• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:25
CEST 04:25
KST 11:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: Within Reach5[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: In A Tizzy11[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver5[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8
Community News
SC4ALL: II SC2 Complete Invited Player Lineup4StarCraft II 5.0.17 PTR Patch Notes (Sept 30, 2026)66Weekly Cups (Sept 21-27): herO and ByuN double2Weekly Cups (Sep 13-20): herO scores triple3BSL Season 2315
StarCraft 2
General
Back to SC2 after 14 years - Protoss CTRL groups? How do you feel about the mass reverts in the 5.0.17 PTR? October World Ranking: herO stays #1, ByuN returns SC4ALL: II SC2 Complete Invited Player Lineup StarCraft II 5.0.17 PTR Patch Notes (Sept 30, 2026)
Tourneys
Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament 2026 GSTL Grand Finals Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) SC2 INu's Battles#21 [ 3-Days tournament ]
Strategy
[H] ZvP Mid-Late Game: Stalkers Collossi HT
Custom Maps
[M] (2) Sweltering Sands [M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 545 And Drops and Rifts Mutation # 544 Double Trouble Mutation # 543 Enhanced Defenses
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Sagi.gg Launcher Released RepMastered™: replay sharing and analyzer site Bot on ladder BSL Season 23
Tourneys
2v2v2v2 Tournament [ASL22] Ro8 Day 4 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL22] Ro8 Day 3
Strategy
Cliff Jump Revisited (1 in a 1000 strategy) Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Zero
Dota 2
Dota 2 Champions League Season 3 Begins April 25! Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Artificial Intelligence Thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Diablo Animated Series on Netflix
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
[ASL22] Ro4 Day1 Ticket Giv…
bITt.mAN
Escaping Into Video Games: G…
TrAiDoS
38 yo Retired SWE loo…
PurE)Rabbit-SF
Can Bots Beat Pros?? Starcr…
namkraft
[meme] I finally understa…
LUCKY_NOOB
Regacy Esports:Our Goa…
regacyesports
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 9215 users

Heller vs. DC Decision

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 Next All
rpf
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
United States2705 Posts
June 26 2008 14:47 GMT
#1
A while back, when this case was first heard by the SCOTUS, I made a thread about it. It remained quite civil, given the topic matter and the extreme views many TL members hold. Keep this thread just as civil, please.

For those that don't know: The SCOTUS heard a case to decide whether the Second Amendment was referring to an individual right to "keep and bear arms," or if the right was in some way dependent on a state having a militia.

Today, the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment, is, in fact, an individual right.

Frankly, I'm glad that the Justices can read. It's quite hard, in my opinion, to misunderstand "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed."

Even more important, the DC gun ban is therefore unconstitutional, as it arbitrarily removes the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves within the law. The law takes away the tools with which to defend oneself, leaving one defenseless. This law, of course, was enacted under the guise that it would stop crime (which it clearly has not).

Here is a link to the news story: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Guns.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits (March 19)

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.


Any comments?
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
June 26 2008 14:58 GMT
#2
Good.
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
Sfydjklm
Profile Blog Joined April 2005
United States9218 Posts
June 26 2008 15:19 GMT
#3
Bad.
twitter.com/therealdhalism | "Trying out Z = lots of losses vs inferior players until you figure out how to do it well (if it even works)."- Liquid'Tyler
Naib
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Hungary4952 Posts
June 26 2008 15:21 GMT
#4
Don't care.
Complete the cycle!
JudgeMathis
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
Cuba1286 Posts
June 26 2008 15:22 GMT
#5
When I hit 21, I'm going to get a gun. Just so I can be safe vs the dudes with guns. >=/
Benching 225 is light weight. Soy Cubano y Boricua!
QuanticHawk
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States32159 Posts
June 26 2008 15:24 GMT
#6
We need tighter gun restrictions, but I don't think a flat out ban is the answer. Guns are too ingrained in our society to ban them outright.

Machine guns should remain illegal to own.
Make the waiting peroid and background checks tighter, and don't give to felons, those with a history of mental illnesss, etc.
Carrying weapons—other than for hunting purposes—should be only for police and etc. But other than that, I'm fine with someone wanting to defend their home or work place.

PROFESSIONAL GAMER - SEND ME OFFERS TO JOIN YOUR TEAM - USA USA USA
HeadBangaa
Profile Blog Joined July 2004
United States6512 Posts
June 26 2008 15:28 GMT
#7
I was pleasantly surprised to see the court's decision.
People who fail to distinguish Socratic Method from malicious trolling are sadly stupid and not worth a response.
Quesadilla
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States1814 Posts
June 26 2008 15:38 GMT
#8
I actually have to write a paper about this, THIS weekend. Hahaha, keep commenting people.
Make a lot of friends. Wear good clothes. Drink good beer. Love a nice girl.
KOFgokuon
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States14912 Posts
June 26 2008 15:40 GMT
#9
Guns rights are tough
Even if you make them difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens, there will be plenty of people who can get them illegally without that much problem, and i think that is the major issue, and gun control doesn't stop that.
nemY
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States3119 Posts
June 26 2008 16:04 GMT
#10
lol at first 3 comments

Recently I've started shooting guns at a range for fun. Definitely interested now in purchasing a few handguns. Nice to know that I'll be able to
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-26 16:17:08
June 26 2008 16:16 GMT
#11
On June 27 2008 00:40 KOFgokuon wrote:
Murder rights are tough
Even if you outlaw murder for law abiding citizens, there will be plenty of people who will murder illegally without that much problem, and i think that is the major issue, and laws don't stop that.


Fixd.
Jonoman92
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
United States9110 Posts
June 26 2008 16:21 GMT
#12
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
June 26 2008 16:23 GMT
#13
On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.


I would like to see more stabbings too.
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
decafchicken
Profile Blog Joined January 2005
United States20168 Posts
June 26 2008 16:35 GMT
#14
ban knives plz

but really, im appalled that the decision was 5-4 and not 9-0
how reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?
HolyToss1911
Profile Joined May 2007
354 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-26 16:55:30
June 26 2008 16:53 GMT
#15
On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.


is not that simple, if they ban guns criminal will find a way to get them and they wont give a fuck about a new law, but what about us? how do we defend?

Edit:

i laugh

+ Show Spoiler +

On June 26 2008 23:58 Mindcrime wrote:
Good.


On June 27 2008 00:19 Sfydjklm wrote:
Bad.


On June 27 2008 00:21 Naib wrote:
Don't care.

rpf
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
United States2705 Posts
June 26 2008 18:24 GMT
#16
On June 26 2008 23:58 Mindcrime wrote:
Good.



On June 27 2008 00:19 Sfydjklm wrote:
Bad.



On June 27 2008 00:21 Naib wrote:
Don't care.

:/

On June 27 2008 00:22 JudgeMathis wrote:
When I hit 21, I'm going to get a gun. Just so I can be safe vs the dudes with guns. >=/

Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't make you safe; it simply gives you the option to defend yourself (as opposed to being defenseless [i.e. the perfect victim] against an armed aggressor). I'd much rather go down trying than not trying at all. :/

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
We need tighter gun restrictions, but I don't think a flat out ban is the answer.

Reasoning? How does the legal sale and use of firearms have anything to do with crime? (I assume you're saying we need tighter gun restrictions with regards to an effect on crime. If your statement wasn't about crime, ignore this part of my post.)

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Guns are too ingrained in our society to ban them outright.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Machine guns should remain illegal to own.

Why? Since when have the law-abiding been the problem?

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Make the waiting peroid and background checks tighter, and don't give to felons, those with a history of mental illnesss, etc.

Waiting periods do nothing. They were designed to prevent people from going out and buying a gun while angry to kill their neighbor, wife, etc.; If someone intends to kill another person, is the method in which they do so really the important part? They could just as easily do it with a knife from the drawer, or the phone cord. Waiting periods are a sham; they are nothing more than an illusion designed to make the general population think that public officials have done something.

Background checks don't need to be tighter; I already was forced to waive civil liberties to exercise another so-called "liberty."

And, of course, I agree with restricting the criminals and crazies; too bad they don't see it my way. Make it illegal for the principle; but intend on enforcing the law, not expecting the law to prevent criminal behavior the way many people do.

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Carrying weapons—other than for hunting purposes—should be only for police and etc. But other than that, I'm fine with someone wanting to defend their home or work place.

So you recognize the purpose of a firearm in society, but would restrict it to only the military and the police; Does that not contradict the Second Amendment? "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed. Does "the people" mean something different in the Second Amendment than it does in the First, Fourth, etc.?

On June 27 2008 00:28 HeadBangaa wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised to see the court's decision.

As was I, although I was quite unhappy to learn that the decision was not unanimous. Apparently, Justices in the SCOTUS cannot read and understand what "the people" means.

On June 27 2008 00:38 Quesadilla wrote:
I actually have to write a paper about this, THIS weekend. Hahaha, keep commenting people.

PM me if you want any help on it. I know a couple of good places, but I'm not willing to post said information publicly.

On June 27 2008 00:40 KOFgokuon wrote:
Guns rights are tough
Even if you make them difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens, there will be plenty of people who can get them illegally without that much problem, and i think that is the major issue, and gun control doesn't stop that.

Gun control has never been about crime. A couple of days ago, there was a discussion on gun control, and Jim Wallace of GOAL (MA pro-rights group) was talking to a woman about said gun control, and he mentioned how the number of gun owners in MA went down as a result of ridiculous laws (i.e. people moving to NH rofl) and her response was, "Well, that's what we wanted!"

Gun control is about guns; gun control is not crime control, and never has been.

On June 27 2008 01:04 nemY wrote:
lol at first 3 comments

Recently I've started shooting guns at a range for fun. Definitely interested now in purchasing a few handguns. Nice to know that I'll be able to

PM me if you want some help getting information.

On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.

It's very simple: You make an idealistic (read: unrealistic) statement, and then act as if you've figured out the solution. The same can be said for any inanimate object used throughout history as a weapon. It can be used for any object at all.

To fix your statement, I'd say that: If antisocial people did not exist, we'd have no need for weapons for the purposes of self-defense.

If people didn't:
- Have tongues, they couldn't be rude
- Have thoughts, they couldn't be malicious
- Alcohol....

On June 27 2008 01:35 decafchicken wrote:
ban knives plz

but really, im appalled that the decision was 5-4 and not 9-0

No fucking kidding. Justices need to learn to read. It's fucking disgusting.

On June 27 2008 01:53 HolyToss1911 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.


is not that simple, if they ban guns criminal will find a way to get them and they wont give a fuck about a new law, but what about us? how do we defend?

You don't, which is exactly what gun control advocates have always wanted: easier victims. Shit, if you were a criminal, you'd want an easy victim, too.

Gun control advocates, to me, are basically the same as criminals.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-26 18:42:02
June 26 2008 18:41 GMT
#17
So... stabbing is just as easy and destructive as shooting someone?
AdamBanks
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada996 Posts
June 26 2008 18:47 GMT
#18
Trying to seperate guns and crime ? gl with that one....do me a favor and get working on keeping drugs and crime away from each other.

Most here have a somewhat valid point, but i feel people are dodging the real issue behind this matter. Too many people get shot and/or too many people are using guns to commit a crime and we should figure out how to reduce that...why? because crime and getting shot are generally a bad thing and usually happens more often when there's alot of guns laying around.

You guys have the right to bear arms, its in that thing u use to run ur country, just figure out a way to have guns and not have them end up shooting people or being pointed at some poor worker.
I wrote a song once.
SuperJongMan
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Jamaica11586 Posts
June 26 2008 18:50 GMT
#19
No. Pulling is a trigger is easy breezy.
Stabbings get messy. ... Noob.
POWER OVERWHELMING ! ! ! KRUU~ KRUU~
CDRdude
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States5625 Posts
June 26 2008 19:00 GMT
#20
Hell with guns, I want a sword.
Force staff is the best item in the game.
1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 35m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RuFF_SC2 154
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 512
NaDa 42
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm195
LuMiX0
Other Games
summit1g9827
JimRising 772
WinterStarcraft219
ViBE113
Mew2King68
ArmadaUGS59
Trikslyr45
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1481
BasetradeTV223
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream139
[ Show 11 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 120
• davetesta47
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush388
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
7h 35m
INu's Battles
9h 35m
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
12h 35m
MilkiCow vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
BSL Open Qualifier
16h 35m
BSL Open Qualifier
16h 35m
Replay Cast
20h 35m
Afreeca Starleague
1d 7h
Rush vs Light
WardiTV Weekly
1d 8h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 13h
Replay Cast
1d 20h
[ Show More ]
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Soma vs Soulkey
INu's Battles
2 days
SHIN vs Cure
ByuN vs Zoun
PiGosaur Cup
2 days
The PondCast
4 days
INu's Battles
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
BSL: Ladder Tournament
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Calamity Invitational

Ongoing

ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
Acropolis #5
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Copium Cup
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual

Upcoming

Acropolis #5 - GSC
BSL Season 23
SC4ALL II: Brood War
BSL 23: Non-Korean Championship
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Custodian Cup
eXTREMESLAND 2026
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.