Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Gun Ban

[Mephisto 15]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

 

[surferskin 30]

We can bring our gats to the games again!

 

 

 

 

EVEN THOUGH THE STADIUM IS TECHNICALLY IN MARYLAND NOW

 

[Mephisto 15]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

[KSB2424 3,172]

The Right to Bear Arms vs. Gun Control debate has always intrigued me. Back in the day when they wrote that amendment the guns/weapons they had were primative. As much as I am in favor of the Second Amendment I would think that the founding fathers would have wrote in a little more if they had forseen the high caliber automatic weapons that are on the market today.

[Mephisto 15]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in U.S. history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

 

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

[Mephisto 15]

The Right to Bear Arms vs. Gun Control debate has always intrigued me. Back in the day when they wrote that amendment the guns/weapons they had were primative. As much as I am in favor of the Second Amendment I would think that the founding fathers would have wrote in a little more if they had forseen the high caliber automatic weapons that are on the market today.

 

It's all relative.

 

No shot that the framers would suddenly say, "the law abiding citizens of this country are no longer permitted to defend themselves against threats foreign or domestic because the caliber of weapons is so much higher now."

 

It's a dumbass argument.

[Mephisto 15]

Original FFToday Debate on the Issue

 

Also, chock full of dumbass arguments that I fully expect to see regurgitated today.

[RLLD 4,275]

The Right to Bear Arms vs. Gun Control debate has always intrigued me. Back in the day when they wrote that amendment the guns/weapons they had were primative. As much as I am in favor of the Second Amendment I would think that the founding fathers would have wrote in a little more if they had forseen the high caliber automatic weapons that are on the market today.

 

Also keep in mind that they knew of the controls in place from their native lands with regard to gun ownership and knew that an armed populace posessed the ability to rise up against a government that lost its way....

 

The right to bear arms was instituted to assure that tyranny could always be challenged by the people, thus tyranny itself would not manifest under such a potential threat.

[KSB2424 3,172]

It's all relative.

 

No shot that the framers would suddenly say, "the law abiding citizens of this country are no longer permitted to defend themselves against threats foreign or domestic because the caliber of weapons is so much higher now."

 

It's a dumbass argument.

Yet there is a line drawn as to what kind of weapons you and me can purchase. Don't quote me on this but I don't think it is legal for me to go out and purchase a tank or a rocket launcher. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, or is it your contention that the public should be able to posses any and every weapon that the military and/or police carry?

[kilroy69 1,265]

It's a dumbass argument.

Coming from KSB? You don't say?

[surferskin 30]

The Right to Bear Arms vs. Gun Control debate has always intrigued me. Back in the day when they wrote that amendment the guns/weapons they had were primative. As much as I am in favor of the Second Amendment I would think that the founding fathers would have wrote in a little more if they had forseen the high caliber automatic weapons that are on the market today.

Automatic weapons aren't legal.

[Mephisto 15]

... but I don't think it is legal for me to go out and purchase a tank or a rocket launcher.

 

There it is!!! Dumbass argument #1!

[Mephisto 15]

Automatic weapons aren't legal.

 

Yes they are! You just have to pay a lot of money, fill out and keep LOADS of paperwork, and register with the ATF!

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I'm all about a person's right to have a gun.

But with that, I believe in extensive backround checks and waiting periods

 

I agree with the ruling

[surferskin 30]

Yes they are! You just have to pay a lot of money, fill out and keep LOADS of paperwork, and register with the ATF!

LINK?

 

 

To the form.

[KSB2424 3,172]

is it your contention that the public should be able to posses any and every weapon that the military and/or police carry?

 

:tapsfingerondesk:

[Mephisto 15]

:tapsfingerondesk:

 

Tap your finger on *this* - you brought the dumbest of assest argument to the table right out of the gate.

[KSB2424 3,172]

There it is!!! Dumbass argument #1!

Not making an arugument perse, just pointing out that there is a line drawn in the sand as to what is legal and what is illegal.

[mighty_thor 115]

I'm all about a person's right to have a gun.

But with that, I believe in extensive backround checks and waiting periods

 

I agree with the ruling

 

[surferskin 30]

Not making an arugument perse, just pointing out that there is a line drawn in the sand as to what is legal and what is illegal.

Right, the FF originally intended that line be drawn at muskets.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Right, the FF originally intended that line be drawn at muskets.

Of course not. I said I found the debate interesting not that I am against the second amendment. Hell, I own a gun. However I do think there has to be tight restrictions, background checks, and a line drawn at semi-auto / certain caliber.

[kilroy69 1,265]

Not making an arugument perse, just pointing out that there is a line drawn in the sand as to what is legal and what is illegal.

What the fock if perse? Per-Se is 2 latin words that mean "by" and "itself"

 

Here is a little helpful hint. If you don't know how to use a word correct. DON'T USE IT.

[surferskin 30]

Of course not. I said I found the debate interesting not that I am against the second amendment. Hell, I own a gun. Howver I do think there has to be tight restrictions, background checks, and a line drawn at semi-auto / certain caliber.

By line drawn, what do you mean? Are saying that we should or shouldn't be able to buy "semi-automatic" weapons?

[kilroy69 1,265]

By line drawn, what do you mean? Are saying that we should or shouldn't be able to buy "semi-automatic" weapons?

Thats what I thought at first but not even KSB is that big of a moron. I think he was trying to say that the line should be drawn at semi-auto's and bigger calibers like the .50. Not saying that we should all own flintlock single shot muskets that the framers had.

 

At least thats what I think he meant. Who knows.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

The Right to Bear Arms vs. Gun Control debate has always intrigued me. Back in the day when they wrote that amendment the guns/weapons they had were primative. As much as I am in favor of the Second Amendment I would think that the founding fathers would have wrote in a little more if they had forseen the high caliber automatic weapons that are on the market today.

 

 

In the US, automatic weapons are only used by the military, government and law enforcement. Automatic weapons aren't sold in stores. So that would conclude that any hoodlum with an automatic weapon got it illegally, which backs the theory that if guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns.

 

I have a semi-autmatic AR-15. I used it to hunt. It's a fun gun to own. The hunters and law - abiding citizens aren't the ones shooting everyone. It's the thugs. I haven't seen many a gun get up on it's own and walk over and start shooting. There's always a hoodlum at the trigger. (see my signature).

 

Here's a good question, semi-related....How come when there was flooding in Iowa, they weren't out ransacking and looting like they were in New Orleans? Hmmmmmmm.

[KSB2424 3,172]

By line drawn, what do you mean? Are saying that we should or shouldn't be able to buy "semi-automatic" weapons?

Honestly, not real sure as I am not a gun aficionado. Since there is no "militia" the 2nd amendment to me means the right to bear arms so you can defend yourself (home/family) and hunting. You don't need a uber high powered semi automatic weapon to do either of those.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Yes they are! You just have to pay a lot of money, fill out and keep LOADS of paperwork, and register with the ATF!

 

 

Absolutley 100% incorrect. A civilian cannot legally own an automatic (fully-automatic) weapon. No ifs, and's or buts.

 

Postal service workers, maybe.

[surferskin 30]

Honestly, not real sure as I am not a gun aficionado.

Maybe you should do some research and get back to us then.

 

It doesn't even sound like you know what semi-automatic is or what caliber is "too high".

[Mephisto 15]

Thats what I thought at first but not even KSB is that big of a moron. I think he was trying to say that the line should be drawn at semi-auto's and bigger calibers like the .50. Not saying that we should all own flintlock single shot muskets that the framers had.

 

At least thats what I think he meant. Who knows.

 

Do you have any clue at what caliber size most flint-lock, muskets, and kentucky long-rifles were?

[Mephisto 15]

Absolutley 100% incorrect. A civilian cannot legally own an automatic (fully-automatic) weapon. No ifs, and's or buts.

 

You're 100% incorrect.

 

"Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated."

 

I've been at gun ranges with private citizens who own machine guns. The amount of sh!t that they have to show just to be allowed on the range is extensive.

 

Private citizens absolutely are permitted to own Class III weapons, but obtaining such legal ownership is extremely difficult.

[RLLD 4,275]

Do you have any clue at what caliber size most flint-lock, muskets, and kentucky long-rifles were?

 

Those things created some nasty damage, they are a very high "caliber".

 

Also, once the rifled barrel and cased shells arrived on the scene they created horrific wounds beyond that which had ever been observed before, it was during the American Civil War that these items first appeared and the results were rather disturbing to most of those who had been around to see the previous wounds.

[surferskin 30]

Do you really need this to hunt and protect your family?

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c...KS_modified.jpg

C'mon, can you actually be specific? Or are you being VERY specific and saying you want to ban that gun because it looks scary?

 

Do you know what a semi-automatic gun is? Do you know any examples of guns that are semi-auto?

 

What caliber is too high?

[Mephisto 15]

Those things created some nasty damage, they are a very high "caliber".

 

Also, once the rifled barrel and cased shells arrived on the scene they created horrific wounds beyond that which had ever been observed before, it was during the American Civil War that these items first appeared and the results were rather disturbing to most of those who had been around to see the previous wounds.

 

55-caliber minimum. Most ranged between 65 and 75 and in some instances... over 80.

 

Those fockers were mini-cannons that make the Desert Eagle look tame by comparison. KSB2424 just needs to back slowly away from the gun discussion.

[GettnHuge 2]

Ban guns, save America!

[KSB2424 3,172]

Maybe you should do some research and get back to us then.

 

It doesn't even sound like you know what semi-automatic is or what caliber is "too high".

Can't a person support the 2nd amendment while also agreeing with a Federal Assault Weapons ban. I realize this is the Geek Club but a person can have some middle ground on an issue.

[surferskin 30]

Can't a person support the 2nd amendment while also agreeing with a Federal Assault Weapons ban. I realize this is the Geek Club but a person can have some middle ground on an issue.

Yes, but that's not what you originally said.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

You're 100% incorrect.

 

"Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated."

 

I've been at gun ranges with private citizens who own machine guns. The amount of sh!t that they have to show just to be allowed on the range is extensive.

 

Private citizens absolutely are permitted to own Class III weapons, but obtaining such legal ownership is extremely difficult.

 

 

Nope. In 1986 they were totally banned.

 

Go to a sporting goods store, your sheriff, your local cop, anywhere. Tell them that you want to go through the proper procedures to get a fully automatic weapon. They'll laugh at you. LAUGH. Either that or tell you to join the military.

 

You CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. CANNOT.

[Mephisto 15]

Nope. In 1986 they were totally banned.

 

Go to a sporting goods store, your sheriff, your local cop, anywhere. Tell them that you want to go through the proper procedures to get a fully automatic weapon. They'll laugh at you. LAUGH. Either that or tell you to join the military.

 

You CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. CANNOT.

 

 

Better email the high bidder on this item then... Ingram, Full Auto .45 w/Silencer

[KSB2424 3,172]

Yes, but that's not what you originally said.

Well that is what I focking meant. You forget that I have no clue what I am talking about most of the time.

[Mephisto 15]

You CANNOT, CANNOT, CANNOT legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. CANNOT.

 

 

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

 

Step away from the thread you misinformed moron.

 

:pwned: