UN Gun Treaty

Not only do we need to recognize and thank the NRA, but also the Second Amendment Foundation and the GAO, as well as the Chinese and Russians. However, our ally, the English are still 100% behind a UN treaty, and the UN itself has declared that the issue isn't dead!

Now that some of our elected officials have heard and listened to the voices of we, the gun owners of America; we still should not drop our vigilance and opposition to any future proposals put forth by the UN. We may have won the battle, but the war is still going to be fought!!!!!!!!!
 
Yep, they'll be back and said so!



Scary stuff.....

TinFoilHat.jpg
 
John Lott's research is very relevant and very good with respect to the beneficial effects of preventing violent crimes.


John Lott is an ass-clown and his "research" is pre-determined before he starts his research, just after cashing his check from the NRA...

LMAO ...


I happen to think Scalia is more important, as he came out in favor of Gun Control.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
 
josie, why not paste the entire article? instead of what you wanted it to sound like? might not get you the trolling award if you did.

GUN CONTROL

Scalia wrote the high court's 2008 ruling that a ban on handguns in the U.S. capital violated the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment.

In light of the July 20 massacre in which a gunman killed 12 moviegoers in Colorado, Scalia was asked whether legislatures could ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons.

He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."

Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written - cited "a tort called affrighting" that existed when the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century making it a misdemeanor to carry "a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax."

"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," he said. "I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear' (arms). So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be ... decided."

do you consider a rocket launcher to be a hand gun? or any type of gun? and if so, why?
 
Back
Top