Watch and listen carefully the next few days....

[Tom]

The same libs who were celebrating granting unheard of privilages to war criminals last week, murderers, terrositst, who would kill us all if they could. The cheered that we would be allowing them access to our courts, the very system they tried to destroy.

Now watch them whine and cry over our own citizens having their constitutionally granted right to have guns affirmed! They would grant unearned and undserved rights to those who would destroy us and continue to allow those of our own who would have illegal guns to prey on us but deny us-legal, law abiding citizens - our rights!

This is the message theat must be heard loud and clear in November. We all know who the real enemies of this nation are, and what ticket they run on.
Watch and see who support America...it is pretty obvious who needs to be dealt with at the ballot box. I have faith there enough intelligent Americans left to see this for what it is.....handwritting on the wall.

I were a lib, I would not want a pissed off conservative to have a gun either! :mad:

[46zilzal]

Violence and threats of violence. Wonderful mantra.

[ddog]

gun outcome was the proper call.
Don't see how there could be a dissent.

Not to beat a dead detainee to death , but many do not understand the actual process involved in the habeus ruling yet.

Some just can't get up to speed.
That's ok.

[prospector]

four voted against our basic right to defend ourselves..

i finally have a reason to vote for mc cain..don't trust the next supreme court appointments to barry husain...

[Dave Schwartz]

i finally have a reason to vote for mc cain..don't trust the next supreme court appointments to barry husain...

Boy, did you say a mouthful. Good post.

You don't think that he'd be looking for an ACLU lawyer, do you?



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[lamboguy]

i don't care if you are liberal or conservative, obama is a punk, how can you vote for an arogant punk...even my wife,ms. liberal usa, afraid of woman losing the right to choose is actually working for mccain. don't beleive the pole numbers u see out there these days, if you can't trust the people taking the polls, how can you actually trust the polls?

you go out and find out who the polltakers are and you will see what i mean.

i live in massachusetts, i doubt if this punk carries this state.

if you want a good priced winner, go all in on mccain at +1.80 and thank me later!!

[Secretariat]

Obviously, the four clones - Roberts, Thomas, Little Scalito, and Scaleito got Kennedy to go along with this this time. All in support of the literal interpretation of the Second amendment. It's a shame the same group pretty much run roughshod over the Fourth.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." - President Eisenhower

[Tom]

Violence and threats of violence. Wonderful mantra.

Take a wild guess how many more illegal handguns will be in DC now?
None! The criminals already have them!

You reply shows a great deal of ignorance. You equate having a legal handgun in your home with violence? The only thing hand gun laws in DC have done so far is ensure that only criminals have them.

You idea of a good thing is to only have illegal guns out there.

[pktruckdriver]

Tom

Please explain this to a lonely ole truckdriver.

What are you saying??

Really I am confused!!

You reply shows a great deal of ignorance. You equate having a legal handgun in your home with violence? The only thing hand gun laws in DC have done so far is ensure that only criminals have them.

[NJ Stinks]

I think the Supreme Court should passed on this case. Let the individual states and/or local governments make their own rules.

Let's face it. People are being killed in record numbers in cities like Philadelphia. (Don't know about DC but I'm sure it's bad.) That doesn't mean squat to the rest of PA because it's not a problem there.

I believe in the right to own guns. But I don't live in a big city where there are shootings every night.

What happened to common sense?

[boxcar]

four voted against our basic right to defend ourselves..

i finally have a reason to vote for mc cain..don't trust the next supreme court appointments to barry husain...

Got some news fer ya: Don't trust McCain either. And here's another clue: 7 of the 9 SC justices were appointed by Repubs, and we still don't have a conservative majority on the court!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Obviously, the four clones - Roberts, Thomas, Little Scalito, and Scaleito got Kennedy to go along with this this time. All in support of the literal interpretation of the Second amendment. It's a shame the same group pretty much run roughshod over the Fourth. (emphasis mine)

Sparing us the lib drivel that says the U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document that is evolving", perhaps, Sec, you'd be good enough to enlighten us as to how it came to be, that since this amendment's ratification in 1791, that an awful lot of states, the federal government and The People (for whom the Bill of Rights was written) got the interpretation all wrong since then. How was it that it was normal and customary for The People to bear arms, i.e. sidearms, concealed weapons and such? How did the states and federal government allow The People all these many years to bear arms? How did this national arms-bearing "tradition" come about and survive since 1791, and even before that, since according to the Wisdom of Sec, it should be obvious to all non-clones that this Second Amendment was never intended to be taken literally?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Tom

Please explain this to a lonely ole truckdriver.

What are you saying??

Really I am confused!!


[/b]

The DC law has only prevented legal possesion of guns in the home of citizens. Yet the city is wrought with gun violence by illegal guns. Therefore,
the law has failed to protect the citizens and has actually denied them ther constitutional right to have a gun in their homes. 46's comment about this creating more violence is just palin stupid. The violence is already there.
LAw-abiding citizens are not apt to take to the streets with thier guns, but should the bad guys come in to their homes, they now have protection. 46 would say letting some gun-toting thug rib you blind is preferable to defending your property and family. 2+2 never = 4 with 46.

[pktruckdriver]

Thank You Tom

I agree very well put, criminals will always get their guns, its the legal citizens that lose rights when gun laws try to take them from us.

I can't believe how close the vote was in the supreme court, it was 5-4 in favor, my god that was too close, what's next?

[ddog]

As I skimmed the case, it wasn't that you couldn't have a handgun , but that you had to have it trigger-locked or disassembled or under lock and key.
They were not banned and it only applied to handguns.
???

I hope, if you have guns that they are stowed away.

Your call though.

[lsbets]

I can't believe it was 5-4, I was figuring it would be 6-3 or 7-2. One heart attack and we could have a court that doesn't want to uphold the second amendment. That could get the NRA folks fired up for McCain, or at least get them to show up. If it was 6-3 the gun guys might have decided to stay home in November. With lawsuits sure to pop up all over the country in cities with tight gun control laws, this could make guns a campaign issue, and that would be very bad for Obama in states like PA.

[Tom]

Scary, ls.
One old man, unelected, unaccountable, maybe insane, maybe senile, no provisions if he is, just decided the fate of a constitutional ammendment.
This is not right.

ddog...a locked gun is wothless. When you need help in seconds, the police are minutes awy.

[ddog]

Scary, ls.
One old man, unelected, unaccountable, maybe insane, maybe senile, no provisions if he is, just decided the fate of a constitutional ammendment.
This is not right.

ddog...a locked gun is wothless. When you need help in seconds, the police are minutes awy.

No, they are not.
I speak just from personal experience.
It's an odds thing, if you have small ones you need to keep them stowed as far as I am concerned.
Even,if you don't, it still seems good practice, why allow another gun to easily hit the street just because some kid breaks in and sells it later?

The reason it was 5-4 is because it wasn't banning firearms.
Why hyper-ventilate about this stuff, it's enough without the fire and brimstone?

[Show Me the Wire]

Isn't prohibitting possession or ownership banning firearms? I think so, The vote should have been 9-0 stricking down the ordinance.
firearm ownership is a right and rights can't be taken or limited without due process.

The decision was correct, but the vote count is scary since it involved constitutional rights beong deprived without due process.

[boxcar]

As I skimmed the case, it wasn't that you couldn't have a handgun , but that you had to have it trigger-locked or disassembled or under lock and key.
They were not banned and it only applied to handguns.
???

I hope, if you have guns that they are stowed away.

Does in my shoulder holster count as being "stowed away"?

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Despite my dislike for handguns, I do believe the rulling is correct. There really has never been a proper ruling if the ammendment means that the right is held by any individual or only for those who should be part of a militia if we really want to get down to particulars as it can be read easily both ways. The broader interpretation has generally carried, but that does not mean it was the intended one. The writers were certainly not acquainted with a 15 shot clip that can be emptied in a matter of seconds.

However, we must recognize as with all constitutional law, the rights are not absolute. With regard to this one in particular, we do not have the right to bear whatever arms we wish. Federal law prohibits private ownership of machine guns for instance. You are not allowed to own hand grenades or rocket launchers or any other heavy arms either. Do handguns really differ from these by the purpose of their existance? I would say no, they are all intended to kill other people whereas the rifle and shotgun can easily be claimed to have other practical uses. The hand gun is legal and the machine gun is not by past precident. Were the handgun to be a much more modern invention, this may not have been the case. As I've said before, if you really care about home protection, the shotgun is the way to go anyway.

I cannot blame Washington or any other major city to try to do something to stem handgun violence, but it is clear that they are attempting these measures in the wrong direction. Burden should be laid at the feet of manufacturers who are catering to the ganster mentality by making guns that are easily converted into near automatic weapons or guns that look like toys. Burden should be laid at the feet of dealers of both guns and ammunition who do not practice due dilligence in who they sell a gun or bullets to. The criminal deserves full guilt, but there is guilt for any who facilitated that act as well. Some may argue that people kill others with other weapons as well. This is true, however the gun is a tool made to kill, and with such enormous power we should all feel obligated to do all we can to make sure that they only end up in the hands of responsible people. People should be expected to be responsible for their actions. This should extend to everyone, including dealers and manufacturers.

[skate]

Isn't prohibitting possession or ownership banning firearms? I think so, The vote should have been 9-0 stricking down the ordinance.
firearm ownership is a right and rights can't be taken or limited without due process.

The decision was correct, but the vote count is scary since it involved constitutional rights beong deprived without due process.

Agree.
And why, with the most violent city in the USA under "no gun" rules for 30 years, did it take so long?

Somehow i get the idea that the Neolibers think (well not really think) if we make guns unlawful, the guns will all go away.
Hey, they do the same with abortion , when they say "make abortion legal" to eliminate a problem.

[skate]

There really has never been a proper ruling if the ammendment means that the right is held by any individual or only for those who should be part of a militia if we really want to get down to particulars as it can be read easily both ways. The broader interpretation has generally carried, but that does not mean it was the intended one. The writers were certainly not acquainted with a 15 shot clip that can be emptied in a matter of seconds.

However, we must recognize as with all constitutional law, the rights are not absolute. With regard to this one in particular, we do not have the right to bear whatever arms we wish. Federal law prohibits private ownership of machine guns for instance. You are not allowed to own hand grenades or rocket launchers or any other heavy arms either. Do handguns really differ from these by the purpose of their existance? I would say no, they are all intended to kill other people whereas the rifle and shotgun can easily be claimed to have other practical uses. The hand gun is legal and the machine gun is not by past precident. Were the handgun to be a much more modern invention, this may not have been the case. As I've said before, if you really care about home protection, the shotgun is the way to go anyway.

I cannot blame Washington or any other major city to try to do something to stem handgun violence, but it is clear that they are attempting these measures in the wrong direction. Burden should be laid at the feet of manufacturers who are catering to the ganster mentality by making guns that are easily converted into near automatic weapons or guns that look like toys. Burden should be laid at the feet of dealers of both guns and ammunition who do not practice due dilligence in who they sell a gun or bullets to. The criminal deserves full guilt, but there is guilt for any who facilitated that act as well. Some may argue that people kill others with other weapons as well. This is true, however the gun is a tool made to kill, and with such enormous power we should all feel obligated to do all we can to make sure that they only end up in the hands of responsible people. People should be expected to be responsible for their actions. This should extend to everyone, including dealers and manufacturers.


OOOOhhh boy...:(

And food is intended to nourish, some time it dont do dat.

[Tom]

The gun ban in DC was just another "feel good" law. It never did a thing to curb violence and any idiot knew it. Yet for decades, USEless, er, CONgress, did nothing to correct the problem. Now they whine that we are going back to old west. Sounds good to me...strap one on, Nancy, you dipstick...and step outside!:lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Despite my dislike for handguns, I do believe the rulling is correct. There really has never been a proper ruling if the ammendment means that the right is held by any individual or only for those who should be part of a militia if we really want to get down to particulars as it can be read easily both ways. The broader interpretation has generally carried, but that does not mean it was the intended one. The writers were certainly not acquainted with a 15 shot clip that can be emptied in a matter of seconds.

However, we must recognize as with all constitutional law, the rights are not absolute. With regard to this one in particular, we do not have the right to bear whatever arms we wish. Federal law prohibits private ownership of machine guns for instance. You are not allowed to own hand grenades or rocket launchers or any other heavy arms either. Do handguns really differ from these by the purpose of their existance? I would say no, they are all intended to kill other people whereas the rifle and shotgun can easily be claimed to have other practical uses. The hand gun is legal and the machine gun is not by past precident. Were the handgun to be a much more modern invention, this may not have been the case. As I've said before, if you really care about home protection, the shotgun is the way to go anyway.

I cannot blame Washington or any other major city to try to do something to stem handgun violence, but it is clear that they are attempting these measures in the wrong direction. Burden should be laid at the feet of manufacturers who are catering to the ganster mentality by making guns that are easily converted into near automatic weapons or guns that look like toys. Burden should be laid at the feet of dealers of both guns and ammunition who do not practice due dilligence in who they sell a gun or bullets to. The criminal deserves full guilt, but there is guilt for any who facilitated that act as well. Some may argue that people kill others with other weapons as well. This is true, however the gun is a tool made to kill, and with such enormous power we should all feel obligated to do all we can to make sure that they only end up in the hands of responsible people. People should be expected to be responsible for their actions. This should extend to everyone, including dealers and manufacturers.

Excellent post, OTM Al. :ThmbUp:

[HUSKER55]

IT is the honest law abidng responsible gun owner who is being held responsible for the reckless actions of other people. That is not right.

The constitution says our right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

If this isn't proof positive that citizens need less government meddling in our lives then what is? If you need a gun to defend your family, I don't care who you are, you have an obligation to do so and I don't think unlocking a vault to unlock a trigger card so you can load a gun to stop an intruder is going to benefit anybody except the intruder.

The real question that should be addressed is how to make irresponsible people accountable for their actions?

Does anybody know what the penalty is for providing false information to purchase a gun? What about owning an unregistered gun? Who enforces this and how?

Does anybody know when the last time this law was used? Off the top of my head I can't think of one time it has been used.

I think the Supreme court overstepped their authority and did very little to get rid of the problem.

husker55

[skate]

Does anybody know what the penalty is for providing false information to purchase a gun? What about owning an unregistered gun? Who enforces this and how?

Does anybody know when the last time this law was used? Off the top of my head I can't think of one time it has been used.

I think the Supreme court overstepped their authority and did very little to get rid of the problem.

husker55

Unregistered gun just might be legal, depending on the State.

The Supreme Court was looking at Wash DC, where the people were not allowed a gun.