PDA

View Full Version : We have no right to possess guns



Golddogs
01-01-2013, 10:16 AM
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS





Attorney General Holder says,





"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."



TAKES 10 SECONDS .. DO IT AND PASS IT ON.







Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time, so USA today is running another one...Vote now...



Attorney General Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. Then pass the link on to all the pro-gun folks you know. Hopefully the results will be published later this month.


Here's what you need to do:


First- vote.


Second- Send it to other folks,


then we will see if the results get published.












Click to vote:
















USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm)

gmhr1
01-01-2013, 10:18 AM
What else would you expect from him, he's a jerk!

luvmylabs23139
01-01-2013, 10:23 AM
HOlder is a total idiot and I hope he ends up in jail for fast an furious. THat idiot can go to you know where and F himself. He needs to read the constitution along with his idiot buddy in the White house.
Send that fool to prison now!

caryalsobrook
01-01-2013, 10:42 AM
HOlder is a total idiot and I hope he ends up in jail for fast an furious. THat idiot can go to you know where and F himself. He needs to read the constitution along with his idiot buddy in the White house.
Send that fool to prison now!

You assuming he can read?:confused:

luvmylabs23139
01-01-2013, 10:47 AM
You assuming he can read?:confused:

You got me there. I did assume that one could not earn a law degree without the ability to read.

MooseGooser
01-01-2013, 08:09 PM
Obviously He cant read the Constitution...

He comes from a state that is Oppresive in their laws!

A couple of those Illinios and D.C. gun laws that was enforced while he was in Washinton,,,, have since been deemed Unconsttutional....

So,, what weight does his OPINION Hold????

Lefty idiot..

Gooser

MooseGooser
01-01-2013, 08:21 PM
Quote:

While D.C. v. Heller (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) was being heard by the Supreme Court (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court) in 2008, Holder joined the Reno-led amicus (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Amicus_curiae) brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and said the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt) through Clinton, was that the Second Amendment (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms) for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Militia).[25] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-ABA_JusticeBrief-25) Holder said that overturning the 1976 law "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."[26] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-WashingtonPost_Nakamura-Barnes_20070310-26)



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Case_citation) (2008), was a landmark case (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Legal_case) in which the Supreme Court of the United States (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) protects an individual's right (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms) to possess a firearm (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Firearm) for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Federal_enclaves). The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/U.S._state),[1] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-1) which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-2)
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of _Columbia_Circuit) in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-3)[4] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-4) The Court of Appeals had struck down (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States) provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975) as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Rifle) and shotguns (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Shotgun) be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Trigger_lock)." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Handguns) except for those registered prior to 1975."[5] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-5)

Uncle Bill
01-02-2013, 03:53 PM
You cannot regulate morality, ethics or mentally disturbed people who are bent on hurting or killing others. The signs of a mentally disturbed person should be taken seriously and swift action taken whenever possible. The recent shooting is not about guns, it’s about lack of parental control, lack of respect for our laws, lack of respect for authority, the breaking down of “family” and the lack of personal responsibility! See the video clips below.





PLEASE, watch both of these short videos, you will be amazed and glad you did.....

So, a bunch of TV and movie actors and actresses, have come out against guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg


But, wait a minute...they don't practice what they preach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pItiypwjHx4








These are the people who helped to create a “culture of violence.” Hollywood hypocrites!


UB

BonMallari
01-02-2013, 04:27 PM
THE FBI just announce that they processed a record 2.8 MILLION background checks for gun ownership in the month of December

that is probably the last thing the anti gun crowd wanted to see happen