I was thinking the same thing, tho I'd replace 'terrifies' with 'worries'.

My first thought was something akin to riots, but gun nuts aren't the rioting type. Then some patriotic clique of air force officers who actually took seriously their oath to defend the US and Constitution bombing the next publicized scotus meeting. That would be the most appropriate, but still unlikely. Best guess would be a couple assassinated judges, but mostly I don't know.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

OK, so you drive through a leafy suburb of Virginia and into the downtown DC area.
A) you don't see a lot of people on the street in Virginia
B) When you do see them they are white, upper middle class.
C) When you get to DC, the people on the street are poor and black

How silly of you not to notice the difference...........

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Could you look Thomas Jefferson in the face and tell him that the government was banning him from bearing arms? I couldn't and neither could anyone on the bench of SCOTUS.

This is simply shameful, the founding fathers would be mortified that we are even having this discussion.

Bottom line: Our entire system of government was designed to ensure the rights of the individual against the authority of the government. Thats why it was called the American "Revolution" and not the American Succession. Now our government solves it problems by placing restrictions on everything. Yeah gun crime kills a lot of people every year, so do cars, cigarettes, and trans fats. The supreme court doesn't have the right or authority to take away any freedoms, it is their sole purpose to defend those freedoms from the authority of the government.

Dude your clueless to reality, geography and all goverment.

He was saying quite ignorantly that DC couldnt ban guns and if they did the whole state of VA would have to follow the ban when in reality its anything but that. Local government sucks and can ban whatever they want.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

I swer imma ride around with a loaded 18th century pistol on a horce with a fucked up wig on. Maybe that will remind my elected officals that our constiution is what made this country great.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

The issue at hand is the wording of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court will essentially decide whether the right to bear arms applies to individual persons or to a "well regulated militia" such as the National Guard. If it's the latter, then the DC gun ban stays in effect.

So, you are saying black people are more prone to violence? Sounds like racism to me.

Actually poor people are more prone to violence. In America, especially in large cities like DC, poor people are more likely to be black.

Anyway, it's all just idle speculation on what's going through the minds of the justices. But the idea of gun stores all over DC has got to be in their heads at some point.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Yes, but thanks to the idiotic interpretation of interstate commerce laws, if the Court decides that it only applies to Militias then it would allow the government to pass nationwide gun control laws without amending the constitution.

It is really only an issue because gun controllers know they could never get an amendment passed, so they are trying to use judicial activism to skirt around the constitution.

Yes - as in "how can we allow DC to continue to prevent law abiding people from protecting themselves"?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Look how well prohibiting alchohol worked. THe same would go for guns. I dont own one, but the day they make it illegal, I will go get one.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

You can keep it with your stash of drugs, assuming you apply the same logic to heroin, cocaine and marijuana...............

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I'll ask the same question here, that I didn't get much of an answer for earlier.

If, for some odd reason, the 2nd Amendment was actually repealed, nationally, and gun ownership became criminalized, how many here would own guns anyway? How many here consider gun ownership to be a fundamental "right" irregardless of the Constitution?

The idea I am getting at is that many people seem to be strict Constitutionalists only when it suits their particular vision of what the Constitution "should" say.

At least that's the impression I am left with.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Wow, goober, your really on a roll today. Nowhere in his post did I see a mention of a drug stash, or him even using drugs.

Yep, I sure can. Now how does that affect you and why do you care? Assuming I don't shoot you or get high and wreck my car into your house. How does me having a stash of guns, drugs, and booze negatively affect your life to the point where the government should come and take those things away from me?

I guess it comes down to this. If I don't harm you or steal from you in any way why do you have such a problem with how I live my life?

The point is, the will to harm another person will always exist, If you really wanted to kill someone and couldn't get a gun do you think you would just give up? Hell no, you would whip out a kitchen knife and stab them, or go make a fertilizer bomb out of crap you bought at the farm supply store. So do we ban knives and fertilizer? A gun without someone behind it is just a box full of springs with a tube attached to it, taking that away wouldn't stop crime it would just make criminals more creative.