packinnova

My comment still stands whether or not it's gold. It really has no value. There's nothing but credit(which is not a commodity or material of any sort) backing it. But as to the rest of the comments, yes I'm in complete disagreement with the way it works. I'm merely pointing out that the system is flawed systemically from top to bottom and it's about time we fix it and quit pandering to the fools.

__________________
-The Mist (2007)

hudsonvalley

Why is it SO hard for the other side to see that their argument has no merit? The only way for them to 'come on over' would be for someone to rob and scare the be-jeezus out of them. They would shortly thereafter find merit in OUR argument.....I'm sure this has happened in the past. Much like....There are no atheists in foxholes....

__________________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

MitchellCT

You can't convert the true believers with mere words.

LenS

I just listened to the re-broadcast of the hearing.

I do NOT interpret it as a "win" for our side.

Unchallenged went the following "facts" (as espoused by one or another attorney):

- 80K/year killed with guns in the US.
- OK to require guns to be locked up because they can be stored LOADED with a TRIGGER LOCK in DC! [Wow, talk about lack of safety!]
- It's just as easy to use a rifle/shotgun to defend yourself in a home. [Somebody should have suggested the justices try navigating a 3' wide hallway with a yardstick to see how maneuverable that is.] Implication is that if a rifle/shotgun will work for self-defense in the home, that banning handguns has no impact on a person's ability to defend themselves at home . . . and thus the ban should be allowed to stand.
- That it is OK to ban CERTAIN GUNS as long as SOME are allowed and that this would meet the requirements of the 2nd Amendment. Specifically that "plastic guns that can pass thru metal detectors undetected" should be allowed to be banned, as machine guns should also be banned along with "armor piercing bullets" (don't know how that became relevant to the case, but it got lots of discussion).

JD

OK, we had about 5 different threads on this subject all running at the same time, I've merged them ALL together. There have been many post merges, deletions and edits. Due to the scale of cleanup, members were not notified of changes, mostly what was done was that after the merges, of a member had two or three posts all in a row, they were merged. If there were dupe. posts, IE members posting identical info such as links, the first post with that info was left, the others were removed, if you were referencing one of the other threads, that are now contained in this one, it was removed. If your post was simply off topic it was removed. And unfortunately, there were a few that just didn't make sense after the mass merge.


Reopened!

__________________


BLARG! My DefCarry Blog.

gopher

I listened this morning
and I do...... The Ban of ALL hand guns will be tossed out
I cant see it not going that way.
A Victory for the 2nd Amendment.
now we work on the rest

__________________
When outnumbered 2 to 1.
Shoot twice!
Gopher

MitchellCT

The absolute best Gura was going to walk away with is a decision that clearly sets forth that the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution of the United States of America is an individual right, that said right is applicable to the states by way of the 14th Amendment, and that the standard of review is strict scrutiny.

Yes, getting everything in one stroke would be really nice, but its completely unrealistic.

Establish first a tight standard of review for firearms legislation, then show how laws regulating certain guns do not meet the standard.

All talk of machine guns and any pornographic fantasy of being able to pick up full auto or burst trigger group weapons at k-mart are just that - fantasy.

It was a land mine Ginsburg was asking Gura to step on.

Its not on point to the question before the court. If he starts talking about de-regulating automatic weapons he looks like an idiot and wastes his time.

Did he "throw some guns under the bus"...maybe, but he had a case to win.

If the Court comes down with a decision establishing individual rights, incorporation and strict scrutiny we will have had the best decision that could have been reasonably expected.

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never tasted victory or defeat.”

Give the man his due.

matiki

Thank you for putting words to what I was thinking. I think he did a good job, in particular, avoiding the bait provided by the more liberal justices, such as lumping what they were asking for into an argument for machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc. Were he to have taken that bait, it surely would have poisoned his argument. By avoiding it, the Justices that are not inclined to agree with a strict interpretation of the amendment may agree that some rights are reasonable, whereas, to those same justices, the notion of making machine guns and ap ammo available to the public at large would have eliminated the chance that they felt private ownership was reasonable.

__________________

edr9x23super

Don't bash Gura for the way he performed yesterday; as I have said all along, all we really needed to do in this case was have the 2nd amendment interpreted as an individual right, not a collective one, and we would have won far more than any could have expected in todays' uber-polititically correct atmosphere. we have also insured, much to the dismay of the democrats, that this will be an election issue, sure to bring us gun owners out in force. And, of course we will ask Hillary, Barack and Mr. McCain some hard questions about where they stand. I think if we can just get what I mentioned out of this, then that alone will open thousands of gun laws on the books right now to legitimate court challenges nationwide. My ultimate wish would be that every state in the union would be forced by this decision to compel their state governments to adopt "shall-issue" carry legislation in all 50 states, with some form of castle doctrine laws placed in their respective deadly force statutes. realizing these would be huge victories for us, and I believe would pave the way for a possible shot at a national concealed carry licensing scheme.

So far, I am only aware of Senator McCain signing an Amicus brief for us with the Supreme Court.......

__________________
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

Janq

Agreed LenS.

- Janq

__________________
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post