PoliceLink

How effective do you believe the D.C. gun bad has been, and how do you feel about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on it? How do you believe it will affect the rest of the country?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments most likely in March, with a ruling expected by the end of June.

I think I better start saving now, so I can buy the guns I want before they ban them. Pretty soon we will be down to slingshots while the criminals still have guns.

Only the rate of criminals being killed by the law abiding citizens will go down.

I don't really know what to say about this... I'm against any gun ban... go ahead start throwing your spears at me I'm wearing level 4 body armor!

I'm against regulating any type of restriction or ban with firearms at all.

Now explosives, such as grenade/rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs, C4/Semtex, claymores, land mines and anything else that happens to make an excessively large BOOM. I'm all for keeping that stuff away from people other then the military.

danR8 said:

"Shall not be infringed upon." It doesn't say "may" be infringed upon.

rhallpiper said:

danR8 said:

"Shall not be infringed upon." It doesn't say "may" be infringed upon.

We need to invest more effort teaching our illiterate politicians to read. This is as simple as a statement can be.

trishthrall said:

rhallpiper said:

danR8 said:

"Shall not be infringed upon." It doesn't say "may" be infringed upon.

We need to invest more effort teaching our illiterate politicians to read. This is as simple as a statement can be.

The 2nd amendment as read implies the right to bear arms in order to over throw an oppressive government. How many people are going to try to over throw our government with handguns? "Politicians" can in fact read, and "Judges" interpret laws...I think it's WAY beyond time we reinterpreted this amendment and looked at it for what it really is. The second amendment only applies to those active in a militia, I'm sorry, but it doesn't protect the so-called rights of any idiot who wishes to carry or own handguns.

hospitalcop said:

This ruling, either way should have some profound impacts on gun legislation across the nation. It will be a crucial ruling for both sides. If you have followed the NRA's coverage on this topic, you'll know that the majority of case law and precedence leans towards an Individual's Right as opposed to the "collective" Right of the State. If the USSC rules in favor of the current ban, be prepared for some serious long term implications destroying the rest of our Individual Rights as spelled out by the Bill of Rights. Think about how it would affect individual's Rights to Freedom of Religion and many others.... It's interesting to note that officials in DC considered revising the current law instead of going forward to the USSC.... www.nra.org

if they take the guns away from the good guys and only the criminals will be armed!

larkinforce said:

It has historically been seen (England, Australia and in DC) if you hand guns the crime rates go up. It does not take much sense to understand.

The Supreme Court will side with the Citizens, however; I think they will place some restrictions on the assault weapons, or remand it back to the States. I am not worried in the least. I have faith in our Constitution and the High Court.

The second amendment gives you the right own and bear arms. Now I want to know why does the supreme court want to take away our second amendment? The cty of Portland,Or wants to disarm there police officers and issue them tasers. Thepolice sai no way will you do this. There union backed them up also. They still carrya handgun to this day up there. When I lived up there I worked an apartment complex as an armed security officer. The police and county sherriff would not go to in there unless there was another officer with them and the reason is because it was a drug running and black arms market. I was there by myself with a 9MM. If they an weapons there will be more deaths of LEO's nation wide because they can bring the guns in via the mexican border since mexico has no weapon ban. Canada has a weapon ban but the residents up there have hidden there guns in areas that are secret compartments in there home. Those people that have done that live in rural areas where the nearst officer can be up to 30 miles away. We will have the same problem here if they do a national gun ban. They cant even stop a suicidel man from enerig D.C. wit an assualt weapon and firing on the whit house. I just saw that video the other day on tv. That happened when Clinton was President. AT Least the Secret Service had automatic weapons at the time. Now if the same situation happens when LEOS dont have weapons that equals a deadly situation for us. Let Us KEEP OUR WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

trishthrall said:

rhallpiper said:

danR8 said:

"Shall not be infringed upon." It doesn't say "may" be infringed upon.

We need to invest more effort teaching our illiterate politicians to read. This is as simple as a statement can be.

The 2nd amendment as read implies the right to bear arms in order to over throw an oppressive government. How many people are going to try to over throw our government with handguns? "Politicians" can in fact read, and "Judges" interpret laws...I think it's WAY beyond time we reinterpreted this amendment and looked at it for what it really is. The second amendment only applies to those active in a militia, I'm sorry, but it doesn't protect the so-called rights of any idiot who wishes to carry or own handguns.

BigGun said:

danR8 said:

Am I reading this correctly. The Supreme court ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Say it isn't so. Could God love me that much?

They haven't issued a ruling yet, but five justices definitely acknowledged in today's session that the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Positive news so far.