Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rat
So what you are saying is it is wrong to own a firearm? If you feel that way then move to Canada or another country where the people have no rights.
This is america and the 2nd amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms.
I don't carry anymore but when I was hauling cars as an O/O I had a Ruger Blackhawk .45 LC with a 7 inch barrel in my truck.
Hey when you have high end cars on the trailer then it is better to protect yourself especially when traveling through places like New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis and other big hostile cities.
I don't haul cars anymore but if someone wants a load of Potatoes then they are welcome to them. Wendies might get a little upset when they run low on French Fries though.
|
Assuming you are addressing ME, Rat.... NO. I am NOT saying that! What I am saying is that this whole case was SUPPOSED to settle the issue of what
IS meant by the 2nd Ammendment.... and I don't think it DID!
The decision was pretty much an EVEN split! That does NOT show ME that the highest court in the land could come to an EASY decision that would settle the argument! It shows me that they are as political as they can BE..... and that Scalia wouldn't have an "independent" thought if Cheney ALLOWED him to! :roll:
"I" have never said that the 2nd Ammendment doesn't give Americans the right to bear arms. I have said that the meaning was unclear, concerning the "militia" aspect, and that I'd LIKE to see it clarified once and for all! I don't see that it WAS, exactly. I have ALSO said, that BECAUSE it was unclear, those who tout it as their basis for argument, were basing their argument on THEIR interpretation of it. I WANTED to see the Supremes decide the issue one way or the other. I don't see a "political" split decision as having DONE so!
I have ALSO said that, EVEN under the NRA interpretation of it, it did NOT say that there could be no "restrictions" on the types of arms, and I still don't see that there CAN'T be.
I'm not sure that we got our money's worth out of this ruling! There may be MORE questions NOW than before!
I will ACCEPT this "political" decision by our Supreme Political Court as at least deciding that the Militia aspect doesn't apply, and therefore ALL citizens have the right to bear arms. I have NO PROBLEM with that. However, I still contend.... and am not convinced otherwise..... that local or state governments do not have the right to place "restrictions" on the types of arms a citizen can bear.
As KayCee said, this decision has NO bearing on the CCW laws. Therefore, doesn't really address the issue of "bearing" arms! I have NOT had a chance to fully investigate the ruling and its consequences yet, but.... it appears to me that the only thing decided was that HANDGUNS cannot be "restricted" by a local jurisdiction as they fall under the general description of FIREARMS. It says NOTHING about semi-auto rifles, maximum capacity "clips" or anything else.
Personally, I don't have a problem at all with citizens owning handguns! The D.C. ban had NO EFFECT anyways, since the guns were readily available from just outside the city limits!
I am, and WAS, mostly just interested in DEBATING the issue, and having it settled so a bunch of MORONS would stop claiming they had a right to own any and ALL forms of assault weapons and the like based on their interpretation of a badly worded ammendment to the Constitution. And if you think that THIS ruling has clarified that in "your" favor, then I suppose the next step will be a class action suit against the government for wrongful death in the case of WACO!
But, I can just about guarantee that THIS decision will NOT provide the precedent necessary to WIN such a suit!
Personally, I was sympathetic to Heller's case! And I am PROUD of my country and it's Constitution that ALLOWED him his right to "petition the government for redress of greviances!" (can't remember off the top of my head which ammendment that was,) but it shows that our system WORKS! My disappointment is with how Politically divided the court was!
My comments about Texans and BBR's was mostly in jest.... and you should lighten up a bit! I really can't STAND this attitude of "like it or leave it!" People who say that, basically mean that you can like it the way "I WANT IT TO BE" or get out. Well, I risked my life in the military to protect your rights.... AND my own.... to debate what
IS the law of the land!
I suppose you are a staunch Conservative. No problem. But, you probably can't stand the "entitlement" mindset of the welfare system. But.... right now, THAT is a law of the land! You don't LIKE it?? Why don't YOU move to Canada or somewhere else?? :roll:
Doesn't sound "fair" does it? And "I" would NEVER say that to you just because we might disagree on a subject of law. So, GROW UP.... and leave that playground Bully crap to the kids!
America was FOUNDED on the rights of individuals to disagree about politics! MANY have served and DIED to protect that right. For you, or anyone ELSE, to say I can "love it or leave it," is the HEIGHT of ignorance and despotism! Such an attitude pays a disservice to all the men and women who lie under little white crosses all over the world! As an American, I would be ASHAMED to ever utter such crap! :roll:
But, that is part of the problem today..... too many Americans have no idea what being one MEANS! I am NOT surprised! :roll:
Hobo
2nd Amendment upheld
