Comments on: Supreme Court To Decide D.C. Handgun Ban

Divisive Case Is First "Right To Bear Arms" Examination In Nearly 70 Years

[klingon69]

That was the real life outcome for any group that attempts to overthrow the federal government by force.

I seriously doubt anyone can convince half the states to rebel against the federal government. But, if they do, we already know what the outcome will be.

If you can''''t convince people to vote, you have ZERO chance of convincing them to take up arms.

And, if you did, what would be your goal?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:44 PM : Nov 20, 2007

Tucker;
I hate to disagree with you, but the "WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION" was not fought to overthrow the government, it was fought because the Confederate states wanted to secede, because they did not want to tolerate the federal governments overruling the states, and taking away "states rights".
The first assault was on Fort Sumter, a union structure located in Southern territory. The south had ordered the abandonment of it which the north refused.
Rarely were any battles fought on northern soil, most were Southern based.

[sageprophet]

YOU''RE A FROG IN A POT
My fellow Americans need to open their eyes to the fact that our Republic, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and incite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our borders wide open, and then conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but incite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the global elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for tyranny. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a frog in a pot: In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling, he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.

[sageprophet]

SUPREME COURT LIKELY TO OVERTURN HANDGUN RULING
I can''t think of anytime in history where the U.S. Supreme Court granted Certiorari to a case where they actually agreed with the Lower Court''s ruling, so there is no reason for me to expect this case will be any different. Say "bye bye" to handgun ownership rights in this country. If you do have any handguns, do yourself a favor and hide them well, and don''t waste any of your ammo on target practice anymore. I have a feeling you soon won''t need any. Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately (e.g. The USA Patriot Act, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, The Military Commisions Act, H.R. 1955, et. al.), the Supreme Court will likely overturn the Lower Court''s ruling, which will open the door for States and local governments to pass Laws which will essentially prohibit private gun ownership. I''m sure of it. Look at what the Supreme Court did with the question of "eminent domain" recently. They overturned practically 200 years worth of common law protecting landowners, making way for governments to sieze your property for private development, so long as it is in the "public interest" to do so. Anyone who says "this will never happen" needs to turn their TV off, and open their eyes to the realities of the world around them. Our Constitution has been under constant attack since 9/11. We''re frogs in a pot, folks. What we need to do is have a good ol'' fashioned Tea Party! teaparty07.com

[sageprophet]

RON PAUL: A GUN OWNER''S BEST FRIEND
Like Ron Paul, I share our Founders'' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents Law-abiding Americans from exercising this right. Congressman, Paul has always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the Bills he introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it: H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act, two invasive and unconstitutional Bills. H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans'' ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations. H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks. H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely. In the past, he introduced legislation to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban before its 2004 sunset, and he has opposed all attempts to reinstate it. Congessman, Paul also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban veterans experiencing any form of PTSD.

[sageprophet]

RON PAUL WILL RESTORE U.S. SOVEREIGNTY
All of the trade deals and world government organizations, which all of the presidential candidates support (except Ron Paul), such as the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA, are all a major threat to our nation''s sovereignty. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, and not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. The NAFTA superhighway, being built by a Spanish company, is just one part of a plan to erase our borders and create the North American Union, a single nation State like the EU, out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new, unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under the NAU scheme. There won''t be any borders anymore, or a free America. Our limited, constitutional government will be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN either. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we need someone in the White House who knows how to say "No." We must withdraw from any organizations or treaty that infringes upon our nation''s sovereignty.

[sageprophet]

Klingon69:

Yeah. "UN Biodiversity Areas" is what I think they are called. It doesn''t make any difference. The globalist ****** in our government, have been working to disarm our citizens and strip our country of its sovereignty for more than 20 years. All of the presidential candidates, except Ron Paul are sold-out CFR members who are soft on illegal immigration and national sovereignty issues (as most globalists are), and they''re War-mongers who approve of Nazi-like torture methods. I love my country, and unless Ron Paul is elected, Old Glory will be coming down soon, and the North American Union flag goes up. They are already minting the "Amero" (the replacement for the Dollar) at the U.S. Mint in Denver, and most people are clueless. Why do you think The Fed is tanking our Dollar. "Problem Reaction Solution"--after our economy collapses, we''ll be begging them to save us with their new, silver-based NAU currency. Ron Paul is the only candidate on the left or right who recognizes the dangers of giving-up our sovereignty and our Constitutional rights. America First!

[toolmangler-2009]

"Washington still ranks among the nation''s highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006."



That would be because so many in Washington deserve killing, but every time a ''contract'' is made the rich Dudes hire an unwittingg stand-in.

[klingon69]

No. Actually it was Bush who signed the Law. Recently, Ron Paul sponsored H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans'''' ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations, but it failed to pass the House.
Posted by EarlyProphet at 04:32 PM : Nov 20, 2007

Hmmm, I always thought that loss of right for arms in national parks came when Clinton put our national parks under UN control.

[sageprophet]

IT''S BEARLY SAFE TO WALK IN THE PARK
There is currently a federal Law in effect (buried within the John Warner Defense Authorization Act) which bans the carrying a firearms anywhere in our National Park System--a death sentence if you visit a National Park in the State where I live (Alaska). Over 90% of this State is set aside as National Parkland. Only 1% of land in Alaska is actually privately-owned. The rest is either State or federally controlled. Try doing a little hiking or fishing here unarmed. The bears (and there''s plenty of them) love eating unarmed hikers and fishermen. They taste soooo good! Essentially, this Law makes it impossible for folks here to enjoy the National Parks, safely. Recently, Ron Paul sponsored H.R. 1897 which would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, and restore our right to protect ourselves in potentially hazardous situations, but it failed to pass the House. Go figure.

[guysdigdirt]

The most vocal advocates of unrestricted gun ownership tend to be also the most virulent neo nazi racists, for that reason alone I have been adverse to their message.
Posted by brianbwb

Has anyone here said they support "unrestricted gun ownership"? No, I think we are in support of legal gun ownership, but there are enough laws now that are not enforced. Why come up with more? Criminals do not obey gun laws, why make more for the non-criminals?