Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Thanks for the clarification!

Mandatory second line

Gun Rights are simply that....RIGHTS.....
Again it begs the question how many of the states laws are struck down by this decision?
Is it alreight now to carry country wide?
How about concealed firearms?
Open carry?
What if any are the restrictions which the states are allowed to tack on and deemed reasonable?
The reading of the law seems to open the whole thing wide for anybody who is a citizen to own carry anytime anywhere....

reply to post by baked_bean


Way back in this thread I posted a comment with information which supports the fact that gun ownership reduces crime but it was ignored or passed over due to a couple of posters having an argument. Because it was lost and because people are still wrongfully arguing that guns cause crime, I have copied by previous post here:

For those who still wrongly adhere to the false claim that guns create crime and should be controlled by the government:

MURDER RATES BY COUNTRY According to www.nationmaster.com...

Rank 1st Columbia = 0.617847 per 1,000 people

Rank 4th Venezuela = 0.316138 per 1,000 people

Rank 5th Russia = 0.201534 per 1,000 people

Rank 6th Mexico = 0.130213 per 1,000 people (Federal Gun Ban)

Rank 26th United States = 0.042802 per 1,000 people. 2nd Amendment gun rights. Trend has been toward fewer murders per capita for several years. In 2009 that trend continued even as gun ownership increased by 14,033,824 (based on NCIS background checks conducted in 2009). *That is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
*This according to Ammoland.com with NCIS statistics printed there.

Rank 46th United Kingdom = 0.0140633 per 1,000 people. Tight government gun control:

**Murder rates (initially stable round about 1 per 100,000 population have steadily increased since the early 1990’s. In contrast, in the US over the same period homicides have almost halved. Now while homicide rates in the US are still higher than in the UK, the important thing is to realise that in 1980 the US homicide rate was about ten times the rate in England but now the US rate is only three times higher. Clearly the liberal firearms legislation in the US has worked to reduce murders while the legislation passed in the UK appears to have had the perverse effect of increasing the homicide rate. The net effect is that the gap between the UK and US murder rates has narrowed significantly. A similar pattern (a virtual doubling of murder rates since the passage of the 1988 and 1997 firearm laws is seen from Scottish figures.
** Taken from “HOW GOVERNMENTS CREATE CRIME” by Dr. Lech Beltowski as available in pdf format at dvc.org.uk...

Rank 56th Switzerland = 0.00921351 per 1,000 people. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

The following was taken from ActionAmerica.org:

“In a book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" Kleck's research showed that armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). Most of those instances were while the innocent victim was waiting on the police to arrive and many were even waiting for the police to answer the phone.” Emphasis added by me.

In the November 15th 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine George Will reported that police were 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.

The following is from the ActionAmerica.org downloadable widget counter:

Since January 1, 2010 until this moment, Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:24:24 PM GUNS have already been used in the US, in SELF DEFENSE 870,204 times... Think about it.


Infringement means any means used by government (state or federal) to create by license requirements or tax an impediment to the realization of a right guaranteed by the constitution. Permits for ownership, concealment, or taxes and fees are infringements on the right to gun ownership. Your right to keep and bear arms cannot depend upon your ability to pay for it! PERIOD.

edit by me to add bold emphasis

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Hopup Dave]

are you expecting them to parachute unnoticed like in red dawn or are you anticipating an amphibious landing that some how sneaks in under the radar

reply to post by Ian McLean


Article V of the Constitution outlines how to amend (modify) the document. It consists of two steps: proposal and ratification.

1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

* Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
* Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

I think you were misremembering there Ian.

Originally posted by marg6043
The only reason the supreme court voted in favor of guns is because even when we make fun of the supreme court members and we call them all kind of names they actually uphold the Constitution because that is their job.

So I was expecting no less. . .

[edit on 28-6-2010 by marg6043]

Uh then you noticed that that have now allowed Monsanto to put their GM crops in our fields ? Ya... uh. They are awesome

The whole assault rife can be summed up as the Evil Black Rifle or EBR It was a publicity thing because as we all should know the people of the US are hung up on appearance. And that black plastic gun look is soo scary! More lies fed to the ignorant to fufill a agenda.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

Actually by being a part of the United States each state agrees to help the other in times of war. So if the federal government declares a state of war the individual states are seen to be in a state of war.

Actually if you can be at war with say Germany, you can be at war with a noun. Nouns are the abstract representation of something concrete and solid.

IS a war on terror possible? That is a whole other discussion.

All of that being said I was using these two definitions of the word state:

2. country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government
3. government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries

Dubya, didn't even declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan, they just moved in. So is a Invasion not a War.

You can not declare war on something that has no conscience.
A war is over when one side surrenders, Terror can not surrender as
there is no single point of command. As no one can surrender the fighing can continue foreever, which is basically what its' doing now

Stick it up your backside Mayor Daley!

So we can have guns.. did this bill mention anything about ammunition.. a gun is virtually useless with out ammo... I could see them doing that. really why are there even arguments about the right to bear arms.. its crystal clear!

Maybe I should shut up .. I might have given them a idea..

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I also like a bolt action high powered rifle. In fact I like to buy another Mosin Nagant ($80+) each month and a can of 500 rounds of 7.62 x 54r steel core ammo ($100+). You can outfit a volunteer shooter like this for arount $200 total.

Heck if everyone that could put back just $200 a month like this there would be arms and ammo enough for a lot of folks very quickly. There are millions of these cheap surplus arms and ammo out there right now. This round and rifle are dead shots. The world record sniper in Finland killed over 500 Russian soldiers with one of these.

Now is a good time to turn your Federal Reserve Notes into something useful while you still can.

You need to carefully read this court ruling.

The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

the court gave no definition of "reasonable"

There is nothing to stop any state from putting a $500 or even a $5000 tax on every gun someone owns.
They can put a $5.00 tax on every round of ammo.
They could require gun owner to take a unlimited number hours of "safety" training to own guns costing $500+ a year.

They can even require they be locked up to the point they are useless.
They can require the guns to be stored in s combination type gun safe with a trigger lock on every gun and the ammo be stored in another combination type safe in another room.

They could require that you put a gun safe in your car just to take your guns to the range.

California Penal Code section 12285(c)(7) requires that registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations and must be unloaded and in a locked container when transported.
The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.

Some states WILL abuse the "reasonable" as far as they can.
The only thing that will happen is a few lawsuits that will take a few years to go through the courts.
If there rule is found unreasonable and overturn they will just come up with another rule and let it wined through court.

The sheeple who were proclaiming and think "the gubmint gunna take our guns"! Hell no that ain't gonna happen eventhough it should.

Guns do not provide protection or defense whatsoever. They are completely offensive weapons. You can't deflect bullets or other weapons with a gun - that's done with a shield or some other type of defensive object. Guns are meant for killing, not defending.

If someone is running around with a machine gun, firing into a crowd, it doesn't matter if anyone in the crowd had a gun - they'll be shot and dead anyway. It did nothing to protect them. For protection, they would have to actually have foreknowledge that they would be shot by this person before it actually happened. Obviously, they won't know until after the person has started shooting.

Guns don't cause potential shooters to "think twice." If they want you dead, and they have a gun, they'll shoot you. The only way to possibly be protected is to just carry your gun around openly wherever you go for intimidation. But if that happens, intimidation will actually diminish. If everyone carries guns like it's a normal thing, why would anyone be scared? Plus, open-carry doesn't stop anyone from shooting, but would in fact make it easier to shoot someone.

If two people have guns, one "attacking" and one "defending," then unless the defender knows that the attacker is going to shoot him beforehand, he will most certainly be shot. The gun for "self-defense" does not work.

I find it increasingly hilarious that gun-nuts bring up ridiculous arguments about "dem guns protectin' dem studants in dem school shootangs".

Uh...you mean the murder-suicide shootings? Where the shooters deliberately killed people before committing suicide themselves.

Yeah, im sure the threat of getting shot back at is totally gonna deter them. Hahaha.

Glad to hear someone has sense. We don't need to follow the Constitution for the same reason we don't follow a 2,000 year old religious text. The Founding Fathers were great, and the Constitution was great at the time, but how they didn't see it becoming outdated is beyond me.

reply to post by Sheol


I'm wondering what will happen when the first Space Hotel is made,
Amercans rock up, wha ya mean I can't have a gun, I'm an Umercian.

Originally posted by Sheol
The sheeple who were proclaiming and think "the gubmint gunna take our guns"! Hell no that ain't gonna happen eventhough it should.

Guns do not provide protection or defense whatsoever. They are completely offensive weapons. You can't deflect bullets or other weapons with a gun - that's done with a shield or some other type of defensive object. Guns are meant for killing, not defending.

If someone is running around with a machine gun, firing into a crowd, it doesn't matter if anyone in the crowd had a gun - they'll be shot and dead anyway. It did nothing to protect them. For protection, they would have to actually have foreknowledge that they would be shot by this person before it actually happened. Obviously, they won't know until after the person has started shooting.

Guns don't cause potential shooters to "think twice." If they want you dead, and they have a gun, they'll shoot you. The only way to possibly be protected is to just carry your gun around openly wherever you go for intimidation. But if that happens, intimidation will actually diminish. If everyone carries guns like it's a normal thing, why would anyone be scared? Plus, open-carry doesn't stop anyone from shooting, but would in fact make it easier to shoot someone.

If two people have guns, one "attacking" and one "defending," then unless the defender knows that the attacker is going to shoot him beforehand, he will most certainly be shot. The gun for "self-defense" does not work.

I find it increasingly hilarious that gun-nuts bring up ridiculous arguments about "dem guns protectin' dem studants in dem school shootangs".

Uh...you mean the murder-suicide shootings? Where the shooters deliberately killed people before committing suicide themselves.

Yeah, im sure the threat of getting shot back at is totally gonna deter them. Hahaha.

I love your BS from the brady people. There data is useless in any comparison of countries.
first you must list it as deaths per 100,000 of the population.
plus what are the parameters in each country for there count.
homicides, justifiable homicides, police shootings,
are each listed are not some countries don't list some types of shooting as homicides.


New Zealand may have a low rate because the have a Population of less then 4 million people.
And they have a very low number of illegal immigrants in there country.

The US population is over 300 million. and about 20 million illegals and a number of them are here to commit crimes.
get rid of the illegals and crime would go down.

Sweden is funny as more Swedes shot them self then others.
there firearm homicide rate is only 0.18 per 100,000
but there firearms suicide rate is 2.09 per 100,000

the number is BS for Australia.
256 gun homicides in 2004 in Australia not counting police shootings.

England and Canada also do not count police shooting as homicides.

Now to get to the brady peoples numbers for the US.
they are also BS.
In the US they count police shooting criminals as homicides.(justifiable)
they also count home owner shooting criminals as homicides(justifiable)
and criminals shooting criminals.(let criminal shoot criminal good riddance)
Also accidental shootings where the shooter is never found.(was it accidental or not )

In the US they even list military training accidents as homicides in some cases.(negligent homicide)

The homicide numbers in the US come from the coroners around the US and if they get a body with a bullet hole its ether a homicide, suicide, or accidental.
And if they clearly can not be ruled suicide, or accidental they are listed as homicides till proven otherwise.(may be years later)
The coroners do not make a determination as to if they are justifiable or not, that is up to the police and courts and can take years.

reply to post by Sheol


give me an address and i will donate money for you to move to New Zealand

Sorry, I have to disagree, with just about EVERYTHING here.
I am a FREE, Sovereign, Citizen of Nevada. I have a god-given right, to ANY type of firearm, that I want.
ProjectJimmy- sorry, but any Government that GIVES you rights, will TAKE THEM AWAY.
I've carried a handgun (usually legally), for 30 years. THAT, has saved me from being raped/murdered, TWICE.
My machineguns, are for when MY GOVERNMENT, goes too far. THAT, is clear, in the American Constitution.
"People, generally break-down, into TWO, distinct groups- those that think people should be closely controlled, by "government", and those, who want FREEDOM". You cannot have both. You are either a slave, or a FREEMAN. Socialism, is a form of slavery.

Let me ammend that- Socialism, is a form of slavery, that is usually very appealing, to immature, young, minds, who have little real-world experience.

reply to post by ANNED


Well said, ANNED!!
"There are three types of lies- lies, damned lies, and statistics"- Samuel Clements (Mark Twain)