Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[Edstock]

he can grab mine from my cold dead hands.

And that's why that's not going to happen. The Democrats know this.

[Trimdingman]

Doesn't mean that you give up.

 

Yes it does. First, gun prohibition works against crime prevention, so it is wrong-headed. Second, it creates a criminal industry and leads to police and political corruption and more gangs and gang wars on the streets, and more neighbourhoods being abandoned by law abiding people and falling to crime and poverty. Third, you cannot stop guns from getting into the country, even if you spend tens of billions of dollars a year. You just can't. At least, if they were legal, there would be no gun trade, and non-criminals would have the option of self-defense against criminals.

 

Legalize drugs, and you eliminate the need for law-abiding citizens to carry guns. You eliminate some police corruption, you eliminate a whole police division, narcotics, and decimate another one, homicide. Most of the shootings are gang turf wars over selling drugs. It is easy to see why police are against legalizing drugs and guns. It is for the wrong reasons, though.

[fmccap]

Yes it does. First, gun prohibition works against crime prevention, so it is wrong-headed. Second, it creates a criminal industry and leads to police and political corruption and more gangs and gang wars on the streets, and more neighbourhoods being abandoned by law abiding people and falling to crime and poverty. Third, you cannot stop guns from getting into the country, even if you spend tens of billions of dollars a year. You just can't. At least, if they were legal, there would be no gun trade, and non-criminals would have the option of self-defense against criminals.

 

Legalize drugs, and you eliminate the need for law-abiding citizens to carry guns. You eliminate some police corruption, you eliminate a whole police division, narcotics, and decimate another one, homicide. Most of the shootings are gang turf wars over selling drugs. It is easy to see why police are against legalizing drugs and guns. It is for the wrong reasons, though.

I think all we need to do is take a look at say DC and Chicago where they have basically banned guns. How is the crime, drug and gang problems doing??? Hell I remember not long ago when DC put up police checkpoints around the city because crime got so out of control.

[stephenhawkings]

you cannot stop guns from getting into the country, even if you spend tens of billions of dollars a year.

 

Legalize drugs, and you eliminate the need for law-abiding citizens to carry guns

 

gun prohibition works against crime prevention, so it is wrong-headed.

 

Trim sounds like we have all the answers so why are we hashing out this gun control issue?

 

if you look at a democrat from the south/west or a republican from the north east which is pro gun which isn't?

the line becomes kinda fuzzy. perhaps much like abortion it isn't a democrat vs republican or conservative vs liberal issue as so many like to highlight.

[Trimdingman]

When alcohol was prohibited, the gangsters got rich. It is the same with drugs now, and guns in Canada. They are going after the small free-lance gun dealers so that the big boys will have a monopoly. It is the same with gambling. The government mostly licenses casinos owned by the Mafia. What is the difference between government and organized crime? Did the government take it over, or did they take over the government? It would be better if everything was wide open, legal, and un-regulated.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

The government mostly licenses casinos owned by the Mafia.

And your proof is?

[Bored of Pisteon]

Why are you so sure that he will?

 

Because Obama is a politican that was swirled out of Chicago's political toilet isn't to be trusted no matter what!

[Trimdingman]

And your proof is?

 

 

Las Vegas. Read your history.

 

Also, have you ever heard of the New York police department getting paid to allow drug dealers to operate? The drug trade is causing a cancer in our society. Prohibition needs to be lifted. Tobacco is more addictive than drugs. Few people smoke now, even though it is legal. It would be much easier to get people off drugs if they were legalized, and not glamorized. The government sells alcohol. There is not a big move by the government to discourage drinking because they make money from it, and it doesn't strain the health care system to the extent that smoking does. It is also glamorized to sell more. It also keeps the peoples' minds fuzzy so they are more easily manipulated. In the old Soviet Union, the people didn't have much bread, but there was lots of vodka.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Trimdingman

[stephenhawkings]

Las Vegas. Read your history.

 

Also, have you ever heard of the New York police department getting paid to allow drug dealers to operate? The drug trade is causing a cancer in our society. Prohibition needs to be lifted. Tobacco is more addictive than drugs. Few people smoke now, even though it is legal. It would be much easier to get people off drugs if they were legalized, and not glamorized. The government sells alcohol. There is not a big move by the government to discourage drinking because they make money from it, and it doesn't strain the health care system to the extent that smoking does. It is also glamorized to sell more. It also keeps the peoples' minds fuzzy so they are more easily manipulated. In the old Soviet Union, the people didn't have much bread, but there was lots of vodka.

 

trim you almost sound like a libertarian too bad ron paul isn't on the red state ticket.

[Trimdingman]

trim you almost sound like a libertarian too bad ron paul isn't on the red state ticket.

 

How many people think like I do? He wouldn't stand a chance. Republican is the best choice to stem the growth of government, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

Maybe if they have four years of socialism under Obama, they will wake up. What you don't need right now is an FDR, however, who will try to fix everything. If it is broken, leave it and move on.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

Maybe if they have four years of socialism under Obama, they will wake up. What you don't need right now is an FDR, however, who will try to fix everything. If it is broken, leave it and move on.

What they do need now is an "FDR". The "FDR" can be a Republican, if that makes you feel better. If the financial system is broken, leaving it and moving on is not an option, however much you'd like to believe otherwise.

 

The day-to-day functioning of the market economy requires access to credit and financing by well-run businesses, state and federal governments. When commercial credit freezes, things grind to a halt and people start to suffer.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105...-for-Themselves

 

Just wait until some of the states can't pay their police and paramedics, and you will see the consequences of "leave it and move on".

 

It's a complicated problem and there are no simple solutions for it.

[stephenhawkings]

Republican is the best choice to stem the growth of government, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

ok in case any one missed it

 

Republican is the best choice to stem the growth of government, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

Trim you almost sounded sensible for a few posts prior, probably just that fuzzy math.

 

i admit obama isn't an FDR, but mccain isn't either. tey are both bought and paid for by special, and not so special interests.

 

i hope in my fondest wet dreams that mccain inherits bushes pile of sh*t and after four more years of govt shrinking ever one is sick of it and bloomberg comes in and bankrolls a thirdparty canidacy that kills off either the vanilla, or more vannila parties that we are supporting now.

 

but the two party system is too entrenched and the shock to move us past this would make this recession look like small potaotes.

[stephenhawkings]

canada isn't the supply of illegal guns that some would like us to believe, quite the opposite, for one thing hand guns are illegal, granted they exist in canada but not like the do in th egood ole USA

but canada is guilty of one thing good beer! and that is a drug.

[Trimdingman]

What they do need now is an "FDR". The "FDR" can be a Republican, if that makes you feel better. If the financial system is broken, leaving it and moving on is not an option, however much you'd like to believe otherwise.

 

The day-to-day functioning of the market economy requires access to credit and financing by well-run businesses, state and federal governments. When commercial credit freezes, things grind to a halt and people start to suffer.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105...-for-Themselves

 

Just wait until some of the states can't pay their police and paramedics, and you will see the consequences of "leave it and move on".

 

It's a complicated problem and there are no simple solutions for it.

 

If the whole system collapses, and we have to start over from total anarchy, it will be worth it if we omit all of the social institutions and government involvement which is the root of the problem that we now face. It is better to tear the whole thing down and start over than to continue patching things up with a faulty foundation.

[Trimdingman]

canada isn't the supply of illegal guns that some would like us to believe, quite the opposite, for one thing hand guns are illegal, granted they exist in canada but not like the do in th egood ole USA

but canada is guilty of one thing good beer! and that is a drug.

 

The guns come in from the US. Trying to stop them is futile and costly. Why is the Canadian government in the alcohol business? They should get out of it and de-regulate it. Let people distill their own alcohol. Stop glamorizing drinking and advertise against it like they do with smoking. They should also take the tax off tobacco, and let people buy tobacco leaves in the produce section of the supermarket and make their own cigars and shread their own tobacco for smoking. Allow people to have any guns they want. Safety will come naturally, just as it does with anything else. Nobody wants to see their kids get shot, so they will take the necessary precautions. With a population of 35 million people, there will be accidents, but you shouldn't focus on individual incidents, but on statistical probability, and put things into perspective.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Trimdingman

[sprinter]

This is what happens when you live under a government that bans guns. The thieves have more rights than their victims. No wonder the crime rate is the higher than in the U.S.

 

http://www.keyetv.com/content/entertainmen...85-ad4dcc438190

 

A gardener who put up barbed wire to protect his allotment from thieves has been ordered to take it down in case intruders hurt themselves.

 

A man in Worcestershire, England put up the three-foot fence to ward off thieves who had stolen his tools and ransacked his vegetable garden.

[Trimdingman]

Now the government is going to bail out the fat cat money changers using your hard earned tax dollars. No wonder they want to ban guns.

[trimdumbass]

Now the government is going to bail out the fat cat money changers using your hard earned tax dollars. No wonder they want to ban guns.

 

 

I hope I don't have to wait too long till you tell me more...

:happy feet:

[Trimdingman]

I hope I don't have to wait too long till you tell me more...

:happy feet:

 

 

Who is dangling the carrot?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Trimdingman

[stephenhawkings]

Who is dangling the carrot?

more importantly who has the big stick?

[Edstock]

Allow people to have any guns they want. Safety will come naturally, just as it does with anything else.

Safety will come naturally. :hysterical:

[BlackHorse]

Why are you so sure that he will?

 

Because he openly declares it on his website.

 

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

 

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban...law-enforcement

 

Now the fact of the matter is the assault weapons ban covers firearms that are not "assault weapons". Those in favor of that crappy legislation will argue that a semi-automatic rifle still counts as an assault rifle and that law enforcement agrees with them. This is a notion that is laughable to anyone who has ever served in the military or seen combat. A true "assault rifle" will have a full auto or burst function in addition to being semi-automatic. If you sent our military into the field with AR-15's against AK-47 equipped enemies they would suffer far more casualties. In addition, not everyone in law enforcement agrees with their gun grabbing agenda. Hundreds of thousands of Police Officers contend that so called "assault weapons" comprise a tiny percentage of the firearms used to commit crimes; on average less than 3%.

 

Even though the assault weapons ban has "expired" there is of course a push among liberal ranks to bring it back, despite the fact that it is this very issue that cost them the congress in 1994. HR1022 sponsored by none other that that idiot McCarthy from New York has introduced the reinstatement of the ban and expanded the list to include even more firearms. You can read that list here.

 

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2007/02/2...ore-legal-guns/

 

It's amazing to me really. Liberals will be the first one to lecture everyone about how we have the very diverse society and we need to learn how to accept and rejoice in that multi-cultural society. That we all need to learn how to accept other peoples beliefs and cultures and be tolerant of them. I've got no problem with that, I think that's a good idea. But practice what you preach libs. There is no one size fits all when it comes to gun control. I guess it never occurred to McCarthy and her liberal gun grabbing friends that in many, many parts of this country firearms are a part of the culture and have been since before this nation was even a nation.

 

This rifle is the mini-14

 

 

It fires the same round, at the same speed for nearly the same distance as this rifle.

 

 

Yet just because someone developed a 30 round magazine for the Mini-14 ranch rifle McCarthy made sure to have it added to her nazi assed gun grabbling list. This is a rifle that has sold millions of copies and is in wide circulation throughout the world. It comes from Ruger with a 5 round magazine. You have to make the effort to go get the 30 round magazines which aren't all that easy to find and many times you have to mail order them. It's name implies where most of these rifles find their use, at the ranch, on the range, not our streets.

 

A "one size fits all" gun control policy will not work in this country. Yet I know that once teamed up with Pelosi and McCarthy it will be just a matter of time (and probably not very long) before Obama tries to push this tyranny through Congress.

[Trimdingman]

Safety will come naturally. :hysterical:

 

I have an uncle who lives in rural Nova Scotia. He had about a dozen kids, give or take. Back in the 1960s, if you walked into his house, you would see at least twenty or thirty rifles hanging on walls, or leaning against the wall in the corners. None of his kids ever got shot. It is much easier to get injured with a knife than a gun. Because knives are not banned, we automatically take precautions with them because they are around. My uncle's kids knew about guns. They never fooled with them.

[goinbroke2]

Same with cousin's place in N.B. At LEAST a dozen shotguns/rifles bolt and lever etc. NEVER had a mishap. As kids 10-14 we had pellet guns and treated them with respect.

 

My boys are 7 and 11, they both want pellet guns but mama says no. I'm not into weapons and in a subdivision, there are many other hobby/things they can do than target practice so I'll let her ruling stand. If we lived in the country or had a place to go....would be different.

[White99GT]

Safety will come naturally. :hysterical:

 

Logic escapes gun control/ban supporters.

 

Town A: A gun ban is signed into law. Law abiding citizens give up their firearms and never carry concealed weapons

 

Town B: A law requiring all citizens to carry a firearm and take gun safety and shooting courses is signed into law

 

Now let's pretend an armed criminal wants to rob a bank, which town is he going to pick?

 

You don't honestly think this or any other criminal cares about what the gun control laws are signed into law do you?