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.

Praise the Lord, I was Wrong (kinda)

RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
First, let me thank our Lord for guiding these knuckle-headed SCOTUS Justices to this wonderful, glorious decision this morning! Its awesome to realize that we can own guns All over the CONUS and Territories of the Great USA!!

I knew that the SCOTUS were going to affirm the 2nd Admenment of the Constitution in which the confidently did (Haaaalelujah, Haaaaaalelujah, Halelujah, Halelujah, Haleeeluuujah!!!).

How was I was wrong? I had incorrectly calculated that they would also judge that jurisdictions could impose a "Reasonable" regulation of those firearms. I was, Fortunately for US ALL, WRONG because there is No such language in the decision!!

Haaaalelujah, Haaaaaalelujah, Halelujah, Halelujah, Haleeeluuujah!!! (musical melody playing in the background)

A Great Day to be an American Gun-Owner!!

Comments

  • Old IronsightsOld Ironsights Member Posts: 93 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually, you are wrong now. There IS such language in the decision - and grave harm will come from it.

    The following leaves us completely open to an outright AWB:

    "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

    "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

    "Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

    The above means "confrontations with/against the Government... where EBRs might be useful".

    The Screw is still turning. And it will start turning harder & faster for EBRs now.

    The following also indicates the Court's willingness to accept and support Gun Registration:

    "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its 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."

    Again, Government Permission required to exercise a Right. Not good.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    This decision is like getting a phone call about winning a thousand dollars. While we are all excited and juming about, we fail to hear them ALSO say the tax for it is 1100 dollars. We might have won some money, but we actually lost more than we gained.

    This decision is NOTHING but bait and switch.
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Old Ironsights
    Actually, you are wrong now. There IS such language in the decision - and grave harm will come from it.

    The following leaves us completely open to an outright AWB:

    "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

    "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

    "Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

    The above means "confrontations with/against the Government... where EBRs might be useful".

    The Screw is still turning. And it will start turning harder & faster for EBRs now.

    The following also indicates the Court's willingness to accept and support Gun Registration:

    "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its 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."

    Again, Government Permission required to exercise a Right. Not good.


    I stand (with gun in hand) corrected!! I did not see that language while scanning the decision.

    Be that as it may, one could pose a plausible argument that AR15s and civilian versions of the wartime rifles WERE NOT "... specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity" A good set of 2nd Admt lawyers would need to argue that one.

    There's still a glimmer of hope out there to fort the AWB that we all know is coming if Barack Hussien Obama is elected POTUS.

    I do agee with you ... the screw continues to turn!
    Thanks for the clarification!!
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    After reading page 8 where OldIronsights correctly pointed out my oversight, I noticed some additional phrases that brings comfort to my heart.

    8
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
    Opinion of the Court
    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's
    legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:"Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, ?6,
    p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
    (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).
    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
    that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
    constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.We turn to the phrases "keep arms" and "bear arms."Johnson defined "keep" as, most relevantly, "[t]o retain;not to lose," and "[t]o have in custody." Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as "[t]o hold; to retain in one's power or possession." No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of "keep Arms." Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."

    Pretty interesting read, just on page 8.

    I'm much more confident about this decision than I was earlier after seeing Old Ironsights thread.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    [
    [maroon]I stand (with gun in hand) corrected!! I did not see that language while scanning the decision.




    No suprise there numb nuts.
  • Jim RauJim Rau Member Posts: 3,550
    edited November -1
    This decission is a step in the right direction. It does affirm the basic right! But it left open to many loop holes for the AH's to keep screwing with our rights. There will be many more law suites to follow. But the basic right is intact!!
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The 'basic right' goes away the day we will not defend it on the battlefield.

    Meanwhile, the spirit of that 'Right' is dead...killed today by the Gods on the hill.
    No longer can there be a discussion about the endless rules, regulations, edicts, and harassment of decent citizens owning guns ..for the court has held them all legal.

    You are welcome to own a gun ..after crawling on your belly to beg some pompous * for it ..you will fill out reams of paperwork ..at the behest of another pompous * ..you will jump thru hoops till you tire of doing so.and get rid of your guns.
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    [
    [maroon]I stand (with gun in hand) corrected!! I did not see that language while scanning the decision.




    No suprise there numb nuts.


    You wanna step out in the hallway and call me that again![B)][B)][B)]
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    .....Now the strict regulations will follow. If you think the AWB of the almighty Clinton was bad, just wait until his wife takes a seat on the supreme court. Pucker up people and wake up !
    Abort Cuomo
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    [
    [maroon]I stand (with gun in hand) corrected!! I did not see that language while scanning the decision.




    No suprise there numb nuts.


    You wanna step out in the hallway and call me that again![B)][B)][B)]


    Why so hostile? You got some anger management issues numb nuts. A psychiatrist is definitely in order.
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by RogueStatesman
    [
    [maroon]I stand (with gun in hand) corrected!! I did not see that language while scanning the decision.




    No suprise there numb nuts.


    You wanna step out in the hallway and call me that again![B)][B)][B)]


    Why so hostile? You got some anger management issues numb nuts. A psychiatrist is definitely in order.


    No anger problem here, just don't know why you want to call names for absolutely no reason.

    If you hadn't been so stupid in calling me a numb nut, I wouldn't feel the need to call you out. But to be fair, if I've done something to you to deserve being called a numb nut, then by all means, tell me: I'll make it right. And since I don't remember causing you any emotional harm, I think your numb nut tant was a bit out of line.

    Assuming I haven't done anything to you, it sounds like you're the one with the issues.

    Maybe a bad childhood? Maybe a little girl took your lunch money one day? Maybe your dad wore a dress or you mom was a hooker? Could be that you are a 'closet' C-Der and liked your moms clothes? Or perhaps you have to sit to pee?

    Or is it that this?: I'm dating your daughter and you're jealous that you're not? Maybe I scored with your wife before you did?

    I'm just asking because I like to figure out what makes people tick, or in your case, not tick!

    So if you'd like to call this even and start out a better day tomorrow, then this whole numb nut thing will be forgotten.

    But above all things do remember, you started this, so its all on you Boy!! Be Careful ... 'cause I can be ruthless!!
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Well, Rogue...that is a pretty good string of 'insults'..brought the first smile I have had today.

    Salzo just don't play well with those he considers head-in-the-sand types....
    Now, ME...I am the SOUL of patience and sweet reasonableness.
  • RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Well, Rogue...that is a pretty good string of 'insults'..brought the first smile I have had today.

    Salzo just don't play well with those he considers head-in-the-sand types....
    Now, ME...I am the SOUL of patience and sweet reasonableness.


    He didn't have to go the name calling route right off the bat. That whole numb nut rant was for no reason and just hit me at the wrong time.

    Ive been called alot of things in this site, but most of it has happened after I struck first, thus ... fair game.

    I too am a kinder, gentler man who has the patience of anyone I know. But doggoneit! I don't have much patience for unprovoked angry strikes from smalldick boys who have girlish emotional issues.

    Oh well, the oil has made the water run off my back and I'm happy again!![:D][:D][:D][;)][;)]
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,844 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Now, ME...I am the SOUL of patience and sweet reasonableness.
    Highball, I came that close >< ........ I tell ya....
    That close >< to blowing Sprite all over my computer screen.
    Good thing it was already on it's way down, when I read that. ROFLMAO



    As for the name calling.....
    ENOUGH ALREADY
Sign In or Register to comment.