BuffettNews.com

weirdo0521 wrote:It will be interesting to see crime statistics in the near future. And how those numbers are spun.

You mean like including 18 and 19 year olds as "children" in the stats?

buffettbride wrote:

V-town Fin Truck wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

Skibo wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:As I stated when I posted this (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), I think the Supreme Court finally got one right.

As a bitter gun toting hick, I agree that they made a proper ruling here.

Parents of kids who were molested can kill the perpetrators themselves, now.

That would be a big negative. The right to own or the right to carry is NOT permision to shoot anybody, and should not even be thought of as such.

Why does a person need to carry a hand gun if they don't have permission to shoot anybody? Other than shooting at a range or for sport, what is the purpose of a hand gun?

(Just for clarification, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole gun control issue. I just don't get guns is all. I don't necessarily believe laws for/against guns actually keep people who shouldn't have them from having them.)

BB... you have once again displayed wisdom beyond your years.

If a bad guy is willing to break the laws against killing somebody, I can't imagine that a law prohibiting gun possession would bother him much.

Gun laws simply keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding (and therefore defenseless) citizens.

SharkOnLand wrote:

LIPH wrote:I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of a militia, well regulated or otherwise. I don't believe the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a gun. Your mileage may vary. That is all.

I guess it's all in how you interpret the commas.

James Madison should be have been sent back to school for a lesson in run-on sentences....

let's see... 1st amendment - 5 basic rights enumerated in 1 sentence alone. 2nd amendment - it only took 217 years to clarify what it said and then the meaning was still disputed in a 5 to 4 split by the supremes.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:

SharkOnLand wrote:

LIPH wrote:I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of a militia, well regulated or otherwise. I don't believe the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a gun. Your mileage may vary. That is all.

I guess it's all in how you interpret the commas.

James Madison should be have been sent back to school for a lesson in run-on sentences....

let's see... 1st amendment - 5 basic rights enumerated in 1 sentence alone. 2nd amendment - it only took 217 years to clarify what it said and then the meaning was still disputed in a 5 to 4 split by the supremes.

One of whom said the people living in high crime areas should not have the right to own a weapon.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So according to Justice Breyer our rights are contingent upon where we live within this country?

green1 wrote:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So according to Justice Breyer our rights are contingent upon where we live within this country?

You would think one of the top justices would be more careful in his selection of words and phrases. Seems he is attempting to confirm his belief in a political stance than actual law. Why mention loaded handguns, is it ok to keep unloaded handguns. The majority hear crime-ridden urban areas and they form opinions of NIMBY so they rationalize maybe its ok.

I wonder why a white liberal felt the need to single out "crime-ridden urban areas"? Maybe he's saying, in a roundabout way, that people like him should be able to possess handguns, for self defense or any other purpose, but the people who are most likely to be victims of crimes don't have that same right? Sorry for the cynicism.

Skibo wrote:You would think one of the top justices would be more careful in his selection of words and phrases. Seems he is attempting to confirm his belief in a political stance than actual law. Why mention loaded handguns, is it ok to keep unloaded handguns. The majority hear crime-ridden urban areas and they form opinions of NIMBY so they rationalize maybe its ok.

Exactly.

LIPH wrote:I wonder why a white liberal felt the need to single out "crime-ridden urban areas"? Maybe he's saying, in a roundabout way, that people like him should be able to possess handguns, for self defense or any other purpose, but the people who are most likely to be victims of crimes don't have that same right? Sorry for the cynicism.

Don Imus wrote:Black people live in the crime ridden urban areas...so there you go.

popcornjack wrote:

Heeeeeyyyyyy Macarena!

Skibo wrote:

green1 wrote:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So according to Justice Breyer our rights are contingent upon where we live within this country?

You would think one of the top justices would be more careful in his selection of words and phrases. Seems he is attempting to confirm his belief in a political stance than actual law. Why mention loaded handguns, is it ok to keep unloaded handguns. The majority hear crime-ridden urban areas and they form opinions of NIMBY so they rationalize maybe its ok.

so just what the hell does the 9th amendment mean to the supremes????

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Serious question:

If the Second Amendment means what gun enthusiasts think it means (ie no infringement of my right to keep and bear arms)

then why can't I own a Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar or Paladin M109A6 self-propelled Howitzer, for example?

I would appreciate a serious response.

We have had gun control for quite a few years - basically can only have weapons for hunting etc - need a licence. Not allowed to carry a weapon for personal protection.

I feel safer here than when I am in the USA ..... ie, I did not walk out at night in New Orleans, but I would do so here in Sydney. Less likelihood of getting shot ..... only way you would get exposed to it - is if you went to a particular area or two that are known as crime spots - but again - it is still relatively safe. And those crime spots are mainly chinatown and vietnamtown - where drugs are the centre piece.

flyboy55 wrote:Serious question:

If the Second Amendment means what gun enthusiasts think it means (ie no infringement of my right to keep and bear arms)

then why can't I own a Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar or Paladin M109A6 self-propelled Howitzer, for example?

I would appreciate a serious response.

Reasonable restraints are fine by me. I don't want felons or mentally unstable people to have a firearm. Magazien size limitations are fine etc.

creeky wrote:I feel safer here than when I am in the USA ..... ie, I did not walk out at night in New Orleans, but I would do so here in Sydney. Less likelihood of getting shot .....

How much of that is just being familiar with the area though? There are places that are safe and places that are unsafe in most any larger city....

phjrsaunt wrote:I completely believe in this. I belong to the NRA just to show my support (and I like to shoot).

We also have the "right" to shout "FIRE" in the movie theater, but that is controlled. In a perfect world, there would be no need to have this coversation, but we all the world ain't perfect.

Bad enough Auntie can blow away are post no she can blow you awa....... nevermind.....

flyboy55 wrote:Serious question:

If the Second Amendment means what gun enthusiasts think it means (ie no infringement of my right to keep and bear arms)

then why can't I own a Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar or Paladin M109A6 self-propelled Howitzer, for example?

I would appreciate a serious response.

I'll have to see if I can find it. I read it a day or two ago....basically the distinction is made between individual weapons and crewed weapons. Both of the examples you list are crewed weapons.

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Serious question:

If the Second Amendment means what gun enthusiasts think it means (ie no infringement of my right to keep and bear arms)

then why can't I own a Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar or Paladin M109A6 self-propelled Howitzer, for example?

I would appreciate a serious response.

Reasonable restraints are fine by me. I don't want felons or mentally unstable people to have a firearm. Magazine size limitations are fine etc.

Fair enough.

But then your reasonable restraints (magazine size limits, etc.) would seem to be an infringement according to a literal reading of the Second Amendment, and a literal reading of the Second Amendment seems to be what gun enthusiasts want.

More importantly, if you accept reasonable restraints, then WHO decides what constitutes a reasonable restraint?

I don't know anything about any gun bans.
All I know is I HAVE guns and know how to use them, and WILL use them. I did not buy them as conversation pieces.
I bought them to KILL any sonofab|tch that decides MY property is HIS/HER property.
Sorry if I sound like an angry white hick male, but I work too G.D. hard for what little I have. If some c.s.er who's too lazy or too stupid to get a job decides he's entitled to MY property, it's my solemn pledge to educate the bas--rd. My guns are at home with me. I travel with my guns. I go out to eat with my guns. I go to the friggin' POTTY with my guns!!!
Bans?
Again I say, if anyone can GET my guns, they can HAVE them.

That's it, case closed. Next topic, please.