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: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The first step in regaining our full constitutional rights as citizens, in the United States of America. I'm proud of the Supreme court for finally upholding the constitution!
Now we got gotta work on not privatizing our highways and byways. They constitutionaly belong to the people and may not and best not be sold to the corporations. They belong to "We the People. They are no one governments to sell. So toss off and re-read our constitution you unholy a-holes in public offices. Hope that goes to the Supreme court too.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
in the United States, approximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns (not to mention the many more children who are permanently disabled)

Many children are killed due to accidental discharges while playing with guns that improperly locked or stowed. Children by age 2 are strong enough to pull the trigger of a gun, and by age 9 are still unable to determine a real gun from a toy gun

"Don't blame the guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
As Dr. Linda Erwin, a Portland trauma surgeon, says, "Yes, people kill people, but here's a news flash: the gun helps!" Quite an obvious statement, right? Yet, we don't often remember that the presence of a gun in any situation makes the situation more dangerous, not safer. In Australia, where gun control laws are strict, people are 5 times less likely to die from a gunshot than an American.(7) It is not that people in Australia get into less fights or assaults. Bar fights happen just as often in Australia as they do in the United States. However, with an increased likelihood of a gun being involved in the fight, a person is five times more likely to die as a result of the fight in the United States than in Australia. It is much more difficult to stab or beat someone to death compared to firing a handgun
www.nytimes.com...
Americans are not the brightest people on this planet. They will eventually kill us all thanks to thier trigger happy ( we are so big and bad) attitude. They are more like cowards that act big but only when they have a weapon ( more technologically advanced or just bigger) to back thier play.
Not all americans are like this but i would assume most.
Also the argument that guns in homes deters criminals from entering a home for fear of death is just plain idiotic. If someone breaks into your home then will they not be more ilikely kill you then to take the chance of being killed. Having guns in the home just means that criminals will not take any chances either and will arm themselves for protection..which means that the person who has nothing to lose will be the one to shoot first...ei..CRIMINALS.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Well, I live in DC, and my political and ideological position is against guns.
But with everybody packing in the near future, I guess I'll have to buy a gun. Not gonna be the one sucking his thumb when the chips are down.
Thanks Supreme Court.
Now, any suggestions as to what gun I should get and how to stop my bulldog from shooting me on my bottom?


What an ignorant knee-jerk reaction to the decision. Have you bothered reading it, or are you just firing off a comment in response to a headline. Nothing in this decision says that states or cities may not regulate the ownership of guns; all it says is that they may not be regulated out of existence. This will not lead to an increase in gun-crimes or over-turn most regulations in cities and states.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I'm sure many of our European brethren will not understand America's culture as many of us have a hard time understanding yours.

With that said, a few points and observations:

1) European culture differs from American culture. We do not trust government as a function of historic president, we take private property very seriously, and we believe an unarmed society is a dominated one. This of course is general as the comfort and ease of life here has made many soft and forget the lessons of our history.

2) Regardless of the debate over guns, the primary reason for private gun ownership is to violently overthrow a tyrannical government or to repel invading forces.

There is no question in that.

Personally I'd love to see some army try to invade LA or NY. They'd have a rude awakening.

3) Guns are not a one sided issue. Guns save lives, kill bad people, and protect as well as wantonly murder. This issue is not simple, but to paint it with a single brush is foolish in the extreme.

4) If you have not been to America, do not generalize or discount us because our culture is different.

Every country has it's problems and most of the time the solution is social rather than governmental.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I am truly sorry that you feel the need to buy a gun now due to decision of the supreme court.. If you do not like firearms, you should "stick to your guns"(pun intended) and not purchase one just because of this recent decision.. I truly don't believe it will change alot in the DC area..
But, if you really feel the need to arm yourself, I would STRONGLY suggest that you take several firearm safety courses... not just the cheapo 4hour familiarization courses, but at least several weekend courses as well as join a Reputable (I hate to use this term) Gun club.
I would also suggest that if you are not familliar with hand guns, and you now feel you must have one, You most likely will be best off with a double action revolver, they are simple to use,safer for the newer, less experienced gun owner. and more affordable.
But, Please, find an experienced, trustworthy individual to mentor you in the proper use and care of this endeavor...
Good luck to you sir, and remember, those that are fighting to uphold the 2nd ammendment do not wish to force anyone to have to have a gun, we just don't want to be forced to be unable to have one...
As well as the fact that if the 2nd goes, sooner or later the 1st will also be gone..Thus everyones opineing, even on the internet, will be severely limited, if not muted entirely

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


Clearly the war is not won. This was a battle only, but an important one.

I saw on television today a representative of one of the anti-gun groups, Brady, I think, and he was adamant about exploiting every loophole in the decision.

The NRA has announced that they are planning on filing lawsuits throughout the land to challenge oppressive gun laws.

I'm a proud member of the NRA and I am proud that we are hitting the ground running. The Constitution is on our side. The anti-gun crowd must rely on lies and perverse interpretations of the law to push their agenda.

Well, today they have one less weapon in their arsenal. Never again will a slimy, little shyster be able to argue that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, which would make the Second Amendment unique among the Bill of Rights.

Anti-gunners rely on ignorance, because a nine year old can read the works of the founders and clearly discern what their intent for the Second Amendment really was.

Today, the Supreme Court not only ruled on the Constitutionality of the right to keep and bear arms, but also gave Americans a lesson in grammar.


(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

blogs.usatoday.com...


So, now the Second Amendment can no longer be twisted grammatically to mean what it does not. The grammar and the interpretation are now law.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm sure many of our European brethren will not understand America's culture as many of us have a hard time understanding yours.

With that said, a few points and observations:

1) European culture differs from American culture. We do not trust government as a function of historic president, we take private property very seriously, and we believe an unarmed society is a dominated one. This of course is general as the comfort and ease of life here has made many soft and forget the lessons of our history.

2) Regardless of the debate over guns, the primary reason for private gun ownership is to violently overthrow a tyrannical government or to repel invading forces.

There is no question in that.

Personally I'd love to see some army try to invade LA or NY. They'd have a rude awakening.

3) Guns are not a one sided issue. Guns save lives, kill bad people, and protect as well as wantonly murder. This issue is not simple, but to paint it with a single brush is foolish in the extreme.

4) If you have not been to America, do not generalize or discount us because our culture is different.

Every country has it's problems and most of the time the solution is social rather than governmental.


I'm sheading a tear at this moment. Beautifully stated. That is what America is about!



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If this happens there will be alot of dead americans because a military force would be much better at handling thier weapons than alot of trigger happy fools running around shooting at anything.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I forgot to add one important facet of this argument.

5) One thing commonly dismissed when discussing guns is the "War on Drugs". Europe (and Canada) seems to have a much more liberal intent when it comes to drugs, one I tend to agree with.

I see drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one, and the "War on Drugs" has created a heck of a lot of criminals and has created one serious need for the black market.

Anything in the black market will be risky, violent, and inherently come with a need to protect oneself.

This is where most of the illegal guns get involved, since they too are a black market commodity.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The previous gun laws in DC worked real well.... The ordinary law abiding citizen couldn't legally own a handgun but every thug and gang banger certainly had one....

Same here in Kalifornia.... AK47s and AR15s with hi cap mags are illegal but rest assured that the thugs and gang bangers have them... just look at all the photos that are taken after a drug raid... what do you see... drugs, cash and weapons that you would expect to find in a terrorists cache.... do you think they were purchased with the mandatory backgroud check and waiting period? Why have more gun laws when the ones that are already on the books only work for the average joe....

I certainly don't want to be holding a restraining order the next time my MS 13 neighbors come rolling down the street.... "say hello to my little friend....." and drop in your tracks....

IMHO



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
If this happens there will be alot of dead americans because a military force would be much better at handling thier weapons than alot of trigger happy fools running around shooting at anything.


It has been my observation that the same people who claim that Americans could never defend themselves against the power of the US military are the same ones who insist that the US military can never win a war against some ragtag insurgents in a far off land.

[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099

If this happens there will be alot of dead americans because a military force would be much better at handling thier weapons than alot of trigger happy fools running around shooting at anything.




Of course there would be, but honestly there would be a lot of dead ones anyway if someone is invading. Better to take some of them with us.

Just because we haven't been tested lately doesn't mean the seed of rebellion isn't still there. We'd have a resistance movement 7 mins before the first landing craft hit the beach.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

It has been my observation that the same people who claim that Americans could never defend themselves against the power of the US military are the same ones who insist that the US military can never win a war against some ragtag insurgents in a far off land.



An impressive point. Hadn't thought about it, but it's an accurate observation.

Cheers



[edit on 26-6-2008 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


Those "CHILDREN" your refering to are classified as anyone up to and including 25 year olds. You might want to look at the criteria before you quote statistics like that. Most they classify as children are gangbangers shooting each other. Accedental discharge incedents are a miniscle number compared to what your stating. Its missleading and downright wrong. That particular statistic has fallen drasticaly in the last 10 years.

Zindo
PS we have many times more trained personel out of the service than in. These are combat vets who know exactly how our military works. The citizenry are NEVER out gunned by the government.



[edit on 6/26/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


Yes, sir, very true. As a matter of fact I do believe this happened, around 230 some odd years ago. there was this little incident with the worlds greatest army at the time. (England) and I do believe that a bunch of armed trigger happy Colonials put up one heck of a fight.. Can't quite remember how it turned out though...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Thank god, gives me a little hope that the federal government is still looking out for the people.....but I would like to add it was very close 5-4 vote, so that little hope I had is going to fade away....it is only a matter of time.

I would like to add, this should not have even gone to the supreme court. It is part of our rights as american citizens.

What would we do if the federal government got out of control and we did not have this right as citizens? We would have no way to stand up against an out of control government... Like the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers saw the need for this right in order to stand up against a government that was no longer for the people.

And a little off topic I'd like to add the DOW is crashing right now


-Kdial1



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I doubt that. I have been raised with guns. Not just handguns, but rifles as well. I KNOW how to use them. I can break my downs down and clean them. We would put up ONE HELL OF A FIGHT! I know how to HANDLE a weapon.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

It has been my observation that the same people who claim that Americans could never defend themselves against the power of the US military are the same ones who insist that the US military can never win a war against some ragtag insurgents in a far off land.

[edit on 2008/6/26 by GradyPhilpott]


EXACTLY.

The same standard has to apply, but also taking into account the fact that the US has 15 times as many people to contain and control as Iraq, plus many police and military would, in this case, join the American citizens.

Additionally, where does the US military gets its supplies? American citizens. With no one to feed them and supply them, the US military would not last long against a unified American populace. This lesson, the importance of supply, is one that the Romans taught the world over 2,000 years ago, largely winning wars because of it. Without it, militaries lose.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   



So you guyz are winning over there?...First I heard about it or maybe your talking about all the civilians (unarmed) then yes you are winning.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


Those 5000 children you talk about, Can you tell me how many of those belong to a gang?
On your stats where Australia is 5 times less likely to die from gunshot, did you take into account the difference in population of the two country.
According to this link
www.nationmaster.com...
Australia is ranked right up there with us trigger happy Americans. Welcome to the club. And that seems to be pretty high for a country with the population of Texas.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I doubt that. I have been raised with guns. Not just handguns, but rifles as well. I KNOW how to use them. I can break my downs down and clean them. We would put up ONE HELL OF A FIGHT! I know how to HANDLE a weapon.
Soldiers have military combat experience, knowing how to use a weapon is not going to be good enough.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join