It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

page: 10
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
Last time I checked, there was no safety course required here for CCW. The safety course I mentioned was for a hunting permit. I got my CCW permit just by filling out an app, getting some signatures, talking with the sheriff, and paying a small fee.

It may have changed since that idiot Riley got in. I'll have to check it out.

I want to add to my last post that any required safety course should be free, and should only apply to CCW, not simple ownership. That, IMHO, would be consistent with a right to keep and bear.

Also, there is no law against carrying a weapon openly here. I can walk down Main Street with an arsenal on my back (and have done so in B'ham) completely legally as long as everything is in plain sight. Just be ready for every cop in the area to be watching you like a hawk.


TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perplexed

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."


Source

Can anyone make sense of what this guy says? Did he actually read the opinion or is he just grasping at straws... What is the deal with the us and them reference? I mean its painfully obvious as to what he is saying but is he really saying it?


Unfortunately sir, yes he is really saying this. "he does not understand" He obviously thinks that if you allow the Citizens of the United States of America to uphold and exercize thier Constitutional right to own fire arms, we will be a threat to our own government, IE "god help us all" We will now immediately take to the streets of DC. Weapons in hand and overthrow roughly 230 years of a representative republic this weekend...... LOL

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Perplexed

It's called 'incoherent rambling'. It's what politicians do when they know they're about to lose some of their power over the people.


Mayor Daley... couldn't happen to a nicer guy...


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Years ago, When I got my ccw in VA. I had to go through a 16 hour course,12 hours of it was related to the Laws.. And the responsibility and consequinces of haveing such a permit. the other 4 hours was being trained in the use of your weapon from a concealed carry position, You also had to "qualify" with your weapon in order to pass and get the opportunity to apply for a ccw.. 2 years later they did away with this mandatory course, and all you had to do was just apply for one..



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Regarding the requirement of a basic gun safety test: I'm in complete agreement with that idea. It makes sense.

And how many gun owners can state the rules for transporting a firearm across town or the state? Does it have to be in plain view? Unloaded? Rhetorical questions, but not knowing the answers could land you in a heap of hot water.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


D.C., where up until now handguns were illegal to possess has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. That alone is an argument that the problem is not the legal ownership of guns.

I look at it this way; no gun has ever self-animated and loaded itself and shot anyone. It takes a criminal to load that gun and then point it in the right direction and pull the trigger.

No gun law has ever stopped a criminal from having a gun, either here or in any country in the world. Gun laws only stop good people from having a way to protect themselves during the minutes to hours it takes law enforcement to respond. Criminals know exactly how long it takes and pull the trigger long before the Police arrive. The only thing Police can do is find them after they kill you and put them in jail. They can not save you or your family before you are killed because the criminal is long gone before they arrive.

When good people are denied any means of defending themselves against bad people it only makes it easier for bad people to kill and steal with impunity, knowing full well you can't defend yourself and the Police may or may not show up sometime after they have killed you and left the scene.

When discussing a 9MM I purchased with a long time Detective friend, he convinced me to return it and get a 45 and a shotgun. He told me "we can do nothing to protect you from a home invader, so you have to protect yourself. We can only lock them up after you are dead". That message stuck with me and defines my stance on this to today. He also told me that if I ever had to defend my home, to shoot to kill or I may as well not have a gun in the first place because a wounded murderer is more lethal than they were to begin with.

Not having the misfortune of being raised in a large dirty city, I grew up in a society where everyone owned a gun, hunted for food and nobody was afraid of guns. Even though we all had and used guns, violent crime was almost non-existent in the small towns I grew up in. Only people raised in dangerous cities, surrounded by crime and brainwashed into thinking guns can kill just by existing, are fearful of guns. Instead you should be fearful of the Criminals who could just as easily kill you with a car, a knife, poison or any number of other lethal items (baseball bat, pipe, 2 X 4, tire iron, rock).

The logic that not allowing good people to own guns will somehow stop criminals from having them is some of the most intellectually dishonest thinking I could ever imagine. If I were a career criminal the first thing I would do is move to a city or country were I knew the victims do not have weapons to protect themselves from me. Take a hard look at D.C. because that is exactly what has been going on there. I'd almost bet that every Congressperson who is responsible for making handguns illegal there, has a handgun themselves. They are not dumb enough to fall for their own arguments.

Gun laws are a way of making us dependent on them in the first place. Create an environment were the citizens are incapable of defending themselves, then use that dependence to control them. Look how Great Britain has rolled over on their backs and allowed their government to put cameras on every corner and micro-enforce the nearly uncountable laws on the books. If, or I should say when, they decide they have had enough and want to be free again, they will be helpless against and armed government taken over by criminals.

To our friends in Great Britain, you need to wake up and realize that Big Brother is far more advanced there than it is here and you have been lulled into a false sense of safety. Bad people are pouring over your borders, changing your culture and if they take up arms all you can do is fight back with sticks and knives while they bomb your trains and shoot you from hundreds of yards away. Ever try to hit a sniper with a rock at 200 meters? If the crap ever hits the fan, you damn well better be able to, if you want to survive, as only they will have long range weapons.

Too the anti-gun crowd -

You are sleeping and you wake up to the sound of a would be rapist murderer breaking in to have his way with your family. Being of normal intelligence he cut the phone line before breaking in. He is heavily armed and intends on killing all witnesses after he is done. Exactly how are the Police going to save your families life? Who is the only person who can save your families life? How are you going to save your family when only the bad guy has a gun? All you can really do is decide whether he kills you first or last, because either way you cant stop a man with a gun with good intentions or anti-gun laws that this Monster could care less about.

On the other hand, if you have a gun and know how to use it, you have a home court advantage. The bad guy dies and your family lives. Which scenario makes more sense? Which outcome do you want? What gives anyone the right to make it illegal for you to defend and save your own family?



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Regarding the requirement of a basic gun safety test: I'm in complete agreement with that idea. It makes sense.

And how many gun owners can state the rules for transporting a firearm across town or the state? Does it have to be in plain view? Unloaded? Rhetorical questions, but not knowing the answers could land you in a heap of hot water.


Yes, not knowing how to transport your gun according to the laws of some city official is really stupid. You should be able to take it from your home to your car and then to your destination period. There should be no outside authority on trasportation of a side arm...

The very idea that there are several steps involved to transport from A to B and if you don't follow those rules it’s a felony which then nullifies your right to have a gun is absurd at best.

This ruling at least gives some relief to those that have no intent on transporting. They just want to shoot the perp as they enter their home which seems to me to be reasonable. In my opinion these same people should be able to carry a gun anywhere if they are not a felon or whack job. I would bet my next years pay check crime rates would go down if everyone carried a side arm in plain view.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SideWynder


Unfortunately sir, yes he is really saying this. "he does not understand" He obviously thinks that if you allow the Citizens of the United States of America to uphold and exercize thier Constitutional right to own fire arms, we will be a threat to our own government, IE "god help us all" We will now immediately take to the streets of DC. Weapons in hand and overthrow roughly 230 years of a representative republic this weekend...... LOL
[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]


Well, I think this is exactly what this message sends... The people have a right to self determination and we have the right to exercise that right...
Albeit with a hand gun against their tanks...
We also have to do it from our home if we live in DC or Chicago or one of the many other far left whack job cities....

btw... The only ones taking to the streets in DC with guns up to this point at least have been the thugs.. It seems it will continue that way for the foreseeable future. Too bad the court didn't say we have a right to carry anywhere at any time... The politicans would be peeing themselves in unfounded fear...



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perplexed
I would bet my next years pay check crime rates would go down if everyone carried a side arm in plain view.


We're not at that point, but this certainly will give us a number of good test cases. This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. Will crime rates increase with more legal guns in the hands of private citizens, as the anti's insist, or will it decrease, as those in favor of gun rights believe? Assuming that this ruling stays in place for a number of years and these citizens are able to maintain handgun ownership over that course of time, we'll have several excellent examples all over the country that will allow us to determine the truth, once and for all.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


All states with CCW permits require some type of safety course and shown ability to understand a firearm. Some do even just to purchase which find over the top. There are two states,Alaska and New Hampshire , that don't require permits to carry concealed or a safety course.

Zindo


Negative! Washington State requires no safety course or test whatsoever aside from the fingerprinting and background check. I found that utterly amazing when I moved here, but I guess it's a nice indication that the Eastern 2/3rds of the state are as sensible and wise as the Western 1/3rd is liberal and misguided.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.

Warms the heart, doesn't it.

The anti-gunners won't stop, so we must not stop our vigilance. So when they try to put some small tax on ammo, even if it's really doesn't hurt the pocketbook, DON'T LET THEM! They get their foot in the door we have had it!

Roper

The Trees of Liberty, must be watered form time to time with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots, it is their natural manure.

Roper



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
throughout this entire thread, What has been maintained is the undeniable fact that the US. citizen has the unailienable RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS..
This "RIGHT" was given to us by our founding Fathers when this great nation was struggling to get started.
They understood the power of a very oppressive "government" They and thier Fore Fathers had actually lived under oppression for centuries, The Brittish Colonies, were molded into the United States of America, as a social "Experiment" (for lack of a better term) And contrary to our(meaning"Americans")Beliefs, and what we were taught in school It was not 100% US, (or even U.S) against Britain We were divided amongst ourselves, to include our founding Fathers..
Ben Franklin Was a very big supporter of England and the King. But even he, after awhile realized that in order for this country to become something "special" we would unfortunatly have to REVOLT. That being said, and whith apollogies to historians and actual writers that are able to express this more eloquently than I.
The point I am trying to make, especially to our European Bretharen. Is That the United States of America, Is not actually full of a bunch of "trigger happy gun nuts"
But, Be you a Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or independant, or "none of the above"..
One thing WE all have in common is that This Country Has written certain RIGHTS In our "charter" that allows us to be the biggest, whiners,braggarts, scumbags, or the best workers,lovers,caregivers, that we can be..
In other words no matter what, this country set the standard for allowing its citizens to decide how much they wanted to make of thier lives..
And yes we have become fat and lazy, and complacent,, But I have faith in this countries people(not our government) that we will get our collective heads out of our "ARSES" soon..
Those that are from outside our borders may look upon the recent Supreme Courts ruling and say why??? so DC. Gets Guns(not exactly true)
What this actually means though is that In this day and age of "pollitical correctness" Our "Judicial System" Has just REAFFIRMED one of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!
We should not have needed them to do it. But now it makes defending the rest of the bill of rights easier to defend, without, or possibly with the use of violence....



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Perplexed
I would bet my next years pay check crime rates would go down if everyone carried a side arm in plain view.


We're not at that point, but this certainly will give us a number of good test cases. This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. Will crime rates increase with more legal guns in the hands of private citizens, as the anti's insist, or will it decrease, as those in favor of gun rights believe? Assuming that this ruling stays in place for a number of years and these citizens are able to maintain handgun ownership over that course of time, we'll have several excellent examples all over the country that will allow us to determine the truth, once and for all.


I don't have the facts or studies in front of me but I do think when Florida handed out CCW's like candy rapes against women went down drastically. I think that's why they handed them out in the first place or it was a major factor in that decision. I will look it up and see what I can find but those are some compelling stats if true.

Here is one link froma quick search... I will try and find more.
www.i2i.org...

Edity to add:
rkba.org...
I could find more but I wont...


[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Perplexed
 


It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that this is true. My personal belief is that crime rates will drop dramatically over time as the civilian firearm ownership rate increases. The more examples we have of this to make our case the better and, soon enough, we'll be able to add cities such as Chicago, Washington DC and San Francisco to that list.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Perplexed
 


A list of state gun laws can be found here, including I believe, transport laws. At any rate, click on your state and you'll learn the laws in your state.

www.nraila.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


It is a great day for America.

But what about the next time a citizen falls under the threat of tyranny and utilizes their arms to defend themselves? What if an old marine takes out a swat team? Seriously. It's something I could see happening.

What will happen then? Will we respect that? I think in the context of their property being attacked, then I would have to respect it.
But how will one ever be able to protect ones self from tyranny and not pay for it?

It seems even though we have guns, we still can't use them to defend ourselves....or will we stick together on that and support the action of that guy?

Would you allow him to be demonized or would you take to the streets?

I think this is a very interesting question to ask everyone.
I would like to hear opinions on that if no one minds.

Good thread.

*edit for spelling correction.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by Critical_Mass]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Six pages long when I began reading and googling for more information on this topic.
My personal rule is that I must read every single post in a topic before posting.
I began this reply at nine pages and continued reading and visiting links.

personal ancedote:
I was a cashier in a self serve gas station many years ago.
A customer gassed up his truck and walked up fumbling in his pockets like everyone else.
Stuck a .357 magnum in my face and demanded
"The key to the cashbox!"
Willingly handing over the keytainer with the key to my boss's money, when he thumbed back the hammer on his double action revolver.
"Kill the witness!" went through my head.
I threw the keytainer at his chest, pulled my tiny S&W .22lr semi auto pistol and fired all but three shots point blank.

He lay in a pool of blood as the police arrived. AZ was an open carry state and I'd had the mouse gun concealed.
Cops shook my hand and patted me on the back. Told me he had killed his last robbery victims and I did a "public service".

Two successive grand juries refused to indict me for carrying concealed illegally.
***
Older and wiser, I now have CCW permits from several states.
So law abiding that over 3 dozen states' cops trust me to carry a loaded gun.

Feels good.
Last time I saw gunplay, I had a 9mm handgun in one pants pocket and a cellphone in the other.
I called 911 and let cops handle it.

Gun Control by MY definition is:
"NO gun under my control will ever be used to commit a crime!"

I recommend everyone learn their state and local laws, get firearms training, then get a CCW permit and pray they never have to use the gun they carry.

Letting everyone walk around armed and deadly is NOT a good idea IMHO.
I appreciate other law abiding citizens like me who have jumped through all those flaming hoops to obtain CCW permits.

but

Some states give a CCW permit to just anyone with a clean record.
How many criminals have just not yet been caught and arrested?
How many gang members have not yet been apprehended?

Ted Bundy could have gotten a CCW permit from several states.

Point made?

I especially liked the state that withheld my permit
until they had written to every state I had ever lived in and asked each County Sheriff:
"Do you have any objection to us issuing a CCW permit to ___(MY NAME)__?

After four months with no objections, they gave me my CCW permit.

I value that permit far more than those I got for just having a clean record.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by himself
 


Sorry you had to shoot someone, glad you are here.

Why the two grand juries? Was some legal eagle trying to cut his teeth on you?

Roper



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   


Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

What disgusts me more is the "yay we get to keep our guns and keep killing people!" posters. Honestly, that's insane. I would fear to walk to the corner shop in America. Oh no, i'd just get a gun, like everyone else.


Do you not understand WHO does the killing here? If it were illegal for individuals to have guns, why do you think that all guns would disappear from the face of the planet? You seem to believe that law-abiding citizens are just going to up and decide that they're going to kill someone - for whatever reason - if they own a gun.

Also, the Second Amendment of the Constitution is there so we the people can keep our representative government in check.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It's that part in bold that we need to keep in mind. The Founding Fathers realized that, if the government was the only entity to have an army, the people would have no way to protect themselves if the government became corrupt. It is the second amendment that gives rise to our ability to revolt if things get bad enough (albeit we would need to organize heavily
)


Originally posted by Alphard
As I am from another country I really do not get what the big fuss is... People in Europe have more strict weapons regulation.. and we have more liberties than the Americans do...

Its just some crazy obsession with firearms on your side of the Atlantic...


Do you really have more liberties in Europe? I've seen news article that say that hate speech is a crime. I've seen articles that say that all over England, security cameras are being put EVERYWHERE.

For a website that automatically screams that people shouldn't trust the government, finding the idea of giving the government way more control over our lives is just odd.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
attempted check fraud is a felony in Indiana. So people I see say felons shouldn't own a gun. What do you think about in this case? A person that gets caught with ATTEMPTED check fraud is now a felon. I think it should be against violent, sex, or drug crimes.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join