US Justices Rule for on Gun Rights

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah I almost spit my water all over my screen when I read that one. I consider myself a moderate independant, but I get labeled right or left depending on the topic. So I'm used to it.

Anywho, you're exactly right DC, I think it is our right to own and bear arms. But it isn't 1776 anymore either, where owning a weapon in a lot of cases was crucial to your survival. Not only for protection but to provide for your family etc.

In 1821 it wasn't 1861 at Fort Sumter, in 1984 it wasn't 1991 in Sarajevo, in 1976 it wasn't 1989 in Tiananmen Square, in 1935 it wasn't 1956 in Hungary. We may not need militias now, at this moment, but that's the foresight of the Second Amendment. There may come a day again when we will rely upon them as the final guarantors of our freedoms whether it comes from foreign invasion or a domestic uprising. Our governments cannot always protect us, may even turn against us. What the future holds we do not know, but let's be glad that our guns are almost always taken out of their safes for pleasure rather than for necessity. There may come a time when the case will be otherwise.

I am not denying the right to carry a firearm, but you must be trained. You have to go through a 8 week class in a lot of states to get a drivers license, but you can walk into a gunshop, wait three-six days and walk out with a firearm.....yeah that makes sense.

Only in some states. Others, like New York, require that a newly purchased handgun be handed over to a local gun club where they have to train you. You receive your license once they give you the OK. I happen to believe that provision is unconstitutional because it's the government attempting to regulate firearms when it is clearly prohibited in the constitituion, but perhaps it satisfies you. In any event, the criminals will always get the guns before the law-abiding citizen does so I think these provisions are rather pointless.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In 1821 it wasn't 1861 at Fort Sumter, in 1984 it wasn't 1991 in Sarajevo, in 1976 it wasn't 1989 in Tiananmen Square, in 1935 it wasn't 1956 in Hungary. We may not need militias now, at this moment, but that's the foresight of the Second Amendment. There may come a day again when we will rely upon them as the final guarantors of our freedoms whether it comes from foreign invasion or a domestic uprising. Our governments cannot always protect us, may even turn against us. What the future holds we do not know, but let's be glad that our guns are almost always taken out of their safes for pleasure rather than for necessity. There may come a time when the case will be otherwise.

testify, bro! testify!
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Only in some states. Others, like New York, require that a newly purchased handgun be handed over to a local gun club where they have to train you. You receive your license once they give you the OK. I happen to believe that provision is unconstitutional because it's the government attempting to regulate firearms when it is clearly prohibited in the constitituion, but perhaps it satisfies you. In any event, the criminals will always get the guns before the law-abiding citizen does so I think these provisions are rather pointless.
Not exactly. Constitutionally, regulation of firearms is not prohibited; laws against owning firearms is prohibited.
 

D_Marazion Analdouche

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
979
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
In 1821 it wasn't 1861 at Fort Sumter, in 1984 it wasn't 1991 in Sarajevo, in 1976 it wasn't 1989 in Tiananmen Square, in 1935 it wasn't 1956 in Hungary. We may not need militias now, at this moment, but that's the foresight of the Second Amendment. There may come a day again when we will rely upon them as the final guarantors of our freedoms whether it comes from foreign invasion or a domestic uprising. Our governments cannot always protect us, may even turn against us. What the future holds we do not know, but let's be glad that our guns are almost always taken out of their safes for pleasure rather than for necessity. There may come a time when the case will be otherwise.

Trust me I dislike the "it will never happen arguement" as much as the next person. So yes, you never do know what could happen. What's funny is that I've stated that I'm a gun owner, I own several actually and mentioned willing to have sex with one of said firearms. But somehow I'm coming off as being in favor of banning firearms. /shrug


Only in some states. Others, like New York, require that a newly purchased handgun be handed over to a local gun club where they have to train you. You receive your license once they give you the OK. I happen to believe that provision is unconstitutional because it's the government attempting to regulate firearms when it is clearly prohibited in the constitituion, but perhaps it satisfies you. In any event, the criminals will always get the guns before the law-abiding citizen does so I think these provisions are rather pointless.

If you are a law abiding citizen there is no rational sense into not wanting to attend a mandatory training course on gun saftey. Nobody is saying you can't own a gun, they are just saying you can own one but let's not shoot you're own face off in the process.

I'm sorry, but a firearm in the hands of someone that does not know how to properly use it is more of a danger than not. Even when it comes down to plain old aiming. Shooting the wrong person because your too stupid to take a class because you don't see the difference between a Desert Eagle and a BB gun.

I look at it the same exact way I look at the person driving the 6000 pound SUV taking 9 times to pull into that fucking parking space. You should be tested on what you are going to own. I cannot count how many people I see driving minivans and SUVs the same way you would a Boxster. Then they can't even park the F'n thing. If you are going to drive something twice the size of a standard car, they should make you test on it first.

Just like with a firearm. You are going to buy a .44 automag, you should be tested to make sure you can handle it, if not we have a pretty Walther P22 over here for you.

Sorry I've met too many idiots in my life to trust everyone with firearms.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Not exactly. Constitutionally, regulation of firearms is not prohibited; laws against owning firearms is prohibited.

Regulations are infringements because they dictate prescribed parameters. The government could well limit the definition of firearms to pea shooters and say that's just a regulation just as they prohibit the ownership of automatic weapons and call that a regulation too. I happen to think that's illegal under the constitution, as I said. I read the amendment and came to my own conclusion. Whether the courts agree with me or not is entirely another matter.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I side with Jason on this one, DC.

If statutory law requires you to immediately surrender possession of your already purchased firearm to a third party pending their issuance of some state-sanctioned certification, that's not regulation but a de facto prohibition of your ownership.

Wartrac, I don't entirely agree with your belief either. Jason, again, speaks here as if reading my mind...the underlying idea behind the Second Amendment was that an armed citizenry is itself a deterrent to tyranny, both from without...and within. The founders of this nation were literally revolutionaries, suspicious of all governments...even the one they sought to create.

We as a people have lost sight of that basic truth, much to our own peril. (See USA PATRIOT Acts I & II, this week's FISA "update" bill, etc).

Also, your comparison to obtaining a driver's license isn't valid. Driving is a privilege, granted or revoked by the state at its discretion to those it deems worthy using its own criteria. Ownership of firearms is a right specifically enumerated for all people in the US Constitution.

 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Trust me I dislike the "it will never happen arguement" as much as the next person. So yes, you never do know what could happen. What's funny is that I've stated that I'm a gun owner, I own several actually and mentioned willing to have sex with one of said firearms. But somehow I'm coming off as being in favor of banning firearms. /shrug

That isn't my opinion of you. Apologies if it seemed so.


If you are a law abiding citizen there is no rational sense into not wanting to attend a mandatory training course on gun saftey. Nobody is saying you can't own a gun, they are just saying you can own one but let's not shoot you're own face off in the process.

I'm sorry, but a firearm in the hands of someone that does not know how to properly use it is more of a danger than not. Even when it comes down to plain old aiming. Shooting the wrong person because your too stupid to take a class because you don't see the difference between a Desert Eagle and a BB gun.

I look at it the same exact way I look at the person driving the 6000 pound SUV taking 9 times to pull into that fucking parking space. You should be tested on what you are going to own. I cannot count how many people I see driving minivans and SUVs the same way you would a Boxster. Then they can't even park the F'n thing. If you are going to drive something twice the size of a standard car, they should make you test on it first.

Just like with a firearm. You are going to buy a .44 automag, you should be tested to make sure you can handle it, if not we have a pretty Walther P22 over here for you.

Sorry I've met too many idiots in my life to trust everyone with firearms.

Indeed! I'm with you there. Once again though, the constitution makes no provision for idiocy. When I was very young a kid on my bus route was accidentally killed by his father while cleaning his gun. The kid's name was Greg Alba and I will never forget that. In the years following the house became unkempt and the Albas went into seclusion, eventually moving somewhere nobody knows.

One Thanksgiving my grandparents were hosting the family and my Uncle Charlie noticed some deer in the field across the road and decided he wanted to bag one. He grabbed one of my grandfather's rifles without asking and then demanded my Uncle Johnny drive him down to the field in the back of the pickup so he could shoot the deer. My uncle, always the pleaser, did what he said while the entire Thanksgiving party gathered on the front porch to watch Uncle Charlie try to shoot the deer from the back of a moving pickup truck bounding through a very bumpy field. He got off several shots as he kept slipping and falling, firing absolutely everywhere but at the deer, including putting one bullet in grandfather's horse chestnut right in front of the porch where everyone was standing.

You'll love this one. When my dad was a boy he was playing around with his first rifle as it was laying in his lap and released the trigger accidentally. The hammer slammed right into his penis and it ruptured all kinds of things. He had to be taken to the hospital for surgery.

So yes, I'm aware of idiots with guns. I know the national sport of Texas is getting loaded, piling into a pickup and shooting at road signs. I know men shoot their balls off sometimes, and I know some people whose stupidity has resulted in tragedy. Unfotunately, the second amendment is what we have. It is poorly written and takes no account of possible technological advances, yet it is what we have and so long as it is the law of the land, I default to the wisdom of the men who penned it. The amendment should be overhauled though I fear that any tampering will only serve to destroy what is a rare and precious right.
 

D_Marazion Analdouche

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
979
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Also, your comparison to obtaining a driver's license isn't valid. Driving is a privilege, granted or revoked by the state at its discretion to those it deems worthy using its own criteria. Ownership of firearms is a right specifically enumerated for all people in the US Constitution.

Oh I fully understand that driving is a privledge versus the 2nd amendment, I was just trying to drive home the point of the amount of idiots out there is all. When the Constition was developed there were no drive by shootings, school massacres etc. As I mentioned owning a firearm back then was more of a tradition as it is not.

And let's not forget ONE SMALL important fact. Firearms back then were obviously all muzzleloaders so two things come into play.

1 - You would have to be really stupid if you shot yourself by accident with a muzzleloader rifle.

2 - If you broke out your muzzleloader and started shooting people in a market (their version of a mall) someone could tackle your ass before you reloaded and got off a second shot. Not to mention how inaccurate those damn things were, you'd be lucky if you even shot one of the kids that was picking on you in study hall.

That isn't my opinion of you. Apologies if it seemed so.

No worries just didn't want to get labled like a lot of people around here tend to do.

Indeed! I'm with you there. Once again though, the constitution makes no provision for idiocy. When I was very young a kid on my bus route was accidentally killed by his father while cleaning his gun. The kid's name was Greg Alba and I will never forget that. In the years following the house became unkempt and the Albas went into seclusion, eventually moving somewhere nobody knows.

One Thanksgiving my grandparents were hosting the family and my Uncle Charlie noticed some deer in the field across the road and decided he wanted to bag one. He grabbed one of my grandfather's rifles without asking and then demanded my Uncle Johnny drive him down to the field in the back of the pickup so he could shoot the deer. My uncle, always the pleaser, did what he said while the entire Thanksgiving party gathered on the front porch to watch Uncle Charlie try to shoot the deer from the back of a moving pickup truck bounding through a very bumpy field. He got off several shots as he kept slipping and falling, firing absolutely everywhere but at the deer, including putting one bullet in grandfather's horse chestnut right in front of the porch where everyone was standing.

You'll love this one. When my dad was a boy he was playing around with his first rifle as it was laying in his lap and released the trigger accidentally. The hammer slammed right into his penis and it ruptured all kinds of things. He had to be taken to the hospital for surgery.

So yes, I'm aware of idiots with guns. I know the national sport of Texas is getting loaded, piling into a pickup and shooting at road signs. I know men shoot their balls off sometimes, and I know some people whose stupidity has resulted in tragedy. Unfotunately, the second amendment is what we have. It is poorly written and takes no account of possible technological advances, yet it is what we have and so long as it is the law of the land, I default to the wisdom of the men who penned it. The amendment should be overhauled though I fear that any tampering will only serve to destroy what is a rare and precious right.

I don't disagree at all. The only reason why opinion is what it is, has to do with experiences such as what you've described. I would hate for us to lose the right completely of have it altered to carry only single shot pistols or something crazy, I just don't trust people lol.
 
D

deleted3782

Guest
And let's not forget ONE SMALL important fact. Firearms back then were obviously all muzzleloaders so two things come into play.

1 - You would have to be really stupid if you shot yourself by accident with a muzzleloader rifle.

2 - If you broke out your muzzleloader and started shooting people in a market (their version of a mall) someone could tackle your ass before you reloaded and got off a second shot. Not to mention how inaccurate those damn things were, you'd be lucky if you even shot one of the kids that was picking on you in study hall.

Thats an important distinction...in the years after the Constitution was written,firearm technology changed rapidly, and its writers had no idea of how firearms technology would become more efficient. I have a muzzleloader on my mantle that my great great great grandfather assembled. Taking that five foot longrifle anywhere without being seen is not easily done. I understand that revolvers were not invented until 1818. Interesting.

I wonder about the law enforcement officials who have to deal with being shot at on a regular basis. I wonder if/how this ruling will impact law enforcement morale.
 

1BiGG1

Sexy Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
1,942
Media
0
Likes
29
Points
123
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
[/font][/color]

In my 36 years, that's the first time anyone has ever made any referrence to me being a possible liberal. You extremists on the left and the right never seize to amaze me.

It's not about a bigger caliber or being more powerful. The issue I have is a semi-automatic weapons, most are not calibers that are useful in a hunting scenerio. I have not come across anyone in a deerstand using a Tec-9.

Not an “extremist” from either side here by any means and merely mentioned that it sounds like you are ”trying really hard to be poster girl for Ultra-Liberal Soccer Mom Of The Year” since you have an opinion on guns that would make the left-wingers very proud.


Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic and people like you that want to ban “assault” rifles just because they look scary or are not your choice for hunting are what scare me. Guns are not all manufactured for hunting for one thing and the gun you mentioned makes a great self-defense weapon and/or weekend toy to play with at the shooting range. I don’t personally own that gun but do own several other “assault” weapons that are multipurpose and fun to play with = nothing wrong with that at all and some of my friends own Tec-9's = great well-designed gun that is no problem for you unless you mess with my friends.

Ok, so what is a militia going to protect us from that state/fed/local law enforcement cannot? Home and self defense do not count since that is covered under carrying a personal firearm which I obviously don't have an issue with.

Or are you one of those people that gets together with the other boys in the woods dressing up in camo talking about the evil gubmint?

No, I’m not one of those but certainly don’t discount the fact that one day I could be like if society falls in this country. Again, I mention the hurricane in New Orleans earlier and how the government was overtaken by bad guys for days. If this happens on a larger scale for a longer period we may well be forming militias and therefore guns will be much more effective then knives and sticks just like our forefathers thought they would.


The “law” as in those within law enforcement are far from just in good times, ask a minority if you don’t believe me on this and we can imagine how things could quickly go downhill from here when times are not so good. It’s best we have the ability to keep the bad guys and the law in-check if need be.

There is no need for a private citizen to own a silencer, period. It has one purpose and one purpose only, to kill someone without anyone knowing where the shot came from and or suppressing that it was even fired at all. In a home or self defense situation this is not needed.
In that situation (if you're talking about looting etc) explain to me why a shotgun, glock, etc wouldn't work?

No matter if society falls for a few hours, a few days, a few weeks or longer your life may depend on tactical advantages and I personally don’t like the soccer moms & liberal apologists attempting too take mine away because you and they don't see a reason to own one.

Since propane tanks can be used for all kinds of great harm should we ban those also? You can cook on the stove so it's not like you need propane tanks.

Hey you never do know though, maybe someday it will be like the movie Tremors and Mr. Keaton will have to break out his M82 again.

Never saw Tremors so I don’t know what you are talking about but I did see Terminator featuring the Franchi SPAS-12 semi-automatic combat shotgun and just had to have one = I suppose you want to ban those as well since they are scary looking and not designed for hunting. You may get others but you ain't getting mine! :wink:

And pssst I'm not a liberal.

With your very-ultra-liberal-friendly stance on guns I’m sure the liberals would line up to have the honor of rolling out the red carpet for you to walk on after arriving at the DNC where the party would gladly unveil a statue in your honor!
 
D

deleted3782

Guest
The Atlanta airport is maintaining their fire arms ban in contrast to new Georgia law that allows licensed gun owners to carry in public places. Sure you can carry in all public places, you just can't carry it around in the airport (in case of rabid government or foreign militia). I wonder how long before this ban is overturned in court by Bearden's followers. Their intent is that citizens of Georgia and the United States have the right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime....as they read the [SIZE=-1]"right to keep and bear arms."

I wonder if this will slip into airport security and the Transportation Security Administration's regulation of firearms on airplanes.Interesting in the distinction between the right to own a gun versus the right to carry a gun.

[/SIZE]
Airport gun showdown moves to courts | ajc.com
 

B_jacknapier

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
672
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
"bearing" is carrying, not owning.

bear: noun, plural bears, (especially collectively
thinsp.png
) bear, adjective, verb, beared, bear·ing-
any of various animals resembling the bear, as the ant bear.




wait
 
D

deleted3782

Guest
"bearing" is carrying, not owning.

bear: noun, plural bears, (especially collectivelyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) bear, adjective, verb, beared, bear·ing-
any of various animals resembling the bear, as the ant bear.




wait

Yes, thats the point of the article, the airport has no jurisdiction over anyone owning a gun, but they are attempting to regulate the ability of someone to carry/bear one. It will be interesting to see where this discussion goes, especially in regulating carry-on firearms on aircraft.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
by this, do you mean that ownership/possession was intended to be restricted to active members of the militia?

This is the most common mis-reading of the 2nd amendment.
It is an AGENDA directed reading... as opposed to a reading based upon english syntax.

The second amendment does NOT establish a militia. It does not limit gun ownership to members of a militia... it says in no uncertain terms that the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear shall not be abridged. ( yeah, KEEP is in there)


The preamble concerning a miltia must be interpreted in the light of what the term milita meant to the founding fathers...


A militia... by their understanding, was an ARMED citizenry.
Keep in mind that the minutemen were a militia.

They were a group of local residents, who HAD arms and were willing to volunteer as a first response defense unit.

Under such conditions, the federal government retains the right to regulate and command any such citizen's militia...

In short the second amendment recognizes that a nation of armed citizens is a nation safe from invasion... and so the citizen has the right to own arms... but that the citizens may not form militias on their own, nor willy nilly... but any such militia must be subject to government regulation.


That is what it says... and that is what the men who WROTE it SAID it says... many many times..

People worry about the wrong things...
If the argument for banning guns is that they kill people... well, then the CAR kills twice as many people in any year than does the gun... and the car isn't even SUPPOSED to kill people like a properly functioning gun...

This makes the car the far more dangerous threat...
AND you don't even have any constitutional right to own a car....they could bvery easily be outlawed, unlike guns...

so, you wanna really save lives? ban CARS first.

But you won't hear anyone making that argument.... willya?
 
D

deleted3782

Guest
Frankly, I find the idea of bears driving cars to be ludicrous.

Then a person visiting at Christmas bearing gifts would be disturbing too.

Frankly, with gifts my family pawns off on me, it is truly disturbing.