Supreme Court Decision on 2nd Amendment

[Coralis]

Whilst I dont like the idea of a blanket ban, I do like some sort of law requiring responsible ownership . Why should it be harder to get a drivers license than it is to get a gun.

[doc_Zox]

Why should it be harder to get a drivers license than it is to get a gun.

nice sound bite

did Sarah Brady whisper that in your ear?

The last time I checked, a 4473 was kind of a requirement:

[DevilMan]

And one of the reasons the NRA fights tooth and nail to keep the "assault" weapons from getting banned is because they all know that it's the first step.

Look at Illinois. You can not hunt with anything other than a shotgun. PERIOD.. NO RIFLES.

Yes you can own them, but you can't do squat with them. Well the first one to give up and say Okay fine... all of Type X guns are not allowed... it's only a matter of time before the justification comes that ALL of the rest of the guns are the SAME as TYPE X gun and should also be banned.

Hell guys, look at the ruling of PAINTBALL MARKERS/GUNS and FIREARMS when taking them on an airplane or across some borders.

And how long after that does someone stand up and say that any "sport" that has a projectile is dangerous and not safe for the general public and should be banned because it promotes militaristic tendencies and produces vile, hateful, coldblooded killing machines that will hunt their own offspring later in life...

Gun control means hitting your intended target. Doing it multiple times is a step in the right direction of GOOD gun control.

DM

[wetwrks]

Camps in Colorado are governed by a group that has stated that you are not allowed to have activities that involve "shooting" something at another person. This is just a small step towards banning the violent activity all together.

[Snap Shooter]

In most Republics or Democracies your rights are most often not suddenly taken from the populace, rather they are slowly chisled away at around the edges until they are a mere shadow of what they once were... and by the time this comes to pass, people have given inches and inches and inches until they are only left with an inch. Since the end of WW2 British lawmakers have been taking "inches" from their gun owning populace... look into what you have to do to be a gun owner in England and then perhaps you'll understand why the NRA does not want to relinquish any ground...

[ahellers]

The NRA doesn't help any with their "dont' give an inch" attitude.

Are we talking about the same NRA here?

The significance of this ruling will be huge. Its specifically targeted at the DC handgun ban; however, the supreme court has stated they will also rule on the individual right to bear arms. If the ruling is pro individual it will nix that whole "2A is only in support of a militia" train of thought.

It has the possibility of having very real implications around there rest of the country too, Chicago has a handgun ban, Cali has an assault weapon ban and a ban on 50cal rifles. All of those "could" be subject to change based on this decision.


Hares a link to the supreme courts discussion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Since the end of WW2 British lawmakers have been taking "inches" from their gun owning populace... look into what you have to do to be a gun owner in England and then perhaps you'll understand why the NRA does not want to relinquish any ground...

and while your at it take a look at there crime rates to

and kosmo
i think if you look at some of the dialogue were likley to come out all right in this one...

t

[edweird]

"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."

As Ive always considered this is another statement of checks and balances of power. It ensures that the peoples right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under the possibility that they may choose to form as a militia and defend the freedom of their state. After all the US govt only exists under the willingness of its citizens to be governed and represented, and is and always will be second fiddle to the states who are only loyal to the local citizens whim and willingness to participate. So... along that accord, the 2nd amendment is the right of a local constituency to have the tools for cessation and personal defense, if need be.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

Ill be damned if Im going to let zombies overrun my house.

That really is the key isn't it.

Look at Illinois. You can not hunt with anything other than a shotgun. PERIOD.. NO RIFLES.

It is the same way in most of MA, or all I'm not sure. I always assumed, never read any argument behind the law, that it had to do with population density. A rifle round is likely going to travel farther than a slug. Combine that with more houses, and you could have a serious problem.

"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."

Sounds great, but that statement comes up hard against the 14th amendment which makes us all citizens in the nation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/

"even ardent members of states' rights groups agree that the states have no right to withdraw from the Union."

Just trying to maintain a conversation I thoroughly enjoy, not trying to start a flame war.

[Lohman446]

The problem with the NRA giving "an inch" is inches have been given, over and over again. Each new "control" that wants compromised is another inch, with no promise of not trying again in the future.

Over time those inches add up to miles. I should not have to justify a sporting use of any firearm I own. In fact - simply stating that they have a military use should be enough. Yet I am restricted from owning some of the most effective military arms.

[kosmo]

Texas has the right to secede.

[bentothejam1n]

Sounds great, but that statement comes up hard against the 14th amendment which makes us all citizens in the nation.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/

Just trying to maintain a conversation I thoroughly enjoy, not trying to start a flame war.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

[ahellers]

bentothejam1n

remember that the DOI is NOT a legal document. its really nothing more then a letter from us (when us didnt even really exist).

however even though it may not be "legal" to secede, the will of the amarican people has the power to change the government. i think thats part of what the 2A is about. it garanties us the tools to do what we need to do, should we ever need to do it.

t

[DevilMan]

It is the same way in most of MA, or all I'm not sure. I always assumed, never read any argument behind the law, that it had to do with population density. A rifle round is likely going to travel farther than a slug. Combine that with more houses, and you could have a serious problem.

PF that's all fine and good but it's a bogus call. Look up population density for any of the states and you will find that Illinois is hmmmmm let me guess in the 35-50 range. And that's a straight guess. I lived just across the border from IL and can tell you that there are THOUSANDS of miles of unpopulated places. The issue is the law (as with most IL laws) were built around Chicago. So what happens in Chicago gets implemented state wide and if any of you have been through IL from North to South you will know that the North end is NOTHING like the South end of the state.

And that's saying then by that logic that they should make it to where you can only hunt with pistols. Because pistols rounds won't go as far as a shotgun slug. That's flawed logic as well. I mean if you take a rifle which is inherently more accurate at longer range due to it's higher velocity and flatter trajectory I would think I'd rather have a guy shooting that than have someone having to LOB the bullet in due to its slower speed and heavier weight making you use more of a rainbow trajectory.

Yes this is a bit of a stretch... but say you are being held hostage. Wouldn't you like the swat team to be able to use the most accurate weapon to take out the guy with a knife to your throat or would you like them to "old west" it and do a quick draw with a six shooter from the hip??? In hunting you want to put as few rounds down range as needed and know that those rounds are going where they are pointed. NOT have to LOB them in hoping they land somewhere in the general area.

And then we can run with the penetration and kinetic energy. Did you know that the average broadhead equipped arrow carries about 4 times as much kinetic energy into it's target as the standard sniper (30-06 & 308) round does??? Don't believe me??? Get a milkjug or paint can of sand and shoot it with the rifle then shoot it with the bow about about 30-50 yards (50 is pushing it) but see which one penetrates and which one stops.

So you see... You can try and justify and validate any rule that you want. The whole seatbelt and helmet law issue. I would rather die with my head splattered on the sidewalk than live as a veggie eating through a straw and crappin my pants every hour.

And LASTLY... Anyone at all that thinks that an unarmed populace is better off really needs to look back at what Hitler did. Most folks don't know anything about his whole, "We will lead the world into a new era by becoming the first civilized unarmed nation" (Not an exact quote but you get the point, you can look up the specifics).

DM

[Army]

Ouch, Godwins Law on the first page!

Please, let's compare England and Australian gun laws with the USA. Oh, let's add Switzerland too for good measure.

"The people" is enumerated many times in the Constitution and preamble, and has always been established as the individual citizen.......except in the 2ndA. This is what the SCOTUS will fully establish.

[wetwrks]

"The people" is enumerated many times in the Constitution and preamble, and has always been established as the individual citizen.......except in the 2ndA. This is what the SCOTUS will fully establish.