Supreme court rules in favor of Anti-Gunners! Are ye for or agin?

Cpl Brett Wagner — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:36:25 -0400

Another strike against law abiding gun owners, what is your opinion?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 25 at 2014 10:01 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:01:21 -0400

For a Strict interpratation or a more liberal interpratation. In a Conservative Interpratation using all the words in the 2nd Amendment the only ones who's rights are guranteed are members of the Regulated Militia. i.e. the Military and National Guard. In a more Liberal Interpratation we ignore the first part and emphasize the end "Shall not be Infiringed". I am more of a Moderate when it Comes to the 2nd Amendment taking it as written but respecting the Home and Castle concept first put forward by the Magna Carta.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2014 10:05 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:05:15 -0400

No matter what, it still states that people can bear arms in the duties of, or to form, a well regulated militia. The Guard and Reserve forces aren't militia. They are government regulated armed forces. Being part of, or forming a militia requires the ability to bear arms, thus the people's ability to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can't form or participate in a militia if you don't have "arms". No matter how people interpret it, this is what it was for.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jun 25 at 2014 10:54 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:54:52 -0400

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-federal-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns [login to see] ?mobile=y

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jun 25 at 2014 11:01 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 23:01:45 -0400

What was the case? Can't voice an opinion without seeing the details.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jun 25 at 2014 11:08 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 23:08:55 -0400

This link should have been displayed with my original post.http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-federal-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns [login to see] ?mobile=y

Response by CPL Richard Redus made Jun 26 at 2014 8:50 AM

CPL Richard Redus — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:50:56 -0400

It depends on the particular law. Do I think a psychopathic monster recently released from prison should be able to walk into a gun show and walk out with an arsenal? Of course not; however, I do stand firmly for the 2nd Amendment.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2014 10:54 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:54:29 -0400

I am not sure about all states, but in TX and TN straw purchases were already illegal. I do not support any further gun laws when we fail to enforce the ones we already have.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jun 26 at 2014 1:14 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:14:39 -0400

To every one on RP and part of this discussion. This is all just debate and none of it is meant to be malicious.

It has taken some wild turns going into Class III weapons etc. Very interesting to read the different points of view from military members from different backgrounds and geographic regions.

I am originally from NY-NJ circa 1962-1979 and from 1979 to 1987 I did not think anyone but the military and police should own guns. Then I started to pursue a degree in American History and began to read our founding father documents and understand our Constitution. I educated myself on guns laws so I could debate logically and with the use of facts not opinions.

It was May 19, 1986 when President Ronald Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act which contained a provision banning the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986. Therefore no fully automatic weapon registered (manufacturer) after May 19, 1986 can be purchased. There is a lengthy background investigation (12-18 months) performed to acquire a Class III license and a $500 fee.

Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban.

In Kennesaw, Georgia's there is an ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

Interesting Facts

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

In Switzerland
In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Jun 26 at 2014 2:24 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:24:56 -0400

This is what happens when you stack a deck. Reworking the Bill of Rights without an amendment to it is against the Constitution itself. Here again is why I believe we need to vote none of the above when it comes to elections over the next 6 to 8 years. As Robin Rushlo has said sweep the house clean from top to bottom and start over with people dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution as it stands today. I don't know how to fix the Supreme Court as they are appointed for life or as long they wish to serve. The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. Corruption reigns in our nations capital and we need to fix it. As has been said time and time again Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. It takes a hand to squeeze a trigger and that hand must be attached to the arm of a human being.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2014 12:00 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:00:04 -0400

Another ruling in favor of anti-gunners: http://www.9news.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/26/fed-judge-rules-against-colorado-sheriffs-in-their-lawsuit/11423879/

Federal Judge upheld the new laws in Colorado which put restrictions on sales of weapons as well as magazine capacities.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Jun 27 at 2014 12:39 PM

SSG John Bacon — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:39:25 -0400

I have one word for you... Chicago. nuf said!!

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Jul 15 at 2014 2:43 PM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:43:33 -0400

Its odd, you know? I grew up in a house that had guns. Every one in my high school hunted or had a family member who did so, and there weren't any shootings at schools.
I choose not to be a victim, and only once in all the time I've carried a gun, have I had to pull it, but I'd rather HAVE it when I needed it, then not have it, so I am against laws that keep law abiding citizens from owning weapons, as long as they are mentally stable enough to handle the responsibility.

Response by SGT Celia Martinez made Jul 15 at 2014 4:33 PM

SGT Celia Martinez — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:33:14 -0400

The problem I see that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the problem, it's the criminals that acquire it to do crimes. I bet if a criminal knows that people carry guns, they'll think twice in hurting someone & the rampage of killings going on is because those people were mentally ill, if a person wanted to kill a mass of people, you could use a car, so if that the case, will you take cars away too. No, it's what needs to do is to educate people first before acquiring a gun. Check on people history if has a mental issues that shown signs of killing other people. But taking guns away, it's not the answer at all.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2014 8:25 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 20:25:21 -0500

You would think folks will get the point of "IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, THEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED"...... What part of that do they not understand