RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban

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

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

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddystouch I live in England. Handguns are banned here. A guy tried to sell me a handgun in a pub once. Go figure. That would explain Your belief that Police Officers recieve less training than conceal and carry citizens.Your average Police "bobbie"(is that what You call them?)don't carry firearms do they?

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty How about the Tianamin Square debacle. Could that have happened with universal gun ownership? Are you honestly claiming that some handguns and rifles in the hands of those protesters would have stopped the columns of armored vehicles that assaulted the square?

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:50:54 PM)
Having to justify every word one says because their passport's a different colour gets tedious. But enough of this. Perhaps we should start segregating threads by nationalities? Edited, because.

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach If you truely enjoy being able to Voice that opinion - keep in mind that it has been fought for, bled for, died for by a lot of good people in this country's past - and if not for the gun ownership that you find so Tragic in this country, you would not have any rights here at all. There's not much enjoyment to be had in voicing a different opinion from a vociferous majority, and we will presumably never have a great meeting of the minds, but I will ask that you don't presume it is okay to tell me what to think, or what to keep in mind: your birth does not make you in any way 'more right' than me. Thank you. Just from the statement you quoted, it doesn't appear she is trying to tell you what to think. She's only hoping you realize that many here have ancestors who fought and died for the freedom of speech you now enjoy by being here. While you're free to think and say what you please, they have the right to think and say what they please about your opinion. The 'right' that KittinSol appears most invested in, is her imaginary right to not be abused by rebuttal of her opinions.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:52:08 PM)
[sm=threadhijack.gif]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:53:39 PM)
BTW kitten... passports aside, New Hampshire is one of the safest States in the Union. There are guns all over the place and you don't even need to register a hand gun in the "Live Free or Die" State. I bet you feel damn safe up there in New Hampshire don't ya? Yet you would deny that same safe feeling to law abiding residence of Washington DC. Strange. Why would you deny the overwhelmingly law abiding population of Washington the same safe feeling of Lily White New Hampshire? I guess you just don't trust *those* people.

slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty Do you suppose the South African government could have maitained apartheid if gun ownership had been universal? How about the Tianamin Square debacle. Could that have happened with universal gun ownership? On the other hand there is a fair amount of gun ownership in the US and still the citizens let themselves get pushed around quite a bit. Uncle Nasty Under Your hypotheticals the South African Government while maintaining aparthied somehow allows blacks to have guns in which to overthrow aparthied...Then we have Tianaman Square where You would have us picture the young man staring down the tank with what ...a bazooka...would the world have been so moved if he had one...Personally the courage demonstrated by the one young man in that quintsential photograph, is Tianaman Square...put a gun in his hands and the message isn't as moving or telling ...

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 8:56:42 PM)
Nope, I denied nothing: I expressed my opinion. Perhaps you haven't read me that thoroughly: there are a few posters here whom I admire greatly whose opinion on guns differs greatly from mine. Guess what? We manage to have an educated and courteous debate. As for New Hampshire, it is not an accident, and yes, I realise fully it's the safest state in the Union. PS: "Those people"? What do you mean?

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy BTW kitten... passports aside, New Hampshire is one of the safest States in the Union. There are guns all over the place and you don't even need to register a hand gun in the "Live Free or Die" State. I bet you feel damn safe up there in New Hampshire don't ya? Yet you would deny that same safe feeling to law abiding residence of Washington DC. Strange. Why would you deny the overwhelmingly law abiding population of Washington the same safe feeling of Lily White New Hampshire? I guess you just don't trust *those* people. Which is one of the nasty little secrets behind the initial DC gun ban... Ironic that the same person who is trying to hijack the thread into a discussion of their 'special status' as an alleged foreigner being abused and denied the right to speak, is de facto defending the agenda of those who didn't want a city with an overwhelmingly black population to enjoy equal rights under the Constitution. Things that make you go Hmmmmm...

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:00:03 PM)
If the thongs of protester in Tianaman Square had fire arms, that one young man man whould not have had to face that tank alone. It was moving expressly because the Chi-Coms do not allow the freedom to have fire arms. If they did, they would have been out of power within days of Tianaman.

Sanity -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:00:51 PM)
Give everyone in China access to weapons and then see how long the Chinese people remain virtually enslaved. And what do you think ever became of the man who dared take on the Chinese Politburo. Do you think the punishment he received was also poetry, "moving and telling" quote: .Personally the courage demonstrated by the one young man in that quintsential photograph, is Tianaman Square...put a gun in his hands and the message isn't as moving or telling ...

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:01:43 PM)
Devious brilliance.

mistoferin -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:13:32 PM)
This is probably going to sound like I am lashing back at you personally and I apologize up front for that....it has nothing really to do with you. It's just that when I see some of the sentiments that you have shared, which are quite common by the way...especially when those sentiments are punctuated with things like a lack of common sense and words like stupidity...well it tends to make those little hairs on the back of my neck stand up and my typing fingers seem to be directly connected to them. quote: Few of them are ever actually used for home defense, and when they're not kept unloaded and locked up, the folks killed or injured by them are most often the folks who live in the home. Anyone with any sense is going to keep their guns locked up and unloaded despite the SCOTUS ruling. Most of those who choose not to do so will never have an accident that will cause them to regret their decision, and I'm sure that there are folks out there who will feel safer for having an unlocked and loaded pistol readily at hand. Maybe one of the contributing reasons why they are not used more for home defense is because there is this insane theory that you must keep your guns locked away. Not only do they recommend you lock them away, they recommend you also keep a trigger lock on them and keep them unloaded and store the ammunition and the keys to your trigger lock and gun safe in seperate locations. So maybe more guns would be used for home defense if they were just a bit more accessible. I don't know of any robber, mugger, rapist, thief who will give you a 15 minute head start after he startles you from your sleep so you can go and get your shit together, dig the gun safe out of the linen closet, run down to the basement to get the ammo, find the keys hidden in your underwear drawer, load the gun and declare yourself now ready for battle. Of course if you abide by all those recommendations you can't use your gun for home defense. Actually, if that is the plan then I see no point in owning one at all. quote: I prefer education to legislation whenever possible. When the states are forced to rewrite some of their gun rules, I'd like to see them spend some money on gun safety courses and public service announcements about responsible gun ownership. Publicize the crap out of it when some kid gets killed playing with an unsecured gun to bring the risks home, and tell folks what they can do to prevent it from happening at their house. I agree with you here, provided of course that the message they send about prevention is to not hide guns where when they are found by an inquisitive child they are a curiousity to be explored. That responsible gun owners educate their children about guns and gun safety...just like they do about hot ovens and playing in the road and all of the other dangerous things in the world that have the potential for injuring or killing them. That parents should actually parent , stand firm and consistent in all that they say and do and raise children who respect them and know that the parents rules are law within the home. Show them the guns and what they are capable of doing. I grew up in a home where my father's guns hung on the wall at all times. From the time we could walk he showed us those guns. He made it VERY clear that if we ever wanted to see them, touch them or even shoot them all we needed to do was ask and he would gladly show them to us. But if we EVER EVEN THOUGHT about touching one without his presence and consent there would be hell to pay. He took us out as soon as we were big enough and taught us gun safety and how to shoot. He brought home the dead deer carcasses from his hunting trips and showed us the holes in those animals and had us feel their cold dead flesh....so we would know that is what guns do. It was a different time then and everyone I knew grew up in similar homes....and we all learned...and it worked. There were 4 of us in my home and we all grew up with a great respect and knowledge of firearms and we are all ethical and responsible hunters. I raised two boys in a home full of guns and I taught them the same way. My boys are both knowledged in the safety and use of firearms and are excellent and responsible hunters. Kids today find the gun in Mommy and Daddy's closet or nightstand drawer and they have never even seen one before...let alone been educated about it in any way. Now THAT is a recipe for disaster. Gun bans don't work and all one has to do is look at the numbers. When guns are banned in an area....especially in a densely populated city such as D.C. with a high drug using population....law abiding citizens who are banned from owning guns have two choices...they can become criminals themselves by breaking that law....or they can become fish in a barrel. I'll be a criminal before I'll ever be a fish.

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:17:23 PM)
I really don`t see what all the hoopla is about. Perhaps conservatives are slap happy b/c in their minds,they see this is 'their' victory and a reason to celebrate(if that`s what you can call what they`ve been doing).lol After the being battered, bruised ,bleeding-out as a result of having George Bush strapped to their backs,they finally can feel good about something. This was really a victory for DC residents,only.This we won,you lost thing is kinda ridiculous. If I`m not mistaken,DC was the only municipality that banned handguns in private homes. Which went to far,as the court ruled and I agree with that.But that`s as far as this goes.Hurray for DC residents. For NRA types,you`d think the heavens opened and god spoke or something. They`re going to be disappointed when the dust settles though,because the reasonable restrictions the NRAers hate,loath and scream eternal damnation over,were very well spelled out ,codified and carved in stone by Scalia. The reasonable restrictions that normal folks want,the kinds I support are now ruled to be lawful. They don`t know it yet but they gained a few yards but also lost a lot of their own agenda in the proccess. The types of restrictions the NRA types hate,background checks,licenses,registrations,permits,etc. have been ruled constitutional. That argument is over.Done. The DC law was over the top and reasonable people could see that. Having an "any gun,any time,any body" policy though(the NRAers wet dream)can no longer be argued to be constitutional,according to Scalia.He made it quite clear,government can regulate firearms. Now that that issue is settled(establishing government`s power to regulate),the task of ending the "gun-show loophole" will be ten times easier. Getting states to be responsible to the nation as a whole, will be ten times easier. Plugging up the "siv" that I referred to earlier in this thread will be ten times easier,with Anthony Scalia`s help.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Hey, there are Supreme Courts decisions that are controversial. It's the nature of the beast. To me, it is a shame. To you, it's fantastic. And it's okay for both of us to express our opinions. If you wanted nothing but self-congratulatory murmurs of acquiescence, you wouldn't have posted this result on this forum board now, would you :-) ? Most people posting here don't live in WASH DC, so they will be completely unaffected by the decision. DC's handgun ban was over-the-top (too restrictive.) If a DC resident wants to have a handgun in his home, why shouldn't he? Scalia also made it clear that the decision is not an attack on current gun regulations in effect in most states, and that he's aware of the problem of gun violence in the US. Looks like the 154 page opinion mostly went on-and-on about what "a well regulated militia" is and how that colors one's reading of the Amendment. Anyone with half a brain can see how arguments would arise about that --- because its unclear --- and the language is dated for today's time when we have a full blown military industrial complex on our hands --- as opposed to anything resembling a militia. Frankly, if we could jettison our excessive nuclear arsenal and military machine for a citizen militia --- I might accept that trade and go purchase a firearm to get behind it.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:24:19 PM)
The NRA says they are now going to challange handgun laws in Chicago and San Francisco. A major arguement in the gun control lobby was that gun ownership was NOT a constitutional right. They argued that the 2nd amendment only protects a state's right to assemble a militia. The Supreme Court decision today struck down that arguement and Scalia made it clear that the people do have an individual freedom to have a firearm in their homes. That shoots a gigantic hole in the gun control lobby's arguement.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:27:36 PM)
Evening erin, Actually the DC ban went further than recommending the disassembly, unloading and use of trigger locks. It stated "District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and dissembled.." unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02." Which obviously didn't even take into account the thought of self defense at home. I was raised pretty close to how you describe, being taught proper safety from a young age was definitely a good thing.

Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:30:05 PM)
quote: That shoots a gigantic hole in the gun control lobby's arguement. As well as causing an epidemic of convenient amnesia in those who were just the other day arguing that there is or should be no individual right to self defense with a gun. Now they have switched to pretending that the ruling itself says exactly the opposite of what it clearly says, and grabbing at specious straws like 'This violates stare decisis!!' or 'This only applies within the DC city limits!', or 'This doesn't apply to ammunition!'......[sm=lol.gif]

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:32:58 PM)
yawn,....

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/26/2008 9:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: That shoots a gigantic hole in the gun control lobby's arguement. As well as causing an epidemic of convenient amnesia in those who were just the other day arguing that there is or should be no individual right to self defense with a gun. Now they have switched to pretending that the ruling itself says exactly the opposite of what it clearly says, and grabbing at specious straws like 'This violates stare decisis!!' or 'This only applies within the DC city limits!', or 'This doesn't apply to ammunition!'......[sm=lol.gif] Have you read the ruling? How do you explain Scalia's tortured logic? He makes a big deal out of ignoring the initial phrase even though he had to explain away 200 years of precedent. Maybe you simply don't know what stare decisis means. Going on, the ruling is quite specific in overturning only this one law. Compare to Brown v Board and Roe v Wade. So yes at this precise moment this whole thing applies only to D.C.. Will it likely be used as a precedent in other cases. Certainly but many of those cases will be appelaed all the way to the supreme court where clarifications will be forthcoming which seems to be precisely what Scalia intended. Whether his intent is to carve out a much larger right we will have to wait and see. Strictly speaking it doesn't apply to ammunition. Neither the word or any possible synonym appears in the ammendment or in the majority opinion. While I suspect the Court would rule the other way nothing in this ruling or the ammendment says so directly. Now I was never in favor of an absolute ban and thought D.C. was too restrictive but I have read lots of SCOTUS majority opinions, all the major ones of the 20th century as well as many others, and this is a particularly strange ruling. It is internally contradictory and poorly reasoned. Scalia apparently is of the opinion that equal protection doesn't apply to all constitutionally granted rights. He also went out of his way to say that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. He even listed a number of such infringements that he, and presumably the rest of the majority, view as acceptable. Ultimately this ruling does not settle the matter and seemingly wasn't meant to do so no matter how much you may wish it did.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02