Correct. And the Supreme Court has also upheld many gun control laws. And by the Constitution itself, they are the ones who get to decide.
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Correct. And the Supreme Court has also upheld many gun control laws. And by the Constitution itself, they are the ones who get to decide.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
bbsam,
Heller vs. DC and McDonald v. Chicago are the recent Supreme Court decisions that, finally, upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and overturned the absolute ban on handguns in the home that had existed in these two cities for decades. The vote in both cases was 5-4, which is as bare of a majority as you can possibly get.
As an African American man, how confident would you feel about the security of your rights if the that same 5-4 majority had barely prevailed in Brown vs Board of Education, Shelly v Kraemer, or Loving v Virginia? How confident would you feel about the security of your rights if the next two Supreme Court vacancies were to be filled by a President David Duke or a President Bull Connor, with the approval of a like-minded Senate majority?
Please understand that I am not trying to draw a moral equivalency between slavery and gun rights. I am, however, drawing a political one. You dont own guns so you dont have a dog in the fight, thus you have the luxury of remaining blissfully unaware of the constant attempts by anti-gun politicians nationwide to erode my 2nd Amendment rights with one "reasonable" restriction at a time.
The Fourteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, and now we have a black man as our President. Does that mean that racial inequality no longer exists in this country and that everything is just peachy keen for you black folks? Of course not, only an ignorant person would say that. There are still huge disparities in family incomes, huge disparities in job opportunities, and a "war on drugs" that incarcerates young black men at over twice the rate of whites. The same situation holds true for 2nd Amendment rights; just because the current Supreme Court happened to rule 5-4 in our favor does not change the fact that there are people like Michael Bloomberg---a billionare with Presidential ambitions---who are absolutely committed to taking those rights away.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
"Shucks.... I wouldn't put it on.... Unless I was good at it." 
Alamo Fast Draw and Sammy Davis Jr. - YouTube
Alamo Fast Draw and Sammy Davis Jr. - YouTube
Allow me to interject into the discussion.
I do not own a gun, but I have. My children used to hunt, no longer do. I believe in responsible gun ownership.
That being said, here's my problem with the current debate. One, it is fear driven. Ronald Reagan was the last guy to take gun rights away. No one wants your damn guns, except maybe a criminal. Not the government, certainly. They have bigger guns, they don't need yours, and your won't stop whatever nefarious plans you may believe they have.
Two, all amendments are equal. Your right to bear arms should not infringe on any of my rights, nor should the other rights afforded to Americans infringe on your right to own arms. Your right to own arms is not the only right without limitations, and therein lies the rub.
The right to own arms is explicitly regulated. The extent of those regulations is what is debatable. Who can actually own arms should be up for debate, as well. It is far too easy for anyone to own a weapon that's only purpose is to kill another human. That should be heavily regulated.
At this point, I just hope my buddy comes back with a wild pig. I feel like slow smoking tomorrow. That's what guns (and bows) are really for. If you think you need a gun to protect yourself from the government or marauding hoards, you have bigger problems. I fully understand having a weapon for self defense, but securing it from children, thieves, and idiots is very problematic for me, as well as others.
If you wanted a revolution, you should have supported the Black Panthers and SDS in the 60's. That was the last, best chance. Today, not so much.
I apologize for the wkmac length post, at least it wasn't an RT video
Hard to say they are even close to outlawing guns.
Google "Creeping normality".
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Anyone can Google.
Louisiana kidnap victim's cousin kicks down door, shoots abductor - CNN.com
Nothing wrong with a dead abductor!
Nothing wrong with a dead abductor!
Students face possible expulsion after fending off intruder with gun - CNN.com
Protect yourself against a six time convicted felon and face expulsion.
Protect yourself against a six time convicted felon and face expulsion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Babagounj
Strength through joy
[h=2]I’m From The Government And I’m Here To Inspect Your Guns[/h]
Swampscott, MA Selectman Barry Greenfield introduced an enforcement discussion Wednesday that he hopes will lead to the safeguarding of guns in town — keeping them out of the hands of children.
In school shootings around the country, guns have been taken from parents and used by kids, he said.
The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.
The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.
The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said.
And so the town of Swampscott is going to decide whether or not to send the local cops door-to-door to visit lawful gun owners and, you know, just have a look around.
What could possibly go wrong?
In school shootings around the country, guns have been taken from parents and used by kids, he said.
The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.
The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.
The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said.
And so the town of Swampscott is going to decide whether or not to send the local cops door-to-door to visit lawful gun owners and, you know, just have a look around.
What could possibly go wrong?
island1fox
Well-Known Member
ups,
I can see you forgot the yard, the diad and the dead dog analogy. At that time you related it was clearly stated.
Remember.
Were you guilty of crushing the dogs head and killing him-???- After you called to the owners and we're told to back off. -- when you did and starting to return to the package car -- the dog attacked -- you feared for you life--felt the bite,the pain and felt your warm blood streaming-- you hit the dog with your diad- you killed him.
What should your sentence be---10-20-30--- a UPS driver or a vigilante??- who hunted and tracked and killed !!
Life??
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
bbsam,
Do you know why the Voting Rights Act of 1964 was finally passed? Was it because it was illegal for blacks to vote? No...the right of blacks to vote was guranteed under the Fifteenth Amendment. It was passed... because racist Southern states had intentionally thrown so many rules and poll taxes and literacy tests and other "reasonable" restrictions upon the voting rights of black people that they were effectively disenfranchised even though they still "technically" had the right to vote under the Constitution.
So...What good are 2nd Amendment rights if state laws (such as California's) make ammunition for guns all but impossible to afford or even legally buy?
What good are 2nd Amendment rights if states like California pass laws requiring unaffordable and useless "microstamping" of every ejected shell case on all new firearms?
What good are 2nd Amendment rights if states like California require nonexistent, impossible "smart gun" technology to be installed on all new firearms?
What good are 2nd Amendment rights if states like New York arbitrarily reduce the allowable magazine capacity of all semi-automatic guns from 10 down to 7? And if I comply with the law and throw away all my 10 round mags and replace them with 7-rounders, what happens a year or two down the road when they change it again down to 6? Or 5?
The list of impossible "feel good" restrictions and laws goes that are constantly being proposed goes on and on. I'm not making any of this up. The people who come up with this crap have the ultimate goal of making gun ownership so complicated, so restricted, so expensive and so burdensome that our Second Amendment "rights" will exist only in theory. Their actions in regards to the Second Amendment are no different that the actions of the racist Southern states were in regards to the Fifteenth. You dont care because, as a non gun owner, you arent affected; its a damn good thing that the policitians who passed the Voting Rights Act back in 1964 didnt feel the same way simply because they were all white.
Last edited:
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Instead of traumatizing the poor criminal for life by pointing a gun at him, they should have just let him inside, given him a hug, honored his diversity, and then offered him a vegan free-range fair trade sustainable organic granola bar. Cant we all just get along?
Last edited by a moderator:
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Or they could have just gotten an apartment that wasn't owned by the university, where guns were obviously prohibited..... then they wouldn't be in the predicament they're in. It's a stupid policy, that's why they shouldn't have rented there in the first place.
Similar threads
