Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did read those. I then read the gun laws of this country consistently approved by the supreme court, which rely on the principle that all rights have limits and the government can and do limit all rights.
I though about the wackos who somehow feel that owning a gun compensates for their other shortcoming, and their disappointment and feelings of outrage. I decided that they would just have to live with their feelings of inadequacy.
Funny,
Its pretty well accepted that this recent case, which got an unreasonable law tossed out, one you support, because, well, you are unreasonable, is the first time they ever seriously reviewed the second amendment.
But dont let truth bother you. Gun laws have been consistently ignored by the Supreme court not approved.
The fact that you can say "I decided they should live with their feelings of inadequacy" Is pretty funny. A man so insecure he feels good about a restrictive law even after its ruled unconstitutional talks about others insecurities? Yeah ok, Roll another one Churchie.
What I have been preaching all along is that laws regulating gun ownership is best left to the state and local government; and not made a national (i.e., federal) issue. At least at the state and local level, we shall have more "say" about our rights than we ever will in Congress. Unhappily, the recent decision of District of Columbia v. Heller leaves the door wide-open for federal regulation, which will trump state and local law.
What I have been preaching all along is that laws regulating gun ownership is best left to the state and local government; and not made a national (i.e., federal) issue. At least at the state and local level, we shall have more "say" about our rights than we ever will in Congress. Unhappily, the recent decision of District of Columbia v. Heller leaves the door wide-open for federal regulation, which will trump state and local law.
It cant be local, since is part of our constitution..
Since is part of our constitution this is Federal...
This is the first step..
Wendell, could you please decide whether you're for or against the individual's right to own a handgun?
After all your arguing against it in the "guns" thread ("I don't see a need for individuals to have handguns, or even the military"), it's confusing to some of us when you imply on other threads (like this one) that you're upset at the prospect of the Heller decision being undermined.
I am for less regulation of guns as a general proposition; however, I think that handguns should be stictly regulated, because of their use in criminal activities. Certainly, law-abiding citizens should be able to have handguns; however, I don't think that extends to military weapons, which have no place in the home. The Heller decision will make it very difficult for us to have either, because it has given no clear direction as what is to be allowed. So what we will see is more laws restricting our rights, and more lawsuits that will limit our rights as well. What I foresee is gun control like never before.
Last edited by Wendell Phillips; 07-24-2008 at 03:27 PM..
I am for less regulation of guns as a general proposition; however, I think that handguns should be stictly regulated, because of their use in criminal activities. Certainly, law-abiding citizens should be able to have handguns; howver, I don't think that extends to military weapons, which have no place in the home. The Heller decision will make it very difficult for us to have either, because it has given no clear direction as what is to be allowed. So what we will see is more laws restricting our rights, and more lawsuits that will limit our rights as well. What I foresee is gun control like never before.
So you are for regulations, just not a law that leaves the interpretation of those regulations open to debate? Is that correct?
I am for less regulation of guns as a general proposition; however, I think that handguns should be stictly regulated, because of their use in criminal activities. Certainly, law-abiding citizens should be able to have handguns; however, I don't think that extends to military weapons, which have no place in the home.
So - you don't think private citizens should be able to own a Glock? After all - the military uses them Wendell!
Handgun sales here in Az (and other western states) are brisk - concealed carry permit applications have soared - more and more are carrying concealed. Same in other parts of the country.
To use an old expression - the Genie is out of the bottle Wendell
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only the first
