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.

Comments

  • 53hawkeye53hawkeye Member Posts: 4,673
    edited November -1
  • TrinityScrimshawTrinityScrimshaw Member Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Some will say this is a BAD thing, but how could it not be a step in the right direction?

    Trinity +++
  • GuvamintCheeseGuvamintCheese Member Posts: 38,932
    edited November -1
  • RtWngExtrmstRtWngExtrmst Member Posts: 7,456
    edited November -1
    Supreme court upholds gun rights

    NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).

    In my view, they are a bunch of stupid * whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.
  • cccoopercccooper Member Posts: 4,044 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
    Supreme court upholds gun rights

    NO they didn't. They said "shall not be infringed" means: 'it's OK to infringe' (provided you don't prohibit altogether).

    In my view, they are a bunch of stupid * whose goal is to stifle the 2nd amendment.


    You got that right. And, as always, still a 5-4 vote.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,460 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
    Some will say this is a BAD thing, but how could it not be a step in the right direction?

    Trinity +++

    Because it codifies the power of all governments to license, register, and regulate who can own a firearm and what type of firearm he or she should own.

    Until today, there was a question as to whether States and Cities had that power.

    That power is now granted.

    The power to infringe is now a part of the Constitution.

    How can this possibly be a step in the right direction? It is the direction we have been stepping since 1934.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Spider7115Spider7115 Member, Moderator Posts: 29,714 ******
    edited November -1
    Big deal. Just like DC, the anti-gun states and cities will impose such strict conditions on gun ownership that it will serve the same purpose as a ban while remaining in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling.

    Did the SCOTUS rule that gun ownership is an unconditional, non-restrictive right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? No. Did they rule that citizens also have the right to possess a gun outside of the home? No. Did they rule that any citizen of legal age, not convicted of a felony and not judged to be insane, shall be granted a concealed carry permit upon request? No. Better yet, did they rule that concealed carry permits are no longer required at all for a citizen to possess a handgun? No. Did they order all states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states? No.

    They're all just a bunch of damned eunuchs. [:(!]
  • TrinityScrimshawTrinityScrimshaw Member Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don,

    I guess I better go read the ruling.

    Trinity +++
Sign In or Register to comment.