Ted Nugent is not happy with the 2nd Admendment ruling from SCOTUS

[SUBMAN1]

I think he's right too:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=1828697&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b 0c12f2749

-S

[Platapus]

Sheeesh the SCOTUS ruled in his favour and he is still bitchin?????

The Issue of the Second Amendment is not straight forward. Constitutional scholars have been debating this for many many years. Constitutional scholars will probably continue to debate this and other factors of our Constitution.

I am glad the ruling went the way it did, but I also recognize that there is validity to other interpretations, despite the fact that I may disagree with them.

We should take our "victory" gracefully and move on.

[SUBMAN1]

Sheeesh the SCOTUS ruled in his favour and he is still bitchin?????

The Issue of the Second Amendment is not straight forward. Constitutional scholars have been debating this for many many years. Constitutional scholars will probably continue to debate this and other factors of our Constitution.

I am glad the ruling went the way it did, but I also recognize that there is validity to other interpretations, despite the fact that I may disagree with them.

We should take our "victory" gracefully and move on.4 of those 9 judges were will to throw out your rights as defined in the Constitution. That is scary.

-S

[Platapus]

How many times has the Supreme Court ever ruled anything 9-0? There will always be disagreements. That's why there are nine of them instead of one.

I am thankful that we have Justice Kennedy who can think instead of just voting politically.

[TheSatyr]

Considering the Historical Context of the Second Amendment it could easily have gone either way.

No standing army at the time and the Country being defended by volunteer militia units.

It has always surprised me that the Second Amendment wasn't repealed or modified after the decision was made to have a standing army since that seemed to defeat the purpose of the Second Amendment. Since not everyone was in favor of a standing army they probably left the Second Amendment as is to placate the oponents of the standing army idea. (Or maybe some considered the standing army as just a temporary thing.).

[Sailor Steve]

A very good question, TheSatyr. Of course the main objection to a standing army was that the government could concievable use it to overthrow freedom, so having one would make the Second Amendment more necessary, not less. In line with the Declaration of Independence (and to steal a march from Penn & Teller), the real purpose of Article II is the violent overthrow of the government; nothing more and nothing less. Hunting, home protection and all that other stuff is just gravy.

People opposing gun ownership (and the Guard themselves) claim that the National Guard is the descendent of the original Minutemen and the Militias, but a lot of others feel just the opposite; the Guard has its weapons supplied by the feds, and the President can call the Guard just as easily as the Governor, so it's still part of the standing army.

Fortunately the majority of soldiers were raised to believe in freedom, so if someone in government were to try to use the army against the citizens a lot of them would be deserting and joining the ranks of the oppressed.

We hope.

But I still don't trust 'em.

[MadMike]

Government tyranny after Hurricane Katrina-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo


Yours, Mike

[nikimcbee]

I'm just glad the Founders had the foresight to make the process of changing the Constitution a difficult one to change anything. Our Constitution would change everytime a different party gets into power.