doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com supreme court to rule

The NRA has been working to get this case heard for 30-40 years. We have always felt that if it was heard by the "proper" Supreme Court that this could be the land mark decision that we have wanted for decades. Our Brown vs. Board of Education if you will. But as many here know when you go to court it has become a crap shoot at best. Still I strongly feel that this may be our best chance for the next several decades.

No matter which of the three candidates for President wins they will be appointing more liberal judges and Bush has been more moderate in his appointment than many realize. The press may claim he has been a staunch conservative in his appointments but that is an myth. Our Supreme Court situation is as good as it may ever be barring a major swing back to the right in the next few years. And I am not holding my breath for the next great conservative hope to come along anytime soon.

Given the point that Shotgunjones makes, I see no reason for optimism. Individual rights are rapidly becoming just memories and soon they will be just stories handed down from one generation to the next.

Brent

Best hang onto those oldies that grandpa handed down that Uncle doesn't know about......

Rick

I can't think of a single (true) conservative that is currently in the political arena (nationally), that I would feel confident voting for. Everyone is too far left and continuing to move that direction. The next decade will determine alot for our country - maybe good, probably bad.

KyJon is right. This may be our best chance for the next several decades. I'm still holding out hope that McCain might pick Newt Gingrich for his V.P. running mate. He's as close to an actual Reagan conservative as we could hope for. Though I think McCain's more likely to pick a Joe Leiberman than a Newt Gingrich.

Hate to be negative, but like most, I am really worried these days. Between this ruling, and the ongoing financial goings on, things could indeed go to hell real quick.....

If our economy does fail completely, then the entire world economy will be right behind us. Hard times for all, for sure. But we still have the ability to raise more than enough food to feed ourselves. Can Europe, can the Middle East, can Africa, can the far East? I doubt that any of them will be able to make it with out major problems far beyond what we may have to deal with. Most of South America may be able to feed itself like we will but the rest of the world will be in for very hard times just trying to stay alive.

Problem is that we will have to defend ourselves and I just do not see the will to do so anymore. The outrage of 9/11 lasted less than a year. The outrage of Pearl Harbor lasted until 1945 for most and some still are outraged 60 years later. My father still will not buy items made in Japan. We lack the will and backbone and are lead by lesser men. FDR may have been a socialist but he was an American. Todays socialist are world order socialist and our nation means nothing to them beyond the fact that it gets in the way of their advancing mankind in their vision of Utopia. Thank God that I am getting old and will not be here for the last act.

Someone noted the fourth amendment was dead. The tenth has been dead far longer. All power not granted to the federal government were supposed to be at the state level. State right are history and our are not too far behind them I am afraid. The government has become the "Borg" and resistance is futile, we are here to serve it and become part of the collective.

"America's at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Well, that about sums it up. Nothing more needed.

Those darn commas. I have read a great deal on the subject of what was intended by those who drafted the Bill O Rights and the sentiments in 1787 to 1789 when those words were crafted. Without a doubt there was great fear that some president would attain by whatever means TOO much executive power and then begin to act like a King. (hmmm, sounds familiar)

It was intended to give power to the people. While some scholars can argue that it was meant to mean: an army has a right to bear arms... that even, on its face, is absurd logic. This argument implies there could be an army withOUT guns... Nope. No sense there.

Those who drafted this Bill Of Rights meant that between commas phrase as it stands---"the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You need to read Hamiliton's, Franklin's etc accounts of what was happening THEN and their letters THEN. The case is so clear. The review and arguments about what was meant by this RIGHT is of NO value unless you read more about the men who drafted the Bill Of Rights.

And by the way, it took two years for the states to ratify the Bill-O-Rights, not until 1791 were they ratified. So there was NOT a unanimous agreement on all aspects of either the Constitution or the Bill-O-Rights. There were heated differences of opinion. And the founding fathers, contrary to popular lore, did NOT see eye to eye and agree on all things and certainly the PEOPLE in 1780's also disagreed on many key issues... this was NOT a perfect Union... This was NOT a utopia where everyone believed the same things. Oh yea and there were two dominant parties Federalists and the Republican-Democratic Party... Repubs and Dems were on the same side.... not much has really changed in so many ways. But above all, they did not want tyranny or excessive executive power. They wanted to make sure the people had the ability to keep a tyrant from gaining too much power and subjecting them to their whims... The People were supposed to have the right to have and bear arms to guard against a central government's abuse of power. Simple.

MP3s of the arguements

http://www.downrange.tv/rkba/dc-v-heller.htm