so what is one to do??

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

can't help but notice the concerns of spunk and lookout regarding the imperial state of govt.  recent postings concern haliburton and concentration camps, the abuses of homeland security in operation sudden impact,  offensive police surveillance tactics and the rapid move of this nation towards an orwellian "dystopia".  still neither of these young ladies comment on the govts move to eliminate a peoples ultimate ability to stand and say no more!

[SDML]

So your 2nd amendment is to shoot at gov officials so that they'll quietly give power back to the people? I don't think so.

And you think Paul is a nut-job.

[wow]

as i think about the complacency being demonstrated by too many on this issue, let me point out that even while this case was appearing before scotus, the dc authorities were going house to house asking people if they could search their homes for weapons....try if you can to think of the implications of this?  by the way vermouth did not have a point, but again you do seem to see things that aren't there

the dc authorities were going house to house asking people if they could search their homes for weapons
Interesting.
Were these people under suspicion for an illegal shooting?
Were these people known drug dealers?
Were these people under investigation for any wrong doing?

If not, my next question would be "Why are guns being taken from law-abiding citizens?" 
I know one reply could be "This will prevent guns from being stolen by criminals"
Politicians are the biggest criminals I know of, so that will not fly.
The question still remains! 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

So your 2nd amendment is to shoot at gov officials so that they'll quietly give power back to the people? I don't think so.

And you think Paul is a nut-job.

  i don't think rp is nuts i know it and so are all those saps that contributed to his campaign and wasted their vote on him!!  "when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another....that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of govermment becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."   are these words even vaguely familiar to you?  this is why we have and maintain a fundamental right to bear arms.

[SDML]

If you think him nuts, why would you make him Treasury Secretary?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

he is no doubt a loon, still he is the only member in govt that seems to demonstrate fiscal responsibility on a consistent basis.  he would serve as a valuable counter balance to the countless other voices encouraging increased taxation, regulation and general growth of entitlements.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

If you think him nuts, why would you make him Treasury Secretary?

by the way this is a nice slide from our discussion re the second amendment, the impact of scotus and whether this country can truly risk the realities of mrs bill or bo reloading the court!  you do recognize those words don't you?  what are they speaking to....

[SDML]

I think the notion of fighting off or replacing your government with your personal firearms is a quaint and antiquated notion, to be blunt. Anyone who disagrees need only re-examine their own beliefs with regard to the private citizenry be allowed the same weapons as the government OR look to recent history (McVeigh or Waco, for example, or even the 1985 firebombing of the MOVE house in Philly). YOU, if memory serves, don't think private citizens should be allowed to freely purchase anything other than what is currently legal (handguns, etc.) and certainly not armored personnel carriers or bombs or armor-piercing ammo.

I don't see a private citizenry fighting Uncle Sam to a standstill armed with a few Glocks and Rugers. Do you?

That is not to say I don't support the 2nd amendment. If you recall, I actually argued in favor of private citizens being able to own whatever they can afford. In my world, it wouldn;t be an antiquated concept. In yours, it clearly is.

QED.

[spunkloaf]

can't help but notice the concerns of spunk and lookout regarding the imperial state of govt.  recent postings concern haliburton and concentration camps, the abuses of homeland security in operation sudden impact,  offensive police surveillance tactics and the rapid move of this nation towards an orwellian "dystopia".  still neither of these young ladies comment on the govts move to eliminate a peoples ultimate ability to stand and say no more!

Grump, you really need to stop putting words in my mouth man.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

sdml; to be blunt, given our experiences in iraq these past five years your dismissal of civilian resistance in the face of an overwhelming govt backed military is demonstrably asinine.  waco/mcviegh are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that being the basis for the second amendment.  clearly the founders sought to preserve the peoples ability/right to self-defense even and especially if the perpetrator is a govt that is no longer of, by and for the people. in short you either support or oppose the dc gun law under consideration within scotus?  you believe that supreme ct appointments by bo/mrs bill would not do long term damage to this country or that appointments by little mac would be just as offensive?  you are again a shinning example of the a convergence of the loony left and right.  you will predictably whine and wail re your rights to do/deal drugs, pay for a piece of ass or marry the boy next door.  in the process you will speak of constitutional limits to  govt and freedom etc...yet when something as easy to understand and fundamental to the constitution as dc's gun law vs the second amendment is brought to the table, you go belly up.  the basis for the second amendment is now quaint and antiquated!  spunk was there something you wanted to say? 

   

[SDML]

There you go again demonstrating the super-human ability to build straw men in the stead of having a meaningful discussion. Since you missed it the first time, allow me hip you to my personal wisdom:

That is not to say I don't support the 2nd amendment. If you recall, I actually argued in favor of private citizens being able to own whatever they can afford. In my world, it (ability to resist tyrannical gov) wouldn't be an antiquated concept. In yours, it clearly is.

Between the two of us, you go belly up long before me. I actually believe in individual sovereignty.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

no you believe in perpetual adolescence.  the sovereignty you aspire to is without responsibility.  still you never answered the question at hand. support or oppose the dc gun law?  can this nation endure, should this nation endure a supreme court reloaded by mrs bill or bo?  does this concern merit a vote for little mac??

[spunkloaf]

spunk was there something you wanted to say? 

   

Yes.  Besides "Stop confusing my words with other peoples'", guns have always been and should remain legal.  I don't understand why nun chucks are illegal.  I got busted for having two butter knives taped together on a chain.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

spunk was there something you wanted to say? 

   

Yes.  Besides "Stop confusing my words with other peoples'", guns have always been and should remain legal.  I don't understand why nun chucks are illegal.  I got busted for having two butter knives taped together on a chain.

are you going on record as being in opposition to the dc gun law?

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

This whole gun arguement boils down to two points.

Do people have the right to own guns for self-protection and hunting That answer should be yes.

Does local/state/federal government have the duty to protect it's citizens from those who would use these guns to commit crimes The answer to that should also be yes.

The supreme court will decide what restrictions, if any, the government can impose on it citizens in regards to guns just like they have determined what restrictions there are on free speech -- you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre (unless there is really a fire) and you can't deliberately spread a lie about anybody (unless you're a politician).
 
Our system of government has always been the Supreme Court has the final say. If you don't like their decisions Haji-Grumpee -- then you should just move to a more democratic country -- like Iraq 

oh wait a minute ... they're trying to restrict gun ownership there too. Darn!