Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomfurbs

'The Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding. '


So, like, bazookas?

---

you can all ready own machine guns and other destructive devices like howitzers and anti-tank cannons in the US, you just need to pay a $200 tax to the ATF.

civilian owned 90mm anti tank gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IeEa...eature=related

20 mm hispano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8...eature=related

minigun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmftWnCLnlQ

knob creek, world's largest civilian owned machine gun shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU


couple more cool ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4r...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4gh...eature=related


America, FUCK YEAH

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

Hooray for the Supremes and their decision on gun control. Oh yes, Iloveshemales77 you will not have to duck bullets from the NRA. The NRA represents responsible gun owners. It was only the responsible people that were affected by gun control laws. The criminal element didn't pay that much attention to gun control laws or laws against robbing banks or rape etc.

Xenicity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

phosepete,

Right, right, right. Read the minority opinion.

The Federalists were a political party. Why should we take the political opinions of the Federalists as a substitute for the actual constitution? Their writings were just an attempt to put their own spin on the laws of the land. You seriously need to put down those Federalist papers.

---

wrong again. The Federalist papers(written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison) were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country. The Federalist papers are not "opinions", They're written documents by several of the Founding Fathers themselves that help illuminate exactly what the Constitution means and what the Founders intended. The papers were written and published before the Constitution was even ratified, so they were hardly an attempt to " put their own spin on the laws of the land", as the constitution wasn't even the law of the land at the time!

You my dear, seriously need to pick up and read the Federalist Papers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

Quote:

---

The Federalist papers ... were written before the Federalist party even existed, and they were written to explain and advocate the ratification of the Constitution to the country.

---

touche'

It is not surprising the court which took it upon themselves to be the first to declare the presidency, has ignored two hundred years of precedent and upset the traditional understanding of the second amendment. The court could’ve easily found against the DC law without overturning the second amendment. It’s clear the court went out of its way to use this case to deconstruct the constitution. It’s a clear case of activism.

Some may find it surprising that even though I think the court deliberately miss-stepped in its decision today, I also think the DC law overstepped its rational bounds as well. I personally see nothing wrong with individual people owning guns and keeping them in their houses, whether you live in Washington D.C. or anywhere else in the U.S.

Gun ownership should come with responsibilities and it is the duty of government to insure that people live up those responsibilities. I don’t think we can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But we can do a lot to keep them out of the hands of the stupid; i.e. we should make sure that people who buy guns are educated in their safe use. Before you can drive you have to prove you’re competent to drive. The same should be true of using firearms. The current ruling of the Supreme Court does not say anything about this sort of regulation. All that has yet to be worked out.

Frankly: what can you expect from a bunch of ultra-conservative judges nominated by GW Bush?

The NRA gratefully thanks.

tis a great day and the 4 who voted against need kicked in the privates

as a life nra member i am quite happy, but i'd still never step foot in DC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joserchi2002

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cockgobbler

To all of my responsible, law abiding firearms owning American friends, I would encourage you to visit a site called torontothebad.com

Toronto Mayor David Miller is trying to get the Canadian government to institute a national handgun ban in Canada because of some shootings in Toronto. He ingores the FACTS that in every jurisdiction where a hangun ban has been put into place, violent crime involving handguns has actually increased: The U.K., Jamaica, Australia, Washington D.C., Chicago, ect. Two young men were recently shot to death in their SUV waiting for a friend to come out to give them something. Despite the fact Toronto Police have already said the gun used to kill these men was ILLEGALY smuggled into Canada, he continues to say the gun was stolen from a "so called" legal owner in Canada.

He will only come after legal firearms owners, saying we are responsible for the fireams issues in the city. He claims 40% of firearms recovered by Toronto Police were stolen from Canadian owners, even though Toronto Police own numbers place the figure closer to 5%.

Here's why the site is important to you: He blames America, and is actively trying to stick his nose in American politics to get the USA to change its firearms laws.

Visit torontothebad.com and read the crap Mayor Miller, and in particular a councillor named Adam Vaugh have to say about our American friends.

---

It's funny you bring up the gun ban in the UK. I do that guns violence has gone down, however violent crimes involving knives have shot through the roof. Just goes to show you. People will find a way to hurt one another regardless of the law.

---

No, no, no. In the U.K., while it is true handgun related DEATHS have decreased since the ban, all incidents of handgun related CRIME - shootings, robbery's, home invasions, rape ect have actually INCREASED approximately 300%.

All that tells me is surgeons in the U.K. are getting more skilled at treating gunshot wounds.

In Jamaica, in 2006 according to Amnesty International, there was over 1600 murders. More than 1300 of them were committed by someone using a handgun.

Australia's gun ban has been such a failure, the new Prime Minister there is looking at repealing portions of their gun control legislation.

Look at the numbers provided by the main gun control lobby in the USA. I can't remember the exact name, something like the Brady Group (founded by President Regan's press secretary(?) who was left paralized in the assissination attempt on Regan). There own numbers show the states with the toughest gun control legislation, such as California, also have grime and homicide rates much higher than the national average.

Gun control is the only thing that has been a complete and total failure, yet people still demand more of it.

I haven't read this entire thread, it's an old topic. Here's my take on it:

If I was put in a situation where I needed to defend myself or someone else, I would like to have the option of shooting the bad person, with a gun. I have never owned a gun, but I support the second amendment.

I own a sword, but that really doesn't do much good in most situations. I suppose I could jab people with it, but I would probably just get shot by a gun.

:)