I would say don't worry so much about Obama and anti-gun nuts taking your guns. After nearly decade of Republican ruler-ship most won't be able to afford the bullets much less the gun. Hopefully that will change soon but if not oh well. Then those that can't afford a gun will steeply out number those that can and bye, bye guns.
Posts by 5go
-
334WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
-
11
American Dollar Total Collapse worth less than toilet paper
by What-A-Coincidence inhttp://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4itc_nt4rs8
-
-
5go
I see bank runs from hell coming in our near future.
-
9
Gordon Brown on America's newly found progressiveness
by hamilcarr inamerica has embraced the values of progressthe election of obama has inspired millions around the world.
it shows how voters need government to provide security in troubled timescomments (230)gordon brownguardian.co.uk, sunday november 9 2008 00.01 gmt the observer, sunday november 9 2008 article historythis is a defining moment.
a new chapter of the human story is being written and will be studied by our children, and their children, and their children after them.
-
-
5go
Remains a weird idea after at least two decades of financial deregulation.
Yes, laissez faire economics is thoroughly debunked, and the chicago school of economics is in shambles, if not behind bars.
-
251
RIP Dansk (aka Ian), 18.12.1953- 20.12.2008
by faundy inhave posted this on the other thread but just making this one as well:
i need to let you know that dad passed away this morning at 8am.
he fought so hard but in the end they could not get his blood pressure to rise and he died of heart failure.
-
-
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
No, not the latest UFC heavyweight bout.
But, an exploration of an interesting twist in the law...
In January 1939, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas heard argument in US vs. Miller concerning a sawed-off shotgun found in the defendant's truck when a raid for a still failed to find anything. Defense argued that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed.
The USAG appealed to the supreme Court and in March 1939 the Court heard the case. They reversed the lower court's decision saying that there was no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had any value as a militia weapon and so did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. Essentially saying only military-style weapons are protected.
Now, fast forward almost 65 years to Feb of 2003.
A lawsuit is brought against the District of Columbia contesting the District's draconian gun laws. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit.
The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed the decision saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
Petition was made to advance the case to the supreme Court and they agreed in November of '07 (looks like things went a lot faster seven decades ago).
In June of '08, the Court decided and reversed the Circuit Court's finding. That the "District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The supreme Court also decided, "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
So, to give the Cliff's Notes version, Miller says the Second Amendment protects military-style weapons and, so, a sawed-off shotgun is not a protected firearm.
But, now we have Heller that has decided that the Second Amendment protects only non-military use firearms (actually, a silly decision - what non-military firearm is of any use to a militia?).
Heller has reversed the prohibition in Miller and given Second Amendment protections to the sawed-off shotgun.
I wonder how long before this sinks in...
This was from a progun conservative site. It does a good job with spelling out why ultimately Heller well be over turned, and very soon.
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
Like I said this is a Pyrrhic victory for guns rights activist you won, but in doing so you lost in the greater scheme.
Basically the supreme court upheld the Miller decision. Which means as long as Miller decision stands the Heller decision is a meaningless victory that will ultimately be undone sooner rather than later.
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
No, it was certainly not a Pyrrhic (PYREX is a type of GLASS) victory, and it overturned the status quo in DC.
Explain how? All D.C. has to do is re-phase the law and it's back to the way things were. One justice even pointed that out in his decent. Another one pointed out my argument. If one firearm is protected then all firearms are protected all the way up to nuclear devices. This decision will be revisited real soon, and over turned easily.
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
Dissenting opinions
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law". [ 36 ] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont. [ 36 ]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were 'responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning." [ 37 ] (Other commentators have agreed with Breyer's criticism, but argued that the Court therefore erred in not overturning current machinegun restrictions. [ 38 ] [ 39 ] )
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
The Heller case is basically the greatest pyrex victory of the right to personal arm crowd ever. All it did was say the status quo is OK oh and D.C. better let people have handguns. Despite then turning arround and affirming the bans on certain firerms. It is just begging to be overturned later.
-
334
WHY don't Americans realize GUNS are destroying their country?
by Witness 007 inusa today everyone has a gun, why?.....to protect themselves...from who?
other folks with guns!.....yes it's in your laws...but they were written when the british ruled you.
one school gun killing every week does not happen anywhere else in the world....maybe you need more guns to protect your kids.....one in the lunchbox.....does anyone else see this.
-
-
5go
I am unable to follow your reasoning. I cannot understand how a nuclear bomb is related to me purchasing a firearm to defend myself and my family.
It defends your country quite well, and by doing so your family. So why can't you own one or for that matter a small grenade launcher? Which would be a more fitting analogy.
I believe in the First Amendment. Yet, I cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. First Amendment rights are regulated. They are not absolute. I have no objections to regulations on Second Amendment rights. Currently, states and cities can legislate gun laws and regulations. The courts decide if the laws enacted by cities and states are constitutional. Just as free speech is regulated, I have no problem with prohibiting felons from owning firearms.
You may have just made my argument for me. First of all you can yell fire in a crowded theater. The law though will hold you account for any damage that results from that act. The founding fathers realized you can not forbid free speech, and free speech can not have a law passed against it (doesn't stop some from trying and getting away with it) it was one of those big duh moment in man's law making history. But, free speech didn't blind the founding fathers from the responsibility of it's freedom. Hence, why slander has been a legal liability in this country from the start. In fact it originally meant you might face a legal dual (aka fight to the death).
Arms on the other hand have, and never will be considered a right; but a privilege possessed by those that can handle them correctly. Which is decided by the people through their representative law makers. Even you have agreed to that premise.