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 never thought it would happen!!!
odentheviking
Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that Americans have a right to own guns, rejecting a 32-year-old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. The ruling is historic -- it's the first time the court has issued a pronouncement on gun rights.
Comments
I can not begin to tell you how I felt when I read the news this morning[^]
Would you be happier if the ruleing went the other way?
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
Then Enlighten, Ole Wise One!!
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
posted by RogueStatesman:
Then Enlighten, Ole Wise One!!
Rogue,
A few of us know exactly what HB is saying, and I couldn't agree with him more.
When dealing with a monster, it is much easier to deal with him when he tries to devour you whole as opposed to when he takes just small "nibbles" at a time.
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
The depth of the loss will be understood by many only in time. This decision narrowly (both in scope and in the vote count) dismissed one law as unconstitutional, but confirmed the right of local governments to apply more reasonable restrictions. A perfect example of being thrown scraps from the master's table.
Brad Steele
Originally posted by Highball
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
posted by RogueStatesman:
Then Enlighten, Ole Wise One!!
Rogue,
A few of us know exactly what HB is saying, and I couldn't agree with him more.
When dealing with a monster, it is much easier to deal with him when he tries to devour you whole as opposed to when he takes just small "nibbles" at a time.
What would be wrong with nibbling back? That is exactly what this decision has done for gun owners.
Had they ruled 'Original Intent'..they would not have taken kindly to registration... the cracks about military weapons...ect.
All we 'gained' is..they cannot totally ban weapons.
Individual Right...indeed. But subject to unending harrasment by any political body that wants to enact some more laws.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means what they want it to mean...not what it says.
Originally posted by wsfiredude
Originally posted by Highball
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
posted by RogueStatesman:
Then Enlighten, Ole Wise One!!
Rogue,
A few of us know exactly what HB is saying, and I couldn't agree with him more.
When dealing with a monster, it is much easier to deal with him when he tries to devour you whole as opposed to when he takes just small "nibbles" at a time.
posted by MVP:
What would be wrong with nibbling back? That is exactly what this decision has done for gun owners.
Because it has been tried many times, and was unsuccessful. Incrementalism, of which this ruling is a fine example, will get not so much as a squirm out of most. A full-blown "NO, you cannot have them" would have a much greater effect, and using Newton's laws, would have generated a much greater reaction.
I agree with MVP. They've said that Americans have a right to own guns. This opens the door as a precedent to make further steps. Would I like them to have said, "no gun, NO gun will be illegal ANYWHERE, so long as it is owned by a law abiding citizen."? Sure! But this is a first step.
The Constitution says that Americans have a right to own guns.
What the Supreme Court really said is that it is a limited right, and that local governments have the authority, now sanctioned by the highest court in the land, to restrict gun ownership. Its just that D.C. went too far.
Every decision that re-enforces any government's power to infringe is a step backward. It establishes yet another precedent that must be overturned.
Brad Steele
While I admire your enthusiasm over the ruling, I believe you both are missing the point. The ruling is a first step alright, but in which direction? The door was clearly left open for goverment regulation of RTKBA. While I am happy that the good folks of D.C. will now have (on paper) the right to possess/own a pistol or revolver, what people fail to see is that right has been there since ratification of the BOR. The 2nd is clear and unambiguous, but politicians have tried to distort it. Government has no lawful authority to :
1) Regulate the possession of firearms
2) Regulate the sale of firearms
3) Regulate the transfer of firearms
4) Regulate the carry of firearms
5) regulate legality of firearms based on "type" or "legitimatacy"
Period.
MVP & jonk,
Government has no lawful authority to :
1) Regulate the possession of firearms
2) Regulate the sale of firearms
3) Regulate the transfer of firearms
4) Regulate the carry of firearms
5) regulate legality of firearms based on "type" or "legitimatacy"
Period.
They now have supreme authority.[xx(]
Brad Steele
I will never grumble about any law that is repealed, concerning gun rights, even if it is one law in one American city.
All they needed to say was the Second Amendment is an individual right and that right will not be infringed.
What we got was a finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right with one hundred fifty-seven (157) pages of reasons we should not take that literally.
Think about it.
Read the summary of the court decision.[xx(]
Sounds like you need to read it!
A good decision from the Supreme Court (for or against us) would have been one page or less, and most of that would be legal boilerplate.
All they needed to say was the Second Amendment is an individual right and that right will not be infringed.
What we got was a finding that the Second Amendment is an individual right with one hundred fifty-seven (157) pages of reasons we should not take that literally.
Think about it.
Someone please correct me if im wrong, but arent most court ruling pages and pages of hot air with a decision at the end? Why should this one be any different?
MVP & jonk,
While I admire your enthusiasm over the ruling, I believe you both are missing the point. The ruling is a first step alright, but in which direction? The door was clearly left open for goverment regulation of RTKBA. While I am happy that the good folks of D.C. will now have (on paper) the right to possess/own a pistol or revolver, what people fail to see is that right has been there since ratification of the BOR. The 2nd is clear and unambiguous, but politicians have tried to distort it. Government has no lawful authority to :
1) Regulate the possession of firearms
2) Regulate the sale of firearms
3) Regulate the transfer of firearms
4) Regulate the carry of firearms
5) regulate legality of firearms based on "type" or "legitimatacy"
Period.Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
You won a big victory today.
Those of us that understand and love freedom lost big.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Originally posted by Highball
Sorry, fellas..we (Americans) LOST...BIG time.
Far better they declared a total right to ban guns. You folks would understand, then...
posted by RogueStatesman:
Then Enlighten, Ole Wise One!!
Rogue,
A few of us know exactly what HB is saying, and I couldn't agree with him more.
When dealing with a monster, it is much easier to deal with him when he tries to devour you whole as opposed to when he takes just small "nibbles" at a time.
What would be wrong with nibbling back? That is exactly what this decision has done for gun owners.+1 we have nibbled back. Some folks will always find gloom in any decision.
quote:Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
You won a big victory today.
Those of us that understand and love freedom lost big.
Hogwash.
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No there doesn't.
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No. There does not have to be regulations nor should there exist any regulation due to the fact it is aginst the law (Constitution) to do so.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I read nothing in that regarding:
1) A 4473 form
2) legitimate sporting purpose
3) Permit to purchase, carry, or conceal
4) FOID card for firearms or ammo
5) Class III or AOW restrictions
Re-read it, and if you can find where it covers regulation of RTKBA, point it out for me. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by cartod
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No there doesn't.
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
originally posted by cartod:
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No. There does not have to be regulations nor should there exist any regulation due to the fact it is aginst the law (Constitution) to do so.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I read nothing in that regarding:
1) A 4473 form
2) legitimate sporting purpose
3) Permit to purchase, carry, or conceal
4) FOID card for firearms or ammo
5) Class III or AOW restrictions
Re-read it, and if you can find where it covers regulation of RTKBA, point it out for me. Thanks.
No regulations = chaos.
quote:Originally posted by cartod
Now and forever more..we shall be subject to unending rules, regulations, laws and edicts...all declared legal by the court.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means what they want it to mean...not what it says.
Darn, that has never happend before!!! At least they recognized the right of the individual as opposed to the right of the militia.
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
No. You should not be able to purchase anything, as you should have been shot and killed in the course of your armed robberies.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by cartod
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No there doesn't.
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
I'll go along with not allowing inmates of jails, prisons and mental hospitals to possess firearms. If you did all that in your post, you should be in jail or prison or at the end of a rope.
originally posted by cartod:
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
No. You should not be able to purchase anything, as you should have been shot and killed in the course of your armed robberies.[:D]
Im a good robber![:o)][:D]
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by cartod:
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
No. You should not be able to purchase anything, as you should have been shot and killed in the course of your armed robberies.
Im a good robber!
Or someone is a bad shot.
quote:Originally posted by cartod
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by cartod
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No there doesn't.
Im a convicted drug addict, with 2 felony armed robbery charges. Should I be able to purchase a fully automatic tec-9 at walmart?
I'll go along with not allowing inmates of jails, prisons and mental hospitals to possess firearms. If you did all that in your post, you should be in jail or prison or at the end of a rope.
I've done my time and out on probation. [:I]
I just think no regulations at all would be chaos. We would have 14 year old gang members buying dynamite and uzis.
You will not murder, injure, or terrorize other people with them.
What utter INSANITY it is to turn over to the government the control of what the Founders intended we use to control IT...the Beast !!
The Founders were smart enough 200-odd years ago to realize that governments never grow big enough, powerful enough, rapacious enough..for those in government.
Too bad we have such a stupid populace today.
Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by cartod:
Nonsense. There has to be some regulations on guns.
No. There does not have to be regulations nor should there exist any regulation due to the fact it is aginst the law (Constitution) to do so.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I read nothing in that regarding:
1) A 4473 form
2) legitimate sporting purpose
3) Permit to purchase, carry, or conceal
4) FOID card for firearms or ammo
5) Class III or AOW restrictions
Re-read it, and if you can find where it covers regulation of RTKBA, point it out for me. Thanks.
No regulations = chaos.
I see. You have resorted to using the same tactic as the liberals do, by distorting the first clause in the 2nd to mean something that it doesn't.