Quote :

"Remember, gramatically speaking, the militia clause has no effect upon the meat of the 2nd amendment. The founders could have written "Because the sky is made of cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and it would be equally binding, right?"

The militia clause is an important aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that people only have the right to own weapons a citizen militia would have possessed. Also, the Court has ruled that the states are allowed to place reasonable regulations on the owning and possessing of fire arms. Regulating who can have a concealed carry permit, regulating who can own a firearm, and regulating the types of firearms fits under the auspice of well regulated.

If it were to have no meaning as you stated, then laws preventing felons from owning firearms, the possession of firearms at bars and other areas would not stand the constitutional test.

In other words you are wrong, and before you start to lecture people about the grammatical nature of sentences, learn to spell grammatical.

8/1/2009 10:47:07 AM

Quote :

"so you would be ok with a hot headed 16 year old kid carrying a handgun under his shirt?"

A kid?... I don't know. (That's a different issue.)
But for the question: "so you would be ok with a hot headed individual carrying a handgun under his shirt?" Why not? He's just carrying a gun under his shirt. How is that an unreasonable danger to others? If I'm a 3rd degree black belt, should I have to always walk around with the belt on? Why do others need to know that I'm armed? What business is it of theirs? If I have a weapon, how does concealing it make it more dangerous?

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2009 11:02:25 AM

Quote :

"A kid?... I don't know. (That's a different issue.)"

so you acknowledge that there should be reasonable regulations, now read ^

8/1/2009 11:07:13 AM

Quote :

"so you acknowledge that there should be reasonable regulations"

No, I said that kids aren't adults -- and that that's a separate issue from firearms.
If you can only make a point by introducing a new issue, then you're not addressing the actual point.

"I think women should be able to vote."
"So you would be ok with a criminally insane female felon terrorist voting three times in a row?"
"Yeah, because that's what I'm talking about.... "

8/1/2009 11:17:36 AM

I do not see an age restriction on the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing to suggest at all age limits on any other rights, so why automatically on the 2nd Amendment?

8/1/2009 11:19:45 AM

^ Now you're just making strawmen arguments. We don't afford all the freedoms of an adult to a child not because of their age per se, but because until the age of majority, we don't hold a child fully responsible for his or her actions. One can not have the freedom to act without also having the responsibility for those actions. Children are not allowed to make contracts, can have their belongings searched, can not own real property and many other violations of their constitutional rights, to pretend that this is limited to just the 2nd amendment or that it justifies the limiting of the constitutional rights of adults is absurd.

It's also worth noting that just because the supreme court holds something to be "legal" does not make it right or constitutional.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : hg]

8/1/2009 3:10:36 PM

Quote :

"so you would be ok with a hot headed 16 year old kid carrying a handgun under his shirt?"

How about the 16 year old gang banger who illegally does this anyways. Shouldn't the honest citizen be allowed to do carry concealed legally to defend himself.

8/1/2009 4:00:14 PM

I think we should eliminate handguns and not have to worry about it.

8/1/2009 4:37:06 PM

^
How can clowns like you still exist? Ban handguns?... Are you fucking loony?
Pretending for a second that your position isn't laughably wrong, how would "we" eliminate them anyway?

Liberals that want to rid the world of guns are as sad and misguided as conservatives that want to rid the world of homosexuality.
What a fucking joke they both are...

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2009 4:41:13 PM

Set your phasers to stunning.

8/1/2009 4:41:34 PM

I don't want to get rid of guns, just handguns. It's evident that this experiment has failed and that it is an unacceptable technology that has resulted in the intentional (and accidental) deaths of millions of Americans since our nation's founding. No other Western nation has near the murder rate that we do, and that significant murder rate is enabled by handguns.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 4:50:36 PM

Quote :

"I don't want to get rid of guns, just handguns."

Okay...
"Wanting to rid the world of handguns is as sad and misguided as wanting to rid the world of flamboyant homosexuality"

Quote :

"It's evident that this experiment has failed and that it is an unacceptable technology "

Are you fucking serious? Is this a weak troll attempt? How can anyone actually think that crap?

Quote :

"No other Western nation has near the murder rate that we do,"

What's so good about western nations?
Furthermore, (and I'm aware of how cliché this is, but,) why don't you go live there if you like it so much?
Hey... maybe they'll even have "free" healthcare. GO FOR IT!

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2009 5:18:25 PM

Quote :

"The possession of firearms would do nothing to improve their chances of achieving their goals."

you don;t think that a populace that can, you know, OVERTHROWN THE GOVERNMENT might be able to keep the government in check? Oh shit, that's what the founders wanted!

Quote :

"The militia clause is an important aspect of the 2nd Amendment."

Only, it isn't, grammatically.

Quote :

"The Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that people only have the right to own weapons a citizen militia would have possessed."

What was the point of the militia, might I ask? Defense, yes, but also it served as a deterrent effect against an out of control government. Note just how far the government has overstepped its bounds since the disbanding of state militias. And, remember, militias usually had artillery pieces. That is far more than just a firearm.

Quote :

"Also, the Court has ruled that the states are allowed to place reasonable regulations on the owning and possessing of fire arms."

The court has also ruled that Wal-mart can take your land if it wants it because it would bring in more tax revenue. Doesn't make that ruling any more in line with the actual Constitution.

Quote :

"If it were to have no meaning as you stated, then laws preventing felons from owning firearms, the possession of firearms at bars and other areas would not stand the constitutional test."

I, too, have grappled with that issue. Remember, other parts of the Constitution would specifically prevent such a thing, too, such as the restrictions against bills of attainder.

Quote :

"In other words you are wrong, and before you start to lecture people about the grammatical nature of sentences, learn to spell grammatical."

Oh, shit, when you don't have a case to stand on, bitch about spelling! very mature.

Quote :

"It's evident that this experiment has failed and that it is an unacceptable technology that has resulted in the intentional (and accidental) deaths of millions of Americans since our nation's founding."

Millions? Really?

Quote :

"No other Western nation has near the murder rate that we do, and that significant murder rate is enabled by handguns."

Yes, clearly the difference is all due to handguns. There couldn't possibly be any other external factors at play, could there? naaaaaaah. By the way, as proven in other places, people will keep killing people, no matter what implements they have available. See England trying to ban kitchen knives.

8/1/2009 5:57:46 PM

I am right and you are wrong, that is all I am saying.

8/1/2009 6:16:38 PM

oh, well that settles it

8/1/2009 6:38:47 PM

Yeah. I can't argue with that superior logic.

8/1/2009 6:49:36 PM

Well why argue with an absolutist, who can't possibly fathom the validity of an alternative rationalization? I'll take a cue from the aaronburro book of tricks and just declare victory.

It's like the movie War Games. The only winning move is not to play.

8/1/2009 8:53:53 PM

Quote :

"The only winning move is not to play."

The new Soap Box Motto?

8/1/2009 10:33:52 PM

Wow, Burro argues that only he is correct and the Supreme Court is wrong.

I'm still waiting to hear how in burro's fucked up grammar world, the the initial clause is meaningless.

8/2/2009 12:55:34 PM

Quote :

"The only winning move is not to play."

Quote :

"The new Soap Box Motto?"

lol whatever

i'll play

8/2/2009 1:12:56 PM

Quote :

"Shouldn't the honest citizen be allowed to do carry concealed legally to defend himself."

you are not understanding my point at all or are reading things into my post that are not there. i support concealed carry and have a posting record that shows it, please re-read my posts in the context of the discussion between will nilly and nutsmackr.

8/2/2009 6:01:10 PM

Quote :

"I'm still waiting to hear how in burro's fucked up grammar world, the the initial clause is meaningless."

i have never blocked a user, but if i were to start, burro would be the first (and possibly only) person on the list.

mostly though, i just skip over his posts. because unlike the other assorted retards who post here, he's not even amusing... and life is just too short.

8/2/2009 6:06:20 PM

Quote :

"post"

like

Quote :

"this,"

k

8/2/2009 6:14:18 PM

bump

6/28/2010 11:42:34 AM

High Court Rules in Favor of Gun Rights
Jun 28, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for violating the Second Amendment."

Quote :

"Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge."

http://tinyurl.com/256oy6x

'Bout time.

6/28/2010 11:50:24 AM

Quote :

"Gun rights extended by Supreme Court By MARK SHERMAN The Associated Press Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights. By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges. Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states." (Photos from a Patriot's Day gun rights rally) The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority. Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home. That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans. Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws. Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall. Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

6/28/2010 11:51:21 AM

gun control pwnt, stay home hippies

6/28/2010 12:01:16 PM

Quote :

"SUCK IT, LEFTIES!"

6/28/2010 12:01:56 PM

Another thread about this topic, but is also old: http://thewolfweb.com/message_postreply.aspx?topic=577822

6/28/2010 12:03:38 PM

Quote :

"Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge."

Damn. And we were so close to having a totalitarian state, too. Can't we just discard the the bill of rights entirely already?

6/28/2010 1:30:44 PM

Charlton Heston is smiling in heaven


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw

[Edited on June 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM. Reason : DAMN DIRTY APES!!!!!]

6/28/2010 1:44:03 PM

Bill Clinton is pissed

6/28/2010 2:28:19 PM

^about losing to Ghana?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUw8n-vdhA

6/28/2010 3:14:44 PM

"This decision was 5-4, so 4 members of the Supreme Court voted to dismantle the 2nd Amendment."
Ahhh Hannity. You should change your name to Hilarity.

6/28/2010 3:19:12 PM

I hate hannity on most things, but yeah, that's exactly what it means.

6/28/2010 3:53:11 PM

Obama's backdoor gun ban
Government is blocking sale of historic weapons
September 3, 2010

Quote :

"President Obama is afraid of the M1 Garand, the U.S. rifle that helped win World War II, defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Administration officials earlier this year moved to block the government of South Korea from selling vintage U.S.-made M1 Garands and M1 carbines to eager stateside collectors. The State Department confirmed to The Washington Times that it was considering 'alternative options' to deal with the classic rifles. During the Clinton administration, such code words meant melting them down. The government in Seoul was told that this step was being taken for the protection of Americans. 'The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents,' a South Korean Ministry of National Defense official told the Korea Times last month. It's hard to see how these M1 rifles could be considered risky when they already are offered for sale by the U.S. government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In fact, the federally sponsored CMP puts on summer camps that teach boys and girls how to handle the Garand properly and safely. In the past seven years, there hasn't been a single accident. Many of the participants go on to serve their country or take part in shooting sports at the collegiate and Olympic level. It's more likely that the administration is seeking to win the admiration of gun grabbers. Mr. Obama has a history of supporting gun control as a state senator and U.S. senator, but he's been limited in his ability to implement this anti-gun agenda as president. Democratic members of Congress remember the federal assault-weapons ban as one of the lead issues motivating voters to turn Congress over to Republicans in 1994. Senators facing tight races in pro-gun states don't want to see a repeat of that midterm landslide. Therefore, the best way for Mr. Obama to appease the gun-grabbing fringe is to take actions that won't bring too much attention to what he's doing. As long as the destruction of these rifles stays under the public radar screen, he will have achieved his goal. 'In my opinion, the M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised,' Gen. George S. Patton famously said. Future generations, young and old, should have a chance to experience this piece of history at an affordable price. Congress should take action to reverse the State Department and allow these storied weapons to return home."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/3/obamas-backdoor-gun-ban/

FTR, the M1 is not a "machine gun" for those who would swoop in here howling about that. It's legal to own one right now in the Unitred States.

9/4/2010 7:00:34 PM

"Machine guns" are legal to own, too, but they're fucking expensive and come with additional hoops to jump through.

9/4/2010 7:04:39 PM

^ Never said they weren't, Duke. I mean, god damn, I think you know what I meant--I was clearly referring to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has been discussed here ad nauseam.

[Edited on September 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM. Reason : Rather than attempting to unnecessarily educate me, do you have any thoughts on the M1 ban?]

9/4/2010 7:34:49 PM

Based on a few other articles that I've read most people that oppose it do so because of the M1 carbines and their ability to accept high capacity magazines (just like every other gun sold in the US).

The garand is simply too large to be used in the vast majority of crimes. In fact, both are too expensive when you can buy a Hi Point gun for $100.

9/4/2010 7:56:42 PM

^^ I was just making a comment. Chill out...and I think it's fucking stupid, unless there's more to the story than I know from that article.

9/4/2010 9:03:52 PM

Quote :

"President Obama is afraid of the M1 Garand, the U.S. rifle that helped win World War II, defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan."

Using this logic, every citizen should have the right to obtain a nuclear bomb.

9/4/2010 10:40:01 PM

good point.

obsolete service rifle = nuclear weapon

9/4/2010 11:04:38 PM

I think that what he's saying is that the reason stated there is no justification for people owning M1s.

Fortunately, no justification is needed.

9/4/2010 11:42:56 PM

^

9/5/2010 12:17:21 AM

wait, people are afraid of M1 garands and M1 carbines, but they're ok with people making AR-15s and AK Clones?

I have an M1 garand and an M1 carbine. Both of them are fun to shoot, but I wouldn't want to go off to war with technology that's 60 years out of date. I could understand a ban on M14s because they are so easy to convert to full auto, but not on M1s. The only reason to ban the import of M1s that I can see would be to keep the cost of current stateside M1s hyperinflated.

9/5/2010 6:55:19 PM

i don't understand the reasoning behind this

that behind said i also don't find it all that different from the current policy against reselling federal firearms.

[Edited on September 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2010 7:12:34 PM

To Duke: Okay, sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood.

9/5/2010 7:26:11 PM

why's everyone gotta be hatin' on Red Rider and his peacemaker?

9/6/2010 2:06:58 AM