For those who carry arms on their boats-

Good post.

 

I simply read and .....Thats not what the Court says.

Hickman v. City of Los Angeles.

Ray Hickman had argued that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gave him a right to keep and bear firearms, and that this right was infringed by the city's refusal to issue him a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Hickman's claim: "We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states," the court said, "and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."


http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/how-the-nra-rewrote-the-constitution/

 

I don't believe I've spent a lot of time trying to 'justify' my right to own a gun. I don't need to, as you rather succinctly pointed out

But I seriously object to people trying to portray my country as some sort of crazed Mad Max world, and American gun owners as kill-crazy maniacs. And I'll push back against that sort of ignorant misrepresentation every chance I get.

I own guns because I live a rather rural lifestyle, not because they're some sort of symbol of manhood or patriotism. For example: I have almost endless square miles of empty country to play in, so I can actually shoot the pieces of history I collect in the form of old milsurp rifles. I can also go hunting for everything from mule deer to rabbits, quail and doves (although I haven't had much chance to do so lately).

I like to go Jeeping and camping in the middle of nowhere, where there are no cops on the beat. If I don't protect myself out there, it might be years before anyone even finds the shallow grave some scumbag buried me in, because he wanted my Jeep or my cooler of beer. And even at home, the sheriff's deputies are scattered so thinly that it would be blind luck if I called 911 and they got there in time to save me, instead of just collecting evidence so the state could avenge me later.

Would I own a bunch of guns if I lived in New York City? Probably not. I might have one handgun, or a double-barreled shotgun to protect myself from a home invasion robbery, but that would be about it....

As I've pointed out before, there's a big divide in this country regarding guns. When you bring the subject up, rural folks think of hunting, plinking, home defense -- and yes, patriotism and the feeling of self-reliance having a gun and knowing how to use it can engender. Don't scorn that feeling; it's the same one that men have had for thousands of years as they stood ready to defend their homes and loved ones.

If you mention guns to city dwellers, they start thinking of liquor store robberies, drug wars, drive-by gang shootings, home-invasion robberies, and ambush cop killings. I sympathize with them, and I know their reality isn't the same one I live in. But the question is how to satisfy their legitimate concerns without punishing me. As I've said many times before, taking every gun I own wouldn't stop a single drive-by shooting in Los Angeles.

 

You're citing the wrong decision. Are you deliberately trying to mislead us, or are you really that confused? You're quoting a lower federal court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) decision that addressed the plaintiff's right to carry a concealed weapon in public, not a general right to own firearms.

The Ninth Circuit Court is consistently the most overturned federal appeals court in the country, and this is a shining example of why. The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller, decisively put to rest any notion that the 2nd Amendment is speaking of a State's right to arm its militia, rather than an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

 

Then consult the Supreme Court

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties....

The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States). "

A state or city can outright ban guns and not contravene the Second amendment.

The state must only maintain a well regulated militia.


The Constitution states that the State is responsible " to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; [and] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. "

 

You're completely wrong again. The decision that matters is the latest one by the Supreme Court -- which is the one I cited. And it specifically ruled that an outright ban is unconstitutional. The one you're citing is completely out of context anyway -- because regardless of the justifications it put forth, it only settled an ex-criminal's claim that even though he was a convicted felon, he had a right to own a gun anyway.

I don't understand why you seem to have invested your manhood in trying to prove that I have no Constitutional right to my guns. You're no longer making rational arguments; you're just desperately googling anything that might support your stance. Give it up -- or at least take the time to understand what you're cutting and pasting.

I repeat: presuming to tell an American what his Constitution says and means falls somewhere between ignorant condescension and obnoxious arrogance. I would never try to argue Spanish law with you....

 

Im not arguing. Im simply observing the world as a human and wondering.

I just got off the SKYPE from Russia. My friend has a small boy who is sick. We were talking about socialized medicine . By freely handing out antibiotic's to anyone with a running nose, socialized medicine has created a drug resistant monster. The boy has Gastroenteritis. Drug Resistant. 4 weeks in the hospital...lost 8 kilos.

I always observe how the world works because I believe that it is my responsibility.

 

Freely handing out antibiotics to anyone with a runny nose is hardly peculiar to 'socialized medicine.' I went in to see my doctor last year because of a persistent cold, and his idiot assistant wrote me a prescription for antibiotics. I threw it away....

 

Didn't notice this part. You are probably talking about the post #189.
I am sorry that you feel offended about my example given to M.P., relative to the Islamic culture. I am sorry but there's nothing I can do to help you, because I see nothing that chould offend you in that example. That post simply shows how people with different cultural heritage perceive differently certain behaviors and practices. You have added the part about US Costitutional rights, not me. I was talking about cultural background and traditions. And I also wasn't talking about backwards countries but about Islamic countries.
Smilies are not necessary because that is my opinion and not a joke.

 

Sounds like things need to be either black or white for some participating in this thread.

"You're either with us or you're against us", now who was it that said that...?

 

Jesus.

 

Q."You're either with us or you're against us", now who was it that said that...?
A. Dubya!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U
Do I win a prize?

 

It's not bashing, it's true.
Here the purveyors of violence are given a pass if they are in media, entertainment or sports. Same for the Occupy Wall St. crowd and their lackeys.

 

I was having a glass of wine while thinking about that 2. Amendment... Then, after one more glass, I had like a revelation. Could it be that everybody was wrong for centuries? I mean, listen:

"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."

The way I read this stuff, it simply states that, in order for Militia to function properly, people are allowed to bear their arms, in a sense that nobody has a right to cut them off off their bodies. Which is undoubtfuly a very civilized and progressive provision, although it leaves space for interpretations when it comes to feet and other body attachments.

Cheers

 

Good point Daiqu but pointless.

Know what I mean?