Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 05:35 AM by Lazyninja
reply to post by EnlightenUp



I'm tempted to do one of Sarah Palin now. Though that would probably border on pornography to some of the republican gun lovers in here Luckily I'm too lazy anyway.



reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 09:32 AM by Primordial
Why do I get the feeling the SC will rule that the outright ban of guns is unconstitutional but have an opinion that "reasonable" regulation is. They will, of course, not define what they mean by reasonable.

Anti gun states/cities will then just enact laws that make obtaining and keeping a license a nightmare just do deter as many people as possible from getting one.

*************************
Sure you can have a gun. The permit requires a safety class that you must take (and pay for). This class will only be given one day a week, during work hours, by appointment only. Sorry if the waiting list for the class is 9 months, it's for your own safety. Then you must pay a fee to file the paperwork for your permit (non refundable, even if denied). Wait 6 months or more for an answer, then you must pay a fee every year to renew. Any criminal history will be used to deny you, even non violent crimes. All firearms will be registered, you will be photographed and fingerprinted.

All firearms must be kept locked up, subject to random inspection (for the public safety, of course). Any firearm removed form the area designated on your permit must be unloaded and rendered inoperable (trigger lock, etc...).


Oh, and then we'll word the laws so convoluted and contradictory that we will be able to convict you of a gun crime if we don't like you for some reason.
**************************


You see what I'm getting at. While I hope that a ruling in favor of the 2nd will come, I don't really see it making too much difference to those determined to ban guns.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 09:42 AM by Miraj
reply to post by EnlightenUp



Because.

It then forces states to follow the Federal Govt. even if they don't want to.

Hence it encroaches upon states rights.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 11:22 AM by JIMC5499
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx



Easy. Have $9800.00 on your credit card and call Anzio Ironworks.

Anzio Ironworks Mag-Fed 20mm Rifle



reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 12:00 PM by Miraj
reply to post by Primordial



That's a fair argument.

The debate is very complex.

It brings less into question about the second ammendment, and more into the question of a state's rights in my opinion.

But I don't believe this will be the focus of the debate for gun/anti-gun advocates.

But ultimately it's the question of "What rights do the states have, and what rights does the govt. have"

Because the court already decided that the 2nd Amendment was the peoples right to keep and bear arms.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 12:07 PM by Miraj
reply to post by yellowcard




Pretty much. If you have ever seen a movie called

"Defiance" it's about a community of Jews in Russia in WW2 that fled to the woods to avoid persecution and being rounded up and killed. Basically all they had in the start was knives.

Then one of them gained a revolver with 3 bullets. But he used those bullets in a revenge killing.. Although one had a double barreled shotgun. So they simply snuck up behind the police officers, and stabbed them, then took their guns.

I would do the same thing. If the govt. took my gun I would simply fall back to using my knives/ my sword.

If they took those, I'd just get a hatchet, and sharpen it really nicely and then that would be my weapon.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 12:15 PM by Primordial
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to
post by Primordial



That's a fair argument.

The debate is very complex.

It brings less into question about the second ammendment, and more into the question of a state's rights in my opinion.

But I don't believe this will be the focus of the debate for gun/anti-gun advocates.

But ultimately it's the question of "What rights do the states have, and what rights does the govt. have"

Because the court already decided that the 2nd Amendment was the peoples right to keep and bear arms.



The debate only becomes complex if you are trying to push an agenda against the constitution. If you actually read the document and the history behind it, it's pretty clear.

Also, consider the timing. What if the court decides it's a states right to decide. Where does that leave the other amendments? They can then become open to challenge by each state.

I mean, if they can rule that an amendment that clearly says.."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", can be infringed by the state, surely they can easily rule that one which says.. "congress shall make no law" can be also, correct?

No more first amendment freedoms. They will be suppressed faster than the 2nd.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 12:40 PM by hotrodturbo7
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to
post by EnlightenUp



Because.

It then forces states to follow the Federal Govt. even if they don't want to.

Hence it encroaches upon states rights.


It does not encroach on state's rights, the right to keep and bear arms is detailed in the 2nd amendment.

Chicago is encroaching on our 2nd amendment rights by outlawing handgun ownership.

This is not a wrong commited on a state, this is reversal of a wrong commited BY a state.

States can not encroach on our rights as detailed in the constitution and bill of rights, that's why they are there.

It is not states following federal gov, it is states abiding by limitations on government detailed by the constitution.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by hotrodturbo7]



reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 12:56 PM by Doc Velocity
Originally posted by PjZ101
Same thing with marijuana, you only hear about the idiots, not the people just chillin at home watching tv and smokin a J causing no harm to anyone.


I'll first qualify my statements by admitting that, yes, I burned a lot of hemp in my teens and 20s. I blew coke, too, dropped acid, snorted crystal, and popped I don't know how many pharmaceuticals. I guess the only thing I didn't do was shoot up heroin.

After all that, I know that alcohol and commercially-processed tobacco are by far the most addictive substances out there. I beat all of my substance abuse problems decades ago, except tobacco. Still fighting that one.

Anyway, one of the main reasons I gave up marijuana and coke and all that was because I finally became aware of the death toll associated with the black market dope trade. I am willing to bet that the great majority of the weed that you are buying right now is not homegrown here in the USA. The majority of your pot and hash and other mind-blowing substances are being smuggled into the U.S. from places such as Colombia and Mexico.

For every shipment of illegal dope that enters the USA, you can bet your ass that at least one person and possibly many people died bringing that crap to you.

To you, you're just buying a lid from your friendly neighborhood dope peddler. But, about 2 or 3 people back in the chain of command, somebody was caught and maybe killed trying to bring that stuff into the country. Yet farther back in the chain of command, somebody was executed in a dirty garage down in Mexico for skimming profits. A completely innocent passerby may have been murdered just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and witnessing a transfer.

You never know.

When it finally sank in that I was smoking and snorting stuff that may have cost several people their lives, I couldn't live with it anymore.

You can't say that some Joe Blow who is enjoying a quiet jay in the comfort of his own home is "harmless"... It's not true. That "harmless" buyer creates the demand, and the suppliers pay a hefty price in filling that demand. Sometimes they pay with their lives.

I don't care how good the leaf is, I couldn't smoke it knowing there was blood on it.

— Doc Velocity


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 01:17 PM by VAPatriot
reply to post by Doc Velocity



What the hell does that have to do with the subject of this tread.


reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 01:22 PM by Helmkat
reply to post by zorgon



My Spindoctor has advised me against reading. I said " Doc sometimes when I read stuff it makes my head hurt." and he said "Well don't do that."
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^