Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 47 times

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:10 PM by BlackOps719

Just like Chuck Heston used to say...."You will have to take em from my cold dead hands!!!"

Im glad to see our judicial system produce something positive for a change. Maybe this is progress.

Good find Grady!!

Edit spelling

[edit on 6/26/08 by BlackOps719]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:10 PM by riggs2099

Originally posted by SideWynder
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]

Using past battles for today is not that smart. Soldiers today will be better prepared and be more heavly armed. Everyone had cannons and guins back then, but how many regular folk have access to tanks, fighter jets and fleets of ships? I am not including your army because the the quote was that if an army invaded one of cities you would be able to handle them without military help.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:14 PM by Cale, Logan

I'd still fight tooth and nail to protect what I own. And what my neighbors owned. I would fight to the death!

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

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

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:14 PM by SideWynder

reply to post by kdial1

I also very much agree with you, That this should never even have had to go before the supreme court. although I am somewhat pleased with thier decision, I do think that it was way too close and way too ambigious..
Just out of curiosity and quite possibly ignorance(IE lack of knowledge) has there ever been this close and this ambiguios of a ruling about the 1st ammendment?
As I stated earlier If the 2nd can fall, so can the first...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by SideWynder]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:15 PM by Johnmike

Originally posted by riggs2099
Everyone had cannons... ... ...back then

Well no. Not cannons.

But yeah, fighting without technology would be tough. But it's possible using insurgent tactics, as is evident in Iraq and the Muhjadeen's repulsion of the Soviets.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:15 PM by slackerwire

It's frightening that 4 of the retards in black dissented against the 2nd being an individual right.

This ruling still doesn't go far enough. Shall not be infringed is very clear. Any and all regulations are infringements by the very definition of the word.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:15 PM by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by riggs2099
Soldiers have military combat experience, knowing how to use a weapon is not going to be good enough.

There are very many combat veterans in our civilian population, but really, you shouldn't waste your time worrying about it.

Today, it was proven that with our Constitution, our Judicial Branch, and a diligent populace, justice will prevail.

For too long our citizenry has been prey to the very worst of our society. Our citizens are getting tired of it and are increasingly demanding that our God-given rights be honored.

Today, we were vindicated.

This is America and we are Americans.

We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Others will not understand. Indeed, many Americans don't get it, either.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:18 PM by kdial1

Soldiers have military combat experience, knowing how to use a weapon is not going to be good enough.

Maybe you do not understand that the Majority of Americans all have Military Experience. Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq war.....

Also, While I was in the military all of the top marksman were avid hunters. A thought to think about.

-Kdial1

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:18 PM by WhatTheory

Originally posted by riggs2099
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)

First of all, please provide a link proving your claims because I believe your figures are incorrect.

Secondly, using your flawed logic, we should ban automobiles since about 40,000 people die each year due to auto accidents.

Source

So please get off your high horse and think for yourself instead of spewing propaganda. Get your head out of the sand.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:20 PM by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by riggs2099
I am not including your army because the the quote was that if an army invaded one of cities you would be able to handle them without military help.

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in no small measure so that the citizenry could protect itself from tyranny from within.

We have a tradition to uphold here:

"Give me liberty or give me death."

"Live free or die."

"Don't tread on me."

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:23 PM by SideWynder

reply to post by riggs2099

Thank you for clarifying, I am more able to understand your point of view now.. and I will actually concede this scenario to you sir.. although, I still think that an invading armed force(high tech and all) would get very bloodied..
Also My first reply to you may not have been "Very smart" But it was actually meant to give a chuckle...
You have your opinion, And I have mine.. we may not agree, but hopefully on occasion we may differ with humor thrown in to take the edge off...

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:26 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by schrodingers dog

If you're not comfortable with it, you probably will be better off not buying a firearm. The vast majority of people affected by this law are just like you: law-abiding citizens who have no intention of committing crimes.

Otherwise, for home defense, its hard to go wrong with a 12 gauge shotgun. If you've never handled a gun before, find a local gun safety course.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by vor78]

May I humbly ask if my reasoning is correct on this. Now that DC residents are allowed to have a gun in their home, burglars are going to assume that home owners are armed. Thus they will be more likely to arm themselves whereas in the past they might have not done so. As a result, I now need to arm myself to protect my family against this now increased threat.
I'll probably going do it cause it seems the responsible thing to under these circumstances, but it's in my opinion an unnecessary catch 22. No matter where you stand on this debate, it seems to me inevitable that some lives will be lost whilst others will be saved with this new law. Tough tough math to digest in the long run.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:28 PM by kdial1

Originally posted by riggs2099
Using past battles for today is not that smart. Soldiers today will be better prepared and be more heavly armed. Everyone had cannons and guins back then, but how many regular folk have access to tanks, fighter jets and fleets of ships? I am not including your army because the the quote was that if an army invaded one of cities you would be able to handle them without military help.

If something did happen many of our soldiers who are american citizens will have access to tanks, jets and fleets of ships. Not all of our soldiers will remain loyal to Big brother....

-Kdial1

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:30 PM by on_yur_6

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by on_yur_6

Works for me. I'm a big supporter of term limits. In fact, I believe that no nationally elected official should be able to serve more than one term. It would eliminate a lot of the paybacks and favors we see today. Once in office, the politicians wouldn't be held hostage to campaign finance and big money donors to the degree they currently are.

I completely agree. I don't believe our founding fathers meant for these elected and appointed positions to be lifelong. Serve one term and go back into the civlian sector and work like the majority of citizens. They are completely out of touch with the common person. They even vote on their own raises, have a pension after one term, and lifelong medical. Guess who has to vote for term limits..... The Congress themselves. Now who thinks they will be trying that anytime soon?

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:33 PM by vor78

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Its more likely that two things are true:

1) Most burglars were already armed. The increase of the ownership of firearms amongst in this group will likely be relatively small.

2) Many would-be burglars will be less inclined to commit the act now that there's a greatly increased risk that the burglar will be killed or seriously injured by the homeowner.

So on one hand, yes, you may have an uptick in the percentage of criminals carrying guns, but it should also lead to an overall decrease in the total number of random/semi-random crimes being committed due to the potential negative consequences for the perpetrator.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:36 PM by kdial1

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in no small measure so that the citizenry could protect itself from tyranny from within.

We have a tradition to uphold here:

"Give me liberty or give me death."

"Live free or die."

"Don't tread on me."

Very well put!

-Kdial1

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:37 PM by BlackOps719

reply to post by vor78

Criminals pretty much arm themselves as it is. And they don't need a permit or bother buying guns legally in order to do so.

This ruling guarantees honest citizens the right to an equal playing field.

[edit on 6/26/08 by BlackOps719]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:43 PM by xmotex

This is a good ruling, and long overdue.

The Second Amendment says what it says, and clearly guarantees an individual right.

I challenge any of the gun control advocates here to show where any gun control law here in the US has resulted in a reduction in gun crime...

...It's a trick question of course, there's never been any evidence that US gun control laws reduce gun crime, in fact what evidence does exist shows the opposite effect.

Despite DC's handgun ban it's always had one of the highest rates of gun crime in the country.

Gun control doesn't protect the public, only criminals...

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:46 PM by vor78

reply to post by WhatTheory

The 5,000 deaths for children 14 and under simply is not true.

webapp.cdc.gov...

You'll have to manually enter the data as it does not allow direct linking to the results.

The number of children killed by firearms in 2005, based upon 'all intents' as the manner of injury in question 1 and mechanism of injury in Q2 as 'firearms', is:

404.

Note that this includes suicides, homicides, accidents...everything.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:48 PM by BlackOps719

reply to post by xmotex

Wow Xmotex....I feel like I just stepped into an alternate reality or a parallel universe of some sort.

Did we actually just agree on something?