TYT: Cenk's Take On The Supreme Court Ruling on Gun Rights

[ihavenobias]

Run time: 05:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZMyPs_-U4M   Posted on YouTube: June 27, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 28, 2008 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 1057

 
Also check out the Leaked GOP Internal Memo Shows That No Republican Seat Is Safe: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3536064&mesg_id=3536064

And watch this Great Citizen Tube Interview of Cenk: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x151697

Finally, here's a great resource you can email out to stop the Obama smears: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6410712

PS---Keep in mind that you can download the first hour of The Young Turks free every day through Itunes. Also, the show loops 24 hours a day at www.theyoungturks.com . Finally, there is great news for XM radio subscribers: The Young Turks will be on starting July 14th!

[CherylK]

1. That sounds fair to me!

I guess I am somewhere in the middle on this issue like Cenk.

[OhioChick]

2. Same here...to an extent.

I believe that citizens should have the right to protect themselves, however I don't see the reason for M16 and M4 assault rifles, AK's and such. (Didn't this ban get overturned when bush got into office...I believe it was let to expire.)

[benEzra]

7. Possession of an M16, M4, or actual AK-47 is still a 10-year Federal felony

I believe that citizens should have the right to protect themselves, however I don't see the reason for M16 and M4 assault rifles, AK's and such. (Didn't this ban get overturned when bush got into office...I believe it was let to expire.)

Possession of an M16, M4, or actual AK-47 is still a 10-year Federal felony outside of police/military/government duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). Even with a Form 4, you can only possess pre-1986 collectibles, and the going rate for an AK-47 (if you are Federally approved) is $17,000; for an M16, $15,000 to $75,000. Post-1986 automatic weapons are restricted to government only. Those are regulated under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Title 2 automatic weapon registry was closed by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. All U.S. civilian guns are restricted to NON-automatic only and cannot be easily convertible to full auto.

You are thinking of the ill-advised 1994 Feinstein law, that slapped silly cosmetic restrictions on non-automatic CIVILIAN rifles, and raised prices on civilian handgun magazines by 500% or so. That one expired in 2004, and good riddance.

[ihavenobias]

3. Me too n/t

[1Hippiechick]

4. Talked to our older son in Northern VA today. He is elated about the ruling from the standpoint that

he believes it was the correct interpretation. Doesn't directly impact him since he and wife have permits to carry concealed.

Great video to share....am bookmarking and recommending.

Good night, all.

[ihavenobias]

5. That's the thing, in the short run at least, it doesn't impact a lot of people directly

It'll be interesting to see how things are effected in the long run.

[CherylK]

6. Bump!

[AtheistCrusader]

8. He has this completely wrong.

Scalia specifically stated it DOES NOT call into question whether bans on felons or the mentally ill from owning firearms is justified.

I don't think he read the decision.
Page 54:

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill..."

Meaning, those prohibitions are fine, unquestionable, safe, unaltered, etc.


Secondly, the dissenting opinions do not state it's a military or militia only right, they point to the state, not the federal government being the 'source' or guarantee of this right. That right varies from state to state.

From Justice Stevens DISSENT:

"The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “{t}hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias."

Under the 4 vote dissent, the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the states, (which most do protect that right, specifically) and consequently, under the 9th amendment, instead of the 2nd amendment.

So both the 5 vote majority, and the 4 vote dissent recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms, they just disagree on where that right comes from.