Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Budyzir]

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns


Mar 18, 4:55 PM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.

"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.

A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.

The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.

Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.

This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.
In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.

"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said. Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.

"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.

On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.

Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.

While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." ( :mad4: )

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Hopefully, as a law abiding citizen, living in New York City, I too may one day own a firearm to defend myself.

[Ballbuster1]

Good decision.

[THE FEZ MAN]

ummmm, im sorry but there was no decision made, how long before the written decision? they need to out right declare that the ban in DC is unconstitutional that is the only decision that will be a real victory for any one. i hate there convoluted bullshit

[Sinn Fein]

It's at least encouraging.

[mascan42]

Yeah, a total ban on handguns has really done wonders for DC's crime rate. :icon_roll

[TheDrip]

"The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."

Hey, how come I've never heard of the NRA sponsered "Give the terrorists a gun" drive?

Fucking dumb anti-gunners. The simple fact that they think that if guns are outlawed, criminals will say "hmm, well better use a knife to kill the guy, don't want to break the law about the gun thing" is fucking amazing. Do they pay no attention to how well drug laws have worked to keep drugs out of the population's hands?

[TheDrip]

ummmm, im sorry but there was no decision made, how long before the written decision? they need to out right declare that the ban in DC is unconstitutional that is the only decision that will be a real victory for any one. i hate there convoluted bullshit

The report I read on the case said sometime mid to late summer for a decision.

[THE FEZ MAN]

Yeah, a total ban on handguns has really done wonders for DC's crime rate. :icon_roll
they admit that the crime rate did not go down, yet insist that the ban must remain in effect..... for the children.....

[domelogic]

i cant believe there is actually a debate about this. for some reason i thought the second amendment was clear. amazingly it always comes down to the criminals get them to easy yet if they banned them everywhere the criminals would still have them.

[THE FEZ MAN]

i cant believe there is actually a debate about this. for some reason i thought the second amendment was clear. amazingly it always comes down to the criminals get them to easy yet if they banned them everywhere the criminals would still have them.

well no shit, and while there at it create an entirely new group of criminals (people that would refuse to give there guns up) it would open the flood gates of a new black market

[distortion9]

The report I read on the case said sometime mid to late summer for a decision.

By the end of June.

[Voss's Tumor]

well no shit, and while there at it create an entirely new group of criminals (people that would refuse to give there guns up) it would open the flood gates of a new black market

No way dude... That wouldn't happen! Prohibition works! We've proven that if you throw enough money at a problem and take away the rights of responsible people you can accomplish anything!

Oh wait...

[Sprite]

I think I saw this in a post or someone's sig on this board....

"An armed society is a polite society."

[ChrisC_EIT]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Hopefully, as a law abiding citizen, living in New York City, I too may one day own a firearm to defend myself.

Link?

By the way, it's 10:45pm, March 18th, and both cnn.com and foxnews.com are still carrying articles on this subject from this morning, as if no decision has been reached.

Interesting, methinks.

[BIV]

Link?

By the way, it's 10:45pm, March 18th, and both cnn.com and foxnews.com are still carrying articles on this subject from this morning, as if no decision has been reached.

Interesting, methinks.

Officially, it hasn't. No decision is final until the written decision, which will come by the end of June.

Despite this, very encouraging.

[CougarHunter]

Ban criminals and terrorists. Better yet, put me out of a job and just put a bounty on their scalps.

[Sam_Adams]

Link?

By the way, it's 10:45pm, March 18th, and both cnn.com and foxnews.com are still carrying articles on this subject from this morning, as if no decision has been reached.

Interesting, methinks.

Because there has been no decision made and there won't be one until June most likely. It's a major issue and it will take a while because it's a tad bit more important than the FCC "indecency" decision considering it's dealing with one of our original Amendments.

Unfortunately they will probably still want to band sawed-off shotguns, "AOWs" (suppressors/pistols with foregrips), and automatics. I don't expect anything good from the deicison.

About the most they will go will be getting rid of weapons bans to an extent that cities can still require permitting which they can refuse. Just as long as there is a "chance" to have pistols.

I'd wish that they'd have the balls to clear everything out and allow all weapons but I don't think it will happen after hearing a few justices asking about if the attorneys for the plaintiff if they thought restrictions on automatics and sawed-offs would be appropriate and he conceded.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

"shall NOT infringe..."

Me thinks that "permits" and other "restrictions" are an infringement.

[crippledalbino]

:popcorn:
Change the world, guys. Change the world. Heh.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

:popcorn:
Change the world, guys. Change the world. Heh.

My version of change would mean a lot of hang time for evil doers and their cohorts in public office.

[Vyce]

The early news does seem somewhat encouraging, in the sense that it looks like this will be a blow for the anti-gun crowd, i.e. it appears that the Court will finally rule that the 2nd amendment applies to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights - not this bullshit that some in the anti-gun movement have tried to peddle that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly so that only militias could bear them.

However, I still have much cause for concern. I'm afraid that we might get a compromised verdict - the Court will uphold individual gun ownership, but at the same time uphold the D.C. gun ban, arguing that cities have a right to make restrictions on firearms based upon the circumstances (i.e. have a bad crime problem? Well, feel free to ban firearms then). Which could result in little change whatsoever, meaning that some cities could still permit access to firearms, others might be allowed to totally restrict them.

I'd be okay with the Court holding that restrictions are allowable provided that they're reasonable - and simultaneously holding that D.C.'s strict ban on firearms goes too far and would be considered UNreasonable. I can live with restrictions, because I'm a law-abiding member of society, and furthermore, I don't even OWN a gun and am not really sure if I truly want to. However, I don't want my city, wherever I live, to be allowed to totally ban my access to firearms for no other reason than "we've got a high crime rate and don't think it's a good idea". So long as a person clears all necessary background checks, isn't a formerly convicted felon, and goes through all of the proper procedures of licensing and registration, they should be allowed to own a firearm - period.

[Begbie]

amazingly it always comes down to the criminals get them to easy yet if they banned them everywhere the criminals would still have them.

And then you've got a situation where the criminals can illegally obtain guns, yet law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves from these criminals cannot defend themselves. That's quite a problem there.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

So long as a person clears all necessary background checks, isn't a formerly convicted felon, and goes through all of the proper procedures of licensing and registration, they should be allowed to own a firearm - period.

With all due respect...go fuck a duck with your restrictions. :mad4:

[distortion9]

Guys, we need to be thinking of this as a first step. We're not going to get back everything we have lost in the last 70 years in one fell swoop.

Don't know if you noticed but, the more liberal judges were peppering Gura with questions about "machine guns"...these were land mine questions and he was smart enough not to bite. We would have looked like lunatics in todays papers if he demanded that restrictions be lifted off of full auto weapons. Not the time or place.

Getting 2A recognized as an individual right will be huge...it will allow us to fight many other battles in the future.

Even if they say that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed, every existing restriction could be questioned and challenged.

[Goober]

The decision will be useless to me if I can not carry a gun around DC. Most of the trouble occurs out on the mean streets.

[Vyce]

With all due respect...go fuck a duck with your restrictions. :mad4:

Why? Those are the REASONABLE restrictions out there.

You can't possibly be arguing that we shouldn't background check people, keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, or have unlicensed gun owners or unregistered weaposn floating around out there. I'm for gun ownership, but c'mon, it's not the wild west anymore.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Defense of ones self is the most important natural law. Which is really the heart of the Second Amendment.

"Well regulated..." in 1789 meant "well trained in the use of", not ruled to death by some petty tyrant(s).

And yes, I'm for any freeman (including felons released from prison) to use/carry/own whatever they want to defend themselves. Your rights shouldn't disappear because some CUNT in public office thinks it'll make them safer.

[sniper2323]

The early news does seem somewhat encouraging, in the sense that it looks like this will be a blow for the anti-gun crowd, i.e. it appears that the Court will finally rule that the 2nd amendment applies to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights - not this bullshit that some in the anti-gun movement have tried to peddle that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly so that only militias could bear them.

However, I still have much cause for concern. I'm afraid that we might get a compromised verdict - the Court will uphold individual gun ownership, but at the same time uphold the D.C. gun ban, arguing that cities have a right to make restrictions on firearms based upon the circumstances (i.e. have a bad crime problem? Well, feel free to ban firearms then). Which could result in little change whatsoever, meaning that some cities could still permit access to firearms, others might be allowed to totally restrict them.

I'd be okay with the Court holding that restrictions are allowable provided that they're reasonable - and simultaneously holding that D.C.'s strict ban on firearms goes too far and would be considered UNreasonable. I can live with restrictions, because I'm a law-abiding member of society, and furthermore, I don't even OWN a gun and am not really sure if I truly want to. However, I don't want my city, wherever I live, to be allowed to totally ban my access to firearms for no other reason than "we've got a high crime rate and don't think it's a good idea". So long as a person clears all necessary background checks, isn't a formerly convicted felon, and goes through all of the proper procedures of licensing and registration, they should be allowed to own a firearm - period.

I agree to most of this. To own a firearm, you shouldn't need a license or have it registred. Also while training is a good idea, but again it has to be reasonable.

Remeber, we are talking lawyers here.. "Ok, you can have a handgun, just buy this license, which the city may wave the fee on a case by case basis. The fee for the license $5,000. Now to register your firearm, oh that will require you to carry insurance and again another fee."

I hate to even try to talk lawyer speak/lawmaker speak, but I could see this loophole being used to do several things. 1. make it hard for people to own a firearm when they are otherwise qualified. 2 Generate funds for the city for the people that can own a firearm and have the funds.

Lets look at automatic firearms / sound suppressors. Pass a background check, Simular to the background check on a CCP, pay a 200 "Tax stamp" and then the price of the firearm/device. So basicly, if you are a good person, have $200 you wish to give the government, and pay for a overpriced weapon, you are good to go.

How about a state sales tax on firearms/ammo, oh about 150% on the sales price?

Do I sound like like this court case sounds good but doesn't solve the problem.

[sniper2323]

On a interesting side note, slightly outdated.

When I was in the military, we talked about what if's.

What would we do if we were ordered to disarm the public in general?

35 guys in my flight agreed they could not follow such a order because it would be unlawful.

[Vyce]

I agree to most of this. To own a firearm, you shouldn't need a license or have it registred.

This is utterly impractical in today's world.

[sniper2323]

This is utterly impractical in today's world.

How so? I guess I am kinda lost on this as I can goto a person and buy a handgun or a rifle or a shotgun, and have a bill of sale. Many of my weapons are not on a book somewhere that shows I own it. My state and county do not require I jump through the hoops.

As for todays world, Where computer data centers are breached and info is sold, I am greatful to know, that my firearms are not there on a list to show the highest bidder what I own.

I understand what you are trying for, or at least I think I do.

Qualified people, read, People who are not mental, violent criminals with a high likelyhood to re-offend (Which still gets me shaking my head why they are free), etc. But to go down the road of requiring x,y,z at that persons expense, is no longer a right.

Please tell me where I am wrong.

[Vyce]

You can't have unlicensed or unregistered firearms floating around out there. You just can't. It's a nightmare for law enforcement agencies and personnel. They have to have some way of being able to track these weapons. That isn't a "the government is trying to Big Brother you" situation either, it's in the general welfare of the state (and federal) government to be able to track weapons.

I get what you're saying, that states which aren't allowed to ban firearms will do an end run around their limitations by using licensing and registration to accomplish much the same goals (set the licensing requirements too high or too difficult, that sort of thing), but that is an issue that you can best resolve on a local level by the power of your vote. Pressure your local government to make the changes you want. But having zero licensing or registration just isn't realistic, it's too much of a nightmare. Look at the problems law enforcement has had with people obtaining guns via gun shows.

[Sam_Adams]

This is utterly impractical in today's world.

You can't have unlicensed or unregistered firearms floating around out there. You just can't. It's a nightmare for law enforcement agencies and personnel. They have to have some way of being able to track these weapons. That isn't a "the government is trying to Big Brother you" situation either, it's in the general welfare of the state (and federal) government to be able to track weapons.

We don't "track" firearms here in Arkansas and we don't have waiting periods after buying them. We also don't have "licensing" of them. Guess what? There isn't mayhem and chaos. People mind their own business and nothing happens out of the norm.


Firearms shouldn't be registered or licensed. If you have licenses then you have refusal of your Right. Then it's permission, not a right.

Plus why is it any of the government's business what firearms you have? Are they registering pocket knives or kitchen knives? Those kill tons of people too.

And who gives a fuck if it's a "nightmare" for law enforcement? Fuck em. I quit caring because they shot and killed a mentally retarded man here locally that was unarmed because he didn't "comply" with commands. That shit isn't a mistake, that's being a fucking asshole.

Cops are out killing American citizens on "accident" and they are for some reason allowed to have automatic firearms and sawed-off shotguns when WE CAN'T own them. Fuck em. Enough is fucking enough.

How about Ruby Ridge? Was it a nightmare for that family to have half of them slaughtered by "registered" government firearms because the father missed his court date because the court incorrectly scheduled his arraignment date?

Fuck tracking firearms. We don't need permission for shit. Fuck em

Try tracking these motherfuckers. They will disappear into a concrete bunker never to be seen by any government agency until I decide I need them.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e311/Blacktalons/AKPair.jpg

[sniper2323]

You can't have unlicensed or unregistered firearms floating around out there. You just can't. It's a nightmare for law enforcement agencies and personnel. They have to have some way of being able to track these weapons. That isn't a "the government is trying to Big Brother you" situation either, it's in the general welfare of the state (and federal) government to be able to track weapons.

I get what you're saying, that states which aren't allowed to ban firearms will do an end run around their limitations by using licensing and registration to accomplish much the same goals (set the licensing requirements too high or too difficult, that sort of thing), but that is an issue that you can best resolve on a local level by the power of your vote. Pressure your local government to make the changes you want. But having zero licensing or registration just isn't realistic, it's too much of a nightmare. Look at the problems law enforcement has had with people obtaining guns via gun shows.

Well, being prior law enforcement, I can say this. Lesson one, treat everyone like they have a weapon. this doesn't mean hold everyone a gun point, but understand they might have a gun and they might do you harm.

I understand what you are saying, but this is not a big brother thing. It is a very simple matter. Criminals are a criminal for a reason. They don't follow laws/rules/regs.

Right now, I could sell you a handgun or a rifle or a shotgun. No paperwork, pick it up in person, no worries about sending it to a ffl holder.

So if I understand you correctly, is this would add more paperwork, more time, and more stuff to keep track of? If your firearm is stolen, report it. It is now being tracked.

Just a few random thoughts

[sniper2323]

We don't "track" firearms here in Arkansas and we don't have waiting periods after buying them. We also don't have "licensing" of them. Guess what? There isn't mayhem and chaos. People mind their own business and nothing happens out of the norm.


Firearms shouldn't be registered or licensed. If you have licenses then you have refusal of your Right. Then it's permission, not a right.

Plus why is it any of the government's business what firearms you have? Are they registering pocket knives or kitchen knives? Those kill tons of people too.

And who gives a fuck if it's a "nightmare" for law enforcement? Fuck em. I quit caring because they shot and killed a mentally retarded man here locally that was unarmed because he didn't "comply" with commands. That shit isn't a mistake, that's being a fucking asshole.

Cops are out killing American citizens on "accident" and they are for some reason allowed to have automatic firearms and sawed-off shotguns when WE CAN'T own them. Fuck em. Enough is fucking enough.

How about Ruby Ridge? Was it a nightmare for that family to have half of them slaughtered by "registered" government firearms because the father missed his court date because the court incorrectly scheduled his arraignment date?

Fuck tracking firearms. We don't need permission for shit. Fuck em

Try tracking these motherfuckers. They will disappear into a concrete bunker never to be seen by any government agency until I decide I need them.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e311/Blacktalons/AKPair.jpg

Ok, you convinced me..

Full back ground checks and 24 hour survailance on people living in or are from Arkansas.:action-sm

[Sam_Adams]

Ok, you convinced me..

Full back ground checks and 24 hour survailance on people living in or are from Arkansas.:action-sm

I'm former LE as well :action-sm I just am tired of all of the political bullshit and nanny government shit.

They need to leave people alone and get back to taking care of the military and schools.

There are tons of useless government agencies that are still around that need to be disbanded. They are only around to keep people employed.

I'm just jaded and I'm fucking tired of how things are going. I like how the census tells you that if you don't fill out their paperwork that they will prosecute you and send you to prison. FUCK THEM. It's like if they don't have enough criminals then they will make laws to fucking make criminals. Stop with the fucking regulations. It never ends.

Really, why is it important to have the census know how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have? Just take a fucking count of heads and that's it.

[Vyce]

We don't "track" firearms here in Arkansas and we don't have waiting periods after buying them. We also don't have "licensing" of them. Guess what? There isn't mayhem and chaos. People mind their own business and nothing happens out of the norm.


Firearms shouldn't be registered or licensed. If you have licenses then you have refusal of your Right. Then it's permission, not a right.

Plus why is it any of the government's business what firearms you have? Are they registering pocket knives or kitchen knives? Those kill tons of people too.

And who gives a fuck if it's a "nightmare" for law enforcement? Fuck em. I quit caring because they shot and killed a mentally retarded man here locally that was unarmed because he didn't "comply" with commands. That shit isn't a mistake, that's being a fucking asshole.

Cops are out killing American citizens on "accident" and they are for some reason allowed to have automatic firearms and sawed-off shotguns when WE CAN'T own them. Fuck em. Enough is fucking enough.

How about Ruby Ridge? Was it a nightmare for that family to have half of them slaughtered by "registered" government firearms because the father missed his court date because the court incorrectly scheduled his arraignment date?

Fuck tracking firearms. We don't need permission for shit. Fuck em

Try tracking these motherfuckers. They will disappear into a concrete bunker never to be seen by any government agency until I decide I need them.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e311/Blacktalons/AKPair.jpg

Yeah, no offense, but this posse comitatus shit is exactly why I can agree with licensing and registration (and waiting periods, and a ban on assault rifles, etc.) requirements.

[CougarHunter]

I have somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple dozen firearms. Exactly 3 of them are registered. Am I a problem?

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Yeah, no offense, but this posse comitatus shit is exactly why I can agree with licensing and registration (and waiting periods, and a ban on assault rifles, etc.) requirements.

The Nazi's invented gun registration, it helped them disarm people before they murdered them. Is that your state of bliss?

[Voss's Tumor]

Yeah, no offense, but this posse comitatus shit is exactly why I can agree with licensing and registration (and waiting periods, and a ban on assault rifles, etc.) requirements.

Honestly, dude, most of the time I think you argue your points well, and I just don't argue back because while I know you're wrong in your assumptions, you're better educated in arguing than me so I'm going to lose. It's just the way that shit is.

I'm telling you, I doubt you've ever even fired a serious weapon in your life. You're a lawyer, you don't do that shit.

Sam will kick your ass in this argument. Listen to his reason and don't hold him to the standards of framing an argument like a lawyer so you can understand it easily, and he will fucking murder you with reality on this one.

[Voss's Tumor]

And yes, as these points are argued back and forth, you will see someone throw in a Ron Paul '08 reference. It doesn't mean they are a racist, it just means that the enough is enough mentality of Libertarianism would fix this problem too.

And it would be fixed. Not band-aided like it has been for the last 100 years.

I'll go ahead and be the lightening rod for this sentiment since I'm already seen as a Paulbot, even though I'm not. It really is a new idea that's scary, but it's also correct. Call me whatever you want to make yourself more comfortable with my beliefs, I don't really care.

[Vyce]

Honestly, dude, most of the time I think you argue your points well, and I just don't argue back because while I know you're wrong in your assumptions, you're better educated in arguing than me so I'm going to lose. It's just the way that shit is.

I'm telling you, I doubt you've ever even fired a serious weapon in your life. You're a lawyer, you don't do that shit.

Sam will kick your ass in this argument. Listen to his reason and don't hold him to the standards of framing an argument like a lawyer so you can understand it easily, and he will fucking murder you with reality on this one.

You can't at least appreciate that the particular rhetoric he used is, shall we say, a bit provocative?

I mean, talking about how cops kill people by "accident" (his use of quotes has one hell of a loaded implication there) along with his "fuck the goverment" attitude and apparent willingness to stockpile assault rifles (someone want to clue me in on why you need THOSE in your gun collection) is kind of enough to give one pause.

But now you're painting me into the role of the enemy here, when I've already stated I'm for gun ownership. I simply do not agree with some of you that there needs to be.....well, practically zero restrictions on that gun ownership. C'mon. Don't act as if that's unreasonable.

I'm telling you, I doubt you've ever even fired a serious weapon in your life. You're a lawyer, you don't do that shit.

Also, tell me how this would mean anything in relation to the discussion at hand.

[Sam_Adams]

You can't at least appreciate that the particular rhetoric he used is, shall we say, a bit provocative?

I mean, talking about how cops kill people by "accident" (his use of quotes has one hell of a loaded implication there) along with his "fuck the goverment" attitude and apparent willingness to stockpile assault rifles (someone want to clue me in on why you need THOSE in your gun collection) is kind of enough to give one pause.

But now you're painting me into the role of the enemy here, when I've already stated I'm for gun ownership. I simply do not agree with some of you that there needs to be.....well, practically zero restrictions on that gun ownership. C'mon. Don't act as if that's unreasonable.



Also, tell me how this would mean anything in relation to the discussion at hand.

Well I will start out by saying that some cops do indeed have justification for killing certain individuals that are overtly dangerous themselves. However, there are many incidents that occur every year where cops rush into situations without thinking things through because they want to just save the day and be Rambo.

They need to show greater restraint and not be confrontational when they KNOW someone is armed with weaponry and has the posibility of being unstable as long as they don't present an immediate threat (ie; hostage).

Like I said before, there was even a dickhead Arkansas State Trooper that couldn't believe that a man lying on the ground would think about not listening to him after he rushed to the scene and first drew a loaded 12 gauge shotgun at an unarmed man. The other cops present weren't confronting the young man but were instead acting like professionals and talking him through what he should comply with. But Hoss runs in, yells, approches the young man lying on the ground and as soon as he moved one of his arms the cop unloaded a very lethal 12gauge 00 Buckshot round flying at approx 1,800 feet per second that sent twelve 9mm balls of lead tearing through his torso. Of course the mentally retarded man had no chance to survive this dickhead.

I'm simply tired of the attacks on gun owners and repeated threats of bans every fucking year by small-dicked politicians that are too afraid to leave their homes because they watch too many CSI shows at night and think they will go out and die from people with guns.

The fact of the matter is that many of these crimes committed by individuals with firearms are those that have been arrested/convicted for violent crimes in the past but they weren't forced to face any real punishment. They then think they aren't really going to be held accountable and continue to victimize others until they end up shooting someone.

If they would simply enforce laws that are already on the books then there would be no reason to threaten taking away the rights of honest Americans.

I'm sorry, but knowing that there are on average 12,000 people are killed each year in this country from firearms (excluding the majority of deaths caused by suicide) and that around a 1,000,000 cases each year of preserving life in this nation from the use/presentation of personal firearms then I feel just fine with the numbers.

I'm sorry, but doing the math...1Million lives saved outweighs 12k taken.

Just so you know, in 2003 there were 30,000 firearms related deaths in the nation. 56% of which were suicides, 39% homicide and the last 5% were cop related/accidental/unknown.

If you'd like updated stats then you can check out the CDC.

You also asked why anyone would need "assault"weapons. Well let me inform you sir that there are only a very small number of assault weapons in the US and outside of the military most of them are owned by police departments and government agencies followed up by a small part of the population that owns automatic rifles/submachine guns that were registered prior to 1986's passage of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act that has a provision snuck in and added without a full vote in the middle of the night called the "Hughes Act" that effectively banned automatic weapons from being privately owned and disallowed the registration of any newly imported/manufactured weapons from being registered by filling out a Form 4.

So, there aren't people out there buying "Assault" weapons. That's a trigger word used by the media to scare people and make them think that there is a threat out there. Those rifles out there are simply semi-automatic firearms that are LESS lethal than ANY hunting rifle.

If you study the ballistics then you will see that an SKS/AK-47 is less powerful than a simple 30-30, that an AR-15 is less powerful than a 22-250 hunting rifle, and that a 7.62NATO semi-auto rifle (usually an AR-15 type, FAL or CETME) is less powerful than just a hunting 30.06 rifle that people use for deer. All of the traditional hunting firearms are more lethal than the "militarized" semi-automatic sporting rifles. You can even get higher capacity magazines for them.

Also, the non-military hunting rounds used for the taking of deer are much more lethal. Unlike military rounds that are full metal jacketed (FMJ) the sporting rounds either have a soft lead tip, hollow point or they feature a polymer ballistic tip that aid in massive expansion or fragmentation to deposit more kinetic energy into the target that will rip tissue to pieces and leave large terminal exit cavities that cause massive hemoraging and induce shock. They are almost always unsurvivable.

And you said that I am anti-government. You are very wrong in that assumption. I'm anti-bureaucracy bullshit that makes government very ineffective and useless. I am tired of the constant adding of more and more regulations to regulation that make it impossible to do anything and put people in fear of their own government of reprimand and fines for breaking useless rules.

Most rules governing firearms were put into place by biased individuals with agendas. The initial bans that went into effect occured back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act that basically struck back (like a limp-wristed faggot) at criminals that were robbing banks during the time of the Great Depression using sawed-off shotguns and Thompson submachine guns.

As you may remember from history class that was during a time of prohibition where those socialists in government at the time wanted to dictate how Americans should live by taking away rights and misusing the sacred document, the United States Constitution, to ban alcohol with the 18th Amendment, the only amendment to be used as law enforcement instead of ensuring rights of citizens.

There was also a closet homosexual with no law enforcement experience, only a law degree, that had been given the task to form a government agency to enforce a crackdown on alcohol manufacturing/sales and the oranized crime associated with it.

There also was another government entity that was called the Bureau of Prohibition that was part of the Treasury Department to collect and regulate taxes on alcohol (to bust up stills and manufacturing of alcohol during the Volsted Act) and tobacco.

Once the 21st Amendment was put in place the nation was still in the Great Depression and instead of disbanding the Bureau of Prohibition they changed the name and it then was given an additional task after the NFA of '34 to regulate/restrict firearms that were deemed to not having a sporting use or to be of non-military service in militias from the Miller decision. The agency had a few hundred employees and Roosevelt wasn't going to get rid of the jobs during the depression. And since this new agency was part of the treasury department they required a $200 stamp tax to be paid for any NFA weapons.

It's just about money. It wasn't about security. The regulations were put in place to try to sway people from wanting particular weapons that just so happened to be popular with criminals at the time as well. Back then $200 was about a half-year's salary for the average person and no one was going to pay it and they didn't. If they wanted a sawed-off shotgun then they'd just buy a $20 gun and cut it down and ignore the tax like a reasonable person would do.

It's just about money and the agenda of the Roosevelt administration. They were prohibitionists and they LOVED it. That motherfucker wouldn't even try to save our European allies during WWII until we got bombed by the Japs. He isn't one of my favored presidents.

I hope you enjoyed the read and lesson for today.

[Sam_Adams]

And for the short of it ,because I doubt that you'll read the reply I have given you, I will say a few short things.

Needing and wanting particular firearms are different things. But they are one and the same when it comes to my 2nd Amendment Right because I don't need to explain a fucking thing to anyone asking why I should "need" my Right. It's just a given.

And I have weapons that I use for target practice and the pure enjoyment of shooting. I also have weaponry that is specific to neutralizing human life if that horrible occasion does arise.

Don't get me wrong. I don't ever want to have to kill someone, but I would do it in a heartbeat if I needed to preserve my or someone else's life. There is no hesitation about that and I'm not going to pussyfoot around the issue.

And I'm not anti-government like you say. I'm anti-bureaucracy and over regulation from a nanny government. It's not their business what I do in my life if I'm not out hurting people. They need to provide a military and schooling. I will do the rest. I don't need some socialist mommy government coddling me and telling me what it thinks is best for me.

[Voss's Tumor]

Also, tell me how this would mean anything in relation to the discussion at hand.

Because he's a gun dealer that used to be a cop who understands and respect the Constitution who lives in Arkansas. You're a lawyer who deals with school districts who lives in DC. Your points of view are so fucking far askew there's no way anyone could have a realistic expectation that you would share a point of view on ANY topic. But the natures of his ideas are correct, even if:

You can't at least appreciate that the particular rhetoric he used is, shall we say, a bit provocative?

Like I said, he's a gun dealer from Arkansas, you're a Lawyer in the most politically motivated town in the history of the world. It offends you that someone feels they should be able to own an "assault rifle", and it offends him that the word "assault rifle" even exists. There is no such thing as an "Assault rifle", that word was invented by lawyers.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

I can turn almost any benign object into an assault weapon.

[Sam_Adams]

I can turn almost any benign object into an assault weapon.

Exactly. It's just a trigger word meant to scare people.

[Vyce]

And I'm not anti-government like you say. I'm anti-bureaucracy and over regulation from a nanny government. It's not their business what I do in my life if I'm not out hurting people. They need to provide a military and schooling. I will do the rest. I don't need some socialist mommy government coddling me and telling me what it thinks is best for me.

Then why didn't you write out your long, reasonable, explanatory post first instead of going with the old "fuck the government / FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!!!" scribe.

I feel I have a better understanding of your position and where you're coming from now. I still maintain that the sort of restrictions I've talked about here are reasonable. I'll make a concession for you, and perhaps it's a concession you will make too: different areas perhaps require different measures. What may work for you guys down in Arkansas won't necessarily work out in other parts of the country.

Don't mischaracterize me, either. I've already said I don't have a problem with individuals owning rifles (hunting rifles), handguns, semi-automatic weaponry. Personally, I don't think Americans need to be armed with fully-automatic weaponry, or that your average Joe should be walking around with a fully-automatic, operationaly AK-47, or even a sawed-off shotgun. It'd be a hard sell convincing me such a weapon is necessary to take down that 10-point buck. If you tell me that the majority of the weapons being sold in this country are, at best (or worst) semi-automatic, then fine.

Don't paint me as one of the extremes here. I'm for you having your guns. I simply don't think that certain restrictions on you having those guns is unreasonable. I'm not talking about EXTREME restrictions, either. When I say reasonable, I mean it.

[Vyce]

Because he's a gun dealer that used to be a cop who understands and respect the Constitution who lives in Arkansas. You're a lawyer who deals with school districts who lives in DC. Your points of view are so fucking far askew there's no way anyone could have a realistic expectation that you would share a point of view on ANY topic. But the natures of his ideas are correct, even if:

Then to get all lawyer like on you, present your argument as such in the first place. You didn't. You implied that whether I had FIRED a weapon or not is what would be the be-all, end-all in terms of perspective on the issue, not whether he has more of an informed opinion on the matter because he sells firearms for a living.

If you're going to chastise me, at least have the courtesy to give me more information as to why his opinion should way more than mine other than "you probably have never fired a weapon".

Anyway, Sam made his case - in a more reasonable fashion, I might add - and I'm happy with it.

[Sam_Adams]

Then why didn't you write out your long, reasonable, explanatory post first instead of going with the old "fuck the government / FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!!!" scribe.

Because that takes effort and time and I didn't want to just spend 15 minutes typing something out, but in the end I had to anyway.:action-sm

And let also add to my long reply. Out of those homocides (killing of another human) a big portion of those are from legal kills of attackers in order to preserve life. Not all of them are crime related. So, in the end not as many people die each year from murderer's hands.

And just a little insight. There are between 250-280,000,000 privately owned firearms in America with over 60% of homes owning firearms. It's basically impossible to take away weapons from those who already own them. I highly doubt that half of America deer hunts :action-sm


I'll make a concession for you, and perhaps it's a concession you will make too: different areas perhaps require different measures. What may work for you guys down in Arkansas won't necessarily work out in other parts of the country.

It's not about "what may work" it's about the 2nd Amendment Right of all American citizens. There shouldn't be bans on weaponry. And if there ARE bans then the government needs to abide by them as well. If there are to be no automatics for citizens then cops/government shouldn't have them either.

It'd be a hard sell convincing me such a weapon is necessary to take down that 10-point buck. If you tell me that the majority of the weapons being sold in this country are, at best (or worst) semi-automatic, then fine.

You are mistaken. Our 2nd Amendment Right isn't about hunting. It's about killing people. They didn't say they wanted us to be able to kill deer, they wanted us to have the right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, from other domestic threats and invading forces.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Simply put, sawed off shotguns, and fully automatic weapons have defensive uses, sir.

[Sam_Adams]

Simply put, sawed off shotguns, and fully automatic weapons have defensive uses, sir.

Not only that, but also military use, unlike what the Miller Decision states.

The military used sawed-offs during trench warfare in WWI and also automatic weapons which was ignored during the Miller hearing.

And those fall under the use in a militia. So, therefore they shouldn't be restricted. The military forces also use suppressors, which also shouldn't be NFA weapons.

[Voss's Tumor]

Don't paint me as one of the extremes here. I'm for you having your guns. I simply don't think that certain restrictions on you having those guns is unreasonable. I'm not talking about EXTREME restrictions, either. When I say reasonable, I mean it.

This statement. This one right here is why I chastized you before this conversation began.

You feel there should be a right to place restrictions on citizens for using legal items. The contitution says otherwise.

DC has a horrendous crime problem because law abiding citizens can't own a method to defend themselves so the criminals feel safer taking their shit.

I mean, the nature of DC itself is that it's the only city that is controled by the Federal Government, and it's also probably the most fucked up city in the country.

You're a lawyer. You know jack and shit about what goes on with a fire arm. You completely ingored all Sam's ballistic argument because you don't understand what he was saying. That long post he made should have made any man educated on the operation of a fire arm realize why any restrictions on guns are wrong, but because you don't know much about guns, it didn't.

Call me Nostradamus dude, I just saw this is what was going to happen.

[Vyce]

DC has a horrendous crime problem because law abiding citizens can't own a method to defend themselves so the criminals feel safer taking their shit.

I mean, the nature of DC itself is that it's the only city that is controled by the Federal Government, and it's also probably the most fucked up city in the country.


Perhaps you missed the part where I stressed I was against opposed to the D.C. gun ban (a position I've stressed before on this board) and hope that the court strikes it down.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I support gun ownership before you fucking understand what I'm saying.

You seem to be taking my position, that I don't entirely support TOTALLY UNFETTERED gun ownership, to mean I'm for banning all firearms. Despite what you may feel, my position on the subject is not the extreme one.

You're a lawyer. You know jack and shit about what goes on with a fire arm. You completely ingored all Sam's ballistic argument because you don't understand what he was saying. That long post he made should have made any man educated on the operation of a fire arm realize why any restrictions on guns are wrong, but because you don't know much about guns, it didn't.

Oh Christ. This is rather petty of you, VT. Sam made his argument, I UNDERSTOOD IT, and I came around to understanding his position on some things, other things I still have a disagreement with on, but frankly, I would consider it to be one of those "agreeable disagreements" deals, where we have a difference of opinion on some things, but I respect his position, his knowledge on the subject, and appreciate the fact that he took the time to educate me on the subject and clear up some of my misconceptions.

Your mocking tone and thinly veiled insults here has added nothing to the discussion, unlike Sam, who actually did contribute a great deal to the discussion, and all by himself, without your cheerleading.

[Voss's Tumor]

My point is that your opinion shouldn't matter. There should be no convincing of anyone. This is a constitutional amendment, it's in the bill of rights, it an irrevocable, not up for discussion right. It should not be up for discussion, period.

My point is that whether you agree, disagree, or agree to disagree should be irrelevant. I honestly don't think you understand that.

Edit: And to add, I am being insulting to you, but I'm not intending to, honestly. You're also insulting me and not intending to when you put my rights up for discussion and regulation.

[THE FEZ MAN]

ok, ive said it before and i will say it again. the second ammendment has NOTHING to do with "hunting" so the argument of "proper sporting weapons" is total bullshit and nothing more than a weak compromise that is being presented buy gun abolitionists to further there cause.

the second amendment is in place to protect the "people" from one another, to uphold the constitution and this republic. EVERY citizen has the DUTY to up hold the constitution, and the laws of the land.

to deny the right of the citizens the ability to defend ones self and ones country because of the method or tool they to use to do this is unconstitutional.

that being said, i do believe that there should be some sort of consequences for using fire arms in the commission of a crime, but owning fire arms should not be a crime.
if my self and my neighbors want to mount quad .50s on the roof of our homes to defend them we should be allowed to do so, because its our right. hell if we want to shoot them. it shouldn't be a problem (unless the noise upsets the neighbors or we are acting in an "unsafe" manner)

i have had this discussion with most of the people that i choose to associate with;

if you have to will you defend yourself and your home, be it the united states of america, your family, or your self, will you do it? the answer is always yes, that, in my opinion is a militia, the very thing that made this country, friends and like minded neighbors that decided that they were sick and tired of people that dont speak for them telling them what to do. that is what is going on in this country today, people that dont speak for the majority of us controlling the lives of others.

it really bugs the shit out of me, if i want to carry a fire arm to defend my self its my right, if i want to carry a knife or a club, or be a trained killer like master po so be it. for some one else to tell me what fire arm that i choose is absurd. the ban on hand gun ownership any ware in the united states is unconstitutional.

do i want criminals to be able to walk into 7/11 and buy a toss away two shot pistol for 5$? no. some other type of compromise must be made, this i agree too, but to tell me that i cant defend my self buy any means accessible, as a citizen in good standing. is insulting to say the least if not treasonous

[BigDickGuzinya]

Gotta disagree with Fez for once. My understanding of the intent and purpose of the second amendment is
A. Freedom to own firearms without restriction.
B. The citizens rights to own firearms was specifically written in order that the citizenry be able to protect themselves from our own Government. This was written after winning the war against the Brits for our nation,whose very existence is founded on personal freedoms and escaping tyrannical governments. That's why we fought and died for independence in the first place. The founding fathers,in their wisdom,put the amendment in place to safeguard those freedoms from future governments.The federalist papers talk about it.

On a side note,I remember from the big to-do about the assault weapons ban from a few years back,they had trouble defining assault weapons in the first place,and all the anti gun nuts are stuck on the stupid "what do you hunt with an AK?" argument. Never mind that at the time,less than 1% of ALL gun crimes were committed with "assault" weapons. All for show. And to flog the dead horse a little more,nothing,NOTHING the govt. can do does jack fucking shit about the gazillions of firearms already out there and the criminals that have them. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how gun laws that merely fuck with law abiding citizens do anything about crime.Making it harder for me to buy a gun is solving the crime problem????

[BCH]

All I know is I want a suppressed MP5 with the full auto trigger group. When can I go shopping?

[THE FEZ MAN]

All I know is I want a suppressed MP5 with the full auto trigger group. When can I go shopping?

right now http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

just make sure to bring your check book :D

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Make mine a Glock 18 with a rifle stock, forward grip, suppressor, and hundred round drum please.

[Vyce]

My point is that your opinion shouldn't matter. There should be no convincing of anyone. This is a constitutional amendment, it's in the bill of rights, it an irrevocable, not up for discussion right. It should not be up for discussion, period.

I seem to recall schooling you before on the fact that you often have very deep misunderstandings as to what the Constitution actually says and what rights you really do or do not have under it. I know you're a Ron Paul guy, so you think the Constitution should be literally construed every time, but that's not how 200 years of American jurisprudence has worked it out to be.

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be that you have the right to ANY firearm, WITHOUT any sort of limitation or restriction upon it, is NOT set in stone. The Constitution has not been interpreted as such yet by the courts. Meanwhile, restrictions upon gun ownership (short of D.C.'s total prohibition on them) have been upheld.

Edit: And to add, I am being insulting to you, but I'm not intending to, honestly. You're also insulting me and not intending to when you put my rights up for discussion and regulation.

Again, in my experience with you, what one's actual rights are and what you THINK they should be, are often very different. It's no different with this current issue. If you have problems comprehending that, don't insult me for your own shortcomings.

[Vyce]

if my self and my neighbors want to mount quad .50s on the roof of our homes to defend them we should be allowed to do so, because its our right.

Now you're just getting silly.

[Sam_Adams]

Now you're just getting silly.

Oh, interesting (bump :action-sm)

[THE FEZ MAN]

Oh, interesting (bump :action-sm)

i was going to let it lie. :rolleyes:

[Voss's Tumor]

I seem to recall schooling you before on the fact that you often have very deep misunderstandings as to what the Constitution actually says and what rights you really do or do not have under it. I know you're a Ron Paul guy, so you think the Constitution should be literally construed every time, but that's not how 200 years of American jurisprudence has worked it out to be.

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be that you have the right to ANY firearm, WITHOUT any sort of limitation or restriction upon it, is NOT set in stone. The Constitution has not been interpreted as such yet by the courts. Meanwhile, restrictions upon gun ownership (short of D.C.'s total prohibition on them) have been upheld.



Again, in my experience with you, what one's actual rights are and what you THINK they should be, are often very different. It's no different with this current issue. If you have problems comprehending that, don't insult me for your own shortcomings.

You do not have the right to interpret something that this country was founded upon, as a basic right of the people. I don't care how many hours of law school you completed.

Unalienable rights doesn't mean until a lawyer decides we were misguided. It means unalienable. Period.

[WoodenPlank]

You do not have the right to interpret something that this country was founded upon, as a basic right of the people. I don't care how many hours of law school you completed.

Unalienable rights doesn't mean until a lawyer decides we were misguided. It means unalienable. Period.

Ding. Ding. Fucking ding.

This is the exact argument we have been making for years, and the lawyers and bleeding heart liberals cant seem to wrap their heads around this. As has been said, the second amentdment was to protect us from threats, both external and internal. That means foreign governments, terrorists, criminals, and even our own government. An armed populace is the ULTIMATE check and balance to the government: we ensure they could never turn this country into a tyrannical dictatorship unless we let them.

[Vyce]

You do not have the right to interpret something that this country was founded upon, as a basic right of the people.

The Supreme Court does, actually.

That's the whole reason that the Supreme Court EXISTS.

Unalienable rights doesn't mean until a lawyer decides we were misguided. It means unalienable. Period.

No, it doesn't, that's what I've tried to teach you about in the past, you just don't care to understand it. The example I used before was with regards to the 1st amendment. It's far from absolute - you can't say ANYTHING you want, any WHERE you want. There are limitations; the classic one being "can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Same concept applies for any of the Constitutional rights, because in 200 years, a million fucking different things have happened and changed where a literal interpretation of the Constitution isn't remotely practical.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

The limits are placed on what the government can NOT do.

[Voss's Tumor]

The Supreme Court does, actually.

That's the whole reason that the Supreme Court EXISTS.



No, it doesn't, that's what I've tried to teach you about in the past, you just don't care to understand it. The example I used before was with regards to the 1st amendment. It's far from absolute - you can't say ANYTHING you want, any WHERE you want. There are limitations; the classic one being "can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Same concept applies for any of the Constitutional rights, because in 200 years, a million fucking different things have happened and changed where a literal interpretation of the Constitution isn't remotely practical.

That's the world people like you have created, it's not what it was meant to be.

You're debating brandishing laws, not right to own laws with the "Fire in a movie theatre" argument.

[Voss's Tumor]

Let me make it more clear...

If you yell fire in a movie theater, it's not the act of saying fire, or being in a movie theater that's the problem, it's that you did it with intent to harm innocent people.

In the same respect, owning a machine gun and sticking it in someone's face to take their stuff or kill them are two totally different things. The constitution provides for the unalienable right to OWN any type of firearm, the law makes it illegal to KILL or THREATEN someone with such a weapon. Ownership isn't the question, it's intent to do harm by threat or force.

You don't have the right to put "reasonable" restrictions on ownership, because by all definitions provided very clearly in the Constitution, all restrictions are unreasonable.

And yes, according to the constitution this should include convicted felons. If you're that worried about a felon repeating a violent crime, they shouldn't be released in the first place. Someone that got hung up on marijuana or cocaine possession and got convicted of a felony under a mandatory minimum or a 3 strikes law should not have their lives ruined, and they should absolutely have the right to vote. Who better to know that mandatory minimums and other inane shit like that the War on Drugs propagated is wrong than someone who's been wronged by it? Oh noz, people we've fucked over might be able to vote against us! Quick! Make it illegal!

It makes me fucking sick.

[Voss's Tumor]

Also, it's absurd that white collar criminals who have served their time are not allowed to own a device designed to protect their families. Your CPA missing 100k on your tax return and you getting 3 years in Federal Prison != violent offender who shouldn't be allowed to vote or own a gun.

Make the line between felony and misdemeanor wider and you might have an argument for "reasonable restrictions". Right now it's too fucking easy for an opposing political agenda to make someone a felon to hinge constitutional rights on that label.

Felony prostitution makes your constitutional rights go away? Seriously dude...

[TrybalRage]

Same concept applies for any of the Constitutional rights, because in 200 years, a million fucking different things have happened and changed where a literal interpretation of the Constitution isn't remotely practical.

Here, very simply, I disagree. I think people are the same as they have always been, and a literal view of the constitution would make this country a better place.

Going back to what you said about "reasonable" restrictions - here's the problem with that - one person's reasonable is different from another. Plus you said you support felons not being able to buy firearms... as a lawyer, you should know how many stupid reasons you can become a felon for non-violent crimes, and that shit is with you for life. Vandalize something drunk when you're 20 and you're done forever.
You support banning assault weapons... which part of them defines them as 'assault' to you? The military look? The semiautomatic firing? The large magazines? Grips on the bottom of the barrel?
You support banning sawed-off shotguns... are they somehow more deadly than regular shotguns? You may say they are more concealable, but then isn't a handgun even more so? So by that logic should we ban handguns as well?

This incremental 'reasonable' restriction crap we've been dealing with since the '30s is more of that slippery slope argument that has been beaten to death. First it was sawed off shotguns. Then it was mandatory background checks. Then it was a ban on machine guns made after a certain date. Then it was a ban on 'assault' weapons. Pretty soon hunting rifles over a certain caliber will be banned as being 'sniper' rifles.

All the while we look at countries like the UK and Australia that have gun restrictions that make Sarah Brady's panties sticky and violent crime has not gone down, in many cases it goes up. Is it somehow more moral to be beaten or stabbed to death rather than shot?

People are still violent, just if they can't grab one tool (gun) they will grab another tool (bat, knife). People don't somehow become pacified with the absence of weapons. They'll just beat you with their fists. In fact, I think it becomes worse because then the strong know that the weak have no chance.

[Voss's Tumor]

Vyce,

Have you ever stopped to think about the concept of the art of a civilization representing the dissent and unsaid truth that the people understand, but are too scared to say themselves?

Ever stop to wonder why John Adams is such a popular show right now?

[FMDoug]

I'm not going to weigh in on the gun issue. Instead, I'm just going to comment on this literal interpretation of the constitution argument. While in theory it would be nice, it rarely happens. Even Marbury v Madison (the case the pretty much gave the supreme court its power), Marshall took lefts and rights and didn't give the Constitution a literal once over.

As I came upon this thread I happened to be reading Crawford v Washington (2004). Scalia basically interprets the 6th amendment's confrontation clause (in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him) to mean only in testimonial situations. I don't see anything about testimonial in there, but that is how it has been interpreted. Then when the court doesn't actually define what testimonial is, they take another case (davis v washington) to elaborate on this testimonial point.

My point is that the wording of the second amendment isn't as obvious as some of the people here want it to be. There is 200 years precedent of not literally interpreting the constitution.

Have you ever stopped to think about the concept of the art of a civilization representing the dissent and unsaid truth that the people understand, but are too scared to say themselves?

I'm not attacking here, I just would like to know what this means. Does it mean that art is sometimes subversive? We know that's true. Look at the Jesus dung thing or Woodstock. What does this have to do with the second amendment?

I think the John Adams hbo thing is popular because it is an interesting point in our nations history and an intersting point of our whole civilization. It was like the Renaissance or the rise of the Roman Empire or the industrial revolution. Plus its on HBO with a good cast. I'll be like amazon.com here... if you like the john adams thing you will like "Liberty! The American Revolution"

[THE FEZ MAN]

I'm not attacking here, I just would like to know what this means. Does it mean that art is sometimes subversive? We know that's true. Look at the Jesus dung thing or Woodstock. What does this have to do with the second amendment?


no i think what he's getting at is we are living in the decline of our society, our nation was founded on freedom clearly defined in the constitution, yet at every turn someone "in power" is trying to subvert it

[d0uche_n0zzle]

yet at every turn someone "in power" is trying to subvert it

Most of them just so happen to be lawyers too. :action-sm

[THE FEZ MAN]

Most of them just so happen to be lawyers too. :action-sm

well yes, not just lawyers though, i hate to be "that guy" but it seems that its more of the "haves" or "the wealthy and powerfull"

lets face it people that have to work for a living dont get into politics, those who do get into politics are really just looking for a way to protect what they have. what the second amendment, and the constitution in general, is supposed to protect is every one, all citizens are supposed to be equal. obviously were not, since a lot of the people that want to take away our ability as citizens to protect our selves can pay other's to do it for them (Rosie you fat fucking dyke cunt im looking right at you)

why should a justice of the supreme court give two shits if some 80year old lady that lives 8 blocks away from the court house will not be able to go to the fucking market, or even sleep in her own home with out the fear of someone coming in and killing her. why should any one that is active in politics care if i cant own a sawed off shotgun to keep next to my bed, when those at the highest levels of government have a fucking army of "there people" to defend them, or there own shot gun in the bed side table, because not only can they afford to purchase such a weapon but they wrote the laws determining there dispersion though the populace. gone are the days of the people keeping politicians in line, ooo we vote them out...maybe indite a few of the idiots, for now. they are making sure that there kids can just slide right into there slots..... like princes.... i for one am sick of the nepotism in politics, for chist sake, if cunt gets elected there will have been only 2 family's running the country for the last twenty fucking years.... just think chelsa decides to fuck a bush...... then we can have the first dyke presidents, and another heir to the throne.


and yes ive been drinking:action-sm

[Sam_Adams]

I say that we have firearms banned so we can get rid of crime.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Ban arms and hands so they can't fire the weapon.

[THE FEZ MAN]

well i for one want to arm bears, it will make it even more sporting when i shoot one.

[BCH]

If one of my daughter's had a nervous tick where she scratched her face until it bled, I would bring her to the doctor. If the doctor suggested that the way to deal with the situation was to amputate her hand, I'd think he was a lunatic. Linking availability of firearms to violent crime rate is utterly ridiculous and is not backed up by any statistical fact.

In vermont, you can purchase and carry a handgun without any special permit of any kind. Out of 50 States, Vermont ranks 49th in violent crime per capita.

In Washington D.C. handguns of all types are illegal to all people for any reason. Washington DC is the murder capital of the United States.

The simple fact being that a generally law abiding populace even without regulations of any kind on ownership or carrying of handguns, is not any more likely to commit crime because of the guns. It's a bullshit argument that people throw out there again and again and again ad nauseum because it "seems to make sense". The general population buys it hook line and sinker and everyone suffers for it.

I'm not attacking here, but anyone who supports regulation of gun ownership as a way of combating violent crime is a fucking idiot.

When Clinton passed his "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994, guess how many Rifle Related Homicides there were in Washington DC the year prior. Yes the very same washington DC Murder Mecca. How many?? That's right, 2.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

We should teach all the guns how to write, so they'll be better spellers and not shoot people.

[THE FEZ MAN]

i have used a bullet to draw a map on a piece of beer box

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm not attacking here, I just would like to know what this means. Does it mean that art is sometimes subversive? We know that's true. Look at the Jesus dung thing or Woodstock. What does this have to do with the second amendment?


no i think what he's getting at is we are living in the decline of our society, our nation was founded on freedom clearly defined in the constitution, yet at every turn someone "in power" is trying to subvert it

Exactly

[BCH]

i have used a bullet to draw a map on a piece of beer box

I often use one as a stylus for my PDA when I can't find the real one. Hornaday Vmax with the ballistic tips work best.

[Voss's Tumor]

well yes, not just lawyers though, i hate to be "that guy" but it seems that its more of the "haves" or "the wealthy and powerfull"

lets face it people that have to work for a living dont get into politics, those who do get into politics are really just looking for a way to protect what they have. what the second amendment, and the constitution in general, is supposed to protect is every one, all citizens are supposed to be equal. obviously were not, since a lot of the people that want to take away our ability as citizens to protect our selves can pay other's to do it for them (Rosie you fat fucking dyke cunt im looking right at you)

why should a justice of the supreme court give two shits if some 80year old lady that lives 8 blocks away from the court house will not be able to go to the fucking market, or even sleep in her own home with out the fear of someone coming in and killing her. why should any one that is active in politics care if i cant own a sawed off shotgun to keep next to my bed, when those at the highest levels of government have a fucking army of "there people" to defend them, or there own shot gun in the bed side table, because not only can they afford to purchase such a weapon but they wrote the laws determining there dispersion though the populace. gone are the days of the people keeping politicians in line, ooo we vote them out...maybe indite a few of the idiots, for now. they are making sure that there kids can just slide right into there slots..... like princes.... i for one am sick of the nepotism in politics, for chist sake, if cunt gets elected there will have been only 2 family's running the country for the last twenty fucking years.... just think chelsa decides to fuck a bush...... then we can have the first dyke presidents, and another heir to the throne.


and yes ive been drinking:action-sm

I'm completely sober, and I completely agree.

[Sam_Adams]

In vermont, you can purchase and carry a handgun without any special permit of any kind. Out of 50 States, Vermont ranks 49th in violent crime per capita.

Sounds to me like Vermont needs to ban weapons. If they required authorization through licensing for pistols then they might be in 50th position.

[Voss's Tumor]

The Supreme Court does, actually.

That's the whole reason that the Supreme Court EXISTS.

No, the Supreme Court exists to interpret laws using the Constitution as a guide line. Hence, deciding whether or not a law is "Constitutional". We as people are supposed to be able to own guns in the event that crooked politicians attempt to take those rights away. That's the nature in which the Second Amendment was written.

No one is allowed to disregard the rights given to the people in the Constitution, not even people with all sorts of fancy book learnin's.

I'm an Engineer. You don't have to go to school for Engineering to know how to build a house that won't fall down in a gust of wind, just like I can understand law and the Constitution without a JD.

[Vyce]

No one is allowed to disregard the rights given to the people in the Constitution, not even people with all sorts of fancy book learnin's.

And I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that what you, and most Americans, sadly, THINK are their actual rights, and what their actual rights are, are often two very different things. The Founding Fathers gave us tremendous freedoms, but they never intended for those freedoms to be absolute.

Just because YOU, ordinary Joe, say that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted this way, doesn't mean it actually IS interpreted that way.

Of course, when it doesn't fall in line with your idealogy, I'm sure you'll attribute that to just lawyers fucking things up.

Again, I marvel at this thread, where I've basically been portrayed as the extremist asshole - even though I support gun ownership and am opposed to the D.C. gun ban - because I'm against UNFETTERED gun ownership (i.e. without ANY restrictions). Somehow, I'm supposed to be off the deep end, when I'm merely opposed to YOUR extremist position on the issue. A situation I must attribute only to arguing with Paulbots.

[THE FEZ MAN]

see that's the problem. give them an inch and they will take a mile. the subversion of the constitution in any form is the issue. i agree that there must be some form of gun control, the problem is a little is never enough for some people and any is too much for others. i agree whole heartedly that there must be some sort of "control" but "control" does not mean total ban, which is what some people want and they will do anything to get it. one of the major issues is who should have the control? and what should be controlled? statics prove that ownership of firearms has NO affect on violent crime, yet people love to use murder rates as a reason to ban certain weapons, under the guise that its for my own good, is just stupid.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Vermont carry EVERYWHERE.

No permits needed, just one clause "you can not carry a weapon with evil intent...

Simple is better.

[THE FEZ MAN]

Vermont carry EVERYWHERE.

No permits needed, just one clause "you can not carry a weapon with evil intent...

Simple is better.

oh i agree, i love it, i went up there a few months ago the second i crossed into vermont i pulled over and loaded up. driveing thew NY was a tad hairy though, even though it was unloaded and the ammo was in the back of my truck i just dont trust those nazi motherfuckers .i want to get a FL carry permit but they haven't been offering the classes at the gunshows lately, i can kick myself in the ass for not takeing the course at the show before last that i went to. if i ever get around to going to FL again i will defiantly take the class and get my FL permit because they share more reciprocity than PA which is stupid in my book since PA has stricter permitting laws

[Voss's Tumor]

And I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that what you, and most Americans, sadly, THINK are their actual rights, and what their actual rights are, are often two very different things. The Founding Fathers gave us tremendous freedoms, but they never intended for those freedoms to be absolute.

Just because YOU, ordinary Joe, say that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted this way, doesn't mean it actually IS interpreted that way.

Of course, when it doesn't fall in line with your idealogy, I'm sure you'll attribute that to just lawyers fucking things up.

Again, I marvel at this thread, where I've basically been portrayed as the extremist asshole - even though I support gun ownership and am opposed to the D.C. gun ban - because I'm against UNFETTERED gun ownership (i.e. without ANY restrictions). Somehow, I'm supposed to be off the deep end, when I'm merely opposed to YOUR extremist position on the issue. A situation I must attribute only to arguing with Paulbots.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to make sure the populous was armed against a government that might want to oppress it.

I'm sorry if the idea of that makes a lawyer in DC nervous, but that's the intent. I don't care how many men in robes try to twist the verbiage, that was, and still should be, the intent.

[Sam_Adams]

Personally, I don't think Americans need to be armed with fully-automatic weaponry, or that your average Joe should be walking around with a fully-automatic, operationaly AK-47, or even a sawed-off shotgun.

Hmmmm, I'd like to ask you something Vyce.

Do you remember taking basic physics in college? If you do then you may understand why mechanically "automatic" firearms aren't required for automatic fire to be accomplished, right? You simply use energy against itself to reach your goal and it's very simple to do.

I will show you my own example that I placed on the internet for the sake of argument. This firearm I'm showing in the video has absolutely no alterations, no mechanisms added and is simply being held with two hands at waste level. You can read the description for more detail.

With that said, you can fire any semi-automatic weapon at an "auto" rate of fire very easily if you are familiar with weapons. So, it makes banning automatics ridiculous.

Again, this is a semi-automatic rifle that is ONLY capable of being disharged with individual pulls of it's trigger. That is demonstrated towards the end of the magazine with three individual disharges before again burning through the last three.
8GbAdOpUghw

[d0uche_n0zzle]

More people die from automobile's and doctor/hospital fuck ups then guns.

[Voss's Tumor]

Stop with facts, sir! They have no bearing on this argument that involves only framed debates and corrupt laws!

[Sam_Adams]

Stop with facts, sir! They have no bearing on this argument that involves only framed debates and corrupt laws!

And I get tired of the argument about how the "cops are worried with what guns will be used against them" shit.

Well, if they are that worried then find another profession. Compared to the number of cops in America to the number that get shot each year it's a very small ratio. It won't change if you legalize automatics because normal people won't feel a new urge to start shooting everyone because they have a firearm that fires 7 rounds a second.

They act like automatic weapons are evil and that they turn anyone who lays a hand on them into an evil monster that wants to kill everything in sight. It's a stupid fucking argument.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Police launch gun program (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/METRO/126475553/1004)

They're starting in DC...

Coming soon to neighborhood near you.

[Sam_Adams]

Police launch gun program (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/METRO/126475553/1004)

They're starting in DC...

Coming soon to neighborhood near you.

Well Sir, it sounds like they have only the best intentions possible. I hope this catches on nationwide.

It will make a good documentary for me so I can follow the pieces of shit around cities with their illegal searches.

The faggot citizens of D.C. deserve this kind of garbage. That's what you get when you want socialism and hand over your rights to "authorities."

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Boston is starting the same program too. They're going after the darkies, much like the original Jim Crow laws were intended.

[Sam_Adams]

Boston is starting the same program too. They're going after the darkies, much like the original Jim Crow laws were intended.

Don't forget that the darkies are socialist democrats. And why wouldn't they be?

I mean, it was the democrats that owned most of the slave plantations (farmers) and they also had more slaves in New Jersey that were forced to fight in the Civil War than many places in the South :action-sm

[d0uche_n0zzle]

The Norf was allowed to keep their slaves longer too.

[Sam_Adams]

The Norf was allowed to keep their slaves longer too.

Absolutely. Even though slavery had been abolished they still had slaves serving out the rest of their period of enslavement. The law wasn't retroactive.

So, they had 20,000 "freed" colored people even though most of them were still servants.

They didn't ratify the 13th Amendment in NJ until 1866 which of course was AFTER the Civil War.

[Vyce]

Police launch gun program (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/METRO/126475553/1004)

They're starting in DC...

Coming soon to neighborhood near you.

For the record, I don't support this, and think it reeks of fascism. The mayor must not expect the SC to rule in his favor this summer is my take on it.

My problem, again, in this thread, is that while I am FOR GUN OWNERSHIP, I don't think some REASONABLE restrictions or limitations on gun ownership are improper. And for that, some of you have acted like I'M a fascist.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

shall NOT infringe...

Seems simple enough to me, fascist. :action-sm

[Sam_Adams]

I don't think some REASONABLE restrictions or limitations on gun ownership are improper.

But please explain why owning an automatic is ANY different than semi-automatics?

Did you not watch my video? That semi-automatic FIRES AUTOMATICALLY right from the store shelf. There is no difference between the two.

One is no more evil than the other. So, why should one be banned and the other not?

You can fire a semi-automatic pistol at a full-auto rate of fire simply by using your left hand to pull the trigger instead of using your firing hand. You can dump a 30rd 9MM magazine in two seconds. It's craziness to try to pick and choose which firearms to ban because they ALL do the same thing, propel lead through the air at supersonic speeds.

And what's wrong with "sawed-off" shotguns? I have a shotgun that is 1/4'' away from being "illegal" in the "sawed-off" category. Is that not short? It only has to be longer than 18''. Anything shorter is an NFA weapon. Are they different? No, I could still conceal mine in a coat if I wanted or even place it in a violin case and be a "musician" and you'd never know the difference.

You say that you are for restrictions and I don't think it's crazy for me to ask you why. I want specific reasons why you should choose what weapons I can buy at the store.

And just so you know, us HONEST citizens don't convert semis to be full-autos because we will be sent to federal prison for a 10-year minimum sentence but any criminal can do the same and won't think twice about it because they don't give a fuck about prison anyway.

It's VERY simple to convert about 85% of the weapons out there to be fully automatic. It just takes a basic understanding of mechanics. Hell, if your firing pin for semi rifles gets too dirty from soot and can't reset then it will fire automatically all by itself and there is nothing you can do about it until it loosens itself. I've had it happen to me before and it will dump a fucking magazine from what's called "slam firing."

And you know what? If you just so happen to forget to oil your firing pin and it rusts then you may accidentally have that sort of firing happen very often. It's unfortunate.

[Budyzir]

Police launch gun program (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/METRO/126475553/1004)

That is fucking horrifying!

[THE FEZ MAN]

Police launch gun program (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/METRO/126475553/1004)

They're starting in DC...

Coming soon to neighborhood near you.


wow if that doesn't prove my point i dont know what does

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Police limit searches for guns
Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/03/25/police_limit_searches_for_guns/)

Maybe, they're not as stoopid as they act..."whaa"

[Voss's Tumor]

Are there any countries out there that actually "get" the concept of rights? Canada? Australia? I'd rather continue my English speaking ways, but I'm seriously researching alternatives.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

The only option is to return to our roots of LIBERTY!

[Sam_Adams]

Are there any countries out there that actually "get" the concept of rights? Canada? Australia? I'd rather continue my English speaking ways, but I'm seriously researching alternatives.

Negative. Those two countries both have banned weapons (Australia more so) with Canada not allowing pistols to have more than 10 rds and rifles with like five (I think).

They also have strict licensing.

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm not even talking about guns here specifically.

Is there a country where I can live my life with rights I can expect to be upheld? I literally sign the dotted line to sell this house I've been trying to sell for over 18 months, I'm seriously thinking about just jetting this country since I won't have any more anchors tied to me here.

[Sam_Adams]

I'm not even talking about guns here specifically.

Is there a country where I can live my life with rights I can expect to be upheld? I literally sign the dotted line to sell this house I've been trying to sell for over 18 months, I'm seriously thinking about just jetting this country since I won't have any more anchors tied to me here.

Your rights won't be uphelp anywhere buddy. This is the day of socialism and nanny governments. You don't have many rights anywhere in the world. About the only thing you can do is buy your own island in international waters and start your own colony.

Either that or move to a remote area of this country outside of cities and again, you can basically do anything you want. It's the cities that are the problems. You have limited rights there.

Find a mountain with clear streams/rivers/lakes and you're set. Fuck everyone else. That's what we have. It's our refuge and the place to unwind. IF we just want to get away from petty bullshit rules and the overbearing technology and work then we go there away from everything to chill out. It's the best. You can just do nothing but fixing up things, watching animals, hunt, fish and shoot guns at will. That sir, is America.

[Voss's Tumor]

So my desire to want to order a pizza and have a social life means I'm a prisoner.

Awesome.

[THE FEZ MAN]

So my desire to want to order a pizza and have a social life means I'm a prisoner.

Awesome.

yep. i know people that live in "rural" Pa, (two hours+ out of the philly aria) and yes they can do basically what ever they want, shoot out of there windows, hunt from there quads on the back '40 build what ever they want on to there homes, ride around the "farm" on what ever they have laying around. but if they want a pack of cigarettes or a hogie, its a 45 minuet ride and every bit of an hour commute to work

[FMDoug]

I suggest that you guys read Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan and anything by John Locke (if you haven't already). Both are ideas from the mid 1600s about why governments are in place. The founders basically brought these two men's ideas to life by establishing the American government. On a really elementary level (because I haven't read these things in years), both believe there is a need for government to protect you from others in society. Though they differ as to why and what the government should actually protect. Hobbes thought it was so other don't kill you. Locke thought it was to protect others from taking your property.

I realize this adds nothing to the gun conversation. I just think that it might add some context and help explain why the government feels a need to "protect" you by putting these laws in place that "infringe" on your liberty.

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm familiar, I'm just pissed that people think they can argue points and change very obvious intentions in the Constitution. It says it word for word, and this isn't about the philosophy of government, it's about the government openly ignoring the rules it was founded upon.

[THE FEZ MAN]

I'm familiar, I'm just pissed that people think they can argue points and change very obvious intentions in the Constitution. It says it word for word, and this isn't about the philosophy of government, it's about the government openly ignoring the rules it was founded upon.


the second amendment is in place to ensure that the "populace" always has the ability to change its leadership, buy any means necessary, isn't it odd that some of the most restrictive gun control laws ever, were written during right around the time when there were HUGE marches and rallies against the government? the 30's during the depression, the 60's during the civil rights movement, the 80's in the height of a recession/ the cold war/ the highest national debt in history, the 90's while one of the most popular presidents in history is being investigated? any one that thinks that these are just coincidences is a fool. the US government has been run buy buy the same couple hundred family's for the last 100 years, and they dont want to ever give up there power, we are no longer, and most likely never have been truly, a government of the people, we are a nation of servants to a few rich and powerful people that will try anything to keep that power, the best way to do that is to be the leaders of a police state.

[Voss's Tumor]

I think my answer is going to be to live in a major city -- inside city limits -- with a huge crime rate so that the cops are too busy to fuck with a white, well groomed citizen.

I mean, if using my race and the racism of law enforcement is the only way I can keep myself safe from them (cops/government), I guess I'll just exploit the world the good Rev. Al has created for all of us.

[THE FEZ MAN]

I think my answer is going to be to live in a major city -- inside city limits -- with a huge crime rate so that the cops are too busy to fuck with a white, well groomed citizen.

I mean, if using my race and the racism of law enforcement is the only way I can keep myself safe from them (cops/government), I guess I'll just exploit the world the good Rev. Al has created for all of us.

BINGO! keep your hair short, your beard trimmed, dress "nice" pay your bills and your taxes, and dont eat the neighbors kids and the police will never really bother you.

[BIV]

The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to make sure the populous was armed against a government that might want to oppress it.

I'm sorry if the idea of that makes a lawyer in DC nervous, but that's the intent. I don't care how many men in robes try to twist the verbiage, that was, and still should be, the intent.

THIS!!

And I get tired of the argument about how the "cops are worried with what guns will be used against them" shit.
I agree. That's why we need more cops with better guns, not gun control

[Voss's Tumor]

I agree. That's why we need more cops with better guns, not gun control

No, we need to allow the cops we have to fight crime instead of write tickets to raise money. Violent crime hasn't moved in 10 years, but possession of marijuana, DWI, and all sorts of other cash cow misdemeanors are up like 800% across the country.

Let the cops be cops, let the economy be the economy, and stop blurring the line between law enforcement and money making.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

If everyone carried we wouldn't need as many police as the Statist would like. And that's a good thing, IMO.

[THE FEZ MAN]

i just used a cop as my "personal reference" for my permit renewal

[d0uche_n0zzle]

It's against the rules in NY to do that with your character references on your NYS permit application.

[THE FEZ MAN]

It's against the rules in NY to do that with your character references on your NYS permit application.


in PA you cant use a member of the sheriffs department , your own household, a judge or a chief of police. my point was that even the police want citizens armed, which is funny since to get a class III stamp you need a letter from your local CLEO, and since i live in a township controlled by the PSP i cant get one....... since we have no CLEO