And our winner, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court. You‘ve got around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year, another 75,000 non-fatal gun wounds, half the suicides are by gun; and this clown and his four colleagues decided that the 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and the demand that firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment. You remember the Second Amendment, “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.”

Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn‘t very complicated; for the purposes of forming a state militia, you‘re entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of use in arms since 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed, the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that.

Scalia, of course, simply decided that the militia part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore. There‘s the beautiful thing about our country, they say anybody can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice. And in Antonin Scalia, there‘s your proof, and tonight‘s worst person in the world!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25411242/

Olbmermann is wrong, sorry. The founders' intent when the second amendment was written is in fact exactly what Scalia is upholding.
And even if Olbermann were right, I guess this means to be logically consistent we should expect Olbermann to oppose things like gay marriage in the absence of a constitutional amendment? After all, nobody behind the constitution would've supported gay marriage. :rolleyes:

Scalia needs to take one .. last .. duck hunting trip with Deadeye Dick Cheney

Upholding the constitution, what a novel idea. :|

Fluck whatever the 'the constitution' says. Civilized American taxpaying citizens should have the right to defend themselves from invaders at the place where they eat, have sex and sleep, etc. And when such individuals travel to hostile, non-tax paying areas within the country, sometimes being armed can come in handy.

Fluck whatever the 'the constitution' says. Civilized American taxpaying citizens should have the right to defend themselves from invaders at the place where they eat, have sex and sleep, etc. And when such individuals travel to hostile, non-tax paying areas within the country, sometimes being armed can come in handy.

The constitution says we have that right to own a gun if we choose.Ther are no stipulations to owning a gun in the second amendment.

Olbermann is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. He's a poster boy for everything that is loathed about left wing, socialist ideology.

If he were attacked, he would call the cops, who would carry guns for him, by proxy, only it would be too late, because the deed would have already been done. He obviously knows very little about guns, other than the negative statistics, and ignores such statistics such as the number of Americans who die each year from taking prescription drugs. OTC drugs can kill too. An overdose of Tylenol can destroy a liver in a matter of hours, but we take a calculated risk when we make it available to the public. The BENEFIT OUTWEIGHS THE RISKS and the same applies to allowing citizens to arm themselves.

The number of prescription and OTC drug deaths is higher than gun deaths and car deaths combined; much higher. Should we outlaw prescription medicine?? If we follow his logic, the answer is yes, because they're dangerous for "average" citizens to handle, to use safely, or to control without big daddy government watching over. Guns are stolen, and so are prescription drugs. Both can kill if used in an improper manner, as can many other things, so why do guns get more negative treatment, even though the use of guns results in far fewer deaths than prescription drugs?? Drugs don't make a big bang like guns do, so I guess , they're not as deadly. It's no surprise that some on the left want to ban vitamins and other supplements, because that what left wing ideology is all about; control.

Figures lie and liars figure. Olbermann enjoys freedom because we have the biggest guns and the biggest bombs to protect those freedoms, and he should be thankful. We gun owners don't have to answer to him, or take his opinions seriously. He has the right to free speech, but no right to be heard or paid attention to. Even that right is protected by guns.

If he hates guns, he shouldn't own one, but he should educate himself before running his mouth against law abiding gun owners, who have never committed any gun crimes, and who have thwarted millions of crimes by virtue of being armed. One of the asses being protected by heavy weaponry is his own, and he should remember that.

It's no surprise that no nation has invaded the US since the British were expelled as a result of the war of 1812. Everyone on earth knows that Americans are armed to the teeth, and that an invasion would be a very risky undertaking. WE have our "well regulated militia', which is all of us, and it has served us well as far as security is concerned.

Guys like Olbermann miss that whole point and focus only on the negative to boost ratings. He's entitled to his opinions, by virtue of his inalienable rights, which we extend to all who come here, and which are protected by the mightiest military operation ever created by mankind, as well as the most reasonable and fair government ever conceived.

If those opinions are wrong, that's okay, because he doesn't make the laws, and he sits on no court. he may criticize Scalia, but in doing so, he's also criticizes the framers. They knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote our Constitution, which doesn't give us rights, but guarantees to protect the rights that we inherit by virtue of simply being alive. That's the genius of it. No government can take away what it hasn't given, because it doesn't have it to give in the first place. It guarantees what we're born with, which is the right to be free human beings, and guns have been the best way to guarantee those freedoms thus far.

Olbermann is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. He's a poster boy for everything that is loathed about left wing, socialist ideology.



Clearly one of the dumbest things you've ever said...

Olbermann is a real newsman, who reports facts, not a bunch of government propaganda like Rush Limbaugh.

I guess when facts interfere with your indoctrinated viewpoints, you consider them to be "left wing, socialist ideology"...:rolleyes:

Fluck whatever the 'the constitution' says. Civilized American taxpaying citizens should have the right to defend themselves from invaders at the place where they eat, have sex and sleep, etc. And when such individuals travel to hostile, non-tax paying areas within the country, sometimes being armed can come in handy.

Here we go with that armed intruder crap again.

I keep telling you, angst ridden paranoids shouldn't be allowed to possess guns.

It ain't healthy, and it just ain't right. LOL

Clearly one of the dumbest things you've ever said...

Olbermann is a real newsman, who reports facts, not a bunch of government propaganda like Rush Limbaugh.

I guess when facts interfere with your indoctrinated viewpoints, you consider them to be "left wing, socialist ideology"...:rolleyes:

You're telling me with straight face that he isn't a commentator, and doesn't inject his personal opinion??? Please. He's as far left as Limbaugh is right when it comes to his political leanings.

You bring up "facts", but the fact is, the Cort ruled correctly because we the people have always had the right to own guns, and the D.C. law was unconstitutional to begin with. It's no wonder that the city became on of the most dangerous in the world once the ban was imposed. Lifting it was the right thing, and the court supports my opinion, and my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It doesn't matter if it was a swing vote decision (as usual, but it's usually Kennedy who gets the swing vote), because the decision stands regardless.

Here we go with that armed intruder crap again.

I keep telling you, angst ridden paranoids shouldn't be allowed to possess guns.

It ain't healthy, and it just ain't right. LOL

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very thankful that you don't make the laws, and that the US Constitution supersedes that opinion.

Here's a story of yet another band of armed robbers' evil scheme of violence and robbery being thwarted by a law abiding, well armed citizen who wasn't afraid to use deadly force in the face of imminent danger. One of the three had to pay with his life as a result of his foolish choice to invade the home of another citizen.

Had the homeowner been unarmed, he, or his family members could have been the ones on the obituary page, but as it is, good triumphed over evil yet again.

Had one or more of them been attacked and survived to call the police, the assailants may have never been caught, and any stolen property may have never been recovered, but catching dead criminals is a piece of cake, and thanks to the bravery, fast thinking in the face of danger and the justified action of the homeowner, the criminal's are the one's who had the bad day in the end.

Yet many still believe that in D.C., law abiding people should be forced to be sitting ducks in the event of such an invasion, and that the court was wrong for taking a stand that runs counter to their opinions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-woodland2-2008aug02%2C0%2C6507606.story

Fluck whatever the 'the constitution' says. Civilized American taxpaying citizens should have the right to defend themselves from invaders at the place where they eat, have sex and sleep, etc. And when such individuals travel to hostile, non-tax paying areas within the country, sometimes being armed can come in handy.

Hmmm...kinda gives a new meaning to the Motel 6 slogan "We'll leave the light on for you". ;)

For the record, the Supreme Court was right in this. The intent of the Second Amendment was to create a civilian population that was armed to resist government tyranny and misuse of the US Armed Forces. It was to create a situation kind of similar to Iraq, but with more effective sniper positions and less hysterical Arabs who can't aim their rifles, to make an occupation insustainable.

Also, there's no such thing as a "gun death". Guns can't die.

That doesn't mean Scallia isn't a rotten scum-bag, just that a rotten scum-bag was right on this issue. Now if only they'd get right on the patriot acts and strike those down, too.

That doesn't mean Scallia isn't a rotten scum-bag, just that a rotten scum-bag was right on this issue. Now if only they'd get right on the patriot acts and strike those down, too.

qft. Wish this board had the rep feature enabled. I'd send some your way.

For the record, the Supreme Court was right in this. The intent of the Second Amendment was to create a civilian population that was armed to resist government tyranny and misuse of the US Armed Forces. It was to create a situation kind of similar to Iraq, but with more effective sniper positions and less hysterical Arabs who can't aim their rifles, to make an occupation insustainable.

Also, there's no such thing as a "gun death". Guns can't die.

That doesn't mean Scallia isn't a rotten scum-bag, just that a rotten scum-bag was right on this issue. Now if only they'd get right on the patriot acts and strike those down, too.

I believe that the patriot act in it's current form will eventually be repealed, although some of it will remain in some form or another.

Olbermann is a windbag and an idiot. He says it was meant to cover muskets, and hardware of 1791. Does that mean that we can only pass laws that regulate medications that were available in 1791? Should taxes only be used to build roads to the standards of 1791? In fact, the weapons that individuals were expected to own were consistent with the finest military hardware of the day. By those standards, we should all be allowed to own grenade launchers.

Olbermann is a real newsman, who reports facts, not a bunch of government propaganda like Rush Limbaugh.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :slap:

Olbermann is a windbag and an idiot. He says it was meant to cover muskets, and hardware of 1791. Does that mean that we can only pass laws that regulate medications that were available in 1791? Should taxes only be used to build roads to the standards of 1791? In fact, the weapons that individuals were expected to own were consistent with the finest military hardware of the day. By those standards, we should all be allowed to own grenade launchers.

Damn. Now I have to try to find something out: They did have cannons and mortars back then. I wonder if they intended for those to be held by the People, or if they only meant personal arms.

Does anyone know?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :slap:


Not surprised, you probably think Fox is doing their patriotic duty too..:rolleyes:

Damn. Now I have to try to find something out: They did have cannons and mortars back then. I wonder if they intended for those to be held by the People, or if they only meant personal arms.

Does anyone know?

It's legal in my state to own cannon(s). I have a good friend who's a collector, and owns many, along with great swords and many types of period weaponry.

It's legal in my state to own cannon(s). I have a good friend who's a collector, and owns many, along with great swords and many types of period weaponry.

I'll bet you're not afraid he's going to start blowing holes into the sides of his neighbors' houses because their dogs bark, either.

I'll bet you're not afraid he's going to start blowing holes into the sides of his neighbors' houses because their dogs bark, either.


Nope. They actually have one small cannon right in the middle of their TV room. It's at least 200 years old and fully functional. They have swords so large that they can cut a man in half in one blow. They're awesome.

I know another dude who owns a Howitzer mounted on a flatbed. Someone actually called Homeland Security when it was being delivered, but he had the proper permits. He owns a surplus WWII era tank, maybe a Sherman, and a Korean war era Army field ambulance. That thing is cool. It's exactly like the ones they used on M*A*S*H. It's basically a panel truck.

Most people don't own large weapons, but some do, and they're legal in many states. here's just one link to a site that promotes the sale of military vehicles. They aren't cheap, but they're out there.

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_mvg_magazines.php3

There are also foreign countries that will sell military equipment to anyone with the cash.

Where's my F-22 Raptor?

Damn. Now I have to try to find something out: They did have cannons and mortars back then. I wonder if they intended for those to be held by the People, or if they only meant personal arms.

Does anyone know?

Cannons and artillery (and ships) were generally held by the town/state at its militia headquarters. Probably due to the expense and need for consistency, since you'd need ammo and such to work in all of them. It is important to note that firearms ownership was not a suggestion, every person of fighting capacity by that day's standards (male, 15-50, of sound mind, etc.) was required legally to own a working rifle, shot, charges, boots, overcoat, etc. as part of their duty to the militia. It wasn't that individuals might own guns, it was that every individual who could make use of one was expected to have one. And they were expected to have one that was the equivalent of what the military would have at the time. And I believe that our Swiss friends still have this scenario. My understanding is that military service is compulsory, and subsequent to that service each person is given their kit (rifle, combat uniform, etc) which they must maintain. Basically, national defense is the responsibility of every citizen. Novel concept....

Most people don't own large weapons, but some do, and they're legal in many states. here's just one link to a site that promotes the sale of military vehicles. They aren't cheap, but they're out there.

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_mvg_magazines.php3

There are also foreign countries that will sell military equipment to anyone with the cash.

The Soviets had a great going out of business sale. I don't recommend trying to find a discount Humvee through surplus, though. I remember well how we treated those things.

The Soviets had a great going out of business sale. I don't recommend trying to find a discount Humvee through surplus, though. I remember well how we treated those things.

I saw a Russian mafia guy on TV selling a Soviet sub to some drug dealers, and he said he can even get them with missiles.

I saw a Russian mafia guy on TV selling a Soviet sub to some drug dealers, and he said he can even get them with missiles.

That is brilliant! Except that the US is surrounded by a sonar net....

Olbermann is a windbag and an idiot. He says it was meant to cover muskets, and hardware of 1791. Does that mean that we can only pass laws that regulate medications that were available in 1791? Should taxes only be used to build roads to the standards of 1791?For that matter should newspapers only be allowed to use printing presses of the standard available in 1791? No radio, no TV?

In fact, the weapons that individuals were expected to own were consistent with the finest military hardware of the day.Correct. In many cases, the weapons and technology normal folks owned in those days were much better than the smooth-bore muskets used by regular troops.

Cannons and artillery (and ships) were generally held by the town/state at its militia headquarters. Probably due to the expense and need for consistency, since you'd need ammo and such to work in all of them. It is important to note that firearms ownership was not a suggestion, every person of fighting capacity by that day's standards (male, 15-50, of sound mind, etc.) was required legally to own a working rifle, shot, charges, boots, overcoat, etc. as part of their duty to the militia. It wasn't that individuals might own guns, it was that every individual who could make use of one was expected to have one. And they were expected to have one that was the equivalent of what the military would have at the time. And I believe that our Swiss friends still have this scenario. My understanding is that military service is compulsory, and subsequent to that service each person is given their kit (rifle, combat uniform, etc) which they must maintain. Basically, national defense is the responsibility of every citizen. Novel concept....

That's a great point about the Swiss. It's no wonder that the most war ready countries never get invaded.

We even allow every Iraqi male of the proper age an AK-47, and almost everyone has one.

We even allow every Iraqi male of the proper age an AK-47, and almost everyone has one.Is that true? We "allow" Iraqis to have AKs, but US citizens can't own one? That's insane. Why do the people in an occupied country have more rights than the people living in the occupying country?

Is that true? We "allow" Iraqis to have AKs, but US citizens can't own one? That's insane. Why do the people in an occupied country have more rights than the people living in the occupying country?

Absolutely. It's been that way for years over there, and we honor their gun laws.

The AK is the most widely produced and owned gun in the world. It's a great weapon, and a good choice when it comes to owning a reliable gun.

God Bless Kalashnikov.

Oh, and US citizens can absolutely own one. I've had three in my life, and two Chinese SKS's, one with a bayonet (which have since been outlawed for shipping with the firearm). We just can't convert them to fully auto. The feds don't like that, but it's very easy to do.

For that matter should newspapers only be allowed to use printing presses of the standard available in 1791? No radio, no TV?

And should the First Amendment only apply to the printed word, thus leaving internet discussion boards open to censorship by the government?

Is that true? We "allow" Iraqis to have AKs, but US citizens can't own one? That's insane. Why do the people in an occupied country have more rights than the people living in the occupying country?

You can have AK's, you just need to accept 4 hours of power a day, no clean water, and Iraqi police forces.

That's a great point about the Swiss. It's no wonder that the most war ready countries never get invaded.

We even allow every Iraqi male of the proper age an AK-47, and almost everyone has one.

Sun Tzu would say that a battle is won before it is fought, as is a war. The Swiss don't get invaded because they won the war already. Anyone else showing up is just taking a beating for no gain. Even Germany, who joyously walked into France, through Poland, pelted England, invaded Russia, and thumbed its nose at the United States, was not stupid enough to invade Switzerland.
The secret is to have a military might that can throw off any invader, a population that is educated and healthy as possible, and a policy of not getting too aggressively involved in the affairs of others. If you are capricious in your use of force, others will feel they have nothing to lose engaging you now on their terms versus later on yours. If you aren't prepared for defense, someone will show you why you should have been. If your people are discontent, internal strife will prevent you from mounting a good defense.

Oh, and US citizens can absolutely own one. I've had three in my life, and two Chinese SKS's, one with a bayonet (which have since been outlawed for shipping with the firearm). We just can't convert them to fully auto. The feds don't like that, but it's very easy to do.As you noted, an SKS is not an AK47...as much as insane politicians want to convince us that it is.

As you noted, an SKS is not an AK47...as much as insane politicians want to convince us that it is.

The SKS is a hell of a rifle, but the AK is just a better product. As far as reliability goes; it can't be beat.

The freakin' bullets are getting so expensive though. These days, I shoot 22's when I get the urge because they're still cheap.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm very thankful that you don't make the laws, and that the US Constitution supersedes that opinion.

Actually it doesn't.

The reality is that like most people, I will go my own way and do whatever I feel like doing.

As long as I don't run afoul of the law, there's no consequence.

I don't think that will be a problem since I don't care for guns.

But our government has made it patently clear that THEY aren't in the habit of looking out for, saving, protecting, nurturing, educating or respecting the citizens of the United States.

As such, we are ALL left to look out for ourselves.

We elect politicians to do these sorts of things and what have they come up with?

1) Health care... They have plenty, we have next to none.

2) Protection: they have plenty, we have none

3) Retirement plans, They have plenty, we have none

4) Privacy, they have plenty, we have none

So it figures that they would put on the high court people who will look out for special interests... like the NRA, and look out for THEM.

While everyone wrings their hands over the hypocracy, I ignore it ( for the most part) because none of it really matters.

The gun nuts are far more likely to shoot themselves and their family members than anyone else. ( That's one problem solved):rock:

The crooks in government are far more likely to pass laws in favor of themselves than any of us... laws which will be ignored by anyone who doesn't like them. (That's another problem solved):horse:

Sooner or later, the SCOTUS will decide abortions are illegal and Jesus should be in every classroom.:jes:

When that happens the excrement will hit the rotory cooling device and everyone will be throwing down for their favorite position ( or delusion if your a rightie):woohoo:

I'll be the one holding the popcorn.:corn:

.... and so it goes.....

For the record, the Supreme Court was right in this. The intent of the Second Amendment was to create a civilian population that was armed to resist government tyranny and misuse of the US Armed Forces. It was to create a situation kind of similar to Iraq, but with more effective sniper positions and less hysterical Arabs who can't aim their rifles, to make an occupation insustainable.

Also, there's no such thing as a "gun death". Guns can't die.

That doesn't mean Scallia isn't a rotten scum-bag, just that a rotten scum-bag was right on this issue. Now if only they'd get right on the patriot acts and strike those down, too.

I don't like guns, and over the years I've had a few loved ones die at their own hands due to the simple fact that they had a gun within reach during a moment of personal crisis, but I am completely in favor of this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It makes total sense, and I could see the thought coming to the framers when they added this amendment. It hadn't been long since their own government (the British Crown) had betrayed them, and they knew that men end up being men after a while, and the whole dirty business of authoritarian rule could easily become an issue within a few generations unless they enabled the general population to be a frightening prospect for a rogue government's attempt to corral it all into one helpless place.

I wouldn't have even considered this before the bizarre changes that have occurred in the last several years. I think the left and the right can agree on this one thing - no one group has the right to gain total control over this society, and if any one group tries, they best pack a lunch because if they think Iraq is a quagmire, this place will be a complete nightmare.

That's a great point about the Swiss. It's no wonder that the most war ready countries never get invaded.



France, Germany, Italy and Russia were not "war ready" ?

And Japan would have been invaded had they not surrendered first