Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by I AM LEGION


My opinion is the constitution is a stale piece of paper and should be abolished and all guns should be banned without exception. Strict license control should be enforced if any gun is issued for self protection which also includes background check and reason the person supplied for requesting gun.

Congrats for the most retarded post I have ever read on ATS.

When the government comes a calling for you, dont forget to bend over and tell them you like it rough.

Is that the best insult you can come up with? I am sure with your upbringing and personal experience in "taking it" you can come up with something more creative.

reply to post by felonius


That is your opinion and I have stated mine.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by I AM LEGION]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by I AM LEGION]

I found this interesting

An important note from the AP — the ruling did not explicitly strike the Chicago gun ban, but it will certainly result in the end of it:

It also leaves open less draconian measures to control the use of guns in states and cities, such as registration, limitations, and so on.

So it looks like to me, the court has said "Yes America, you can own a Gun but no right is unlimited in its scope."

Source

My Apologies if already discussed.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

"automatic" weapons are banned by the general public to limit the firepower available to ne'er-do-wells...

so called "assualt" weapons in the tradition sense that are available to the general publisc without a class 3 firearms liscense (fully automatic) arent any different from a semi automatic handgun. Its a misnomer that anti-gun anthusiests label cetain rifles that "look" military such as a semi-auto AK or an AR15. It's mechanically no different in basics than a pistol, it just "looks" menacing.
A bullet is a bullet and no matter what it is shot from is either "defensive" or an "assult" depending on the context of the person weilding the weapon.

I for one do not think the firearms I own are in excess of what is"necessary"... I will leave the possible scenarios to the imagination but don't feel someone elses opinion should limit my personal options to defend myself and family.

That is for me and no one else to decide.

Originally posted by jeh2324
Somebody in Chicago is going to make some money with a gun shop!

Welcome back Chicago.

There is no way I wouldn't own and carry a gun in that city.

I lived in Chicago for over a decade, never once thought about owning a gun. I would not want to go in certain areas though...

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


They have auto triggers for a lot of semi automatic hand guns.

It's pretty much impossible to stop people from having fast killing weapons

reply to post by felonius

Originally posted by felonius
That guy is familiar. Its too old to be Hunter Thompson. Too young to be J M Browning. Who is that cat?

William S. Burroughs.

Back on topic:

Originally posted by felonius
People that dont like our "stale paper" should be banned.

Hear, hear.

__________________________________________________________________

Also, as a general reminder to everyone: don't feed the trolls. They're not worth the effort and if you don't pay them any attention, they'll eventually leave.


TheAssoc.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by TheAssociate]

What's funny and not at all unexpected is that Justice Sotomayer voted in the minority, or against it. Ironically she testified in her Senate confirmation hearings that the 2nd Amendment DOES guarantee the right to bear arms.

Once again, saying one thign to get appointed and doing another once you're there. Kinda like saying one thing to get elected huh?

I too think this is a terrific victory for all freedom-loving Americans! Every adult should be able to legally own a firearm regardless of where they live in the United States...excluding felons of course. Now if we could do away with these silly concealed-carry laws. The 2nd Amendment should be my CCW permit!

reply to post by I AM LEGION


Your post, much like the rest of your life, is a complete and utter failure.

Do you live in the United States?

If so, you do realize that hating firearms is hating the tool that gave you the freedoms you take for granted today dont you?

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


Please people...Learn the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle. An assault rifle IS fully automatic and the semi automatic rifles sold th the public are completly different animals. I know it is the media that has blurred the difference, but do your own research.

Originally posted by titian
What's funny and not at all unexpected is that Justice Sotomayer voted in the minority, or against it. Ironically she testified in her Senate confirmation hearings that the 2nd Amendment DOES guarantee the right to bear arms.

Once again, saying one thign to get appointed and doing another once you're there. Kinda like saying one thing to get elected huh?

I take back what i said about sotomayer....for now anyway. I was wrong....for now.

reply to post by brainwrek


emmm sorry not impressed, try again with a better comeback! I am counting on your experience.

Originally posted by apocalypsesound
I'm confused about how you all interpret the second amendment.

I don't. I READ it. I read English, it's written in English. Interpretation isn't necessary.

It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is in reference to a well-regulated militia, and only that.

Not to a native reader of English. They understand the meaning of "preamble", and "operative clause", and how those concepts apply here.

Unless we are each part of a "well-regulated" (and who does the regulating?) militia, then no rights are bestowed.

Negative. The 'preamble', which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," gives one example for the need of the operative clause, and is not exhaustive. The right is protected from government interference (you're right in a sense - no rights are bestowed by it. They are pre-existent to it) by the operative clause, which is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the first part of the second amendment can be ignored like this, then the last part can be interpreted to mean all sorts of things as well: why can't "arms" mean that I might have a storehouse of mustard gas at my farm to defend against mobs coming to take my property? Why doesn't "arms" also mean shoulder fired missiles, to defend against an invasion of America by a foreign Air Force (surely the most likely sort of invasion, if any were to be likely at all)?

The first part is NOT ignored, it's read for what it is. As to the rest of your questions, there really isn't any Constitutional reason you can't have those things - if you can afford them and want them. "Arms" means "arms", and is not restrictive as to type.

I'm reasonably certain, however, that should you attempt to acquire such things, you will likely run afoul of the same regulatory neanderthals who think they somehow have a right to tax machine guns out of existence. It's NOT 'for your own good', it's for THEIR peace of mind and sense of control over the slave class.

The fed has all but gave up going after guns. The are now going after the ammunition. Staged ammunition shortages for one thing. Making it cost so much few people can buy it. And I have shot ammunition from 1945 with no problem but I have heard that may not be the case for much longer. I have heard talk of making ammunition go bad after a set time frame. Something added to the powder so it goes dead after a year of so or something like that. It is said to prevent people from stock piling ammunition. This has caused some people that do reloading to go to the point of making there own powder. In the end all it will do is set up a black market for ammunition.

Originally posted by bloodWolf762
reply to post by brainwrek

 

No, an automatic weapon is not by definition an assault rifle. Legally, to be considered an assault rifle, it need only have a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock, and grenade launcher.

Being automatic does not even factor into the equation.

Wrong. You read it from the wrong end, it appears. Automatic weapons are NOT necessarily "assault weapons", BUT assault weapons ARE necessarily selective fire, meaning they are capable of full auto fire as well as semi-auto fire, via a selector switch. A further requirement of an assault weapon is that it fire an "intermediate" cartridge, meaning not a full-powered 'battle rifle' cartridge or an under-powered pistol caliber cartridge.

Pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, etc. are entirely cosmetic in regards to semi-auto rifles, and have no bearing on it whatsoever.

reply to post by Boomer1941


Well put, but the act of 'signing on' to an international treaty without the
KNOWLEDGE and CONSENT of those about to be hobbled (...right).

The UN's idea of peace translates to, "You can't fight back." Not tonight,
Hilly; go try it somewhere where people don't know how to keep a group.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


You cant talk out of both sides of your mouth and say he second amendment is for private ownership of arms, then say assault weapons should be banned.
You have a shallow understanding of this phrase "shall not be infringed"

My favorite blog post about this is from the Washington Examiner. It describes the 2nd amendment as a Civil right, one that protected freed slaves (Freed Men) from disarmament by local authorities, and allowed Freed Men to defend themselves from home invaders who intended them and their family harm.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

...it is generally accepted that the Four-teenth Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:

“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”

Even those who thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary believed that blacks, as citizens, “have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.”

“The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South. Finally, legal commentators from the period emphasized the fundamental nature of the right….In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.
...

The sobering thing is, we United States people kept this right by the tips of our fingernails. The vote was 4-5 against.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Dbriefed]

The vote was too close to please me.

It shows that there are 4 people willing to manipulate the Constitution and amendments away from the notion of individual and enumerated rights.

These people cling to the notion of "militia", specifically regulated militia.

"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 seems ambiguous, but the clause is clear: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

shall not be: broken, violated, encroached... are a few interpretations of the word.

Whether or not the militia is organized, the expediency with which it may be formed is enhanced by people who already know how to utilize weapons. If you limit the right to bear arms, you limit the scope of the so called militia.

This was of course, written at a time when a tyranny had just been thrown off. It implies, because it does not specifically denote, that everyone is the militia.

It neither denotes everyone as the militia, nor an official (national guard for example) militia.

I am a gun owner. I would encourage others to obtain and learn to use weapons, but I have never demanded that someone purchase a gun. I don't know why someone would think they have the authority to demand that I relinquish mine.

Personally, I don't know why the Supreme Court would have to go this far if not for people who wish to undermine the Constitution.

STILL that marginal vote is disturbing.