Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 153

Thread: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

  1. #101
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by ConservaBill View Post
    The "common sense" is if your aim is protect your family and property from those that would do you harm, you'd better damnwell be BETTER armed than them... Have you ever heard of a little thing called a home invasion?? ..maybe not..
    "Common sense" says that if you are using deadly force to protect you and your family, then you want a wapon that is "designed to kill people".

    Seems to me that this is exactly the argument the anti-gun loons use against 'assault weapons' - like the AK47.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    I hope the SC goes the other way, we need a revolution....

  3. #103
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    "Common sense" says that if you are using deadly force to protect you and your family, then you want a wapon that is "designed to kill people".

    Seems to me that this is exactly the argument the anti-gun loons use against 'assault weapons' - like the AK47.
    If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
    He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
    Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
    After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

  4. #104
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
    He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
    After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

    Dude, that is so unrealistic and ivory-tower that I hardly know where to BEGIN with what all is wrong with it.

    I can't imagine someone having the faintest smallest clue about anything to do with the reality of crime having such a naive opinion.

    At any rate, until they invent the Star Trek Phaser with Stun Setting this wish is SOL.

    BTW, tasers don't qualify, they are a somewhat-useful tool for LE use for taking people into custody, but they have a number of limitations that make them poorly suited for actual self-defense....you'll note that cops still carry real guns too ---- guess what there is a reason for that!

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #105
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
    He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death.
    When deadly forece is required, there is no substitute. You MIGHT be able to stop someone by 'stunning' them, but for that to be your primary intent, when deadly force is required, then you're unnecessarily putting your life, and the lives of the people you are protecting, at risk.

    The use of of a gun, or any other deadly weapon, is, in and of itself, deadly force. If you are justified in using some such deadly weapon, then you are justified in killing the person(s) you are using it against.

    Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
    That happened w while ago


    After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.
    I'm FAR too good looking to ever consider that.

  6. #106
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Thumbs down Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
    He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
    Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
    After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.
    What happens when that doesn't work?

    What happens when they actually die because of it?
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

  7. #107
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by stevenb View Post
    What happens when that doesn't work?

    What happens when they actually die because of it?

    That's a good point.

    Pepperspray doesn't always work. OTOH, Sometimes people have violently allergic reactions and there have been deaths.

    Tasers do not always work right. OTOH, there have been more than a few deaths occuring immediately after being Tasered, though Taser denies any link.

    Bashing someone on the head is no guarantee of a knockout, and any blow to the head hard enough to KO is potentially hard enough to cause brain damage or fatality, especially if a blunt instrument is used.

    The poster in question has no knowlege of what he is advocating, I'm afraid.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #108
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The US Supreme Court is taking up the question on whether the Second Amendment forbids gun control. This is going to be a very interesting case, and if the Supremes rule according to the Constitution, you are going to see the overturning of gun laws in many states.

    Cross your fingers, folks. And as big of a Bush basher as I have been, I will grant him this - His choices for Supreme Court justices were excellent.

    If the court rules favorably against gun control, it WILL be Bush's fault, and I will be more than proud to say "Well done, Mr. President", for a change.

    Article is here.
    Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?

    Do people really believe that gun laws in rural areas would work in Los Angeles and New York?

    In Los Angeles you have to give your fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Good!

    "The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.

    Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!

    And the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.

    There is a long history of local sheriff's determining what was safe and sane within city limits.

    And the whole notion that if everyone were strapped we'd all be safer is so ****ing retarded its unbelievable. Cars weren't even designed as weapons and you still need a license to drive.

    Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.

    I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?

    The NRA hated Micheal Moore's movie because it revealed some ugly truths about the backwards, paranoid, uneducated gun owner. I don't know if that represents the majority or minority of gun owners, but they do exist. And in their sick paranoid minds, gun control laws are somehow aimed at taking away their rights. No lame-brain, gun control laws are meant to stop flooding the streets with illegal unregistered weapons used by criminals.

    We don't care about some toothless banjo player shooting at cans. Or deer. Or ducks. (cause it's such a fair fight and modern hunting is such real sport...) We care about the handguns and weapons being used by felons. Are you a felon? Then chill the **** out and shut the **** up.


  9. #109
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?
    Since you support states infringing on or violating constitutional rights, then you support a state sponsored church or a city council using tax payer money to erected a big cross on city hall or states mandating the teaching of creation in schools instead of evolution or states enacting jim crow laws?


    Do people really believe that gun laws in rural areas would work in Los Angeles and New York?
    Do you really believe a criminal is sitting there thinking "oh those damn anti-2nd amendment laws piss me off and I was gonna rob a liquore store today or I was going to go car jacking but I need a ****ing license or have to wait several days before buying a gun"?



    In Los Angeles you have to give your fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Good!
    So you support submitting a finger print to buy paper,pencils computers and to make a phone call and anything that is basically support asking the government permission to exercise a right?

    "The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.
    The second amendment states "arms", that means weapons in general nothing specific and the 2nd also says "shall not be infringed". So that means the government has no business banning weapons.


    Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!

    The it wasn't invented argument can be used for the internet, modern printing presses, telephones, warrantless wire taps on citizens making calls to other citizens and so on.


    And the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.
    You still have to get the child to be doing something illegal in order to take those pictures or video.


    There is a long history of local sheriff's determining what was safe and sane within city limits.
    There was a long history with slavery, racial discrimination and other things. It doesn't make them right.

    And the whole notion that if everyone were strapped we'd all be safer is so ****ing retarded its unbelievable.
    No, what is ****en retard is the whole notion that somehow enacting anti-2nd amendment laws is somehow going to take away guns from people who in the first place do not already obey the law.

    Cars weren't even designed as weapons and you still need a license to drive.
    Irrelevant argument. Driving is not a constitutional right and a license is permission from the state to drive cars on the road. No right should require permission from the government.

    Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.

    I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?
    Seeing how it is a constitutional right it is no one's business how many or what kind of firearms or weapons someone owns.


    And in their sick paranoid minds, gun control laws are somehow aimed at taking away their rights.
    Gun control laws are aimed on taking away or severely restricting their rights.Obviously you failed to read the shall not infringe part and the whole concept of a right is that you do not need permission from the government to exercise that right.

    No lame-brain, gun control laws are meant to stop flooding the streets with illegal unregistered weapons used by criminals.
    So you admit that anti-2nd amendment laws are pointless with this statement?

    We care about the handguns and weapons being used by felons.
    So you are cool if the government said that since were a felon you do not have a right to free speech religion or any other constitutional rights?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 10-04-09 at 03:02 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #110
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,737

    Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
    He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
    Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
    After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.
    I disagree. If someone comes into my home with intent to cause harm, he needs to leave my home graveyard dead. I have no qualms about killing someone on that basis. Better him than me or my family.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •