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.
Options

Hooray!!

blacarrowblacarrow Member Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
I, like most of you, had trepidations about the Supreme Court. It did my heart glad when the announcement was made concerning the second amendment.

I would have preferred a unanimous vote, but as Casey Stengel once said "A win is a win".

Let the Sarah Bradys be damned, our rights have been upheld!

Comments

  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Let the Sarah Bradys be damned, our rights have been upheld!


    Let the Sarah Bradys be damned, our privileges have been upheld!

    There..I fixed it for you.

    You are welcome.
  • Options
    RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    Let the Sarah Bradys be damned, our rights have been upheld!


    Let the Sarah Bradys be damned, our privileges have been upheld!

    There..I fixed it for you.

    You are welcome.


    Highball, its CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, not Constitutional Privilege. You didn't fix it, you ruined it for him.
    See, thats what Liberals do best. Every time they think they're fixing something, they're actually F&%$@#G it up!![:(!][:(!][:(!]
    Stop being a liberal and you'll quit F&%$@#G things up!![B)][B)]
    We'll like you much better then![;)][;)]
  • Options
    guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,187 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If it's a right , why do we have to get permission?
  • Options
    wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    originally posted by RogueStatesman:

    Highball, its CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, not Constitutional Privilege. You didn't fix it, you ruined it for him.
    See, thats what Liberals do best. Every time they think they're fixing something, they're actually F&%$@#G it up!!
    Stop being a liberal and you'll quit F&%$@#G things up!!
    We'll like you much better then!

    Rogue,

    HB simply told the truth. If it were a right, then why must we fill out a 4473, get a pistol permit, or "apply" for a CCW?

    I agree that it is a right, but government has turned it into a privelege, and some folks don't seem to mind begging for permission.[:(!]
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Well, Rogue;
    When you grow up, you will understand bitter sarcasm.
    Just as the other posters above understand the evisceration of the Second we just witnessed.

    The Second Amendment, of ALL the Amendments, is the single one most important to the survival of America as a free country.

    Allowing ANY government entity the power to limit, restrict, "infringe"..(sound familiar ?) is utter INSANITY.and cheering a government body that just handed you your head on a stick is rather.well..uninformed.

    To be polite about it.
  • Options
    kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball

    To be polite about it.



    quite..
  • Options
    green milegreen mile Member Posts: 619 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    You need to read the whole opinion of the court. In section 8 the Supreme Court said that the right to bear arms applied to wepons not used or designed for use in a military capacity. This means that the .223's, 9MM's, .45's, .50 BMG's etc. can be regulated and restricted as the state and city sees fit since they are and were designed for a military purpose (initially). Also in section 10, the term "bear" means to carry with the intent purpose of a confromtation (i.e., self defense). This also can be restricted and regulated as the state sees fit. So we can own a weapon, but the state can tell you which one and how to own it. This with a possible Democrat President coming in the end of the year could spell big problems for the pro-gun community.
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:This with a possible Democrat President coming in the end of the year could spell big problems for the pro-gun community.

    Well, Green, you did real well..till you got to here.

    Just where did you get the idea mccain is our friend concerning guns ?
  • Options
    green milegreen mile Member Posts: 619 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Oppps, I'm sorry. McCain is a gun enemy also. Can we have a do-over for nominating party representitives. The sad thing is that no one else in the republican party wanted the job so the old guy gets the nod by default.
  • Options
    music_madnessmusic_madness Member Posts: 53 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    HEY, GUYS,
    I DON'T NORMALLY GET INVOLVED ON A POLITICAL LEVEL HERE, BUT IT COULD'VE BEEN MUCH WORSE...5 TO 4 COULD'VE EASILY BEEN 4 TO 5.[:0] NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS BUT,"THANK GOD FOR A CONSERVATIVE COURT !" SEEMS THE DEMS ARE BEGINING TO REALIZE THEY'VE BEEN FIGHTING A LOOSING BATTLE TO ENSLAVE A NATION. UNFORTUNATLY NEITHER MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE IS OUR FRIEND [V]. PERSONALLY I STILL LIKE RON PAUL [:o)]. I'M PUTTING MY MONEY IN PITCH FORKS AND FLAMING TORCHES [;)]; Y'ALL SHOULD THINK ABOUT DOING THE SAME. SEE Y'ALL BACK AT "ASK THE EXPERTS" (i'm not an expert, but i sometimes play one).
    PEACE
    CATFISH TOM McTEEF
    SASS#75700
  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball


    Allowing ANY government entity the power to limit, restrict, "infringe"..(sound familiar ?) is utter INSANITY.and cheering a government body that just handed you your head on a stick is rather.well..uninformed.




    Well, Rogue views your position as anarchy-he views limitations, restrictions, and "infringing" as not only necessary, but CLEARLY intended by the framers of the constitution.
    So the Heller decision fits very nice with Rogues sentiments. His cheerleading is certainly understandable, with head on a stick in hand.
  • Options
    RogueStatesmanRogueStatesman Member Posts: 5,760
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote:Originally posted by Highball


    Allowing ANY government entity the power to limit, restrict, "infringe"..(sound familiar ?) is utter INSANITY.and cheering a government body that just handed you your head on a stick is rather.well..uninformed.




    Well, Rogue views your position as anarchy-he views limitations, restrictions, and "infringing" as not only necessary, but CLEARLY intended by the framers of the constitution.
    So the Heller decision fits very nice with Rogues sentiments. His cheerleading is certainly understandable, with head on a stick in hand.

    Again Salzo, you're just spouting off and changing my words to suit your own angry-filled, anti-Roguestatesman hatred, just because you have such unfounded disrespect for me.
    I've seen some of your work, and if anyone here is anti-Constitution, its YOU!!!
    EXAMPLE: You wrote the following 3 days before the attack on America:

    Author Topic
    salzo
    Advanced Member



    7728 Posts
    Posted - 09/07/2001 : 6:33:00 PM

    Alright folks, this is gonna be a bit weird, but hear me out.
    My cousin called me, and informed me that he has the second amendment figured out.
    He told me that he has found a quote by George Washington, in which he refers to the professional or standing army as "a well regulated militia". Therefore, he interpets the second amendment in this manner:
    "(Because)A well regulated militia(professional army)being necessary for the security of a free state(to protect us from foreign invasion), the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms(to protect themselves from the possibility of a tyrannical use of the standing army(well regulated militia) ie,being used against the people, because the founders realized that a standing army could be a danger for free people) shall not be infringed". In other words, the "well regulated militia", is not the people at all that is refered to in the second clause, it is the pro army. But the second clause is what the people have to protect themselves from the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the first clause.
    Now this is much easier to understand, when you remove the comma after the word "militia", which is what many scholars believe is how it was originally written.
    "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state," as opposed to "a well regulated militia,(notice the comma)being necessary for...."
    Whadddya think? Is it possible?

    Salzo, please don't embarrass youself further, you'll cause such irrepairable damage to YOURSELF!!!
  • Options
    gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nothing like a privilege masquerading as a right, is there
    ???
Sign In or Register to comment.