The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Since we are on the subject of the supreme court they just ruled 5-4 that citizens have the right to own guns for self defense and hunting. How and what do you think about this ?

Bears have a right to arms.  I agree.

(http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/Bear%20Arms%20a%20Right.jpg)

Hooray. As a gun owner I think you know where I stand.

I enjoy both baring my arms and bearing arms, though one is far more intimidating than the other (at least in my case).

Did the court decision go into the convertible semi automatic and how it applies to self defense or hunting? 

Or this monster?

http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx)

I can understand having a nice hunting rifle, or a handgun, or even the ol' shotgun for self defense.  I just think that:

- A civilian being able to buy a Barrett 82A1 .50 Cal cannon rifle is a bit obscene.
- Laws governing the resale of guns must be as stringent as the laws governing initial sales of guns.

I'm always confused. I thought this was a thread about Larry the Cable Guy!

(http://comedycentral-content.vcommerce.com/products/fullsize/350/3129350.jpg)

But while we are on the subject ... it really surprises me this went all the way to the Supreme Court. Wait a minute ... in this day and age, no it doesn't.

Nuttin' wrong with the Barrett 82A1 .50 Cal for a little light target practice.

In case anyone is curious what this little compact jem of a piece looks like, here it is:

(http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/barrett_82A1.jpg)

The case comes from the District of Columbia where they made it illegal for people to own handguns, and those that did have them had to have trigger locks on them.
From what I have read most gun laws are intact, so I am sure you have no chance to go out and guy an AK47 without proper licensing, thats too bad the raccoons around here are getting bad.

An Ak-47 for reccoons?  My God man, have you lost it?  You should know better than that. 

M-16 is a better option for you in the case of a rapidly moving target and you require precise shots.  :)

I remember cutting a building in half with a .50 cal once. Good times...

Yeah, but the AK-47 will keep working even if I store it in my shed or buried in the back yard for a few years.

Why hasn't anyone said this already: I'm disappointed in this decision. Not because they ruled in favor of the second amendment, but the fact that it wasn't a 9-0 result. There were 4 dissenters? ridiculous.

We were one vote away from possibly losing one of our earliest rights. I love how all the douchebags in the cities with anti-gun restrictions (chicago, D.C, San Fran) are now coming out of the woodwork with their apocalyptic predictions of what is to come from this decision, as if the "no guns" laws in their cities somehow discouraged criminals from carrying firearms in the first place. Now their law-abiding citizens can protect themselves from criminals. How tragic.

As a law abiding gun toting citizen I am glad this did not pass. Gun Control will only keep the average citizen from being able to defend themselves. The criminals will still get them.

You are absolutely right, the vote was way too close 5-4, this is a right giving to us by the constitution. You can outlaw guns, but outlaws will always have guns. There are many countries where its illegal to own a gun but yet criminals who have no issue breaking the laws use them to commit crimes and murders. One would have to wonder could things have been different at Virginia Tech if people were allowed to carry handguns. Allot of people cringe at that thought, but most of us are law abiding citizens that have a level head, I know I would never pull a gun on anybody unless my family or my life was being threatened, then you have to thing about the morons who go out and get drunk and their liquid courage could lead to trouble.

I'm all for this move.  That way, I can legally keep this:

(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a282/YoFuggedaboutit/Glock.jpg)

You need a football fix??? Come on man, EURO 2008 is on right now

OT, but I had to comment.

It is a beaut...

How many people (even gun owners) actually carry a gun around with them, just in case a crime happens and they need to defend themselves?  In this sense, aren't we just like countries that don't allow guns?  If someone robs my bank branch at gunpoint, there aren't 6 cowboys in line reaching for their .357s; they're dropping to the floor with everyone else.  The self defense thing only makes sense to me from a home defense point of view.

As for the VT massacre, had 5 guys whipped out guns, they'd have shot a few people standing between themselves and the jackhole firing...almost guaranteed.  I'm not necessarily against gun ownership, but I think the weapons available for purchase far exceed anyone's need to protect themselves from intruders not wearing kevlar and sporting a little US flag on their sleeve.

'Stroke, I really wish you had video of the .50 Cal as house saw...

Me too...that was the most fun I had in basic training. I think the best part of the Doughboy City footage would have been watching our company XO slip while climbing up the Abrams (the .50 was turret-mounted) and falling face first into the mud.

The trouble with the second amendment is that it's written oddly. No other amendment sounds like it's offering practical advice, except this one:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the question is, should people be able to "keep and bear arms," just for the sake of having them? Or should they only be able to do so if it is in connection with some form of military or police service? Scalia, the author of the majority opinion, agrees with me: "[...]this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution[...]"

However, as he and the majority see it,


Notice the last few words. Professors of Linguistics and English as Amicus Curiae. It takes a batch of professors to unclog this unruly bit of text. I personally think they got it right, but, obviously from the closeness of the decision, I may be wrong.

doesn't the problem come from the definition of a "well-regulated militia"?  citizens with guns are NOT a well-regulated militia.  those in the national guard, police force, or other types of "organized militias" are the ones it seems can have the guns; not the general populace

This was a stupid case in my opinion and before you string me up, let me explain:

We have no way of knowing for sure what the originally intended meaning was - and IT DOESN'T MATTER. (again, please wait with the noose)

What exists is more than a hundred years of established understanding that it meant exactly that, "the right of an individual to bear arms". This has been the law for a long time and changing it COMPLETELY just because the original phrasing was weak doesn't make sense. That would effectively be an end run around the Constitution and the measures in place to make changes difficult.

Think of it this way: What if some president you disagree with comes into power, happens to be in position to appoint some Supreme Court Justices... and all of a sudden they decide to redefine "religion", "free" or "peaceably", just because, well, you know, something else might have been meant 217 years ago.

No, what matters is solely the ESTABLISHED INTERPRETATION of the law / article. Any significant change in INTERPRETATION is effectively a change of law and should be considered as such.

Anything else is bullshit.

^^^

Many justices have done that in the last 70 years,  and in times previous.

Sure, but it's still bullshit. Courts shouldn't be allowed to change a law. Once the interpretation of the law (legal precedent) is established, that's it. No more wriggle-room. You want to change the law, you need to go through the legislative body. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Bingo.   As the owner of 16 hand guns last time I checked.........come rob my house......I dare ya.  >:D

But that is exactly what the militia was at the time it was written. Citizens volunteering and arming themselves.

It even went past just volunteering.  Every able-bodied man was pretty much expected to be ready.

The founders would have considered the government funded and government outfitted National Guard a standing army. 

I know I am probably the minority when it comes to this but I have a concealed weapons permit and I do in fact carry a gun with me most everywhere I go. I am not looking to go and prevent crime and I do not in fact make it known that I am carrying a weapon. I keep it for self defense. Road Rage shootings are on the rise big time for nothing. These asswipes shot a 70 year old grandmother and her 6 year old granddaughter 2 weeks ago for a minor fender bender. You so much as look at someone and you could get shot. I know it is like this in a lot of places, I am not saying that crime here is any worse than anywhere else. I have just noticed it is on the rise even more than in the past and I would at least like the chance to defend myself if for some reason I ever end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I generally keep to myself when I am on the road but you know what.....shit happens sometimes. I would hate to get shot because I did not see some wacko in my blind spot. If I ever cut someone off accidentally or whatever I am the first to admit fault and apologize. 9 times out of 10 they say "no problem" but I have come across those people who call me everyname in the book and cut me back off to "even up the score". If they pull a gun I at least have a fighting chance.

I was watching a TV show this morning called Sunday Morning, they had to put a liberal spin on all of this, they had a little reporter rant over it, here are somethings she said.
I don't know why people need to go hunting when they can go to the store to buy meat.
Then she quoted the great philosopher Chris Rock.
Let everyone have a gun, just make bullets $5,000 each so nobody can afford them.

I am sure that would stop a thief from stealing them, now a regular citizen couldn't afford to protect themselves.
As far as hunting goes, many people love wild game meat you can't buy in a store, some people can't afford to load up on grocery meat and hunt to survive.

Why do these TV shows promote liberalism, they tell us how to live and what we can't have. Why not give the other side a chance to speak ?

Study your history my friend, when the revolutionary war started it was the citizens who picked up weapons to protect themselves and their land, this is why the fore fathers placed it in the constitution.

Hmmm...I would think a bible thumper like you would be at church when Sunday Morning is on. Interesting... They have tv in church now?

This was on very early sunday morning, I didn't realize I was bible thumping on here, considering I have never left any bible scriptures in my post besides my signature.
Thanks for the judgement, have a great day.

Didn't you mean "racist bible thumper" or have you adopted another hateful label to spew?

Thats funny. Considering many christians label their fellow followers who have a more fevererant belief in the religion as " bible thuimpers", I do not think it nearly as hateful as you make it out to be.

vs



I doubt an athiest meant it as a friendly term and considering her recent history of hate filled judgements...

Of course, a recent poll suggests that 20% of self-professed athiests actually believe in God so who knows what the hell they're actually thinking.  (http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e786//e786.gif)

It really wasn't said in a hateful way. Even when I was forced to go to church, we referred to other christians as bible thumpers. It might be a southern thing.

And, I call bs on that poll. If you believe in god you are not an atheist. You might be someone with doubts, but you're not an atheist. It's like those that tell me they're vegetarians, but eat chicken and fish.

I do.  I have my S&W on my person at (almost) all times.

I have shot one of these.  Nice kick.  We used to shoot through broken down humers, right through the eng blk's.

I own 2 pistols.  A Sig .357 and a little .22 I load it with bird shot when it goes in my pocket.

My bro-in-law has every gun you can think of, AK's, M16, Sniper rifle, and I can go on.  I dont see any problem with the right to bare arms.  When there in the right hands.  Gun safty is the bigest.  For the fucks that own guns and leave them out so there kids can kill them self, or take them to school and go shoot it up thats where the problem starts. Gun safty, gun safty, gun safty!!

Anyone can go out and get guns I think there are some people out there that should not have the right.

Here are the 2 I have now.  Next is a M16.

(http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/naa22lrrevolverandkeysace.jpg)
(http://magnum-x.pl/pol/images/stories/02_czasopisma_STRZAL/sig250.jpg)

I agree.  I think the poll pointed out that 20% of atheists don't know what "atheist" means.

"Religion is regarded ... by the wise as false."  ;)

I have been meaning to weigh in on this, but I've been busy.

The gun issue is one I'm kinda conflicted about.  I hate guns.  I don't want to own one, and I am not comfortable with them.  I don't want to be around them.  In a perfect world, or country, citizens would not carry them.

However, this is not a perfect world, and I don't pretend that it is.  For a culture so rooted in personal gun ownership, it's too difficult to retract that right.  It is also equally entrenched into the criminal world, so a gun ban would most likely only strengthen the effectiveness of criminals.

I do, however, support gun restrictions.  Just like there are restrictions on other rights, I have no problems with waiting periods, banning certain types of weapons or ammunition, background checks, mental illness testing, or whatever else.

-----

Side argument: While I love and support the Constitution, I don't like "it's in the Constitution" being the sole argument towards gun ownership (or any right, for that matter).  The Constitution is a living document and can be amended to add or remove rights.  I much prefer to argue rights on their own merit, rather than the fact that I have them because I have them.  My right to free speech doesn't just exist because it's in the Constitution.  If we think like that, I fear that we might amend our Constitution to justifiably remove those rights.  Also, the Constitution is OLD, man.  Things arise, and the world changes -- that's why we need to keep amending it over the years.

How was it not hateful? You even went as far as to make fun of him supposedly being in church by questioning if they have TV.  If you are going to hate on people don't try and paddy cake it. Go ahead full steam.  It really isn't flattering for your "I'm the only fair person and I don't give a crap about other opinions "attitude."  If you aren't careful .... we might think you do.

Truth is I call myself or others I Bible thumper in jest  and maybe even a cracker at times but how many times have we read about the reasons it isn't safe for anyone to call a black the "N" word ... even in friendly terms.  Seems negative condentations are OK as long as it isn't directed at a minority? I don't think so.

CF, trust me when I say that wasn't hateful. Snarky? Most definitely. Hateful? No. When I am truly being hateful you will know it. I have no problem being hateful and/or mean and really do not feel the need to hide it.

I'm personally taking you at your word on this but I am sure you can understand why some people here would call you out on this. 

Being 'hateful and / or mean' towards someone based upon their religious beliefs it's basically the exact same thing as being hateful and / or mean to someone based upon their race.

No, it most certainly isn't. This is the kind of crap that's perpetuated in our overly PC world, but it's still just crap.

Following a religion - or any belief system for that matter - defines who you are and how you act. If my religion allows me, or even requires me, to ritually butcher every dog I come across, then that's certainly something completely different than what color my skin happens to be.

We should be tolerant of others, regardless of their beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should accept any actions in the name of religion.

Race, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with someone's actions.

Yes, I know, I'm being argumentative and all major religions are fundamentally peaceful and I shouldn't "hate on anyone" just because there are idiots out there of the same faith. Well, surprise, I don't hate anyone based on what they say their religion is. (And although I use the word a lot in conversation, I don't actually hate anyone that I can think of right now, at least no one I've ever so much as seen in person).

It is, however, completely unfair to equate religion and race.

Judging someone based on anything other than WHO THEY ARE is equally indefensible.  It's not crap what so ever.  I don't want to be judged for being multiracial any more than I want someone to judge me for my religious beliefs.

Making a blanket assumption about anyone based on anything other than who they are = not acceptable.  Period.

Your arguing semantics fyo. That's like saying if I bash gays its ok because they choose to be gay. I can choose another religion just like they can choose not to participate in gay acticvities.

Hate crimes lumps everyone together... and should IMHO.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

Dave, I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.  I agree that the right to own firearms is one that will never go away, and I'm not sure that it should.  I'm not the most conversant guy in the world when it comes to gun control, but, as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) only original weapons buyers (from a retail perspective) are registered as purchasing a weapon and subject to waiting periods, background checks, etc...  Once the original buyer has it, he/she may sell the weapon (say, at a gun show) and not have to go through the checks and waiting periods on the next buyer.  Now, I have to let the DMV know when I sell my car (transfer of title); why not when I sell a weapon? 

The thing is about transferring the sale of a firearm - say that you sell your weapon to someone.  It is then used in a crime.  The original registration of that weapon will lead to your door.  So the question will be asked: did you do your proper due diligence when selling that firearm?  Did you collect personal information (name / address) of the person you sold it to? 

What if the answer is "got cash for it at a gun show, here's the bill of sale, can't read the name"?  Now a murder has happened, and you (the seller) get slapped with a misdemeanor charge and fine while the murderer's got himslef a "clean" gun.  I think this is an easy control to exercise.  Maybe each gun show has a registration area, where you must register with Law Enforcement if/when you do buy a gun.  Would this make a dent?  Anyone know?

Personally I think there is a massive flaw in the system in regards to purchase.  The original purchase from a licensed dealer / store is really hard.  There are a lot of checks and balances to get through.  Just like a vehicle can not be driven without registered, I believe the private sale of a hand gun shouldn't be allowed.  You can only sell it to an authorized dealer, they can process the re-sale.  But that's just me.

Does anyone here think that even if there was no second amendment, the individual ownership of guns would be protected under the 1st amendment? It's possible, I think. I suppose you could say ownership of guns is some sort of valuable expression, worthy of protection by the 1st amendment...

thoughts?

As long as they don't make me register my edged weapons, I don't really care about the gun laws...

As I repeatedly stated, my feelings towards a person is based solely on their ACTIONS. However, unlike skin color, BELIEFS does have an impact on someone's actions. There is a CAUSAL relationship between BELIEF and ACTIONS. There is no such CAUSAL relationship between RACE and ACTIONS.

That's a HUGE difference.

Now, with respect to sexual preference, the CAUSAL relationship would seem to be limited to one specific area (sexual preference). Now, a lot of people have a huge problem with homosexuality (personally, I couldn't give a damn what people do, in any facet of their life, as long as they don't try to shove their belief/morality/sexuality or anything else down my throat), mostly religious people, I might add, but I don't see a reason why there would be a CAUSAL relationship between sexual preference and any other ACTIONS.

Should we always reserve judgment and base our opinions on ACTIONS alone? Yes. Realistically, however, if your religion or belief system results in you wearing a pointy white hat and tattooing swastikas on your arms, well, I'm probably going to judge you based on your beliefs.


I'm tempted to say that all crimes are hate crimes, but this is a completely different discussion in my opinion and we're already getting too far off topic (the right to bear (or bare) arms).

Simple answer for Florida residents. It is against state law for the state to compile a list of gun owners.

Yes, the topic of this form of state sanctioned special treatment/racism/other-ism should be left for another thread.

Everyone in reasonable shape should have the right to bare arms.  I especially encourage young ladies with well toned muscles to bare their arms.

On the other hand, Raider fans who bought their Raider t-shirts 100 lbs ago and promptly ripped the sleeves off should not have the right to bare their arms.  They also should not have the right to bare their facial hair.  (Male Raiders fans should have the right to bare facial hair as it's part of the image.) 

A very logical and realistic point of view.
(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e879//e879.gif)

Wow, I think I've gotten 2 Run2Win applauses in the last 7 days.  Ready your fallout shelters.  The end is near.

I'm waiting for the Earth to crack and the locust to come.

No, no, no...the propecy clearly states that the earthquakes and locusts come when Joe Tex achieves true happiness. We're safe for now. ;)

Yeah, keep this up and might have to start calling you "Grasshopper" and tell you how proud I am of you.   :P

I found it funny that when I moved here to Texas I bought an AR15 at a gun show and after the background check and paying I just walked right out with it. I know there's no longer the law of the waiting period but even in Florida when I bought a 1984 yugo SKS,  they made me wait 5 days before the pick up. Also when I bought a 10/22 at Bass Pro Shops in Florida they did the same thing. My point is that even though it wasn't required by law to hold it they did it anyways. Now I don't have a problem with that, but I do like it here that I can walk out with pretty much any firearm I can afford the same day after the background check. As for private sales I agree that they need to put stricter laws on it. Every gun show I go to there are people walking around with rifles and pistols with a flag or something sticking out of the barrel with a for sale sign. Unfortunately there are no laws against private sales requiring a background check. So if you do sell your gun make sure it's to someone you know so you don't have to worry about it's involvement in a crime. Even though that probably isn't a guarantee either.

Anyways here's a link to check the firearm laws in your state. I'm glad Florida and Texas have very lax laws for a firearm collector such as myself. Compared to places like Cali and NY, where you have 60 days or whatever to register your firearm with the police. 

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=TX

Forget Cali and NY. Illinois is crazy strict!!

So if some madman wanted to end the world all he would have to do is get JTex a hooker?

Ah, young acolyte...the prophecy wouldn't make the end of mankind so easy. All a prostitute would do for Joe (other than gargling his cubes for an extra $20) is give him some temporary fleeting satisfaction, not true happiness.

How then do we know when he is close to reaching nirvana?

Regardless of whether the source of your humor is wisdom or experience, you are a funny man.

You can come out of the bomb shelter...it's never going to happen.


Isn't one the product of the other?

...and thanks. ;)

Well, yeah ... but I was trying not to out you. (http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e786//e786.gif)

Great.  Instead of normal Jtex rants now we would have to deal with Jtex with crabs and chlamydia rants.  Good call.