# DC gun ban



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

Looks like a step in the right direction.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

You beat me to it; I was just posting the same article. hallelujah!!


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

A step in the right direction is right. Hopefully this can give some momentum to other gun ownership RIGHTS.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Glad to see the ruling be correct. The scary thing is the vote was 5-4, meaning one more liberal pinhead judge would have meant ALL Americans losing the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. This is why who we vote for President is key, the odds are very high the next President will nominate at least one new Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone think Barak would nominate 2nd Amendment friendly Justices? Anybody?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Glad to see the ruling be correct. The scary thing is the vote was 5-4, meaning one more liberal pinhead judge would have meant ALL Americans losing the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. This is why who we vote for President is key, the odds are very high the next President will nominate at least one new Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone think Barak would nominate 2nd Amendment friendly Justices? Anybody?


Me, Me, Me,

He very well could nominate a 2nd Admendment-friendly justice. He is a US senator in a state that has tight guns laws, sure, but also a very large number of hunters and recreational, non-consumptive shooters. Illinois harvested, with guns, something like 115,192 deer in 2006; Wyoming around 40,000. The number of Illinoisans that waterfowl hunt is incredible. Most of these people are union, blue-collar workers, and the man got his senate seat by winning the blue-collar vote, among others. He is good, very good.

His voting record on gun control? who knows, the guy has *no* voting record, voted "present" or "abstain" much of the time.

That being said, I'm studying up on Bob Barr.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Glad to see the ruling be correct. The scary thing is the vote was 5-4, meaning one more liberal pinhead judge would have meant ALL Americans losing the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. This is why who we vote for President is key, the odds are very high the next President will nominate at least one new Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone think Barak would nominate 2nd Amendment friendly Justices? Anybody?
> ...


I know who I'm voting for.


John McCain - June 26 said:


> Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right....


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

John McCain is a good man, IMHO.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Hooray! Things are as they should be. Now we can put this debate behind us and focus on other things. Despite those who want to keep everyone afraid, even if we get 9 "liberal" justices- they aren't going to overturn precedent very lightly. I'm not saying this debate won't raise its ugly head in the future, but I will wager this precedent won't even be threatened for another 25 years. Most of the really important USSC cases from the last half-century are 5-4 decisions, but those decisions last because the Justices know that revisiting settled precedent destroys the institutional power of their office- and the last thing they want to do is make themselves irrelevant.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> That being said, I'm studying up on Bob Barr.


The same Bob Barr that was at the forefront of impeaching Clinton? The same Bob Barr that has NO chance of winning the general election? :? Talk about a WASTED vote. :roll:

As for Barak being 'gun friendly', have you heard his comments on guns and gun owners? He was elected in Illinois on the sheer numbers from the urban folks, not the 'blue collar' workers outside of Chicago. He is as liberal as ANY Senator in the US Senate. I have yet to see/read/hear any indication he is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. If elected he will surely nominate liberal activist judges to the federal courts/Supreme Court. I will bet my LE elk tag on that.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, I'm studying up on Bob Barr.
> ...


Dangit Pro, I'm a non-resident what am I gonna do with a resident LE elk tag?

The urban folks in Ellinoise are mostly white blue-collar people.

He didn't get the senate seat by being anti-gun.

Hold that thought, gotta run to the post office.

No vote is a wasted vote, but thanks for the info on Bob Barr. Like I said I'm studying up on him. All I know is he quit the GOP, a plus in my book.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

175,000 deer was a WAG. I looked it up and they killed 115,192 with guns in 2006 and 116,708 in 2007.

sorry


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> 175,000 deer was a WAG. I looked it up and they killed 115,192 with guns in 2006 and 116,708 in 2007.
> 
> sorry


How many deer were killed in Pa.? How many Pa. folks voted for Obama in the Primary? What were Obama's comments about gun owners in Pa.? You're right, he sounds like a HUGE gun advocate. NOT!! :roll:


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

HALLELUJAH!! 

-*|*- *OOO* 

It's about time! I mean, it has taken the SC over 200 years to finally state the obvious, that the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, are guarantees regarding INDIVIDUAL liberties. This is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows their history.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > 175,000 deer was a WAG. I looked it up and they killed 115,192 with guns in 2006 and 116,708 in 2007.
> ...


I can't answer any of those questions about PA. And no Mr Obama is not a "HUGE" gun advocate.

I find it funny every election that the right says if the left is elected we are gonna lose our firearms. Good Grief! I have heard that since Lyndon Johnson ran. (It was a big deal then, right after the JFK assination).

There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.

Not all is lost. I'll betcha my Wyoming elk tag I can still get a fully auto machine gun, on the internet, without a FFL license; all it takes is money.

My


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.


It ain't about our hunting firearms. It's about *ALL* of our firearms. Whether they are for hunting, fightin', self protectin', and especially for revoltin'!

Fishrmn


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.
> ...


Bingo, you picked up on my adjective "hunting". Good job.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> I find it funny every election that the right says if the left is elected we are gonna lose our firearms. Good Grief! I have heard that since Lyndon Johnson ran. (It was a big deal then, right after the JFK assination).
> 
> There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.
> 
> Not all is lost. I'll betcha my Wyoming elk tag I can still get a fully auto machine gun, on the internet, without a FFL license; all it takes is money.


If there are enough "checks and balances" as you claim, why did the Supreme Court have to get involved? And, if the Supreme Court had just ONE more activist Justice the DC idiotic gun laws would have been upheld. What "checks and balances" will there be when the White House is occupied by a Socialist (Obama) and the Senate and House are controlled by the Dems, which cater to the likes of George Soros, and the Supreme Court has more activist Justices than Constitutionalists? The "checks and balances" are the people staying vigilant and letting politicians know we will NOT stand quietly by and let are firearms be taken away one type at a time, one city at a time, one state at a time!


----------



## plumber (Jan 28, 2008)

WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY DEAD COLD HANDS


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.


Easy for you to say living in a western state. You wouldn't say that if you lived in DC and could not even have a handgun in your own home to protect your family. And I am sure there were lots of people in the UK and Australia who felt the same way, right up until they passed the laws requiring them to surrender their firearms to be destroyed. Besides, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. It is about the basic human right to defend life, liberty and property. Today is a good day for freemen and patriots. We shall see what tomorrow brings......

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

WeakenedWarrior said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > There's enough checks and balances and righties in congress to thwart off the knotheads taking our hunting firearms away.
> ...


yah, yah all good points I guess WW and Pro. I think things will work out OK.

The last city left is Chicago.

By the way WW, I have not always lived in a western state. I lived in Illnois much of my adult life. I was there when they made us all register as gun owners; have gun ownership cards; no matter if we used them for self-defense, collections, hunting or plinking. Good grief! I thought my father was gonna flip. As a matter of fact he refused to get a gun ownership card, quit hunting and sadly gunsmithing, and gave all bhis guns to us kids. It was the end of the world as I knew it in Illinois. They had mock Boston Tea Party thingies, copies of the constitution were being burned everywhere.

Well the dumb cards are still out there, anyone who owns a gun has a gun ownership card with a photo and a background check.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And what city is Barak from again?  You have just proved my point! That is the type of politician Barak is, and will be as President. He will only nominate pro-abortion, anti-gun Justices to the bench. Count on it!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> And what city is Barak from again?  You have just proved my point! That is the type of politician Barak is, and will be as President. He will only nominate pro-abortion, anti-gun Justices to the bench. Count on it!


Chicago.

I'm not worried. I think Hillary will get in anyway.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Chicago.


This 'fine' city has a long history of corruption from politicians. This is where Barak got his start in politics. The fact that he looks at gun owners with contempt is of no surprise.

Explain your theory on how Hillbill will "get in anyway", please.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > Chicago.
> ...


pm on the way


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > wyogoob said:
> ...


Looking forward to it. 8) I am off, got archery league to attend. Rack em!


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

I just got this email some funny stuff

Top 10 reasons a gun is favored over a woman....

#10. You can trade an old 44 for a new 22.

# 9. You can keep one gun at home and have another for when 
you're on the road.

# 8. If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably 
let you try it out a few times.

# 7. Your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup.

# 6. Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo.

# 5. A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space.

# 4. Guns function normally every day of the month.

# 3. A gun doesn't ask , 'Do these new grips make me look fat?'

# 2. A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after you use it.

And the number one reason a gun is favored over a woman....

# 1. YOU CAN BUY A SILENCER FOR A GUN 
=============================================

A Gun in the House
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said:

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?' The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!

But wait, there's more!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?' My reply was, 'No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.' To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

```
[code]
```
[/code]
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Where do rights come from?
Congress? Presidents? B. Hussein Obama? Humpty Dumpty?

Last time I checked the were G-d given! We only have trouble when men don't recognize them.
We will always have to defend them.

"The second article of amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of the United States is repealed."
-- U.S. House Joint Resolution 438 introduced 11 March 1992 by Congressman Owens, D-NY

"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?")
-- Fidel Castro, a response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba


----------

