SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by JetSnake

For when the jack-booted thugs come to confiscate guns. It is nice to be able to lay down some suppresing fire.

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

What legitmate reason would a citizen have for owning a fully automatic military assault rifle in the home?

I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Are there efforts to put those into the Constitution? I wasn't aware of that.

I fear I may have steered this thread OT for good.

PD

Oh yes. I guess you don't read much. Judgements from courts dominated by liberal minded activists have been handing out judgements like these for years. In fact, the California Supreme Court just recently perveted constitutional law with homosexual marriages. And my California state taxes are going to pay for education and benefits for illegal aliens because these same courts said that it was "constitutional" for me to do so. I guess some people want to pretend these things don't happen.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Oh yes. I guess you don't read much. Judgements from courts dominated by liberal minded activists have been handing out judgements like these for years. In fact, the California Supreme Court just recently perveted constitutional law with homosexual marriages. And my California state taxes are going to pay for education and benefits for illegal aliens because these same courts said that it was "constitutional" for me to do so. I guess some people want to pretend these things don't happen.

I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I didn't ask what California was doing. They will always be wacky, no way around that. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more than people in CA being wacky.

PD

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. Their votes to give terrorists on foreign soil the same rights as U.S. citizens...meaning more rights than our own military personnel. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

You need to learn to reply to posts and frame an argument without calling people that post something you disagree with ignorant. I didn't even disagree with you, all I did was point out the Bill of Rights takes hits from both sides of the political spectrum. This is the second time you have done this to me, in what, a week?

There's nothing like subsituting thinking with unwavering belief, bull**** rhetoric, and insults, eh?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nevertheless, the judges from those courts are liberal activists. Compare that to the votes of the activist liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court with their opinion from today. Their votes to give terrorists on foreign soil the same rights as U.S. citizens...meaning more rights than our own military personnel. If Mr. Alito or Roberts weren't on the court and a similar liberal activist was in their place (from a John Kerry or Al Gore nomination), the 2nd amendment would have taken a clear hit today. Close your eyes to it if you want. Unfortunately there is a sea of millions of willfully blind folks out there. You won't be lonely.

Those are some very true words.

-S

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I think a better question is - Why not?

All the Swiss have them - fully automatic in home and they don't have any problems! Its by law that they have to have them too.

-S

Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

Five years ago Switzerland was shocked when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with his army rifle, before turning the gun on himself.
In the first half of 2006 there were at least six incidents where a man shot his wife or partner before turning the gun on himself. In a highly publicised case the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother and seriously injuring her mother with his army pistol before killing himself.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/...=1166366897000

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Actually they have quite a few problems with military weapons in the home.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/search/...=1166366897000

Big whoop! 300. So what? These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

-S

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Just think, if Gore or Kerry had been elected, and had placed their regressive liberal judicial nominees on that court, your 2nd amendment rights would have been flushed down the crapper today.

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

Originally Posted by mrbeast

More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.

And TV comment from Swiss TV on German-Austrian-Swiss 3Sat program just broadcasted this evening said that the study was saying that per year 30.000 people get killed by firearms.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thanks for pointing out how politically dependant and biased the ruling of the supreme court is.

Only when their are liberals on it. The liberals seem to vote away the Consitution, the conservatives seem to uphold it. Right now, it is not biased (unless you count biased towards the law of the land - namely the Constitution) until the liberals outweigh the conservatives.

It works like this -

Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution).

Liberals vote for what they personally think the people should have. That is why the words of liberal activists are in this thread.

See the problem?

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Only when their are liberals on it. The liberals seem to vote away the Consitution, the conservatives seem to uphold it. Right now, it is not biased (unless you count biased towards the law of the land - namely the Constitution) until the liberals outweigh the conservatives.

It works like this -

Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution).

Liberals vote for what they personally think the people should have. That is why the words of liberal activists are in this thread.

See the problem?

-S

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Curious what ya think about the conservative court majority and Lawrence v. Texas SUBMAN? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.

PD

Lets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S

PS. And that was a highly liberal activists view, which has led to our gay marriage fiascos now. :p

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Lets not get off subject.

I can neither condone, justify, support, or condemn every SCOTUS decision in the last 221 years. Can you? Lets not hijack this thread.

-S

Of course not, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution.

See the problem?

PD

[JetSnake]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

In that case I think you should campaign to stop the government trampling on your rights to own heavy artillery.

Yup I'm talking 105mm howitzer here, or maybe a 75mm pack howitzer for the more modest home.

I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.