Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Saylor1322

TThe Nazis were not given due process until well after the WWII and for the most part they didn’t even get the opportunity to become prisoners of war as they were shot on-site.

Jess

Within a matter of months of coming into the hands on the allies the Nazi upper echelon was tried to determine what part they had played in the events under question.

No one is advocating letting terrorists go. If it is determined that any of the detainees had a part in planning or carrying out terrorism against the US, then, by all means, lock them up and let them aid in the fight against other terrorists, voluntarily or involuntarily, ad infinitum. But that determination should have been made by this point.

Also I think you'll find that those bothered by this issue are not necessarily concerned that a particular Joe Abdul Schmoe has been denied his rights. But rather what damage to the US system of rights and freedoms, your and my rights and freedoms, might occur if they are cavalierly disregarded.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Maybe I'm using too many words. Let me make this simple. If you want a gun for personal protection, and can pass a basic safety and competency test, then by all means you should get one. I don't want to stand in the way of that right, and I don't think government should get in the way of it either. Here I agree

BUT

You shouldn't be allowed to have fully automatic weapons for that defense, especially in the city. These weapons fire too many bullets in a manner that is too uncontrolled. It might seem to be an advantage for you to be able to put thirty bullets in the general direction of a home intruder before he can more than blink, but I doubt you'd think so when those bullets rip through the walls to kill your family members in the adjoining room, or your neighbors in the next house or apartment. Again true, it may be overkill for home defense, but if you can find a place to safely shoot one, and can pass the same competencies, why shouldn't this be considered?

You shouldn't be allowed to have armor piercing rounds. I have yet to hear of any criminal who goes around wearing body armor. The only reason to use them is if your assailant is wearing armor, and that means soldiers or police. In either case, if things have gotten so bad that these sorts of people are the enemies of our citizenry, gun control laws will be the least of our concerns.
See the link above...

And you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in the first place without showing that you understand and respect basic safety procedures about guns. You should know what a trigger lock is and how to use it. You should know what the safety does and when you should turn it off. You should know how to take your gun apart to clean or repair it. And you should know how to keep it away from children. These are current laws, and I agree with every one of them.

And as for your issues with tazers and mace, you as much as admit that it takes a great deal of training to overcome their effects. There's a reason cops reach for their mace first when they come on an aggressive individual. Almost nobody, except those with elite military training, has the ability to do withstand it. Indeed, with appropriate training, you can learn to ignore the pain of a gunshot wound, provided it doesn't kill you in the first place. Are you prepared to guarantee that every shot you make at an assailant will be a killing shot? And from a moral perspective, wouldn't it be better to protect yourself against an attacker without having to resort to deadly force?

A certain percentage of the population is naturally immune to the effects of these weapons, and having worked in the prison system I've seen first hand how ineffective these chemicals can be. Your average hardened criminal experiences small exposures to pepper sprays and other chemicals more often than than you would ever expect unless you'd witnessed this first hand. Many become resistant to the milder forms while in prison. Where the chemicals used are much much stronger. Pepper sprays that are available for civilian use are far less than 1/10th the strength that these hardened inmates are used to dealing with, and institutions are constantly forced to reformulate and strengthen their pepper spray of choice as the inmate population adjusts to it. As harsh as this sounds, it is true, Pepper spray can be overcome by a determined assailant, and the stuff you can buy will not stop a determined attacker.

I agree that in an ideal situation one should use only enough force to stop the attack, and to restrain the assailant.
Even better would be to deter the assailant from considering attacking in the first place.
In essence The police keep honest people from turning to crime out of fear of the consequences. Arrest humiliation, jail, or prison...
Hardened criminals, and brainwashed gang members don't fear the same things, to many serving a prison sentence is a badge of honor.
These hardened criminals will however back down when confronted with their own demise.
I've yet to have need for ammunition when confronting a foe with my 44 magnum. Yes it's loaded, but the mere sight of that cannon will take the fight out of the most seasoned criminal. A 12 gauge shotgun is even more effective. The sound of it alone will silence a room, and make men quake in their boots.
It's called peace through superior fire power.
In this instance the pure lethality, and fact that the weapon in question is capable of such horrendous destruction is enough to avoid the need for it's use. If these same criminals had to fear similar responses from every house, they would find a different profession.
Since a law abiding citizen will not try to force entry into my home, he has no need to fear these weapons, and ammunition is available for even the largest gun now a days that is designed to break apart and stop before becoming a risk to your neighbors.
Again it all comes down to responsible ownership.

It is interesting to me that so many are projecting the rights of citizens of one particular nation on those in another. In this case, it is the United States of America. Most of these debates were started (originally) with political motive IMHO by those seeking to make the current administration look bad. Yes, I'm blaming Americans.

The Magna Carta-has absolutely nothing to do with Americans. It is often brought up with the claim it says one thing or another, often by people who have not read it. Regardless, it was a contract between the English monarchy and its subjects but while it may have served as a basis for later bills of "Rights" it is not an international law nor an American one. It simply does not apply. Likewise American laws do not apply to regular citizens of other countries not in America.

The U.S. Bill of Rights also acknowledge certain human rights, but does not guarantee them to citizens of other nations, least of all it does not guarantee them to rogue groups murdering American as well as their own citizens, flying no flag, to push a socio-religious ideal (Is that a word?).

Habeas Corpus is bandied about as if it were a magic word protecting anyone and everyone captured for any reason. It does not. People imprisoned by law enforcement and judicial proceedings finding them guilty of a felony in U.S. jurisdiction, can claim this as mentioned above, if they feel their trial went wrong. Unfortunately, the detainees are claiming to be "Prisoners of War" to give themselves protection under various Geneva conventions and the international Laws of war which technically they are not entitled to.

This restricts them and if they wish such protections (strictly speaking, any combatant not in a uniform of a foreign country is not protected at all and can be shot on site-mercenaries and spies are the same) there is no requirement placed on any nation to release enemy forces prior to the end of hostilities with that enemy. If trials are to be had, they will be military trials.

Therefore, it is IMHO folly to suggest that personnel captured in actual conflict or in the middle of terrorist operations (funding, planning, as well as actually carrying them out) should be taken down to some local court of their choosing, and tried for some action they participated in which is not in the jurisdiction of any U.S. court, and therefore released-before the end of hostilities.

When these individuals are captured abroad, as supposedly happened in Europe at the hands of CIA operatives, it does ruffle feathers, especially if the administration in the nation it occurs is sympathetic to the demands of the terrorists or is not fond of the U.S. administration. It is not a surprise that they are claiming the CIA are "criminals". They are embarrassed. Doesn't mean the wrong person was captured. If that is what happened at all....


John P.

BTW...I think law abiding citizens should be able to have any firearm they wish.

Originally Posted by clrobert60

"For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital."

And there was much rejoicing as individual rights, at least temporarily, came off life support.

About time. The scary part was the rationale stated in the dissenting opinions...

Didn't I read somewhere that armed citizens, every year:

• Stop more crimes-in-progress than police?
• Kill more criminals, committing crimes-in-progress, than police?
• Stop more criminal assaults-in-progress than police?

Regarding terrorists rights: If our country has really declared a "war on terror", then all the rules of war should apply. (Yes, this statement is close to trolling; but the concept is rock-solid.)

There is an editorial in the Washington Post dealing with firearm statistics by Arthur Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University

washingtonpost.com

Having read Mr. Kellerman's opinions,
He is essentially stating that firearms are dangerous.
Of course they are. That is why it is important that the government not have a monopoly on this power, but the people have it as well.
Of course people use firearms to commit suicide. It's probably the reason so many claim that one's own firearm is more likely to be used on oneself. There is a huge number of suicides and an even larger number of people who have considered it. That does not mean, however, that those numbers support that someone would have his or her weapon wrestled away by an assailant.
People also kill themselves with sleeping pills (more are attempted this way, I'll wager, than just about anything else) more than by firearms. People also hang themselves and slit their wrists. The tool is not the issue here. Firearms are thought by some to be an easier way out, but someone seeking this needs other help, not a ban on the tool of choice.
Make help more available, rather than having the government tell us "you'll put your eye out" and take what it has no right to take.
Some people should not handle dangerous implements. That doesn't mean those should be banned for everyone's use. How many people here drive cars, after all. Own sleeping pills? Razor blades? straight razors? All of these have been used for suicide, as well as rope.
Doesn't mean I want the government to tell me I cannot possess them, as they are "too dangerous".


Sorry. Got into ramble mode again.


John P.

To me, the disturbing statistic was from the survey done in Atlanta. During a home invasion, the criminal was more than twice as likely to get to the gun before the owner. Ouch.

For anyone interested, there's another article on gun laws in the NY Times.

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...liptak.html?hp

Originally Posted by Pudu

To me, the disturbing statistic was from the survey done in Atlanta. During a home invasion, the criminal was more than twice as likely to get to the gun before the owner. Ouch.

For anyone interested, there's another article on gun laws in the NY Times.

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...liptak.html?hp

A rebuttal:NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control

Originally Posted by Pudu

To me, the disturbing statistic was from the survey done in Atlanta. During a home invasion, the criminal was more than twice as likely to get to the gun before the owner. Ouch.

For anyone interested, there's another article on gun laws in the NY Times.

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...liptak.html?hp

I have trouble beliveing ANYTHING printed by the New York times as they are (personal opinion) the most liberal anti gun news paper in existence and only print things that support their views no matter how wrong they are.
Photoguy67

Originally Posted by Photoguy67

I have trouble beliveing ANYTHING printed by the New York times as they are (personal opinion) the most liberal anti gun news paper in existence and only print things that support their views no matter how wrong they are.
Photoguy67

I didn't want to say this as it would get me in hot water with Pudu again but that is how I see it also!!