Court ruling
Published Thursday, July 3, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 30, 2008
To the editor:
Hooray for the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the ruling for the Second Amendment.
No thanks to the venomous left, Ruth Bader Ginsberg — lawyer from the ACLU and Clinton appointee.
As Michael Savage puts it, “stench from the bench.” That’s all.
Bob Bowers
Fairbanks
Most e-mailed stories
Volunteers rush to build Kingdom Hall in matter of days July 25 | 39 comments
Tanana, Salcha rivers flood Interior Alaska July 31 | 11 comments
Alaska Permanent Fund dividend checks could top $2,000 July 27 | 155 comments
Tanana River crests in Fairbanks; Chena expected to crest Saturday July 31 | 25 comments
Fairbanksans caught in crossfire as feuding gang members take aim at each other August 15 | 192 comments
Fairbanksans gather to say goodbye to Fairview Manor as demolition begins August 19 | 49 comments
In rural Alaska, fuel costs now matter of survival August 6 | 81 comments
State officials tour flood damage; water still rising in some areas August 2 | 59 comments
Corps to divert bulging Chena to flood project July 30 | 47 comments
Alaska Permanent Fund dividends to be distributed early August 18 | 46 comments
Most popular stories
-
Local Natives host rally supporting Barack Obama August 20 | 20 comments
-
Fairbanks borough mayor to speak at Democratic convention August 19 | 59 comments
-
Gambling with gambling August 20 | 18 comments
-
Gang solution August 20 | 19 comments
-
Court phase of Iditarod musher Jeff King's trial ends August 20 | 16 comments
-
Potential arrest made in College Road shooting case August 20 | 24 comments
-
EPA to put Fairbanks on air pollution problem list August 20 | 14 comments
-
Out of options August 20 | 10 comments
-
The facts of life August 20 | 7 comments
-
Alaska Sen. Stevens wants trial by day, campaign by night August 20 | 4 comments
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
It's a dirty shame, and also scary, that only 5 of the Supremes saw fit to decide on the side of the Bill of Rights. It should have been unanimous. But at least they did get it right.
I wonder how a President Obama appointee might rule on a case like this. Do you think that they'd agree with Alioto and Thomas, or Ginsberg and Souter?
About a year ago those same four Supreme Court justices were part of the majority ruling police have no duty to protect citizens. Scary to think we were just one vote away from living in a county were our firearms would be confiscated and the police no help protecting us.
That's the way it is in Canada now. Someone breaks into your front door you need to go out the back - if you confront the intruder, then you are guilty of 'escalating' the incident and 100% responsible for the outcome. Someone asks for your wallet - you are required to hand it over - otherwise you are also guilty of escalating the incident. Heaven forbid you actually hit an intruder or robber - that creates a drain on the nationalized health care they have........ and you beocme responsible for all intruders or robbers health care for many years to come.
Hard to believe we were just one vote away from this Utopia.
I don't know glacierles....maybe they might agree with Stevens and Souter. You know, those two justices appointed by Republican presidents. The Supreme Court currently has 7 justices appointed by Republican presidents and only 2 from a Democrat. So which way is the court really leaning??
All of that aside, I agree that this should have been unanimous. To me, the 2nd amendment, and all amendments for that matter, are very sacred.
Michael Savage? Are you serious? Really, you're being brainwashed. Michael savage would be a great leader for north korea or china. Let me sum up savage, Hate, hate, hate... Sure, guns are too close religion for many, the ACLU are officially neutral on the second amendment and supports states rights. The ACLU has done some things to make everyone's life more free. If it weren't for the ACLU it probably would still be illegal in 24 states to be in an inter-racial marriage, it would be legal to use medical records in court, teaching evolution would be illegal in many states, warrantless surveillance would go unchecked, women's rights, and the list goes on. Sure they may be on the left of many issues such as women's productive rights, ie abortion and other issues. So, according to my opinion, the ACLU has helped give us freedoms that the government would like to restrict. Like them or not, they are working for all of us. My suggestion is to do a little research for yourself and take Savage's word with a can of salt. Of course many who agree with the letter to the editor probably would like me to be thrown in jail for being in an inter-racial marriage, think a woman's place is no-place and the earth is 4,000 years old.
I have friends who are my 'polar opposite' on almost everything that is Political (but they are still my friends). I think they are wrong and they probably think I'm deranged (but they are still my friends).
Herein is the problem; I still claim them as friends but I would never nomininate them for any position of judicial 'authority'. That's where Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush went off track. They nominated Supreme Court Justices based on 'friendship' (their own or that of close advisors).
A Conservative View of the Constitution is too important to "take on faith" and all future Nominees to the SCOTUS need to be thoroughly examined to determine whether they think the US Constitution is the supreme Legal Document of this nation or a "Living, Breathing" document that is open to change and interpretation.
If you read the decision you would see the dissent and the courts ruling differently. I was dumbfounded how little I knew about the 2nd amendment and its framers. I agree with the ruling but I can see why there was dissent. The 2nd amendment and its rights have been expanded well beyond the original framers intent. Plain reading of the amendment without the historical references is an incomplete thought.
June 26, 2008
Obama: Second Amendment Means Something, But Rights Can Be Bound
@ 5:41 pm by Chris Good
Barack Obama said he is glad the Supreme Court has bolstered the second amendment's legal power but stressed that its ruling does not mean the end of gun control. Obama was reacting to the court's recent gun decision on Bloomberg TV (see the video here.)
"What I've consistently said is that I believe that the second amendment means something, that it is an individual right, and that's what the Supreme Court held, so I agree with that aspect of the decision," Obama said.
"What I've also said is that every individual right can be bound by the interests of the community at large, and the Supreme Court agreed with that as well," Obama said. "It doesn't mean that local communities can't, you know, pass background checks, that they can't, you know, make sure that they're tracing guns that are used in crimes to find out where they got them from."
"There's still room for us to have some common-sense gun laws that are also compatible with the second amendment," Obama said.
Obama said he agreed that D.C.'s gun ban, which the Supreme Court today struck down, was unconstitutional.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/...
---------
Yeah, it means something to him...but not much. aReader
I told my husband strippers believe in the second amendment too. They believe in the right to bare arms.
Sorry couldn't help myself. He rolled his eyes also.
I believe in the right to arm bears.
We are screwed big time if Barack Obama gets near the White House.
The media has done a good job keeping his gaffs under wraps. This one tells all.............................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtI...
The judges you are praising for upholding the second amendment are the same judges that cut Exxon’s settlement from 2.5 Billion to 500 million. These same judges deprived your fellow Alaskans 2 billion dollars. These will be the same judges that will side with Exxon on their Point Thompson leases. In the past 20+ years Exxon has been warehousing Point Thompson’s resources, depriving Alaskan both jobs and revenue. I don’t think President Obama will have a tough time finding judges that will keep Big Business from controlling Alaska. The Republican President Teddy Roosevelt kept J.P. Morgan and Guggenheim from controlling Alaska a hundred years ago, and it can be done today if we elect a President and Congressional Representatives that serve the people, not Big Business.
"is making me clench" right on Savage for president!!Yes I know he would never do it.
Before we go off the deep end here, let's take a look at the entire SOTUS ruling and dissenting opinions. The entire text (in all it's excruciating detail) is available on-line at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0....
Having read it, I find the differences between the majority and minority opinions to be vast, and rather disconcerting. Our individual "freedoms" are resting on shaky ground indeed.
Sorry, that should have read "SCOTUS" opinion (Supreme Court of the United States)
The worst part about this whole thing is that it took 217 years to realize that the men who fought the Brits for our freedoms were just "common folk" or what would have been commonly referred to at the time as the "militia." When this RIGHT was written, that was well understood.
Hate W or not, at least he hasn't been a gun snatcher like Clinton, he just destroyed our economy, which is not a right, but a function. Give and take I reckon.
Crime has been plummeting in Washington DC due to the handgun ban and now crime will go up as a result. You don't use handguns to protect yourself from 'criminals' you use them because of their versatility and easy ability to conceal. If you really wanna protect yourself at home you use a sawed-off shotgun. This ruling is horrible. Americans will never learn that easy access to guns provides people with easy means to kill each-other - why do you think we have the highest murder rate in the nation?
Also, does anyone honestly believe that if the U.S. government decided to attack the american people with their f-16 fighter jets and apache attack helicopters that our handguns would do us any good at all??
Bad decision. This supreme court sucks.
junestag... China beckons thee....
hahaha, what?
Well, don't be so lost for words, you were doing well before. I mean obviously you are one who believes that one should bend to overwhelming might. (choppers and such) Just go to China, they will be sure to show you how might is better than right. Don't bother to fight back with your shovel. I bet you would want a pistol then huh?
By the way, who is "we" when you speak of the highest murder rate in the nation? Are you from Alaska or the Federal District of Washington? FYI - We do things a little different than you east coasters. Don't try to apply you "enlightened" view of things upon us simple folk.
'Tis better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
"Lincoln" for all you educated folk.
Yo homie. I'm a born and bred Alaskan from Fairbanks but I sure as hell aren't 'simple'. Simple-minded comes from a state of mind not a geographic location.
"Crime has been plummeting in Washington DC due to the handgun ban..."
Washington D.C. has been the murder capital of the U.S. for decades. In fact, since just about the time it adopted that handgun ban.
Their excuse has always been that because adjacent states like Virginia had looser gun laws, they were to blame for D.C.'s crime. (I suppose they would have to acknowledge that gun-owning Virginians must have been to D.C. to commit their crimes, instead of committing them at home, because law-abiding folk in Virginia were able to defend themselves -- but that would undermine the very idea that disarming the law-abiding reduces crime.)
True fact: disarming the law-abiding does NOT reduce crime. Blood won't run in D.C.'s streets as a result of this ruling any more than it did in any of the dozens of states that adopted Florida-style concealed carry laws.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.