No one is going to take your guns

[martybegan]

They think old people should have guns.
They think blind people should have guns.
They think crazy people should have guns.

Because once you establish a real criteria of who should or shouldn't have a gun, most of them probably wouldn't qualify....

We have established who can have guns.

It's all right here

-Geaux

That does not make it correct in a rational world.

What it does is makes it unrevokeable until you get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove it. Until then, stop using the courts to rewrite the consitution.

 

[JoeB131]

You have to realize that these people think that blind people have the right to own guns. LOL

They think old people should have guns.
They think blind people should have guns.
They think crazy people should have guns.

Because once you establish a real criteria of who should or shouldn't have a gun, most of them probably wouldn't qualify....

We have established who can have guns.

It's all right here

-Geaux

Well Regulated Militias?

Right. I totally think they should have guns. As long as they are "Well-regulated".

 

[martybegan]

You have to realize that these people think that blind people have the right to own guns. LOL

They do have the right

-Geaux

So do crazy people then.

Crazy people can be adjudicated, via due process, to lose thier right to own a firearm, much as a criminal can be adjudicated via due process to lose thier freedom, or even thier life.

One cannot pass a law saying someone has to go to prision, just as one cannot pass a law to remove a right from someone that is enshrined in the constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What it does is makes it unrevokeable until you get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove it. Until then, stop using the courts to rewrite the consitution.

The very fact that a court has a say proves that it isn't clear cut as you'd like to think it is.

Otherwise, Heller wouldn't have needed to overturn the previous precedent set by Miller.

Does Scalia look tired to you?

 

[martybegan]

They think old people should have guns.
They think blind people should have guns.
They think crazy people should have guns.

Because once you establish a real criteria of who should or shouldn't have a gun, most of them probably wouldn't qualify....

We have established who can have guns.

It's all right here

-Geaux

Well Regulated Militias?

Right. I totally think they should have guns. As long as they are "Well-regulated".

******* liar, and once again, the militas themselves are to be "regulated" (not what u think it means) the PEOPLE retain the right to arms, and that right is to not be infringed upon.

 

[martybegan]

[

What it does is makes it unrevokeable until you get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove it. Until then, stop using the courts to rewrite the consitution.

The very fact that a court has a say proves that it isn't clear cut as you'd like to think it is.

Otherwise, Heller wouldn't have needed to overturn the previous precedent set by Miller.

Does Scalia look tired to you?

The courts have been overstepping thier bounds for decades, and usually against the consitution. heller was a small step in the right direction, more to follow you gun grabbing *****.

 

[NoNukes]

They do have the right

-Geaux

So do crazy people then.

Crazy people can be adjudicated, via due process, to lose thier right to own a firearm, much as a criminal can be adjudicated via due process to lose thier freedom, or even thier life.

One cannot pass a law saying someone has to go to prision, just as one cannot pass a law to remove a right from someone that is enshrined in the constitution.

Why do blind people need guns? Can they use them safely?

 

[martybegan]

So do crazy people then.

Crazy people can be adjudicated, via due process, to lose thier right to own a firearm, much as a criminal can be adjudicated via due process to lose thier freedom, or even thier life.

One cannot pass a law saying someone has to go to prision, just as one cannot pass a law to remove a right from someone that is enshrined in the constitution.

Why do blind people need guns? Can they use them safely?

Where the **** did that question come from? Is that the best you can come up with?

A blind person has the same rights as anyone. and since most muggings take place at close range, a blind person could sucssfully use a handgun for self defense.

If they had a person spotting for them they could probably hunt as well.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What it does is makes it unrevokeable until you get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove it. Until then, stop using the courts to rewrite the consitution.

The very fact that a court has a say proves that it isn't clear cut as you'd like to think it is.

Otherwise, Heller wouldn't have needed to overturn the previous precedent set by Miller.

Does Scalia look tired to you?

The courts have been overstepping thier bounds for decades, and usually against the consitution. heller was a small step in the right direction, more to follow you gun grabbing *****.

But here's the thing. Any vacancies in the next three years- a liberal fills them.

When Hillary wins in 2016, for the next 8 years, liberals fill any vacancies.

Scalia and Kennedy won't live forever, they are in their upper 70's.

Then we get some common sense back on the court.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aF0Al60Xl0]BLIND MAN AT THE GUN RANGE SHOOTING A PISTOL - YouTube[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

The very fact that a court has a say proves that it isn't clear cut as you'd like to think it is.

Otherwise, Heller wouldn't have needed to overturn the previous precedent set by Miller.

Does Scalia look tired to you?

The courts have been overstepping thier bounds for decades, and usually against the consitution. heller was a small step in the right direction, more to follow you gun grabbing *****.

But here's the thing. Any vacancies in the next three years- a liberal fills them.

When Hillary wins in 2016, for the next 8 years, liberals fill any vacancies.

Scalia and Kennedy won't live forever, they are in their upper 70's.

Then we get some common sense back on the court.

JoeB: Clapping as the government strips people of rights without following the required process.

You really are a fascist asshole.

 

[zeke]

Crazy people can be adjudicated, via due process, to lose thier right to own a firearm, much as a criminal can be adjudicated via due process to lose thier freedom, or even thier life.

One cannot pass a law saying someone has to go to prision, just as one cannot pass a law to remove a right from someone that is enshrined in the constitution.

Why do blind people need guns? Can they use them safely?

Where the **** did that question come from? Is that the best you can come up with?

A blind person has the same rights as anyone. and since most muggings take place at close range, a blind person could sucssfully use a handgun for self defense.

If they had a person spotting for them they could probably hunt as well.

How did you get so ******* stupid. I mean really. Was it practice practice or do you come by your stupidity naturally? ******* blind people with a gun for "self defense".

******* gun nutters are unbelievable. Hey why not 6 year old kids. At least they can see.

I know I know, you are aok with 6 year olds taking guns to school for "self defense"

Am I right? Of course I am. Prove me wrong. Come out and say 6 year old kids should not take guns to school for anything. That would at least be progress.

 

[martybegan]

Why do blind people need guns? Can they use them safely?

Where the **** did that question come from? Is that the best you can come up with?

A blind person has the same rights as anyone. and since most muggings take place at close range, a blind person could sucssfully use a handgun for self defense.

If they had a person spotting for them they could probably hunt as well.

How did you get so ******* stupid. I mean really. Was it practice practice or do you come by your stupidity naturally? ******* blind people with a gun for "self defense".

******* gun nutters are unbelievable. Hey why not 6 year old kids. At least they can see.

I know I know, you are aok with 6 year olds taking guns to school for "self defense"

Am I right? Of course I am. Prove me wrong. Come out and say 6 year old kids should not take guns to school for anything. That would at least be progress.

A blind person is still a US citizen, and thus 100% covered by the bill of rights, unless, like the rest of us, a judge/jury says otherwise.

A 6 year old should not be in possession of a firearm unless under the permission or supervision of thier parent. also a 6 year old has not achived majority, therfore it is up to the parents to decide what they can or cannot do.

Most cases these days when it comes to 6 year olds is about them making a gun shape with thier hands in school, or brining anything remotely looking like a weapon.

 

[Wildman]

joe, watching you fail and flounder has become a spectator sport. you just can't get anything right can you.

so once again you've done a 180 and completely reversed your position. a post ago, the gun industry was in a death spiral. now all of a sudden they are selling more guns. WTF?

Joe, if you are going to be a troll, learn to spin a consistent tale. you're all over the board. and for god sakes, post a believable spin at least. the crap you post can be dispelled with a simple google search. take it up a notch bro. you're embarrassing.

Guy, trying to explain this to you is kind of difficult, because you are even more retarded than Daveman... who probably ate paint-chips as a child.

Okay. The Gun Industry used to be about selling guns to hunters. Except people realize that today, only psycho hillbillies are still hunting. Most sane people don't need to kill animals for sport.

So then they got their new racket, which is scaring you about the scary negro who wants to break into your house. Except that gun they sold you is more likely to kill one of your family members. But can't talk about that. Just try to sell as many as you can before people start limiting it...

You're a tremendously stupid, stupid little man, driven solely by emotion -- and the two major ones are rage and fear.

You need therapy.

Dave, you forgot one other thing about joe, JEALOUSY, i would bet big buck$ that if we could investigate joe's past, we would find out that he committed some sort of felony and is prohibited from owning a gun, therefore he hates us gun owning freedom loving patriots, this JEALOUSY extends to his hate of RICH people.

i could say a lot more about joe, but it would all be redundant, everything that can be said about that frightened stupid little twit has already been said in many, many other posts and threads, FEAR and JEALOUSY can cause serious dementia, you are absolutely correct in saying, joe "You need therapy"

 

[Geaux4it]

They think old people should have guns.
They think blind people should have guns.
They think crazy people should have guns.

Because once you establish a real criteria of who should or shouldn't have a gun, most of them probably wouldn't qualify....

We have established who can have guns.

It's all right here

-Geaux

That does not make it correct in a rational world.

Yes it does, and hopefully you communist will get the chance to find out

-Geaux

 

[MarcATL]

There will be blood, and hell to pay for this. These idiots do not realize the Pandora's box they just opened on themselves. For the gun owners of New York: Do not give in to their demands. You have your rights.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Are you or them part of the "well regulated militia" that is necessary for a free state?

Once again, the milita is the right of the state, to organize and call out as it sees fit. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms. if the states no longer feel the need to call on the milita, the PEOPLE do not lose the right to keep and bear arms.

You can't have it both ways bub.

You can't pick out the militia part and call yourselves the militia as the People and not include the regulated part.

This is what makes you people nut-jobs.

Plain and simple.

 

[NoNukes]

Where the **** did that question come from? Is that the best you can come up with?

A blind person has the same rights as anyone. and since most muggings take place at close range, a blind person could sucssfully use a handgun for self defense.

If they had a person spotting for them they could probably hunt as well.

How did you get so ******* stupid. I mean really. Was it practice practice or do you come by your stupidity naturally? ******* blind people with a gun for "self defense".

******* gun nutters are unbelievable. Hey why not 6 year old kids. At least they can see.

I know I know, you are aok with 6 year olds taking guns to school for "self defense"

Am I right? Of course I am. Prove me wrong. Come out and say 6 year old kids should not take guns to school for anything. That would at least be progress.

A blind person is still a US citizen, and thus 100% covered by the bill of rights, unless, like the rest of us, a judge/jury says otherwise.

A 6 year old should not be in possession of a firearm unless under the permission or supervision of thier parent. also a 6 year old has not achived majority, therfore it is up to the parents to decide what they can or cannot do.

Most cases these days when it comes to 6 year olds is about them making a gun shape with thier hands in school, or brining anything remotely looking like a weapon.

Does the Bill of Rights mention age?

 

[Geaux4it]

Are you or them part of the "well regulated militia" that is necessary for a free state?

Once again, the milita is the right of the state, to organize and call out as it sees fit. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms. if the states no longer feel the need to call on the milita, the PEOPLE do not lose the right to keep and bear arms.

You can't have it both ways bub.

You can't pick out the militia part and call yourselves the militia as the People and not include the regulated part.

This is what makes you people nut-jobs.

Plain and simple.

Freedom WINS!

-Geaux

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary

Future litigation will likely eliminate the 'in the home' ruling

More law abiding citizens carrying outside the home making our streets safer

Issue
What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

Holding and Rule (Scalia)

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.

 

[NoNukes]

We have established who can have guns.

It's all right here

-Geaux

That does not make it correct in a rational world.

Yes it does, and hopefully you communist will get the chance to find out
Y
-Geaux

Rational people are Communists. I get it.

 

[martybegan]

Are you or them part of the "well regulated militia" that is necessary for a free state?

Once again, the milita is the right of the state, to organize and call out as it sees fit. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms. if the states no longer feel the need to call on the milita, the PEOPLE do not lose the right to keep and bear arms.

You can't have it both ways bub.

You can't pick out the militia part and call yourselves the militia as the People and not include the regulated part.

This is what makes you people nut-jobs.

Plain and simple.

What's both ways about this? If the states don't feel the need to call out the milita, it does nothing to impact the PEOPLE's right to bear arms. If the state does decide to call out the milita, then they would expect people to bring thier own firearms with them, same as they used to do it.

The people are the ones that have the right to bear arms, the milita is the right of the states should they so choose to exercise it.