Finally an Issue I can march the streets with the Tea baggers side by side.

[Korietsu]

I honestly am baffled.

[Cephius]

Btw Ceph You're telling me that Tea baggers would overlook this blatant encroachment of states' rights simply because of their love of guns?

You're selling those Patriotic Americans short. figures you would try and marginalize them like this. Next you're gonna call them racists.

lol, not gonna bite

[kareface]

The constitution was always intended to be amended by future generations. I don't see why there should still be a right for everyone to bare arms. This isn't colonial America and when was the last time large numbers of in the public's hands ended in anything other than more gun violence. Guns are great recreationally, but I can't see a good reason to keep them around in the numbers we have them today. Something like requiring gun storage at recreational facilities and limiting at home permits to few if any. No one cares how much you love your guns, people love killing hookers and doing coke but that doesn't make it legal.

[Cleverness]

I don't really care what these judges think, NY isn't gonna suddenly drop the super secure and time-consuming-for-our-safety process of getting a gun permit cause these assholes say so. No one wants it to revert back to the 80's and 90's where gun violence was at ridiculous levels, people are already scared about stepping into crowded areas on Easter still.

[Sylvrdragon]

I usually don't touch political threads and whatnot, but I'm one of those who just can't look away when someone shouts that the sky is falling.

Explain to me how a ruling that prevents the banning of something = Big Government? They are saying "The Government can not, and will not take this away from you."

Maybe I just don't know what "Big Government" means.

[Korietsu]

As long as they forcibly repeal the "scary gun features" lists around the country everything will be fine. No reason for me to be able to not defend my home with a handgun when someone enters.

Its not like the mayor of Chicago is going to let this happen anyway. Going to impose as many restrictions as possible, but not legally bar anyone from handguns. I mean hell, his PSD knowingly violated the handgun ban, and nothing happened to them. Shame the whole city is so crooked.

http://www.modelguns-worldwide.com/images/mini14p.jpg

http://web.blogs.clarin.com/lenovision/files/ar151.jpg

Can anyone tell me the difference? Cause this right here is why gun laws are fucked up.

[Gregorio]

Explain to me how a ruling that prevents the banning of something = Big Government? They are saying "The Government can not, and will not take this away from you."

Maybe I just don't know what "Big Government" means.

It doesn't, OP is trolling.

The Supreme Court striking down state/local laws that limit freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is no new thing, and is not an interference onto states' rights.

[Rhinox]

I usually don't touch political threads and whatnot, but I'm one of those who just can't look away when someone shouts that the sky is falling.

Explain to me how a ruling that prevents the banning of something = Big Government? They are saying "The Government can not, and will not take this away from you."

Maybe I just don't know what "Big Government" means.

Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?

You can't be this stupid.

[Rhinox]

It doesn't, OP is trolling.

The Supreme Court striking down state/local laws that limit freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is no new thing, and is not an interference onto states' rights.

Bullshit its not.

Conservatives cry about states rights and limited government when it comes to shit they believe in and not things the overwhelming majority of the local population wants in gun control.

[Rhinox]

As long as they forcibly repeal the "scary gun features" lists around the country everything will be fine. No reason for me to be able to not defend my home with a handgun when someone enters.

Its not like the mayor of Chicago is going to let this happen anyway. Going to impose as many restrictions as possible, but not legally bar anyone from handguns. I mean hell, his PSD knowingly violated the handgun ban, and nothing happened to them. Shame the whole city is so crooked.

http://www.modelguns-worldwide.com/images/mini14p.jpg

http://web.blogs.clarin.com/lenovision/files/ar151.jpg

Can anyone tell me the difference? Cause this right here is why gun laws are fucked up.

Obviously both are used in hunting dear and other small game.


And enough with the Chicago being crooked spiel. You know nothing of Chicago politics aside from what you read in the gun right forums.

[Korietsu]

One of those is not allowed in California, one is. They both shoot the same ammunition to the same accuracy and ranges. Same thing with NY iirc.

[antihero]

ITT: Americans think their opinions make any difference whatsoever in government ideology.

[Gregorio]

Bullshit its not.

Conservatives cry about states rights and limited government when it comes to shit they believe in and not things the overwhelming majority of the local population wants in gun control.

The overwhelming majority of the local populations before and during the Civil Rights movement wanted segregation. I guess it was fine then?

If Chicago were to ban the freedom of the press I'm sure the Supreme Court would step in and overturn that as well. Upholding the Constitution is not an interference into states' rights.

[Rhinox]

Both should be banned.

[Rhinox]

The overwhelming majority of the local populations before and during the Civil Rights movement wanted segregation. I guess it was fine then?

If Chicago were to ban the freedom of the press I'm sure the Supreme Court would step in and overturn that as well. Upholding the Constitution is not an interference into states' rights.

ITT: Gun right legislation is the same as Human Right legislation.

[Sylvrdragon]

Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?

You can't be this stupid.

Oh, so Big Government is a completely subjective term that shouldn't (read: Can't) be used for the basis of a logical discussion. Good to know.

Also

Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?

I don't recall saying ANY of that, so:

Please tell me I'm wrong

You're wrong.

[Melchiah]

I had to vote "GunsGunsGunsblahblah", not because that's how I feel but because it's the closest thing to my position. I am a firearm enthusiast, as most of you know by now. I do not see this as an usurpation of state's rights, because this ruling empowers the people.

Responsible gun ownership is not a crime, nor should it ever be legislated as such.

I've said this before, and it usually falls on deaf ears(except jmcgarrell, he knows his shit), but historically it has been a tactic of totalitarian governments to disarm the people they rule. For a recent example in history, you need look no further than our cousins in Britain. The country doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to us. Our right to keep weapons is the final check and balance. Neither the Federal nor State or local governments have the right to disarm responsible citizens, I'm sorry. I'll never concede this point, period.

I will agree to the following: State governments have the right to deny any weapon to any person meeting any of the following criteria: Persons convicted of violent crime(s), persons having served or been sentenced to over one year in a Federal prison, persons deemed unstable enough by a licensed psychiatrist to responsibly own a weapon, foreign nationals and prisoners. I'm sure there are other instances that belong on this list, but this is all I can come up with at the moment. Denying these people weapons is reasonably within the interests of public safety. Outright bans are not. Outright bans are in the interest of making the public docile, toothless and malleable.

[Gregorio]

ITT: Gun right legislation is the same as Human Right legislation.

ITT: Comparing Bill of Rights amendments is somehow not a legitimate point when discussing Constitutional Law?

EDIT: Also: "Please tell me I'm wrong in reading you just said Big Government label only applies to conservative values when it comes to bans like Pro-choice legislation and not to ban on Liberal values like gun control?"

Where in his post did he mention anything remotely conservative?

Seconded on the "you're wrong".

[Rhinox]

Oh, so Big Government is a completely subjective term that shouldn't (read: Can't) be used for the basis of a logical discussion. Good to know.

Also



I don't recall saying ANY of that, so:



You're wrong.

No, I'm saying using Big Government to bash Democratic administration ignoring its logical fallacy is pretty retarded.

If you truly were a small government guy you don't want the Federal Government intervening under any circumstance.

[Mocker]

So your saying is they are essentially held hostage by the withholding of funds?

didn't know Canada was the Cuba to the north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...inking_Age_Act