Great Day for the 2nd Amendment » Forum Post by Island Dog

Yes, it is a good day! The high court upheld our right to own a legal product, defend ourselves from thugs and participate in hunting.

Of course the "no right is worth defending" left wing of the court voted against the Constitution, but that's to be expected.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Of course the "no right is worth defending" left wing of the court voted against the Constitution, but that's to be expected.

Most likely the same people who claim Bush is destroying the Constitution. I guess they dont like someone else doing it for them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

5-4? Barely.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally, I have no real issue with gun ownership by private individuals, yet they are intended to be lethal weapons and therefore should be regulated. The problem I see is the NRA defending to the teeth every nut and wacko wanting to of machine guns, assault weapons, and the like. Moreover, there are people who just should not have guns, the criminally insane, felons, and other unstable persons. The difficulty is that we can not always know before hand whether someone has the stability or the common sense to properly possess a weapon. Lastly, while we can own guns, it is always another question whether we should own a gun. Accidental deaths by privately held guns are a serious problem in the United States. So, much like that other lethal silliness, smoking, you can smoke, but is a serious question whether you should. And those around you have pretty strong ideas about you if you do.

Be well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1051

Quoting Dr Guy,

comment 3

5-4? Barely.

Another reason not to vote for Obama.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sodaiho:

Personally, I have no real issue with gun ownership by private individuals, yet they are intended to be lethal weapons and therefore should be regulated. The problem I see is the NRA defending to the teeth every nut and wacko wanting to of machine guns, assault weapons, and the like. Moreover, there are people who just should not have guns, the criminally insane, felons, and other unstable persons.

Actually, except for the "assault" weapon part, this IS the position of the NRA. It is also the position of the court decision today.

Successfully updated karma reason!

ParaTed2k, The NRA has a long history of opposing nearly every measure limiting gun ownership. They even opposed laws requiring trigger locks. Their position is clear: don't come between a person wanting a gun and a gun manufacturer/distributer. If this were a reasonable organization I might support their efforts. I see from their website they even fight the regulation of gun shows where pretty much anyone can buy a gun. Don't you think a little oversight might be a good idea?

See ya.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I will point out at this juncture - SCOTUS declared DCs trigger lock/safe storage requirement unconsitutional on the grounds that a non-functional firearm is not a useful self-defense tool... So it's hardly surprising the NRA has supported that...

Trigger lock laws are a feel-good gesture and nothing more.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sodaiho:

ParaTed2k, The NRA has a long history of opposing nearly every measure limiting gun ownership. They even opposed laws requiring trigger locks. Their position is clear: don't come between a person wanting a gun and a gun manufacturer/distributer. If this were a reasonable organization I might support their efforts. I see from their website they even fight the regulation of gun shows where pretty much anyone can buy a gun. Don't you think a little oversight might be a good idea?

Their position is clear, in fact they make it clear on their website. Your ignorance is also clear.

The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.1

NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write.2 When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department, opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting and defensive ammunition.3 The sponsor of the earlier bill, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), felt that his original goals were met by the NRA-backed bill that became law. "Our final legislative product was not some watered-down version of what we set out to do," Biaggi said on the floor of the House. "In the end, there was no compromise on the part of police safety."

That's part of the page on their site... If you care about facts, you might want to follow the link and learn a few things before you spew on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Here is a point of view from a non-American: the more guns in the hands of private citizens, the more likely they are to shoot each other. Everytime we see a report of another person going crazy with a firearm, we wonder when America will finally see the folly of their gun laws.

Why a private citizen needs a handgun is absolutely beyond me, 'inalienable right' or not.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agreed dynamaso.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Everytime we see a report of another person going crazy with a firearm, we wonder when America will finally see the folly of their gun laws.

And half the time, those reports are from countries with very strict gun control laws. Or committed by people with illegal guns here. Which just goes to show that the issue is not guns or the ownership, but the illegal use of them regardless of laws. Everywhere.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Dynasmo:

Here is a point of view from a non-American: the more guns in the hands of private citizens, the more likely they are to shoot each other. Everytime we see a report of another person going crazy with a firearm, we wonder when America will finally see the folly of their gun laws.

Why a private citizen needs a handgun is absolutely beyond me, 'inalienable right' or not.

In the immortal words of Col. Sherman T. Potter (M*A*S*H), HORSE HOCKEY!

Every year, the forests, fields and rolling hills of Wisconsin become basically freefire zones for well armed men, women and teenagers. Their numbers rival the population of Milwaukee. If your assertion were true, there would be gun shot statistics equal to that of Milwaukee, but guess what, there are very few incidents.

On the other hand, it is illegal to carry a firearm in Milwaukee, yet this ban has yet to reduce the gun related incidents in the city. In fact, every time they tighten the gun laws in the city, gun crime increases. On the other hand, cities in the US that have reduced the restrictions on gun ownership and concealled carry have ALL seen a significant decrease in gun related incidents.

Just because you or I might not choose to participate in a right does not negate the right itself... and repeating propaganda that has been disproven time and time again doesn't change anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think I'm going to start packing a flamethrower rather than a handgun.

I mean, it's my right after all, isn't it?

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 never says what kind of arms I can bear, right?

No, perhaps I'll carry the severed limb of my last attacker. Then I'll really be bearing 'arms'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sancho:

I think I'm going to start packing a flamethrower rather than a handgun.

I mean, it's my right after all, isn't it?

That's one of the things I really liked about this ruling. The Supreme Court did reaffirm our right to own guns, but they also acknowledged that there are limits to all rights. It's funny, most people are able to understand the limits of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press and other rights, but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, most the arguments I hear are "all or nothing" propositions. While the majority seemed to be able to see it pretty clearly, the dissent couldn't seem to see it at all.

No, perhaps I'll carry the severed limb of my last attacker. Then I'll really be bearing 'arms'.

I'm sure wildly brandishing a severed limb would be pretty effective in warding off would be attackers or bandits! ;~D

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm sure wildly brandishing a severed limb would be pretty effective in warding off would be attackers or bandits! ;~D

At least it will distract the zombies long enough to escape.

Successfully updated karma reason!

HORSE HOCKEY!

Wow, what an intelligent, astute way of saying you disagree with me. You do delight in being so righteous, don't you?

repeating propaganda that has been disproven time and time again doesn't change anything

You can call it what you like, Ted, it still doesn't change my point of view, although I don't understand how you can call it propaganda when an average of 81 people die every day in America due to gunfire.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Dynasmo:

Wow, what an intelligent, astute way of saying you disagree with me. You do delight in being so righteous, don't you?

Nothing wrong with injecting a little light heartedness in the conversation, is there?

You can call it what you like, Ted, it still doesn't change my point of view, although I don't understand how you can call it propaganda when an average of 81 people die every day in America due to gunfire.

Your original assertion was that where there is more guns in the hands of private citizens the more likely it is that they'll shoot each other. This has been disproven by history time and time again. Only those with a delusional hatred for guns even think it's true anymore.

The fact is, at least here in the US, the number of guns in an area has no relationship to the violent crime rate. There are more guns in the city I live than the city of Milwaukee, yet we go whole years without a murder, Milwaukee has over 100/year. In fact, almost every city in the US go all year without a single murder. In the cities that do have murders, they are almost always in a few neighborhoods.

Sorry to burst the bubble of those who want to paint the US as a trigger happy place, but it is just a narrow minded stereotype. Now, if you want to paint a few US neighborhoods as violent, trigger happy places, then you would be more correct. btw, All of those neighborhoods have gun bans.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are three reasons for the right to bear arms. I present them in no particular order.

1. For self defensive purposes, as upheld by this court decision.

2. For hunting purposes.

3. As a defense against the government. In fact, this seems to be the main reason for the amendment in the first place, according to several the founding fathers and things they said. They wanted the government to know that if they stepped over the line there would be an armed militia ready to over throw them. Keep in mind that this had, as a matter of fact, just happened a few years before.

As for guns making things more dangerous, the statistics and history don't bear that out. Many times, the areas with the most widespread use of legal firearms has the lowest crime rates. Very little crime occurs with legally owned firearms. On the other hand, very many times crime has been stopped by legal gun owners. Notice too, that mass killings have one thing in common--they are done in gun free zones. No one is able to oppose the criminal.

Instead of opposing guns on some theory that doesn't work out in real life, look at the facts. Liberal love to base arguments on theories without checking to see how they actually play out in real life.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Notice too, that mass killings have one thing in common--they are done in gun free zones. No one is able to oppose the criminal.

Unfortunate, and all too true. Both here and abroad.

Successfully updated karma reason!