Supreme Court could take guns case

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_5




Supreme Court could take guns case By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.


I cannot fathom the court not hearing this case. I kind of agree with the notion that most who support the right to bear arms do not take into account of the entire context of the Second Amendment.

I am ok with people owning guns to protect themselves but I wonder why people need military style weapons. Why is their armor piercing amunition being produced? Hollow point bullets? This is where the gun nuts and I part ways.

[FromWayDowntown]

I am ok with people owning guns to protect themselves but I wonder why people need military style weapons. Why is their armor piercing amunition being produced? Hollow point bullets? This is where the gun nuts and I part ways.

I agree with this. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that the right to own/bear arms is unlimited. By conditioning the right upon the need to maintain a well-regulated militia, the founders, quite clearly I think, made the right something less than absolute. That it isn't absolute is borne out, for instance, by the fact that there is no legitimate constitutional challenge to a law precluding felons from owning firearms. In that sense, I've never understood the argument that something like an assault weapons ban is anathema to the Second Amendment. The law doesn't preclude gun ownership, it just precludes ownership of a particular class of firearms. That strikes me as a rather meaningful distinction.

[101A]

I agree with this. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that the right to own/bear arms is unlimited. By conditioning the right upon the need to maintain a well-regulated militia, the founders, quite clearly I think, made the right something less than absolute. That it isn't absolute is borne out, for instance, by the fact that there is no legitimate constitutional challenge to a law precluding felons from owning firearms. In that sense, I've never understood the argument that something like an assault weapons ban is anathema to the Second Amendment. The law doesn't preclude gun ownership, it just precludes ownership of a particular class of firearms. That strikes me as a rather meaningful distinction.By this reasoning, couldn't laws be made to ban all but a single type of gun, as long as one was available? Something in the 2 caliber range?

"Shall not be infringed" - looks pretty absolute to me.

However, I don't think the court will hear the case. The gun control laws have manifested themselves differently accross the country - bans in some places; right to carry in others. State differentiation. I think there are enough states-rights justices on board that they will keep the feds out of it; or simply overturn the Appeals court decision WITHOUT defining exactly what rights an individual has - simply say that, "DC has a right to do what it did; we can't stop them."

[braeden0613]

I agree with this. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that the right to own/bear arms is unlimited. By conditioning the right upon the need to maintain a well-regulated militia, the founders, quite clearly I think, made the right something less than absolute. That it isn't absolute is borne out, for instance, by the fact that there is no legitimate constitutional challenge to a law precluding felons from owning firearms. In that sense, I've never understood the argument that something like an assault weapons ban is anathema to the Second Amendment. The law doesn't preclude gun ownership, it just precludes ownership of a particular class of firearms. That strikes me as a rather meaningful distinction.
How many people do you know that own assault weapons for protection? What defines an assault weapon anyway? The fact is that these so-called weapons are used by organized crime, drug cartels, etc where the laws dont matter.

[101A]

"Assault Weapon" has always been a silly designation.

It has much more to do with a look than an actual function of the weapon.

It is simply a semi-auto rifle with vents and ominous looking grips in black.

Functionally (lethality) equivalent or even less so, than plenty of legal guns.

[mookie2001]

I agree with this. Nothing in the Second Amendment says that the right to own/bear arms is unlimited. By conditioning the right upon the need to maintain a well-regulated militia, the founders, quite clearly I think, made the right something less than absolute. That it isn't absolute is borne out, for instance, by the fact that there is no legitimate constitutional challenge to a law precluding felons from owning firearms. In that sense, I've never understood the argument that something like an assault weapons ban is anathema to the Second Amendment. The law doesn't preclude gun ownership, it just precludes ownership of a particular class of firearms. That strikes me as a rather meaningful distinction.hey you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre right???????!!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

[url]I cannot fathom the court not hearing this case. I kind of agree with the notion that most who support the right to bear arms do not take into account of the entire context of the Second Amendment.
Let me take it one step further then.

I kind of agree with the notion that most who oppose the right to bear arms do not take into account the entire context or genesis of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

If most opponents to the 2nd amendment got their way, it would become the only amendment of the ten to have been adjudicated away from being an individual right. Individual rights that were insisted upon by some of the framers in order to prevent the U. S. Constitution from failing to be ratified by the colonies.

In fact, all ten of the amendments were -- when considered in the context in which they were drafted and adopted -- intended to be individual rights of the people to not be infringed upon by government. Indeed, it isn't until the 10th amendment the U. S. Consitution sets down the limit on federal power and opens the floor to state's rights.

I do, however, agree there is a debate to be had about at what point the right to bear arms is outweighed by the potential harm (read violation of others' individual rights) that could be caused. Therefore, I favor some laws based not on the weapon but on the person wishing to possess them.

Do I favor my Uncle Bob owning a bazooka? Absolutely. But, good luck to Bob in acquiring ammunition for his bazooka -- unless of course -- he engaged in a practice -- stealing ammunition or buying it on the black market -- that would bar him from owning the bazooka.

Criminals will continue to seek weapons regardless of the law. I'm sure there are criminals trying to acquire nuclear weapons as well as other military munitions that 2nd amendment opponents believe a ban on would prevent.

Finally, on guns themselves. If you succeed in banning guns altogether and, I recognize that's not the argument at the moment but, it comes up eventually in these threads; if you succeed in banning guns altogether, wouldn't you also need to ban the physical and mechanical laws behind guns as well? I mean, after all, a machinist, a gunsmith, and a chemist could probably reproduce most of the weapons now on the market.

And, guess what, underground gun factories don't glow on infrared like underground pot farms.

So, then, the criminals would corner the market on weapons. And, the bumper sticker would literally become reality. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

[clambake]

i have guns, but i don't hunt.

[Yonivore]

hey you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre right???????!!!!!!!!!
Sure you can...especially if there's a fire. But, even if not, you can pretty much yell whatever you want in a crowded theater. What you can't do is expect to be insulated from the consequences of doing so by some perverted understanding of the first amendment.

[Yonivore]

i have guns, but i don't hunt.
So?

[clambake]

So?
I thought you might find that interesting. do you hunt animals?

[Yonivore]

I thought you might find that interesting. do you hunt animals?
Occasionally. But, no, not a regular hunter. It's easier to get at the grocery store.

[clambake]

Occasionally. But, no, not a regular hunter. It's easier to get at the grocery store.
what do you occasionally hunt?

[Yonivore]

what do you occasionally hunt?
Whatever's in season.

[clambake]

Whatever's in season.
do you at least track?

[Yonivore]

do you at least track?
If I have to but, that kind of depends on where I hunt and what I'm hunting. What's you point?

[clambake]

If I have to but, that kind of depends on where I hunt and what I'm hunting. What's you point?
lets say your hunting deer, and not one of those fenced reserves.

[Yonivore]

lets say your hunting deer, and not one of those fenced reserves.
I've never hunted on a "fenced reserve," can't afford it. I hunt on family property surrounded by barbed wire.

Where are you going with this, I'm getting a little bored with the exchange. I assume you're trying to make some point.

[clambake]

just fishing, i have an opinion about certain hunting techniques when coupled with ones character. you can go back and continue your lobbying for bush on mt. rushmore.

[Yonivore]

just fishing, i have an opinion about certain hunting techniques when coupled with ones character. you can go back and continue your lobbying for bush on mt. rushmore.
Cool.

But, for the record, my hunting technique involves getting invited to go hunting and then, while in Rome, doing as the Romans. It's not polite to join a hunting party to which you've been invited and then tell them how you want to hunt.

If they want everyone stationary in a blind for safety reasons, I don't ask to be allowed to wander the property trying to "track" a deer; I go sit in a blind and wait for bambi's mom or dad. Etc...

I don't own a deer rifle or a shotgun (used to but, considering how infrequently I hunt, I sold them or gave them to relatives that do hunt) so, I use borrowed weaponry. I don't clean my own kill, I drop the deer off at a meat market and I let whoever is willing to clean and butcher smaller game...except for quail and dove. I can do those.

What does that tell you about my character?

[clambake]

Cool.

But, for the record, my hunting technique involves getting invited to go hunting and then, while in Rome, doing as the Romans. It's not polite to join a hunting party to which you've been invited and then tell them how you want to hunt.
I didn't know you waited around to be invited. I thought you might be a hunter that used instinct and cunning. They do still exist, you know. Hunting party's are rarely more than just beer drinking shootingfestivals.


If they want everyone stationary in a blind for safety reasons, I don't ask to be allowed to wander the property trying to "track" a deer; I go sit in a blind and wait for bambi's mom or dad. Etc...
I was afraid of that.


I don't own a deer rifle or a shotgun (used to but, considering how infrequently I hunt, I sold them or gave them to relatives that do hunt) so, I use borrowed weaponry.
For when the mood strikes you? Or when your invited to go kill something?

I don't clean my own kill, I drop the deer off at a meat market and I let whoever is willing to clean and butcher smaller game...except for quail and dove. I can do those.
Is it cheaper to pay for butchering and a hunting permit and travel expense, or cheaper to go to the store, like you said earlier?


What does that tell you about my character?
That you'll go hunting and let others decide how to do it. It's about ethics.

[Yonivore]

I didn't know you waited around to be invited. I thought you might be a hunter that used instinct and cunning. They do still exist, you know. Hunting party's are rarely more than just beer drinking shootingfestivals.
Well, beer (and scotch) does get drank but, I don't recall there ever being a shot fired except at game.


I was afraid of that.
Well, at least I didn't say Bambi.


For when the mood strikes you? Or when your invited to go kill something?
Sometimes the mood strikes me and there's no invitation or there's no season or there's no opportunity. So, I guess, just yes to the second question.


Is it cheaper to pay for butchering and a hunting permit and travel expense, or cheaper to go to the store, like you said earlier?
For me, yes. Plus, when's the last time you saw venison in your local H.E.B. meat case?


That you'll go hunting and let others decide how to do it.
That I'll go hunting at the invitation of someone and respect their property and place as host.


It's about ethics.
Yes, it is. And manners. You must be the type that is invited to someone's home for dinner only to give them advise on how the meal should have been prepared. Or worse, you get your ass in the kitchen, between the host and the oven.

[PixelPusher]

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, does that mean fully automatic machine guns and self propelled artillery will ok too? They are "arms" after all...

[clambake]

Well, beer (and scotch) does get drank but, I don't recall there ever being a shot fired except at game.
Sounds more like tailgating. I guess i don't understand the recreation relevence.


Well, at least I didn't say Bambi.
:lol


For me, yes. Plus, when's the last time you saw venison in your local H.E.B. meat case?
Don't know what HEB is. Typical supermarket?


That I'll go hunting at the invitation of someone and respect their property and place as host.
You never ask what kind of hunting before you accept?


Yes, it is. And manners. You must be the type that is invited to someone's home for dinner only to give them advise on how the meal should have been prepared. Or worse, you get your ass in the kitchen, between the host and the oven.
Considering that I do all the cooking, I would be more than happy to wait until I hear "Dinner is served"!

[Yonivore]

Sounds more like tailgating. I guess i don't understand the recreation relevence.
Well, it's not...and, I agree, you don't understand the recreational aspect of hunting. Incidentally, if it's a day trip - out and back - there's usually no alcohol involved. I don't drink and hunt. Oh, and I don't hunt with people who drink and hunt.


:lol
Glad to amuse.


Don't know what HEB is. Typical supermarket?
Yes, regional grocery store based in San Antonio.


You never ask what kind of hunting before you accept?
In Texas, you usually know based on the season and the person inviting what type of hunting you're in for.


Considering that I do all the cooking, I would be more than happy to wait until I hear "Dinner is served"!
Then, do you sit at the table and offer advice about how you would have prepared the dish differently or, do you just eat?

No different when you're invited to someone's place to hunt. Their property, their rules.

[DarkReign]

My shop could easily convert itself into a gunsmith. And if/when the government decides to strike down the second amendment as we know it, one of our CNCs will start producing guns immediately.

I am not a hunter, but I would love to see you have that argument of yours here in Michigan, CB. The women would kick your ass.

[clambake]

My shop could easily convert itself into a gunsmith. And if/when the government decides to strike down the second amendment as we know it, one of our CNCs will start producing guns immediately.

I am not a hunter, but I would love to see you have that argument of yours here in Michigan, CB. The women would kick your ass.
think i'll stay away from your detroit area. something i'd recommend for everybody.

[Yonivore]

Hey, clambake, what do you think of fishing? Do you eat seafood?

[DarkReign]

think i'll stay away from your detroit area. something i'd recommend for everybody.

I would because employment sucks, but otherwise its a great place to live.

But if youre trying to intimate that the Metro Area is somehow less civilized, youd be mistaken.

People that hunt, own ATVs and jet skis, boats and cottages would consider themselves "outdoorsmen".

The "outdoorsmen", I would guess (complete guess), number half the population. Hunting isnt some taboo here, its encouraged. The white-tail deer are so numerous in Michigan, Macomb County Sheriff's Department has a yearly "cleansing" it must perform in the local parks because the deer breed at an extraordinary rate, a rate that cannot be controlled by the limited hunting season.

Its either that, or a 300-500% increase in traffic deaths due to deer. Hitting a full grown white tail at 50+ mph is no joke for you, your car or passengers.

[Yonivore]

http://www.wmswildlifecontrol.com/deer-windshield.jpg

http://www.mikeholt.com/img/mojonews/WindshieldDeer.jpg

[Yonivore]

Oh, and for those that don't hunt. Who's going to put food on your table if a time should ever come that we need to survive without grocery stores?

I can build a fire, I can hit what I'm aiming at, and I can plant a garden from seed.

Good luck to you clambake...but, if I have anything left after feeding my family and friends, you're welcome at my table. Just don't criticize the food.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Court's orders today did not mention the gun case. We'll have to wait for at least one more conference cycle to know what might happen. Lots of theories about why there was no disposition (justices wanting more time, Court re-writing the issues presented, the Court has already denied the petition but one or more justices are dissenting to that decision). In any event, we're waiting until at least 11/20 or perhaps 11/26 for some action.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Oh, and for those that don't hunt. Who's going to put food on your table if a time should ever come that we need to survive without grocery stores?

I can build a fire, I can hit what I'm aiming at, and I can plant a garden from seed.

Good luck to you clambake...but, if I have anything left after feeding my family and friends, you're welcome at my table. Just don't criticize the food.
:lol bullshit argument. I can hunt, I just don't. Just because people don't hunt, doesn't mean they can't.

Besides I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where all of us are suddenly going to have to start hunting to feed our family :lol

Just to clarify, I don't have much against hunting, i just thought the argument was bull.

[Yonivore]

:lol bullshit argument. I can hunt, I just don't. Just because people don't hunt, doesn't mean they can't.

Besides I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where all of us are suddenly going to have to start hunting to feed our family :lol

Just to clarify, I don't have much against hunting, i just thought the argument was bull.
I don't know, listen to some of the nutters in here and we're facing a bleak future when China pulls the rug out from under us.

I don't think it's a bullshit argument that it's a good idea to keep your skills up in case you find it more economical to hunt your food than buy it at the store.

Shooting a deer at 300 yards isn't like riding a bicycle...you can lose the skill if you don't use it.

[DarkReign]

:lol bullshit argument. I can hunt, I just don't. Just because people don't hunt, doesn't mean they can't.

Besides I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where all of us are suddenly going to have to start hunting to feed our family :lol

Just to clarify, I don't have much against hunting, i just thought the argument was bull.

While I would agree the argument is an extreme version, are you sure you can hunt?

Hunting, as we know it in America, isnt hunting as it was. Let me explain.

I could grab my fully automatic rifle, my camoflage and some provisions, head out into the forest and the chances of me bringing home some meat for the family to eat are closer to 10%.

Thats not a big deal seeing as we live in communities that have a grocery store on every corner.

But, lets play Imaginary World for a moment, and next month the food and water runs out (think really dire oil crisis). What do you do? I know what a lot of idiots would do, they'd grab their fully automatic rifle, their camo and some provisions and head out into the forest thinking thats some form of hunting. When 30% of the populace starves to death, you'll start to understand that as bad and as inhumane as hunting deer with a rifle is, if you REALLY needed food, the rifle would be the dumbest, most inefficent method to provide food.

The reality is, trapping is the only viable, long term way of supplying ample food for a family or community. Trapping was replaced by farming for food. In the sense that we have beef farms, and chicken farms and so on. But if you really had to live off the land, your guns wouldnt be used to get food. They would be used to keep the food you did have. Because other humans would want it.

Guns were never designed to assist man's explotation of the world, they were designed to kill other men from a safe distance. No rigorous, Spartan-like training needed. Point. Shoot. Dead. The advent of modern warfare.

[DarkReign]

Basically, if civilization was in ruins, head south and learn from the best. The Southern Trapper isnt a tag line, its still a thriving, albeit illegal practice.

Teach a man to fish, and all that.

[Yonivore]

While I would agree the argument is an extreme version, are you sure you can hunt?

Hunting, as we know it in America, isnt hunting as it was. Let me explain.

I could grab my fully automatic rifle, my camoflage and some provisions, head out into the forest and the chances of me bringing home some meat for the family to eat are closer to 10%.

Thats not a big deal seeing as we live in communities that have a grocery store on every corner.

But, lets play Imaginary World for a moment, and next month the food and water runs out (think really dire oil crisis). What do you do? I know what a lot of idiots would do, they'd grab their fully automatic rifle, their camo and some provisions and head out into the forest thinking thats some form of hunting. When 30% of the populace starves to death, you'll start to understand that as bad and as inhumane as hunting deer with a rifle is, if you REALLY needed food, the rifle would be the dumbest, most inefficent method to provide food.

The reality is, trapping is the only viable, long term way of supplying ample food for a family or community. Trapping was replaced by farming for food. In the sense that we have beef farms, and chicken farms and so on. But if you really had to live off the land, your guns wouldnt be used to get food. They would be used to keep the food you did have. Because other humans would want it.

Guns were never designed to assist man's explotation of the world, they were designed to kill other men from a safe distance. No rigorous, Spartan-like training needed. Point. Shoot. Dead. The advent of modern warfare.
That has some merit but, you're still going to kill your food after you trap it. And, probably with a gun.

And, forgive me, I'm not going to start a deer farm and not many of us will have the land to begin ranching anyway. I think, I'll stick to hunting if the situation becomes that dire.

[clambake]

DR, if the deer population is what you say, then mich. should take a closer look at the industry, considering the unemployment.

Yoni, if your scenario came true, it wouldn't just be deer in season, if you know what I mean.

[Yonivore]

DR, if the deer population is what you say, then mich. should take a closer look at the industry, considering the unemployment.

Yoni, if your scenario came true, it wouldn't just be deer in season, if you know what I mean.
You're right but, I'd rather be eating deer than 'possum. And, I'd rather be skilled with a firearm -- when that time comes -- than not.

[clambake]

You're right but, I'd rather be eating deer than 'possum. And, I'd rather be skilled with a firearm -- when that time comes -- than not.
opossum is not what I meant.

[DarkReign]

DR, if the deer population is what you say, then mich. should take a closer look at the industry, considering the unemployment.

Im not exaggerating in the slightest. I know "gun-ho" peeps who want in on the "volunteer" portion of the Sheriff's annual hunt.

[Yonivore]

opossum is not what I meant.
Whatever you meant, I'd rather be armed than not...and, I rather be skilled with that arm, than not.

[clambake]

Im not exaggerating in the slightest. I know "gun-ho" peeps who want in on the "volunteer" portion of the Sheriff's annual hunt.
sounds like something that warrants a closer look.

[Spurminator]

I'm no marksman, but I bet I could kill a cow.

[clambake]

Whatever you meant, I'd rather be armed than not...and, I rather be skilled with that arm, than not.
yes, but that skill doesn't need to honed from a blind.

[clambake]

Whatever you meant, I'd rather be armed than not...and, I rather be skilled with that arm, than not.
besides, if your scenario came true, there wouldn't be that many to feed or that much to eat. it would be nuclear winter.

[xrayzebra]

Well deer isn't the only edible animal going. Squirrels and Rabbits
make a good meal. Armadillo was also eaten when I was a
youngster. I didn't particuarily like it. But my Mom could do
wonders with squirrel, mashed potatoes, gravy and biscuits.
And I think I could still raise a pretty good garden and some
chickens. Of course I would have to run Chump, GGA and
few others off, since they would think they were entitled to
anything they want.LOL

Of course some good back strap in place of the squirrel
works okay too. I never hunted deer but once, believe it
or not they just weren't that plentiful, like non-existent,
when I was a young person. And here we think we are
killing off everything. I don't think so.

[clambake]

Well deer isn't the only edible animal going. Squirrels and Rabbits
make a good meal. Armadillo was also eaten when I was a
youngster. I didn't particuarily like it. But my Mom could do
wonders with squirrel, mashed potatoes, gravy and biscuits.
And I think I could still raise a pretty good garden and some
chickens. Of course I would have to run Chump, GGA and
few others off, since they would think they were entitled to
anything they want.LOL
if you had all of the above, in yoni's scenario, you'd be a dead man.

[xrayzebra]

if you had all of the above, in yoni's scenario, you'd be a dead man.


In most of yours, we already are. :p:

[clambake]

In most of yours, we already are. :p:
:lol :spin :lol GOOD ONE!!!!!

[1369]

yes, but that skill doesn't need to honed from a blind.

So you don't like hunting, we get that, but pulling ridiculous statements like the above out of your ass does nothing to further your arguement.

You still have to put the round/arrow on target, and believe it or not, that does take a degree of skill.

[Yonivore]

yes, but that skill doesn't need to honed from a blind.
That doesn't mean it can't be, does it?

[Yonivore]

besides, if your scenario came true, there wouldn't be that many to feed or that much to eat. it would be nuclear winter.
Who's talking about a nuclear winter? I'm talking about something less than that but, even if it were a nuclear winter, I'd rather be armed and proficient than not.

I want to be one of the few eating.

[Yonivore]

Clambake, I'm still interested to know if you eat seafood.

[Holt's Cat]

Oh, and for those that don't hunt. Who's going to put food on your table if a time should ever come that we need to survive without grocery stores?

I can build a fire, I can hit what I'm aiming at, and I can plant a garden from seed.

Good luck to you clambake...but, if I have anything left after feeding my family and friends, you're welcome at my table. Just don't criticize the food.


...and when his gun jams, Yoni will chase down bucks and rip their heads clean off. For he is the Super American Hero Badass.

[Yonivore]

...and when his gun jams, Yoni will chase down bucks and rip their heads clean off. For he is the Super American Hero Badass.
You're gardamn right.

[clambake]

Clambake, I'm still interested to know if you eat seafood.
yes, but only if it's hunted ethically :hungry:

[Yonivore]

yes, but only if it's hunted ethically :hungry:
What does that mean?

There are some fish, bigger than a deer, that end up on dinner plates. They are hooked, netted, grappled and then allowed to suffocate after being dragged aboard.

What is "ethical" fishing?

[clambake]

What does that mean? What is "ethical" fishing?
it was a joke, but serve it up :hungry:

[Yonivore]

it was a joke, but serve it up :hungry:
Okay, :lmao but, seriously, I see no difference between fishing and hunting. So, if you're alright with one, why not the other?

[DarkReign]

That has some merit but, you're still going to kill your food after you trap it. And, probably with a gun.

And, forgive me, I'm not going to start a deer farm and not many of us will have the land to begin ranching anyway. I think, I'll stick to hunting if the situation becomes that dire.

I think youre too involved in the minutiae. I wasnt saying we should start deer farms, I said "animal farms" replaced the need to hunt.

The most effective, time proven way to successfully hunt and gather is by trapping. How you harvest (ie kill and clean) the animal(s) you trap is the least of your problems at that point.

[BradLohaus]

With each passing year I come closer to burying a stash of guns on some rural family property.

Remember what statue is in front of the UN
(Why not a machine gun? Who uses a pistol in a war?)
http://static.flickr.com/6/10030914_9ef1f18880.jpg

Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!

[braeden0613]

With each passing year I come closer to burying a stash of guns on some rural family property.

Remember what statue is in front of the UN
(Why not a machine gun? Who uses a pistol in a war?)
http://static.flickr.com/6/10030914_9ef1f18880.jpg

Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst062606.htm
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
Its probably not a bad idea..I might join you.

[DarkReign]

Its probably not a bad idea..I might join you.

My family already has an area for this. It has been in the family since the 20s. Every gun, every provision and a hand-tapped well. If the shit goes down, we will be ready.

[Yonivore]

My family already has an area for this. It has been in the family since the 20s. Every gun, every provision and a hand-tapped well. If the shit goes down, we will be ready.
As will my family.

[clambake]

:lol

[xrayzebra]

My family already has an area for this. It has been in the family since the 20s. Every gun, every provision and a hand-tapped well. If the shit goes down, we will be ready.

Well I once could have said that. But not anymore. Damn
why do the people we love have to die. Oh, well, I still have
my Great Grandfathers mineral rights.....

[1369]

SCOTUS to hear the case... (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html)

[boutons_]

The self-defense/I need to hunt to eat/2nd amendment/Constitutional militia bullshit is fully scripted NRA smokescreen to distract from the huge and extremely profitable business of mfrs and dealers selling guns and ammo to ANYbody who has the cash.

The NRA white supremecists know that the more guns there are around, the more $Bs there are from the guns mfrs/dealers to support the NRA, and the more blacks and browns will be killed in crime and gang wars.

[DarkReign]

So youre against citizens owning guns?

[xrayzebra]

The self-defense/I need to hunt to eat/2nd amendment/Constitutional militia bullshit is fully scripted NRA smokescreen to distract from the huge and extremely profitable business of mfrs and dealers selling guns and ammo to ANYbody who has the cash.

The NRA white supremecists know that the more guns there are around, the more $Bs there are from the guns mfrs/dealers to support the NRA, and the more blacks and browns will be killed in crime and gang wars.

Ah, boutons. How about I just want to own a gun.
I thought you were all for the citizen. Guess not.

[1369]

The self-defense/I need to hunt to eat/2nd amendment/Constitutional militia bullshit is fully scripted NRA smokescreen to distract from the huge and extremely profitable business of mfrs and dealers selling guns and ammo to ANYbody who has the cash.

The NRA white supremecists know that the more guns there are around, the more $Bs there are from the guns mfrs/dealers to support the NRA, and the more blacks and browns will be killed in crime and gang wars.

Ah, the NRA crafted the 2nd amendment so blacks and browns would be killed.

And multinational weapons manufacturers would get rich.

Got it.

/Are we sure this isn't just Bush's fault?

[xrayzebra]

Ah, the NRA crafted the 2nd amendment so blacks and browns would be killed.

And multinational weapons manufacturers would get rich.

Got it.

/Are we sure this isn't just Bush's fault?

Next thing you know I will be called a charter member of
the NRA. They did exist when they wrote the constitution,
right?

[xrayzebra]

what a load of crap. I have to jump through hoops to buy a gun at any store. Forms filled out with my life's story on them, and THEN the store calls the FBI and tells them who I am and asks the FBI if it's ok for me to buy a gun.

And these are the same people who want to take care of
your health problems. Now doesn't that really make your
day?

[BradLohaus]

Don't support the NRA. They are weak at best and sellouts at worst.

Gun Owners of America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America

http://www.gunowners.org/

[xrayzebra]

I think the europeans on this board think americas go gun shopping at the corner grocery store...

I think you are right. And carry them on our hip like the
old cowboy movies. But what the hey, Hooray for Hollywood!

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you are right. And carry them on our hip like the
old cowboy movies. But what the hey, Hooray for Hollywood!


well we do have a cowboy in the white house

[Wild Cobra]

If the lawyers for keeping gun ownership are smart, and I bet they are...

Militia, in the united states means:

"the entire body liable to be called upon to do military duty"

That is from my century old dictionary. I doubt the meaning changed much from when the 2nd amendment was written.

Therefore, as long as we require 18 year olds to sign up for the selective service, or ever may have a draft... the 2nd amendment means all 18+ men can own and keep weapons.

What about women? Can the ban women from bearing arms?

[Wild Cobra]

What the hell....

BUMP

Thought I would add that people really need to stop being ignorant when it comes to the constitution. Use the oldest dictionary you can find because words change meanings over time, and the meaning at the time it was written is what matters. Not today's viewpoint of a definition. I have little faith in dictionaries that are not at least 100 years old when it comes to interpreting the constitution. That is why after years of search, I bought a 1906 dictionary. Legal dictionaries also help to define how the courts view words.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gtownspur gets guns rammed into his mouth daily

[braeden0613]

i won't be turning over my gun, ah, ever.
Yeah they can interpret it to mean only water pistols if they want, but i wont be giving up mine.