RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban

RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:31:43 AM)
quote: kittensol and I have battled on many occasions over allot of things but the idea that she should shut up because she's not a citizen but rather a resident alien is totally crap. (assuming that the citizenship status remains resident alien) Ditto! On CM hit & miss today getting the place ready for our party, but felt it necessary to piggy-back on Archer's post. Adamant disagreement is the best path to learning. Keep at it KS! In this thread the irony of your comparing your icon to your position could not be more appropriate.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Simple answer, NO. Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get. Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law. ? Chicago's murder rates are way down. You can't make a causitive association as other factors are hard to factor out but simply claiming the murder rate has not been affected by the ban is simply not correct.

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:36:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well the quick scan reading I did specifies that it is an individual right it spends a large amount of text clarifying this aspect that has always been left untouched by previous courts. We finally have a ruleing in the question of Individual vs Collective Right. As such I can see the potential for most bans on handgun ownership and keeping them in the house being overturned. Not so fast. Though Scalia wrote that a private citizen has the right to keep a pistol in their home,he also said that the constitution doesn`t say that there is a right to any gun,anywhere,anytime,anybody. In other words,he said the constitution allows government to "regulate" gun ownership. NYC has some of the tightest rules as far as handguns go. Don`t count on the NRA overturning NYCs restrictions any time soon. The DC law,which was voted on by the cities fathers,was an attempt to regulate that went to far and the court said so. They didn`t say that restrictions per se` were un-constitutional.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Simple answer, NO. Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get. Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law. ? Chicago's murder rates are way down. You can't make a causitive association as other factors are hard to factor out but simply claiming the murder rate has not been affected by the ban is simply not correct. Compared to when? If I was going to make a causitive association to murder rates being down, I would be more likely to associate the drop with the Robert Taylor homes and Cabrini Green being vacated. I was simply trying to point out the obvious false notion that gun bans make a city safer, in that those that are going to commit crimes using guns, are going to get their guns outside of legal channels (making gun bans about as useful as fixing a damn with a wet sponge).

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:38:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Cops confiscate guns, sure. He didn't say they didn't. He said "criminals" meaning the collective. DC is known for being the district of crime and for having one of the highest murder rates in the country. What do you think the criminals there use? Dead fish? Criminals getting guns is a whole other issue. One of course, that righties care little about. If fact,right-wing NRA types are doing everything in their power to make sure crimminals get the latest and most powerful weapons possible. Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Simple answer, NO. Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get. Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law. Not sure if I follow the logic here,having laws against carrying concealed weapons in NYC has resulted in numerous convictions and jail time for the offenders.Now the fact that criminals still can obtain weapons prove the laws are ineffective?Were these laws not in effect NYC would have more convicted felons(you know the ones in jail today for violating the Sullivan act)walking the streets armed and the resulting mayhem and murder attending their freedom would certainly have an affect on crime statistics.Aren't those that choose to violate the prohibitions,by definition criminals or can they be classified has misunderstood gun enthusiasts

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:45:16 AM)
Our national gun laws resembles a siv. Some parts hold water quite well,while in others,water pours through. If a city or municipality has tough restrictions and the state next door doesn`t,you got a siv. It`s the yahoo filled states who`ll sell any gun,any number, to anybody, that allows the guns to get through. If you`re interested in getting guns off the streets and out of the hands of crooks,you have to make reasonable gun restrictions the same in each state,so you don`t get the state of North Carolina arming the criminals of New York.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:46:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Cops confiscate guns, sure. He didn't say they didn't. He said "criminals" meaning the collective. DC is known for being the district of crime and for having one of the highest murder rates in the country. What do you think the criminals there use? Dead fish? Criminals getting guns is a whole other issue. One of course, that righties care little about. If fact,right-wing NRA types are doing everything in their power to make sure crimminals get the latest and most powerful weapons possible. Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Simple answer, NO. Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get. Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law. Not sure if I follow the logic here,having laws against carrying concealed weapons in NYC has resulted in numerous convictions and jail time for the offenders.Now the fact that criminals still can obtain weapons prove the laws are ineffective?Were these laws not in effect NYC would have more convicted felons(you know the ones in jail today for violating the Sullivan act)walking the streets armed and the resulting mayhem and murder attending their freedom would certainly have an affect on crime statistics.Aren't those that choose to violate the prohibitions,by definition criminals or can they be classified has misunderstood gun enthusiasts Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting in anyway that every citizen should be walking the streets with concealed weapons. I am just suggesting that the right to self protection while at home, should in no way be infringed upon, and that crimes such as home invasion might be reduced if such bans were not in place. I think we can all agree that these bans do not stop criminals from getting possession of a firearm, and the real consequence of such laws is making more people into criminals. Pretty simplified but this is my opinion. I enjoy being a spectator in this type of debate, and figured I would chime in for the sake of discussion.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:47:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Did this ban or the bans in Chicago, bring down the murder rates, or in anyway prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Simple answer, NO. Just as any other prohibition, the people that choose to work outside of the law will get their hands on whatever they wish to get. Prohibitions only affect those that choose to remain within the restraints of the law. ? Chicago's murder rates are way down. You can't make a causitive association as other factors are hard to factor out but simply claiming the murder rate has not been affected by the ban is simply not correct. Compared to when? If I was going to make a causitive association to murder rates being down, I would be more likely to associate the drop with the Robert Taylor homes and Cabrini Green being vacated. I was simply trying to point out the obvious false notion that gun bans make a city safer, in that those that are going to commit crimes using guns, are going to get their guns outside of legal channels (making gun bans about as useful as fixing a damn with a wet sponge). It isn't that they will get the guns through illegal methods,that is a given,what the gun bans do is give the authorities another weapon(pun intended)in the arsenal of law and order.One more charge can be an effective tool when the plea bargaining starts...

Archer -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well the quick scan reading I did specifies that it is an individual right it spends a large amount of text clarifying this aspect that has always been left untouched by previous courts. We finally have a ruleing in the question of Individual vs Collective Right. As such I can see the potential for most bans on handgun ownership and keeping them in the house being overturned. Not so fast. Though Scalia wrote that a private citizen has the right to keep a pistol in their home,he also said that the constitution doesn`t say that there is a right to any gun,anywhere,anytime,anybody. As I said in my OP that you seem to have ignored otherwise why the emphasis? As such I can see the potential for most bans on handgun ownership and keeping them in the house being overturned. Nowhere did I infer anyplace bla bla bla. In fact I thought I wass pretty darned clear. In other words,he said the constitution allows government to "regulate" gun ownership. NYC has some of the tightest rules as far as handguns go. Don`t count on the NRA overturning NYCs restrictions any time soon. The DC law,which was voted on by the cities fathers,was an attempt to regulate that went to far and the court said so. They didn`t say that restrictions per se` were un-constitutional. But they did specificly for the first time rule that the 2nd ammendment was an Individual Right. Which means alot of grounds for overturning bans on handguns r other weapons that are (as said in the sylibus) common for legal use. (specificly mentioning Self Defense as a legal and legitimate reason for owning a handgun and keeping it in your home. I already cautioned against folks thinking this ment concealed carry or other such restrictions being changed.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:51:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I`d rather argue this with someone who cares about criminals getting guns and how to stop that from happening. Unfortunately, the only way this could ever happen would be for every gun ever manufactured to be destroyed, and to somehow prevent the making of another one. This is nothing short of a pipe dream. It would be impossible to do. I would love to live in a world where there was no need, desire, or use for a firearm, I suppose that place may exist somewhere in the universe, but it is certainly not this world. I wish you well, Thadius Edited to trim the excessive quote level..

Archer -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:51:54 AM)
slavemike, It's the bans from SIMPLE ownership and keeping it in the person's HOME that this ruleing effects not the concealed carry in public. (which the sylibus actually mentions as remaining the perview of government to regulate). How that gives the police another weapon against felons on the streets eludes basic logic since once they carry the handgun out of their house unless it is stored according to legal transport laws making it pretty damned useless to the criminal. They then have broken the concealed carry law, which this ruleing left entirely intact.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 11:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer slavemike, It's the bans from SIMPLE ownership and keeping it in the person's HOME that this ruleing effects not the concealed carry in public. (which the sylibus actually mentions as remaining the perview of government to regulate). How that gives the police another weapon against felons on the streets eludes basic logic since once they carry the handgun out of their house unless it is stored according to legal transport laws making it pretty damned useless to the criminal. They then have broken the concealed carry law, which this ruleing left entirely intact. The strange thing is that while the syllabus makes a big deal of a literal reading of the ammendment it tries to ignore the part about bearing arms not being infringeable. Seems like another part of the ruling that is bad and prone to making the whole ruling reversible.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:01:17 PM)
Archer, That is exactly right. “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” (64) I am still concerned with some of the loopholes provided by language in the majority, such as "in common use" and others regarding restrictions. It definitely is a good position regarding the 2nd Ammendment being an individual right.

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:14:34 PM)
I think that what the SC did was reasonable and correct. The DC law was to restrictive. They did get into why we have the right to self-defense and/or hunt. But no where did they say that gun ownership was somehow a part of keeping the government from becoming a tyranny or any silliness like that. Neither did the Founding Fathers.The 2nd Amendment wasn`t created to arm a rebellion,back then or today.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:15:52 PM)
[sm=offtopic2.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth In this thread the irony of your comparing your icon to your position could not be more appropriate. [sm=flameout.gif]

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol [sm=offtopic2.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth In this thread the irony of your comparing your icon to your position could not be more appropriate. [sm=flameout.gif] Yeah kittin,gain citizenship and lose the toy gun, if you want to debate. Logic only says so.....[8\|]

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:28:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer slavemike, It's the bans from SIMPLE ownership and keeping it in the person's HOME that this ruleing effects not the concealed carry in public. (which the sylibus actually mentions as remaining the perview of government to regulate). How that gives the police another weapon against felons on the streets eludes basic logic since once they carry the handgun out of their house unless it is stored according to legal transport laws making it pretty damned useless to the criminal. They then have broken the concealed carry law, which this ruleing left entirely intact. Archer I am aware of the limited scope of the ruling,my post was in response to a claim that local ordinances do not make one safer.Specifically Chicago and New York were mentioned,the point being made that criminals still have acess to guns.This is what I was responding to and that led to my defense of those city's concealed weapons law ...

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol It's alright, erin, I was a tad wired by the 'go home' comment. To be fair, people should feel free to comment on any issue, even if it's outside of their immediate realm. We do live in an increasingly global society. A while back there was a thread about hate speech laws in Europe. The American posters, some of whom I believe never even set foot on the European continent, were very outspoken, and felt no inhibition at commenting . It would never occur to me to tell them it's none of their business though... That's what these fora are for :-) . Kittin, that's true and I commented on that as well but in addition to being a U.S. Citizen I'm also an Irish Citizen. If you'd give me your mailing address on the other side I'd be happy to mail you a copy of the certificate from the "Foreign Birth's Registry". So I'm fully "qualified" to comment on matters Irish or European. LOL, I was just watching a video on Yahoo and the Mayor and Police Cheif are up in arms! The DC Police Cheif says this only applies to handguns in the home and that they have to be "registered" whatever that means and that you still can't carry guns in public! Perhaps she should read the second amendment again. You know that she'll (The Police Cheif) be burning the midnight oil comming up with all kinds of restrictive rules and regulations to try to prevent people from excercising their second amendment rights! It's actually funny in a sick kind of way, here is the chance that violent crime is going to drop precipitously in DC and the Mayor and police Cheif are "upset!" Also, wouldn't DC have to honor "permits" to carry from all of the "states" now?

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u DA when You have guests in Your home do You limit their right to have an opinion or restrict their rights to give voice to those opinions As a matter of fact - yes I do! My home, my rules.... As was mentioned in another thread - I do not allow banannas on my boat because of what many may consider a silly seafaring tradition dating back 400 years. I dont want to hear that Im stupid, or that Im wrong, or that its tragic bananna discrimination, or that they are high in potassium etc... I want you to not set foot on my boat if you have bannanas or anything containing them. My boat, my rules, if you dont like it dont come aboard. Stay on the dock and stuff banannas in every orifice in your body for all I care. On many occassions I have limited my guests rights to voice their opinion - sometimes even when that opinion is correct. I once had a drunken friend start acting boorish and start making fun of how stupid my live in gf at the time was. Frankly, he was right Britt was dumb as a dog turd - but dont insult her in my house. In a case where the guest wasn't right, my rabidly catholic Aunt Mary felt the need to tell my second wife, who was Jewish, what she thought of Jews and how they brought the holocaust on themselves and she was promptly shown to the door and admonished never to set foot in my home again until she could show Laura the proper respect... Being a guest isnt a license to be an asshole - if anything a guest is to be more polite and reserved. For Christs sake I ate a double helping of Lutefisk poff of the floor because I had the manners not to tell my hostess that I was NOT going to eat that stinking soapy textured snot ball "delicasy" that their fucking dog was too smart to eat when I tried to discretely slip it under the table.... A guest should be gracious at all times....

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 12:36:26 PM)
I've finished reading the majority opinion and have to say that it is better stated than the syllabus but it still is a rather poor ruling. The gist remains that while he seems to intend this to be a rather sweeping ruling he makes the right into a right unlike any other. He does make a rather supreme effort to sweep away the word 'bear' in the ammendment which is clearly an attempt to not turn things into the wild west. How that is supposed to work is completely unclear to me at this point. I'm going to predict that this right will last only as long as this far right majority lasts.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875