Supreme Court Affirms right to bear arms...

**Prince Valiant** · 03-18-2008, 05:49 PM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f...nclick_check=1

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html

Oddly enough...it's one of, if not THE FIRST time the issue has been argued about in court. Now there is case-law, which had never been present before: IE, the law doesn't apply to militia's, it applies to citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms.

What should be interesting to note:

The city with the most restrictive gun legislation also has among the highest, if not the highest crime rate in the nation. The notion of restrictive gun control laws reducing crime or homicide really should be laid to rest.

**Reverend Cooper** · 03-18-2008, 06:01 PM

agreed they will need to remove my weapons from my cold dead grip

**DirtyMax** · 03-18-2008, 06:06 PM

Someone should take Doyle out hunting... he might like it.

Someone other than Cheney...

**STANMAN** · 03-18-2008, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by 4EYED

Someone should take Doyle out hunting... he might like it.

Someone other than Cheney...

I was thinking Cheney would be the best person for him to hunt with actually

**DirtyMax** · 03-18-2008, 09:05 PM

Nah, he'd just wing em'

**ND4SPD** · 03-18-2008, 09:13 PM

I thought this quote was particularly funny...

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."

Um... wouldn't *rifles* have no legitimate use in a purely urban environment? What, are you going to shoot a deer on the whitehouse lawn?

Whereas a handgun (with a shorter range) have more of a legitimate use (for self-defense)?

I'm fairly certain there will be anti-gunners bawling their eyes out.

**Prince Valiant** · 03-18-2008, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

I'm fairly certain there will be anti-gunners bawling their eyes out.

No, what they will be doing is crying about the sky-is-falling-shoot-out-like-wild-west-holywood-style life we'll all lead now due to the bush-supreme-court-who-don't-understand-blah-blah-blah.

Wanna hear rhetorical nonsense? Listen to a liberal who didn't get their way.

**73Dustr** · 03-18-2008, 10:51 PM

[QUOTE=
What should be interesting to note:

The city with the most restrictive gun legislation also has among the highest, if not the highest crime rate in the nation. The notion of restrictive gun control laws reducing crime or homicide really should be laid to rest.[/QUOTE]

I read an article discussing the most recent Brady rankings. For those that do not know, Brady rankings are scores given to states regarding firearm control. The more laws and restrictions, the higher the score. California and D.C. got some of the best scores. The NRA compared the Brady rankings to violent crime rates in each state. Would you believe that the states with the "best" rankings also had the higher violent crime rate statistics? Who would have thought that if you strip law-abiding citizens the right to carry and protect themselves, crime rates increase? What a concept

This case was huge for all hunters and firearm enthusiasts alike.

**That_Guy** · 03-19-2008, 12:40 AM

maybe this will make it so we can plea a case that we have the right to conceal carry in the state of wisconsin

**USMARINE1108** · 03-19-2008, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by nramlow2006

maybe this will make it so we can plea a case that we have the right to conceal carry in the state of wisconsin

That's the plan.

**USMARINE1108** · 03-19-2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

No, what they will be doing is crying about the sky-is-falling-shoot-out-like-wild-west-holywood-style life we'll all lead now due to the bush-supreme-court-who-don't-understand-blah-blah-blah.

Wanna hear rhetorical nonsense? Listen to a liberal who didn't get their way.

While you're 100% correct, I think what really happened was a Quid pro quo. Some of them will play Chicken Little while others will concentrate on the things that were comprimised on, like machine guns, the "assault weapons (even incorrectly labled, but that's another rant)" not to mention that while the DC gun ban was called un-constitutional, the SC says gun control is up to the state. The way I see it, they pretty much ruled that DC just went to far. It is a big victory for 2A supporters, but a lot was still left open.

Molon labe

**Prince Valiant** · 03-19-2008, 08:06 AM

my soon to be sister-in-law was ranting just last night about it....

...she asked me why NOT restrict "assault weapons"...I actually couldn't believe her reaction (IE, a reasonable one) when I pointed out most the things they claim that make an "assault weapon" an assault weapon applies to most all guns...she finally got the trick.

**That_Guy** · 03-19-2008, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

my soon to be sister-in-law was ranting just last night about it....

...she asked me why NOT restrict "assault weapons"...I actually couldn't believe her reaction (IE, a reasonable one) when I pointed out most the things they claim that make an "assault weapon" an assault weapon applies to most all guns...she finally got the trick.

yeah alot of people have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to this hot buttob topic

**USMARINE1108** · 03-19-2008, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Prince Valiant

my soon to be sister-in-law was ranting just last night about it....

...she asked me why NOT restrict "assault weapons"...I actually couldn't believe her reaction (IE, a reasonable one) when I pointed out most the things they claim that make an "assault weapon" an assault weapon applies to most all guns...she finally got the trick.

Originally Posted by nramlow2006

yeah alot of people have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to this hot buttob topic

While you are both correct, I look at it another way also. The term Assault Weaon as defined by the ATF specifically says "select fire" (among other "evil" features). That means the shooter can select between semi auto (firearm fires one round each time the trigger is squeezed) and full auto (firearm fires multiple rounds with one squeez of the trigger). This means an M-16, M-14, etc are assault weapons. The AR-15, M1A, 10/22, M1, Garand, SKS etc are not assault weapons, never have been technicaly.

It's a name incorrectly used by gun grabbers, and is all about scaring people into gun control. It started with banning full auto (well, a civilian can have one legaly and they do get them, I'm sure someone will be along soon to prove this

) went to "assault weapons", then handguns, now ammunition with microstamping (an extremely flawed technology). All un-constitutional.

**73Dustr** · 03-19-2008, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by USMARINE1108

It's a name incorrectly used by gun grabbers, and is all about scaring people into gun control. It started with banning full auto (well, a civilian can have one legaly and they do get them, I'm sure someone will be along soon to prove this

) went to "assault weapons", then handguns, now ammunition with microstamping (an extremely flawed technology). All un-constitutional.

Yeah, the antis throw "Assault rifle" at everything. Seems like whenever there is some type of shooting, the first reports always say, "The suspect used an assault rifle to open fire....". They try and paint this negative picture about ARs, AKs, SKS, etc. Fact of the matter is that a semi-auto Remington is going to do the same damage as an AR. You can ban any type of gun you want, all it's going to do is give criminals the upper-hand. I just hope like hell that Hillary doesn't get in because I sense another "assault rifle" ban like her husband put into law when he was in office.

**jamest** · 03-19-2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by nramlow2006

maybe this will make it so we can plea a case that we have the right to conceal carry in the state of wisconsin

Actually the Wisconsin state supreme court ruled that we have the right to bear arms. It has been the governor, who gets armed protection EVERYWHERE he goes, that has vetoed the bill.

**That_Guy** · 03-19-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by jamest

Actually the Wisconsin state supreme court ruled that we have the right to bear arms. It has been the governor, who gets armed protection EVERYWHERE he goes, that has vetoed the bill.

thats why its bull shit

**Rocket Power** · 03-19-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by nramlow2006

thats why its bull shit

The real bs is him turning the couple of votes he needed to stop the veto overirde.

I am listening to the supreme court case right now. God does R. Ginsberg have an annoying voice

**That_Guy** · 03-20-2008, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Rocket Power

The real bs is him turning the couple of votes he needed to stop the veto overirde.

I am listening to the supreme court case right now. God does R. Ginsberg have an annoying voice

yeah all we need is a few more seats.

**MurphysLaw88GT** · 03-20-2008, 04:24 PM

this will turn out ghey for machine guns/destructive devices/silencers (anything fun)

dont get me started on what the definition of an assault rifle is.....

if i glued a "pistol grip that extends obtrusively from the weapon", hi cap magazine, bayonet lug, flash hider and a collapsible stock to an effing rock it could be labeled an "assault weapon", it seems they forget that select-fire has something to do with it...

Thread: Supreme Court Affirms right to bear arms...

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Supreme Court Affirms right to bear arms...

Posting Permissions