2A hits the Court today - any predictions?

tyr_shadowblade said:
The Militia Act (AKA Dick Act) of 1903 officially created the National Guard -- more than a century after the 2nd Amendment was penned by the Founders. The Founders' vision of the "militia" was CLEARLY that of an armed populace serving as citizen soldiers, much like the current Swiss system.

Citizen militias today are a sad joke. And some politicians, like Joe Biden, want to make participation in a militia a federal felony.

2nd Amendment clearly guarantees INDIVIDUAL right to firearm ownership -- at least in one's abode, business, or vehicle. CCW can be left up to municipalities to decide . . . as long as infractions are not punishable as felonies, absent any other offense or obvuious criminal intent.
Click to expand...


I agree, it is without any doubt and INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

I can not see why the 2A is the only one in the BILL OF RIGHTS to NOT be individual rights. So what does that mean for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual rights or not?

Also, they ALL apply to DC or NONE of them apply to DC. You can not pick and choose which ones you want. Next you will see freedom of speech in DC, but you can't say anything bad about the gooberment??? Saying something bad about the government does not apply here???


If people ever pull their head out of their forth point of contact which I doubt will ever happen, they will understand that you can not blame guns for crime anymore than you can blame Fords for drunk drivers killing people on the road. Let's eliminate 4000 pound magnums from the road. :rolleyes:

I always ask people who blames guns for crime, and not the individuals this question, "SINCE GUNS ARE SO BAD, FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, WOULD YOU RATHER BE LOCKED IN A ROOM FOR 24 HOURS WITH A LOADED GUN SITTING IN THE CORNER, OR WITH CHARLES MANSON?" I mean guns are so dangerous right? I then keep dropping the amount of time I ask them to stay with Manson to prove my point to show people are afraid of people, not guns or Fords.

It now becomes the point that you just don't want me to have guns at all. Well that is NOT a free country. I say to them if you were truly afraid of me having guns, you would NOT be speaking to me the way you are knowing I have guns. I ask them would you speak to Manson that way if locked in a room for 5 minutes with him? I mean he is UNARMED, and I am armed. You should feel free to say anything to him that you want to, just like you are with me right now, right?

Then I say something like, so wait a minute, it really isn't people like ME with guns you are afraid of, it is CRIMINALS with guns, right? Oh wait, Charles is UNARMED, so it really isn't guns either, it is just a CRIMINAL you are afraid of, RIGHT??


I always try to leave them with an out to redeem themselves. I tell them that I understand why they feel the way they do because that is all they have ever been told, so I understand. I then ask them if they feel they are an HONEST man or woman?

Then I say just remember, "When an honest man is HONESTLY mistaken, and shown the truth, he will do one of two things. One he will quit being mistaken, or two he will quit being honest." What are you going to do?
 
Very good point Big Bunker! You summed up my thoguhts very well. If the Justices realize this, we definately will keep our rights. I associate it with a mis-identification of when the problem's symptoms should be adressed versus the source of the problem. Attacking the source of gun violence would be more impossible then Prohibition was.
 
tyr_shadowblade said:
You do realize that Charlie is about 5'4", 115#, and rather feeble nowadays?
Click to expand...

I guess there are two ways to look at it: Charlie Manson the person or Charles Manson the idea. Maybe in this case one could us Dr Hannibal Lecter, since the person does not exist, only the character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top