Jump to content

Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment...


jdmidwest

Recommended Posts

The case came about because DC had banned citizens from owning a handgun in DC. The case was argued on whether you could own, and keep a gun in your own home. The court said you can't prohibit a person from owning a gun kept in their home. What it said of equal importance,if not, was that you can't ban guns. You can regulate up to the poit of bans, but can't ban. This is important because Australia did.

Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's been many leaders in the past who've been very inspirational, but have ended up doing much harm to their courtry and the world. I've been living in the South-Chicago suburbs for a little under a year now, and will be moving back in August. People are stuck on hand-outs here. They expect the government to provide everything they need, and couldn't fathom being responsible for themselves - just like in New Orleans with Katrina. Obama's policies - and Democrat policies by extension - do little to abate this problem. In fact, most of their policies perpetuate it.

People dependant on the government are not free. Their well-being is in the hands of the government - inparticular a beauracracy that's not accountable. Government can't give freedom, it can only take it away. It can't create money, it can only redistribute it. (Even if it prints more it's not creating wealth since the additional dollars decrease the value of the dollars that are currently in circulation.) I don't like either choice (I liked Fred Thompson), but I think McCain will do less damage than the O. What's more, I know McCain has stood up for his beliefs against popular opinion (boarder security, supreme court justice filibuster, etc.), and a leader should be able to do that. I can't say the same for Obama. Not that he hasn't, I just don't know about it.

Back to guns:

Mark my words - the constitution says nothing about a right to ammunition, and that's what's next on the hit list for the anti-gun lobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, ammo is the next step. First to lose was the Winchester Black Talon, it caused too much damage? It was intended to kill what it hit and it did, Winchester renamed to Failsafe, same design. Lead bullets and lead shot get eaten by game birds and condors, so no more lead in the field. Then there is the bullet fingerprinting of the barrel rifling. And some are suggesting serial numbers on ammo.

My other pet peeve is all of the lock devices that come with today's firearms. Handguns have a trigger lock, all come in a lock box or with a trigger lock.

Reloading is taking a hit too. On top of prices going higher than gasoline, some are suggesting restriction on amounts and components.

I read a great statement the other day, take your stimulus check and buy a gun. Let the government buy your next gun.

"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously."

— Hunter S. Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of a beauracracy not being held accountable...how about our current beauracracy? $9.4 trillion dollar National debt. $450 billion dollars per year in interest payments on that debt. $300 economic stimulus check...the American people being lied to in order to justify war with Iraq....priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at my new thread under General Chat about Handguns the result for over half of suicides. Anti-gunners had to get a little air time also.

"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously."

— Hunter S. Thompson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies or no Lies, Iraq was one of the axis of evils. Not to mention that we needed a military playground to fight the war on terror. So we set up on level ground and said "you wanted us? now you have us Come at get us!" Keeps them from coming to American soil by virtually taking the fight to them. I think it was excelllent strategy! Getting rid of Saddam was just the cherry on top.

I hate to listen to people belly ache about the costs. Ask the families of those who lost loved ones when the towers fell if its justified!

"May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Trav, I think our viewpoints kind of differ on this topic.

It's my understanding, we invaded Afghanistan to fight the war on terror and find Osama. We went to war with Iraq because Saddam supposedly had WMD's. It's my opinion, going into Afghanistan was a good strategy, but, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. Hindsight is obviously 20.20, but, an attempt at diplomacy would have been the more logical route. We rushed to judgement and now McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. That just don't make sense.

I'm bellyaching about the costs because I feel it's taxation without representation. I don't like having my tax dollars spent to support an unjustified war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause they haven't found any terrorists in Iraq.......sarcasm

I agree with Trav...we took the war to them and kept them from hitting us again on our soil.

How much did it cost to lose the Trade Centers?

Dennis

Eat, Fish, Sleep,....Repeat

Member: ozarkflyfishers http://www.ozarkflyfishers.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

We learned real fast what Russia knew all along! A full out war in Afghanistan is suicide. Let me emphasize the phrase Level Battle ground! And the intention was purposeful. Being in Iraq we drew terrorist to us there, where it is militarily more suited for success. That was the purpose I believe. Plus we can camp out right next to Iran and let them know we can shock and awe thier arses too! Lets not forget that syria and iran were probably the main reason we chose to sink roots in Iraq. Not Saddam. Saddam was just the excuse we used to establish our power in the region.

Like it or not, we are there and the plan is working! As far as being there a 100 years....It wouldnt surprise me if we are there for longer. We have never really left any conquest in the past. As I have stated before..... We are still in Korea, Japan, and Germany. Half a century after we cleaned up those messes.

It is and will continue to be of importance to have our forces in those places and especially in the Mid-East. So quit your belly aching and accept the cold hard facts. Your sentiment is not shared by our men and women serving there. My step son has done 3 tours over thier. One of them in the first conflict 18 years ago. The concensus with service members that have been there is that if we would have done this in 1990, that we would probably still have the Towers!

"May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.