quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

That's one small step for mankind.

quote:

The same SCOTUS said it is an individual right

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

The same SCOTUS said it is an individual right

I'm sure you realize that you just cast a fact before a liberal. To what end, Bama, to what end?

Seriously... those who believe Presidential candidates should have to prove their eligibility are called "birthers". Those who believe the Holocaust is a lie are called "deniers". Do we need a term for people who refuse to accept the reality of the 2nd A?
Is "refusniks" still taken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Good, the Supreme Court finally ruled on that challenge to the Lautenberg Ammendment. This isn't new; it is a challenge to one provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and has been wending its way up the court structure since 2001.

One of the things that is in law to prevent you from buying firearms or ammunition is having been convicted of domestic violence and you have a peace bond on you. In other words; no matter how pissed you are at your ex; once you have resorted to violence you are barred from buying a gun or ammunition to shoot your ex spouse.

The ban on firearms purchase was challenged because domestic violence is a misdemeanor. A lower court ruled it was not legal. That decision was overturned in appellate court. Then it went to the supreme court for a final ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

quote:

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

And that puts an end to the 2nd amendment is a personal right nonsense. Courts can't take away your personal rights for misdemeanors.

The same SCOTUS said it is an individual right so .....WRONG

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Good, the Supreme Court finally ruled on that challenge to the Lautenberg Ammendment. This isn't new; it is a challenge to one provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and has been wending its way up the court structure since 2001.

One of the things that is in law to prevent you from buying firearms or ammunition is having been convicted of domestic violence and you have a peace bond on you. In other words; no matter how pissed you are at your ex; once you have resorted to violence you are barred from buying a gun or ammunition to shoot your ex spouse.

The ban on firearms purchase was challenged because domestic violence is a misdemeanor. A lower court ruled it was not legal. That decision was overturned in appellate court. Then it went to the supreme court for a final ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

quote:

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

And that puts an end to the 2nd amendment is a personal right nonsense. Courts can't take away your personal rights for misdemeanors.

The same SCOTUS said it is an individual right so .....WRONG

Funny right that a court a legislature can take away from you forever for a misdemeanor conviction.

IOW that's not a right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

why would I care about some asshole who can't control his temper.

Never try to shoot someone when you are angry...it spoils your aim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallClevMan

If drunk driving can be a felony (which it is in most states after a certain number of convictions), then why not texting and driving? Most studies done show that a texting driver is just as likely to cause an accident as a drunken driver, so why should they be treated differently?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

How is removing the right to own a gun a small step for the rights of man?

Perhaps for their next act they can remove the right of assembly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Anything that knocks the nra/geopee back a notch, is a good day.....

OK, this is a serious question.

Do you really mean "anything"? Does it matter at all to you whether the constitution says one thing or the other?

For me personally I'm not very happy with how readily our society strips people of their "constitutional rights" for a wide variety of reasons.

quote:

How is removing the right to own a gun a small step for the rights of man?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

How is removing the right to own a gun a small step for the rights of man?

Perhaps because it's seen as adding to the rights of of those who are currently getting shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

How is removing the right to own a gun a small step for the rights of man?

Perhaps because it's seen as adding to the rights of of those who are currently getting shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But it's augmenting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But it's augmenting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, isn't it?

A Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
B When the protected rights go so do those.
C When government can give you anything you want, it can take anything you have
Thomas Jefferson