Heller v. DC - Your Gun Rights Case

[quote]vroom wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah. Good thing we don’t live in one. We live in a Constitutional representative republic where we our inalienable rights enumerate in said Constitution supposedly respected, including those of self defense.

Well, maybe you should be allowed to own your own personal nuclear weapons… in case an enemy army tries to invade your house?

Get a grip.[/quote]

You knew what you were doing. The problem with you Kos Kidz is that you think you have the right not to be offended and that you have the right to deprive others of their rights as long as you can get enough people to go along with you. Our system is set up to protect the smallest minority - the individual - a fact that you don’t seem to comprehend.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
vroom wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah. Good thing we don’t live in one. We live in a Constitutional representative republic where we our inalienable rights enumerate in said Constitution supposedly respected, including those of self defense.

Well, maybe you should be allowed to own your own personal nuclear weapons… in case an enemy army tries to invade your house?

Get a grip.

You knew what you were doing. The problem with you Kos Kidz is that you think you have the right not to be offended and that you have the right to deprive others of their rights as long as you can get enough people to go along with you. Our system is set up to protect the smallest minority - the individual - a fact that you don’t seem to comprehend. [/quote]

Maybe because he doesnt even live here?

What is with all the people living in foreign countries always telling us how to live? The vast majority of us Americans have never felt the need to do so(dont start the imperialism crap either…Im talking about every day people).

The nuclear weapons thing is such absurd hysterics, it is not worth commenting on. I have heard all that kind of crap in the past two days…the “why can’t you buy a fighter jet” comments, the bad “redneck” impressions, even some people throwing race into this.

The fact remains that a good number of us here in America still believe in individualism and self-determination. Those beliefs cant be separated from a means of protecting yourself from tyrants, invaders and criminals. I have known many hard-line gun owners(I am one, btw) and have always found them to be very thoughtful, respectful and patriotic individuals. The constant
ignorant sarcasm is revolting and lays bare the juvenile thinking of many on the other side of the issue.

On another note, I hope some of you caught the president of Washington DC’s police union on the NRA radio program Friday night.

To paraphrase, he gave a very intelligent interview and said how strongly the rank and file department supports the Heller decision. He reiterated the hard won knowledge of every real law enforcer in the country…lower crime by being ultra aggressive against the real criminals, not restricting the rights of the law abiding. In fact, many of the union leaders are looking forward to some relief from violent crime in that dangerous city because now the street thugs have something to fear from the honest citizens.

This is generally the view of rank and file cops and other law enforcement everywhere, at least in my experience. Usually when you see “police support” for gun control schemes, it is coming from chiefs and other high level managers who must kiss the feet of their corrupt political masters to continue their advancement.

[quote]vroom wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah. Good thing we don’t live in one. We live in a Constitutional representative republic where we our inalienable rights enumerate in said Constitution supposedly respected, including those of self defense.

Well, maybe you should be allowed to own your own personal nuclear weapons… in case an enemy army tries to invade your house?

Get a grip.[/quote]

What a childish, silly argument. It’s funny that you’re telling him to get a grip. LOL!

Are you seriously equating a handgun to a nuclear warhead? Good grief man.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
What a childish, silly argument. It’s funny that you’re telling him to get a grip. LOL!

Are you seriously equating a handgun to a nuclear warhead? Good grief man.[/quote]

What a dumb question.

I’m pointing out that there are limits and considerations applied to all rights… and using a ridiculous example to drive the point home.

Have you been reading along?

[quote]What is with all the people living in foreign countries always telling us how to live? The vast majority of us Americans have never felt the need to do so(dont start the imperialism crap either…Im talking about every day people).
[/quote]

The funny thing is, most canadians didn’t comply with the gun registry law their parliament passed. They saw what happened in the UK and Australia, and we’re next.

Yes, only an idiot would say such a thing. As if I’m going to defend my family with a nuclear device or M1 tank. Neither would fit into my gun safe and both would kill me, my family, and everyone else around me. I have seen F/A-18s for sale on Ebay though, and my friend bought a fighter on there that he fixed up and now flies.

[quote]
The fact remains that a good number of us here in America still believe in individualism and self-determination. Those beliefs cant be separated from a means of protecting yourself from tyrants, invaders and criminals. I have known many hard-line gun owners(I am one, btw) and have always found them to be very thoughtful, respectful and patriotic individuals. The constant
ignorant sarcasm is revolting and lays bare the juvenile thinking of many on the other side of the issue. [/quote]

I believe that the government will one day go the way of Rome, so the problem will take care of itself. They’ll give amnesty to the next batch of jihadists and something bad may end up happening in DC that centers around unregistered WMD ownership.

[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
What a childish, silly argument. It’s funny that you’re telling him to get a grip. LOL!

Are you seriously equating a handgun to a nuclear warhead? Good grief man.

What a dumb question.

I’m pointing out that there are limits and considerations applied to all rights… and using a ridiculous example to drive the point home.

Have you been reading along?[/quote]

You, sir, are a fool.

[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
What a childish, silly argument. It’s funny that you’re telling him to get a grip. LOL!

Are you seriously equating a handgun to a nuclear warhead? Good grief man.

What a dumb question.

I’m pointing out that there are limits and considerations applied to all rights… and using a ridiculous example to drive the point home.[/quote]

Why yes, I actually have. The question here Vroomy, is how long have you been writing?

You analogy was silly, that’s true. But it did a poor job of illustrating your point. In doing so, you effectively jumped the shark and made yourself out as retarded. Your point was unclear…

[quote]JD430 wrote:

Maybe because he doesnt even live here?

What is with all the people living in foreign countries always telling us how to live? The vast majority of us Americans have never felt the need to do so(dont start the imperialism crap either…Im talking about every day people).

The nuclear weapons thing is such absurd hysterics, it is not worth commenting on. I have heard all that kind of crap in the past two days…the “why can’t you buy a fighter jet” comments, the bad “redneck” impressions, even some people throwing race into this.

The fact remains that a good number of us here in America still believe in individualism and self-determination. Those beliefs cant be separated from a means of protecting yourself from tyrants, invaders and criminals. I have known many hard-line gun owners(I am one, btw) and have always found them to be very thoughtful, respectful and patriotic individuals. The constant
ignorant sarcasm is revolting and lays bare the juvenile thinking of many on the other side of the issue. [/quote]

Good post, JD430.

As an observation, anyone else bothered by the fact that the left-leaning types (hereinafter “the Left”) tend to believe in a “Reverse Constitution” as it applies to our democracy?

Here it is. The Constitution takes certain rights and removes them from the democratic process to protect them from political change…the rest of the policy, and all rights and privileges not mentioned or otherwise protected in the Constitution, the Constitution kicks to the democratic process.

The Left turns the entire Constitution on its head.

First, they take “rights” that aren’t in the Constitution and demand a court invent them and privilege them as supreme law of the law and remove them from the democratic process - see gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Second, they take rights that are in the Constitution textually and suddenly decide that these issues should be decided and adjusted by the democratic process - see gun restrictions and taking private property for “public use”.

Exactly backward when you look at it - written, textual rights need to be given the most democratic latitude to manipulate and modify, and ephemeral, fashionable rights that you can’t find in the language of the Constitution need to be insulated from democratic response.

It’s weird, ignorant of history and democratic theory - and dangerous.

[quote]Magnate wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Talking heads were going crazy about this decision last night. MSNBC was painful to watch - Dan Abrams especially (hardly abnormal for him though). Kept asking where the Militia meeting in D.C. would be.

Fucking ridiculous

I caught part of that this morning. I haven’t been so disgusted with Abrams since he kept playing that video of his boyfriend whining, leave Britney alooonneeee

Did you catch Olbermann saying that the 2nd amendment means we have a right to militia type weapons from the 1790s. He listed a few different muskets saying that’s what we should be allowed to have while doing his worst person in the world shtick. [/quote]

It just shows you how ignorant and hysterical the gun control nuts are. There were more weapons than just muskets owned and used by civilians back in the 1790’s. Which in fact raises some interesting test cases that could be put before the court.

Swords were a commonly owned weapon back then. Is it legal to restrict the length of knives or carrying them or does the second amendment give the right to carry a knife of whatever length we feel is suitable to our needs?

Another privately owned weapon back then were cannons. The first American ships to fight the British navy during the revolution were privateers. The first American millionaire made his fortune privateering. Cannons were the privateers weapon of choice. The congress was well aware of this because they were the ones who provided privateers with letters of marque. Cannons were also used by private vessels to fend off pirates. Piracy is still a danger on the high seas. So do we still have a right to own cannons?

At least we know that Olberman would support private ownership of swords and cannons.

Implying that the right to own a handgun will lead to the right to own a nuclear weapon is about as stupid as implying that homosexual marriage will lead to man-animal marriages.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Your point was unclear…
[/quote]

To a retard perhaps.

[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Your point was unclear…

To a retard perhaps.[/quote]

DOH! got me there Vroomy. No wait, I got it, I’m rubber you’re glue…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JD430 wrote:

Maybe because he doesnt even live here?

What is with all the people living in foreign countries always telling us how to live? The vast majority of us Americans have never felt the need to do so(dont start the imperialism crap either…Im talking about every day people).

The nuclear weapons thing is such absurd hysterics, it is not worth commenting on. I have heard all that kind of crap in the past two days…the “why can’t you buy a fighter jet” comments, the bad “redneck” impressions, even some people throwing race into this.

The fact remains that a good number of us here in America still believe in individualism and self-determination. Those beliefs cant be separated from a means of protecting yourself from tyrants, invaders and criminals. I have known many hard-line gun owners(I am one, btw) and have always found them to be very thoughtful, respectful and patriotic individuals. The constant
ignorant sarcasm is revolting and lays bare the juvenile thinking of many on the other side of the issue.

Good post, JD430.

As an observation, anyone else bothered by the fact that the left-leaning types (hereinafter “the Left”) tend to believe in a “Reverse Constitution” as it applies to our democracy?

Here it is. The Constitution takes certain rights and removes them from the democratic process to protect them from political change…the rest of the policy, and all rights and privileges not mentioned or otherwise protected in the Constitution, the Constitution kicks to the democratic process.

The Left turns the entire Constitution on its head.

First, they take “rights” that aren’t in the Constitution and demand a court invent them and privilege them as supreme law of the law and remove them from the democratic process - see gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Second, they take rights that are in the Constitution textually and suddenly decide that these issues should be decided and adjusted by the democratic process - see gun restrictions and taking private property for “public use”.

Exactly backward when you look at it - written, textual rights need to be given the most democratic latitude to manipulate and modify, and ephemeral, fashionable rights that you can’t find in the language of the Constitution need to be insulated from democratic response.

It’s weird, ignorant of history and democratic theory - and dangerous. [/quote]

Absolutely, I’ve spoken about this to anyone that would listen for some time now. We are in a position where enumerated rights are on the table for debate, and “new rights” are being invented every time the left can’t win a debate.

I was at an art show recently in one of the more liberal cities in the country, and toward the end an announcer made the comment: “Remember, everyone has the right to be free from hate.” I turned to my leftist friend and asked her, “Does that include George Bush?”

Another time, I was reading DailyKos (yes I read it occasionally to see what the nuts are ploting) a few months ago, and someone made the statement: “There are limits though, no one has the right to hate another person simply because of their skin color.” That statement was actually a rebuttal to a Thomas Jefferson quote extolling free speech.

The left would have us believe that the First Amendment is an anachronism. The new right not to be offended or hated has superseded the once-sacred right to be free in our own thoughts and words.

Now if the right would actually take seriously my once-sacred right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and finally admit that the 9th Amendment actually exists, I might be able to chose a side.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Implying that the right to own a handgun will lead to the right to own a nuclear weapon is about as stupid as implying that homosexual marriage will lead to man-animal marriages.[/quote]

So, I take it there is zero debate about the type of weapons that people should be allowed to own?

Keep in mind… I do agree with the courts decision.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Hello strawman, and hello angry interjection.

Vroom, you are plainly off your rocker in this case. No one even remotely suggested that we should have access to all those crazy silo stored warheads for “home defense”. So far, no one for that matter is even coming close to suggesting we be able to stockpile other full assault style weapons.

No doubt that will come in time, but for now you’ve got no legs to stand on with that inane statement. [/quote]

What is an “assault style” weapon?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Implying that the right to own a handgun will lead to the right to own a nuclear weapon is about as stupid as implying that homosexual marriage will lead to man-animal marriages.

So, I take it there is zero debate about the type of weapons that people should be allowed to own?

Keep in mind… I do agree with the courts decision.[/quote]

I think it is really clear that the founders’ intent was to protect our right to keep and bear firearms. That is what is consistently referenced in all of their writings and correspondence. So a debate on what types of firearms are permitted is great, let’s have that debate.

So it is strange when a group of people are having a good-faith debate on firearms, and a person walks in the room and accuses those in the room of wanting nuclear devices or explosive ordinance, which are not firearms.

Are you ready to end the nuke/bazooka/explosive ordinance talk and join a civil, good-faith debate on what constitutes a reasonable regulation on the sacred, constitutionally protected right to keep and bears firearms?

The fact is is that people owned crew served canons, mortars, and Lahti anti-tank guns (despite their uselessness for self-defense) prior to the 1965 gun-control act and the apocalypse predicted by liberals never came. Yet here we are, 40 years later, and we have much more crime and much more gun control and the highest prison population in the world. Good for us, I guess.

[quote]Magnate wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Talking heads were going crazy about this decision last night. MSNBC was painful to watch - Dan Abrams especially (hardly abnormal for him though). Kept asking where the Militia meeting in D.C. would be.

Fucking ridiculous

I caught part of that this morning. I haven’t been so disgusted with Abrams since he kept playing that video of his boyfriend whining, leave Britney alooonneeee

Did you catch Olbermann saying that the 2nd amendment means we have a right to militia type weapons from the 1790s. He listed a few different muskets saying that’s what we should be allowed to have while doing his worst person in the world shtick. [/quote]

We should also have the 1st amendment applied in this way. As it it only applies to the same style media as was present in 1790 or so. No TV, radio, internet mass market publication such as Time or Newsweek.

Then see what the whiny liberals say.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Hello strawman, and hello angry interjection.

Vroom, you are plainly off your rocker in this case. No one even remotely suggested that we should have access to all those crazy silo stored warheads for “home defense”. So far, no one for that matter is even coming close to suggesting we be able to stockpile other full assault style weapons.

No doubt that will come in time, but for now you’ve got no legs to stand on with that inane statement.

What is an “assault style” weapon?[/quote]

Well, I think most full-automatic weapons fall into the category, along with those that fire things other than bullets… Uzi’s, AK-47s, M60s, M203 grenade launchers, etc. Also, according to the legislation, certain categories of rifles or pistols that use high-capacity clips fall under that label. But then it’s 4:30 am and I’m also very tired right now, so don’t hold it against me if I’m out of my mind :).

I was mostly just trying to tell vroomy he was being stupid by pointing out that thus far no one had even mentioned the assault weapons in the context of the court decision. We had only really talked about the implications of the decision and the media’s reaction. We hadn’t even started a debate yet on what exactly should be allowed. Not that I’m eager to start that one, since most debates (especially over the internet) become rather heated and uncivil.

I am not making a claim one way or the other regarding fully automatic weapons or any other heavy duty firearms and the 2nd amendment. I was merely pointing out that he was making a completely inane argument over a debate that hadn’t even begun yet.