Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Citizen on 06-26-08
This ruling was a victory for gun owners and the Bill of Rights. That is, a victory for now. The ruling of 5-4 means that there are 4 supreme court justices that believe the second amendment refers to a collective rather than individual right to bear arms. This is dangerous in many respects. Just as the Legal Tender Act was ruled in favor of the people when Hepburn v. Griswold reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869, five years after the war had ended. The Court ruled in favor of Griswold, holding in a 4-3 decision that legal-tender laws violated the U.S. Constitution. When Grant became president he appointed 2 Judges to the court. The case was reviewed and this time the ruling fell in favor of the Federal Government. The case regarding firearms could and most likely will be overturned within 5 years. I would be willing to bet on it. One Judge is all that stands between owning firearms and not. That is a pretty close margin, for such an important freedom. The second amendment is the amendment which secures all other amendments. Read some of the founders quotes on the second amendment and see for yourself. As for me, I am buying as many firearms as possible before Obama or McCain is elected, with their liberal agenda.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Frank on 06-27-08
Wow, you actually think along the lines of how the SC ruling is not in the best interests of Republicans because it takes away the gun argument.
Sick.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Citizen on 06-28-08
Frank,
I think you misunderstood me. I can care less about the Republican agenda. Personally I cannot stand Republicans. You know what Frank, I actually hope it DOES hurt the republican agenda. I was merely pointing out that just because the court ruled this way, does not mean it will uphold his decision in 5 years. I was a narrow vote. I am a libertarian so please never confuse me with those republican, soon to lose the november elections, war mongers again. The gun argument will always be relevant, because there will always be statist, utopian minded, fascists that want to take guns away.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
‘The Defining Story of This Band’
Glacier’s Quick Road to the Top
Giving Comfort When There is No Cure
Schweitzer Rejects NMAR’s Request for Special Session
Political, Agriculture Leaders React to Buffett’s BNSF Purchase
Comments on: Ruling May Nullify Gun Arguments
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Citizen on 06-26-08
This ruling was a victory for gun owners and the Bill of Rights. That is, a victory for now. The ruling of 5-4 means that there are 4 supreme court justices that believe the second amendment refers to a collective rather than individual right to bear arms. This is dangerous in many respects. Just as the Legal Tender Act was ruled in favor of the people when Hepburn v. Griswold reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869, five years after the war had ended. The Court ruled in favor of Griswold, holding in a 4-3 decision that legal-tender laws violated the U.S. Constitution. When Grant became president he appointed 2 Judges to the court. The case was reviewed and this time the ruling fell in favor of the Federal Government. The case regarding firearms could and most likely will be overturned within 5 years. I would be willing to bet on it. One Judge is all that stands between owning firearms and not. That is a pretty close margin, for such an important freedom. The second amendment is the amendment which secures all other amendments. Read some of the founders quotes on the second amendment and see for yourself. As for me, I am buying as many firearms as possible before Obama or McCain is elected, with their liberal agenda.
By Frank on 06-27-08
Wow, you actually think along the lines of how the SC ruling is not in the best interests of Republicans because it takes away the gun argument.
Sick.
By Citizen on 06-28-08
Frank,
I think you misunderstood me. I can care less about the Republican agenda. Personally I cannot stand Republicans. You know what Frank, I actually hope it DOES hurt the republican agenda. I was merely pointing out that just because the court ruled this way, does not mean it will uphold his decision in 5 years. I was a narrow vote. I am a libertarian so please never confuse me with those republican, soon to lose the november elections, war mongers again. The gun argument will always be relevant, because there will always be statist, utopian minded, fascists that want to take guns away.