Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by C0le

 

While I agree with you in spirit, it is prudent to realize that "a man" will not be knocking at your door. Rather, if it happens, it will be a dozen Kevlar-clad men, well armed, with weapons already drawn.

It's romantic to consider oneself a patriot by imagining that you would resist at that very point in time. It is pragmatic to prepare beforehand and outwit your opponent.

Very true, those of us who do consider such options however have planned for such events for sometime, various scenarios ect, and very few believe they will win or even stand a chance alone, however without question the ultimate decider will take place in that moment, it will also determine how you live the rest of your life, if you life at all.

reply to post by C0le




That's good to hear.

I may be a bit naive, but I still believe the US is unique in the sense that there are many military that would not fire upon their fellow citizens without provocation.

Originally posted by C0le
The test that determines rather or not you are a Patriot will come when you get a knock on your door with a man thats gives you two options, Give up your guns, or go to jail, And in return you comply, Or give him two options, Leave, or fight.

One would hope it wouldn't get to the door to door scenario. I would hope that if they came out with a decision that said there is no right the keep and bear arms then the citizens would go on the offensive right away.

I wonder what that would look like? Would Montana and state like those secede from the union and they would have an influx of citizens? Or would there be an armed insurrection? Either way I think there would be enough of the Military or CIA types that would love to kill a bunch of Americans. Look at the private Militaries of the day... The automation of weapons would be one hell of an obstacle to a march on those in power...

We would need an overwhelming number to beat them. Not that I would think twice. I would rather die on my feet fighting. I just hope in the end we would win so some normal people would be there to take care of my family as opposed to the FEMA camps....

My real fear is they say we have a right but say the government has the right to regulate... Then you have whack job city consuls "interpeting.

"DC is a prime example. They can have long guns but they must be dismantled and or have trigger locks. If you are allowed to own a gun there shouldn't be any restrictions on in home storage. There also shouldn't be different regulations between hand guns and long guns but most states already have those laws.

Keep and Bear arms are really two rights. One is ownership and the other is protection, hunting, training, ect... They already regulate the hell out of the "bear arms" part of the amendment and I fear when this is over they will have affirmed our right while taking it away altogether...

The whole idea behind the amendment was to keep the government in check with the same weapons they possess. Back then they had basically the same weapons regular citizens held. Today we don't stand a chance and if we do we will lose large numbers on our side if it came down to it.

It would have been better off left to ambiguity in my opinion.

I still like my point. The right to bear arms is from the Bill of Rights ( which also states that the "feds" have no authority that is not explicitly stated as the "feds" rights in the constitution). The feds can never create fantasy authority (which they do today). They only have the limited authority granted to them explicitly in the constitution. The Bill of Rights was a response to the scam of the constitutional congress that was really setting up the states for "fed" fascism. It was an overthrow of the articles of the confederation. Once the states realized they had been hoodwinked by Ben Franklin, they created clarifications of states and individual rights, know as the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment says nothing about the "Feds". It is not granting anything to the feds. It is a simply an enunciation that states and individuals have the right to defend themselves. Never in a million years would the founding fathers (the non-federalist ones) have ever imagined a country where people could no own a weapon. Common sense, if the second amendment was, in any way, an attempt at taking guns away from citizens, then why didn't that begin the day after the Bill of Rights was ratified?

So the final ruling was supposed to be around the end of june... anyone have the date?

Thank you, it's VERY IMPORTANT.

reply to post by Vitchilo


No specific date was given, just to expect it in June. The last two months, all of the rulings have been issued on Mondays or Thursdays. Given the importance of the case, I would imagine that they'll take as long as necessary to ensure that the ruling (as well as the dissenting opinions, if any) is as close to ideal as they can get it. I wouldn't be stunned to see it happen tomorrow, but I think we'll probably have to wait another week.

The ruling will be said tomorrow.

It will probably that it gives a right but can be restricted by LAW... so if they choose so, second amendment doesn't exist... like in New York. Then when will have all those democrats in office, even if the republicans governments are as bad, the second amendment will be gone even more.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

If you consider 40 plus million registered hunters alone versus maybe two millio total armed forces and police, I think the odds aren't so bad after all. They will surely get a few but not all. That is what the govt. fears and well should.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

A national militia under the governments control would not be for the security of the free state, they would be for the security of the governments state, especially if the government is doing what its doing now which is taking away our freedoms.

The militia the amendment is talking about is one that is formed by the free people of the united states of america that are not bound to the governments control.

It make me sick that people actually advocate gun control. Im sorry if they are doing it because they lost a loved one to some idiot with a gun but DO NOT advocate the destruction of one of our most important rights. The first and second amendments are the most important rights in the bill of rights they give us the freedom to fight back against the government and we are giving up that freedom, this country is so pathetic.

I would rather die fighting for my right to bear arms against governments oppression than watch my right be stripped away from me.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by caballero]

Here's a thought,

Instead of banning guns get everyone trained and tested and shown what guns do. and issue one to every man women and over 16

Then every Crook would know everyone has a gun, every person would know how to properly handle a gun. What's the chances the victims will use it?

reply to post by Vitchilo


Even the lawyers arguing against the DC law said they would be in favor of certain restrictions, so yes, I think its a virtual certainty that the ruling will allow for 'reasonable' restriction. However, reading through the arguments, I also get the feeling that complete bans on a class of firearm will be held as unconstitutional, which obviously, could get very interesting.

In any case, I expect that this will not be a narrow decision, but will be far-reaching and will have a huge impact on gun rights in this country. After reading the arguments, I'm fairly optimistic of a 6-3 or 5-4 decision in favor of individual rights under the 2nd amendment.

It looks like we're going to have to wait another day. The following site says that Heller vs DC will 'definitely be handed down tomorrow:

www.scotusblog.com...

They believe that Justice Scalia is writing the majority opinion, which would seem to be very good news for gun rights advocates.

No details yet, but the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court's ruling by a 5-4 margin. In other words, they voted in favor of individual gun rights. On the surface, this appears to be excellent news.