People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules

a reply to: macman

And I have answered this question.

No you havent.

Yes or no will do.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

the question was :

So if your government ever brings out laws that restricts any of your rights you think people should uses their guns to kill the people running the government so they get what they want?

You mean like the government does already? If they are unconstitutional It would be justified to protect everyones rights if you go by our constitutional laws. But this is what you wanted to hear of course right? Its a Catch 22. WHy are you not already complaining since th e FEDS do that to people it don t like already? isnt turn about fair play?

Im not advocating people go out and shoot their government officials unless in self defense. A un armed politician isnt armed are they? Now IF they pull a gun and point it at you by all means but in all likelyhood they would not because they are all cowards.

a reply to: yuppa

Yes it does seem that they are doing that already.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

you think people should uses their guns to kill the people running the government so they get what they want?

Ok, let me try this again, using the same exact wording you are using in this acceptable post. Are you asking people at which point they are willing the threaten a government official and commit a criminal act, and what is your reasoning for asking this question specifically in the manner you posed it?

Question with a question.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

The American People have revolted once and went through a civil war once. The willingness is there, but using ALL and EVERY option first is necessary.


This option is built into the framework of OUR country.

Its only logical that this is true. In order for the 2nd Amendment to serve the purpose the founders intended, that being to provide a last line of armed defense for the country, then the citizenry would need access to the types of weapons suitable to militia service rather than those that are antiquated or obsolete. The Supreme Court implied as much in US vs Miller when it ruled that a sawed off shotgun had no application to a militia and therefore that it could be banned under the 1934 NFA.

In any event, with the lower federal courts in conflict, this all sets up a scenario where the Supreme Court will soon be forced to address this issue directly.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Yay!! Once again, we get to piss off the anti gun crowd!

Why is it so hard for you to understand that we enjoy shootings guns for a variety of reasons, be it skeet, paper targets, competition or to put food on the table? Or that we choose not to be defenseless, when trouble comes calling? We are not so afraid to defend ourselves that we would sit quivering in a closet, clutching a phone and hoping against all logic that the police will get there in time.

Why is it so hard to understand that more restrictive gun laws will only be followed by, gasp! Law Abiding Citizens. Criminals do not and will not, anymore than they already do.
As bad as you think it is now, what do you think would happen if every law abiding gun owner turned their's in and only criminals had guns? Because if there were a ban, that's exactly what would happen.

The anti-gun argument comes to a full and screeching halt right here. People can just stop pretending that harsher gun legislation will stop criminals. All it does is make citizens softer targets. Easier victims for private and government criminals alike.

We don't want it. Go figure.

If the anti second amendment folks were serious about reducing criminals abusing guns then they'd be knocking on the doors of city, county, state and federal prosecutors who plea bargain away the charges of and automatic prison sentences for using or posessing guns during commission of crimes.

That they are not is a huge tell of what they are about - removing or impeding second amendment rights for everyone.

That pro second amendment groups have not sued under class action on civil rights violation of the second amendment is a wonder to me. There is plenty of other case law on other groups denied civil rights under constitution says they should.

The criminals are nothing more than propaganda tools for them to use in attaining their true goal of disarmament of the citizenry.

Otherwise they'd be at the prosecutors door.