[tripleblack]

County, I swear this sort of presentation is like a vitamin for the mind.

I've fought this same battle a thousand times, and have yet to see the opposition grant their defeat.

But its a thing of beauty all the same.

More power to you, sir.

[countymounty]

Why thank you very much, but I have had a lot of practice!

Here is another thing to chew on......

They say with the assault weapon ban that if it does not serve a "sporting purpose" then they assign points and outlaw certain guns because they look too “military”

But look at the “Militia” argument anti gunner use.

U.S. v. Miller- 1939

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

He was actually charges with transporting commerce over state lines and not having the proper tax stamps, but they decided to throw in the “Militia” clause, since no evidence was given it was a militia type weapon, then it is not protected.

Outside the fact Vietnam proving there is a great military use for this what they say is only military guns are protected? So when it is proven it is a individual right then we are only allowed to own machine guns, M-4 rifles and grenades? They are going to take you deer rifle because it is not a “militia” weapon. Of course they only want this argument if only the National Guard is guaranteed “arms”. If the people want them then only sporting weapons, but still that is not guaranteed, boy the side stepping........

And the Supream court has say the people are the legal citizens of the US. Lucky for me only 10% of my collection falls under “sporting” weapons.

[gphasagt]

Originally Posted by countymounty

You are wasting your time because you are arguing with educated people. You say Federalist 46 confirms your point, JB posted it it dose not. You then say Federalist 10 explains what Federalist 46 “really” meant. It dose not, its not even the same topic. You explain what the Federalist papers are, look back I have been quoting them and giving people here the same information for the last 6 years. Both of these papers have been posted here, everyone can read for themselves they don't say what you claim because its in black and white.



Yep rock solid, cant argue that....oh wait, what was the very next sentence?
Everyone lets take a look...............

This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Oh wow when you look at the whole thing it takes a different meaning, Wow how that works.
U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876 is cited in hundreds of pro gun briefs and web sites because it confirms that the right to bears arms (along with other rights it talks of )was a long established right long before the constitution was written, it is one of the “unalienable Rights” you know the rights that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. That is why it is not granted by the constitution, the right is beyond the scope of the constitution to give.

Lets look at all it says about the second amendment................

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

The people in the complaint claimed the Clan.......................

had an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'

the court did not here this part (that is why they called it defective, not relating to their case) of the case as it was a state matter for the state to protect its citizens if fellow-citizens were violating.

You still haven't proven my arguement wrong. I never said you don't have the right to bear arms...

[tripleblack]

Just some "actual events" to mix with the whole "right to bear arms" question...

[quote, Atlanta Journal Constitution] Fulton County police said they will consult with the district attorneys office before deciding on whether to charge a homeowner who shot and wounded a teenager charged with breaking into his townhouse Saturday evening.

"We're still looking into the homeowner," Fulton County police spokesman Scott McBride said Sunday. "We don't know if charges will be filed. [Investigators] have to talk with the [Fulton County] district attorney's office about that."

The homeowner, identified as Desonte Lindsey, 28, shot and wounded a teen breaking into his townhouse in the 6200 block of Flat Trace, near Union City, police said.

"The guy hears the front doorbell ring" just before 6 p.m., McBride said. "When he goes down to answer it, a 16-year-old kicks in his back door."

The man got a gun and fired twice at the teen, hitting him once in the arm, McBride said. The youth ran, and the man chased him into a nearby wooded area and lost him. Lindsey told police it was the second time this month his home had been broken into.

The teen was arrested after calling 911 to report he'd been shot, McBride said. He is charged with burglary and criminal trespass, McBride said. The teen underwent surgery at Southern Regional Medical Center on Saturday to remove a bullet from his arm.
[quote]

We can hope that the outcome will be that this was a righteous event...

But the Altanta DA has a long history of vigorous enforcement of Altanta's gun ban regulations (not dissimilar from those currently under review by the Supreme Court in Washington DC).

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by gphasagt

You still haven't proven my arguement wrong. I never said you don't have the right to bear arms...

The problem is I don't think we are that far apart in our believes on gun control, just on how we arrive at those believes. I believe their should be some regulation, but I don't believe the government has the power to regulate. The government has not banned anything yet, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and automatic weapons are are legal to own if the proper tax stamps and licenses can be obtained, problem is when Clinton knocked out 80% of the people with FFL the restrictions become just like a ban, which was the plan.

Clearly the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional.

************************************************** ***********

[quote=tripleblack;1061946]Just some "actual events" to mix with the whole "right to bear arms" question...

[quote, Atlanta Journal Constitution] Fulton County police said they will consult with the district attorneys office before deciding on whether to charge a homeowner who shot and wounded a teenager charged with breaking into his townhouse Saturday evening.

"We're still looking into the homeowner," Fulton County police spokesman Scott McBride said Sunday. "We don't know if charges will be filed. [Investigators] have to talk with the [Fulton County] district attorney's office about that."

The homeowner, identified as Desonte Lindsey, 28, shot and wounded a teen breaking into his townhouse in the 6200 block of Flat Trace, near Union City, police said.

"The guy hears the front doorbell ring" just before 6 p.m., McBride said. "When he goes down to answer it, a 16-year-old kicks in his back door."

The man got a gun and fired twice at the teen, hitting him once in the arm, McBride said. The youth ran, and the man chased him into a nearby wooded area and lost him. Lindsey told police it was the second time this month his home had been broken into.

The teen was arrested after calling 911 to report he'd been shot, McBride said. He is charged with burglary and criminal trespass, McBride said. The teen underwent surgery at Southern Regional Medical Center on Saturday to remove a bullet from his arm.

We can hope that the outcome will be that this was a righteous event...

But the Altanta DA has a long history of vigorous enforcement of Altanta's gun ban regulations (not dissimilar from those currently under review by the Supreme Court in Washington DC).

This is what bothers me, clearly this was someone protecting his property and person, and soon the Supremes will render a decision on the gun ban, and as it has happened before they clearly don't have a problem making things up as the go (they have been doing it since the 60's) and am worried they will once again try to rewrite history to their own fashion.

[tripleblack]

Found this site that has some great T Shirts:

All Our Shirts - Conservative, Republican, GOP, and other Political Shirts

The one I like the most today:

[ONEZ ST]

Here is a comment attributed to Obama at a Philadelphia fund raiser on 6/14:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".

My only question is will Obama have a permit to carry that concealed gun? LOL

He must be changing his position on gun control. [sarcasm intended]

[smokeshow]

Funny part is, that's a quote from the Untouchables:

Originally Posted by Sean Connery

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone.

and there's no CCW in Illinois.

Little bit of trivia, too... Eliot Ness died in my hometown (Coudersport, PA) in 1957. Apparently, no one really knew who he was until long afterwards, when the TV show came out.

[Tuflehundon]

I like this one, funny as hell. Especially France

[napalmbomb]

I can't understand what the big deal is. A gun is nothing more than a tool just like a chainsaw or an axe, both are deadly weapons too. Not to mention knifes.
The real intent why the Left and Socialist are against the private ownership of guns is that they know what can be done to them by a pissed off populace!
All of the founders of this country understood that a armed society is generaly a free society, they had 2000 years of history to learn from.
Anyone who thinks that firearms are allowed under the Bill of Rights is so that you can hunt or skeet shoot, you are sadly mistaken! The right of a man to hunt and provide for his family is a God given right and so is defending his home and property from crime.
The true intent of the 2nd amendment is to keep the Government in check! A final recourse when the ballot box fails, there is the ammo box.

[smokeshow]

Originally Posted by napalmbomb

I can't understand what the big deal is.

I've always wondered what really motivates the anti-gun folks. Googling for "anti-gun psychology", I found this discussion:

What is the psychology of anti-gun people? [Archive] - THR

(of course, keep in mind that it was written by pro-gun folks, so consider the source.)


My personal opinion is that it is the combination of an irrational fear of being killed with a gun (thank the movies and news media for that one!) and projecting their fear of themselves not being able to trusted with a gun onto others.

And the environment that people grew up in affects their perception, too. If someone is exposed early to the responsible use and handling of guns, their outlook is going to be much different than someone who has never seen/held/fired a gun.

It's an intensely emotional issue, and unfortunately that emotion tends to skew the interpretation of facts presented in debate.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by napalmbomb

The real intent why the Left and Socialist are against the private ownership of guns is that they know what can be done to them by a pissed off populace!

Not just the Left, though. Remember that, while supposedly recognizing that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right, the Bush administration has urged the Supreme Court to uphold the D.C. gun ban because of fears that overturning the ban might call into question the constitutionality of Federal bans and Bush, apparently, wants those bans to remain in place. That's what I call paying 'lip service' to the Bill of Rights while, in practice, supporting government-sponsored violation of those rights. In the end, the outcome is the same - we are told that we don't really have the rights that we have.

Honestly, I think the largest part of our government, nearly each and every politician in office, Democrat, Republican or whatever, is probably afraid of what can be done to them by a pissed off populace if we ever find out the full extent to which they have sold us out. Truthfully, the way that SOME right-wing politicians (such as Bush) approach the subject of gun rights is even worse than the way the leftists approach it. At least the leftists make an forthright argument that we don't have gun rights - an argument that we can address and reject. The tactics being displayed by the Bush adminstration's handling of this issue with regard to the Supreme Court is more like shaking our hand and saying, "Of course you have the right, as a free and law-abiding American, to own any firearm you choose. As long as you don't choose this one. Or this one. Or that one over there. Oh, and none of those. And...," well, you get the picture.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by gphasagt

Hence why I presented Supreme Court cases as examples of states being protected by the 2nd Amendment in creating gun laws.

Well, the Supremes have ruled on the D.C. case. Looks like, for now, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court agrees with my reading - that it depends on the 'laws created'. As I said, before, state regulation is okay from a constitutional standpoint but bans of entire classes of firearms (such as handguns) are unconstitutional, even at a state level. See, there is a difference between regulation (requiring permits, etc.) and outright prohibition - and it seems that the Justices interpret the Constitution to mean that states (at least for now) do not have the right to impose outright bans.

Oh, and for the record, they also implicitly state that the Second Amendment does grant an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense or hunting that has no 'military service' component or attachment. The ruling is not quite there, IMO (I still say federal 'machine gun' bans are unconstitutional - as is any federal firearms ban or even regulaton), but I'd have to call it a qualified 'win'.

[Tuflehundon]

From Yahoo News and the AP.


By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 7 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.
ADVERTISEMENT

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
Scalia's opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in his lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting.
The brevity of Scalia's treatment of gun ownership for hunting and sports-shooting is explained by the case before the court. The Washington law at issue, like many gun control laws around the country, concerns heavily populated areas, not hunting grounds.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Thursday's decision was embraced by the president, said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "This has been the administration's long-held view," Perino said. "The president is also pleased that the court concluded that the D.C. firearm laws violate that right."
White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[napalmbomb]

What should shock and slap people into reality is that there are four Supreme Court justices who do not believe in individual rights!