Gun Control

[Joeyy]

The US Supreme Court is expected to rule in a couple of hours on the hot topic of private gun ownership. This is the first time in seven decades that the highest court in the land has looked into this subject.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080626...e_080626044044

If this thread doesn't explode off this page, I was wrong about the SECCS members. The court may just rule on the gun ban in D.C. or get super out on a limb and knock the hell out of the CA assult weapons ban. I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. Hope they don't go with more control and less fredom. Time for me to go to bed and hopefully not have any bad dreams about whatever ruling comes out today.

Hope to log on in a couple of hours to a free America and not......well you know were I was going with that one. Good night, my pillow is screaming my name.

[Kevin M]

For the first (and probably only) time I like that the Court is loaded with conservatives. I greatly dislike people on either end of the political spectrum trying to take away rights that they themselves are choosing not to excercise.

[Kevin M]

And that's that. 5-4 in favor of the rent-a-cop.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by Joeyy

The court may just rule on the gun ban in D.C. or get super out on a limb and knock the hell out of the CA assult weapons ban.

Yeah, and that pesky federal machine gun ban too. How's a guy supposed to go hunting and protect his family without his handy dandy S.A.W.

[MattR]

I like my machine guns...that's why I live in NV. Gun Control laws are about as useful as drug policy, they don't address the real problems and don't work.

[Kunikos]

So what does this decision really mean? I sure as hell don't want rent-a-cops all packing a nine. Those assholes are a bunch of wannabe vigilantes with no training or oversight, and I can just see random people getting shot for no good reason other than "obstructing the Orange Julius stand" in the mall.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Kunikos

So what does this decision really mean? I sure as hell don't want rent-a-cops all packing a nine. Those assholes are a bunch of wannabe vigilantes with no training or oversight, and I can just see random people getting shot for no good reason other than "obstructing the Orange Julius stand" in the mall.

The crux of the decision is that gun ownership in indeed a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore not open to complete bannination by a state or city ordinance. But they also ruled that laws to enforce the lawful use of guns are legal.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/wa...738&ei=5087%0A

So think of it this way: you are guaranteed the option of owning a gun as long as you meet the ordinances that may be set up to ensure that your use of that gun is lawful. So the D.C. gun ban that prohibited all hand gun ownership is unconstitutional, but limiting ownership of guns by felons, or gun registration and sales laws are legal as they don't prevent citizens from owning a gun without reason.

At least, that's my take

[Nick Koan]

I consider Gun Control to mean using both hands.

[MikeK]

"Having guns means you don't have to work out. You got pecs, I got tecs!"

Chris Rock

[moose]

So guns are the leading cause of why so many Americans are fat!

[NevadaSTi]

Originally Posted by Kunikos

So what does this decision really mean?

Scott got it right. It means that the Gov't can't remove your second amendmant rights unless there is a reason to. I.e. Mental illness, or violant behavior.

Originally Posted by Kunikos

I sure as hell don't want rent-a-cops all packing a nine. Those assholes are a bunch of wannabe vigilantes with no training or oversight, and I can just see random people getting shot for no good reason other than "obstructing the Orange Julius stand" in the mall.

Ahh, the great fear of everyone else arguement. Fails miserably. Some of the dumbest laws were passed bassed on "appeal to fear" type logic.

Ex. "I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"



I am glad I don't live in Killafornia with all the other stupid sheep that follow blindly.

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

What D. F'enstain doesn't get is that the second amendment protects all the other amendmants and freedoms. Including her right to be a dumb politician. One of the founding fathers of this country stated something like this, "The first amendmant only exists because the second amendmant backs it up." Mrs. F seams to think gun control has only been an issue for the last 70 years. Wow, she needs to take a history class. The British wanted to remove firearms from the colonialist's possetion. Why? Because it is easier to control people who can't fight back.

This is also the same arguement that people still use today. People with power do not like to see their power threatened. So they resort to scare tactics in order to whitle away our rights.

Obama said. “We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.” First and foremost, people who appeal to the fears of others, do not make common sense laws. Secondly, criminals don't purchase guns from Gun Shows, they get their gun from the back of vans and car trunks from theives who most likely stole the firearms from a legally owned collection. The background check system works just fine. The only thing that I have heard of that needs help in that regard is a more centralized system. As it stands right now, all the states have their own back ground check systems. None of the states that I am aware of share information with each other. I think that can be changed for the better.

I do apologize if I have offended anyone. I am an Avid supporter of our second amendmant rights. This country would not be free if we didn't have it or any of the other rights per the Constitution.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

Mrs. F seams to think gun control has only been an issue for the last 70 years. Wow, she needs to take a history class.

She didn't say it has only been an issue for 70 tears. She said "70 years of precedent has gone out the window". She was talking about legal precedent - mostly lower court stuff. She's right about that particular point whether you agree with her politics or not.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

Why? Because it is easier to control people who can't fight back.

No doubt about this. Ask any Iraqi insurgent. Should the public be able to buy shoulder-fire missles too?

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

Secondly, criminals don't purchase guns from Gun Shows, they get their gun from the back of vans and car trunks from theives who most likely stole the firearms from a legally owned collection.

Not true at all. According to ATF studies stolen guns account for only about 10-15% of guns used in crimes.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

I do apologize if I have offended anyone. I am an Avid supporter of our second amendmant rights. This country would not be free if we didn't have it or any of the other rights per the Constitution.

Actually, you're an avid supporter of gun ownership. While I agree in general principle that those who haven't shown reason to be disallowed should be able to possess firearms, your arguments are weak.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

Ahh, the great fear of everyone else arguement. Fails miserably. Some of the dumbest laws were passed bassed on "appeal to fear" type logic.

Ex. "I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"

How 'bout this fear-of-everybody-else argument:
" There are big bad scary bullies out there, and some of them have BB guns. These bullies will beat you up, take your things, and even do terrible things to your little blond friend Mary if you don't defend against them. You need a Ride Rider BB Gun yourself, in fact lots of Red Rider BB guns for self defense against these bullies. Similarly your parents are always trying to control you and even take your BB guns away. You need bigger and better BB guns to keep your parents in check or in case you ever need to revolt against your parents. "

[NevadaSTi]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

Should the public be able to buy shoulder-fire missles too?

I didn't say anything about shoulder fired (RPG) rockets or other devices designed for such things. I am talking about our rights citizens of this country.

Would I like to have a full-auto firearm, sure. Can I get one, sure. Can I get one legally, sure. Does it mean I will, probably not.

As for my arguements being weak, ok that is your opinion. As for argueing with people on the internet, it is a total waste of time. Some people are so caught up in themselves and what they believe, they feel it is their right to try to force their opinions on others.

This will be the last time I post in this waste of time thread.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

I didn't say anything about shoulder fired (RPG) rockets or other devices designed for such things. I am talking about our rights citizens of this country.

Would I like to have a full-auto firearm, sure. Can I get one, sure. Can I get one legally, sure. Does it mean I will, probably not.

As for my arguements being weak, ok that is your opinion. As for argueing with people on the internet, it is a total waste of time. Some people are so caught up in themselves and what they believe, they feel it is their right to try to force their opinions on others.

This will be the last time I post in this waste of time thread.

I think he means that your argument is weak from a support standpoint.

You said "I am an Avid supporter of our second amendmant rights. This country would not be free if we didn't have it or any of the other rights per the Constitution." There is very little evidence that we would not be free today without the 2nd amendment... additionally even if it were true, you can't prove what might have happened, therefore making your statement logically weak. Finally, attempting to argue that "the only thing preventing us from losing our freedom is the 2nd amendment" is exactly the same "appeal to fear" logic that you were arguing against.

I too support gun ownership. I believe that as free individuals we should be allowed to do whatever we want until it infringes on another's right to do whatever they want. Since person A owning a gun doesn't make any difference with the rights of person B to live their life, then gun ownership should be legal. But if person A uses a gun to shoot person B, they have violated the absolute base tenet of a free non-anarchistic society by removing person B's right to live, and therefore should be heavily punished.

I actually think the supreme court did a pretty damn good job with this ruling. By acknowledging that gun ownership is considered a basic Constitutional right of a citizen, they protect the erosion of people's rights in general. They affirm that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and that people have the right to live as they see fit until their actions impinge on others. But the decision is also a reminder that with the right to free choice comes the necessity to take responsibility for your actions. If you are a criminal you give up your right to free choice, at least in terms of owning a gun. And with that comes things like waiting periods, gun registration, etc. If you want to own a gun, the gov't can't stop you, but the gov't does have the right to be reasonably sure that you will be a law abiding gun owner. And while that rubs me the wrong way a little bit, I think that's an acceptable compromise, so long as it's recognized that it's unconstitutional to deny gun ownership on a broad or non-specific basis.

[Kevin M]

What Scott said. Brian, I didn't mean to imply your arguments were 'weak' in the street slang sense, only in a logical debate sense.

[wrxkidid]

I think we should forget about gun control and start arguing that if im 18 and can be drafted and go to war and die for my country then I should damn well be able to go into a restaurant and have a damn beer with my meal.

I support gun ownership as well. Some of the laws to me do not make sense though. As for my ability to own a rifle/shotgun but I am not allowed to own a pistol. That is one that I do not understand. If it is my constitutional right as an adult to own a firearm, then why at the age of 18 am I not allowed to own a pistol? Automatic weapons I don't have as much of a view on as I am not an avid gun owner/ shooter. To me an automatic weapon is a waste of ammunition and would never own one just because I wouldn't want to have to pay for a box of ammo every minute or so, but that is just my opinion so I can't really speak on my thoughts of automatic weapons, however as your rights are worded, if it can be proven that you will abide by the law and be a normal, sane, peaceful person you should be able to own your automatic rifle/pistol.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by wrxkidid

I think we should forget about gun control and start arguing that if im 18 and can be drafted and go to war and die for my country then I should damn well be able to go into a restaurant and have a damn beer with my meal.

I support gun ownership as well. Some of the laws to me do not make sense though. As for my ability to own a rifle/shotgun but I am not allowed to own a pistol. That is one that I do not understand. If it is my constitutional right as an adult to own a firearm, then why at the age of 18 am I not allowed to own a pistol? Automatic weapons I don't have as much of a view on as I am not an avid gun owner/ shooter. To me an automatic weapon is a waste of ammunition and would never own one just because I wouldn't want to have to pay for a box of ammo every minute or so, but that is just my opinion so I can't really speak on my thoughts of automatic weapons, however as your rights are worded, if it can be proven that you will abide by the law and be a normal, sane, peaceful person you should be able to own your automatic rifle/pistol.

You can't be drafted.

You're saying that you only care about the rights you would exercise- "...but I am not allowed to own a pistol. That is one that I do not understand." and "Automatic weapons I don't have as much of a view on ... and would never own one."

Also, you don't have to prove that you will obey criminal law- the government has to prove you haven't or won't according to the ruling.

[wrxkidid]

If congress reinstates the draft I can be. Theres a reason they require all 18 year old males to register with the selective service. I care about the rights I don't exercise, however I just do not have as strong of a view point on them.

I believe that the backround checks and other things that are required when you go to buy a gun are very much necesary.

[sperry]

The Federal gov't has no right to create drinking age laws. They just cut federal highway funding to states that refuse to enforce a 21 yr old drinking law. The primary reason for this is because half the deaths on the highway are alcohol related, and it's the primary cause of death for 16-21 year olds.

So, you have the right to go to war at age 18 but not the right to drink at 18 because it's been consistently shown that both are likely to kill you. The difference is only that dying in war is generally useful, while dying drunk behind the wheel serves no cause.

[wrxkidid]

True but if you look at countries in Europe that have lower drinking ages, they have a much lower death toll from drinking and driving related incidents than we do here.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Joeyy

Hope to log on in a couple of hours to a free America and not......well you know were I was going with that one. Good night, my pillow is screaming my name.

I hesitate to even post in this thread, but I guess I will anyway. I happen to support and agree with the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as allowing private firearm ownership, and own a couple of guns myself. That being said, the 2nd amendment is not the primary determinant of whether America is "free" or not (and Joeyy, this is nothing personal and not directed at you specifically).

There seems to be a prevalent view among gun owners (I only say this because I've heard it repeated over and over and over) that having a lot of people owning guns in this country is the primary deterrent which will prevent the government from becoming tyrannical, i.e. hauling you out of your house and throwing you in jail for political views, religious beliefs, etc. I really think this is a short sighted and ignorant view though since the U.S. Constitution as a whole, and having a government which adheres to the constitution as a whole, is what prevents tyranny here. The 2nd amendment is only 1 out of 10 in the bill of rights - that's only 10% of the total framework designed to afford you as an individual some protection from the government's otherwise unlimited power. Let alone the rest of the main body of the Constitution.

Owning a gun, or even having a whole fucking arsenal in your basement, will not save you if the government decides for whatever reason that you are a dissident and comes for you. They will always have more guns than you, they will always have more troops than you and your friends & family can fight off, and they will kill each and every last one of you should you decide to put up a fight. Remember Waco? Or any of the other various small rebellions, riots, or last-stands at isolated compounds, dotting U.S. history? Each one has been decisively crushed by force and they always will be.

A far wiser course is to do what you can to get people elected who will respect the Constitution, so the government doesn't decide to come for you in the first place. That might sound pretty intangible compared to the feel of a gun in your hand, but it really is the best defense we have. I used to be pretty much a single issue voter on the issue of gun control - if somebody in the least little way might be in favor of more regulation, I wasn't voting for 'em. My views have changed substantially in the last few years though, and I look at candidates views on everything related to the power of the federal government.. gun control, wiretapping, search & seizure, etc.

That's probably enough rambling for now, so I'll shut up.