In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I think this decision to America's Constitution is 4 justices on the Spreme Court. They were willing to null the Second Amendment to thhe Bill of Rights for political reasons.
Pick the decision apart all you want. I haven't read it, but it sounds to be just as blunt as the Appellate's ruling.
Socialism in the Democrat party is the threat to America. ...and they like to call themselves "patriots". They are the threat.
Democrats are drawing the lines. They are polarizing the nation. While they lost this case, they are tearing this nation apart. Will they stop before there is another civil war?
quote:Author Topic
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 9:52:25 PM
The SCOTUS left the back door so wide open that nothing will change. Yes, you have the right to own a gun, but you have to do this, and this, and this, pay this, show this, jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on, and so on.
USA
1414 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 9:57:11 PM
Well, at least you get it too.
WAY too many people jumping for joy around here. Either they don't understand, or they LIKE government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim.
WTH? Over!
FREEDOM is a mindset. Either you choose for yourself OR you give up freedom and let someone else make your decisions!
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:14:38 PM
The NRA and their ilk are celebrating wildly tonight.
This judgment confirmed their entire platform.
The government is the sole arbiter of who may..or may not.own a gun.
You may exercise your Rights. But ONLY with the permission of that government.
"Self defense" the August Judges intoned .."Lawful purposes" they crooned."Hunting purposes", comes the seductive whispers..
And like baby birds, the gun owners of the land gobbled up the poison scraps of tyranny..eagerly, willingly..
Unknowing and uncaring the Second Amendment was placed their for the express purpose of RESISTING TYRANNY..
The tyranny of government deciding who may or may not own weapons.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:23:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'm absolutely CERTAIN someone will, whether I'm wrong or not--but since Mr. Heller filed a suit against the city of Washington, D.C. and since the matter made its way before the Supreme Court and since the SC chose to accept the case and promised to issue a ruling, what happened today was the better of two possible outcomes. The other outcome would have been that the majority--8-1; 7-2; 6-3, or as it turned out earlier in the case of the administration of the death penalty in child rape cases: 5-4--might have ruled AGAINST the common, sensible interpretation and by next week the whackos in Congress and moronic councils in towns from sea to shining sea would be snatching and grabbing what few liberties we DO have with regard to private ownership of guns. Would that have made you fellers happier? You could be harmonizing the old saw: "I told you so!" to whatever might be your favorite melody just about now. And you'd still be in the same boat with the rest of us--S.O.L. with regard to liking "government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim" and "jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on," and, lest we forget, "bingo."
Y'all suggesting that Mr. Heller shoulda just sucked it up and gone without a gun because he chose to live in D.C.? Maybe the ruling today only bought freedom a little bit of time--but hadn't you rather have the time than NOT?
I swear, some of you folks wouldn't be happy if we had an earthquake that ripped the country in half, killing millions of babies and bunnies.
Wait till B.O. takes the reins. You'll, no doubt, love his brand of government...and the socialist judges he appoints, and the leftist loonies who kiss his * just to go down in history as schmoozing the "first balack president." You won't find a hoop you'll be able to squeeze through, let alone JUMP through, with regard to owning a firearm. And YOUR government will be "whimming" the skin right off your back--and every nickel out of your bank account, and every worshiper right out of your church. And the chorus of "I TOLD YOU SO" will resound from the hills...no joy in Mudville that day, I say.
FA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:27:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'm absolutely CERTAIN someone will, whether I'm wrong or not--but since Mr. Heller filed a suit against the city of Washington, D.C. and since the matter made its way before the Supreme Court and since the SC chose to accept the case and promised to issue a ruling, what happened today was the better of two possible outcomes. The other outcome would have been that the majority--8-1; 7-2; 6-3, or as it turned out earlier in the case of the administration of the death penalty in child rape cases: 5-4--might have ruled AGAINST the common, sensible interpretation and by next week the whackos in Congress and moronic councils in towns from sea to shining sea would be snatching and grabbing what few liberties we DO have with regard to private ownership of guns. Would that have made you fellers happier? You could be harmonizing the old saw: "I told you so!" to whatever might be your favorite melody just about now. And you'd still be in the same boat with the rest of us--S.O.L. with regard to liking "government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim" and "jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on," and, lest we forget, "bingo."
Y'all suggesting that Mr. Heller shoulda just sucked it up and gone without a gun because he chose to live in D.C.? Maybe the ruling today only bought freedom a little bit of time--but hadn't you rather have the time than NOT?
I swear, some of you folks wouldn't be happy if we had an earthquake that ripped the country in half, killing millions of babies and bunnies.
Wait till B.O. takes the reins. You'll, no doubt, love his brand of government...and the socialist judges he appoints, and the leftist loonies who kiss his * just to go down in history as schmoozing the "first balack president." You won't find a hoop you'll be able to squeeze through, let alone JUMP through, with regard to owning a firearm. And YOUR government will be "whimming" the skin right off your back--and every nickel out of your bank account, and every worshiper right out of your church. And the chorus of "I TOLD YOU SO" will resound from the hills...no joy in Mudville that day, I say.
FA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
No, I think it's great that the SCOUS said Mr. Heller can now have his gun. Just wait to see all the bull$heet that he is going to have to go thru to get it. And remember, they didn't say any gun, just "a" gun.
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:29:44 PM
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:31:37 PM
G-n-P,
You are exactly right.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
ECC
Moderator
15760 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:32:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
+1
There are some very short sighted folks around here...
Eric
All American Arms Company
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
Patrick Henry
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:43:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
Well, HIGH, you don't have a clue about "people like me." You don't know me or what I stand for. Did you even read my post? Which of the two possible outcomes of the SC's ruling would YOU have preferred today? If you lament this one--which in some twisted way you seem to be doing--would you have celebrated the other? I did not personally crack a bottle of bubbly today. Didn't take the wife out to dinner even. But I do rather give thanks that the ruling was what it was--and not the opposite. Is that too much from "people like me?"
Our country didn't get in the shape it's in by today's SC ruling. It got here because "people like YOU" didn't stand up against the leftist onslaught over the past couple of generations. What children will YOU send to the rebellion? Why not YOU? Show me YOUR scars from resisting the demise of America's soul.
Really, where do you people get off whining NOW? You should have been whining back in 1963 when the ruling was 8-1 against the future of America. Maybe you thought that was a GOOD ruling?
Whatever...
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:50:53 PM
No Ram..I have no clue about people like you.
I cannot begin to understand what makes you tick...and don't want to.
I quit opening your posts because of the depravity of them.
I have EXPLAINED the outcome I 'wished for'.. upholding a total ban on weapons.
This decision does NOTHING..save allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners.
I am sorry that you cannot see that. Or more likely.."Peace in our times" is more your style.
Scars, you want ? you cannot begin to know.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:52:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ECC
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
+1
There are some very short sighted folks around here...
You referring to me, Eric? Your sig picture is a bit outdated, don't you think. The way I see it--with my shortsightedness--Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs. Or is it really Osama for hope and change? You and the rest can whine and moan about the present state of things but you really have few choices available, short of insurrection and war in the streets. Let me know when to meet up there in Idaho; I'll bring my toys and plenty of ammo. But until I hear from you about the opening of hostilities, in the system before us, you have to make the best of what you got...or fix it with fantasy-power by posting profoundly groovy stuff on an internet forum.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:57:20 PM
quote:
Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs.
Once again ..the definition of insanity.
Doing the same things over and over and over ..expecting different results.
`Course ..some sad sacks are so enamored over bush ..the third term is attractive to them.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:58:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
No Ram..I have no clue about people like you.
I cannot begin to understand what makes you tick...and don't want to.
I quit opening your posts because of the depravity of them.
I have EXPLAINED the outcome I 'wished for'.. upholding a total ban on weapons.
This decision does NOTHING..save allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners.
I am sorry that you cannot see that. Or more likely.."Peace in our times" is more your style.
Scars, you want ? you cannot begin to know.
Check the definition of that word before you use it. It might mean something you didn't intend.
But since we're having this cozy discussion, how about explaining just exactly HOW today's ruling "allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners" and explain how a ruling in the opposite would have been preferred. Really, I want to know. Please enlighten me.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:05:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
quote:
Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs.
Once again ..the definition of insanity.
Doing the same things over and over and over ..expecting different results.
`Course ..some sad sacks are so enamored over bush ..the third term is attractive to them.
I'm not saying that I'm FOR McCain--in a wide open field of choices, I would MUCH PREFER someone else--but show me, if you will, WHO are the choices? The way things look, in the fall when I go to the polls, there will be TWO names on the ballot. McCain and Osama. Help me decide between the two. Maybe I should stay home and HOPE neither one wins. Fat chance. Or maybe I should stay home and let a bunch of starry eyed leftists choose for me. Slim chance. I don't see our nation IMPROVING with either choice. I didn't expect it to IMPROVE with Bush or any of his predecessors. But if I can slow its DEMISE by choosing one over the other, should I not take a shot?
Or is it really about meaningless saber-rattling and macho fantasizing here on the forum?
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
dtknowles
Member
USA
550 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:13:29 PM
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
HobbyGuy
Advanced Member
USA
3972 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:15:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dtknowles
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
+1,000,000 dtknowles! You nailed that one right on the head!
Jim
"No arsenal, nor any weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." - Ronald Reagan
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:24:05 PM
originally posted by dtknowles:
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
More collectivist garbage spewed forth by a collectivist puke. The 2nd was dealt a severe blow today, and you can't even see it. The hostility you direct at ECC and Highball stems from the fact you have no understanding what it means to be free vs what it means to be a slave. You are content begging daddy government for something that has always been a God-given right. Lick the boots if you will, but there are those of us who have too much pride to do so. We are called Americans.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
tr fox
Advanced Member
USA
11069 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:37:00 PM
Man, some people, no matter what, are never happy. I am not exactly overjoyed with the decision, but I accept it as a very positive action.
Regardless of even if all 9 of the supreme court justices had ruled that every citizen can own as many guns of any type and carry them anywhere with no restrictions, we gun people would STILL have had to continue the fight to excerise our gun rightsl. There would have still been various governments claiming that they had devised a new anti-gun law that was not prohobited by the SCOTUS decision. This would mean that we pro-gun people would still have to remain organized and fight such attempts at gun prohobition.
The ruling was a major win compared to if we had lost. If we had lost, every time we gun people filed a lawsuit claiming we deserved gun rights, our opponents could have blown our claim out of the water by presenting the SCOTUS decision (if we had lost) that we have NO constitutional right to own guns.
But look what happened. Basically the SCOTUS ruled that we citizens DO HAVE a constituional right to own firearms. Now, when an anti-gun lawsuit is filed or anti-law passed they will have to try and find a way around that giant roadblock against anti-gun rights attempts that was just put in place by the SCOTUS.
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
Edited by - tr fox on 06/26/2008 11:39:28 PM
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:37:01 PM
Well, DT...I realize that you are licking your chops ..hoping against hope that I am as stupid as to do what you suggest.
But...no dice. I obey ..grudgingly ..all the laws that you crawl EAGERLY to obey.
In fact...I probably obey MORE laws then you ..so as to make it more difficult for them.
No...I am going to stay around as long as I can ..calling 'coward' on the belly crawlers that infest America.
Meanwhile ..here and there, a man stands up and realizes that we are being screwed, Blued, and tattooed by the Beast.
And I would rather have 1 man in a thousand understanding what is happening.then ten thousand like you and hobby.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:42:38 PM
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:44:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
You can smile that you are up past your bed time.
tr fox
Advanced Member
USA
11069 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:44:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
As yes. That fight that you and so many hunger for. And after that fight is over, presuming that there will be only one central authority (or maybe the country divided into several sections) there will still be gun control. Such gun control as the victors of this rebellion you hunger for prohobiting those who, in good faith, fought against them. The losers, (and probably anyone who offends the new emporer(s)) will have no gun rights.
But after your revolution, it is doubtful you will have a supreme court to appeal to.
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:52:38 PM
Firedude;
Keep your cool, 'ol buddy..let the enemy lose theirs.
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:53:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by cartod:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
You can smile that you are up past your bed time.
Go eat your fruit pizza, f aggot.
You loose.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:54:33 PM
He and I have been going back and forth for a while now. He just struck a nerve. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:58:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
He and I have been going back and forth for a while now. He just struck a nerve. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me.
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
Well..just remember..'you loose'...I am gonna use it as in..'hang loose'.
When you get these guys mad...they start blurting out just how anti-gun they REALLY are..always entertaining.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:00:44 AM
originaly posted by cartod:
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
No, Irish/German descent with some Cherokee mixed in. Makes for a hell of a combination.
Sorry. I shouldn't said what I did.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
Edited by - wsfiredude on 06/27/2008 12:05:28 AM
slumlord44
Junior Member
USA
182 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:00:44 AM
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
slumlord44
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:07:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originaly posted by cartod:
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
No, Irish/German descent with some Cherokee mixed in. Makes for a hell of a combination.
Sorry. I shouldn't said what I did.
Im an American.
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slumlord44
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
MY POINT EXACTLY.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:08:18 AM
originally posted by cartod:
Im an American.
As am I
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
Edited by - wsfiredude on 06/27/2008 12:24:45 AM
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 05:41:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slumlord44
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
No, what us idiots who know how to spell "really" are saying is that the ruling will do little to change gun laws. Again, the SCOUS said we could own a gun, but did not say what we have to do to get it. All this ruling said it you can't have a total ban on firearms, nothing else.
Spider7115
Advanced Member
USA
5740 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 06:23:07 AM
I think the most important part of the ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of "militia" and ruled that gun ownership is an individual right. This ruling will now be the standard for many lawsuits which have never been pursued for fear that the SC might interpret "militia" as the standing Army or National Guard. Gun owners have always been afraid of how the court would rule in that definition and they ruled in our favor. Any time the citizenry prevails over the government is a victory.
This was a specific case for one man and not all gun owners. However, that formal definition of "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" gave all of us a much-needed stepping stone for future rulings. Be grateful for that; it could have gone the other way.
-Spider
Edited by - Spider7115 on 06/27/2008 06:48:17 AM
shootertutor
Starting Member
USA
21 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 06:36:02 AM
I am pleased about the ruling. Yes- it is better than if it had gone the other way. It was, like every Presidential election I have seen in many years past, it was "the lesser of 2 evils".
You may have heard "He who frames the debate-WINS" (or something to that effect)--Someone please correct me.
"There is a THEY and they ARE out to get us"
"The sky REALLY is falling" (RT)
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:01:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by shootertutor
I am pleased about the ruling. Yes- it is better than if it had gone the other way. It was, like every Presidential election I have seen in many years past, it was "the lesser of 2 evils".
You may have heard "He who frames the debate-WINS" (or something to that effect)--Someone please correct me.
"There is a THEY and they ARE out to get us"
"The sky REALLY is falling" (RT)
Be careful what you ask. (See my first post in this thread). It's still early here but they'll get up soon and filet you, too, with personal attacks even though they don't know you.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
ECC
Moderator
15760 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:44:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by dtknowles:
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
More collectivist garbage spewed forth by a collectivist puke. The 2nd was dealt a severe blow today, and you can't even see it. The hostility you direct at ECC and Highball stems from the fact you have no understanding what it means to be free vs what it means to be a slave. You are content begging daddy government for something that has always been a God-given right. Lick the boots if you will, but there are those of us who have too much pride to do so. We are called Americans.
+1
I'm truly amazed that so many folks cannot see the light here...
Eric
All American Arms Company
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
Patrick Henry
mateomasfeo
Advanced Member
USA
15695 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 08:50:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dtknowles
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
They are waiting for a leader...
Which one or two of the brave souls in here are going to step up and take the first bullet?
The America I see today, one couldnt get up enough people for anything except a good KEG party..I would come down to "Let someone else do it".[:(][:(]
I must say that I really don't understand this thread. Is it not at the heart of the matter what the U.S. Constitution, and therefore the U.S. Govt. says?
I light of the 2 options we had, I'd say the SCOTUS decision was definantly a victory for gun owners and the 2nd Amemdement.
Is the fight over? No way. The 1st thing the Liberal media poltical analists said was that they were ENCOURAGED that the vote was so close. Which translates to "We'll be beack when we get a Lib in the WH and a few more Lib SC judges."
And of course the Liberal mayors etc across the country are going to challenge the ruling and muddy up as much water as possible. Reason being that don't want it be clear. But the SCOTUS decision means THEY WILL LOSE. And the NRA is reportedly gearing up to take them on. But make no mistake, this will be an ongoing battle that's not likely to end anytime soon. Why can't we be happy that the good guys won a round?
I really don't understand all the "Who says the Govt. has any right to tell us if we can own guns" arguement. Again, this is at the HEART of the matter. From the VERY beginning our founding fathers PUT IT WRITING that we can. And that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Well it has been somehat infringed. And people who did aren't satisfied until it is completely infringed.
But the CONSTITUTION WON yesterday. And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
quote:Originally posted by Fatstrat
I must say that I really don't understand this thread. Is it not at the heart of the matter what the U.S. Constitution, and therefore the U.S. Govt. says?
I light of the 2 options we had, I'd say the SCOTUS decision was definantly a victory for gun owners and the 2nd Amemdement.
Is the fight over? No way. The 1st thing the Liberal media poltical analists said was that they were ENCOURAGED that the vote was so close. Which translates to "We'll be beack when we get a Lib in the WH and a few more Lib SC judges."
And of course the Liberal mayors etc across the country are going to challenge the ruling and muddy up as much water as possible. Reason being that don't want it be clear. But the SCOTUS decision means THEY WILL LOSE. And the NRA is reportedly gearing up to take them on. But make no mistake, this will be an ongoing battle that's not likely to end anytime soon. Why can't we be happy that the good guys won a round?
I really don't understand all the "Who says the Govt. has any right to tell us if we can own guns" arguement. Again, this is at the HEART of the matter. From the VERY beginning our founding fathers PUT IT WRITING that we can. And that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Well it has been somehat infringed. And people who did aren't satisfied until it is completely infringed.
But the CONSTITUTION WON yesterday. And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
Some people can win the lottery and then complain about the taxes. [:(!]
Sorry..you are wrong. Had the Constitution won..registration would have been struck down. There would have been no comments about commercial laws. There would have been no comments about the governments 'responsibilities ' to restrict this or that weapon.
quote:And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
REALLY ? Such an intelligent remark..worthy of the best the Beast has to offer.
quote:If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
I stand squarely upon the Constitution. Where do you think YOU are standing ?
It escapes me why someone had to copy the entire thread in his post ?
As for the nitwit that thinks I am a government agent/provocateur ..BWAAHAHAHHHHHHAAAA..
Simply a measure of that persons intelligence.
I view this `victory' That was `won' in EXACTLY the same light as CCWs..proof positive that NOBODY is fit to own a gun without being passed by some slimebag in a government suit.
I see gun owners eagerly piling on that wagon.admitting that they are incompetent ..unfit without government permission.
All you smart guys are going to think back on the `good old days'.pre-June 26, 2008..with great fondness and regret.
Those of you uncomfortable with crawling on your bellies to exercise a basic Right will.anyway.
I am completely baffled by your posts.
So let me break down how I see it.
1st: Our nations founders believed in the peoples right to gun ownership and put it in the Constitution. Not only that we may defend ourselves/homes from thieves etc. But ESPECIALLY from THE GOVERMENT.
2nd: These right's have come under attack, and several Unconstitutional laws passed. W/constant continued attacks underway.
3rd: The SCOTUS rules IN OUR FAVOR that indeed some of the laws that have been passed are Unconsitutional and therefore unenforcible. Certainly not the end of the battle, but a major step in the right direction.
The SCOTUS ruling on the DOC case in effect witheld the 2nd Amendment. That American citizens do have the right to keep and bear arms.
A president that can/will be used to throw out/overturn many unconstitutional gun bans/laws.
And you believe this is a BAD THING?
Granted there is more work to be done. But this is certainly a step in the right direction.
You appear to me to be a "the glass is 1/2 empty, I want it all and I want it NOW!" type.
Would be nice. But utterly unrealistic. Unless you can enlighten us to a better plan.
If you have one, convince me.
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
Fatstrat, the Constitution is US telling the government what IT's rights are. At least, that was the original intention!
You are correct, Sir.
IF you read the WHOLE decision, you will see that the SC also said that "some" restriction was OK. WTH....THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BOR SAYS, AT ALL.
Obviously some people did NOT read any farther than newspaper headlines or front page articles.
Read the damn thing and you will know why it is NOT a great victory. Merely a crumb......
Fatstrat, the Constitution is US telling the government what IT's rights are.
Rock;
The only problem I see is ..government HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL !!
They have DUTIES AND POWERS delegated to them...by we the Sovereign citizens of America.
One needs to be careful about the words being used ..because the scum that would control us beat us to death with words.
READ THE DAMN DECISION, PEOPLE.CRITICALLY !!
This really gets tiring. People refuse to read the posts ..the reasons behind what is being said.and parrot each other endlessly with their breathless disclaimers.
Then up pops a Guntech and the world rights itself, just a little ..SOME PEOPLE DO GET IT !!!
"lawful use"."Self defense".."hunting".
Did ANYONE see ONE word about defense against TYRANNY..??? The MAIN REASON the Second Amendment was put into play ??
"lawful USE "????
For CRIPES sake..what tyrannical government would call it lawful to use a gun to defend America against an out of control government ?
PLEASE...show me the paragraph that was included.I have missed it...
Does it say in the 2nd Amendment that gun rights are specifically intended as a deterent to tyranny?
Or is mostly implied because we know from the personal writings of the writers what they intended?
It appears to me that the words "Well regulated" are included also. Which IMO does make the SCOTUS ruling consistent w/the 2nd.
Obviously the founders did foresee that some regulation might be prudent. And it appears that to what degree is the issue.
The DC ban said that the people couldn't have ANY guns. Clearly unconstitutional. But the 2nd appears to have left an avenue for legal regulation of gun ownership.
YOU started the discussion. Now you threaten to not participate if we don't agree w/you?
I'm open minded here, trying to understand your position. And I suspect there's alot you're NOT saying as what your motives are.
But to answer your question.
I believe the 2nd was intended as a protection against tyranny. However I don't think the founders thought that every family should have a howitzer, which in their time would've been the ultimate weapon, in thier yard.
They intended for the people to have a right to small arms. And put the provision for regulation in to limit who might have/use the larger weapons.
Now, tell me what you think "well regulated" means. And why.
You've really got to do better than vague statements like "it doesn't mean what you think".
If I'm wrong, educate me.
Well regulated referred to the unorganized militia ..that was supposed to fall out on a regular basic and practice military maneuvers.
"Village greens' ???
You were required to furnish your own arms ..weapons in common usage at any given times.
The Second Amendment ..my PERSONAL belief ..refers to weapons up to crew served ..those to be held in an Armory in each town. To be taken out and practiced with by the citizens that fell out to drill.
The blunt statement I used above was designed to separate a Beast lover from a reasonable, decent human being.
Basically..."well regulated refers to skill at arms...NOT federal gun laws.
Allowing a strong central government the power to limit CITIZENS the very means to resist out of control power was not in the Founders designs. It merely grew there by our cowardly shrirking of our duties as citizens and timidity in the face of thousand dollar suits.that WE BOUGHT FOR THEM !!
quote: And I suspect there's alot you're NOT saying as what your motives are.
My MOTIVES ??
They are clear as a bell. LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE..unless and until I do another harm or damage them in some way.
Get OUT of my face..and OBEY THE DAMN CONSTITUTION !!
Laws against Gun Ownership are FASCIST...and have no place in a free country !!
I misuse a weapon..? Come down on me like a ton of bricks...I deserve it.
Ok, I suspect your upset because there are still restictions on Class 3 automatic weapons.
The SCOTUS ruling overturned the unconstitutional DC ban on guns. But didn't go far enough for you. Correct?
Fatstrat, this is what the Supreme Court says it is:
quote:a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, ?8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 23
Opinion of the Court Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, ?8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," ?8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights ?13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, 24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court trained to arms").
Fatstrat, I haven't seen a readable copy of the decision yet. The rough copy I have seen is very long and very hard to decipher. However, here is an excerpt which causes the old stomach to be a little queasy.
quote:Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Class three weapons are meaningless to me, personally..I prefer a No. 1 Ruger, myself.
That being said..if the stinking government keeps out of the game...a machine gun would be 200 bucks down at the corner hardware...just as they ought to be.
This isn't about being 'upset' because of this or that 'gun'.
This about the government limiting Right s and freedoms of American citizens.
The ONLY reason to do so is to make it easier on them to march us off to camps...complete woth slit trenches suitable for masses of bodies.
PLEASE don't insult yourself by mentioning that 'it just purely can't happen here'. It already HAS......
Now..I have actually enjoyed the conversation. As an old guy, tho, I need to get up at 5:30 in the morning and get myself down to an auction...need some rest.
If you reply, I will pick this up again tommorrow evening...Lord willing. Thank you for a civil discussion.
I agree w/some of your points. And disagree w/others.
I believe that some of the gun regulation is just and reasonable for the public good.
I'm not against Machine guns in competent hands. But I wouldn't want EVERYONE to have access to them. Therefore I support the restrictions on them. You CAN have one, if you meet the criteria.
As it stands, we are afforded the right to own handguns, rifles and shotguns. Which IMO is what the 2nd Amendment intended.
Obviously weaponry has advanced much since the time of the Constitution writers.
Just as obvious is the fact that we the people as individuals wouldn't stand much of a chance w/suh small arms against modern weapon systems our Govt. military has.
But does that mean that if you wanted a nuclear missle or an F-16 to defend yourself against the possibility of tyranny, you should have the right to have it?
IMO a line has to be drawn somewhere. Because of human nature itself.
People use guns to commit crimes. Before there were guns, they used knives or whatever the weapon of te day was. And we can well expect that if machine guns are legalized and made easy acccess, that we would see machine guns used in crimes.
This is not the Govt. taking away machine guns to make us easier for them to control. But rather to protect us from ourselves (IE: the crimminals amoung us that would use them). While still leaving the more conventional arms available.
And as to militia. If all (what? 30 million) of us rose up in armed revolt w/our conventional small arms against the Govt. Even w/their tech, the 350'ish Washington politicians wouldn't stand a chance.
Our forefathers fought against a far superior force w/ mostly thier small sporting arms. And won. Wasn't easy, but could be done.
Therefore they well understood that our power is in numbers and conviction.
We don't need to be was well armed as the military to win. However we cannot allow ourselves to be completely disarmed.
Rights are not granted by the powers that be, they simply exist, that is why the founders called them "natural" rights. Natural rights are something individual humans are born with, and these can only be infrindged on by an unnatural force like a government.
The SCOTUS ruling has not ended the fight between us and the antis by a long shot. This fight has always been an incremental one and at least we have taken some high ground here.
I wonder how far this ruling will go in providing a legal foundation for overturning some of my states most stupid gun laws. The whole thing about Kalifornia's "drop tests" is that they are ment, not as a regulation to keep poor quality (dagerous) arms out, but as a method for keeping good quality lawful arms out of the hands of lawful persons. clearly an "infrindgement."
I believe the SCOTUS ruling does and will result in the overturning of many current unconstitutional bans & laws. The NRA has already vowed to use it to do so.
But as you said, it will be on incremental, case by case basis.
Would be that ONE such case being found unconstitutional should make ALL of the null & void. However such is not the case. But it WILL make it much easier!
"In colonial times the term 'well regulated' meant 'well functioning' - for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: 'Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the happiness of a rising generation...' Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'regulated' among other things as 'properly disciplined'; and it defines 'discipline' among other things as 'a trained condition.'
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied American citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the words 'A well regulated militia...' somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting 'the right of the people to keep...arms'; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.
The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law (32 U.S.C. 105[a][1]) from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key."
--The Second Amendment Primer, Les Adams (a book that the NRA will send you free, and that I highly recommend).
Isn't it interesting that the Brady Center puke specifically referred to "military-style" firearms as being their main focus for bans?
quote:This is not the Govt. taking away machine guns to make us easier for them to control.
We disagree...STRONGLY..about this. After you live thru the next ten years..after you study governments more..tell me this again with a straight face.
quote: But rather to protect us from ourselves (IE: the crimminals amoung us that would use them). Not the governments job. Not in any form.
Pro-actively predicting that joe-blow over there is going to go nuts and kill every body ..just is more power then you would EVER want to give to a government...no matter HOW rosy-colored it looks to you.
Having an armed citizenry ..prepared to shoot to kill the crazies out there...combined with SWIFT, SPEEDY JUSTICE...that is how a free society handles the occasional vicious animal among us.
The reason why we seem to HAVE so many animals in this country is that they are allowed to live and breed...instead of being euthanazed ..as they should be.
Either at the hands of a good, decent citizen.or by a justice system that works.
The comment about the type of guns then and now makes no more sense then limiting politicians to a stump and bullhorn instead of TV and radio..although a VERY good case can be made for THAT.
Limiting weapons of war to rifles, pistols and shotguns for civilians is helping hand over your entire slate of rights, freedoms and ultimately your life to rotten, corrupt slimebags that care about as much for you and your childrens' lives as does the Taliban.
Want to argue my `hateful words' just above ? Seen any border closings ?
Yes, indeed, Trfox....you, along with the NRA, Shumer, Kennedy, Fiendstein, the mayor of DC...have ALL been vindicated.
Now the mayor went jussstt a tad too far in his zeal..and the Court reined him in.
Rest assured...he will back in your pack within 20 days...putting forth regulations your bunch can live with.
Just entirely too bad your bunch could not live with the law as set forth by the Founders..for make no mistake about it...no matter HOW you..and they..twist the language..the ruling had NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment except for lip service.
You must be INSANE to declare that the Second Amendment is an individual Right..subject to federal law..in the same sentence.
Comments
Pick the decision apart all you want. I haven't read it, but it sounds to be just as blunt as the Appellate's ruling.
Socialism in the Democrat party is the threat to America. ...and they like to call themselves "patriots". They are the threat.
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 9:52:25 PM
The SCOTUS left the back door so wide open that nothing will change. Yes, you have the right to own a gun, but you have to do this, and this, and this, pay this, show this, jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on, and so on.
bobski
Advanced Member
Vatican City
13393 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 9:56:03 PM
bingo.
freemind
Senior Member
USA
1414 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 9:57:11 PM
Well, at least you get it too.
WAY too many people jumping for joy around here. Either they don't understand, or they LIKE government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim.
WTH? Over!
FREEDOM is a mindset. Either you choose for yourself OR you give up freedom and let someone else make your decisions!
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:14:38 PM
The NRA and their ilk are celebrating wildly tonight.
This judgment confirmed their entire platform.
The government is the sole arbiter of who may..or may not.own a gun.
You may exercise your Rights. But ONLY with the permission of that government.
"Self defense" the August Judges intoned .."Lawful purposes" they crooned."Hunting purposes", comes the seductive whispers..
And like baby birds, the gun owners of the land gobbled up the poison scraps of tyranny..eagerly, willingly..
Unknowing and uncaring the Second Amendment was placed their for the express purpose of RESISTING TYRANNY..
The tyranny of government deciding who may or may not own weapons.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:23:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'm absolutely CERTAIN someone will, whether I'm wrong or not--but since Mr. Heller filed a suit against the city of Washington, D.C. and since the matter made its way before the Supreme Court and since the SC chose to accept the case and promised to issue a ruling, what happened today was the better of two possible outcomes. The other outcome would have been that the majority--8-1; 7-2; 6-3, or as it turned out earlier in the case of the administration of the death penalty in child rape cases: 5-4--might have ruled AGAINST the common, sensible interpretation and by next week the whackos in Congress and moronic councils in towns from sea to shining sea would be snatching and grabbing what few liberties we DO have with regard to private ownership of guns. Would that have made you fellers happier? You could be harmonizing the old saw: "I told you so!" to whatever might be your favorite melody just about now. And you'd still be in the same boat with the rest of us--S.O.L. with regard to liking "government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim" and "jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on," and, lest we forget, "bingo."
Y'all suggesting that Mr. Heller shoulda just sucked it up and gone without a gun because he chose to live in D.C.? Maybe the ruling today only bought freedom a little bit of time--but hadn't you rather have the time than NOT?
I swear, some of you folks wouldn't be happy if we had an earthquake that ripped the country in half, killing millions of babies and bunnies.
Wait till B.O. takes the reins. You'll, no doubt, love his brand of government...and the socialist judges he appoints, and the leftist loonies who kiss his * just to go down in history as schmoozing the "first balack president." You won't find a hoop you'll be able to squeeze through, let alone JUMP through, with regard to owning a firearm. And YOUR government will be "whimming" the skin right off your back--and every nickel out of your bank account, and every worshiper right out of your church. And the chorus of "I TOLD YOU SO" will resound from the hills...no joy in Mudville that day, I say.
FA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:27:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'm absolutely CERTAIN someone will, whether I'm wrong or not--but since Mr. Heller filed a suit against the city of Washington, D.C. and since the matter made its way before the Supreme Court and since the SC chose to accept the case and promised to issue a ruling, what happened today was the better of two possible outcomes. The other outcome would have been that the majority--8-1; 7-2; 6-3, or as it turned out earlier in the case of the administration of the death penalty in child rape cases: 5-4--might have ruled AGAINST the common, sensible interpretation and by next week the whackos in Congress and moronic councils in towns from sea to shining sea would be snatching and grabbing what few liberties we DO have with regard to private ownership of guns. Would that have made you fellers happier? You could be harmonizing the old saw: "I told you so!" to whatever might be your favorite melody just about now. And you'd still be in the same boat with the rest of us--S.O.L. with regard to liking "government telling them what they feel they are ALLOWED to do, at the government's whim" and "jump thru this hoop, provide this, copy in triplicate, go here, add this, Wait here, show this, and so on," and, lest we forget, "bingo."
Y'all suggesting that Mr. Heller shoulda just sucked it up and gone without a gun because he chose to live in D.C.? Maybe the ruling today only bought freedom a little bit of time--but hadn't you rather have the time than NOT?
I swear, some of you folks wouldn't be happy if we had an earthquake that ripped the country in half, killing millions of babies and bunnies.
Wait till B.O. takes the reins. You'll, no doubt, love his brand of government...and the socialist judges he appoints, and the leftist loonies who kiss his * just to go down in history as schmoozing the "first balack president." You won't find a hoop you'll be able to squeeze through, let alone JUMP through, with regard to owning a firearm. And YOUR government will be "whimming" the skin right off your back--and every nickel out of your bank account, and every worshiper right out of your church. And the chorus of "I TOLD YOU SO" will resound from the hills...no joy in Mudville that day, I say.
FA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA
No, I think it's great that the SCOUS said Mr. Heller can now have his gun. Just wait to see all the bull$heet that he is going to have to go thru to get it. And remember, they didn't say any gun, just "a" gun.
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:29:44 PM
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:31:37 PM
G-n-P,
You are exactly right.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
ECC
Moderator
15760 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:32:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
+1
There are some very short sighted folks around here...
Eric
All American Arms Company
Veteran Owned and Operated
allamericanarmsco@gotsky.com
allamericanarmsco@gmail.com
My Auctions on Gun Broker
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
Patrick Henry
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:43:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
Well, HIGH, you don't have a clue about "people like me." You don't know me or what I stand for. Did you even read my post? Which of the two possible outcomes of the SC's ruling would YOU have preferred today? If you lament this one--which in some twisted way you seem to be doing--would you have celebrated the other? I did not personally crack a bottle of bubbly today. Didn't take the wife out to dinner even. But I do rather give thanks that the ruling was what it was--and not the opposite. Is that too much from "people like me?"
Our country didn't get in the shape it's in by today's SC ruling. It got here because "people like YOU" didn't stand up against the leftist onslaught over the past couple of generations. What children will YOU send to the rebellion? Why not YOU? Show me YOUR scars from resisting the demise of America's soul.
Really, where do you people get off whining NOW? You should have been whining back in 1963 when the ruling was 8-1 against the future of America. Maybe you thought that was a GOOD ruling?
Whatever...
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:50:53 PM
No Ram..I have no clue about people like you.
I cannot begin to understand what makes you tick...and don't want to.
I quit opening your posts because of the depravity of them.
I have EXPLAINED the outcome I 'wished for'.. upholding a total ban on weapons.
This decision does NOTHING..save allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners.
I am sorry that you cannot see that. Or more likely.."Peace in our times" is more your style.
Scars, you want ? you cannot begin to know.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:52:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ECC
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
+1
There are some very short sighted folks around here...
You referring to me, Eric? Your sig picture is a bit outdated, don't you think. The way I see it--with my shortsightedness--Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs. Or is it really Osama for hope and change? You and the rest can whine and moan about the present state of things but you really have few choices available, short of insurrection and war in the streets. Let me know when to meet up there in Idaho; I'll bring my toys and plenty of ammo. But until I hear from you about the opening of hostilities, in the system before us, you have to make the best of what you got...or fix it with fantasy-power by posting profoundly groovy stuff on an internet forum.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:57:20 PM
quote:
Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs.
Once again ..the definition of insanity.
Doing the same things over and over and over ..expecting different results.
`Course ..some sad sacks are so enamored over bush ..the third term is attractive to them.
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:58:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
No Ram..I have no clue about people like you.
I cannot begin to understand what makes you tick...and don't want to.
I quit opening your posts because of the depravity of them.
I have EXPLAINED the outcome I 'wished for'.. upholding a total ban on weapons.
This decision does NOTHING..save allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners.
I am sorry that you cannot see that. Or more likely.."Peace in our times" is more your style.
Scars, you want ? you cannot begin to know.
Check the definition of that word before you use it. It might mean something you didn't intend.
But since we're having this cozy discussion, how about explaining just exactly HOW today's ruling "allow a steady ever increasing tightening noose around the neck of gun owners" and explain how a ruling in the opposite would have been preferred. Really, I want to know. Please enlighten me.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:05:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
quote:
Mr. McCain is the ONLY choice left to us in the present state of affairs.
Once again ..the definition of insanity.
Doing the same things over and over and over ..expecting different results.
`Course ..some sad sacks are so enamored over bush ..the third term is attractive to them.
I'm not saying that I'm FOR McCain--in a wide open field of choices, I would MUCH PREFER someone else--but show me, if you will, WHO are the choices? The way things look, in the fall when I go to the polls, there will be TWO names on the ballot. McCain and Osama. Help me decide between the two. Maybe I should stay home and HOPE neither one wins. Fat chance. Or maybe I should stay home and let a bunch of starry eyed leftists choose for me. Slim chance. I don't see our nation IMPROVING with either choice. I didn't expect it to IMPROVE with Bush or any of his predecessors. But if I can slow its DEMISE by choosing one over the other, should I not take a shot?
Or is it really about meaningless saber-rattling and macho fantasizing here on the forum?
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
dtknowles
Member
USA
550 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:13:29 PM
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
HobbyGuy
Advanced Member
USA
3972 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:15:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dtknowles
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
+1,000,000 dtknowles! You nailed that one right on the head!
Jim
"No arsenal, nor any weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." - Ronald Reagan
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:24:05 PM
originally posted by dtknowles:
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
More collectivist garbage spewed forth by a collectivist puke. The 2nd was dealt a severe blow today, and you can't even see it. The hostility you direct at ECC and Highball stems from the fact you have no understanding what it means to be free vs what it means to be a slave. You are content begging daddy government for something that has always been a God-given right. Lick the boots if you will, but there are those of us who have too much pride to do so. We are called Americans.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
tr fox
Advanced Member
USA
11069 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:37:00 PM
Man, some people, no matter what, are never happy. I am not exactly overjoyed with the decision, but I accept it as a very positive action.
Regardless of even if all 9 of the supreme court justices had ruled that every citizen can own as many guns of any type and carry them anywhere with no restrictions, we gun people would STILL have had to continue the fight to excerise our gun rightsl. There would have still been various governments claiming that they had devised a new anti-gun law that was not prohobited by the SCOTUS decision. This would mean that we pro-gun people would still have to remain organized and fight such attempts at gun prohobition.
The ruling was a major win compared to if we had lost. If we had lost, every time we gun people filed a lawsuit claiming we deserved gun rights, our opponents could have blown our claim out of the water by presenting the SCOTUS decision (if we had lost) that we have NO constitutional right to own guns.
But look what happened. Basically the SCOTUS ruled that we citizens DO HAVE a constituional right to own firearms. Now, when an anti-gun lawsuit is filed or anti-law passed they will have to try and find a way around that giant roadblock against anti-gun rights attempts that was just put in place by the SCOTUS.
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
Edited by - tr fox on 06/26/2008 11:39:28 PM
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:37:01 PM
Well, DT...I realize that you are licking your chops ..hoping against hope that I am as stupid as to do what you suggest.
But...no dice. I obey ..grudgingly ..all the laws that you crawl EAGERLY to obey.
In fact...I probably obey MORE laws then you ..so as to make it more difficult for them.
No...I am going to stay around as long as I can ..calling 'coward' on the belly crawlers that infest America.
Meanwhile ..here and there, a man stands up and realizes that we are being screwed, Blued, and tattooed by the Beast.
And I would rather have 1 man in a thousand understanding what is happening.then ten thousand like you and hobby.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:42:38 PM
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:44:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
You can smile that you are up past your bed time.
tr fox
Advanced Member
USA
11069 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:44:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highball
Well, Ram, for you folks that prefer to shove off on your kids the necessity of either rebelling and taking this country back.or submitting to being herded off to camps complete with grave trenches ..you sing a good song.
Those of us concerned about the ultimate direction this country is taking find no joy in todays decision.
Rather a decison totally banning weapons...so that people like you would have no place to hide anymore.
Submit...or fight.
As yes. That fight that you and so many hunger for. And after that fight is over, presuming that there will be only one central authority (or maybe the country divided into several sections) there will still be gun control. Such gun control as the victors of this rebellion you hunger for prohobiting those who, in good faith, fought against them. The losers, (and probably anyone who offends the new emporer(s)) will have no gun rights.
But after your revolution, it is doubtful you will have a supreme court to appeal to.
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:52:38 PM
Firedude;
Keep your cool, 'ol buddy..let the enemy lose theirs.
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:53:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by cartod:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Geez S Crist people. The anti-gun side sees this decision as a major loss for them. Can't most of you at least try to put on a happy face at least once in your life? Or does it make you look more shrewd and knowledgable if you always complain?
tr,
Lady Liberty was raped today. I have nothing to smile about.
You can smile that you are up past your bed time.
Go eat your fruit pizza, f aggot.
You loose.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:54:33 PM
He and I have been going back and forth for a while now. He just struck a nerve. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:58:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
He and I have been going back and forth for a while now. He just struck a nerve. Sometimes my temper gets the best of me.
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
Highball
Advanced Member
10317 Posts
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:59:29 PM
quote:
You loose
Well..just remember..'you loose'...I am gonna use it as in..'hang loose'.
When you get these guys mad...they start blurting out just how anti-gun they REALLY are..always entertaining.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:00:44 AM
originaly posted by cartod:
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
No, Irish/German descent with some Cherokee mixed in. Makes for a hell of a combination.
Sorry. I shouldn't said what I did.
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
Edited by - wsfiredude on 06/27/2008 12:05:28 AM
slumlord44
Junior Member
USA
182 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:00:44 AM
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
slumlord44
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:07:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originaly posted by cartod:
closet liberals are known to have bad tempers.
No, Irish/German descent with some Cherokee mixed in. Makes for a hell of a combination.
Sorry. I shouldn't said what I did.
Im an American.
cartod
Advanced Member
8639 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slumlord44
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
MY POINT EXACTLY.
wsfiredude
Member
USA
634 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:08:18 AM
originally posted by cartod:
Im an American.
As am I
And the Philistine arose, and drew nigh to meet David.
And David put his hand in his bag, and drew out a stone, and slung it, and smote the giant in his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
I Samuel 17:48-49
Edited by - wsfiredude on 06/27/2008 12:24:45 AM
guns-n-painthorses
Advanced Member
2935 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 05:41:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by slumlord44
Do any of you idiots that think this decision was a bad thing realy think that if the decision went the other direction and said there was NO individual right we would be better off????
No, what us idiots who know how to spell "really" are saying is that the ruling will do little to change gun laws. Again, the SCOUS said we could own a gun, but did not say what we have to do to get it. All this ruling said it you can't have a total ban on firearms, nothing else.
Spider7115
Advanced Member
USA
5740 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 06:23:07 AM
I think the most important part of the ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of "militia" and ruled that gun ownership is an individual right. This ruling will now be the standard for many lawsuits which have never been pursued for fear that the SC might interpret "militia" as the standing Army or National Guard. Gun owners have always been afraid of how the court would rule in that definition and they ruled in our favor. Any time the citizenry prevails over the government is a victory.
This was a specific case for one man and not all gun owners. However, that formal definition of "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" gave all of us a much-needed stepping stone for future rulings. Be grateful for that; it could have gone the other way.
-Spider
Edited by - Spider7115 on 06/27/2008 06:48:17 AM
shootertutor
Starting Member
USA
21 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 06:36:02 AM
I am pleased about the ruling. Yes- it is better than if it had gone the other way. It was, like every Presidential election I have seen in many years past, it was "the lesser of 2 evils".
You may have heard "He who frames the debate-WINS" (or something to that effect)--Someone please correct me.
"There is a THEY and they ARE out to get us"
"The sky REALLY is falling" (RT)
Ramtinxxl
Advanced Member
6820 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:01:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by shootertutor
I am pleased about the ruling. Yes- it is better than if it had gone the other way. It was, like every Presidential election I have seen in many years past, it was "the lesser of 2 evils".
You may have heard "He who frames the debate-WINS" (or something to that effect)--Someone please correct me.
"There is a THEY and they ARE out to get us"
"The sky REALLY is falling" (RT)
Be careful what you ask. (See my first post in this thread). It's still early here but they'll get up soon and filet you, too, with personal attacks even though they don't know you.
www.JihadWatch.org
www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
www.answering-islam.org
ECC
Moderator
15760 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:44:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by dtknowles:
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
More collectivist garbage spewed forth by a collectivist puke. The 2nd was dealt a severe blow today, and you can't even see it. The hostility you direct at ECC and Highball stems from the fact you have no understanding what it means to be free vs what it means to be a slave. You are content begging daddy government for something that has always been a God-given right. Lick the boots if you will, but there are those of us who have too much pride to do so. We are called Americans.
+1
I'm truly amazed that so many folks cannot see the light here...
Eric
All American Arms Company
Veteran Owned and Operated
allamericanarmsco@gotsky.com
allamericanarmsco@gmail.com
My Auctions on Gun Broker
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
Patrick Henry
mateomasfeo
Advanced Member
USA
15695 Posts
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 08:50:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dtknowles
Highball and ECC
What are you guys waiting for, don't you have the strength of your convictions. Why don't you just go out and confront the BATF and the other FED's. Start the revolution today, are you afraid. Again, what are you waiting for, the courts are never going to help you with either the total ban or total freedom. Tell them about the things you have the they don't want you to have and dare them to come get them.
They are waiting for a leader...
Which one or two of the brave souls in here are going to step up and take the first bullet?
The America I see today, one couldnt get up enough people for anything except a good KEG party..I would come down to "Let someone else do it".[:(][:(]
I think time will show that most here are missing the obvious.
I light of the 2 options we had, I'd say the SCOTUS decision was definantly a victory for gun owners and the 2nd Amemdement.
Is the fight over? No way. The 1st thing the Liberal media poltical analists said was that they were ENCOURAGED that the vote was so close. Which translates to "We'll be beack when we get a Lib in the WH and a few more Lib SC judges."
And of course the Liberal mayors etc across the country are going to challenge the ruling and muddy up as much water as possible. Reason being that don't want it be clear. But the SCOTUS decision means THEY WILL LOSE. And the NRA is reportedly gearing up to take them on. But make no mistake, this will be an ongoing battle that's not likely to end anytime soon. Why can't we be happy that the good guys won a round?
I really don't understand all the "Who says the Govt. has any right to tell us if we can own guns" arguement. Again, this is at the HEART of the matter. From the VERY beginning our founding fathers PUT IT WRITING that we can. And that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Well it has been somehat infringed. And people who did aren't satisfied until it is completely infringed.
But the CONSTITUTION WON yesterday. And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
I must say that I really don't understand this thread. Is it not at the heart of the matter what the U.S. Constitution, and therefore the U.S. Govt. says?
I light of the 2 options we had, I'd say the SCOTUS decision was definantly a victory for gun owners and the 2nd Amemdement.
Is the fight over? No way. The 1st thing the Liberal media poltical analists said was that they were ENCOURAGED that the vote was so close. Which translates to "We'll be beack when we get a Lib in the WH and a few more Lib SC judges."
And of course the Liberal mayors etc across the country are going to challenge the ruling and muddy up as much water as possible. Reason being that don't want it be clear. But the SCOTUS decision means THEY WILL LOSE. And the NRA is reportedly gearing up to take them on. But make no mistake, this will be an ongoing battle that's not likely to end anytime soon. Why can't we be happy that the good guys won a round?
I really don't understand all the "Who says the Govt. has any right to tell us if we can own guns" arguement. Again, this is at the HEART of the matter. From the VERY beginning our founding fathers PUT IT WRITING that we can. And that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Well it has been somehat infringed. And people who did aren't satisfied until it is completely infringed.
But the CONSTITUTION WON yesterday. And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
Some people can win the lottery and then complain about the taxes. [:(!]
Sorry..you are wrong. Had the Constitution won..registration would have been struck down. There would have been no comments about commercial laws. There would have been no comments about the governments 'responsibilities ' to restrict this or that weapon.
quote:And the Constitution IS the Govt. telling us what our rights are.
REALLY ? Such an intelligent remark..worthy of the best the Beast has to offer.
quote:If you not in favor of the Constitution, what are you in favor of?
I stand squarely upon the Constitution. Where do you think YOU are standing ?
It escapes me why someone had to copy the entire thread in his post ?
As for the nitwit that thinks I am a government agent/provocateur ..BWAAHAHAHHHHHHAAAA..
Simply a measure of that persons intelligence.
I view this `victory' That was `won' in EXACTLY the same light as CCWs..proof positive that NOBODY is fit to own a gun without being passed by some slimebag in a government suit.
I see gun owners eagerly piling on that wagon.admitting that they are incompetent ..unfit without government permission.
All you smart guys are going to think back on the `good old days'.pre-June 26, 2008..with great fondness and regret.
Those of you uncomfortable with crawling on your bellies to exercise a basic Right will.anyway.
So let me break down how I see it.
1st: Our nations founders believed in the peoples right to gun ownership and put it in the Constitution. Not only that we may defend ourselves/homes from thieves etc. But ESPECIALLY from THE GOVERMENT.
2nd: These right's have come under attack, and several Unconstitutional laws passed. W/constant continued attacks underway.
3rd: The SCOTUS rules IN OUR FAVOR that indeed some of the laws that have been passed are Unconsitutional and therefore unenforcible. Certainly not the end of the battle, but a major step in the right direction.
The SCOTUS ruling on the DOC case in effect witheld the 2nd Amendment. That American citizens do have the right to keep and bear arms.
A president that can/will be used to throw out/overturn many unconstitutional gun bans/laws.
And you believe this is a BAD THING?
Granted there is more work to be done. But this is certainly a step in the right direction.
You appear to me to be a "the glass is 1/2 empty, I want it all and I want it NOW!" type.
Would be nice. But utterly unrealistic. Unless you can enlighten us to a better plan.
If you have one, convince me.
Fatstrat, the Constitution is US telling the government what IT's rights are. At least, that was the original intention!
You are correct, Sir.
IF you read the WHOLE decision, you will see that the SC also said that "some" restriction was OK. WTH....THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BOR SAYS, AT ALL.
Obviously some people did NOT read any farther than newspaper headlines or front page articles.
Read the damn thing and you will know why it is NOT a great victory. Merely a crumb......
Fatstrat, the Constitution is US telling the government what IT's rights are.
Rock;
The only problem I see is ..government HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL !!
They have DUTIES AND POWERS delegated to them...by we the Sovereign citizens of America.
One needs to be careful about the words being used ..because the scum that would control us beat us to death with words.
READ THE DAMN DECISION, PEOPLE.CRITICALLY !!
This really gets tiring. People refuse to read the posts ..the reasons behind what is being said.and parrot each other endlessly with their breathless disclaimers.
Then up pops a Guntech and the world rights itself, just a little ..SOME PEOPLE DO GET IT !!!
"lawful use"."Self defense".."hunting".
Did ANYONE see ONE word about defense against TYRANNY..??? The MAIN REASON the Second Amendment was put into play ??
"lawful USE "????
For CRIPES sake..what tyrannical government would call it lawful to use a gun to defend America against an out of control government ?
PLEASE...show me the paragraph that was included.I have missed it...
Or is mostly implied because we know from the personal writings of the writers what they intended?
Think about it, please.
Obviously the founders did foresee that some regulation might be prudent. And it appears that to what degree is the issue.
The DC ban said that the people couldn't have ANY guns. Clearly unconstitutional. But the 2nd appears to have left an avenue for legal regulation of gun ownership.
I am going to ask one question of you. A wrong answer will be the end of the diologue here. One cannot beat ones head against a stone wall forever.
The question is...think logically, here;
The Founders had just went thru a long. bloody war..started when the Brits marched to take guns, powder, and shot.
Do you REALLY think they intended to EVER AGAIN turn over to ANY government the power to control weapons of war ?
I'm open minded here, trying to understand your position. And I suspect there's alot you're NOT saying as what your motives are.
But to answer your question.
I believe the 2nd was intended as a protection against tyranny. However I don't think the founders thought that every family should have a howitzer, which in their time would've been the ultimate weapon, in thier yard.
They intended for the people to have a right to small arms. And put the provision for regulation in to limit who might have/use the larger weapons.
Now, tell me what you think "well regulated" means. And why.
You've really got to do better than vague statements like "it doesn't mean what you think".
If I'm wrong, educate me.
"Village greens' ???
You were required to furnish your own arms ..weapons in common usage at any given times.
The Second Amendment ..my PERSONAL belief ..refers to weapons up to crew served ..those to be held in an Armory in each town. To be taken out and practiced with by the citizens that fell out to drill.
The blunt statement I used above was designed to separate a Beast lover from a reasonable, decent human being.
Basically..."well regulated refers to skill at arms...NOT federal gun laws.
Allowing a strong central government the power to limit CITIZENS the very means to resist out of control power was not in the Founders designs. It merely grew there by our cowardly shrirking of our duties as citizens and timidity in the face of thousand dollar suits.that WE BOUGHT FOR THEM !!
My MOTIVES ??
They are clear as a bell. LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE..unless and until I do another harm or damage them in some way.
Get OUT of my face..and OBEY THE DAMN CONSTITUTION !!
Laws against Gun Ownership are FASCIST...and have no place in a free country !!
I misuse a weapon..? Come down on me like a ton of bricks...I deserve it.
The SCOTUS ruling overturned the unconstitutional DC ban on guns. But didn't go far enough for you. Correct?
quote:a. "Well-Regulated Militia." In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, ?8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 23
Opinion of the Court Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, ?8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," ?8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it-and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights ?13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, 24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court trained to arms").
quote:Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
That being said..if the stinking government keeps out of the game...a machine gun would be 200 bucks down at the corner hardware...just as they ought to be.
This isn't about being 'upset' because of this or that 'gun'.
This about the government limiting Right s and freedoms of American citizens.
The ONLY reason to do so is to make it easier on them to march us off to camps...complete woth slit trenches suitable for masses of bodies.
PLEASE don't insult yourself by mentioning that 'it just purely can't happen here'. It already HAS......
Now..I have actually enjoyed the conversation. As an old guy, tho, I need to get up at 5:30 in the morning and get myself down to an auction...need some rest.
If you reply, I will pick this up again tommorrow evening...Lord willing. Thank you for a civil discussion.
I believe that some of the gun regulation is just and reasonable for the public good.
I'm not against Machine guns in competent hands. But I wouldn't want EVERYONE to have access to them. Therefore I support the restrictions on them. You CAN have one, if you meet the criteria.
As it stands, we are afforded the right to own handguns, rifles and shotguns. Which IMO is what the 2nd Amendment intended.
Obviously weaponry has advanced much since the time of the Constitution writers.
Just as obvious is the fact that we the people as individuals wouldn't stand much of a chance w/suh small arms against modern weapon systems our Govt. military has.
But does that mean that if you wanted a nuclear missle or an F-16 to defend yourself against the possibility of tyranny, you should have the right to have it?
IMO a line has to be drawn somewhere. Because of human nature itself.
People use guns to commit crimes. Before there were guns, they used knives or whatever the weapon of te day was. And we can well expect that if machine guns are legalized and made easy acccess, that we would see machine guns used in crimes.
This is not the Govt. taking away machine guns to make us easier for them to control. But rather to protect us from ourselves (IE: the crimminals amoung us that would use them). While still leaving the more conventional arms available.
And as to militia. If all (what? 30 million) of us rose up in armed revolt w/our conventional small arms against the Govt. Even w/their tech, the 350'ish Washington politicians wouldn't stand a chance.
Our forefathers fought against a far superior force w/ mostly thier small sporting arms. And won. Wasn't easy, but could be done.
Therefore they well understood that our power is in numbers and conviction.
We don't need to be was well armed as the military to win. However we cannot allow ourselves to be completely disarmed.
The SCOTUS ruling has not ended the fight between us and the antis by a long shot. This fight has always been an incremental one and at least we have taken some high ground here.
I wonder how far this ruling will go in providing a legal foundation for overturning some of my states most stupid gun laws. The whole thing about Kalifornia's "drop tests" is that they are ment, not as a regulation to keep poor quality (dagerous) arms out, but as a method for keeping good quality lawful arms out of the hands of lawful persons. clearly an "infrindgement."
But as you said, it will be on incremental, case by case basis.
Would be that ONE such case being found unconstitutional should make ALL of the null & void. However such is not the case. But it WILL make it much easier!
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied American citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the words 'A well regulated militia...' somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting 'the right of the people to keep...arms'; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.
The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law (32 U.S.C. 105[a][1]) from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key."
--The Second Amendment Primer, Les Adams (a book that the NRA will send you free, and that I highly recommend).
Isn't it interesting that the Brady Center puke specifically referred to "military-style" firearms as being their main focus for bans?
We disagree...STRONGLY..about this. After you live thru the next ten years..after you study governments more..tell me this again with a straight face.
quote: But rather to protect us from ourselves (IE: the crimminals amoung us that would use them). Not the governments job. Not in any form.
Pro-actively predicting that joe-blow over there is going to go nuts and kill every body ..just is more power then you would EVER want to give to a government...no matter HOW rosy-colored it looks to you.
Having an armed citizenry ..prepared to shoot to kill the crazies out there...combined with SWIFT, SPEEDY JUSTICE...that is how a free society handles the occasional vicious animal among us.
The reason why we seem to HAVE so many animals in this country is that they are allowed to live and breed...instead of being euthanazed ..as they should be.
Either at the hands of a good, decent citizen.or by a justice system that works.
The comment about the type of guns then and now makes no more sense then limiting politicians to a stump and bullhorn instead of TV and radio..although a VERY good case can be made for THAT.
Limiting weapons of war to rifles, pistols and shotguns for civilians is helping hand over your entire slate of rights, freedoms and ultimately your life to rotten, corrupt slimebags that care about as much for you and your childrens' lives as does the Taliban.
Want to argue my `hateful words' just above ? Seen any border closings ?
Now the mayor went jussstt a tad too far in his zeal..and the Court reined him in.
Rest assured...he will back in your pack within 20 days...putting forth regulations your bunch can live with.
Just entirely too bad your bunch could not live with the law as set forth by the Founders..for make no mistake about it...no matter HOW you..and they..twist the language..the ruling had NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment except for lip service.
You must be INSANE to declare that the Second Amendment is an individual Right..subject to federal law..in the same sentence.