Liberal 9th Circuit Court Strengthens 2nd Amendement Rights

That Constitutional right does not forbid licensing, obviously.

Don't put word's in my mouth, I did not say that. The constitution gives you the right to vote, too, but guess what? You have to qualify and be registered! The right to bear arms is a privilege that must be earned. You should have to be a citizen of legal age, mentally competent, not a felon, and have received some safety training--just like for a carry permit . . . but cheaper.

It's the LAW OF THE LAND, mc. You expound the Constitution on one hand while you ignore it on another. The 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments all apply. Our system of Justice, the thing that America stand's for, demands that a prisoner be tried in a court of law or be released.

We've been releasing them by the thousands for 6 years because they were not guilty. Why don't you want to try them and jail them or execute them if they are guilty? Why do you hate America? :wink:

The first WTC bombers were caught, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned for life. Legally, constitutionally, and able to withstand any legal challenge. Our system works. We have to follow it or our enemies will use this aganst us in the future. We will have prisoners taken again some day and they will use our own foolish legal evasions to evade proper trials for our own prisoners.

Both would be effective, but purchase control is vastly cheaper. Why do you think law-abiding Americans have a need to purchase thousand of assault rifles in a single day. It ain't for hunting or defense. It's for reselling to those outside the law. How do you defend that?

Is it really a big infringement on you to not be allowed to buy 100 rifles a day? Even if it keep tens of thousands of them out of the hands of criminals?

 

Actually most of the scumbags do not use full-auto weapons. Only because they can't get them and because police take them very seriously. Police are among the biggest gun-control advocates out there.

Legitimate collectors can get licenses to own full auto weapons, even machine guns, but they are tightly registered and can only be fired on approved ranges under approved authority, they can't be used for home defense or hunting. I have no problem with this. Special privileges require special regulations to protect everyone concerned.

 

Laws such as you suggest here already exist at the state level, and have obviously passed the Supreme Court's muster. You've already won this battle, amigo.

The WTC bombers executed an attack against American civilians on American soil. The guys I'm talking about are people suspected of acting in the manner of terrorists...to define, performing military-style attacks against American military forces while not representing a recognized government. I'm all for seeing them meet swift justice, and I wouldn't even complain if we finished the job by employing the Red Chinese practice of billing the surviving family members for the bullet. :hihi: However, I believe they should have met their justice at the hands of a military tribunal.

(footnote: notice Red's use of the winking icon, signifying that he does not really believe that I hate America, which is why I do not take umbrage. Just something for those who get a little too riled during these threads to take note of)

Yes, our scrupulous handling of the WTC bombers according to the Constitution earned us so much respect from our enemies, that they hijacked planes and finished the job on 9-11-01. Face it, they hate us. If we served them prime rib in prison every day, bin Laden would videotape messages complaining that we were mistreating Allah-fearing Muslems by clogging their arteries.

Freedom's a b!tch, ain't it? :lol: Seriously, your logic is compelling, and if the Second Amendment does not allow law enforcement to keep tabs on the large movement of weapons, it should. But to backtrack to a previous post. It's not the Domino Theory we're talking about here, it more the "Camel's Nose in the Tent" theory. And yes, we have seen it in action on several issues, the free use of tobacco in our society being one that immediately springs to mind. The erosion of freedoms does not happen overnight. I know you do not deny that there are those who will not stop until the Second Amendment is completely overturned, and the free ownership of guns revoked. If they get the "hundreds of guns" ban you're talking about tomorrow, they won't go for the rest on Saturday. They'll go for a little at a time.

 

I understand exactly, but I think we can concede a lot of common-sense items without surrendering the core of our beliefs. The extreme gun-control types must concede this core in return for eliminating the ridiculous, dangerous stuff.

 

What extreme liberal is screwing with it?