This is a God Dam OUTRAGE - How Can Associated Press Do This?

This is the beginning of their article on the oral argument heard by the Court today:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_GUNS?SITE=MAHYC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Court will not even rule on this until June, how in hell can a major news service make a blatantly false claim like this? No Justice made any such claim and the news service has to know they did not and would not. This is just a god dam outrage and a clear attempt to sway the public's perception on a major issue. To make it sould like this already a done deal.

The Supreme Court hasn't rendered their opinion yet, as you pointed out. However, according to that article, some of the justices have been making pro-gun statements. But by stating in the headline that "justices agree" it makes it sound like the Supreme Court has already come down on the pro-gun side.

VERY bad journalism.

First sentence, "Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday". That is what I call blatantly false. It doesn't say they had this opinion yesterday, or that they wrote about it last year, or hinted at it at a party last night. It says they declared it on tuesday.

Roberts was the most vocal. Their statements and questions clearly showed support for an individual right to own guns. Denial is not argument.

through their remarks from the bench, to reassure the gun-toting public how they will vote.

And also the right to wear shirt sleaves!

Now seriously ....

I support the right of people to own firearms. I would not like to live in a country where only the government and its repressive military and police forces are permitted to own and use guns.

The government would only enforce laws outlawing ownership of fireams against progressives while right-wing vigilante and neo-fascist groups would be left alone .... in fact, many cops and right-wing military nutjobs would join and organize such para-military outfits.

It's been pandering to the RW for years now. It's just slightly better than UPI most days, and UPI REALLY Sucks.

About the only good News source, these days, are Reuters and the Non-U.S., Liberal papers in England and a few other English language papers.

<http://www.reuters.com/>

The biggest dam outrage is the Glen Canyon Dam.

If you read the transcript of oral argument, a majority of justices appear to believe that there is an individual right.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

I have written that this decision would come down to Justice Kennedy and he seems to be in favor of an individual right to own guns.

Please actually read the oral argument paying attention to the questions posed by the justices, and you will see that it looks like they believe in an individual right to own guns.

C-Span covered it and in fact had coverage of an hour long panel on the subject that preceeded it. So, yes, I am well aware of Justice Kennedy's questions and what they hinted at.

It was Kennedy and the usual "conservative" gang- Roberts, Scalia, Alito and you know where Thomas is going. In fact, Roberts was the most persistent. Please name the justices that will vote against an individual right besides Ginsburg and Breyer. That is a majority for an individual right, so the article was accurate. You have not shown otherwise. Perhaps you are biased against guns, as your post seems a bit short of facts and spelling, and a bit long on hysteria. Many if not most liberals own guns, so there is no reason to stir up the right wing with anti-gun hysteria. We do not need to make that mistake again. Please remember that the majority of voters favor gun ownership, despite what Paul Helmke might want you to believe.

Because the AP knows already, how the court is going to rule.

Don't you?

It's like making a prediction on a game, where the refs have been paid off.

It's a safe bet, and I wouldn't be surprised, if someone is already privy to how the ruling is going to come down.

Don't act surprised in June, when it's EXACTLY as stated today.

I'm not defending their story, but this country has become such a joke, you can pretty much figure out the ending in advance.

Wasn't it AP, that changed all their numbers in 2004, when it was appearing that Kerry would win the election?

AP is just another propaganda arm of this facist government. There is no legitimate media left in this country.

If you think that just because they're the Associated Press, that they're somehow honest, then you haven't been paying attention.

the article was accurate even if you don't like the source. Nobody wrote that they are honest because they are the AP. We call that a straw-man argument. So, what is false about the article.

"News" is new information about specific and timely events; just like the Supreme's questions and statements during the oral argument of a precedent setting case.

So, why is it not news?

it's your fault!

As long as people live in fear, and there are some lunatics who can get guns, them blaming the victim will ensue. Now Arizona is looking to arm teaching in colleges and universities. There's a solution for you, more gun!!

People who are afraid and misinformed about the real possibility of gun violence will always argue for an armed society. People that is why it's so easy for the US to support a war in Iraq and killing as a solution.

Tex Shelters

Just saying. It's worth keeping under consideration.

SCOTUS is to decide if we as citizens have the Constitutional right to bear arms.

Why is this all of a sudden an issue when we've been taught all our live that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms?

...is that SCOTUS will say that yes, individual Americans have the right, but the issue will be how far the right goes and to what degree restrictions can be placed on it. Lots of discussion about machine guns before the bench today, though I don't think this ruling by itself will endanger either the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, or the outright full-auto ban in the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Looks like Breyer and Kennedy will vote with the wingnuts.

I hope they vote in support of the Constitution and our right to bear arms. It's not a right-wing issue unless you make it so.

Tens of millions of people WHO DO NOT SUPPORT right-wing Republicans own firearms and are opposed to the hidden agenda of some self-described liberals (a minority of progressives) which I think is the confiscation of ALL fireams owned by private individuals.

So please don't present the defense of gun ownnership as just a "right-wing" position and issue. It's a civil liberty issue to me.

...and some of the more strident ban-more-guns voices are repubs and/or right wingers, including William J. Bennett and Sarah Brady, and a significant portion of the Religious Right is anti-gun.

FWIW, a pro-gun-rights ruling will help Dems in November, methinks.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

including several of the liberal justices (good!). Counting the pro-individual-right voices heard today, it is pretty damn likely that the ruling will affirm that the 2ndA applies to individual citizens and not to the National Guard or whatever.

FWIW, a pro-gun ruling would definitely help Dems in November, for many reasons.

Anti-gun positions are in the minority among progressives, too. I wish the anti-gunners would shut up and stop alienating gun owners, many of whom are single-issue voters.