Kerbouchard

If we would have lost, then there would have probably been a grass roots/NRA effort to impeach the Supreme Court. The anti-defense people would have pushed to enact stricter laws, and probably would have been successful. At that point, many law-abiding citizens would become criminals in the eyes of the court which would eventually lead to another test case to find out how thin the ice we were skating on really is.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

echobaby

I suggest we not get too confident. There's alot of work to be done. Not much has really changed.

__________________
We can only count on ourselves to maintain our liberties.


Proud to be a veteran!

matiki

I would argue, based on the language of most anti-gun groups a day after the ruling, that they are going to push for stricter gun laws anyways. While they have lost on bans, they argue (perhaps rightly so) that they now have stronger constitutional support for restrictions, such as registration, the AWB, etc.

__________________

Paco

I would agree.

They already don't like the fact that many of us use hollow point ammo, it is too inhumane .

They don't like that many people own AR-15 or AK's, etc. Whow on Earth outside of the military needs firepower such as that.

They don't like the fact that we can walk around with as many weapons as we can cover up, or not in some states, which means they don't know who has the guns (which is kind of the point).

The problem is, as I see it, is we have wallowed in our prosperity, we have worked too hard to keep up with the Jones' and we have allowed a corrupt bunch of ideological morons to remain in office for far too long. I myself am guilty of doing this as well. But I think it is high time that we get out and vote, I know many if not all on this forum do, but we also have to talk to others who don't; we all know at least 1, and make sure they know what is at stake. They need to know not just who is up for Prez and what they stand for but who they can appoint and who they bring with them, on either side fo the aisle.

__________________
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them!

-Paco

wmhawth

Exactly. One has to wonder why the 5-4 decision. Seems to me it should have been 9 to zip.

__________________
William

retsupt99

Figures lie...and liars figure...it all depends upon what the meaning of 'is', is...

We are on the 'heavier' side of the scale for now...enjoy it!

Stay armed...buy more ammo...stay safe!

__________________
"That I cannot do."

"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."


***********************************

McCain/Palin 2008

NRA Life Member

Kerbouchard

I would argue, that if you actually read the decision instead of listening to commentary on it, you find the the anti's don't have much of a leg to stand on.(not saying you didn't, but a lot of the news commentators are drawing conclusions that simply do not pass muster based on the decision)

The way I read it is shall issue will become the standard. Bans of a type of weapon in common use for lawful purposes are unconstitutional. And the dissenters couldn't see through the looking glass...

None of us expected a shall not be infringed decision. That wasn't what the case was about and the Supreme Court could not rule on it.

What we wanted was an affirmation that it was an individual right and all out bans are unconstitutional. Yes, we have work to do, and more lawsuits will follow, but the anti's had the carpet pulled out from beneath their feet. No matter what kind of flowery words they try to use to convince themselves that all is not lost for their side, it still does not change the fact than an important precedent was set that will be used to shape cases and laws for years to come.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

matiki

I agree, and I read the entire decision on my blackberry while on post during a rather tedious detail yesterday. As you surmised, I am only saying; the same folks who could misinterpret something as simple as the 2nd amendment, are now misinterpreting the decision in an effort to bolster their cause. Unfortunately losing the case will bolster their side, nothing unifies a group more than a powerful foe.

__________________

CR2008

Your 100% right... it's a shame this even had to be taken up to begin with.

__________________
http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/

CR2008

I heard the court stated that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with carrying a firearm... they claimed it was "reasonable" for a State to ban carry of handguns, class 3 firearms etc.

__________________
http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/