Good news regarding the 2nd Amendment

**FasstChevys** · 06-26-2008, 01:56 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/...co/scotus_guns

**hutch1999** · 06-26-2008, 03:45 PM

i was happy to hear that today

**SeVeReDiStOrTiOn** · 06-26-2008, 03:55 PM

Sweeeet!!

I dunno what they're talking about in that article but I keep all my guns loaded....fuck that trigger lock or disassembled BS.

**67CamaroRSSS** · 06-26-2008, 04:12 PM

What these dumbass liberals and progressives utter fail to realize is the an armed society is a polite society and only law abiding citizens adhere to their concept of gun control. A criminal, by definition, doesn't play by the rules to begin with. How they don't see this confounds and amazes me.

When everybody (legal wise that is) is allowed to carry then the crocks will not know who is and who isn't armed. Like the sign sez: These premises patrolled by Smith & Wesson 3 days a week. You guess which 3 (or some such).

**B34M3R** · 06-26-2008, 05:11 PM

High five supreme court! Nice to see the constitution being followed every now and then!

**derrinx** · 06-26-2008, 07:01 PM

lol... i personally am happy too.. because i like guns... but i dont think much good can come of this

**derrinx** · 06-26-2008, 07:04 PM

despite what you guys knwo about guns, i can imagine about 20 of my friends from the city going and buying one because they will be able to soon despite not knowing anything about proper gun handling

**derrinx** · 06-26-2008, 07:05 PM

and pointing them alla t eachother when were all drunk and laughing... hahaha natural selection at its finest

**CaptainCaveMan** · 06-26-2008, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by 67CamaroRSSS

What these dumbass liberals and progressives utter fail to realize is the an armed society is a polite society and only law abiding citizens adhere to their concept of gun control. A criminal, by definition, doesn't play by the rules to begin with. How they don't see this confounds and amazes me.

When everybody (legal wise that is) is allowed to carry then the crocks will not know who is and who isn't armed. Like the sign sez: These premises patrolled by Smith & Wesson 3 days a week. You guess which 3 (or some such).

I agree with what you said but i think the supreme court was wrong in this case.

If you have no concept of reading comprehension do not read anymore of this post because you are not going to understand what i'm about to say!

And now with my post:

I'm not a gun nut, but my personal opinion is that if you want to walk around with a bazooka you should be able to. I view it the same way i view drugs, you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you are not stepping on someone's rights.

There are more or less two groups fighting over what the supreme court just said:

The gun nuts are saying that the 2nd amendment includes handguns.

The hippies are saying that the 2nd amendment is meant only for national guard type militias.

Let's start with the hippies, They are fucking stupid. Of course the 2nd amendment was talking about average joe citizen. So you can throw their argument right out the door.

Now, let's look at the gun-nuts. They are trying to say that the 2nd amendment covers handguns. All i have to ask is "Where does it say that?"

All the second amendment says is we have the right to have "arms". For the washington law to be unconstitutional it would have had to prevent someone from having "arms". Seeing as how rifles and shotguns weren't banned the people still had the right to have "arms".

Pretend for a second that there was an amendment saying you had the "right to drive". The government comes in and then says "it is now illegal to drive your riding lawnmower on the highway because it will cause wrecks" but you could still drive other models. Just because they took away 1 model doesn't mean you lost your right to drive because you can still hop in your camaro (aka grabbing a shotgun) and it's perfectly legal.

This is the EXACT REASON the government can get away with saying people cannot have a nuke or big bomb sitting in their front yard. Technically if "arms" meant everything it would be unconstitutional for the government to tell me i can't build a big bomb in my front yard. It's a certain model they rule out and it's not unconstitutional because you can still own guns thus you are still "armed".

I am glad the washington law was overturned because in my mind you should have any gun you want, i'm just saddened that it was overturned by people reading shit into the constitution that isn't there.

**Z28Thunder** · 06-26-2008, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainCaveMan

If you have no concept of reading comprehension do not read anymore of this post because you are not going to understand what i'm about to say!

Now, let's look at the gun-nuts. They are trying to say that the 2nd amendment covers handguns. All i have to ask is "Where does it say that?"

All the second amendment says is we have the right to have "arms".

Okay reading comprehension. The second amendment say we have the right to bear arms. Please define arms for me since it is not defined in the right. The right does not say rifle and shotguns are arms. You state " They are trying to say that the 2nd amendment covers handguns. All i have to ask is "Where does it say that?". Where does it define what arms are. The first handheld portable firearm was a handgun or hand cannon Yuan dynasty 1271-1368. Note I said handheld portable rifles,shotguns and pistols are all handheld portables. So the first firearm was a pistol. And I think what the peopel are trying to say is. If you label a pistol as a arm that is not aloud to be carried you might as well do the same for rifles and shotguns.

**01ws6er** · 06-27-2008, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Z28Thunder

Okay reading comprehension. The second amendment say we have the right to bear arms. Please define arms for me since it is not defined in the right.

EXACTLY...!!! You hit it right on the head there in saying that the "right" is not defined. If you read into any of the ammendments it appears that the founding fathers left some room for deliberation, and that is exactly what we are doing today. I would like to think that they (founding fathers) allotted that space in hopes that as times changed, the rules could be changed to conform with the era in question.

With that said, why does anyone, on either side of this debate get all butt-hurt over shit that was meant to be defined based on current standards? After all, the Supreme Court usually does a pretty damn good job of making these decisions...And why would anyone worry about this law going through...? Conservatives have the majority vote in the Supreme Court. That would be like Patriots fans worrying about having an undefeated season and winning the Super Bowl if they could cheat....Oh wait, that did happen!

***Ed Blown Vert*** · 06-27-2008, 07:01 AM

This is not the debate section. Keep it clean.

**hutch1999** · 06-27-2008, 07:28 AM

its been pretty clean so far lol

***Ed Blown Vert*** · 06-27-2008, 07:54 AM

Yep. This warning is before it gets out of hand. Now no one can say they were not warned.

**1MileCrash** · 06-27-2008, 02:11 PM

caveman makes a valid point. beyond that however i believe that this was the correct decision for the court to make and it will hopefully set the precedent for any future cases.

on the flip side the court really dropped the ball earlier in the week when they ruled it cruel and unusual for a child rapist or child sex offender to receive the death penalty. there are few crimes in this world that reach beyond the level of maliciousness as the rape and sexual abuse of a child and those that commit the crime deserve a punishment befitting the crime...and repeat offenders and other dangerous offenders should receive the death penalty for the crime.

**TransAm11973** · 06-27-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by SeVeReDiStOrTiOn

Sweeeet!!

I dunno what they're talking about in that article but I keep all my guns loaded....fuck that trigger lock or disassembled BS.

agreed......the whole point is self defense, if u gotta grab a key etc in order to use your gun or try to load it.....you are probably already dead, hurt, or tied up already,......or some MOFO is driving away with your trans am.....F-CK THAT.

**hutch1999** · 06-28-2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by 1MileCrash

on the flip side the court really dropped the ball earlier in the week when they ruled it cruel and unusual for a child rapist or child sex offender to receive the death penalty. there are few crimes in this world that reach beyond the level of maliciousness as the rape and sexual abuse of a child and those that commit the crime deserve a punishment befitting the crime...and repeat offenders and other dangerous offenders should receive the death penalty for the crime.

Theres nothing that makes me more sick than, child rapist or child sex offenders. A torch to their gentals would be a nice proper punishment. Then after they have suffered for a few days a bullet between the eyes.

**01ws6er** · 06-29-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by hutch1999

Theres nothing that makes me more sick than, child rapist or child sex offenders. A torch to their gentals would be a nice proper punishment. Then after they have suffered for a few days a bullet between the eyes.

Knock them unconscious, put them in a shed soaked in gasoline and surrounded by a firing squad, nail their balls to a table lagged to the floor, light the bitch on fire, slap them in the face, and let them decide how they'd like to die...