Comments on: Judge affirms DC’s assault weapons ban

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:46:23 +0000

The heller decision stated that the 2nd amendmend protects the right of the people to own guns “in common use at the time”.
Since semi-automatic handguns outsell revolvers by a large margin, and many, many semi-automatic pistols have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, how can it be argued that ownership of an 11-round magazine, or a semi-automatic pistol is not protected? Millions of AR-15 rifles have been sold to civilians. How is that not “in common use”?
This decision should be overturned.

By: questioner

questioner — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:43:23 +0000

To those who believe this ruling is wrong, I have a question.

Unless you believe we all have the right to own an atomic bomb (remember, there are those who would really like to get their hands on one,) where DO we draw the line on “arms” that the Constitution protects.

This question is not snide or snarky. I would really like to know where people, especially “pro-arms” people, think the line should be drawn.

By: griff

griff — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:28:51 +0000

In Guatemala the only people with arms are the military, police, and the druglords. The people are held hostage, so you’re correct, in a way.

By: Bopper

Bopper — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:23:41 +0000

Don’t you know, fully auto, weapons of mas destruction are a guaranteed right under the constitution. These goobers are bound to turn us into Guatemala, if they have their way.

By: silentSCREAM

silentSCREAM — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:25:51 +0000

If the thin thread that binds [American] civilization snaps, when the dust settles, life won’t be much worth living anyway.

Newsflash. Popular survivalist schemes fall far short of actual proliferation requirements. The ‘winners’ on the other side will ultimately rise from the ranks of the well-organized and operable underground societies who currently sustain themselves beyond the rule of law. The well established social hierarchy present in today’s predatory criminal class will provide them with an insurmountable advantage. Nationwide they already number in the millions. They don’t work day jobs. Never have. They don’t know what it means to earn an honest living. They live amongst us in virtually every community. Their existence is already determined by conflict and violence on a daily basis.

Loosely organized survivalist groups or individuals may fare better than the general population… for a time. The only exception would be for those survivalist types who enjoy a postion of extreme isolation and an ability to gather sustenance while maintaining absolut stealth. Those numbers would be few. If you can count yourself as one of those few, I wish you well… should the day be upon us.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:09:59 +0000

I suppose if one were to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution then it would only apply to flintlocks … rifles or pistols

By: griff

griff — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:48:23 +0000

Nazification for Dummies, I believe.

By: woody188

woody188 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 04:45:44 +0000

Whenever a product is prohibited by law it always seems to remain readily available. Prohibition merely takes away any chance of controlling a product as black markets will form to meet the demand.

By: Carl Nemo

Carl Nemo — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:58:48 +0000

Hi SilentSCREAM,

“Appears you’ve bought the hard sell, Carl.” ….extract from post

I don’t buy anyone’s line of reasoning or facts. I’m an inveterate data miner, reader of books and periodicals and one that is capable of synthesis of my own ideas from gleaning varied sources.

If you honestly believe there’s no difference in our current leadership from the past then there’s no reason to dispute your claim predicated on your belief system. We simply have a difference of opinion…no?

All I can say as to whether anything happens or not; ie., the “balloon goes up”, hopefully you and yours are prepared for the worst possible scenario. : |

“To be forewarned is to be forearmed”…Cervantes

Carl Nemo **==

By: silentSCREAM

silentSCREAM — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 01:11:29 +0000

“seeming end times for the Republic”

“less than honorable leadership we now have at the helm”

Appears you’ve bought the hard sell, Carl.

The end times are closer than most understand, but most who believe do so for the wrong reasons. Unless one is of an age likely to live well into the latter days of this century, they won’t see the republic fall… or even splinter. Conditions are far from what they need to be. Granted, the scenarios are now in play, but we’ve got a ways to go till the final act.

So far as less than honorable leadership at the helm. Other than our modern era of MSM disinformation, there’s no great political difference from past times.