Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="StarLord" data-source="post: 40902" data-attributes="member: 44"><p><strong>Re: What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law?</strong></p><p></p><p>The Supreme court ruling on Handguns in McDonald vs Chicago may present a clue.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2440144,gun-rights-supreme-court-ruling-062810.article" target="_blank">http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2440144,gun-rights-supreme-court-ruling-062810.article</a></p><p></p><p><strong>Lately there's this:</strong></p><p></p><p>The Second Amendment, which grants a right "to keep and bear arms," has been in the U.S. Constitution for more than two centuries. But it was only two years ago that the court applied it to individual citizens.</p><p> Last week, the court said states, counties and cities cannot wipe out this right. Specifically, the court said Chicago cannot ban handguns entirely.</p><p></p><p></p><p> But Chicago, and any other government, can still do many things to restrict guns if it can offer a good reason. In the past two years, federal appeals courts have ruled that state and local governments can forbid guns to juveniles and illegal immigrants, ban guns with obliterated serial numbers, require a permit for a concealed weapon, ban guns in a government parking lot, ban machine guns, ban unregistered sawed-off shotguns, and impose stricter sentences for crimes when guns are present.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Under last week's Supreme Court ruling, all these cases still stand, as do the governments' long-standing power to ban guns in sensitive places such as courthouses and schools.</p><p> Last week's decision means there is a limit to such restrictions. A state or city cannot pile on so many that the right to use a handgun for self-defense is meaningless. But the right to own and carry a gun remains subject to reasonable regulation.</p><p><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012267463_edit04mcdonald.html" target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012267463_edit04mcdonald.html</a></p><p></p><p>If, somehow the 2nd Amendment changes to such a degree that no one is allowed to have or own a hand gun, then obviously the only people that have them will be outlaws, crooks, the police and Military. If that comes about here in the states, and every state bans hand guns and rifles, I'd start to worry.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="StarLord, post: 40902, member: 44"] [b]Re: What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law?[/b] The Supreme court ruling on Handguns in McDonald vs Chicago may present a clue. [url]http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2440144,gun-rights-supreme-court-ruling-062810.article[/url] [B]Lately there's this:[/B] The Second Amendment, which grants a right "to keep and bear arms," has been in the U.S. Constitution for more than two centuries. But it was only two years ago that the court applied it to individual citizens. Last week, the court said states, counties and cities cannot wipe out this right. Specifically, the court said Chicago cannot ban handguns entirely. But Chicago, and any other government, can still do many things to restrict guns if it can offer a good reason. In the past two years, federal appeals courts have ruled that state and local governments can forbid guns to juveniles and illegal immigrants, ban guns with obliterated serial numbers, require a permit for a concealed weapon, ban guns in a government parking lot, ban machine guns, ban unregistered sawed-off shotguns, and impose stricter sentences for crimes when guns are present. Under last week's Supreme Court ruling, all these cases still stand, as do the governments' long-standing power to ban guns in sensitive places such as courthouses and schools. Last week's decision means there is a limit to such restrictions. A state or city cannot pile on so many that the right to use a handgun for self-defense is meaningless. But the right to own and carry a gun remains subject to reasonable regulation. [url]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012267463_edit04mcdonald.html[/url] If, somehow the 2nd Amendment changes to such a degree that no one is allowed to have or own a hand gun, then obviously the only people that have them will be outlaws, crooks, the police and Military. If that comes about here in the states, and every state bans hand guns and rifles, I'd start to worry. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
What Would Life Be Like Under Martial Law?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top