Gun Control Since It Got Closed On 1130

[MYCAR47562]

Ok so i dont know if this is part of the no political posts thing but oh well

Ok so i was reading an article today where the supreme court is deciding weather it is unconstitional for a city to ban handguns. Well they are saying that they may say it is, but if they dont i feel that the united states has its days numbered we as a free nation founded on certain beliefs will not stand for all of the regulations and taxations. I believe that if the goverment decides that they are allowed to ban handguns there will be another civil war as much as i dont want this to happen i wont stand steady and have my second amendment infringed upon. if they ban hand guns how far behind do you think shot guns and rifles or any other type of gun are from being banned? in my opinion this is definatly one amendment that the goverment needs to steer clear of changing

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/supreme...00010000000001
here is the article i am speaking of

[Marcus O'Reillius]

What's that saying about when they can have my guns? :D

The good news is that the Supreme Court saw it the way the founders framed it. That would not have happened if Gore or Kerry had been our President(s).

[Engels]

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the DC gun law till summer.

Solicitor General Clement, in his argument before the Court has, however, taken the position that the Court send the case back to the Appeals court, rather than simply declaring the DC law unconstitutional. This is at odds with the position taken by VP Cheney and the roughly 300 Congressmen and Senators who signed a brief backing the overturn. Why?

Because a too-broad a ruling on the case will potentially have far-reaching effects.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about guns, rifles, or pistols. It mentions specifically the word "Arms." "Arms" means everything from a handgun or hunting rifle to high-explosives, field artillery, and nuclear bombs.

Does this, or any subsequent Administration, really want a situation where civilian access to such "Arms" is legal? Where people may argue that they have a Constitutionally-protected "Right" to walk into a Stadium with 50 lbs of of high-explosives strapped to their waist?

Solicitor General Clement is a rising star in the legal profession. He clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia; and is widely respected by Judges.

[MYCAR47562]

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the DC gun law till summer.

Solicitor General Clement, in his argument before the Court has, however, taken the position that the Court send the case back to the Appeals court, rather than simply declaring the DC law unconstitutional. This is at odds with the position taken by VP Cheney and the roughly 300 Congressmen and Senators who signed a brief backing the overturn. Why?

Because a too-broad a ruling on the case will potentially have far-reaching effects.

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about guns, rifles, or pistols. It mentions specifically the word "Arms." "Arms" means everything from a handgun or hunting rifle to high-explosives, field artillery, and nuclear bombs.

Does this, or any subsequent Administration, really want a situation where civilian access to such "Arms" is legal? Where people may argue that they have a Constitutionally-protected "Right" to walk into a Stadium with 50 lbs of of high-explosives strapped to their waist?

Solicitor General Clement is a rising star in the legal profession. He clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia; and is widely respected by Judges.
Ok im not saying he is a good thing to be walking around with neither is a full auto machine gun but to take away handguns the most used weapon in home security? that would be a crime punishable by an uprising is what i was getting at i am in no way saying that you should be able to walk around with explosives

[MYCAR47562]

bringing up a good oldey luckily we didnt have furthur dissucion on this one