So Americans have the right to "bear arms"

[Cali_Democrat]

Cool!!!

Does this mean I can go to Russia and obtain a suitcase nuke in order to defend myself? Those are nuclear "arms" after all. What about some napalm or grenades? Where do we draw the distinction?

The 2nd Amendment only refers to the right to "bear arms." It doesn't refer to guns specifically. Anyone with a brain can see that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and archaic. No Democrat should support this ruling.

I'm disappointed in Obama. Unfortunately, Dems have to pander to the gun lobby in order to get votes and Obama is no different.

Is it any wonder why we're the only industrialized country to have thousands of gun deaths yearly?

Hooray!! More death and destruction in the only industrialized country with absurdly pathetic gun laws :eyes:

Wake the fuck up people.

[jody]

1. Suggest you read the Heller opinion particularly the part I quote below.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[LiberalFighter]

16. It only applies to those with guns in their own homes. Right?

[jody]

17. No, see quote below from the opinion.

Held:
1.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Note that “such as self-defense within the home” is an example of RKBA protected by the 2nd.

[LiberalFighter]

28. Where is the rest of the opinion?

[Hoof Hearted]

33. On the effing internets. Look for it. Make an effort. Lift a finger.

[LiberalFighter]

94. Excuse me! Don't tell me what to do. The person was referring to the opinion as their source.

And he had the higher duty to provide the link since he had already located it. And he responded courteously with the link for which I thank him.

I also provide sources when I provide commentary or otherwise when appropriate.

[jody]

74. Link below.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[LiberalFighter]

95. Thanks

[Recursion]

99. Sigh

No, but the standard for regulation is lower outside of the home than inside. ie, a city could ban bearing arms in most public places, but cannot simply ban possession of an operative weapon in the home.

[dbmk]

102. So basically its open to interpretation?

And whats to stop that interpretation from being "Holy crap, this is so out of touch with modern life that we limit arms to mean a sowing needle or smaller"?

Seems contradictory to me that a ruling body can decide what the definition is of something - a something which is saying that they can't do that?

[Doctor_J]

2. Yes, the 2nd amendment is safe. And all the gun-wavers did nothing

while the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th were taken away. So their spiel about "we need guns to protect us from the oppressive government" is complete bullshit.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

4. I agree.

[villager]

11. absolutely right -- and we can see how their being so heavily armed has kept Bush at bay

so successfully, already.... :eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yep

Interpreting the Constitution only counts when you want to point a gun at your neighbors head.

Our society is obsessed with violence.

[jody]

22. You ignore the fact that RKBA is primarily about self-defense and secondarily about defense of state

SCOTUS in Heller discussed the PA Constitution of 1776.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Arms don't specifically refer to guns

Arms can be ANY kind of weapon. Check out the definition in a dictionary when you have time.

[jody]

24. I never said arms referred only to guns, and the Heller opinion said:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. If Heller strictly intpreted the constitution, we should be able to carry grenades or even nukes

Limiting it to guns does a disservice to strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Obviously, strictly interpreting everything in a document written 2+ centuries ago will make anyone's head spin.

We need to move forward and eliminate guns and violence from our society. It's entirely unnecessary.

[Hoof Hearted]

36. It's heartening to know that Obama supported a similar ban in Chicago, I dont know why he's changed

his mind though.

[jody]

75. I agree re violence. The Constitution protects my right to keep and bear arms, specifically firearms

I suggest you accept that right which is natural, inherent, and inalienable like others enumerated in the Constitution or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.

[Bake]

84. Grenades & nukes ... exaggerate much?

Total straw man argument. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish. Try READING THE OPINION. Since it's now the LAW.

Bake

[Zynx]

110. The implication is quite clear though.

[Doctor_J]

106. I am not ignoring anything. Many of the pro-gun people say that

loose gun laws will keep us from a fascist takeover. I point out the fact that none of these people has fired a shot while the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments have been stripped out of the Constitution.

[sandnsea]

85. No kidding

They're actually cowards who need the gun to pretend they're men. Same reason we have to bully countries all over the world, we don't know the meaning of real strength anymore.

[ieoeja]

87. Compare Supremes on GITMO vs DC GUN BAN.

In both cases a 5-4 majority ruled in favor of civil rights. But only ONE supreme voted with the majority in BOTH cases.

The other 8 voted their ideology in each case.

[anonymous171]

3. How else can we fight the fascist takeover of our country?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. Soo the group that kills the most people wins?

What moral high ground that is.

[populistdriven]

5. no stupid its "Bear Arms" [PIC]

[Cali_Democrat]

27. ...

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

6. Darn. I thought it meant my bear friends could have arms!!

Without arms, how can they hold me tight at night??

[Liberal Veteran]

7. You misunderstood.

They literally meant you have a right to bear arms. Such as the arms on this one.

[BlueJazz]

12. I thought it meant that Men and Women have the right to sleeveless shirts.

:)

[rwenos]

The right to Arm Bears

That's what we used to hope for, at Cal, when the football team sucked. Which was, like EVERY YEAR.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. NAPALM!!! Fun for the whole family!!

Instead of shooting that deer with an Uzzi just imagine a load of Napalm dropping on it!!!!
It's your gawd given right as a hunter to set that deer on fire!!!!

:sarcasm:

[ieoeja]

88. I don't think NAPALM is illegal. n/t

[Middle finga]

10. I guess now we could get rid of all the courts now... we can all settle

disputes like they use to do in the wild west.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Non sequitur...

That any of the other amendments have become compromised defeats neither the spirit nor the utility of of the concept that "the second amendment may serve to support the remaining nine".

It does not follow.

The second amendment and the capacity for citizens to overthrow a tyranny may or may not work in practice. We'd rather never have to find out.

A populace with arms but lacking the will to oppose an oppressive government MIGHT become enslaved.

A populace without arms has surrendered it's ability to oppose such a government, even if it has the will to.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. We've been enslaved by the Bush Administration

How much good has the 2nd Amendment done in order to fight off rethug tyranny? Not much.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Were the Bush/Cheney trends to continue for another decade or two,

do you not think Americans would become upset enough to at least go on a general strike?

I mean it's the very enslavement that you and I agree has occurred that leads me and, apparently, something like 3/4 of DUers to support the second amendment.

That it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it won't be useful later.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. You don't understand

The state will ALWAYS have the means to enslave and dominate a population whether or not the population has guns.

It doesn't matter if we have a second amendment or not.

[Thothmes]

76. Because your Congress has given it to him.

[krispos42]

90. Might be...

...because anti-gun people have become so insistant and shrill on the subject that they alienated enough people to put the Republicans in power?



If you're so worried about rethug tyranny and creeping fascism then maybe it's time to drop the gun issue, hmmmm?


After all, it would be really tragic if McCain won by a whisker because a bunch of gun-control people forced Obama to make anti-gun statements and run on an anti-gun platform, wouldn't it?

[dbmk]

104. If the US government turned REALLY oppressive

..do you honestly think it would matter much if there a few AK-47s in distribution or not, once the Apaches and F-14 take of?

If there is a will to resist, weapons will be found, regardless of of restrictions.

But realistically the only defense against oppression is resistance within the military. And the US does not quite have the ability to ship Mongols to shoot at Ukranians and vice versa, that the USSR had.

The only way extended oppression can happen in the western world today, is if the larger majority allows it.
Unless you can give me examples of countries with an extended run of free and open elections in an equally free and open society devolving into oppressive regimes.

[ileus]

15. same right we've always had...nothings changed.

[GoldieAZ49]

19. true, but with the ruling DC and other areas can exercise those rights

I do not have a problem with legal gun ownership

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I dunno, but when do we get to arm bears?

[tularetom]

25. I'm happy with this decision - now I'll stop getting those whiny letters from the NRA

telling me how I hae to send them money because they are the only thing standing between me and a government attempt to "grab" my guns.

And they're always signed by "Wayne LaPierre". You would think a spokesman for such a macho organization would have a name that didn't sound like a hairdresser. You know, something like Mike Ditka. Wayne LaPierre, sheesh. Gimme a fuckin break.

Hurray for the 2nd amendment. Screw the NRA.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Nope

the decision actually changed very little. It pretty much kept the status quo, except for places that had total bans. Even Scalia recognized that restraints and regulations were constitutional.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. My point is that the Second Amendment is bullshit because it's so outdated

It only had meaning when we were fighting the British during the Revolutionary War. It has no place in today's society. Arms can mean anything and there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically refers to guns.

You should come to Los Angeles some time and see the devastation guns and violence have brought to my community.

It fucking pisses me off. :mad:

I'm a vociferous opponent of our nation's gun laws. They suck.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. I lived for 10 years in East Palo Alto, CA

during the time it had the highest per capita murder rate in the United States. I don't need to go anywhere to see what gun violence can do.

But today's decision changed very little, and that's just the truth. Very few places had total gun bans. Today's ruling doesn't say guns can't be restricted or regulated. Unless a city had a total ban (and that was exceedingly rare), it's just not much different. That's just an objective view of the decision - not an argument for either side.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. I know it changed very little

That doesn't mean I can't vent. :grr:

[Thothmes]

77. Then get off your butt and work for an Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States to cancel the Second Amendment.

[northernsoul]

82. Then the appropriate response to amend the constitution

The courts have to rule on the constitution as it exists, not as we would wish it to be.

[krispos42]

91. The devastation and violence in your community...

... is it gang related?

[Recursion]

100. You mean Los Angelas, where they are BANNED? nt

[slackmaster]

105. We have a process for repealing an amendment, and it's even been done once

Tell it to your Senators and Representative.

The Heller ruling says that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. The ruling also explicitly states that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to declare a law "extinct".

[stevietheman]

109. Then perhaps it should be repealed then. That's really the only Constitutional...

way to have much stricter gun laws.

[Zynx]

111. I lived in a town where virtually everyone has guns, lots of them.

There wasn't a murder in three decades. There's more to it than just guns.

[Zavulon]

35. Actually, it means that

only the government (which we should all trust, especially after the excellent stewardship we've seen since January 2001) should have guns, and that laws against guns for private citizens will work perfectly. After all, after we disarm the law-abiding, it's only clear that people who own guns and intend to use them for criminal purposes will immediately turn them in once they learn they have a new law to break.

This is the same sort of horseshit that Republicans use to justify their ideas against abortion - make it illegal, and the practice will stop with no adverse consequences.

I'm one of the "people" you're telling to "wake the fuck up," and I suggest you do the same. By the way, I own eight guns and have never used them in any crime.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. I'm sure you do use guns lawfully

In fact, most people in America do. That's not the point.

There are so many god damn guns everywhere that they get into that hands of gang members and others with nefarious intentions.

How come no other industrialized country in Europe has our gun and murder problem? America has thousands of gun deaths yearly, way more than any other industrialized nation. Western Europe outlaws guns and they seem to be doing OK.

Guns have caused HAVOC on my community in LA and frankly, I'm sick of it.

Why haven't Americans used their guns against the Bush Administration? They have pretty much enslaved our population.

No matter what, the State will always have the means to subdue the population whether or not it's citizens can carry guns.

[Zavulon]

107. Unless you can magically eliminate every gun on Earth,

gun bans will mean that only criminals have guns.

In 1996, I used a gun to thwart a break-in of my apartment. One of the two criminals who entered my apartment had a gun (the other might have as well, I didn't see one), and nobody knows what would have happened if I hadn't had a gun myself. After that day, I can assure you that I will NEVER be without a gun again.

Like it or not, guns exist. Unless you can erase the existence of every gun on the planet, stripping the law-abiding of their rights to defend themselves isn't the answer, it's merely OSHA for criminals.

Oh, and if there's ever a nationwide gun ban, rest assured that I won't be following that law. You're right that I use guns lawfully, but I will never submit to a law that ensures that only criminals and cops can possess them. Criminals outnumber cops.

[Irreverend IX]

38. If you want to end criminal violence...

Work to legalize drugs. The drug war is responsible for the lion's share of "gun violence," and most people who use guns to kill others are not thwarted by gun laws. A large portion of gun-using murderers, more than 90% if I recall, have prior felony convictions that would disqualify them from legally purchasing a firearm, but that doesn't stop them from getting guns. When hugely profitable criminal enterprises like the drug trade exist, there is no way you can ever prevent the criminals from acquiring the tools of their trade. But if Congress had the spine to do it, they could end the drug war and bring that whole criminal empire crashing down with the stroke of a pen.

[Two Americas]

39. yes

All of those weapons can be, and are owned by private parties under certain circumstances. You could own a tank, for example, if you operated a military museum. You could own all sorts of weapons as a private manufacturer and then sell them to governments.

Virtually every home in rural areas has firearms on the premises. Even in the reddest of red areas, still 40-45% of the people are Democrats, more often than not strong old school FDR New Deal Democrats, not the wimpy pale imitations that have come to dominate the party. Are we to imagine that the Republican voting households in rural areas have firearms, but the Democratic voting households do not? of course not. Are all of those rural people not real Democrats, in your view? Should they all be tossed out?

As Democratic, we see social problems such as gun deaths as having social causes and we look for political solutions that go to the root causes - lack of jobs, poor incomes, poverty, alienation, injustice. We don't use the Republican model of "personal responsibility" and "personal choices" and reach for punishment of individuals as the only way to combat social problems.

According to the Constitution, we have the right to our belongings and to be secure in them regardless of what we choose to have. Everything is protected, and the burden is on the state not on the individual. Firearms are specifically mentioned, and therefore placed in a higher category for protection, not a lower one.

Possession laws give law enforcement yet another excuse to harass and stop young people of color, and yet another avenue for locking up more people, disproportionately poor and non-white, for victim-less crimes at the discretion of law enforcement officers.

Possession laws never work, be it the war on drugs or Prohibition, and there is no way to enforce possession laws that is consistent with the 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution.

I cannot see how any Democrat can oppose the Second Amendment, let alone call for laws that also violate the Fourth and the Fifth amendment, and that are certain to unfairly target poor and minority people for harassment.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Read The Constitution again my friend

And tell be where it says Americans have the right to own GUNS. It says we have the right to "bear arms."

Guns are not specifically mentioned.

If you support this aspect of The Constitution, then I will go ahead and get a suitcase nuke or some grenades. Those are arms after all. ;-)

I need to defend myself!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

41. really, you're being silly

nobody claims "arms" means nukes. The Supreme Court made it pretty clear today that that's the case.

Calm down. Nothing's changed, unless you live in DC.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Read a dictionary

Fuck the Supreme Court. They don't know shit. Read the definition of "arms" in any dictionary.

Arms can mean any kind of weapon.

The Supreme Court doesn't know jack shit. They're a bunch of conservative assholes.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. ok, you've just shown

you have no interest in actually discussing the issue. You just want to be a dork.

[Cali_Democrat]

47. It's not my fault the Supreme Court cant strictly interpret the constitution

Don't shoot the messenger.

They wanna talk about bearing arms? Well then lets discuss bearing arms!

[MonkeyFunk]

51. we are discussing bearing arms

and you're just lying about what today's decision meant. I don't like liars.

[Two Americas]

48. I agreed with you

I agreed with you about "arms."

Private citizens own just about any sort of weapon imaginable. Some private company makes nukes, you know. How you use or store things can be a legitimate concern of the authorities - "do not discharge firearms within city limits" for example, or "only make and store nukes under these guidelines" or "tanks and warplanes at military museums will not be used to strafe nearby villages."

Should only wealthy people have certain rights? If self-defense is such a joke, why do wealthy people have armed body guards? Why do upscale suburbanites demand well-armed, well-staffed and highly responsive (and expensive) police protection?

[MonkeyFunk]

54. which private company makes nukes?

[Two Americas]

65. from "Who Are They?"

This page at August6.org lists nuclear weapons manufacturers.
http://www.august6.org/war_profiteers

Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Alliant, BWX, Raytheon, General Dynamics...

[Thothmes]

79. On what website do they have them sale to the public.

Bet they are all DOD contractors.

[Two Americas]

80. of course

Not sure what the point is.

[Thothmes]

78. But it is there opinion on the issue that counts. Not yours.

dont like it, change the Constitution.

[Two Americas]

43. I don't think you read my post

I am not sure what you think you are responding to. Not sure what your argument is, either.

[Cali_Democrat]

45. The 2nd Amendment says that we have a right to "bear arms."

arms are actually any type of weapon. That means I can actually blast you with a nuke if you threaten me. I don't have to just use a gun. Arms are arms. ;-)

[MonkeyFunk]

46. And if you'd READ today's decision

you'd know your hyperbolic bullshit is just hyperbolic bullshit.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. 5-4 decision because of a conservative majority

take it with a grain of salt

[MonkeyFunk]

50. What a pointless response

adress this:

Do you think today's decision allows US citizens to own nukes?

[Two Americas]

53. here is the deal

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about what the government is allowed to do, not what the people are allowed to do.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. That's nice

Does today's decision allow citizens to own nukes?

[Two Americas]

67. "that's nice?"

The theory of limited government, the concept that all rights belong to the people, and that government is a threat to our liberty and must be restricted and you say "that's nice" and blow through it and just repeat the question again?

Nothing the government does "allows" anything to the people. That is fundamental to the entire theory underlying the legitimacy of our government. What is at issue is what the government is allowed to do, not the people.

Good grief, this is a slippery slope lol. Now the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are in question.

With sufficient wealth, you could buy Bechtel tomorrow and start owning nuclear weapons were you so inclined. At issue would not be whether or not the government "allowed" you to, but rather whether or not the government could restrict you from doing that. I am not sure how the recent Supreme Court decision bears on that, exactly.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Because they referred to the 2nd amendment that says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms

In case you're missing my point of my OP. I think the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage because there's nothing specific that refers to guns. Go ahead, read the whole amendment.

I guess our disagreement is about the 2nd Amendment and our different interpretations of it.

The Supreme Court agrees with you and I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Let's just leave it at that.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. so it's complete bullshit because it didn't anticipate future weapons?

It doesn't explicitly prohibit transgenic transmogrifiers. nonetheless, I don't fear being turned into a frog.

You simply don't know what today's decision said. You should read it before you continue embarrassing yourself.

[Cali_Democrat]

60. "so it's complete bullshit because it didn't anticipate future weapons?"

"It doesn't explicitly prohibit transgenic transmogrifiers. nonetheless, I don't fear being turned into a frog."

:rofl:

YES!!! That's my point. I've "embarrassed" myself enough times on this board, not that I care.

It's an outdated and archaic amendment, IMO.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

61. This is where you're showing ignorance

the Supreme Court can't rule that a part of the constitution is "outdated and archaic".

[Cali_Democrat]

63. I know

It's a shame that our gov't has trampled over the 1st, 5th, 8th and other amendments.

But the 2nd amendment is all to the good. :eyes:

[Two Americas]

52. you are extremely confused

You are mixing up possession of something with the illegal use of something. It is legal to own a car. It is not legal to run someone over with it. It is legal to defend yourself, with force if necessary. It is not legal to take out the whole city in the process.

I agreed with you (twice) that "arms are arms." What are you arguing about?

[Cali_Democrat]

57. Now I'm confused about your post

Oh well. Life goes on ;-)

[Cali_Democrat]

69. I actually see what you're saying now

Sorry, I'm a little tired and I didn't understand exactly what you were saying.

I'm going to bed.

LOL

[Two Americas]

71. lol

No problem Cali_Democrat. I thought it might be cocktail hour out there on the coast...which is fine, no insult intended. Thanks for the exchange and pleasant dreams.

:toast:

[Mr. Blonde]

59. Several comments about your posts here

First, the decision says the government is still able to regulate the arms available and to whom. Just like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is not absolute. One can easily see that that would mean that nuclear arms would be regulated. As is where you can take your weapons.

You say the second amendment only mattered during the revolutionary war. The revolutionary war ended in 1783, the second amendment came into effect in 1791. Probably didn't do us much good during the war. Although you could probably make a case for the British guarantee of the right to bear arms as coming back to bite them in the ass something serious.

You say we need to eliminate guns from our society. How do you propose going about doing that? Obviously to eliminate it we will have to get an amendment going to nullify the second amendment. Regardless of what you think of its meaning it will have to be removed to begin rounding up guns. It is probably unlikely that we will be able to shut down our weapons manufacturers though as our armed forces will still need them. Or do you think we need to disband the military as well?

Finally, we have to go to every house in the country and ask them to turn over their weapons. I don't envy whatever agent gets that job. As scary as it would probably be for them in LA, imagine doing it in the sticks of the midwest and western states. You have all of those conspiracy theorists stockpiling guns in anticipation of such an event. That would be a massive, expensive and ultimately fruitless endeavor.

Not to mention, what about people who like to hunt. And the fact that it kind of keeps things in balance. There are deer everywhere here, the last thing I want is for their population to explode. My mom used to go to work and come home at dark. She hit 4 deer during that time. The last thing I want is for that number to increase.

Eliminating guns will not happen.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. It would definitely take years in order to rid our society of guns

And yes, another amendment needs to be passed in order to nullify the second amendment.

It would be a bloody job (ridding our society of guns), but entirely necessary in order to rid America from the plague of gun violence.

We need to look at Western Europe and Japan as a model.

BTW, I don't think that the deer population exploding is a major threat to you and your family. It can be taken care of through other means, IMO.

I know eliminating guns won't happen in modern-day America, I'm not naive. I'm idealistic, but I hope for the best. :hi:

[Mr. Blonde]

64. My mother hit 4 of them in the course of about 2 years

One slightly bigger or a wrong move by her and she could have very easily died.

Plus deer meat is damn good.

And it isn't just deer it is all wildlife.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. I've actually had deer meat before

A Virginia transplant went to my school and was all into hunting.

That guy and his dad went to the local San Bernardino National Forest and straight up shot a few deer and brought the meat back to us. :rofl:

We were all amazed and the deer meat tasted pretty damn good. :thumbsup:

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. "It would be a bloody job"

Just WHOSE blood would be shed? Can you GUARANTEE whose?

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. Maybe you should just GO to Russia, let them know you're in the market for a suitcase nuke, and see

what happens.

Let me know how that works out for ya, K?

That is, if you ever get to communicate with the free world.

[TheKentuckian]

72. You want an Iraq style street war to end gun violence?

That's nuts. You'll never get the amendment through and if you somehow wickedly subverted the overwhelming majorities will it would probably be the end of the country.

Issue number one on why the Democratic party lost control of government is stupidly championing gun control. It turned off a tremendous amount of our working base in a big way creating the impression of us being simultaneously the party of fascists and pussies. Great image, that'll sell off the coasts really well.

It is also very disingenuous to claim other more important rights we're ignored while this one was protected. I've put my efforts and resources into protecting all of our rights and limiting government's subversion of them.
You are also naive. We see evidence everyday that some determined and armed people can do damage to a superior force. Our military is in for a tough match against 150+ million determined Americans.

You know that an armed populace can overthrow it's government but it's difficult to state you are simply unwilling to make that level of commitment to freedom and don't believe others are either.
I assure you that when the tanks were rolling in streets of China, that if those billion people had some fire power that we would have seen another revolution. It's the unarmed population that gets rolled by tanks. Every government that has forcibly disarmed it's people has gone rogue.


Of course I think the court is still somewhat misjudging this. We have not only the right to bear arms but the responsibility to be prepared to participate in a well armed militia. At minimum gun training and awareness should be compulsory. Every citizen must be prepared to take up arms against enemies foreign and domestic.

The court failed to remind the citizenry of it's RESPONSIBILITIES along with supporting it's rights.

and

No you can't have nukes because they have no real life application. They can't be used for defense without killing you too, huge collateral damage, and I think hunting with them would be overkill. I'm not sure governments should even possess them and they are entrusted with the common defense, which clearly might get some extra latitude.
I might go as far as a RPG and grenades I could see for an individual and a citizen responsible for protecting the life and liberty of both themselves and their friends and neighbors.

[dbmk]

98. "Every government that has forcibly disarmed it's people has gone rogue. "

Care to explain that?

I'd say it was the other way around.

[Recursion]

101. It's kind of the blueprint of dictators

The first step is always to disarm the population. Hitler did it. Lenin did it. Il Duce did it. Hell, Machiavelli told his hypothetical prince to do it.

What prompted the battles of Lexington and Concord? An attempt to disarm people.

[dbmk]

103. Precisely

They did not go rogue because they disarmed the people.
They were rogue and disarmed the people.

HUGE difference - as there are several countries that have disarmed its people (by any relevant measurement at least) - and not gone rogue.

[FlyingSquirrel]

73. Zoinks

I'd prefer that they bear entire children. Yuck!

[crankychatter]

81. I can go to Arkansas and load up my truck with easily converted semi-automatic weapons

any local effort at control, will get met with appeals and suits all the way to SCOTUS.

Any national legislation will meet the same fate

I think Obama may actually believe what he says

Why do you believe otherwise?

I'm pro-gun, personally... but I've never felt the need to own one

[olkaz]

83. You realize that many progressives DO support the second amendment, right?

Unless you're trying to drive a wedge into our own goddamned base, I don't see your point.

[JVS]

86. Bringing in a suitcase nuke would be a customs issue!

[krispos42]

89. Discrete vs. non-discrete weapons

The right to keep and bear arm is not, of course, an unlimited right. No right is, not the speech, not press, not privacy.

The line in the sand was drawn in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, which created two classes of firearms, Title 1 and Title 3. Title 1 is the stuff you'll find in any gun safe or gun store: guns that fire one and only one shot per pull of the trigger and are .50 caliber or less, with exceptions for shotguns.

Title 3 stuff fires multiple shots per pull of the trigger. It also provides for explosive devices like grenades and artillery shells.

Title 3 firearms are licenced and registered with the federal govenment, and there is a $200 transfer tax every time they are bought and sold.


The difference between Title 1 and Title 3 firearms is that Title 1 firearms are discrete weapons. You, the shooter, have under your control the trajectory of every single projectile that come out of the barrel of that gun.

With Title 3 firearms and explosive devices, you have no such control. There's a broad lethality zone. And in the interests of public safety, they have higher standards of control and tighter regulations.

And there is the difference between a rifle and napalm or a suitcase nuke.




I don't buy it when the reich-wing calls our rights "archaic" or "outmodeled" in the "post-9/11 world", and I don't buy it when the gun-control people say it either.

Is it any wonder why we're the only industrialized country to have thousands of gun deaths yearly?

The assumption in your somewhat ridiculous statement is that if we didn't have guns, we wouldn't have gun deaths. That the number of people murdered without guns would stay steady and not skyrocket. That is a foolish assumption to make.

The UK's gun-death rate is at historic lows. Is that progress?

Only if you ignore the fact that their TOTAL homicide rate is at near-record highs. That over the past 40 years their homicide rate has DOUBLED!




If you want to lower murders and crimes, then let's stick to and promote our traditional liberal values, which will do far more far better to solve these ills than trying to take away hardware.

It is NOT okay that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as long as the crime rate is low! That is unacceptable.

[old mark]

92. and another graceful loser...

who doesn't realize he won. You have rights even if you don't care to use them.

mark

[Norwood]

93. This is a ridiculous post and an absolute strawman

I'm not even gonna comment about how asinine your Second Amendment = "nuke's are ok" argument is. Its funny how a lot of the anti-gun people will claim that they're all about the constitution , but would have absolutely no problem ripping its guts out by eliminating the Second Amendment.

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.

Every law abiding American has the right to arm themselves if they so choose.

Lets just say for shits and giggles that we do overturn the Second Amendment. Who gets to go house to house and collect all the firearms? How do they know for sure that they got them all? A lot of people could be hiding some? Do they search everyone's house? Go through all their personal items and just completely ransack every Americans home? Let that image sink in. Kinda gives me a sick feeling inside thinking about it. Oh and I'm sure everyone will kindly hand over their weaponry, including criminals. There definitely won't be shootouts and absolute anarchy started by people who believe in the "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" logic. What you end up with is law abiding people left without a means to defend themselves, the vast majority of criminals remaining armed, and a lot of dead people both citizens and police from the actual disarming process.

You cannot stop all gun violence, there is absolutely nothing we can do. No law can be passed, no ruling, nothing. There will always be unsavory types who will have their hands on firearms, I want to live in a country where its legal for me to be able to fire back if I have to.

[TheKentuckian]

96. The pry them from my cold dead fingers sentiment

is much higher than you think. There are many that will hide them and just do like we do with everything else the Nazi's on both ends of the spectrum try to prohibit, ignore the hell out of the law and do what they do.

All prohibitions are stupid. Deal with the "don't tread on me" end of it and call it a day.

Rest assured the American public will not be peaceably disarmed. They will resist or go become "criminals".

[dbmk]

97. "All prohibitions are stupid"

Care to moderate that a bit? Or can we extend it it North Korea and Iraq and their lust for nuclear weapons?
Or an individual owning and producing sarin or mustard gas? Privately owned ICBMs?

And as far as the previous posters idea that nothing can be done to prevent gun related deaths and/or crime... I'd say that quite a few countries manage to disprove that on a daily basis. And for someone calling strawman on the OP the phrase "You cannot stop all gun violence" is quite ironic, as I don't think anyone has ever claimed so.

Thats not to say either approach is right or wrong. But a lot of the above arguments sure are the latter.

[Deja Q]

108. Well, in this economy, I doubt we'll have the right to "bull arms" anytime soon.

:crazy: :silly: