Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

I was wondering if it was a snowmobile with a gun mounted on it.

Actually gun in the wrong word. I think we need to come up with a new word for something that's clearly not a gun and not quite a cannon.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
oh yeah and zorgon, why did the poor dude get a photo shopped head?? its painfully obvious now that I am paying a lil more attention...

What I see there is a masterpiece of the virtuosos of the electronic canvas. ATS has quite an assembly of their ilk.

While it isn't quite so nice as curling up with a good painting. It lacks that sense of having something substantial in your hands and that old painting smell. While many from the old school criticize it for its lack of organic subtlety, nuance and fine expression, many have quickly learned to exploit its unique properties such as its expediency and viral natures, thereby attaining expression through a new form to a very high level of refinement.

Perhaps this works better?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40a489da2d9e.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

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 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.

So by them banning Handguns, They want to keep handguns out of the hands of Lawful people, so the only ones with handguns are the cops and criminals?

Nice, makes sense, take away the 9mm so the folks can use Deer Slugs or AR-15s.... Honestly Silly Gooberment, Guns are for Americans, Handcuffs are for the Bad guys....

But if you know how to use gears and model rockets then you can make a gun... really is one of the most simplistic inventions of our time. To ban it, is like banning premade Chocolate cake, Oh my, I have to go make it from scratch.... Lets hope this cake doesn't backfire. Ok Ok so its a few more steps then a cake. Don't shoot me. lol

[edit on 1-10-2009 by 10001011]

This whole debate is ridiculous.

If states can simply disregard the bill of rights, claiming they only apply to federal law, what was the point of enumerating those rights? They no longer are rights, only protections from the federal government. The state, however, can bend you over any time they like.

I think I will become a governor and establish my own state religion. (Of course I will be the subject of worship) and outlaw any media outlet not owned by the state. I will then do away with the 5th so I can easily deal with those who oppose my plans. 2nd amendment... you're joking, right?

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


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

Anzio Ironworks Mag-Fed 20mm Rifle

There is a previously opened thread on this subject in this same forum here.

Just want to throw my hat in the ring too, on the side of all those saying READ THE DARN ARTICLE BEFORE YOU MAKE A HORSES YOU-KNOW-WHAT OUT OF YOURSELF!

Yes, I was shouting.

I'm saddened by all the stars for the OP, because it shows beyond a doubt that few people bother to even check things for themselves. I'd say it's exactly the reason we are where we are today, in this sad state of national and world affairs...

I heard yesterday that during the Soviet revolution or rule?, there was a ban on citizen owned guns, but they had a higher murder rate than the U.S....and the number one murder weapon was an axe. Point being, if you're going to kill someone, you are going to kill them with whatever you have.

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 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.

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.

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]

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

This already happened here in finland. There were two school shootings in one year so they decided not to give people hand guns anymore.

"It's the year 2009
We are living in dangerous times"

Man, I'd really like to own one

they tried taking away alcohol and drugs, we know how well that turned out. why would they think guns would be any different? to me it would would make more sense to take the ammo (not that i would support that) cuz then you'd be left with a blugening tool. everyone has plenty of those guns or not.

as for only hearing about the idiots that misuse everything, on the msm the good news is bad news then the sports report.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


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

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."