Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ToeTag on January 11, 2013, 05:33:23 PM
-
I am tired of the "news" saying "assault weapon...like the one the military and police have." We as civilians have a "civilian" version of the one the police and military have..I wish I could deliver a slap to the face of anyone who tries to place the civy version in the same hole as the military version.
-
I'm in the same boat. It's O.K.
They can't help that they're THAT stupid. Mama must've done some hard core drugs while they were in the womb.
-
do we have soft core drugs?
midway
-
How about "shot at point blank range"?
Like it's some how worse than 15 feet away.
-
or saying "it's the first time it happened since..." when talking about anything. if it happened before it's not the first time. I would prefer the say "it hasn't happened since..."
midway
-
It's all good. You retain the right to insist you live in a civilised country while demanding the ability to carry a weapon for your protection because it's essential. What type of killing machine you carry is simply quibbling once you've gotten to that point.
May I now present the world's most pointless handgun?
http://www.gizmag.com/arsenal-firearms-double-barrel-pistol/21806/
I'm picking that the type of people who buy that already have a gold-plated Desert Eagle chambered for .50 cal.
-
I am tired of the "news" saying "assault weapon...like the one the military and police have." We as civilians have a "civilian" version of the one the police and military have..I wish I could deliver a slap to the face of anyone who tries to place the civy version in the same hole as the military version.
I have just the shirt for you ToeTag...
(http://www.endoapparel.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_18/custom/images/pictogram-fire-selector-switch-shirt/Pictogram-Fire-Selector-Switch-Shirt-TriBlack-Full-Resolution.jpg)
Also it bugs me when they constantly call magazines, clips. Or cartridges, bullets.
Once I went out shooting with some folks after a class, when a rather annoying guy tagged along uninvited. We tried to be nice and let him shoot most of our firearms, but he kept wanted to go all Rambo, was just was being rather annoying and we constantly had to watch him to keep him (and us) safe. One guy let him shoot his Mini-14 and he kept calling the magazine a clip, even after the owner of the rifle tried to very politely educate him on the difference, this guy just didn't pay attention. So then I started calling the tube magazine on my Marlin 39a (lever action .22lr) a "clip" Bragging about how my lever action had a 25rd "clip". That confused him to no end, and was rather amusing to me.
-
what I dont get is the fact they worry about these close range guns, I (my opinion) someone could do a lot more terror with a long range gun say ove 1000 yards. dont know where they are cant see em and never hear the shot. just my 2 pennies, thought thats why snipers are so deadly :headscratch:
-
what I dont get is the fact they worry about these close range guns, I (my opinion) someone could do a lot more terror with a long range gun say ove 1000 yards. dont know where they are cant see em and never hear the shot. just my 2 pennies, thought thats why snipers are so deadly :headscratch:
it's the availability heuristic. people see shootings with assault weapons on TV, so they automatically think that we should ban all assault weapons. i bet you a lot of people don't realize a hunting rifle can be used in that way.
-
yeah, I mean when I used to shoot all the time I could put 9 shots in a paper plate at 800 yards, with my hunting rifle. a friend of mine was good out to 1500 yards with a 338 lapua. its all the medias fault :mad:
-
Once we get the soccers moms & those that don't work enough to pay taxes out of the voting booth, this country will be better again :)
-
I just like this (found it tonight lol)
Via Louis Montalvo:
“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-
Or.
Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:
--Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
--Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.
--Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches," any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE's permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
Prohibits the transfer of "assault weapons." Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein's new bill, "assault weapons" would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/stop-the-gun-ban.aspx
-
It's all good. You retain the right to insist you live in a civilised country while demanding the ability to carry a weapon for your protection because it's essential. What type of killing machine you carry is simply quibbling once you've gotten to that point.
May I now present the world's most pointless handgun?
http://www.gizmag.com/arsenal-firearms-double-barrel-pistol/21806/
I'm picking that the type of people who buy that already have a gold-plated Desert Eagle chambered for .50 cal.
That you Piers?
-
That you Piers?
No, I'm not a whiny rich person.
-
My bad
-
I just like this (found it tonight lol)
Via Louis Montalvo:
“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
If I missed your point I'm sorry....but my point was the guns "we" have are not military grade guns. Anyone who says they are...are complete taco sticks. The AR-15 is less deadly than....insert many semi auto NON AR gun platforms. Jeeze there was a very popular 30-06 semi auto that would deal more lethal blows than a lot of the semis we have now....but those are ready to go in the eyes of.....
-
I just dont get the whole gun bans, ban this gun, that gun, this type of gun, yadda yadda and so on. To me a gun is a gun is a gun, they can all be deadly if used for the purpose of killing which, is why I call them guns and not weapons. Anything can be used as a weapon and until a gun is used to do harm its just a piece of steel or whatever, that is made into a gun. I mean it took how long to catch the "DC sniper" and he was shooting people out of the trunk of a car or something like that making 1 shot. and they are worried about "assault weopns" that unload 20 shots in 3 seconds lol :headscratch: :headscratch:
heres a tune to how I live and probably some of you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWPq0uOky4
-
If I missed your point I'm sorry....but my point was the guns "we" have are not military grade guns. Anyone who says they are...are complete taco sticks. The AR-15 is less deadly than....insert many semi auto NON AR gun platforms. Jeeze there was a very popular 30-06 semi auto that would deal more lethal blows than a lot of the semis we have now....but those are ready to go in the eyes of.....
Oh I definitely agree. 100%
The problem is people see something black with rails on the front and go :eek: a people killer!
It's like looking at a car with a "ground kit" and a spoiler and thinking it's a street racing speed-mobile when it's literally just some flashy cosmetics. :rolleyes:
It makes me sad.
heres a tune to how I live and probably some of you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWPq0uOky4
Excellent song. I have it on several CD's in the car.....not that my CD player works anymore. :(
-
I'm not in favour of more and more capable weapons carried by more and more civilians. However I think a strict reading of the 2nd amendment in context shows that its intent is to allow armed rebellion should that become necessary. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." By this reading, there is no issue with the people keeping and bearing anything the armed forces chooses to bear. This would certainly include assault rifles.
-
I just like this (found it tonight lol)
Via Louis Montalvo:
“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
This is an excerpt from the National Review Online article:
"Regulating the Militia" DECEMBER 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.
By Kevin D. Vance Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson)
-
I am tired of the "news" saying "assault weapon...like the one the military and police have." We as civilians have a "civilian" version of the one the police and military have..I wish I could deliver a slap to the face of anyone who tries to place the civy version in the same hole as the military version.
You are right of course. The MSM is almost never going to get this right. It's in their DNA. On the other hand, the spirit of the second amendment would be better served if law made neither the distinction nor the restriction on sale or ownership of the military models.
If that wasn't obvious, then let me be clear. I advocate elimination of the restriction to sell or own military weapons such as the M16 and M14. All the better to "check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers" as Supreme Court justice Joseph Story explained in his opinion on the second amendment.
-
This is an excerpt from the National Review Online article:
"Regulating the Militia" DECEMBER 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.
By Kevin D. Vance Williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/321027_194121387392967_1563295535_n.jpg)
-
On August 29th, 1997 my AR-15 became self aware.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/0f6iL.png)
-
On August 29th, 1997 my AR-15 became self aware.
Was it concerned about the future of it's pistol grip or bayonet lug? :D
-
Freedom is not free etc
(http://i.imgur.com/SPjCs.jpg)
-
What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.
If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.
-
Also very true.
-
What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.
If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.
How do you define "well-regulated militia"? I have some friends. We are armed. We have a rank structure, rules of safety, rules of engagement, etc. Are we not well-regulated? Are we not a militia?
-
How do you define "well-regulated militia"? I have some friends. We are armed. We have a rank structure, rules of safety, rules of engagement, etc. Are we not well-regulated? Are we not a militia?
You may well be considered a militia. What purpose do you serve? Neighbourhood defence? If so then I would suggestt my comment didnt apply to you. However I would justifiably surmise that most U.S gun owners are not part of an organised group with rank structures and safety rules. Isn't the essence if the 'organised militia' to make the government toe the line?
-
What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.
If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.
Yep
If you look up what the fore fathers said: If you are in the/a militia you can have the weapons of the time. You are also regulated, practiced and report to a commander.
Those days have long passed and today's militia is the States National Guard. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can have it for personal protection.
-
Yep
If you look up what the fore fathers said: If you are in the/a militia you can have the weapons of the time. You are also regulated, practiced and report to a commander.
Those days have long passed and today's militia is the States National Guard. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can have it for personal protection.
There is nothing which says you can't, and the National Guard reports to the government, which defeats the idea behind the second ammendment's militia concept.
-
There is nothing which says you can't, and the National Guard reports to the government, which defeats the idea behind the second ammendment's militia concept.
The reason the Government is in control of the militia <NG> is because when called upon they <the people> didn't come.
Being in the militia allows you to own a tank then or a f14 or a carrier vessel, you can not.
Guns are left on the table to appease the American public and their right to "rise against tyrannical government". I suppose if you were in Washington and saw 300 million guns headed you way you might listen....Or call the Militia?.
-
The reason the Government is in control of the militia <NG> is because when called upon they <the people> didn't come.
Being in the militia allows you to own a tank then or a f14 or a carrier vessel, you can not.
Guns are left on the table to appease the American public and their right to "rise against tyrannical government". I suppose if you were in Washington and saw 300 million guns headed you way you might listen....Or call the Militia?.
So what do you propose to do, [disclaimer: This is not what I claim is happening, I'm speaking in the context implied by the document] if the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny? Do you think the national guard will split from the government and intercede on your behalf? Look at history, and the many countries in which a similar thing has happened. How often does the government's own military step in to defend the citizens?
A government cannot keep itself in check any more than drug addict can be trusted to punish himself for his crimes. This applies to any governing body in general.
-
If the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny?
Here's where a raised eyebrow emoticon would be perfect.
-
So what do you propose to do, [disclaimer: This is not what I claim is happening, I'm speaking in the context implied by the document] if the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny? Do you think the national guard will split from the government and intercede on your behalf? Look at history, and the many countries in which a similar thing has happened. How often does the government's own military step in to defend the citizens?
A government cannot keep itself in check any more than drug addict can be trusted to punish himself for his crimes. This applies to any governing body in general.
what do you mean IF? I would like my money to build bridges HERE.. at home... in America ...etc
Nope look at Kent state and others
Not often
I agree
Do you think the people can take on the Government now? When the Document was written they sure could.
The essence of the Document has been trumped long ago but we still cling to the gun part <cowboys> and the Gov lets us.
Its not like we are all revolutionist's now... are we?.
Btw the document is very specific and very clear as to what it says and the way it is to be brought to bear <there is mention of what is suppose to happen and no mention of whats not to happen>...... the difference is mans own freedom and his idea of protection <rock> and what constitutes that.
We are left clinging to the last remnants of the old document and being told what we can and can't have from it.. as according to it.. we should, as the militia, be allowed the weapons of the time.
..Mans own freedoms <god given rights> and what the document says <you have it for> are where this lays now. We would like to keep the most powerful things we can even though it pales in comparison to what the REAL militia has.
-
what do you mean IF? I would like my money to build bridges HERE.. at home... in America ...etc
Nope look at Kent state and others
Not often
I agree
Do you think the people can take on the Government now? When the Document was written they sure could.
The essence of the Document has been trumped long ago but we still cling to the gun part <cowboys> and the Gov lets us.
Its not like we are all revolutionist's now... are we?.
Btw the document is very specific and very clear as to what it says and the way it is to be brought to bear <there is mention of what is suppose to happen and no mention of whats not to happen>...... the difference is mans own freedom and his idea of protection <rock> and what constitutes that.
We are left clinging to the last remnants of the old document and being told what we can and can't have from it.. as according to it.. we should, as the militia, be allowed the weapons of the time.
..Mans own freedoms <god given rights> and what the document says <you have it for> are where this lays now. We would like to keep the most powerful things we can even though it pales in comparison to what the REAL militia has.
The REAL "militia" isn't a bunch of robots either. You don't think they'd just walk away from the unmanned drones and let Uncle Sam have them if Uncle Sam suddenly became ill and thought everyone in his yard was hostile do you?
"be allowed the weapons of the time. " - This always makes me sick inside. Does that mean magazines and the internet are not covered by the first amendment?
And everyone talking about a militia and reporting - if that was the case every gun owner would just claim to be in a militia. A group of friends could just pretend to have one formed.
Do you train? - "We go shooting every two weeks when we get paid."
Do you have a Chain of Command? - "We're a free-form, rank-free militia. All men are equal but each one does his own part. Johnny over there keeps tabs on the local terrain, Jake keeps a count of the weapons and ammo, David here draws up tactics, and I just shoot what seems to be hostile if we're in a bad way."
Meh. This is a pointless argument.
Take my "guns" and I'll go down with a weapon in one hand and a flag in the other.
-
...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...
It kind of makes me upset to think that we have people that will "support" our military men and women while at the same time think that these same people will take our freedoms away. that is being a hypocrite.
during the jun 4th "incident' in china they brought troops from other provinces because they were afraid local military might be "sympathetic" to the students. are we really that different?
midway
-
What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.
If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Pretty easy to understand.
-
The part I do not get... you/we rely upon the document when it was written for the right to bear arms, but the rules required by the document during the same time period are insignificant :headscratch:
For Johnny, Jake and David
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)
-
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Pretty easy to understand.
Certainly this was a sentiment but so was this:
"Certain I am that it would be cheaper to keep 50,000 or 100,000 in constant pay than to depend upon one half the number and supply the other half occasionally by militia.
The time the latter are in pay before and after they are in camp, assembling and marching, the waste of ammunition, the consumption of stores which they must be furnished with or sent home, added to the other inci-dental expenses consequent upon their coming and conduct in camp, surpass all idea and destroy every kind of regularity and economy which you could establish among fixed and settled troops and will in my opinion prove, if the scheme is adhered to, the ruin of our cause . For if I was called upon to declare upon oath whether the militia have been more serviceable or hurtful, I should subscribe to the latter.
That an annual army raised on the spur of the occasion, besides being unqualified for the end designed, is ten times more expensive . The only things that counted for efficiency were length of service and military experience of the officers."
George Washington A W. C. Serial 25, Part I,
-
The part I do not get... you/we rely upon the document when it was written for the right to bear arms
Maybe you do. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I can defend my life and family with deadly force of any kind.
-
Since we're doing quotes
"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And ... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
-Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. v. Miller (1939).
"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be."
- Supreme Court of the United States, Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
-Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"The states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to general government."
-Supreme Court of the United States, Presser v. Illinois (1886).
"... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ...."
-Supreme Court of the United States., U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).
"... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
-Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878)
"All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void."
-Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."
-U.S. v. Emerson, U.S. federal court, Northern District of Texas, 1999