Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. The short rules: Only work safe discussions, no religious/political debates!
The supreme court finally did something correct. It is our god given right to own firearms and affirmed by the Government! It is a good day.
What do the rest of y'all think?
__________________
Early 99 F250 Crew Cab. South Texas Outfitters grill guard and bumper. Rhino linered bed covered by a SnugTop Snuglid. Homemade Tymar. Rockford/Fosgate speakers. Nitrogen filled tires and a quiet torque converter. 98 gal bed mounted aux tank. PIAA pencil beam lights Otherwise quite stock.
Last edited by Airplaneguy57 : 06-26-2008 at 11:51 AM.
Unless they're Diesel-powered firearms, I think it's pretty far off topic.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell [drcampbell ot engineer dat kahm]
November 5, 2008: The fat lady sang. Back to actually working for a living.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles. Hella headlights, (highly recommended) DOT C-2 back end. (also recommended) R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. 4.1:1 rear axle converted to 3.4:1.
9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
This is how important the next president IS. The ruling went 5-4 with the usual suspects wanting to re-wright the constitution.
Apparently Justices Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens think they can basically re-wright the constitution which is really the job of congress and then only after a very strict process. Had there been one more justice the ruling could have gone the other way. the each state and each city would be able to basically ignore the 2nd amendment. Once states and cities get to ignore one amendment why not them all?
Quotes.
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
Now here is where they do set some limits!!!
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
You can't own a F-15 or a rocket launcher! ((MY take on this)
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Well that about defines that finally!!! My opinion again!
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.” MY Take: Again, It's about time this was stated clearly!
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” MY take: Again there are some common sense restrictions where you can't carry a gun if you are nuts, a felon, etc.
They go on to repeat:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
My take again is that you can't have a F-15, howitzer, or probably not even a machine gun because they were not available at the time. The only problem I have with this is that some smart a$$ liberal local judge could say his ruling is that "in common use at the time means ONLY black power cap and ball" are protected.
__________________
Too much junk/toys to mention, ever changing due to too getting bored too quickly. I need a 10 step program!
Want to call? I'm in the book. Want to argue....First explain the square root of negative one....lol
Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.
Me talking again: Did you all see that one?
OK I skipped way ahead!
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable,
but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered
__________________
Too much junk/toys to mention, ever changing due to too getting bored too quickly. I need a 10 step program!
Want to call? I'm in the book. Want to argue....First explain the square root of negative one....lol
This is how important the next president IS. The ruling went 5-4 with the usual suspects wanting to re-wright the constitution.
Apparently Justices Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens think they can basically re-wright the constitution which is really the job of congress and then only after a very strict process. Had there been one more justice the ruling could have gone the other way. the each state and each city would be able to basically ignore the 2nd amendment. Once states and cities get to ignore one amendment why not them all?
Quotes.
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
Now here is where they do set some limits!!!
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
You can't own a F-15 or a rocket launcher! ((MY take on this)
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Well that about defines that finally!!! My opinion again!
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.” MY Take: Again, It's about time this was stated clearly!
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” MY take: Again there are some common sense restrictions where you can't carry a gun if you are nuts, a felon, etc.
They go on to repeat:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”
My take again is that you can't have a F-15, howitzer, or probably not even a machine gun because they were not available at the time. The only problem I have with this is that some smart a$$ liberal local judge could say his ruling is that "in common use at the time means ONLY black power cap and ball" are protected.
WHEW! Thank God (oh, can I say that here). What part of "shall not be infringed" do "they" not understand.
"What's the difference between a subject & a citizen?"
The right to keep & bear arms to protect individuals from over reaching government.
Now watch 'em try to limit access to ammunition.
OMC
__________________
Feb 03 6.0 Silver F-250 SD SC XLT long box, 6-spd 3.73ls, Fx4, Stock, Spray-in liner, Contico box.HARPOONED.
Well at least they got this one right,but 5-4,that's a sad statement on the court IMO,if I said anymore it would be too Political for this site....
__________________ 2005 F250 XLT wedgewood blue 4x4 C/C SWB,6.0L PSD, Auto.(Member of 05 STC Failure Club ) 2006 Expedition Eddie Bauer,5.4L (Wife's) NRA Life Member. TSRA Life member.
In an important decision, the right to have an "off topic forum area" was upheld. So freedom of the members to express themselves has been protected.
If there is any place on earth I would want to have a legally purchased gun, it is the city of Chicago, which currently bans them.
__________________ 2005 F250 XLT wedgewood blue 4x4 C/C SWB,6.0L PSD, Auto.(Member of 05 STC Failure Club ) 2006 Expedition Eddie Bauer,5.4L (Wife's) NRA Life Member. TSRA Life member.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
So my marriage license in Florida is also binding in NYC?
So my drivers license is also binding in NYC?
So why is my carry license not binding in NYC? Hmmmmm
Part two:
More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868, shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War. Though the Thirteenth Amendment, which was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, had abolished slavery, many ex-Confederate states adopted Black Codes following the war.
These laws severely restricted the power of blacks to hold property and form legally enforceable contracts. They also created harsher criminal penalties for blacks than for whites.[1]
Now follow this: In that the most strict gun laws in the country are where the highest percentage of blacks are..... are those laws not directed at blacks who for some reason have an affinity for killing each other?
So specifically take guns away from blacks and they will kill each other less....or so the inner city gun laws would have it.
Both great cases I'd love to argue.
__________________
Too much junk/toys to mention, ever changing due to too getting bored too quickly. I need a 10 step program!
Want to call? I'm in the book. Want to argue....First explain the square root of negative one....lol
2003 F350 Lariat, 4x4, CC, SRW, Dark Green Fx4 SOLD
1995 C3500 6.5l work trk, 2x4, CC, DRW, white DECEASED PREMATURALLY
2003 JEEP WRANGLER, ooooops, not anymore!
1986 26' Seaway Northstar w/ 454 Mercruiser
2008 Montana Mountaineer 332PHT
1991 GMC Topkick, CAT, 4' vert. gang boxes, 12' dump. if only all were as reliable!
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
So my marriage license in Florida is also binding in NYC?
So my drivers license is also binding in NYC?
So why is my carry license not binding in NYC? Hmmmmm
Part two:
More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868, shortly after the Union victory in the American Civil War. Though the Thirteenth Amendment, which was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1865, had abolished slavery, many ex-Confederate states adopted Black Codes following the war.
These laws severely restricted the power of blacks to hold property and form legally enforceable contracts. They also created harsher criminal penalties for blacks than for whites.[1]
Now follow this: In that the most strict gun laws in the country are where the highest percentage of blacks are..... are those laws not directed at blacks who for some reason have an affinity for killing each other?
So specifically take guns away from blacks and they will kill each other less....or so the inner city gun laws would have it.
Both great cases I'd love to argue.
True. They also might kill each other less if they had their jobs in the Auto and Manufacturing industries back that have been outsourced to Japan and China.
that'll have to do. if i spoke my real mind might get lynched here!
Providing you spoke your mind in a calm, peaceful fashion (read as: according to the forum rules or the occasional heavy handed moderating), no one would form any lynching party.
We all have a right to speak our mind. Calling out a fellow member in a crude and hateful fashion doesn't fit into any public forum, whether it be in person or behind a keyboard.
__________________
-Steve
'95 F-250 Ext. Cab long bed 7.3L PSD 4:10 2WD -- 135,165 miles and bone stock for now! (11/09/08)
resistors for IDM Mod arrived 11/19, will get 'er done soon.
2005 F250 XLT wedgewood blue 4x4 C/C SWB,6.0L PSD, Auto.(Member of 05 STC Failure Club 
) 2006 Expedition Eddie Bauer,5.4L (Wife's) NRA Life Member. TSRA Life member.
), frame cover. maybe a Herd front bumper.
