TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- so, arbiter....
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

so, arbiter....

quote:

THE highest court in the United States is set to issue a ruling for the first time in seven decades on the highly emotional issue of the constitutional right to bear arms. The US Supreme Court's decision - on whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally an individual or collective right - is expected to have a far-reaching impact on US gun control laws, experts say. The high court has never before issued a ruling on the interpretation of the second amendment to the constitution, which states: "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." At the centre of the case is the nation's capital city, Washington DC, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Private possession of handguns is strictly banned there, and any rifles or shotguns kept in homes must be disassembled or kept under a trigger lock. Washington DC government officials say the ban, instituted in 1976, is necessary to keep street violence and murder rates down, and that the second amendment protects gun rights for people associated with militias, not individuals. "I'm confident in our case, and our continued ability to protect residents from gun violence," mayor Adrian Fenty said when he filed his legal team's brief in March. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, District of Columbia vs Heller, first argued in 2003 that the DC gun ban violates the citizens' second amendment rights. Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, questioned the anti-crime impact of the city's laws, saying they have "accomplished nothing except to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms". Interest in the case, originally brought by a federal building guard who carries a handgun on duty and wanted to keep it in his home for self-defence, has been steadily building, as evidenced by the rash of "friend of the court" submissions to the judges filed on both sides of the argument. Supporters of gun rights include groups as varied as Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 126 Women State Legislatures, and the powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association. The Supreme Court last took up the issue in 1939, but its ruling on a case involving alleged bank robbers and registration of certain firearms did not directly address the question of the individual versus collective right to bear arms.

impress me with your legal acumen by predicting which way the court will rule...

Pkc wants to jack off while he reads your post. I can tell.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Pkc wants to jack off while he reads your post. I can tell.

I can smell his palms oiled up from here.

charleton heston died lol.

The only people carrying guns around should be Law Enforcement Officers and the military. Anyone else who owns one should only use it a firing range or when hunting and should be thrown in jail for carrying one out in public. Permits should be mandatory and not given to just some random Joe.

If the rest of the world can do it and function properly, why can't the US?

"Oooooh but what if I get held up on the street with a gun, then if I can't carry one how will I defend myself?" Please....that would be far less common if it wasn't so easy to get a gun. In most other countries with good gun laws this hardly ever happens.

Having said that, the backwards thinking of the American Supreme court will not go through with this and we'll be back at square one because some group of rednecks will throw a tantrum about how they aren't allowed to carry around their double barrel shotgun so they can shoot trespassers on their lawn

quote:

Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty

i agree, but hunting isn't only for sport. Some people still actually feed themselves this way. It is also an essential tool to control the deer population in certain places as to not further distrupt the eco system. There aren't as many natural predators and those ******s need to die.

i think only black people and mexicans should be banned from guns.;p

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Pkc wants to jack off while he reads your post. I can tell.

awww, don't be jealous honey. if i wanted to ask a question about fitting huge cocks in my ass, you know i'd come to you!

At least you recognize that my bf has a huge cock.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie At least you recognize that my bf has a huge cock.

well i wasn't referring to your boy in particular. just the guys you let into your ass.

The Packers don't count. How many times do I have to tell you that?

yet another intelligent thread ends with jenny getting buttfucked.

It was never intelligent, because Arbiter hadn't posted yet. So there!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yet another intelligent thread ends with jenny getting buttfucked.

sig-quality.

Looking at the oral argument transcript, I'd have to say I expect an unfavorable outcome; most likely 5-4 along partisan lines. Justice Kennedy's questions seemed to suggest he interprets it as an individual right (not terribly surprising given his libertarian leanings), and since I really can't see Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, or Alito upholding the gun control laws, the outcome looks pretty certain unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yet another intelligent thread ends with jenny getting buttfucked.

Isn't that the way its meant to be?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Looking at the oral argument transcript, I'd have to say I expect an unfavorable outcome; most likely 5-4 along partisan lines. Justice Kennedy's questions seemed to suggest he interprets it as an individual right (not terribly surprising given his libertarian leanings), and since I really can't see Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, or Alito upholding the gun control laws, the outcome looks pretty certain unfortunately.

oh well

any justices expected to die in the next 8 years?

I don't see limiting the amount of single lunatics with guns being reduced or forced to join organised groups of lunatics with guns as being any better than the current situation. Militia's typically aren't the most useful of things unless you need to put down an insurgency which has a level of unaccountability for the government for all the crimes and human rights abuses which eventuate from half wits, badly trained with guns being cut loose.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh well any justices expected to die in the next 8 years?

Well Justice Stevens is 88, but he's generally regarded as a liberal. Realistically, the Dems need to win the presidency just to avoid falling further behind. Because most of the conservative justices would try with (varying degrees of determination) to put off retirement while we have a democrat in the white house, we'd realistically need to see three consecutive terms of dem presidents to have a solid shot at a liberal majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz The only people carrying guns around should be Law Enforcement Officers and the military. Anyone else who owns one should only use it a firing range or when hunting and should be thrown in jail for carrying one out in public. Permits should be mandatory and not given to just some random Joe. If the rest of the world can do it and function properly, why can't the US? "Oooooh but what if I get held up on the street with a gun, then if I can't carry one how will I defend myself?" Please....that would be far less common if it wasn't so easy to get a gun. In most other countries with good gun laws this hardly ever happens. Having said that, the backwards thinking of the American Supreme court will not go through with this and we'll be back at square one because some group of rednecks will throw a tantrum about how they aren't allowed to carry around their double barrel shotgun so they can shoot trespassers on their lawn

Anyone who has any kind of street smarts at all knows that most "bad guys" don't go to a gun shop to pick up a piece, they're bought and sold on the street, so they'll be carrying heat anyway. Also, the cops cannot protect you 24/7 and especially when the police are more or less indifferent towards low income neighborhoods. I own several guns, and my whole neighborhood knows it, and it's a more effective deterrent than any burglar alarm or guard dog.

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Anyone who has any kind of street smarts at all knows that most "bad guys" don't go to a gun shop to pick up a piece, they're bought and sold on the street, so they'll be carrying heat anyway.

But those guns have been bought from somewhere right? Second hand? It doesn't matter. The harder it gets to purchase a gun, the less guns you'll be seeing 'on the street'.

Do you honestly think that if gun ownership in America was suddenly made illegal, or required specific licensing, that everyone would still have them? There would be heaps of 'leftover' guns for a while, while the change-over-period was happening, but it would die down more and more over time.

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Anyone who has any kind of street smarts at all knows that most "bad guys" don't go to a gun shop to pick up a piece, they're bought and sold on the street, so they'll be carrying heat anyway. Also, the cops cannot protect you 24/7 and especially when the police are more or less indifferent towards low income neighborhoods. I own several guns, and my whole neighborhood knows it, and it's a more effective deterrent than any burglar alarm or guard dog.

i didnt make this thread to start yet another gun control debate. so take your fallacious bollocks elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk But those guns have been bought from somewhere right? Second hand? It doesn't matter. The harder it gets to purchase a gun, the less guns you'll be seeing 'on the street'. Do you honestly think that if gun ownership in America was suddenly made illegal, or required specific licensing, that everyone would still have them? There would be heaps of 'leftover' guns for a while, while the change-over-period was happening, but it would die down more and more over time.

There is roughly 200 million legally owned guns in the U.S. and it is estimated that 40% of the population owns them. If guns were magically illegally, they wouldnt go away for a long time. www.armedamerica.org

Gun laws in the U.S. differ greatly from state to state. Seeing as I'm looking at an int'l audience in this forum, I recommend you understand gun laws in the U.S. before you sound foolish.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX There is roughly 200 million legally owned guns in the U.S. and it is estimated that 40% of the population owns them. If guns were magically illegally, they wouldnt go away for a long time. www.armedamerica.org Gun laws in the U.S. differ greatly from state to state. Seeing as I'm looking at an int'l audience in this forum, I recommend you understand gun laws in the U.S. before you sound foolish. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

But, do you understand the gun laws, and their reasoning, in so many other countries in the world?

Here in Australia, out gun laws became super-strict after the Port Arthur Massacre. To my knowledge, there hasn't been another similar incident since in this country? In 12 years!

Our government initiated a 'buy back scheme' where all (now illegal) firearms were purchased back from their owners, exempting a few folks who required the use of them (law enforcement, armed forces, security, farmers etc.)

In your opinion, do you think that was a shit idea? Limiting the amount of people that can have access to firearms?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk In your opinion, do you think that was a shit idea? Limiting the amount of people that can have access to firearms?

not at all.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.