 |
|
|
|
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbital32
I saw my mother get shot in the head and die right in front of me. I don't blame the gun. I blame the person.
Killing somebody or seeing somebody die is not what i call "cool". |
that sucks man....but guns facilitate the easy killing of other people because when you shoot someone from 200 feet away you are disconnected from the death. Death by stabbing is much more intimate.
|
|
Feb-04-2009 17:59
|
|
|
 |
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...the next day, jerz took out an entire floor of tax attorneys. |
...with my brazilian jiu jitsu and grappling skills.
|
|
Feb-04-2009 18:01
|
|
|
 |
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbital32
We cannot do that here, due to the second amendment. It part of our bill of rights that the people are allowed to own personal firearms. The chances of that overturned anytime in the near future is VERY VERY VERY slim. Of course there are people who lose those rights, say for example felons. I say this not because "GUNS...HELL YEAH" type of attitude, but because in reality the U.S. banning all guns will not happen.
The strictest enforcement that i can see is this: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ |
That's not exactly what it says. Aside from the whole militia prefacing which the conservative supreme court in DC v Heller conveniently disregarded with BS comments, the 2nd amendment actually says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed [by the federal government]." As of right now, states are NOT prohibited from banning gun ownership. Not too many states are likely to take that direct challenge to the court, but states like NJ, Cali, and NY are likely to push the envelope so far that gun ownership will become almost impossible. And, even though DC v Heller doesn't apply to states (because DC, obviously, is not a state but rather it is the federal government), Justice Scalia left the door wide open for states to prohibit gun ownership with broad language in which he confirms the practice as proper.
|
|
Feb-04-2009 18:14
|
|
|
 |
 |
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It gets more complicated than that because of the Fourteenth Amendment, though, since it provides equal protection of basic rights for all U.S. citizens regardless of what the states want to do. Ever since the Civil War the trend has been for state power to decrease at the expense of federal power. |
no court has ever held that the 2nd amendement applies to states through the 14th amendement. The first through ninth amendments (excluding the second amendment), however, have been held applicable to states through the 14th amendment.
|
|
Feb-04-2009 18:43
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:30.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|