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.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most appropriate for general discussion on GunBroker.com, IMO. It is necessary so that proponents of actual gun rights are not simply preaching to the choir.
Personally, I now find the fire and brimstone approach refreshing and instructive. That is what it took to convince me that acceptance of restriction was surrender of the right. For the strong-willed, it takes a little slap in the face every once in a while to realize the truth, as the conditioning most of us have grown up with places us in a submissive frame of mind.
We need only to look at near total control that the dissenting 4 on the court would place over us regarding what we should be allowed to own to understand how serious is the threat to gun ownership in America. We need only to look at how the supposed arch-conservative Scalia watered down the majority opinion, stating that the Constitution leaves D.C. with a 'variety of tools ...including some measure of regulating handguns.' to see that the 'individual right' statements that were made are only meant to placate those that do not want to take the time to think about what was actually decided.
This decision has confirmed that states and municipalities have tools available to regulate handguns. This, obviously, means that states and municipalities have the power to restrict our choices to a degree greater than they are restricted by Federal Law. This decision in real terms, weakens the individual right it purports to confirm.
Until everyone on this forum understands this, General Discussion is a very appropriate place for this thread.
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses.
Oh, and the moving the thread thing was a shot at the mods you goofy meanies! I think the whole moving the thread thing is silly...
The Heller decision has been heralded by many in that it did confirm that the the 2nd Amendment was and Individual Right. This would seem to be a good thing.
You will notice, however, in the summary, Scalia wrote:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does it prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution . The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
First of all, Scalia states the D.C. must allow Heller to register and licence his handgun for use In The Home. This 'In the Home' mantra is repeated 4 times in the summary, though there is no reason a more general statement could not have been made simply by leaving that reference out.
Second, Scalia states that:
'The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns.'
Scalia already accepts registration and licensing, and here unequivocally states that additional regulation is not only possible, but that it is Constitutional. Implicit in this is that if only D.C. would get the wording right, there are a variety of ways they can dictate what handguns the average citizen can be denied.
That is my take anyway.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
The Heller decision has been heralded by many in that it did confirm that the the 2nd Amendment was and Individual Right. This would seem to be a good thing.
You will notice, however, in the summary, Scalia wrote:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does it prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution . The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
First of all, Scalia states the D.C. must allow Heller to register and licence his handgun for use In The Home. This 'In the Home' mantra is repeated 4 times in the summary, though there is no reason a more general statement could not have been made simply by leaving that reference out.
Second, Scalia states that:
'The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns.'
Scalia already accepts registration and licensing, and here unequivocally states that additional regulation is not only possible, but that it is Constitutional. Implicit in this is that if only D.C. would get the wording right, there are a variety of ways they can dictate what handguns the average citizen can be denied.
That is my take anyway.
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses
Mateo,
I believe you may be mistaking frustration for anger. You see, many of us, just as the Founders, have grown tired of the constant usurpations. What angers us even more is that document that our Founders fought, bled, and died for has been cast aside and referred to as "just a piece of paper" by the rotten slimebags in Washington. They seem perfectly content to pass legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution. Then, although violating the law themselves and refusing to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, they expect us to adhere to the unlawful restrictions they've passed. In essence, what they have done and continue to do is use the Constitution as a doormat, and urinate on the graves of those who framed it. And people question, "Why the anger"[?]
I would've had more respect for the SCOTUS and the other maggot-infested politicians if they would have come right out and said, "Nope, you can't have them. Nothing. From now on, private ownership of firearms is officially outlawed."
But no, cowards that they are, they wish to chip away a little at a time, knowing that the majority will go along with their whims; reluctantly, but they will still accept it. It's sneaky, kniving, and deceitful, but those attributes have become the hallmark of our politicians.
If the Founders were present today, they would become nauseous over the disregard our leadership has for the document that many of them died for. Also, they would vomit over the level of naivety and apathy shown by the majority who believe this most recent decision was a "win."
No, I do not grow tired at all over the comments of a patriot. I welcome them, and it gives me hope, for I know that although our numbers are small, there are still folks in this country who love freedom and liberty, and can discern true liberty from the scam of pseudo-liberty.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by mateomasfeo:
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses
Mateo,
I believe you may be mistaking frustration for anger. You see, many of us, just as the Founders, have grown tired of the constant usurpations. What angers us even more is that document that our Founders fought, bled, and died for has been cast aside and referred to as "just a piece of paper" by the rotten slimebags in Washington. They seem perfectly content to pass legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution. Then, although violating the law themselves and refusing to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, they expect us to adhere to the unlawful restrictions they've passed. In essence, what they have done and continue to do is use the Constitution as a doormat, and urinate on the graves of those who framed it. And people question, "Why the anger"[?]
I would've had more respect for the SCOTUS and the other maggot-infested politicians if they would have come right out and said, "Nope, you can't have them. Nothing. From now on, private ownership of firearms is officially outlawed."
But no, cowards that they are, they wish to chip away a little at a time, knowing that the majority will go along with their whims; reluctantly, but they will still accept it. It's sneaky, kniving, and deceitful, but those attributes have become the hallmark of our politicians.
If the Founders were present today, they would become nauseous over the disregard our leadership has for the document that many of them died for. Also, they would vomit over the level of naivety and apathy shown by the majority who believe this most recent decision was a "win."
No, I do not grow tired at all over the comments of a patriot. I welcome them, and it gives me hope, for I know that although our numbers are small, there are still folks in this country who love freedom and liberty, and can discern true liberty from the scam of pseudo-liberty.
No mistake. Frustration is different from anger.
Anger doesn't yell names and have a hissy fit. Anger is focused action to defeat a problem rather than frustrated "flailing" at the problem.
I'm on ya'lls side, and I call it like I see it.
Your arguments would be better received without name calling.
If you read carefully, I generally do not start the `name calling' until my adversary hurls a rock my way.
I intend teaching people that I am perfectly capable of hurling that rock back.only with fish hooks glued to it, now...
I also realize that I am a crashing boor ..one note henry , so to speak.
The whole idea behind my unending drumbeat is that most still will not hear it ..and the hope is that now and again somebody will scroll thru a topic and be inspired to think about it.
I UNDERSTAND where you are coming from, Matt.
What would you have me do ?
I see end times coming.
Should I keep silent and just stand by and watch people that perhaps COULD have saved themselves ..had they had just the slightest push ..die out of hand ,for want of a little planning ?
My crude, rude, bull-in-the-china-shop approach is DESIGNED to winnow out the wheat from the chaff.
A man that is secure in his own competence will be offended ..then angry ..by my arguments.
He may well want to whip me ..and it has been close a time or two.
You see...what happens here on this forum ALSO is EXACTLY my method in real life.
Then he will cool off and actually THINK about it...if for no other reason then to gather ammo with which to crush me .
When he starts thinking...he starts gathering information about his history ..and generally we have another American born right there.
Just for your own information..I do not get angry. (Well..rarely)..I have been doing this a LOOOng time..and its far better to get the OTHER guy angry..for then they are incapable of lying about their REAL
inner thoughts.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Matt;
I apologize.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
Glad to see you two make up.
You know I have great respect for you and your positions Highball.
I never got into it with mateo, but I like his style and his wit.
Now, I see his stated support for Constitutional positions and lo and behold...it is wondrous and good![:o)]
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Matt;
I apologize.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
No apology necessary. I was just trying to help, for what it's worth. We are on the same side.
By the way, I'm 50 next week and have the battle scars to prove it!
For all of you guys who think this was a lousy decision, what would your comments have been if they had came back with a decision that there was NO INDIVIDUAL right? Would this have made you people happy??
For all of you guys who think this was a lousy decision, what would your comments have been if they had came back with a decision that there was NO INDIVIDUAL right? Would this have made you people happy??
slum,
When you look at the opinion (all 147 pages of it), and really delve into it, you will find that, for all intents and purposes, they did rule that no idividual right exist. "What?" "Explain." OK:
Had the SCOTUS ruled the RTKBA as a true, individual right, then no mention would have been made regarding any restriction/regulation and the government's ability to pursue them.
Basically, what the SCOTUS ruled is the 2nd Amendment affirms an individual privilege.
Had the SCOTUS ruled "No right. None. No civilian ownership will be permitted." Americans would have been confronted now with a choice that eventually will be inevitable; "how much do I love freedom and liberty, and what am I willing to do in order to keep it?"
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
For all of you guys who think this was a lousy decision, what would your comments have been if they had came back with a decision that there was NO INDIVIDUAL right? Would this have made you people happy??
Ah...no slum. Speaking for myself, I would have been practically ready to go to war in that event.
That aside, what part of the abject failure of the SCROTUS to uphold all of Amendment II, is it that you are failing to understand?
I refer particularly to the fact that Justice Scalia, on behalf of the majority, did a bang-up and extremely thorough job of dissecting the words found in the "Prefatory Clause", using copious historical references to clearly establish their meaning and intent; the "Operative Clause" was likewise dissected in great historical and contextual detail to establish clear intent and meaning.
The skunk in the woodpile of it all was the abject failure to do the same for the linchpin phrase of the entire Amendment, "Shall not be infringed".
That itsy-bitsy willful omission, negated the fact of Amendment II guaranteeing a fundamental, enumerated "right" and instead codified the "individual privilege" TKBA into Constitutional Law.
Now why do you suppose that the SCROTUS failed to address the "Shall not be infringed" part in a like manner to the remainder of the Amendment??
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
kimi:
My concern is that, unlike the restrictions placed on handguns by localities in the 1790s, the 1800s, and 1900s, the Heller decision effectively places into the Constitution the following concepts:
1. States and municipalities can insist upon 'licensing handguns for use in the home'
2. States and municipalities can insist upon 'registration of handguns for use in the home'
3. (Extremely disturbing) The Constitution contains 'a variety of tools that are available for the regulation of handguns'.
When Dodge City banned handguns, it was a local event. The Roberts Court has now expanded the Constitution such that the second is now saddled with licensing and registration, and that regulation of types of firearms does not imply infringement of the basic right.
The more I read of this decision, the more I see a defeat for true gun rights.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
kimi:
My concern is that, unlike the restrictions placed on handguns by localities in the 1790s, the 1800s, and 1900s, the Heller decision effectively places into the Constitution the following concepts:
1. States and municipalities can insist upon 'licensing handguns for use in the home'
2. States and municipalities can insist upon 'registration of handguns for use in the home'
3. (Extremely disturbing) The Constitution contains 'a variety of tools that are available for the regulation of handguns'.
When Dodge City banned handguns, it was a local event. The Roberts Court has now expanded the Constitution such that the second is now saddled with licensing and registration, and that regulation of types of firearms does not imply infringement of the basic right.
The more I read of this decision, the more I see a defeat for true gun rights.
Don:
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
kimi:
I must respectfully disagree, and I mean that, as I do truly respect your opinion.
True, local restrictions and controls have been in place for decades. What I object to, and I believe all strong supporters of the second should object to, is that now these restrictions and controls have been accepted by this precedent as being Constitutional. It is an extraordinarily broad statement that kicks the door open for future burdens on purchasing and owning handguns specifically, but by implication, all firearms. Thursday was the perfect opportunity to restore the meaning of the 2nd, but the Roberts Court chose to further damage it.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Don:
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
kimi:
I must respectfully disagree, and I mean that, as I do truly respect your opinion.
True, local restrictions and controls have been in place for decades. What I object to, and I believe all strong supporters of the second should object to, is that now these restrictions and controls have been accepted by this precedent as being Constitutional. It is an extraordinarily broad statement that kicks the door open for future burdens on purchasing and owning handguns specifically, but by implication, all firearms. Thursday was the perfect opportunity to restore the meaning of the 2nd, but the Roberts Court chose to further damage it.
[/quote]
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
We would be in worse shape immediately, but had that happened virtually all gun owners would be up in arms, so to speak, and we would be united in the fight to regain our rights.
As it stands now, the vast majority of gun owners seemed to be placated with the poisoned bone that has been tossed. This does not bode well for the rights of our children and our grandchildren.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
We would be in worse shape immediately, but had that happened virtually all gun owners would be up in arms, so to speak, and we would be united in the fight to regain our rights.
As it stands now, the vast majority of gun owners seemed to be placated with the poisoned bone that has been tossed. This does not bode well for the rights of our children and our grandchildren.
Bingo! As it is, we have been outsmarted by the enemies of the state again! Meanwhile, they have us fighting here on GB because, for example, someone might like the NRA, and the hard core can't stand those kind of people.
It is like Marc said: It is what it is. The SC was bound to tick us all off. That said, what are you, me, and the rest of the GB'ers going to do, Don? Argue about who is the bigger patriot, when we all support the 2nd Amendment? Hey, if the constitution goes down the tube, it will be because our represenatives sell this country out, like they did by demonizing the southern people, and like they will do with the USA in the final analysis, and the Third World Invasion plays a huge role in doing just that.
Talk later partner. Gotta run some errands with the wife.
I'm back Don, sorry I had to cut my answer to you short.
Personally, I am more satisfied with the ruling than taking the stand of being not satisfied with it for the following reasons.
I had come to the conclusion that the court was not stupid enough to rule against Heller primarily for the reasons you mention. Taking this mindset allowed me the opportunity to thoroughly enjoy the anguish that the anti-Americans would have to suffer for who knows how long, since it might be ages before another ruling goes before them again - better they hurt too. I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to look on the bright side of things that affect my attitude, hence my positive response about the ruling that could be misconstrued by some as shallow - no one could be more wrong about me, and/or where I stand when it comes to who would or will be among the first to fight. When the time is right, the patriots will step forward and die for their beliefs...for those who follow. Of course, you would know that too.
The first thing to understand about the Constitution is .the instant it was signed is the moment that some started to undermine it.
They did not agree with allowing too much freedom to the common man.that was supposed to be reserved for the wealthy.
Gun bans 15 moments later are not surprising at all. Without doing the research.I bet that these cases went to court.and corrupt judges found against the Constitution ..even then.
Kimi, you have mentioned many times the word `anarchy' .using it as some sort of `cross' against the vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives.
Those sordid characters seem to be Constitutional supporters, seems like.
Don't know where you got that idea at all.
You see, were I running things , vicious animals would be shot in the commission of his act..and failing THAT..the State would duly have his trial and thirty days later he would be swung by the neck until DEAD..
Citizens would be given back their RIGHTS to interfere in savage attacks on the helpless..instead of being persecuted for it.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
The first thing to understand about the Constitution is .the instant it was signed is the moment that some started to undermine it.
They did not agree with allowing too much freedom to the common man.that was supposed to be reserved for the wealthy.
Gun bans 15 moments later are not surprising at all. Without doing the research.I bet that these cases went to court.and corrupt judges found against the Constitution ..even then.
Kimi, you have mentioned many times the word `anarchy' .using it as some sort of `cross' against the vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives.
Those sordid characters seem to be Constitutional supporters, seems like.
Don't know where you got that idea at all.
You see, were I running things , vicious animals would be shot in the commission of his act..and failing THAT..the State would duly have his trial and thirty days later he would be swung by the neck until DEAD..
Citizens would be given back their RIGHTS to interfere in savage attacks on the helpless..instead of being persecuted for it.
When did I mention Anarchy and use it as some sort of cross against vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives...who seem to be constitutional supporters? Please be specific in your answer to this, as I don't know where you would get that sort of idea. Once again, please be specific.
I would say, at this point in time, that it's a good thing that you are not running things.
I did not dream the word..but it appears to not exist anymore.
I refered to 'many times'..I saw it once in the last day or two. I stretched that entirely too far.
Given the ease of re-writing posts..I chose to not apologize for making the statement.
If I can locate some other poster that talked about anarchy .I will return and extend an apology. We all make mistakes.
As far as 'me running things'..what a crock. Why would one want to take on the job of nursemaiding 100 million incompetents..basically leaches on the productive ?
Basically, the idea was SWIFT and SPEEDY justice .something the masses of people do not want.
Otherwise, they would be demanding it.instead of gun control.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Well, Kimi;
At this point, I can prove nothing.
I did not dream the word..but it appears to not exist anymore.
I refered to 'many times'..I saw it once in the last day or two. I stretched that entirely too far.
Given the ease of re-writing posts..I chose to not apologize for making the statement.
If I can locate some other poster that talked about anarchy .I will return and extend an apology. We all make mistakes.
As far as 'me running things'..what a crock. Why would one want to take on the job of nursemaiding 100 million incompetents..basically leaches on the productive ?
Basically, the idea was SWIFT and SPEEDY justice .something the masses of people do not want.
Otherwise, they would be demanding it.instead of gun control.
I hear you loud and clear on what you think might constitute a re-written post, but that's somewhat far afield where the matter of truth is concerned.
As far as "running things" I believe that you'd be on the starting team...hey, life's full of surprises! [8D]
Kimi;
I really wasn't wanting a piseng contest with you over 'that' word...more like trying to explain that I realize that there MUST be some government.
I expect I am hyper-sensitive...for indeed MANY times in my life I have been accused of 'wishing ' for anarcy.
I also expect..re-reading my post...where you would take offense over it. I do use a baseball bat...where a feather would work better.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Kimi;
I really wasn't wanting a piseng contest with you over 'that' word...more like trying to explain that I realize that there MUST be some government.
I expect I am hyper-sensitive...for indeed MANY times in my life I have been accused of 'wishing ' for anarcy.
I also expect..re-reading my post...where you would take offense over it. I do use a baseball bat...where a feather would work better.
Highball, what "word" are you talking about? I really do think that you and I have our wires crossed here. What the hell are you talking about?
Comments
This decision in real terms, weakens the individual right it purports to confirm.
To what extent does it weaken the "individual rights" Don? Example, please.
Most appropriate for general discussion on GunBroker.com, IMO. It is necessary so that proponents of actual gun rights are not simply preaching to the choir.
Personally, I now find the fire and brimstone approach refreshing and instructive. That is what it took to convince me that acceptance of restriction was surrender of the right. For the strong-willed, it takes a little slap in the face every once in a while to realize the truth, as the conditioning most of us have grown up with places us in a submissive frame of mind.
We need only to look at near total control that the dissenting 4 on the court would place over us regarding what we should be allowed to own to understand how serious is the threat to gun ownership in America. We need only to look at how the supposed arch-conservative Scalia watered down the majority opinion, stating that the Constitution leaves D.C. with a 'variety of tools ...including some measure of regulating handguns.' to see that the 'individual right' statements that were made are only meant to placate those that do not want to take the time to think about what was actually decided.
This decision has confirmed that states and municipalities have tools available to regulate handguns. This, obviously, means that states and municipalities have the power to restrict our choices to a degree greater than they are restricted by Federal Law. This decision in real terms, weakens the individual right it purports to confirm.
Until everyone on this forum understands this, General Discussion is a very appropriate place for this thread.
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses.
Oh, and the moving the thread thing was a shot at the mods you goofy meanies! I think the whole moving the thread thing is silly...
The Heller decision has been heralded by many in that it did confirm that the the 2nd Amendment was and Individual Right. This would seem to be a good thing.
You will notice, however, in the summary, Scalia wrote:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does it prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution . The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
First of all, Scalia states the D.C. must allow Heller to register and licence his handgun for use In The Home. This 'In the Home' mantra is repeated 4 times in the summary, though there is no reason a more general statement could not have been made simply by leaving that reference out.
Second, Scalia states that:
'The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns.'
Scalia already accepts registration and licensing, and here unequivocally states that additional regulation is not only possible, but that it is Constitutional. Implicit in this is that if only D.C. would get the wording right, there are a variety of ways they can dictate what handguns the average citizen can be denied.
That is my take anyway.
Brad Steele
kimi:
The Heller decision has been heralded by many in that it did confirm that the the 2nd Amendment was and Individual Right. This would seem to be a good thing.
You will notice, however, in the summary, Scalia wrote:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does it prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution . The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of the Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgement of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered."
First of all, Scalia states the D.C. must allow Heller to register and licence his handgun for use In The Home. This 'In the Home' mantra is repeated 4 times in the summary, though there is no reason a more general statement could not have been made simply by leaving that reference out.
Second, Scalia states that:
'The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns.'
Scalia already accepts registration and licensing, and here unequivocally states that additional regulation is not only possible, but that it is Constitutional. Implicit in this is that if only D.C. would get the wording right, there are a variety of ways they can dictate what handguns the average citizen can be denied.
That is my take anyway.
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses
Mateo,
I believe you may be mistaking frustration for anger. You see, many of us, just as the Founders, have grown tired of the constant usurpations. What angers us even more is that document that our Founders fought, bled, and died for has been cast aside and referred to as "just a piece of paper" by the rotten slimebags in Washington. They seem perfectly content to pass legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution. Then, although violating the law themselves and refusing to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, they expect us to adhere to the unlawful restrictions they've passed. In essence, what they have done and continue to do is use the Constitution as a doormat, and urinate on the graves of those who framed it. And people question, "Why the anger"[?]
I would've had more respect for the SCOTUS and the other maggot-infested politicians if they would have come right out and said, "Nope, you can't have them. Nothing. From now on, private ownership of firearms is officially outlawed."
But no, cowards that they are, they wish to chip away a little at a time, knowing that the majority will go along with their whims; reluctantly, but they will still accept it. It's sneaky, kniving, and deceitful, but those attributes have become the hallmark of our politicians.
If the Founders were present today, they would become nauseous over the disregard our leadership has for the document that many of them died for. Also, they would vomit over the level of naivety and apathy shown by the majority who believe this most recent decision was a "win."
No, I do not grow tired at all over the comments of a patriot. I welcome them, and it gives me hope, for I know that although our numbers are small, there are still folks in this country who love freedom and liberty, and can discern true liberty from the scam of pseudo-liberty.
originally posted by mateomasfeo:
There is a difference in strong and instructive and coming off frustrated.
When you come from frustration, you lose credibility. Frustration is a weakness. We should eliminate weaknesses
Mateo,
I believe you may be mistaking frustration for anger. You see, many of us, just as the Founders, have grown tired of the constant usurpations. What angers us even more is that document that our Founders fought, bled, and died for has been cast aside and referred to as "just a piece of paper" by the rotten slimebags in Washington. They seem perfectly content to pass legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution. Then, although violating the law themselves and refusing to operate within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, they expect us to adhere to the unlawful restrictions they've passed. In essence, what they have done and continue to do is use the Constitution as a doormat, and urinate on the graves of those who framed it. And people question, "Why the anger"[?]
I would've had more respect for the SCOTUS and the other maggot-infested politicians if they would have come right out and said, "Nope, you can't have them. Nothing. From now on, private ownership of firearms is officially outlawed."
But no, cowards that they are, they wish to chip away a little at a time, knowing that the majority will go along with their whims; reluctantly, but they will still accept it. It's sneaky, kniving, and deceitful, but those attributes have become the hallmark of our politicians.
If the Founders were present today, they would become nauseous over the disregard our leadership has for the document that many of them died for. Also, they would vomit over the level of naivety and apathy shown by the majority who believe this most recent decision was a "win."
No, I do not grow tired at all over the comments of a patriot. I welcome them, and it gives me hope, for I know that although our numbers are small, there are still folks in this country who love freedom and liberty, and can discern true liberty from the scam of pseudo-liberty.
No mistake. Frustration is different from anger.
Anger doesn't yell names and have a hissy fit. Anger is focused action to defeat a problem rather than frustrated "flailing" at the problem.
I'm on ya'lls side, and I call it like I see it.
Your arguments would be better received without name calling.
Well ..I guess you could call it that.
If you read carefully, I generally do not start the `name calling' until my adversary hurls a rock my way.
I intend teaching people that I am perfectly capable of hurling that rock back.only with fish hooks glued to it, now...
I also realize that I am a crashing boor ..one note henry , so to speak.
The whole idea behind my unending drumbeat is that most still will not hear it ..and the hope is that now and again somebody will scroll thru a topic and be inspired to think about it.
I UNDERSTAND where you are coming from, Matt.
What would you have me do ?
I see end times coming.
Should I keep silent and just stand by and watch people that perhaps COULD have saved themselves ..had they had just the slightest push ..die out of hand ,for want of a little planning ?
My crude, rude, bull-in-the-china-shop approach is DESIGNED to winnow out the wheat from the chaff.
A man that is secure in his own competence will be offended ..then angry ..by my arguments.
He may well want to whip me ..and it has been close a time or two.
You see...what happens here on this forum ALSO is EXACTLY my method in real life.
Then he will cool off and actually THINK about it...if for no other reason then to gather ammo with which to crush me .
When he starts thinking...he starts gathering information about his history ..and generally we have another American born right there.
Just for your own information..I do not get angry. (Well..rarely)..I have been doing this a LOOOng time..and its far better to get the OTHER guy angry..for then they are incapable of lying about their REAL
inner thoughts.
...What would you have me do ?...
I have no quarrel with your stance or convictions on these issues.
I would simply avoid name calling when making serious points.
You said it yourself, cool heads prevail![;)]
I apologize.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
Matt;
I apologize.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
Glad to see you two make up.
You know I have great respect for you and your positions Highball.
I never got into it with mateo, but I like his style and his wit.
Now, I see his stated support for Constitutional positions and lo and behold...it is wondrous and good![:o)]
So sayest the Lt.[:D]
Matt;
I apologize.
I really didn't `call you a name' ..exactly ..but I frankly admit that when I sense resistance I push harder. I don't even know how old you are.[:D]
The are times when I push too hard ..and this seems to be one.
This has been an exhausting few days ..no excuse, you understand ..but juggling all the hatred thrown my way has no doubt gotten me in full offensive mode.
My theory of defense is a hell of a good offense ..again ..no excuse.
One other thing. The benchmark of decent people is the ability to have a disagreement and work their way through it.
Since I don't include anti-gunners in that `decent people' moniker, I never have to apologize to them.
No apology necessary. I was just trying to help, for what it's worth. We are on the same side.
By the way, I'm 50 next week and have the battle scars to prove it!
Thank you for your grace. However..it IS neccessary.
There is no gain in insulting a 'friendly'.
I have you shaded..by 9 years. I seemed like such a youngster, at 50...now that I look back......[:0]
At that point...you would have had to make a decision.
Mine is ALREADY made.
For all of you guys who think this was a lousy decision, what would your comments have been if they had came back with a decision that there was NO INDIVIDUAL right? Would this have made you people happy??
slum,
When you look at the opinion (all 147 pages of it), and really delve into it, you will find that, for all intents and purposes, they did rule that no idividual right exist. "What?" "Explain." OK:
Had the SCOTUS ruled the RTKBA as a true, individual right, then no mention would have been made regarding any restriction/regulation and the government's ability to pursue them.
Basically, what the SCOTUS ruled is the 2nd Amendment affirms an individual privilege.
Had the SCOTUS ruled "No right. None. No civilian ownership will be permitted." Americans would have been confronted now with a choice that eventually will be inevitable; "how much do I love freedom and liberty, and what am I willing to do in order to keep it?"
For all of you guys who think this was a lousy decision, what would your comments have been if they had came back with a decision that there was NO INDIVIDUAL right? Would this have made you people happy??
Ah...no slum. Speaking for myself, I would have been practically ready to go to war in that event.
That aside, what part of the abject failure of the SCROTUS to uphold all of Amendment II, is it that you are failing to understand?
I refer particularly to the fact that Justice Scalia, on behalf of the majority, did a bang-up and extremely thorough job of dissecting the words found in the "Prefatory Clause", using copious historical references to clearly establish their meaning and intent; the "Operative Clause" was likewise dissected in great historical and contextual detail to establish clear intent and meaning.
The skunk in the woodpile of it all was the abject failure to do the same for the linchpin phrase of the entire Amendment, "Shall not be infringed".
That itsy-bitsy willful omission, negated the fact of Amendment II guaranteeing a fundamental, enumerated "right" and instead codified the "individual privilege" TKBA into Constitutional Law.
Now why do you suppose that the SCROTUS failed to address the "Shall not be infringed" part in a like manner to the remainder of the Amendment??
Think about that.
quote:Oh, Ok... I get it.
There are about 10 true leaders of the firearms community all huddled together in the POLITICS forum 'rugged individuals'.
The last time I was in the POLITICS forum the only thing I found was HAIRY, which is confusing and frightening in and of itself.
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
kimi:
My concern is that, unlike the restrictions placed on handguns by localities in the 1790s, the 1800s, and 1900s, the Heller decision effectively places into the Constitution the following concepts:
1. States and municipalities can insist upon 'licensing handguns for use in the home'
2. States and municipalities can insist upon 'registration of handguns for use in the home'
3. (Extremely disturbing) The Constitution contains 'a variety of tools that are available for the regulation of handguns'.
When Dodge City banned handguns, it was a local event. The Roberts Court has now expanded the Constitution such that the second is now saddled with licensing and registration, and that regulation of types of firearms does not imply infringement of the basic right.
The more I read of this decision, the more I see a defeat for true gun rights.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I read and understood that Don. Citizens have been battling similar situations since the 1790s where pistols (handguns) are concerned in one place or another. My point would be that this is an ongoing problem. Even Wild Bill was a tyrant when it came to not allowing guns in Dodge City...you know, all of those rebels from Texas coming to a damnyankee town and getting drunk. [:D]
kimi:
My concern is that, unlike the restrictions placed on handguns by localities in the 1790s, the 1800s, and 1900s, the Heller decision effectively places into the Constitution the following concepts:
1. States and municipalities can insist upon 'licensing handguns for use in the home'
2. States and municipalities can insist upon 'registration of handguns for use in the home'
3. (Extremely disturbing) The Constitution contains 'a variety of tools that are available for the regulation of handguns'.
When Dodge City banned handguns, it was a local event. The Roberts Court has now expanded the Constitution such that the second is now saddled with licensing and registration, and that regulation of types of firearms does not imply infringement of the basic right.
The more I read of this decision, the more I see a defeat for true gun rights.
Don:
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
Don:
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
kimi:
I must respectfully disagree, and I mean that, as I do truly respect your opinion.
True, local restrictions and controls have been in place for decades. What I object to, and I believe all strong supporters of the second should object to, is that now these restrictions and controls have been accepted by this precedent as being Constitutional. It is an extraordinarily broad statement that kicks the door open for future burdens on purchasing and owning handguns specifically, but by implication, all firearms. Thursday was the perfect opportunity to restore the meaning of the 2nd, but the Roberts Court chose to further damage it.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Don:
How long has registration of firearms in some localities been in effect in America? My point in the earlier post where pistols (handguns) and other weapons have been the subject of "control" now since 1791 - almost two hundred and twenty years.
I also think that where Scalia wrote, "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures of regulating handguns." to mean, "known tools" and "some measures" that have been, and continue to be in use by D.C. and some States and municipalities.
On the whole, I find it extraordinarily difficult that some people are more dissatisfied with the recent ruling than they are more satisfied with it. However, I fully understand the disgust they feel after devoting their adult life, perhaps, as Highball has to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Believe me, I have lived my entire life watching people attack Southern Heritage, rather than take a stand for the truth of the matter so to speak. This sort of apathy, or do nothing constructive attitude has turned on them, and now we see how easily politicians, and the enemies of America, have conquered us through divisive means. And now look what we have facing us.
Taking this into consideration along with the fact that our own government representatives don't give a rat's * about protecting the America we once were and I'd say we have done quite well. As a matter of fact, I have no doubt about the direction that our country is taking with their full and loyal support of the Third World Invasion that they have intentionally created. Again, given these facts of the matter, without some sort of revolutionary change, the Constitution of the United States will, in time, morph with the times, or be placed in a museum...where it will be dispalyed beside the American and Confederate flags.
On the whole, I am greatly pleased with the supreme court's decision, despite the efforts of the enemies of this state to rape it. For sure, as long as we argue among ourselves like we do, our ability to be a force to be reckoned with will not be as meaningful as we'd like to have it. We simply must rid any and all political incumbents who are for fast doubling of the population through legal and illegal means, to include, any pro gun control freak.
kimi:
I must respectfully disagree, and I mean that, as I do truly respect your opinion.
True, local restrictions and controls have been in place for decades. What I object to, and I believe all strong supporters of the second should object to, is that now these restrictions and controls have been accepted by this precedent as being Constitutional. It is an extraordinarily broad statement that kicks the door open for future burdens on purchasing and owning handguns specifically, but by implication, all firearms. Thursday was the perfect opportunity to restore the meaning of the 2nd, but the Roberts Court chose to further damage it.
[/quote]
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
We would be in worse shape immediately, but had that happened virtually all gun owners would be up in arms, so to speak, and we would be united in the fight to regain our rights.
As it stands now, the vast majority of gun owners seemed to be placated with the poisoned bone that has been tossed. This does not bode well for the rights of our children and our grandchildren.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by kimi
I'm not in disagreement with you Don. The fact of the matter is the ruling could have been in favor of the D.C. crowd. Where would we be then?
We would be in worse shape immediately, but had that happened virtually all gun owners would be up in arms, so to speak, and we would be united in the fight to regain our rights.
As it stands now, the vast majority of gun owners seemed to be placated with the poisoned bone that has been tossed. This does not bode well for the rights of our children and our grandchildren.
Bingo! As it is, we have been outsmarted by the enemies of the state again! Meanwhile, they have us fighting here on GB because, for example, someone might like the NRA, and the hard core can't stand those kind of people.
It is like Marc said: It is what it is. The SC was bound to tick us all off. That said, what are you, me, and the rest of the GB'ers going to do, Don? Argue about who is the bigger patriot, when we all support the 2nd Amendment? Hey, if the constitution goes down the tube, it will be because our represenatives sell this country out, like they did by demonizing the southern people, and like they will do with the USA in the final analysis, and the Third World Invasion plays a huge role in doing just that.
Talk later partner. Gotta run some errands with the wife.
I'm back Don, sorry I had to cut my answer to you short.
Personally, I am more satisfied with the ruling than taking the stand of being not satisfied with it for the following reasons.
I had come to the conclusion that the court was not stupid enough to rule against Heller primarily for the reasons you mention. Taking this mindset allowed me the opportunity to thoroughly enjoy the anguish that the anti-Americans would have to suffer for who knows how long, since it might be ages before another ruling goes before them again - better they hurt too. I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to look on the bright side of things that affect my attitude, hence my positive response about the ruling that could be misconstrued by some as shallow - no one could be more wrong about me, and/or where I stand when it comes to who would or will be among the first to fight. When the time is right, the patriots will step forward and die for their beliefs...for those who follow. Of course, you would know that too.
Later bud.
They did not agree with allowing too much freedom to the common man.that was supposed to be reserved for the wealthy.
Gun bans 15 moments later are not surprising at all. Without doing the research.I bet that these cases went to court.and corrupt judges found against the Constitution ..even then.
Kimi, you have mentioned many times the word `anarchy' .using it as some sort of `cross' against the vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives.
Those sordid characters seem to be Constitutional supporters, seems like.
Don't know where you got that idea at all.
You see, were I running things , vicious animals would be shot in the commission of his act..and failing THAT..the State would duly have his trial and thirty days later he would be swung by the neck until DEAD..
Citizens would be given back their RIGHTS to interfere in savage attacks on the helpless..instead of being persecuted for it.
The first thing to understand about the Constitution is .the instant it was signed is the moment that some started to undermine it.
They did not agree with allowing too much freedom to the common man.that was supposed to be reserved for the wealthy.
Gun bans 15 moments later are not surprising at all. Without doing the research.I bet that these cases went to court.and corrupt judges found against the Constitution ..even then.
Kimi, you have mentioned many times the word `anarchy' .using it as some sort of `cross' against the vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives.
Those sordid characters seem to be Constitutional supporters, seems like.
Don't know where you got that idea at all.
You see, were I running things , vicious animals would be shot in the commission of his act..and failing THAT..the State would duly have his trial and thirty days later he would be swung by the neck until DEAD..
Citizens would be given back their RIGHTS to interfere in savage attacks on the helpless..instead of being persecuted for it.
When did I mention Anarchy and use it as some sort of cross against vampires and werewolves that stalk helpless citizens going about their daily lives...who seem to be constitutional supporters? Please be specific in your answer to this, as I don't know where you would get that sort of idea. Once again, please be specific.
I would say, at this point in time, that it's a good thing that you are not running things.
At this point, I can prove nothing.
I did not dream the word..but it appears to not exist anymore.
I refered to 'many times'..I saw it once in the last day or two. I stretched that entirely too far.
Given the ease of re-writing posts..I chose to not apologize for making the statement.
If I can locate some other poster that talked about anarchy .I will return and extend an apology. We all make mistakes.
As far as 'me running things'..what a crock. Why would one want to take on the job of nursemaiding 100 million incompetents..basically leaches on the productive ?
Basically, the idea was SWIFT and SPEEDY justice .something the masses of people do not want.
Otherwise, they would be demanding it.instead of gun control.
Well, Kimi;
At this point, I can prove nothing.
I did not dream the word..but it appears to not exist anymore.
I refered to 'many times'..I saw it once in the last day or two. I stretched that entirely too far.
Given the ease of re-writing posts..I chose to not apologize for making the statement.
If I can locate some other poster that talked about anarchy .I will return and extend an apology. We all make mistakes.
As far as 'me running things'..what a crock. Why would one want to take on the job of nursemaiding 100 million incompetents..basically leaches on the productive ?
Basically, the idea was SWIFT and SPEEDY justice .something the masses of people do not want.
Otherwise, they would be demanding it.instead of gun control.
I hear you loud and clear on what you think might constitute a re-written post, but that's somewhat far afield where the matter of truth is concerned.
As far as "running things" I believe that you'd be on the starting team...hey, life's full of surprises! [8D]
I really wasn't wanting a piseng contest with you over 'that' word...more like trying to explain that I realize that there MUST be some government.
I expect I am hyper-sensitive...for indeed MANY times in my life I have been accused of 'wishing ' for anarcy.
I also expect..re-reading my post...where you would take offense over it. I do use a baseball bat...where a feather would work better.
Kimi;
I really wasn't wanting a piseng contest with you over 'that' word...more like trying to explain that I realize that there MUST be some government.
I expect I am hyper-sensitive...for indeed MANY times in my life I have been accused of 'wishing ' for anarcy.
I also expect..re-reading my post...where you would take offense over it. I do use a baseball bat...where a feather would work better.
Highball, what "word" are you talking about? I really do think that you and I have our wires crossed here. What the hell are you talking about?
"Anarchy"
What about it?
Well?:
How about we shake hands and retire to opposite corners ?
Actually..it appears we may well be fighting on the same team.
I have enough trouble fighting the enemies of freedom...have no desire to alienate a friendly.
Now I am confused.
How about we shake hands and retire to opposite corners ?
Actually..it appears we may well be fighting on the same team.
I have enough trouble fighting the enemies of freedom...have no desire to alienate a friendly.
I'm all for that Highball. Have a good evening.