You applied the crazy emote to gun owners and just described their position as crazy town. The only person even starting to make this ugly is you, with some subtle attacks.jackass wrote:slip slip sliding down the rabbit hole to crazy town...
I guess politics and hang gliding shouldn't mix. I'll bow out before it gets ugly.
I can't speak for the other 80+ million gun owners in the USA, but I will not willingly surrender my firearms like the gun owners in Australia and Great Britain meekly did in the 90s. The only thing that keeps a totalitarian police state at bay is an armed citizenry, and the fear that those armed citizens will rise against the state. That's why tyrannical regimes from the left and right political spectrums always seek to disarm the population as Priority #1.PilotGuy wrote:You know, gun nuts love to claim that it's their guns that protect their rights when the government encroaches too much, but I'd like to see the day when the gun nuts out their actually start to open fire on the police and US military.
Hypothetical: How many of you gun lovers, if you came home and found your house being searched by police without a warrant, would have the balls to pick up your gun and start shooting in order to protect your civil rights, rather than just shrug and say "I guess I'll have to let the courts work it out." ?
Fact is, I'd love to see the constitution defended rather than destroyed, but where are my gun wielding fellow americans who are willing to fight for their rights? Their too busy screaming "Git dem terrurists!" to see who's lives are actually being affected.
You mean the British? A lot.TomGalvin wrote:How many police were there, when the Constitution was written.sg wrote:Strawman? I don't think they think like that in general. I would wager when the day comes that they actually start shooting at police/military, is when we are already in a nazi-germany scenario and the government has clearly become a fascist state. Revolution time, is when the shooting would start. THAT is the scenario I think the founders had in mind, when they formed the 2nd amendment as a fail safe, not the "lets just shoot a cop cuz I think he's violating my rights" scenario.
and the difference is?curly_cue wrote:I can't see myself shooting a cop because he's on my property without a warrant. However if someone breaks into my home to rob me or hurt me, he will be in some serious trouble.
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used byHeld:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
"in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
Answering that question honestly could get someone on a government watch list, only an idiot would admit to such a thing unless things were already on the brink of a revolt, or they could go stealthy, like the DC sniper, except target cops instead of random civilians, one would obviously not stand up to the cops when they are at your home, and have taken your major guns already.Hypothetical: How many of you gun lovers, if you came home and found your house being searched by police without a warrant, would have the balls to pick up your gun and start shooting in order to protect your civil rights, rather than just shrug and say "I guess I'll have to let the courts work it out." ?
I can relate to this, I can only hope I make it to Switzerland before things got that bad here, but things could go bad before one knows it, and one could find themselves stuck in this country with no easy way outIf it ever got that bad I would move out of the country anyway because at that point America is not the country I was once so proud of.
If you're talking about the law that was passed 2 days ago, that was Sweden. If you're talking about something that happened previous to this week, my memory doesn't go back that far.sg wrote:Switzerland just passed a law to have all internet traffic go through the govt. for monitoring
Ooops my bad, you are correctPilotGuy wrote:If you're talking about the law that was passed 2 days ago, that was Sweden. If you're talking about something that happened previous to this week, my memory doesn't go back that far.sg wrote:Switzerland just passed a law to have all internet traffic go through the govt. for monitoring
That was then, this is now. The technology has changed. In the mid 1700s, a citizen army armed with rifles was an effective fighting force. Today, they would be cannon fodder. Any of the four branches of our armed services could put a bomb on your house today and you'd never even hear the aircraft that delivered it.sg wrote:How do you think the USA was founded?jackass wrote:equating guns to freedom.
OK, you're starting to scare me. If you look at the the number of states who have had their governments overturned in the last 50 years, how many have been done by a citizen army? Very, very few. (Castro comes to mind.) It is most commonly either done by an organized campaign of civil disobedience, or by a faction of the existing army.dfurlano wrote:
I can't speak for the other 80+ million gun owners in the USA, but I will not willingly surrender my firearms like the gun owners in Australia and Great Britain meekly did in the 90s. The only thing that keeps a totalitarian police state at bay is an armed citizenry, and the fear that those armed citizens will rise against the state. That's why tyrannical regimes from the left and right political spectrums always seek to disarm the population as Priority #1.
Americans who think that a tyrannical state cannot possibly take hold here in the USA are either ignorant (unknowing), preoccupied, blind (metaphorically), or self-deceived.
Apathy always seems to rule (i.e. only about 20% of Americans were directly involved in the independence rebellion against Great Briatain), but I've made the conscious decision that the state will have to take my firearms "from my cold dead fingers." Call it armed civil disobedience. And I hardly qualify as a redneck with a 75 IQ.
Although it may initially take the lives of a number of victimized gun owners (possibly me too?), once the tyrannical state feels continued armed resistence (which is highly infectious in the population), they will fold like a cheap pack of cards and run for their own lives.
BS SGsg wrote:You applied the crazy emote to gun owners and just described their position as crazy town. The only person even starting to make this ugly is you, with some subtle attacks.jackass wrote:slip slip sliding down the rabbit hole to crazy town...
I guess politics and hang gliding shouldn't mix. I'll bow out before it gets ugly.
Right on Steve! I have always wanted to try truck[…]
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Loved it and was grooving to the soundtrack. Thank[…]