[Rat]

Well, I am a firm believer that I should beable to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford. I am building an AR15 personally. I also own a Norinco SKS and would not give it up for the world.

Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right. Heck I can make a Ruger 22 into an all out assult look alike with a 30 rd banana clip.

I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.


As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people. I am sick of my dollar supporting migrants also.

It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

[kc0iv]

The Supreme Court has been a "Political Court" for years. All that has changed is it has changed from a "liberal" court to a "conservative" court.

As to the ruling itself. When you read JUSTICE SCALIA's opinion I think you will see he did address the "militia" aspect. He goes into detail of the difference between a militia service and individual right. He also explains why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was.

I think once you read the opinion I would hope you see it is a well written opinion. Written for both lawyers and layman.

He also expains why the dissent’s interpretation is wrong.

His opinion also address the limitation, to some degree, what the states can restrict on certain types of weapons. Since the court was not ask to explain the full meaning of the second amendment with all its possible outcomes when it comes to types of weapons I think you unfairly judged the court.

As to the D.C. ban having no effect I totally disagree. Yes there is no doubt illegal guns can be found both in D.C. and the surrounding area. What this ruling has done it allow home-owners to legally own a gun and have it in such away it can be readily used for self-defense. It also says that the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license, assuming the person is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, to carry it in the home.

BTW this was a two part ruling. One address the "individual rights" and the other address the "trigger lock."


kc0iv

[golfhobo]

Well, I am a firm believer that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to desire or can afford.

So were the "nuts" in Waco! :roll: Now... I'm not saying they intended some sort of action AGAINST American troops, but what if they had been a Muslim Terrorist organization? You STILL think that anyone IN America should have the right to stockpile assault weapons? :roll:

Some of these so called bans are going to outlaw alot of semi automatic hunting rifles also and that is not right.

If you NEED a "semi" to kill a deer, you need to take up "air hockey!" :roll:

I hunt and target shoot along with all around plinking with most everything in my cabinet.

What is this "plinking" thing? I'm not familiar with the term? I don't REALLY want to spoil you fun. I just want to save lives! Sounds to ME like you should enlist in Dubya's War and go "plink" a few terroists! IF you have the B@lls!

As for the Welfare thing. It should be abolished along with other free money people get. I am sick of my dollar supporting lazy arsed people.

And "I" am sick of MY tax dollars going to support tax breaks for the rich who don't NEED it! AND, for corporate America who will use them to send jobs overseas, so they can get RICHER! :roll:

It just burns me that I have to work as hard as I do to have the things that I have only to see people not having to work and having nicer things then I do.

I understand this, really I do! I am all FOR "welfare reform" as President Clinton proposed! I don't see that President Dubya has even spent a day THINKING about it! His time is consumed with thoughts of bombing countries populated with "brown people" especially if they disagree with his Religious beliefs! :roll:

Wars cause INFLATION! For economic reasons, if nothing else, they should be the LAST resort.... not a planned governmental policy, as this war has been PROVED to be! :roll:

When our government stops spending Billions of dollars on this "trumped up" war, I will listen to yoiur complainst about a few Millions spent on welfare.

Deal?

[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by Uturn2001

Between the various comments I have read around the WWW there are a lot of people who truly have no clue what the supreme court ruling really means.

All this ruling says is that it is unconstitutional for cities, states, and the feds to make a blanket ban on firearms. In other words they can not come in and say...No handguns, as DC, Chicago and a few other cities have done.

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless. :roll:

[Rat]

Some people just don't get it I quess.

Plinking is going out and shooting cans or other things you don't want anymore.


Semi auto deer rifles are actually nice shooting. They have less kick which gives better target aquisition if you should miss while shooting at a whitetail deer that is moving across a field in double overdrive.


Dubya's war as you call it is not about the color of skin and yes it is a religious war of sorts. It is a war to keep ours and others freedom to seek any religion we see fit without having to worry about someone taking others or us out or slicing off our heads because we are infidels and don't worship Alla.

As for enlisting. Yeap I did that. US Marine Corp, 1989. Was sent home on a medical discharge.

So go try stomping on someone elses feet for a bit there buddy.

[Uturn2001]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

That isn't what the ruling said at all. Sheesh, and you have the nerve to call other people clueless. :roll:

For the most part what I said is accurate. All this ruling means is that it is unconstitutional for the government to have blanket bans on types of weapons. The case ended up at the Supreme Court because of a law suite challenging the DC handgun ban which a lower court ruled that the ban was unlawful.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the right to bear arms does not apply just in connection with service in a militia, as some have claimed, but rather is protected in a much broader context. The court upheld a lower court’s decision that an outright ban on handguns in Washington – which had the country’s strictest gun control legislation – was unconstitutional. In other words: if you wish to keep a gun at home for “traditionally lawful purposes”, including self-defence, you may.

From HERE
Which is just one of hundreds of news accounts of the ruling.

Now if you have a different opinion on what the ruling says or means then please share it.

[Rev.Vassago]

The ruling had nothing to do with Chicago and "a few other cities". :roll:

[kc0iv]

I guess it would depend on who you are calling "nuts" in Waco. The Branch Davidians or Attorney General Janet Reno?

I ask you a question. When did it become legal for the government to use tanks and Blackhawk helicopters on civilians? Last time I checked it is illegal to use the military against civilians per the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In addition why was the Delta Force and the British Strategic Air Service in Waco during the siege? Is this the type of operation you think the military should be involved in against private civilians?

Another question on Waco. When did it become illegal for a civilian to own non military firearms? All the weapons they found at the Branch Davidians compound were legal firearms. The Davidians were running a very profitable gun business. They were working with a gun deal named Henry McMahon, who held a Class III dealer's license allowing him to legally own, sell, and buy, any type of weapon.

Why did Attorney General Reno lie to Congress about the use of pyrotechnic devices? See: http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/24/fbi.waco/ Do you think it alright for an attorney general to lie to Congress? Or cover-up for the actions of BTF, FBI, and use false claims before a judge to get a search warrant?

Remember this is the same Attorney General Reno that oversaw the FBI that attack Randy Weaver and ended up paying over $2 million dollars in an out-of-court settlement to Weaver and his daughters.

You wonder why many believe they should have firearms? Well with the actions of people like Attorney General Reno maybe they should be concerned.

You talk about a "trumped up" war by Bush. How many wars have the Democrats got the U.S.A. involved in? How many billion of dollars has the U.S.A. spent in those wars?

You say a few million in welfare? Try over $234 billion in the Clinton budget. And not one dime for the work program he promised in speech after speech. Read the true Bill Clinton on welfare reform at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...48/ai_18614085

kc0iv

[Rat]

I along with millions hoep and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Rat

I along with millions hope and pray that we can stop this needless removal of our firearm rights. background checks are fine in my book but to deprive me totally of owning the types of firearms I care to own is unconstitutional.

Rat, this is a rational response, but I STILL have to point out a couple of things.

1) YOUR book is okay with me.... but, NOT with the NRA and the "gun lobbyists." They want NO background checks.... OR only an immediate one. They won't stand for a "reasonable" backgound check of a few days! EVEN with computers, there are too many chances for people to "hack" the records, for example, and come up "clean" on a QUICK check! IF you have no "CRIMINAL INTENT" in buying this weapon, you should have NO objection to a FULL background check that can't be easily "skirted."

THIS KIND OF PRACTICE is what allowed the 9/11 terrorists to get access to the planes that caused so much damage that day! The Consitution (actually the Bill of Rights) gives you protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." It does NOT give you carte blanche against REASONABLE investigation by authorities as to your "RIGHTS" (which CAN be restricted,) to purchase or OWN a firearm!

2) The fact that the Constitution gives you the RIGHT to own firearms, does NOT prohibit the government from placing "restrictions" on the types of "arms" you can own and bear. I have the "RIGHT" to pursue happiness... but not at 100 mph on the freeway! :roll: There will ALWAYS be "restrictions" on our rights. But, I hope those BASIC rights will never be revoked.

3) I'm an avid photographer. I LIKE taking pictures. But, the government has the RIGHT to "restrict" me from taking pictures of certain "secret" facilities. They can't take away my right to OWN a camera, OR to take pictures.... but, they CAN place restrictions on it! This is what our Legislators DO (when not taking a junket at our expense!) :lol:

There has NEVER been ANY form of "government" in all of history, including that of Ghengis Khan, that didn't place SOME restrictions on its people! The most BARBARIC of societies lived under the "restrictions" of some "power" that protected its OWN interests. GET OVER IT!