Supreme Court upholds right to own guns

[Ruggbutt 45]

Column5, the interstate commerce "trick" the Feds use is BS. It's one more way the Feds can assume authority where they don't really have it. For a Federal Law to be enacted, it has to be passed by Congress. The federal LE agencies use other tricks as well, such as the racketeering act to double up sentences and whatnot where that particular act doesn't apply. I've heard of racketeering charges (which involves conspiracy) being applied to people who have lied on bank loan forms. So instead of probation or something else that applies to the letter of the law, the Feds add a racketeering charge (cuz conspiracy is two or more people discussing something). Additionally, conspiracy doesn't have to be proven in Federal court. It's a well known fact that a prosecutor can get a conviction against a canned ham if it's a conspiracy charge.

 

The underlying factor in all of this is that the Federal government is too powerful and too invasive in our lives. Laws that have been passed are distorted and used to the advantage of the Feds. Everything in this country technically applies to interstate commerce. Lets say you are making corn tortillas. You buy the corn in your state, you make the tortillas and you even package them in plastic made in your state. The Feds would come at you saying the machinery you used to make the tortillas came across state lines. Or the ink for the printing on the labels for your packages.

 

I know this is getting away from the general theme of this thread, but it's all inter-related. The only good thing is that after 127 years the Supremes finally ruled on a gun-ownership issue. It's not wide ranging enuf but it's a start. The thing we should never forget is that criminal justice is soooo broken in this country that this small step forward will be followed up with several huge steps back.

[Syrinx 13]

Here in Britain you will be arrested if you carry a (Eric Idle voice) "point-ted stick".

 

Crikey, I would certainly like the right to defend myself.

 

Gun and (especially) knife crime are really big issues over here at the moment and whilst senseless loss of life with either type of weapon rightly abhores me I for one would certainly like the opportunity to defend my person or property in the manner I see fit. If that involved a handgun, say, so be it.

 

Seeing as it's Britain, I'll have to make do with my hair straighteners set on hi-heat as a primary deterrent.

 

I don't want to lighten what is a very serious issue for you over the pond...but do you realise how lucky you are that you can carry a serious deterrent in the first place?

 

ps: sorry for the over-use of the word deterrent...damn, I've said it again. Sorry. Thesaurus-r'nt-us.

[Ruggbutt 45]

but do you realise how lucky you are that you can carry a serious deterrent in the first place?

Most of my friends are willing to fight for that very right.

[Syrinx 13]

Most of my friends are willing to fight for that very right.

 

Then they have my respect.

[+Julhelm 266]

No real problems getting a firearms license here - besides, everything older than 1890 or so is license-free.

[Ruggbutt 45]

No real problems getting a firearms license here - besides, everything older than 1890 or so is license-free.

Therein lies the problem. If you have to get a license for a gun, then you can also have that taken away from you no questions asked. Our founding fathers knew better, they went thru it in England.

[+Typhoid 231]

Let me get this straight, the lefty whackos who want to ban all guns are corrupt and don't enforce existing law, but the righty NRA whackos who want to give every baby a machine gun at birth faithfully enforce gun regulation?

 

The problem with enforcement is, if you're carrying a gun illegally, chances are nobody will be able to catch you at it before you go postal, which at that point its pretty much ineffective at stopping violence.

 

 

 

"but the righty NRA whackos who want to give every baby a machine gun at birth " a very phony mischaracterization. the left would like the weak-minded to believe that.

 

a more accurate position is;

 

NRA faithfully enforce gun regulations.

 

The NRA is actually behind quite a few reasonable laws such as the insta-check and mandatory sentencing laws for criminal use of a firearm in the commision of a crime.

 

We (NRA Life Member) are against laws that would restrict LAW ABIDING citizens from possessing firearms. We do not support unrestricted sale and possession of machine guns.

 

"The problem with enforcement is, if you're carrying a gun illegally, chances are nobody will be able to catch you at it before you go postal, which at that point its pretty much ineffective at stopping violence."

 

which is precisely the situation now unless an armed police officer is present at the time. However, what is also very, very effective at stopping such violence are lawfully armed citizens. Every place that has concealed carry laws has much, much lower violent crime than places with restrictive firearms which serve only to disarm the potential victims for the convenience of the armed criminals.

[Ruggbutt 45]

For those of you who think private firearms ownership is dangerous and scary, google Kennesaw, Georgia. 25+ years later every gun by law has to have a firearm. Crime rate is down, all the kids in the neighborhood aren't killing themselves or each other, just responsible ownership. Get back to me after you've educated yourselves with real world info. :)

[Guest USNadpc]

Check this out...

2nd amendment poll

 

I agree with the results.

 

USNadpc

[Stwa 18]

1.Uncalled for STWA----------------DAVE

 

2. Before the ink dried on the original document, its intent and meaning was called into question, even by the govenring bodies that contirved it in the first place.

 

3. Since that time no common or statuatory law, supreme court ruling, nor executive power, has ever dared to modernize the ammendment.

 

4. This overwheliming consensus of state and federal govenrment, over time, has guaranteed its application within a purely 18th century context.

 

5. As time has elapsed, this "right", as the authorities envisioned, has been rendered completely useless.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Dave

[+Tailspin 3]

1. Well the recent ruling has clearly defined the intent.

 

2. The creators of the Document have written many times explaining their intent and what the 2nd Amendment means.

 

3. Oh really? 20,000 + gun laws on the books, Executive Orders regulating importation, etc., etc. Many are clearly attempts to "modernize" the regulation of firearms. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to make it much more difficult to change or repeal an Amendment than simply legislating it out of existence.

 

4. Overwhelming consensus of State and Federal Governments? It completely the opposite. There is a wide divergence in interpretation from State to State and the Fed. Gov from total bans to almost no State regulation at all.

 

5. The God (or Natural for the atheists) given Right to self determination and preservation will always apply to a free people and is just as applicable today as it was then. Do you think your Government is always going to be there to save you? Ask the people of New Orleans about that.

[JediMaster 451]

One problem is at the time our country was founded, neither machine guns nor the concept of mass murder/suicides existed.

 

The idea that someone would strap a bomb to themselves and blow up dozens of innocents and themselves to make a point, without caring about living afterwards? So remote as to not be worth considering...who would do that?

 

People who now take several guns and go into a crowded area and open up with no intention of surviving or of killing themselves at the end is another "far fetched" idea.

 

There is no defense against this at all. If everyone in that crowd is armed, the crazy will still have the element of surprise and end up dead at the end. Maybe a few less bystanders are shot, depending on reaction times, but that's it. Things like the VT shootings could not have happened in the 18th century.

Yeah, modern tech is SOOO great.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Things like the VT shootings could not have happened in the 18th century.

Wrong, stuff like that happened. Maybe not a school but a public place, unarmed individuals. The only thing that's changed is the weapons. Mass murder is still mass murder and the advent of high capacity semi auto firearms didn't start all of that. If the VT killer had run thru that school with a sword don't you think he still could have killed a bunch of people? What do you do when someone is shooting? You run (if you can) and you hide if you can't run. Same thing with a crazed killer with a sword.

 

Using your train of thought I guess we should take a hard look at the first amendment, cuz movie theatres didn't exist back then and we all know what happens when you scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The rational person realizes that the rights guaranteed us by our forefathers aren't a moot point just cuz "times have changed". I suppose the 10 commandments should be changed as well. I mean, murder is different now than it was 6000 years ago................

 

Or is it still wrong?

[Icarus999 70]

Here in Britain you will be arrested if you carry a (Eric Idle voice) "point-ted stick".

 

Crikey, I would certainly like the right to defend myself.

 

Gun and (especially) knife crime are really big issues over here at the moment and whilst senseless loss of life with either type of weapon rightly abhores me I for one would certainly like the opportunity to defend my person or property in the manner I see fit. If that involved a handgun, say, so be it.

 

Seeing as it's Britain, I'll have to make do with my hair straighteners set on hi-heat as a primary deterrent.

 

I don't want to lighten what is a very serious issue for you over the pond...but do you realise how lucky you are that you can carry a serious deterrent in the first place?

 

ps: sorry for the over-use of the word deterrent...damn, I've said it again. Sorry. Thesaurus-r'nt-us.

 

 

Never under estimate the power of large groups of foolish people bent on saving us from ourselves: Doctors in UK call for ban on chefs knives

[+NeverEnough 78]

"TOKYO — A man who police said "was tired of life" drove into a crowd of pedestrians Sunday and then went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo's top electronics and video game district, killing seven people and wounding 10, authorities said.

 

The deadly lunchtime assault paralyzed the Akihabara neighborhood, which is wildly popular among the country's youth. The killings were the latest in a series of grisly knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising crime in Japan."

 

Never under estimate the human capacity for evil. Japan has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world, and that did nothing to prevent some deviant freak from killing and maiming scores of perfectly innocent souls.....

[+Jarhead1 27]

Back in the old west, almst everyone had a six gun on their hip and stuff still happened so its no like this is a new thing. No matter what, somewhere somehow ur gonna have an idiot that has a weapon that is gonna do what he wants with it, it cant be helped, but its a matter of how many people he takes out before he himself or herself is take out by someone, that is the question.

[Ruggbutt 45]

In the old west there wasn't as much "lawlessness" as people have been led to believe. Things were fairly civilized considering there wasn't any law at all in the western territories.

[Stwa 18]

3. Oh really? 20,000 + gun laws on the books, Executive Orders regulating importation, etc., etc. Many are clearly attempts to "modernize" the regulation of firearms. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to make it much more difficult to change or repeal an Amendment than simply legislating it out of existence.

 

 

Hint---Hint :yes:

 

1. I don't think firearms are actually mentioned in the ammendment. The original authors were smarter than that.

 

2. I believe that as a member of a modern day militia (state sponsored or otherwise), I might want to own/bring/use more than firearms to my unit/company/regiment.

 

3. For instance, is there consensus among all state and federal authorities, that the ammendment refers to firearms, as opposed to, lets see, hmmmmm, STRIKE FIGHTERS!?

 

4. To the best of my knowledge the ammendment has not been changed, so the alleged modernization has not occurred. New regulations regarding the mysterious "firearms" have been introduced, but the ammendment does not mention firearms.

 

5. Today, firearms are rather crude throwbacks to an era gone by. Its not my fault everyone wants to own one.

 

6. I would much prefer to own something more shiek.

 

7. Since the recent ruling referes to handguns (also NOT mentioned by the ammendment), surely we can see how useless this ammendment has become.

 

8. Since the ammendment is useless, its rather pointless to discuss it, right?

 

:yes:

Edited June 28, 2008 by Stwa

[herman01 0]

I think this was fair interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and it was 5-4 decision. The 4th amendment is the one I’m worried about though.

[JediMaster 451]

Wrong, stuff like that happened. Maybe not a school but a public place, unarmed individuals. The only thing that's changed is the weapons. Mass murder is still mass murder and the advent of high capacity semi auto firearms didn't start all of that. If the VT killer had run thru that school with a sword don't you think he still could have killed a bunch of people? What do you do when someone is shooting? You run (if you can) and you hide if you can't run. Same thing with a crazed killer with a sword.

 

Using your train of thought I guess we should take a hard look at the first amendment, cuz movie theatres didn't exist back then and we all know what happens when you scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The rational person realizes that the rights guaranteed us by our forefathers aren't a moot point just cuz "times have changed". I suppose the 10 commandments should be changed as well. I mean, murder is different now than it was 6000 years ago................

 

Or is it still wrong?

 

Sorry, where you see similarity I see a BIG difference. Show me the whacko who can kill 30 people in a room with a sword in 10 seconds that's NOT a major action film star with a team of stunt men and effects guys behind him.

The difference is the time factor. Yeah, using an old flintlock rifle one guy COULD kill a classroom...eventually. A pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, all have significantly slower rates of fire, which limits the number of targets you can attack with the element of surprise. "Mass murder is mass murder," yes, but if you think killing 30 people in 10 seconds is no different from taking 10 hours, well, perhaps you need a better clock.

 

If it doesn't matter, then why exactly did the Gatling gun get invented? Why was the machine gun invented? By your logic, pistols and rifles are all that is needed, so why do our troops carry M16s and M4s and not M1s still? I mean, there's no difference!

 

Also, you have TOTALLY misjudged my attitude with your 2nd paragraph. My train of thought had NOTHING to do with the first amendment or anything like that, in fact, your MAJOR mistake was very simple:

 

You ASSUMED my statement means I am anti-2nd Amendment. Apparently I either think EXACTLY like you, or I must think EXACTLY opposite you, correct? I guess unlike, oh, EVERY other law ever written, there is only black and white here? Since I questioned this one, I must therefore question them all, right? I also can't question it and support it at the same time, can I? I must not believe in ANYTHING that a "rational person" (as if this underhanded attempt to call me irrational isn't noticed) believes in?

 

WRONG.

 

However, in your blind defense of it you see an attack where there isn't one, because you're frightened that you can't logically discuss the evolution of firearms without realizing that there IS a point I'm making, a point you under no circumstances wish to concede. So, if you don't want to go there for fear that your belief in the 2nd Amendment might be questioned (because after all no slave-owning land-holding aristocrat from the 18th century could POSSIBLY have failed to take into account a development they could not foresee over 100 years later, they are all infallible, of course), just don't and stay the hell away.

 

The "rational person" realizes that informed questioning is preferable to blind acceptance and attacking of the questioners. The "rational person" realizes that questioning does not undermine anything if it is truly correct and can only strengthen it by disproving doubts.

 

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU EVER PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. EVER.

[Ruggbutt 45]

30 people weren't killed in one room at VT. The killer roamed for quite a while. As for your post, I was merely stating that you were incorrect. I didn't see it as an attack on the second amendment. As for your slaveowners comment, you do realize that while slavery was still happening that many of our founding fathers knew and hoped that the rest of the country would catch on that slavery never works as well as the alternative. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves but he felt torn about it. Back in those days there was no place for a freed slave to go. All the slaveowners could do was to treat the slaves well.

 

Additionally, I don't believe they could take the future technology into account. But freedom and right to free speech is as important today as it was 200+ years ago. You attack my "irrational" response when it's yours that's hostile. I could care less what your personal beliefs are. But when you make a comment that something along the lines of the VT shooting "couldn't have happened" in the 1800's you better think again. You also need to see what someone moderately trained with a blade can do and stop referring to hollywood movies and the BS they propagate. I'm very well trained in many kinds of combat arts and I guarantee you that a guy with a knife can close the distance to you at 10 feet before you could bring a loaded firearm up to stop him. The guy in close with the blade will win most of the time if he has a clue.

 

I'm NRA certified pistol, rifle, shotgun and personal protection instructor. I was a CCW instructor for Arizona for many years, my lesson plan is still the example DPS gives when new instructors put their lesson plans together. In '95 I was ranked 60th in the world in 3 gun combat matches, my team shot 4th place. I shot semi pro for many years and some of the guys with black powder guns scare the piss out of me. They don't miss and you'd be amazed at how quick they can reload those charcoal burners. Some of you guys think that cuz someone has a gun he's invincible. The dude at arms reach with a gun pointed at you cannot react fast enuf if you know which moves to use to disarm him. They teach that kind of stuff to SAS, Seals, Rangers, etc.

 

I'm not sure what the reason for the large bold text is for. Cheer up emo-kid and grow the f up. That kind of stuff makes you look like a douchebag. This is supposed to be a friendly discussion but you insist on taking things to the next level. You don't wanna go there with me.

[ironroad 218]

[+Tailspin 3]

I don't care one whit about what other people think about gun laws and "reasonable" restrictions until their ideas start to infringe on MY RIGHT to defend myself, my family, and my property. I'm not about to stand by and let some marauding gang of thugs, rioters, looters, or whatever take those things from me. If you think that can't or won't happen then you haven't been paying much attention to the real world around you. It already has...more than once. All it takes is a natural or man made disaster and all bets are off. Under staffed and under gunned law enforcement agencies are quickly overwhelmed due to the sheer logistics of the situation and you are literally left on your own. When confronted by a number of criminals Grandpa's double barreled shotgun just isn't going to get it. There is a very real need for more firepower. Nut jobs and criminals will continue to disobey the law...its what they do. I can't help that and I have no intention of relinquishing my Rights to appease a bunch of "feel good", head in the clouds, Politicians who don't have the guts to address the problem at its source...which BTW isn't guns of any type.

[+Typhoid 231]

"All it takes is a natural or man made disaster and all bets are off. Under staffed and under gunned law enforcement agencies are quickly overwhelmed due to the sheer logistics of the situation and you are literally left on your own. "

 

Katrina.

 

At which point, with chaos in the streets, armed criminal gangs running wild, police and NG overwhelmed - the NO Police Dept decides to bring order to the situation by;

 

confiscating guns from legal, lawful owners

 

 

Never again should we fall for any of the empty rhetoric from the collectivist/Stalinists who like to call themselves "progressive" or "liberal".

[Ruggbutt 45]

Responsible gun owners are not the ones to fear. How many guns in this country and how many gun crimes? It's less than 1%. Alcohol, cigarettes, and the ease of getting a drivers license kill in greater numbers. Individually and collectively.

 

Try to infringe upon my gun rights. I'll give you the bullets first. One at a time.