Comments on: Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms UPDATE:”All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”

By: carolyne

carolyne — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:45:39 +0000

I’m going target practicing today. Can’t let the SFL get ahead of me, just in case! LOL

I agree with Jim Gerachty – Obama even lies saying he’s not a liar. Obama needs to have an expiration date on him. July 4th, 2008 will do fine, otherwise he’s going to go bad.
OH Glory, independence day for America! Hallelujah!

By: PCD

PCD — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:31:35 +0000

16, but SFL, most gun owners in the US do not use their guns unlawfully, nor do they shoot liberals on sight.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:55:26 +0000

SFL in post #16 you make a great point and I agree with you that every American who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights should be well trained and encouraged to keep firearms at the ready.

Living in the high-crime city of San Francisco, you should be well armed and prepared to defend yourself and others around you.

By: San Francisco Liberal

San Francisco Liberal — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:11:47 +0000

“I already own a Sig”

———

I just shot one of those last year! 9mm…

SFL not into guns, but hit the can on my second try!

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:45:50 +0000

Every adult male anyway SFL. Universal conscription will do that. They are also required to maintain proficiency and prove it on an annual basis. There are also state sponsored shooting competitions starting with airguns at age 5 and state funded ranges with state subsidized practice ammunition. Exactly what would the liberals in this country do if we tried to implement a similar program in this country? They get up in arms when the NRA offers to teach gun safety at a school. NRA instructors have to go through a number of training programs themselves to be instructor qualified.They have to attend more intensive firearms training than most military drill instructors.

By that logic, I should be able to demand and receive a selective fire M4 from the federal government as well as an M9 (Beretta) or M11 (Sig Sauer) 9mm handgun and a few thousand rounds of ammo. Damn Just think how much money I’d have saved if I had just known all I had to do was show up at the armory with my DD 214 honorable discharge. Oh well. I already own a Sig and my AK and FAL are both more reliable than an M4. I don’t really need to fire full auto. It’s fun but expensive when you’re paying for the ammo.

By: San Francisco Liberal

San Francisco Liberal — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:02:55 +0000

“…the Swiss still keep FULLY AUTOMATIC Weapons in the home with a minimum 1000 rounds of ammo.”

——————

And almost every single one of them has been carefully trained by the Military.

Most gun owners in the US probably can’t say the same.

By: PCD

PCD — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:54:43 +0000

NYDavid,

I was in Zurich in the 90s, and the Swiss still keep FULLY AUTOMATIC Weapons in the home with a minimum 1000 rounds of ammo.

I was alarmed at gunshots next to the building I was working in. One of my office hosts told me that someone was just shooting crows. If that was Los Angeles at the same time, SWAT would have been called, Bob Tur would have been circling over head in his Newscopter, and Willie Brown would have been on the CA assembly floor demanding more taxes for more gun control.

By: NY-David

NY-David — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:21:40 +0000

FAO and Pam,
Great points, as Pam indicated. It recalls me to spending time in Switzerland during the 80’s. Everyone had to do military service and kept a weapon at home. While the overall idea was for national security, the ancilary effect was that there wern’t too many robberies.
NYD

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:11:12 +0000

While I applaud the decision, I have no delusions that this fight is far from over. The arguments that I have read from the various state ratification conventions clearly indicate that the second amendment was NEVER even considered to be a collective right. Thomas Jefferson even commented that one of the strongest cases for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves from Tyranny in government. That hardly sounds like a state organized military unit to me. Sounds like Jefferson intended for the citizenry to have the ability to over throw the government by force if necessary if the PTB got out of hand, as they are doing more and more lately.

By: Dr. Ruger

Dr. Ruger — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:39:45 +0000

Justice Stevens’ dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens’ premise is that the 2nd states that the ‘right’ extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a ‘right not to be infringed’ declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the ‘right’ to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let’s ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can ‘keep’ their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2’s? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the ‘right not to be infringed’ to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for……perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned……perhaps a women’s right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the ‘rights’ of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of ‘hate speech’ and the implementation of the ‘fairness doctrine’. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he’s a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can’t do anything about it.