[quote]Originally posted by Bekenn:
[b]You guys are just gonna love this....
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72371,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72371,00.html[/url]
[/b][/quote]
so wheres the militia ? hmm ? the National Guard ?
so in order to have the right to bear arms you should do national service, right ???
far as I'm concerned that would be a frikkin great idea, that means the military screens and trains every legitimate gun owner in the US.
and I can almost promise you something like this will never happen...
and oh... while I'm on the gun wagon...
Every sodding handgun above .38 calibre and every pistol with a barrel length less than 12cm(4.72inches) is summarily banned in Australia, as soon as the legislation is rubber stamped. There will also be a gun byback scheme where legitimate gun owners will be compensated for thier loss. The guns surrendered will be DESTROYED. What a ****ing waste.
Well gee... I guess there will be a thriving black market here inside six months.
And every gun death will be from a .38 or less gun, or the crims will use what they've always used, sawn offs because the cant afford black market pistols anyway.
F U C K ING S T U P I D DIP S H I T laws !
Why o frikkin why cant we have something between AU and the US, something sane, rational and positive.
All this legislation does is encourage deliquency and contempt for the State...
not that in my personal case, that that wasnt already the abysmal truth.
[quote]...The amendment reads, in full: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [i]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[/i], shall not be infringed."
In its ruling last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to bear arms, but that those rights are subject to narrowly tailored restrictions.
Ashcroft has said that [i]the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms[/i], compelling a flood of defendants to petition federal judges to vacate their weapons convictions...[/quote]
This says it best! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]..."While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military style weapons to be on the streets in our state," said Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general...[/quote]
I do agree with this too! Simple guns yes, assault no... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
There is absolutely NO reason why any member of the public should be allowed to buy a gun, non (well apart from hunting). But most guns you can buy “over the counter” in the US are absolutely useless for hunting, so why are they sold? To stop the British from invading I guess [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
There is no way to justify the selling of guns, it should be stopped right away, f*** the NRA! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
And anyway, about the NRA… never trust a man in a bad wig :P
Well well well now its going to have to go to a full panel of the 9th then we can see what happens.. if it upholds this the supreams MUST get involved since we will then have two contraditory rulings by full circut court panels, since the word people in there does apply to the people in the 5th while it doesnt in the 9th..
And for the record the 9th circut has a rate of being over turned or its decisions vacated that tops 40%. Its the most frequently overturned of the circut courts.
And for the record the 9th circut has a rate of being over turned or its decisions vacated that tops 40%. Its the most frequently overturned of the circut courts.
actualy its vacated AND flat out overturned about 80% of the time..
The court right behind it is the 7th? out of illinois with 75% which has some major problems.. and most of its judges were nominated by republicans.. Then again some very leftist on the bench were put there by republicans.. especially at the Supream court level never can be quite sure what your getting.
However only about .2% of the 5000 cases the 9th hears annualy ever make it to the Supreams. That And I think a full panel (24 judges) of the 9th is going to end up hearing it.. which might give a different decision, Im betting a upholding, but a MUCH, MUCH different justification.
If they flat out deny the fact that "the people" is in the second amendment, which is one of the FEW places the PEOPLE are mentioned, (less then 10 times through out the whole document) there are alot of people who are going to question the legitimacy of our government.. alot of armed people.
If people dont like what it says, dont lie about its meaning and engage in symantics, there is a comma there then the "the right of the people..." symantics ends up being used to justify genocide due to "contemporary contexual meanings of the document" ammend the damn sucker, then all of us right wingers wont have it use in our arguments any more"
If everybody in this country is so "Anti gun" then a ammendment shouldnt be that big of a deal, and its not like you have huge corporations to fight, all the gun manufactures are actualy smaller companies when compared to other industries. So if the support is there the second ammendment could be history.
[This message has been edited by Tyvar (edited 12-10-2002).]
That was kinda my point Rhett, the people on the Anti gun side of the debate might well discover that they are not the majority they claim to be.
If they are though and they succede they will have eliminated the second ammendment legaly.. the best we can hope to do is petition and have them grand the ability for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah to succeede,move there and just watch and see how they hande things..
[quote]Originally posted by Tyvar:
[b]
That was kinda my point Rhett, the people on the Anti gun side of the debate might well discover that they are not the majority they claim to be.
If they are though and they succede they will have eliminated the second ammendment legaly.. the best we can hope to do is petition and have them grand the ability for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah to succeede,move there and just watch and see how they hande things.. [/b][/quote]
Yep. Although such a bill would have no chance of passing, it is an interesting quanderey.
Comments
[b]You guys are just gonna love this....
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72371,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72371,00.html[/url]
[/b][/quote]
Sounds about right for California.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
so wheres the militia ? hmm ? the National Guard ?
so in order to have the right to bear arms you should do national service, right ???
far as I'm concerned that would be a frikkin great idea, that means the military screens and trains every legitimate gun owner in the US.
and I can almost promise you something like this will never happen...
and oh... while I'm on the gun wagon...
Every sodding handgun above .38 calibre and every pistol with a barrel length less than 12cm(4.72inches) is summarily banned in Australia, as soon as the legislation is rubber stamped. There will also be a gun byback scheme where legitimate gun owners will be compensated for thier loss. The guns surrendered will be DESTROYED. What a ****ing waste.
Well gee... I guess there will be a thriving black market here inside six months.
And every gun death will be from a .38 or less gun, or the crims will use what they've always used, sawn offs because the cant afford black market pistols anyway.
F U C K ING S T U P I D DIP S H I T laws !
Why o frikkin why cant we have something between AU and the US, something sane, rational and positive.
All this legislation does is encourage deliquency and contempt for the State...
not that in my personal case, that that wasnt already the abysmal truth.
In its ruling last year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to bear arms, but that those rights are subject to narrowly tailored restrictions.
Ashcroft has said that [i]the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms[/i], compelling a flood of defendants to petition federal judges to vacate their weapons convictions...[/quote]
This says it best! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]..."While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military style weapons to be on the streets in our state," said Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general...[/quote]
I do agree with this too! Simple guns yes, assault no... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
There is no way to justify the selling of guns, it should be stopped right away, f*** the NRA! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
And anyway, about the NRA… never trust a man in a bad wig :P
EDIT: Just come a try to take my guns, bizniches!
[This message has been edited by rhett (edited 12-08-2002).]
[b]f*** the NRA![/b][/quote]
"I am the NRA." So no thank you Jambo.
And for the record the 9th circut has a rate of being over turned or its decisions vacated that tops 40%. Its the most frequently overturned of the circut courts.
[b]
And for the record the 9th circut has a rate of being over turned or its decisions vacated that tops 40%. Its the most frequently overturned of the circut courts.
[/b][/quote]
And with good reason.
The court right behind it is the 7th? out of illinois with 75% which has some major problems.. and most of its judges were nominated by republicans.. Then again some very leftist on the bench were put there by republicans.. especially at the Supream court level never can be quite sure what your getting.
However only about .2% of the 5000 cases the 9th hears annualy ever make it to the Supreams. That And I think a full panel (24 judges) of the 9th is going to end up hearing it.. which might give a different decision, Im betting a upholding, but a MUCH, MUCH different justification.
If they flat out deny the fact that "the people" is in the second amendment, which is one of the FEW places the PEOPLE are mentioned, (less then 10 times through out the whole document) there are alot of people who are going to question the legitimacy of our government.. alot of armed people.
If people dont like what it says, dont lie about its meaning and engage in symantics, there is a comma there then the "the right of the people..." symantics ends up being used to justify genocide due to "contemporary contexual meanings of the document" ammend the damn sucker, then all of us right wingers wont have it use in our arguments any more"
If everybody in this country is so "Anti gun" then a ammendment shouldnt be that big of a deal, and its not like you have huge corporations to fight, all the gun manufactures are actualy smaller companies when compared to other industries. So if the support is there the second ammendment could be history.
[This message has been edited by Tyvar (edited 12-10-2002).]
If they are though and they succede they will have eliminated the second ammendment legaly.. the best we can hope to do is petition and have them grand the ability for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah to succeede,move there and just watch and see how they hande things..
[b]
That was kinda my point Rhett, the people on the Anti gun side of the debate might well discover that they are not the majority they claim to be.
If they are though and they succede they will have eliminated the second ammendment legaly.. the best we can hope to do is petition and have them grand the ability for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah to succeede,move there and just watch and see how they hande things.. [/b][/quote]
Yep. Although such a bill would have no chance of passing, it is an interesting quanderey.