[talaniman]

We have covered this before,

Right to keep and bear arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional.

That's why your right to bear arms doesn't include bazookas and cannons.

[paraclete]

We have covered this before,


Thats why your right to bear arms doesn't include bazookas and cannons.

But your constitution doesn't say that, it is non specific, and the "founders" didn't forsee future developments and didn't limit themselves or anyoneelse. You have to see personal interest in these provisions as well alturistic motives.

So you have a problem, you either have to get better definition of militia or a better definition of arms

[talaniman]

The courts have interpreted it that way Clete and the ruling is binding, barring a better argument being presented in the court. Doesn't matter what opinions are or who likes them. It's a simple matter that's already settled in the highest court of the land.

The rub is where the congress draws the line, and how the law is enforced.

[paraclete]

I Heard there are three intrepretations and you should take the whole thing and restrict arms to militias which is undoubtedly what the founders considered

[smoothy]

I Heard there are three intrepretations and you should take the whole thing and restrict arms to militias which is undoubtedly what the founders considered

That's NOT the language in the Bill of rights... the founders didn't intend the freedom of speech only to the states and government...

There is absolutely NOTHING that says that..


Text of the 2nd 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.


Pay special note of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... it doesn't say the right of the government.

And the Militia was not a government entity... it was a band of private citizens, not the Army. THey had an Army back then too. To prevent a tyranical governemtn like the Britsh Government we fought so hard to get away from, from ever arising again.. And we have been inching towards such an uprising slowly ever since.


And as far as what the founders thought at the time is very well documented... in the Federalist Papers... there is no "Room for interpretation". The made it abundently clear... granting the right of the population to be armed will prevent Tyrants from arising because the people could take them down... THey didn't just fight a war... just to go back to the way things were.

And we all have seen Obama make claims that if if contress doesn't do what he tells them to do he will take it upon himself to do it tanyway... despite what the law says and what the Constitution says... like he's some kind of freaking demigod or something.

[speechlesstx]

We have covered this before,

Right to keep and bear arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thats why your right to bear arms doesn't include bazookas and cannons.

I guess you forgot, one of my best friends has a functioning cannon.

It's not "wacko libs", it's one wacko guy.

Really, are you the grammar police again?

That was a bad link so tell me how he is a liberal. Is this the nut job in Califonia?

The link works fine for me.

[NeedKarma]

Really, are you the grammar police again?

You didn't get the distinction?

[speechlesstx]

Would you people stop editing my damn posts?

[talaniman]

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its settled law for now that congress can put reasonable restrictions on what arms you can bear without infringing on the right to bear arms. We await what comes from the congress.

Would you people stop editing my damn posts?

Combining consecutive posts with VERY close time stamps is hardly editing, and changes nothing of the content, but it gives other viewers/posters an ease of use, and raises the appearance of the forum to acceptable standard. What do you have against ease of use and appearance for a PUBLIC forum that doesn't censor you for content, or context?

808 Answers / 9742 Views-- proof that others besides the usual posters follow these threads.

[speechlesstx]

Combining consecutive posts with VERY close time stamps is hardly editing, and changes nothing of the content, but it gives other viewers/posters an ease of use, and raises the appearance of the forum to acceptable standard. What do you have against ease of use and appearance for a PUBLIC forum that doesn't censor you for content, or context?

808 Answers / 9742 Views-- proof that others besides the usual posters follow these threads.

What I have against it is editing my posts, ESPECIALLY if I am responding to more than one person. Who gives a damn what the time stamp is, as long as my posts are within the rules I want them left alone.

[tomder55]

Rent a mob

https://my.barackobama.com/page/even...faction/gskwqb

Union brown shirts offered free bus ride ,and free meals to protest the NRA's resistance to the extreme and poorly thought out gun control laws Il Duce Cuomo ram-rodded into law in NY .

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of poorly thought out laws, and no I don't mean Obamacare, check out Oregon...

Oregon Gun Ban Bill HB 3200 Includes Police Inspection of Gun Owners’ Homes; Declares “Emergency”
Posted: February 23, 2013 by ShortTimer in Democrats, Government, Guns, Second Amendment, Tyranny

...

It’s the usual extremist “everything must be banned” type total ban of all modern firearms, with criminalization, prison time, etc. It includes banning safety features like Carolyn McCarthy’s “shoulder thing that goes up” and utility features like adjustable stocks for smaller shooters. And then there’s the part about inspections of homes, without even the limits of once a year like the Washington ban proposal.

Possession, when not at the range or to and from the range or a gunsmith, is limited to (Section 4, (5)(c)(A)):

(c) Possess the assault weapon or large capacity magazine only:
(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;

From Section 4, they get to de facto inspect your home – for 99% of people, that’s all that qualifies under §4(5)(c)(A):

(5) A registered owner of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine is required to:
(a) Securely store the assault weapon or large capacity magazine pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the department;
(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;

Section 5, part 4, reiterated for “registered” owners:

(4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4 of this 2013 Act.

From the summary:

Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine. Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.

Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Directs Department of State Police to conduct background check and maintain registry of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Section 6 – an emergency is declared:

SECTION 6. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.

And from Section 4, can’t have more than one rifle and three magazines, with the rest subject to disposal:

(4) A person may not register more than one assault weapon and three large capacity magazines under this section. Additional assault weapons and large capacity magazines must be disposed of in the manner specified in section 3 of this 2013 Act.

Disposal in the law means having to remove it from the state, turn it in to the state for destruction, have it destroyed, or sell it to a dealer who’s allowed to possess it.

But remember, Oregon Democrats like Lee Coleman have assured us that this kind of thing is just paranoid delusion from some people in “Kansas or whatever” so “go screw yourself”:

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, gun laws can be pretty stupid, can't they? Check this one out.

Congressional hopeful and state Rep. Joe Carr wants to ensure that any new gun restrictions handed down from Washington, D.C. go unenforced in the Volunteer State.

Carr, a Lascassas Republican, is introducing a bill that would slap federal officials with a Class A misdemeanor for enforcing new federal gun laws, executive orders, rules or regulations.

“It's our attempt to push back on the federal government's ever-increasing encroachment not only on our personal liberties but on our state sovereignty, and this is what we're going to do. We've had enough, and enough is enough,” he told reporters at a press conference in Murfreesboro.

Under Carr's proposal, House Bill 42, state troopers would have the authority to arrest federal officers if they attempt to enforce federal gun laws

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, gun laws can be pretty stupid, can't they?? Check this one out.

excon

I like it, states have rights too.

[smearcase]

I am a gun owner (ex-military who was taught to rely on planning, not hoping, so please give me a good plan) who is willing to get rid of my guns if the anti gun group will give me a solid plan for the following scenario (and feel free to call me alarmist, paranoid- have a ball, but I read of these kinds of episodes within a 50 mile -some within one mile of my home- radius of my home every day as I read online newspapers in that radius and more). Maybe South central PA, mid-Maryland, western MD, etc are just unique areas for these kinds of invasions? :

This is the situation I plan to avoid: Being awakened at 3 AM with a gun pointed at my temple, and from that point on -doing whatever in the f*** I am told to do and that applies to my wife and whoever else happens to be unlucky enough to be in the house at that moment.

The way it happens (from what I read in news accounts): Usually at least two (often 3 or 4) armed thugs comes through windows or doors like a swat team and find the homeowner within seconds, and take them under complete control. Note: a monitored security system will alert the alarm company and they attempt to verify it is not a false alarm by contacting the homeowner. So your phone rings while the perp has you with a gun to your head- he says -tell them you mistakenly triggered it-you do. Or maybe he says don't answer- so the alarm company calls the alternate contact you have listed in your records--bottom line, police might stop by in what-20 minutes if you are very lucky? Or not at all if you have to tell them under duress that it was an error.

I have systems in place (security alarm, camera monitors) that will buy me a few precious seconds to lock and load (PA is a castle doctrine state that basically says that as long as a citizen is legally at any location, deadly force can be used to repel threats) and my plan is to repel the threat at the earliest possible moment. The problem is -what do I use to repel the threat? Or should I sit back and hope for the best.

What is the flaw in my plan and how can I reach the same level of protection without a decent firearm? Butcher knife, baseball bat, mace, pepper spray--against a sawed-off 12 gauge, a machete, 2 or 3 perps with their own baseball bats.

Assuming that there is at least a remote possibility of this happening where you reside- what is your plan if it isn't a good firearm? Or can't it ever happen to you?

[Wondergirl]

Being awakened at 3 AM with a gun pointed at my temple, and from that point on -doing whatever in the f*** I am told to do and that applies to my wife and whoever else happens to be unlucky enough to be in the house at that moment.

And what good will your (loaded?) gun do you in this case? Will it be handy and hidden between mattress and box spring or under your pillow or visible and readily available (to anyone) on the nightstand? Will your small children know to leave it alone? Will your wife, in a PMS moment, not shoot you (or herself)? If there is more than one guy, will you have enough firepower to shoot them all without you or a loved one getting shot in return?

Adam Lanza's mom's guns were legal, and look at where she is and what good they did her.

I am not anti-gun, but let's be honest about this.

[smearcase]

No. Security system will sound alarm. If I can awaken fast enough, the gun will be ready in about 5 seconds. Actually, if I use my basement bedroom I will have probably about 3 minutes before they find me while I watch them on cameras. I have considered your comment. I have other precautions in place to deal with them. What's your plan for that scenario if God forbid it ever happens to you?
You did well trying to find the flaws in my plan. I want the better plan the anti gun folks must have in mind- to protect themselves- so I can implement it and get rid of my guns-and yes-my guns are always locked-always. If I can waken fast enough- about 2 seconds to unlock.

[tomder55]

. I want the better plan the anti gun folks must have in mind- to protect themselves

I believe their plan involves whistles .
College women need rape whistles, not guns says Colorado lawmaker | Washington Times Communities

[smearcase]

At least I will get a good review of my plan and learn some new tricks in the process. I have a whistle somewhere. I'll dig it out and put it under the pillow. Thanks Tom.

[Wondergirl]

No. Security system will sound alarm.

But your original scenario was a bad guy's gun already pointed at your head. And will your security system sound at the police station? I think they can be (are?) rigged that way. Just the bad guy hearing the jangling alarm might send him on his way.

If I can awaken fast enough /// if I use my basement bedroom

There are two "if's" already. There are lots more.

I will have probably about 3 minutes

Here's a "probably."

What's your plan for that scenario if God forbid it ever happens to you?

I've lived and worked in mixed-race neighborhoods, have always had locks and deadbolts on my doors, and have lived in unassuming/ordinary-looking homes that don't cry out "Burglarize me!"

On the other hand, my husband nearly shot a neighbor lady who came to the unlit front door late in the evening to borrow two eggs for her breakfast surprise of fresh banana bread. Our older son was helping me change the sheets on our beds and discovered his dad's loaded Glock between the mattress and box spring. Some years later, our younger son was helping me fold and put away fresh laundry and found that same loaded gun in his dad's sock drawer. Thank goodness, I was nearby both times.

I've read, but don't have the stats handy, that homeowners with guns in the home are at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a family/relative homicide/suicide/fatal shooting in the home.

How about instead adopting a yippy little dog from a shelter?