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.

High court should define 'arms'

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited September 2001 in General Discussion
High court should define 'arms' To the Editor: http://www.mcall.com/html/forum/letters/comment_leftpizarie.htm Paul Carpenter in his Aug. 19 column opines, "The Founding Fathers made sure no law-abiding American could be deprived of the right to bear arms." I would like Mr. Carpenter to cite the specific Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment in that context. He can't, because there is no such decision. The very reason pro-gun advocates don't appeal cases like the banning of Saturday night specials or assault weapons to the Supreme Court on Constitutional arguments is because they know they would lose. I would love to see the Supreme Court forced to define "arms" in the context of the pro-gun argument. If the private ownership of "arms" is to "protect" against government tyranny, as Carpenter states, would the term have to include tanks, artillery, bombs, fighter aircraft, etc.? Or can the legions of Second Amendment rights activists protect all of us with their handguns and sporting rifles? Ronald Pizarie East Allen Township ronp8651@cs.com
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Would sure love to have the Sups. decide that the Second don't mean what it says...Then we could make da** sure no other generation would ever make that fatal mistake again.... If you go to the web site above,click 'other opinions',you will find a write up on Penn. State Police keeping registration lists of guns......Josey1,you may have posted that,but I missed it...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Highball- I live in PA, and I know that case you are refering to all too well. Basically it is illegal for the state police to keep records of firearms purchases, it says so right in the law. But we are just talking about laws, so the state police have been keeping a registration of all pistol purchases. Highly illegal, but the Pennsylvania congress is trying to get a law through that would allow the police to maintain these records. Has to be a first: The congress is making a law that would allow the police to ignore the law. I believe the NRA and possibly GOA are in court fighting this out with Pennsylvania.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fredneckfredneck Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    how refreshing that the police can ignore the law, only now they can do it legally, guess before it was just a doughnut break
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Lord,I love my 1895 45-70....and a pox on the man who forced me to buy another gun...heheheheheheh
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    What I don't understand is what would be wrong with being able to own tanks, aircraft etc. Sounds like this guy Pizarie agrees with me.
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • opentopopentop Member Posts: 143 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Once again this type of thing just proves that anti-gun people have the "cart before the horse". People do infact own tanks and fighter aircraft, machine guns, etc. It might be old surplus stuff used for historical reasons like the CAF Warbirds, etc., but the fact is they exist. There are private citizens right now buying surplus Soviet Air Force MiGs for flight display purposes, etc. My point is, as in everything in life, laws should focus on apprehending and bringing to justice those that commit crimes, rather than trying in vein to "prevent" or "deter" crime by taking all of our toys away. If I were to own a surplus MiG 21 or Vought F8U Crusader complete with working 23MM cannon in the MiG's case or 20MM M-39s in the Crusader's case or even AA2s or AIM-9 sidewinders, etc., as long as I don't use them to hurt people or commit crimes, why shouldn't I as a law abiding citizen be able to own them? Are we really free people or only so free as we're allowed to be because of what we "might" do or are capable of doing. We have highway check points that harrass innocent people who wouldn't dream of driving under the influence, just because someone is worried that we might be DUI. We're forced to wear seatbelts because someone feels we're all too stupid to take safety precautions for ourselves. Our new cars are crammed full of rediculous and expensive air bags for the same reason, even though the idea of using an explosive to inflate a fiberglass bag in someone's face is about the most assinine idea I can think of as a "safety" device. We have to wear helmets when riding a motor cycle because someone is affraid we might crash, be brain damaged and cost tax payer money to take care of us in such an invalided state. I'm tired of all the things I can't do because of what I might do. I'm tired of all the things I'm forced to spend money on because of what "might" happen. I have to wait 10 days to pick up a hand gun I've paid for because I "might" be buying it in the heat of the moment and "might" go kill someone or myself, even though I could do the same thing with a steak knife, but there's no 10 day waiting period on steak knives. The operative word in all of this is "might". What someone "might" do. Why can't we get back to basic principles of justice. When someone kills someone for no good reason, their life is forfeit. The only way we could ever keep anyone from killing someone else is if we were all locked in seperate rooms and could never have close contact with others. When someone steals, they are punished by the society in which they purpetrated their thefts. When someone drives drunk and crashes their car, they lose their license if they kill someone in the process, their life is forfeit. When someone sexually abuses a child they're taken out and dragged around the city by a fast horse until they're body is shreaded. You know, simple, basic principles of justice. And to any politicians, lawyers, LEOs, etc, out there, I say: STOP punishing the law abiding in advance for crimes that a few "might" someday commit. STOP punishing people who do things, that while we might not personally approve of them, basically are not hurting anyone, like prostitutes and drug users (unless their drug use actually leads them to commit real crimes). STOP trying to be society's "mother" and concentrate on the basic concepts of justice!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fredneckfredneck Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    HighballGlad to hear about the 1895 have you worked up any good loads for it yet? Bet there's no large rocks left on your range, just dust and pea gravel.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Naw,no loads yet..too busy spending money..Ashley ghost rings,Fire Optics,front,...Kick-eze 1 1/4" pad,to get my thumb away from my beak...whoe's got time to shoot...btw, 55 yards,four shots in 1/2 inch...man, does it shoot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fredneckfredneck Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    HighballGotta love those Ashley's but you would think Marlin would put decent sights on these things especially for what they cost, those factory semi-buckhorns are bullsh*t
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Free N TXFree N TX Member Posts: 165 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Exactly what opentop said!!!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.