11.20.2007

Lawyers, Guns and . . . Uh . . . The Supreme Court


Finally, the most interesting case to be heard by the Supreme Court since "Bong Hits For Jesus." The story:

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court [today] agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?
The fate of Wise County rests in the balance.

(Credit: Kevin via email)

23 comments:

The Devil said...

I hope they rule that individuals do not have the right to bear arms, and they immediatly issue an order for all current gun owners to remit their weapons to the government.

Anonymous said...

I love the Young Country 105.3 shirt. Just think this guy's walking around the metroplex somewhere.

chuck heston said...

I'll give them my guns... but they'll get the bullets first...

Michael the Archangel said...

I think it is up to the individual states to decide whether they issue permits, so the SC could only rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment, not issue an order for all current gun owners to remit their weapons, you stupid Devil.

Stick to ruling Hell and don't dabble in matters about which you have no knowledge. That's got to be the dumbest post I've seen in a long time. Go figure the Devil is a liberal.

Don't make me stomp you again!!

Mike

Anonymous said...

sounds like something the devil or a demacrat(socialist) would say

Anonymous said...

Does anyone honestly think if guns were made illegal that criminals would turn theirs in?

Anonymous said...

see barry, i told you that you needed that ring tone for your phone... lawyers, guns and money....we heart micky!

Anonymous said...

2:00 join the club of people on this blog who could not spot a satirical comment if it had a billboard attached to it. Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

rpm said...

...and there was mass wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth all across Wise County...


Psst..3:34.. it's dem-O-crat. Maybe you should have paid attention to that socialist teacher instead of Rush.

goober said...

to 5:29 Well said, Obie Won.

michael the archangel said...

5:20,

Look at my post again. Look at my name and what I say to the Devil. Then go and look up Michael the Archangel and what his relationship was to Satan...

Now what was that you were saying about not recognizing satire?

Another Wise County education shining through!

Anonymous said...

i think they should ban both guns and freedom of speech. they are both protected in the constitution. if u ban one , u must ban the other.

Anonymous said...

This decision will put to rest the notion of "strict constructionist" judges. The context is clearly "as part of an organized milita" but the prevailing precedent will carry the day. The "politics" of the situation will cause these "strict constructionist" to turn their collective heads away from following the constitution. So it all boils down to we see the constitution in light of 'what we want" as opposed to "what is there"

yes, I have a closet full of sporting guns but fully understand that I have no need for a AK47 much less a "right" to have one. And tho I don't own a handgun, I would not "want" to see that privilege taken away

Anonymous said...

the west was won by gay Frenchmen, toting manbags and singing "the soviet national anthem". the indians just gave up so they could fleece us at chocta casino.

the second amendment is the last "check and balance" against an out of control government. read the federalist papers and the thought of our founders.

the fake justice earl warren said...

I think 8:13 is right and the "strict constructionists" (especially Scalia and his lapdog Thomas) will decide to ignore the whole "militia" portion of the amendment. What's worse, is that they may expand the term "arms" to include not only assault weapons, but armor piercing ammunition as well.

Sadly, I don't see this SC even asking what the "purpose" of the amendment was in the first place. I fully expect them to rule so broadly on their interpretation that a nuclear warhead would not fall outside the term "arms". Joy.

Anonymous said...

8:48

You do a disservice to lapdogs to associate Thomas with them.

Anonymous said...

barry. its lawyers, guns and money. by micky and the motorcars. check it out.

The Devil said...

Thank you 5:20, someone who truly appreciates a little satire or sarcasm.

Archangel don't get your panties in a wad, I am not a liberal nor am I a conservative. I am more a whatever makes good common-sense kinda guy. If you have read this blog for some time you will clearly see I am gun toting maniac just like you; Charleton Heston has even been my president. I have even gone as far as using all but one deer tag this year...imagine that, even after I posted the comment above...how dare me!

Maybe you should stop dabbling in matters which you have no knowledge, like how to recognize sarcasm. Stick to things you know, like the correct length for a mullet haircut, flying off the handle at a random blog comment, or how to correctly carve a swastika in pals chest.

Saint Michael the Archangel,defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
Amen.

Michael the Archangel said...

Devil,

You're just mad because I kicked your ass out of Paradise. Don't make me kick your ass out of Decatur and Boyd, too!

MTA

Anonymous said...

8:03 - you well represent the ignorance of most people on our constitution. You also demonstrate your (il)logic by assuming that the decision on one point of the constitution requires the adoption of the second point. But let me again correct your misimpression about guns in the constitution. The 2nd amendment declares that a "well regulated militia"(i.e. the National Guard) as "being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The "people" referenced may be declared to be those in the militia - not everyone else. Not to say that these non-militia types may not have guns - just that that right can be regulated. However, I expect that this Supreme Court will abdicate their responsibilities (as they did in the Bush vs. Gore decision) and follow their political & "activist" judicial inclinations.

The Devil said...

MTA,

Throw in Chico and Alvord and complete my enlightenment, for I will truly be free from ignorance!

Besides, back in the big war I was outnumbered 266,613,336 to133,306,668.

The Devil

Gorilla said...

I bet that kid got a full diaper when daddy picked up that pistol.

Anonymous said...

I like GUNS! and BEER! no, wait...GUNS & BEER TOGETHER!