Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

I think ATS needs to add a feature where it makes the people read an article before posting. This is not against gun ownership its more likely for it. The laws banning hand gun ownership are in place, they are saying should we take that away (The ban). Ohh but then you'd have to agree with the gubment/Obama.. and you can't have that can you. =) ..

"DON'T TAKE OUR GUNS" (Government: We were trying to give you your rights back) .. OH, WELL GLEN BECK SAID... (Goverment: and there is your first problem)

For the record Glenn Beck did cover this on his show earlier This case will also help turn current state legal carry permits into a universally recognized document like your drivers license.

As for that fish & potato comment, really they are in the same place what makes them any different? Just because you feel like one is better... Hey I think certain people should not benefit from freedom of speech, but we allow the kkk to still meet and have rallies!

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I was little confused with this one too. It looks like they are questioning the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns.

That's what it says they are AGAINST THE BAN FOR KEEPING GUNS

People really need to read

Originally posted by PjZ101

Another atrocity on our consitution and to our freedom is on the docket with the supreme court and newly appointed Judge Sotomayor.

Namaste THIS

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns, opening the way for a ruling that could set off a vigorous new campaign to roll back state and local gun controls across the nation.

ROLL BACK GUN CONTROLS... Good grief people its the first freaking sentence for crying out loud

Victory for gun-rights proponents in the Chicago case is considered likely, even by supporters of gun control, in the latest battle in the nation's long and often bitter dispute over the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A ruling against the citys outright ban could lead to legal challenges to less-restrictive laws across the country that limit who can own guns, whether firearms must be registered and how they should be stored.

Sad thing is people will be coming in to this thread and agreeing with you (judging by the stars you got) and are also not readying it


sad very sad indeed

They took the weapons off the peasants in China and Japan, which led to them learning martial arts and turning their tools of work into weapons. And look how wonderful China turned out.

America is going down a dangerous path. And the eyes of history are watching her. I hope her government relaxes a little and stops being so paranoid. And I hope her citizens become a little more awake and watchful about their rights being stolen from behind their backs.

Originally posted by Lazyninja

America is going down a dangerous path.

READ THE ARTICLE Dang it They are giving us the rights BACK not taking them away


At least in Nevada we have sanity... the worlds largest Gun Park opening in a few months. Did some work out there its HUGE and awesome

www.accessclarkcounty.com...


Also we don't have gun laws here... want an Uzi? no problem

reply to post by KSPigpen


Actually.. I agree with you.

I thought the same thing.

On one hand, if they rule it un-constitutional, that means states rights are violated.

Then on the other hand, that makes it so that over restrictive gun laws are removed eventually.

Does this then become a win-win? Personally I think it is a deeper argument than that.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Lazyninja

America is going down a dangerous path.

READ THE ARTICLE Dang it

They are giving us the rights BACK not taking them away

I think we're simply witnessing in microcosm what propaganda can do whether it's alternative, mainstream, right, left or whatever. Critical thought has been usurped by the pernicious agenda whores!

Aw, shucks, I'm starting to sound like...

Never mind.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by Miraj
On one hand, if they rule it un-constitutional, that means states rights are violated.

How? Since when does the Federal Government have no authority to uphold the Bill of Rights (that almost sounds a bit funny to say though)? I'm really confused by this reasoning. It is no loose confederation of sovereign states, it is a nation. They got shown what that means once already.

I guess "states' rights" means "states can do whatever they want when they want" which is really an agenda of those that cannot truely get along with anyone else.

Edit:
Ok, I will confess a slight paranoid tingle that says they want to centralize authority to restrict arms at the Federal Level without states being in conflict. On the other hand, ruling certain bans or restrictions as unconsistutional sets some precedent for what they should be able to do.

[edit on 10/1/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp Critical thought has been usurped by the pernicious agenda whores!

Well next time your in Vegas you can take out your frustrations

She's cute but don't mess with her




And this week they were giving free clips

[edit on 1-10-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
READ THE ARTICLE Dang it

They are giving us the rights BACK not taking them away

Well to be true to the article, they are reviewing giving your rights back. How do you really think that will turn out?

You can't really blame people for not reading either. On ATS there has been 6,459 topics about how America is being disarmed. This one is a little different, but the topic was still presented in conflicted way so that people will click on it.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Lazyninja]

They won't get my arsenal easily

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Well to be true to the article, they are reviewing giving your rights back. How do you really think that will turn out?

You can't really blame people for not reading either. On ATS there has been 6,459 topics about how America is being disarmed.

I suppose there's truth in that but it actually suggests there is something underneath the surface that is in conflict with the claims (which I don't doubt most of those topics expound) that the agenda is to disarm American citizens.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

Is the title. and it reads like this:

The supreme court is going to ban your guns!

Myself and probably many others, had no idea that people were spitballing banning handguns in Chicago, or whether they were actually banned there. Also Chicago isn't mentioned anywhere in the title at all.

Maybe a less confusing title could be:

Gun ban under scrutiny

Or something like that

Anyway I'm not complaining, it's good thread with some good news in it. It just gets repetitive when lazy people like me walk into a topic with a misleading title, and then it ends up like this. (I know I know, don't be lazy!)

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Lazyninja]

Originally posted by Lazyninja (I know I know, don't be lazy!)

There ya go

Now go out and get one of THESE





[edit on 1-10-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by FatalGreenthumb

 

Read these and calm down.

www.google.com...

www.latimes.com...

/ycevu7y

This is an important case because it will determine if the current restrictive gun-control laws are constitutional.

It needs to be done and now is a good time.

Let us pray that the court will uphold the Second Amendment as a Constitutionally protected individual right at the federal level.

lol...that was pretty funny....getting all worked up over misunderstandings hehehe. But then again I was a bit confused which way the review was going at first as well. Its late and I havent slept well lately so thats my excuse. Hope the gun laws lighten up, bout time someone had the sense to consider these current laws a bit reaching....

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Lazyninja (I know I know, don't be lazy!)

There ya go

Now go out and get one of THESE

[edit on 1-10-2009 by zorgon]

Ok just because I saw it and thought immediately,"WOW" what the Eff is that gun and how could it possibly have come into that fine mullet sporting (perhaps in the past if not now) gentlemen's hands???

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Averysmallfoxx]

oh yeah and zorgon, why did the poor dude get a photo shopped head?? its painfully obvious now that I am paying a lil more attention...

reply to post by PjZ101


It's never a good thing when the Supreme Court feels it needs to once again, check to see if we have the right to self-defense.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx


Ok just because I saw it and thought immediately,"WOW" what the Eff is that gun and how could it possibly have come into that fine mullet sporting (perhaps in the past if not now) gentlemen's hands???

I believe that is a 20 mm anti-tank, anti-material gun.

Zorgon will have more info when he gets back - but yeah that gun has/had anti-tank capability.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Exuberant1]