2nd Amendment Ruling

[chippa13 1844]

Seriously, comparing the usefulness of the ACLU to the fire department? Really?

[Monty22 833]

ACLU is a two sided sword. Much like lawyers, politicians, cops, etc.

You despise them most of the time, but when you need them they're there to help out.

The ACLU is about as anti 2A as you can get.

[Monty22 833]

So, if I live in Texas and I see a bunch of teenagers lighting my shed on fire (arson), I'm well within my legal rights to come bursting out my house shooting at them?

Obviously there is a line that you have to draw here somewhere, and it's going to be different case by case. That's why we have a criminal justice/legal system. That's all I was trying to get at, that to issue a blanket statement saying "well, you might get shot doing that, so it's your fault if you get killed" isn't how it works. There is a fine line between defending yourself and vigilantism.

It's hard to feel badly for someone who's own illegal actions directly lead to their demise. There was a recent incident at a theme park where someone climbed a fence, ignored a "Danger, do not enter sign and was decapitated by a roller coaster car. He put himself at risk for harm. As far as drawing a line, it has been drawn- there are certain situations and criteria where force is justified. If you would prefer not to risk your life, it's common sense to not put yourself in those situations. Not sure why you can't wrap your brain around it, it's pretty straight forward.

[DavidT 11]

ACLU is a two sided sword. Much like lawyers, politicians, cops, etc.

You despise them most of the time, but when you need them they're there to help out.

The ACLU is about as anti 2A as you can get.

I know, hence the double sided sword. They do help protect a lot of other liberties provided by or Constitution.

Besides, if a bill ever came up for the entire banning and seizure of firearms. They'd be in the NRAs corner with plenty to help.

[Monty22 833]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

[gxc999 7]

Whether people here care to admit it or not, the ACLU is one of the greatest civil liberty watchdogs period. They constantly sue local/state/federal government etc based on rights we all hold dear. This includes freedom of speech, the press, privacy and sex/age discrimination etc. All levels of government around the country grab as much as they can until someone sues them. This would honestly be a total police state without groups like the ACLU, Public Citizen etc.

As far as Horn's instance goes, that's a large part of why Texas is thought of as almost an independent nation in legal circles. They're rapidly moving toward Mussolini right-wing paradise, even worse than the left-wing kooks in California courts.

[DavidT 11]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

[Trooper 8]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

They stated in the past that they would defend the 2nd Amendment if it was ever deemed an individual right by the Supreme Court. Well, Heller did that in no uncertain terms. The ACLU issued a statement that it disagreed with the ruling and would continue its current stance. That led the Nevada chapter of the ACLU to issue a statement in opposition to the national position. They are nothing more than liberals who hold some rights in higher esteem than others and they are no friends to gun owners.

[chk hrd 164]

ACLU, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...nothing but political terrorists.

[chippa13 1844]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

How can a right not be an individual right?

[Chadd 916]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

How can a right not be an individual right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

[Trooper 8]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

How can a right not be an individual right?

When the word, "the people" is used, it can't.

[chippa13 1844]

I wouldn't hold my breath.....

Why? They believe in the right into gun ownership. Just not as an individual right. So if it came down to the banning of firearms, they'd be right there to protect 2nd amendment rights.

How can a right not be an individual right?

When the word, "the people" is used, it can't.

And who makes up "the people", that would be citizens who would be individuals.

Chadd, Article 4 is technically titled "States Powers and Limits".

The phrase states' rights (and all variants of the words and the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments -- rather the word rights is mostly associated within the Constitution with the phrase the people, while the word powers is mostly associated with government entities such as Congress or states. Therefore, the phrase states' powers is more technically consistent with the terminology of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, with the phrase States' rights popularized by repeated usage.

[Trooper 8]

And who makes up "the people", that would be citizens who would be individuals.

I know, my post was in support of your argument.

[lawryde 0]

Guns made this argument end well.

http://www.kpho.com/news/16985586/detail.html

Shows what an open campus will get you.

[Rustpot 1]

Guns made this argument end well.

http://www.kpho.com/news/16985586/detail.html

Shows what an open campus will get you.

I don't see what that article has to do with the discussion here. It never states if he had a CCW, legally purchased the firearm, whether community college is a gun-free zone, etc.

Or are you arguing that letting people on campus is asking for trouble? In which case you're pretty jaded about college campuses. There's no good way to restrict the movement of people between dozens of buildings with students, faculty, visitors, etc.

It does seem clear that the assailant confronted the other person on campus and brought a gun. That says to me he planned on things getting to the point of shooting.

[Trooper 8]

Guns made this argument end well.

http://www.kpho.com/news/16985586/detail.html

Shows what an open campus will get you.

Impossible, guns are banned on college campuses save a very select few. How could he possibly have shot anyone when both murder and possessing a gun on campus are illegal..? I'll bet if we had just one more gun control law this never would have happened.