
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #31
    @ Johnny Simpson
    Yeah, it's a shame criminals don't have a monopoly on handguns in DC anymore, huh, Jedediah?

    Like Dirty Harry said, nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot.

    I predict a drop in home invasions and burglaries when DC finally scraps the ban. Then again, like police departments elsewhere, they could just hold up the permit process indefinitely, making a ban in effect.

    Then Jedediah could be happy again that only scumbags with mile-long rap sheets can have handguns in DC.

    Right, Mr. Clampett?

    "I'd like an argument, please..."


    At least the Supreme Court realized and stated that the right to bear arms was a given even before the Second Amendment was written...or as they put it, predates the Second.

    The rest of the fools don't matter.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Sheba
    #32
    Nice job, Sue. And discussion that followed too...Jed's snide remarks included. Good post all.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #33
    @ Sheba
    Nice job, Sue. And discussion that followed too...Jed's snide remarks included. Good post all.


    Thanks Sheba.

    Following up, Gallup has found that 73 percent of Americans agree with this ruling and 7 out of 10 people disagree with any law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal.

    Supreme's got this one right.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #34
    Jed can keep preaching his doom and gloom, but the truth is, the facts speak for themselves:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #35
    GREAT article.
  • sumdume Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  sumdume
    #36
    Did it occur to anyone that the Supreme Court was making a constitutional ruling on the constitutionaly of the Constitution itself, and one more dissenting justice could have ruled the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional?


    I disagree the court ruled on the constitutionality of the DC law. They found that law to be unconstitutional, While doing so they clarified what they believe the framers of the constitution meant in the 2nd amendment.

    Yes, it is very disturbing that 1 vote could have resulted in stripping the right to bear arms from the people. This is why the 2008 election will be so important.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #37
    @ sumdume
    I disagree the court ruled on the constitutionality of the DC law. They found that law to be unconstitutional, While doing so they clarified what they believe the framers of the constitution meant in the 2nd amendment.

    Yes, it is very disturbing that 1 vote could have resulted in stripping the right to bear arms from the people. This is why the 2008 election will be so important.


    You get an AMEN from me.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #38
    @ Susan Duclos
    You get an AMEN from me.


    And me!
  • sumdume Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  sumdume
    #39
    Most people should not have access to any kind of weapons. We are--as a rule--too stupid to use any kind of self-discipline--any discipline other than brute force.


    "Any kind of wepon"....hmmmmm. I guess we should ban baseball bats, baseballs, golf clubs, knives, rocks and all the other items that could be used as weapons.

    Jed, in your opinion who gets to make decision about who can have access to a weapon and who cannot?
  • sumdume Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  sumdume
    #40
    Somethings missing in this thread........ What is it? What is it? What....Aaah I remember. We are missing the intellectual viewpoint from Sin Fransinsco.

    Where are ya Lens? And what is your opinion on today's ruling?
  • Samantha A. Torrence Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Samantha A. Torrence
    #41
    Here, if you are curious about how Lens feels about the subject I think this thread works well Sumdume. But really you gotta go picking fights? Are you PMSing? * evil grin*


    Btw I have to honestly say I am disappointed this doesn't have more than 20 upvotes. This is news if there ever was news, it is a historic decision about America's Constitution and the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Sheba
    #42
    @ sumdume
    Somethings missing in this thread........ What is it? What is it? What....Aaah I remember. We are missing the intellectual viewpoint from Sin Fransinsco.

    Where are ya Lens? And what is your opinion on today's ruling?

    Well he is in some way shape or form here - Jed ya know? What beats me is how he keeps those personalities so distinct - but then MPD does have distinct personalities. Well at least we have them all here on DJ.
    @ Susan Duclos
    Following up, Gallup has found that 73 percent of Americans agree with this ruling and 7 out of 10 people disagree with any law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal.

    Supreme's got this one right.

    Yes indeed.
    @ Susan Duclos
    You get an AMEN from me.

    Aye, aye. Gotta run now, son's calling me.
  • sumdume Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  sumdume
    #43
    Not looking for a fight. It's just that Lens often has creative arguments even if they are built from flawed logic.

    Are you PMSing? * evil grin

    LOL- No, I believe that is quite impossible. I am biologically structured in a fashion that would make impossible to PMS. However, my blood sugar might be low.

    Well he is in some way shape or form here - Jed ya know?

    Now, quit insulting Lens. Lens and Jed may share a philosophical point of view, but Jed dose not think things through as thoroughly. For example, Jed wrote
    Most people should not have access to any kind of weapons.
    What a ridiculous statement that is. Look at all of the common items we have in our homes that can be used as weapons, newspapers, pencils, beer bottles.... The list is of household weapons is only limited by ones imagination.
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #44
    @ Mr Garibaldi
    Jed can keep preaching his doom and gloom, but the truth is, the facts speak for themselves:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


    Facts to you are simply opinions which match your prejudices, mikey...
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #45
    @ Johnny Simpson
    Did it occur to anyone that the Supreme Court was making a constitutional ruling on the constitutionaly of the Constitution itself, and one more dissenting justice could have ruled the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional?

    Last I checked, amending the US Constitution took 2/3 of the House and Senate, as well as the ratification by 38 states (remember the ERA amendment failed on the state level?).

    What's the point of having a Constitution, or even a Congress, when it seems more and more that courts are dictating what is and what is not the law, despite what Congress, state legislatures and We the People vote on in ballot referendums?

    Where is the balance of power?


    You are not familiar with the notion of interpretation as opposed to amendment, johnny..?
  • avatar Posted Jun 26, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #46
    I believe there was a line from a movie, Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth!"

    Another line from Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
  • avatar Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #47
    LOLOL
  • Samantha A. Torrence Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Samantha A. Torrence
    #48
    @ Mr Garibaldi
    I believe there was a line from a movie, Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth!"

    Another line from Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."


    I prefer "Stupid is as Stupid does."
  • avatar Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #49
    @ Samantha A. Torrence
    I prefer "Stupid is as Stupid does."


    Giggling.....
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #50
    @ Sheba
    Nice job, Sue. And discussion that followed too...Jed's snide remarks included. Good post all.


    The BUSHISTAs in long black robes have removed civilian protection from societal responsibility and returned it to an individual concern--just like back in the good old days...
  • avatar Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #51
    At least the "BUSHISTAs" are willing to protect the country, unlike some that would rather hand it over to terrorists.
  • avatar Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #52
    @ Susan Duclos
    At least the "BUSHISTAs" are willing to protect the country, unlike some that would rather hand it over to terrorists.


    Ah, come on, now, Susan, you know appeasement is a good thing...if you're the one being appeased...
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 27, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #53
    @ Susan Duclos
    At least the "BUSHISTAs" are willing to protect the country, unlike some that would rather hand it over to terrorists.


    Yes. You're right, sd. If it hadn't been for BUSHISTAs Iraqis and Afghanis would be swarming ashore in landing crafts from their monstrous navies.
    Had the U. S. responded to WTC as other nations had--as a police action in 2001--the problem could and probably would have been contained.
    And it is possible that the United States of America might still have had the respect of other nations--for you folks who still think violence is the answer, it is also possible the U. S. might have still been considered the world's top dog...
  • sumdume Posted Jun 28, 2008 by  sumdume
    #54
    The BUSHISTAs in long black robes have removed civilian protection from societal responsibility and returned it to an individual concern--just like back in the good old days...


    Oh Bullshit-
    Society has proven it cannot or will not protect individuals. Therefore, individuals must protect themselves.

    Furthermore, you m@#@n, the bill of rights was intended to protect the individual from the government. It was not written to protect the government from the individual!
  • avatar Posted Jun 28, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #55
    @ sumdume
    Oh Bullshit-
    Society has proven it cannot or will not protect individuals. Therefore, individuals must protect themselves.

    Furthermore, you m@#@n, the bill of rights was intended to protect the individual from the government. It was not written to protect the government from the individual!


    Well said.
  • avatar Posted Jun 28, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #56
    @ Susan Duclos
    Well said.


    Ditto!
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #57
    It is not the government I fear for--unless it falls again into the same kind of reactionary hands as it did in 1994 or 2000.
    It is the unarmed citizen caught between criminals and vigilantes all of whom will be free soon to pack heat..!
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #58
    Furthermore, you m@#@n, the bill of rights was intended to protect the individual from the government. It was not written to protect the government from the individual!


    Anybody who--after reading the constitution and the bill of rights--believes they were intended to protect individuals--other than landholders--has an IQ lower than his hat size.

    The constitution was written to maintain privilege; and the bill of rights was added to convince states to ratify it. Joe Sixpack was never considered when it came to individual rights until he began to leave the nation after the Civil War.

    Individual rights began to matter only in the latter nineteenth century when privilege began to recognize the threatening egalitarian groundswell along the frontier. The drumbeat of Manifest Destiny then began to appeal to privilege...
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #59
    Anybody who--after reading the constitution and the bill of rights--believes they were NOT intended to protect individuals--other than landholders--has an IQ lower than his hat size.
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #60
    @ Susan Duclos
    Anybody who--after reading the constitution and the bill of rights--believes they were NOT intended to protect individuals--other than landholders--has an IQ lower than his hat size.


    Thank you!
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Susan Duclos
    #61
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Thank you!


    My pleasure. He just "forgot" a word...LOLOL
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #62
    @ Susan Duclos
    My pleasure. He just "forgot" a word...LOLOL


    Yeah, right!!!! LOL!
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #63
    Ignorance is not a bad thing; but clinging to it and celebrating it is...
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #64
    @ Jedediah Redman
    Ignorance is not a bad thing; but clinging to it and celebrating it is...


    Then we are mystified as to your constant grumpy demeanor...I've never seen such a celebration :)
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #65
    @ Mr Garibaldi
    Then we are mystified as to your constant grumpy demeanor...


    You know nothing of me, mikey--nor I of you.
    I find your reactionary support of anti-progressive thought dismaying; but, like Antonin Scalia, you may be able to be charming as a snake getting ready to eat a bird...
  • sumdume Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  sumdume
    #66
    Anybody who--after reading the constitution and the bill of rights--believes they were intended to protect individuals--other than landholders--has an IQ lower than his hat size.

    I understand that the landed class were protecting their liberties above all others. This is evidenced by the challenges people of color and females had to get "equal" rights. However, the Bill of Rights protected the liberties of the individuals. In doing so it limited the ability of the government to stifle free speech and disarm the citizenry.
  • avatar Posted Jun 29, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #67
    @ Jedediah Redman
    You know nothing of me, mikey--nor I of you.


    You've finally, FINALLY said something that I can totally agree with, and I'm going to ask you, again, in light of your epiphany, using words that I have said to YOU that you don't know ME; say nothing further to me, nor make any further comments on any of my threads.

    Life will be much more pleasant for both of us this way, and for everyone else.

    Have a nice evening.
  • Jedediah Redman Posted Jun 30, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #68
    I think you're essentially an a**hole, mikey; but I pick that up through the bigotry and ignorance revealed in your posts.
    As I said, you may be a really charming feller...

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?