US Supreme Court may deny "right to keep and bear arms"

Thanks Grim, Bogart. That's what I kind of feared. Should have jumped years earlier, but in the rural hinterland we were in, there wasn't a CMP-sanctioned club. Too many re-viewings of BoB...

I do have a friend whose dad has a garand. They don't fire it. From everything I've heard from him, though, the garand was one helluva weapon. I still can't believe a country as modern as Germany was at the outset of WWII issued a bolt action for the basic infantry weapon.

 

Speaking of bolt action, the gun I grew up with 'well had the most fun with'
Was one of these I believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SMLE_Mk_III.jpg

We just always referred to it as a 303 british, but the gun looks identical to the one I used as a kid. That thing had some kick and sounded like a fricking cannon compared to most modern rifles.

 

303 - yeah, amazing rifle. Never fired one, but it's got some serious history...do you own one now?

My best rifle, was a marlin lever, built in 1897. Octagonal barrel, most accurate thing I ever fired - over 70 years later.

 

No my dad still has it, supposed to get it when he dies.

It was big and heavy, but the bolt action was suprisingly smooth! Awesome accuracy, loved the sites.

1897, wow that had to be pretty cool. One guy I knew has a super old shotgun, was almost dangerous.

Also grew up with a dual barrel 12 gauge, very, very old. Nobody knew where it came from, took it to gun collectors and noone could figure out where it was from. Never shot it though as it was so old new ammunition was not recommended for it. I guess it was passed down through the generations from what I remember.

 

I agree here. You lose the right to defend yourself and what else do you have left?

Nov. 26 is the next date that the Supreme Court will look at the case and make a decision on whether to accept it.

 

The second ammendmant was written in what year!

Suppose you heard some gunfire. You go out and see some people om the ground bleeding, screaming, etc. You see a punk with a GLOCK STOCKING AROUND AND YOU SHOOT HIM.

Yeah, he was stocking the original shooter. Now, someone gets a bead on you with an assault weapon, he blows you away because you just shot his friend.
Get the picture?

Road rage. It is 30% higher in Texas, where you can pack concealed than in comparable road systems (read: freeways) in California.

I do not want a bunch of ill informed and demented paranoids carrying because they have stunned minds to begin with, and most people do not have good judgment to begin with, let alone drunk or just stunned idiots wielding weapons.

Read the whole 2nd amendment, the times it was written for, etc. Tell me that if I know you are packing, I will confront you! I will fuck you up before you know I am there, I won't give you a chance to draw. I would be stupid to do otherwise.

I have a right to live without fear of rednecks and vigilantes and drunk imbeciles shooting me. That is libertarian, that is the idea behind the constitution.

Let's get it on, bebe's!

 

Give me a break, okay? Is that all your tawdry little mind can conceive? Are you provincial and simplistic or what?

I mean it, it that all your pathetic little reality amounts to, one primitive idea? I am free, I do not have to defend myself, I do not live in fear.

Do you know what freedom is??

No, you don't. hypocrite.

I am free. Haha!!!

 

Your view is FAR from libertarian, your view also is not the idea behind the constitution, especially not the 2nd ammendment.

The year does not matter, the point is to keep government in check. Free from an opressive governement. The year does not matter one bit.

Even 'if' your talk about more deaths, more violence happen from gun ownership that is a SMALL price to pay for true freedom, to have a method to fight back from an opressive government.

To me your stance is nothing more than the stance of a coward who does not think in advance, only thinks to the here and now, and for himself.

That is not an attack, it is my true feelings on those who are so afraid of guns that they do not see what the right to bear arms is all about.

 

Actually, that is not Libertarian.

Libertarianism is for property rights, which would include the right to own arms.

Also, Libertarianism is not about the "right" to live without fear. That's a common mistake people have made as they have transferred more power to the government, to protect them from fear. You have to right to live without fear, or any other human condition. No amount of government can keep everyone from feeling fear, and actually more government typically contributes to more fear.

And lastly, Libertarianism if for maximum personal liberty. Which naturally corresponds to smaller and less government. You can't condone the government having guns, and you not having guns, and expect your liberties to be protected. A libertarian believes that his rights come from his humanity, not from government.

 

History has shown us time and time again that dictators and despots love disarming the people, because this makes them easier to enslave and control. Whenever you hear about the government talking about Gun Confiscation, it should raise red flags, especially for someone who knows their history.

Does anyone in this forum honestly think that Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot would have been able to get away with the atrocities they inflicted had the people of those nations been armed? This is my biggest argument against liberals and anyone else who thinks gun control is good. Just go pick up a history book and read about what happens when you give up your right to bare arms.

It amazes me the people here at DP who support gun control. These people are too blind to see the real agenda behind gun confiscation. When the people are armed, the government is kept in check. I believe the second amendment is the only real reason why the people who control the U.S. government haven't gone as far as they have. Without that, I already believe the country would be finished.

 

You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations!.

Here are a listing of case histories here

After Hurricane Katrina the 50% of the New Orleans Police either deserted or went on a crime spree. The rest of the Police were ordered to confiscate all legal firearms and they rounded up the residents and confined them in the Super Bowl without food or water for three days. Sure sounds like the Nazis rounding up the Jews to me?

Once the public is disarmed the Police actually become more agressive. Here are some cases in New York where unarmed people where shot up like swiss cheese by the NYPD.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21871122/

 

When you say this, are you referring to the average American citizen, or the government as well? One thing you'd had better understand is that SOMEONE is going to have the guns. There are an estimated 400 million guns here in the U.S., and they can either be in the hands of the people, or the hands of the government.

You might want to spend a bit of time reading at Wiki about the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, and the Red Terror. Go read what happens when you don't have guns, and the "loving" government does. The first thing dictators always do before they really get in power is disarm the people. This is a crucial step that any wise leader must take if he wishes to become dictator. Bush has taken steps towards making himself dictator, and conveniently, the Supreme Courts is questioning the right to bear arms. Come on, it is a no brainer, a five year old could figure this out!

Hey, if you have such a problem with the Second Amendment, I guess you have a problem with the Constitution? Why don't you move down to Mexico and become a citizen there? I mean, the cops in Mexico beat their citizens head in and imprison them if that catch them with a gun, and Mexico has a "real" great political system with their staged elections. Perhaps you would be right at home in a country where only the cops are armed, and to get them off your back, you need to bribe them.

Yeah Mexico has great gun laws, a great country all around, I guess that explains why so many of their people are coming here.........there is nothing like a country where "you're guilty until proven innocent."

But hey, you don't have to move to Mexico, because once the Globalists merge the U.S., Mexico, and Canada under the NAU, we will all be one big, happy, enslaved third world family. You will get your wish, if the Globalists win. Oh wait, DO YOU know what the NAU is?

Hurricane Katrina is a text book case which supports both my argument, and the argument of Bogart. As soon as the people were disarmed, here comes the gang bangers and hoods with their guns. Women got raped, and people got murdered. The cops where no where to be found. And the loving Blackwater who was brought in to restore order might as well have been with the criminals, because they are just as bad.

I remember video clips from Katrina which showed pick up trucks full of hoodlums and gang bangers with shot guns and rifles. Now, for those of you who support control, imagine, you had a wife and daughter at your nice home in New Orleans. Imagine that you've followed the mayor's orders: you disarmed and turned in your guns. Now imagine a pick up truck full of gang members, who have arrived at your home to rob you.

They start out by shooting you in the kneecaps, you have no weapons, so you can do nothing.......then, as your daughter and wife plead and cry, as they watch you scream in pain, they are both raped right in front of you. After this, all your belongings are stolen, and too make sure you and your family doesn't testify later or come after them, they put all three of you face down on the floor of your living room, and put a bullet in all your heads.

Then, after the chaos ends, and order is restored to New Orleans, your neighbors suddenly discover the decomposing bodies of you, your wife, and your daughter. Then they decide to call the cops, and the cops arrive too late, and your bodies are simply hauled off.

This is an example of what happens when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, and no police are around. You are sitting duck, a potential victim. Even though the example I listed above is fictional, you had better believe stuff like this happened in New Orleans, and happens all the time in places around the world. Man, you liberals better go read history books, you guys have no idea how stupid your gun control beliefs are.

 

You know what is so funny about the liberals? They sit around attacking Bush for this and that, but then many of them turn around and support gun control, too blind to realize that with gun control in place, nothing stops him from becoming a dictator, and should he become a dictator, the people have no means to defend themselves against the military that the dictator controls.

Some of you might want to go read about Julius Caesar, and how he crossed the Rubicon, George W. Bush is in the process of getting ready to "cross the Rubicon" and even if he doesn't cross, he has set the stage where future presidents can. If you don't know what I mean when I say "Rubicon" you don't know your history, and you should read this article on Wiki to educate yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon

 

This is perhaps the funniest post of the year. If you can make this statement about the second Amendment, you can make the same statement for first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, etc. Do you get what I'm trying to say? If you start removing certain parts of the U.S. Constitution, you begin to destroy it, and it sets a precedent where future amendments can be removed. Before you know it, we don't have a Constitution, or one that is altered so much that is doesn't even resemble the original one.

LOL, you probably don't even realize that the government is already violating much of the Constitution as it is. We've got eminent domain, wiretapping without warrants(it isn't just foreign communications Gtech), and the Patriot Act. Americans are losing their freedoms so fast that it isn't even funny. And you come in the forum, and mocking ask what year the second amendment was written in?

You're implying that the Constitution is a dated document, but again, the people in the government right now agree with you mik mik, but they don't just think the second amendment is outdated, they think the entire Constitution is outdated!

Look, it doesn't matter if this document was written over 200 years ago, because human nature DOESN"T CHANGE. Human nature in the 25th century will be the same as it has been for thousands of years, and this is the reality: humans have enslaved and killed each other for thousands of years. Much of this misery came from governments. The government was able to inflict this misery because the people weren't armed. The second amendment was created so Americans could defend themselves against the government. Does it make sense now?

The founding fathers weren't stupid. They knew technology would advance, but they also knew human nature would stay the same. They had just got through fighting against "the government" in this case the British. I wonder how well the 13 colonies would have done against the British Red Coats, if they didn't have any guns! Do you get the connection now?

Black Slaves in the South were not allowed to carry guns early in American history. Slave in Ancient Rome were not allowed to carry swords. Hitler made sure the Jews didn't have guns when he became dictator. Do you see the historical connection here!? We have a second amendment for a reason! Go pick up a history book and read it!!

 

The Bill of Rights (Admendment 1-10 to the US Constition) has served the United States well over the last 200 years.

 

I read somewhere that in USA there are about 90 guns per 100 people. Second comes India with... 4.

Do you think gun companies will let the Govt to take away such a juicy market?? ;-)

 

It would not be the gun companies stopping the government.

 

very rarely do i meet or talk to people online who thinks we shouldn't have guns, I think it more of a made up bogeyman then anything, the talk of taking away guns. although once in awhile do met a dumb chick at party who thinks all guns should be eliminated

on the other side you have nuts who think background checks and waiting periods to buy hand guns is just unacceptable, everyone should just be able to buy a hand gun immediately, etc

I don't really have any problems with people waiting to buy a handgun, if you think someone is going to kill you today, call the police or buy a shot gun at walmart

 

High court to take case on ban on gun ownership. Arguments probably will be in March, with a decision expected before the end of June. A ruling could energize people on both sides of the issue for the fall campaigns.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AnBEGTuCY2bz2gHKNCJq0ams0NUE

 

While everyone speaks about this in terms of the 2nd amendment, I live outside of Washington DC and have lived in and near cities all my life.

Regardless of the right to bear arms there is another element that needs to be dealt with. How can urban areas cut back on deaths and killings which primarily come from guns.

The advancement of rights to have and hold guns in some ways runs counter to the ability to limit gun deaths. Somewhere between the right to bear arms and maintaining safer urban environments there needs to be a middle ground.

It was interesting that after the Virginia Tech killings the NRA, the number one source that has lobbied for freedom to have and hold firearms, backed legislation that would allow checking into those that have already shown themselves to be dangerous by reason of being nutcases.

Similarly, there should be checks of some sorts on others who could be dangerous. If there are other abilities to limit the widespread availability to have guns in urban areas where they are mostly used to kill one another these potential laws should be investigated.

One murder in this suburb I still recall has still been unsolved over a year after it occurred. An Iraq vet was killed late at night while walking in a supposedly safe neighborhood and in front of expensive stores in a very pricey area just outside of Washington DC. He was walking back to his sister's home after shopping at the local supermarket.

Some @sshole with a gun has gotten away with this. I'd like to know what police forces think about these potential laws.