RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:55:28 AM)
LOL because likely as not you don't have the greenbacks. LOL

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:59:04 AM)
Good point: those that can afford it protect themselves with wicked cool expensive guns; those that can't have to make do with crappy little one round pistols. The small fry gets loaded with ammo; the big fish get away with it. All's for the best in the best of all capitalistic worlds [:D] .

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:01:31 AM)
quote: DC Copyrights and Patents are part of the main text of the Constitution, and were there before the 1st amendment was even ratifyied. Interesting point, Lucky. Thanks. That raises the interesting and probably unanswerable question of whether the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the rights enumerated to taken absolutely literally. quote: Libel and Slander laws do not prevent anyone from saying anything. They are not a restriction on speech. However if you are lying about someone and causing them harm, they have the right to sue you over it. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure what constitutes a legal "restriction on speech," but the goal of libel and slander laws certainly seems to be persuade people into restraining themselves from what they might say otherwise. The effect seems to be more or less the same. * * * Perhaps I chose my examples poorly. Maybe a better question would be whether the U.S. had the right to forbid Mormons from practicing polygamy or if an administration should be allowed to forbid scientists working for it to make certain statements in public. What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights. quote: Which of the other rights listed in the Conssitution do you want to get rid of because the situation is more complex now? Hasn't the Constitution suffered enough lately? [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:05:48 AM)
quote: LOL because likely as not you don't have the greenbacks. LOL Indeed, I don't. More's the pity. [:)] Suppose I hit the lottery, though. Would I then have the legal right to own one? I guess the question behind my question is how do we define arms in terms of the Second Amendment?

postulant -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:08:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle <snip> The key is to stop thinking like a Slave who is GIVEN Rights by the Government, and to think like a Person who is GIVEN Rights by THEIR CREATOR ( YMMV, but G-d, generally ). snort This made me laugh out loud. Perhaps you forgot where you were for a moment? "Stop thinking like a slave." giggle p.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:10:51 AM)
http://freedomkeys.com/gunnutsposter.jpg and http://www.a-human-right.com/s_free_men.jpg and http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m225/Fertil500/by_any_means.gif

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:12:30 AM)
The NRA's support of weak and ineffectual gun control laws seems to be a wise and prudent strategy to paint itself as a reasonable organization.When the NRA supports some real legislation designed to reduce the amount of guns in this country let me know.By the way the only regulation's concerning guns that will have any positive effect would be federal .States with liberal gun laws make the laws of other states almost meaningless .So let me know when the NRA supports federal legislation designed to curb gun ownership...

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:15:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: LOL because likely as not you don't have the greenbacks. LOL I guess the question behind my question is how do we define arms in terms of the Second Amendment? In light of what our unconstitutional standing army has for weapons what does that tell us? Its not how we define arms that is important, its how the framers defined them and what the purpose of our having them on the first place is.

AMaster -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:22:46 AM)
The Supreme Court is always looking at gun ownership. The Supreme Court never comes up with any real answers.

Archer -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The NRA's support of weak and ineffectual gun control laws seems to be a wise and prudent strategy to paint itself as a reasonable organization.When the NRA supports some real legislation designed to reduce the amount of guns in this country let me know.By the way the only regulation's concerning guns that will have any positive effect would be federal .States with liberal gun laws make the laws of other states almost meaningless .So let me know when the NRA supports federal legislation designed to curb gun ownership... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html Done.

Lynnxz -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:40:55 AM)
It's a law in our city that you have to have a rifle in your house, hahaha. It's one of those really old laws that's no longer enforced, but still amusing.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:19:25 AM)
quote: I'd wait and see what the decision is before starting the celebration. Yesterday was oral argument. The decision won't be coming for some time. I watched most of the proceedings, and while I can see where the media got the idea that the judges were leaning toward the "individual right" argument, there was no indication that this is a done deal. What occurs during oral argument isn't always an indication of the way the decision will come down. So worst case scenario ... they decide we can't own handguns or certain guns or whatever. Who is going to come take them away from people who acquired them legally? The US is not Australia. People would not willingly disarm because the Supreme Court said so. Not happening.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:44:06 AM)
Archer i think the article you sent me to is disturbing on more than one front.First senior Democrats have to negotiate with the NRA to get legislation passed? And only after the Virginia Tech tragedy and the resulting bad press does the NRA agree to something most people would deem reasonable in the first place....How does the NRA wield such power ,the same way the tobacco lobby does, massive amounts of money .

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 11:47:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gemini1766 Part of the intent was to ensure that the People have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. Can't do that if the government can run roughshod over you because they have weapons and we do not. The government best serves it's constituants when it fears them. I`ve heard this quite a bit. Can you name or show any writings or anything a founder father wrote/said to suggest that the "People (should) have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government" Having been through a civil war,we`ve learned what happens when you rebel against tyranny (or think that you are). Added:I`m for regulated private ownership of pistols and long guns. As I read this latest ruling,really nothing has changed in either direction. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Question to gun owners who don`t want gun registration(ie "regulation"): Would you also be for unregistered voters/voting?If not,why not? And if not,explain why an unregistered citizen voter is more dangerous or deadly than an unregistered weapon.

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:07:15 PM)
quote: How does the NRA wield such power ,the same way the tobacco lobby does, massive amounts of money . It's not quite that simple. The CWP class I'm going to take is actually taught to NRA standards and certification of successfully completing the course comes from the NRA. That certification is necessary to get the permit to carry a concealed weapon. The class is taught by law enforcement personnel who are members of NRA, as hundreds of thousands of law enforcements officers are. The tobacco companies isn't an accurate comparison. Profit isn't the motive.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:07:16 PM)
We've already created that Utopia, its called Afghanistan. No enforceable weapons regulation and weapons all around. From what I've read in the Press, Afghan society is envied around the world, even more so than the inner city ghettos of the USA.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:19:13 PM)
TracyTaken i did not mean to imply the NRA has no value.My point was their efforts at influencing our elected officials subvert the system same is true for the tobacco industry.Targeting congressman,threatening to finance your opponents campaign unless you vote in favor or against this or that legislation is a perversion of our system and is a unfortunately all too common in Washington.Special interest groups have a stranglehold on Capitol Hill

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So let me know when the NRA supports federal legislation designed to curb gun ownership... I think the point is both good and illustrative. Passing legislation curbing the legal ownership of guns, does nothing to address the real issue. Now, if you had statistics showing that a majority of gun related crimes were committed by legal gun owners, that might add meaning, but rather the opposite is true ... yes? I think it would be nice to live in a society where we had no guns ... but I certainly feel the first step would be to remove illegal guns from out society. This would be a huge step in lowering gun related crime, and offer the potential for meaningful gun control legislation to pass. Addressing the response time of police would be another major step. It is, and will always be, unsatisfactory to wait two hours for a policeman, when someone is breaking in to your house. So ... I guess I'm not differing with the overall point ... there are too many guns, and too much gun related crime. I'm only saying that if you want meaningful gun control, how about targeting the group committing most of the crimes, rather than targeting people that own guns, within the scope of the current law.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:44:06 PM)
Can you really not see the difference between an organization supporting by citizens and one run by corporations? Citizens ARE the system! Whats next, you going to complain they vote?

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 12:49:51 PM)
It would be quite disturbing if the only civilians with guns were criminals with illegal ones. Take the guns out of the criminals hands, not law abiding citizens.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625