A MOST INTERESTING VIEWPOINT

Watched Stossel’s episode you mentioned last night. Great show!

“At first, he was against us. Then, he examined the evidence and the facts with an open mind. Now, he is for us.”

Technically true, but let’s not make his conversion sound like a recent event.

By the time Stossel moved to ABC’s 20/20 in 1981, he had already “got” liberty. Let’s at least give him the credit he deserves for working FOR us for all that time.

I wish John would take some time to get all the facts straight. He responds to the Brady representative’s comment on how background checks are not required for all gun sales, by saying “like at Gun Shows”. Background checks are required at Gun Shows. There is no Gun Show Loophole.

John was talking about how students carrying guns might not be a good idea. He says he was wild in college, and kids drink and smoke pot. Finally the Concealed Carry On Campus representative says “we’re talking about people who are at least 21 years old”.

I’m thankful for John’s effort but in this debate one has to be very accurate and consistent. It just bothers me to listen to an argument and hear all sorts of misinformation.

As a Chicagoan, I am longing for the ban to be struck down, and hard; and that it leads to the fall of other infringements, such as FOID cards, and Cook county’s “assault” weapon ban.
(When people ask why I hate the AWB, my car analogy is: you can have any vehicle you want as long as it’s not red, because everyone with a red car is automatically a speeder, and speeding even 1mph over the limit kills a family of 4 someplace on this planet, doesn’t matter if you have a yaris, a ferrari, or a semi-trailer, as long as it’s not red, you’re OK…
Oh, and no honest man needs more than 2.5 gallons of gas in his vehicle… you have a 2.51 gallon tank, you go to prison for 10 years).
Yeah, I’m chompin’ at the bit waiting for this decision to come down.

My big fear is that within 24 hours of SCotUS agreeing with us, congress pushes through a law, written to circumvent the SC decision and ban civilian firearm ownership (probably using limits on civ use of calibers used by military, as some other countries have done).

Your big fear Theo? No they won’t. They have a good nose for ‘revolution’.
And they should….

Theo, and such a move would prompt another immediate lawsuit that would lead straight to SCOTUS and have such an incredibly bad law struck down on constitutional grounds. Banning certain long-used small arms calibers can only be construed as a way to sneak around constitutional protections even to today’s SCOTUS, and I don’t think even they could stomach allowing such a move to stand.

While Stossel deserves a good deal of credit for an informed change of politics/personal beliefs, he does wander a bit from the beaten path. At least he has been on both sides of the fence.
With respect to the banning of calibers/guns by the Government, we should be aware at all times that their rationale, preventing crime and saving lives, is merely the facade. Behind that rosy motivation lies a deep desire to dominate and control. Socialism/Communism cannot tolerate an armed society and we cannot tolerate a dictatorship.
Wait for a major national crisis or crises which will result in a declaration of martial law. There’s your sign.

I eagerly await your roundup post on this landmark case, Mas. 😀

The right to bear arms “is fully binding on the states and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

The decision did not explicitly strike down a Chicago law banning handguns, though it did seem to set a course for an eventual overturning of the law. Both sides of the gun rights debate are claiming some degree of victory concerning today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision however my concern is with the term “Reasonable”.

It is used in many laws giving politicians who write and pass them great potential to abuse their authority. What is “reasonable” to some is not “reasonable” to others. Is it reasonable to be able to own a firearm, yet that firearm must stored in such a way that it is all but useless if it is needed quickly in an emergency? Is it reasonable to charge large licensing fees, long waiting periods only to be told that “I see no need for you to carry a concealed fire arm” (and them keeping the money you paid to apply for said license).

My point is that politicians are masters of red tape and just because you can legally own a fire arm won’t stop them from making it illegal under most circumstances or too expensive for you to use it. I would like to see clear, precise language that would be very hard if not impossible to twist and abuse…

Mas,

With the decision handed down today, and going the way I thought it would, I have to ponder a few things.

While I think the decision reached the correct and proper conclusion, I can’t help but wonder about the unintended consequences.

Of course if the rightful side had won the war of northern aggression we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, as we would be a nation of fifty independant states. Each state would have it’s own laws with minimal, if any, federal imperialism.

I wonder what this will do in regards to state’s rights and ability to govern it’s people as the states, and their elected represenatives, see fit. I can’t help but think we have opened up a Pandora’s Box with consequences that far over-reach the decision handed down today.

Biker

Bottom line of today’s decision is NOBODY can credibly claim that banning handguns is constitutional!

Good SC decision. The concern at the water cooler is with the tyrants that disregard the US Constitution while covertly forming over arching NWO. Let us remain vigilant and expell the encumbant ne’er-do-wells! Then do it again, and as often as needed!