Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

"Screwing up" in my neighbourhood likely means someone is dead - and when it's an innocent little girl playing in her front yard it makes you want to do anything to prevent that sort of thing happening, not just punish someone who does it.

Pudu


Sir,

I have handled firearms for well over forty years. I have owned guns for almost that long. I have loaded my own ammunition for twenty years. I used to shoot seven to eight pounds of powder per year. That Sir, is an average of over fifty rounds a week.
I have held a Concealed Carry Permit for (I think) fourteen years. In all that time and through all that powder (not counting the Factory ammunition I have shot) I have NEVER injured anyone. I have never had an accident and I have never "Screwed Up." I have trained a lot in gun safety and aside from guns, I am probably the most safety minded person you will run across, for a while.
"Screwing Up" is another way to say "They DIDN'T know what they were doing and they had no business with a gun!" Guns are not to be played with and they are not for making you feel "Macho."
I am a huge supporter of the Second Amendment. But the ownership of a gun caries an awsome responsibility. Every right carries more responsibilities than the freedom the right grants you.
Sure, I have the RIGHT to own a gun. BUT, I have the responsibility to keep it out of unauthorized hands. I have the responsibility to keep it in proper working order. I have the responsibility to handle it in a safe and prudent manner. I have the responsibility to ALWAYS know where it is. I have the responsibility to never and I mean NEVER, when I am carrying it, to let my temper get the best of me. I can't respond to insults as I might like. I have to walk away from a situation that potentially might escalate into violence. My Permit grants me ONE right, the right to Carry Concealed. It carries many responsibilities and restrictions.
TRAINING is the word. You have the right to own a gun, but you also have the responsibility to be properly trained, not only in how it works, but how to SAFELY handle it.
A gun is not malicious. It doesn't have a will. It is a tool...a highly specialized tool and it is entirely subject to the will of it's possessor.

Regards,

Jeeter

+100.

John P.

Artilleryo, you must have some crap m16's laying around. My dad had an ar15 built for him a few months ago which I had the pleasure of shooting, and I can assure you that it sailed through at least 100 rounds with ease. Of course I was jealous and told him I'd be stealing it straight away

To stay on topic, I completely agree with the preceding 4 posts!

I was hoping the responsibility word would come up. I never hear the word "right" without "responsibility" immediately springing into my head. I'd like to think that, by these judges ruling in favour of individual rights, what they are really saying is "we think our people are responsible enough to handle it".

Geez, I sound like my father! What was it Mark Twain said? "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

James.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Artilleryo, you must have some crap m16's laying around. My dad had an ar15 built for him a few months ago which I had the pleasure of shooting, and I can assure you that it sailed through at least 100 rounds with ease. Of course I was jealous and told him I'd be stealing it straight away

To stay on topic, I completely agree with the preceding 4 posts!

There are AR-15's and there are M-16's. Identical in nearly all ways except the three round burst setting and the fact that the AR-15 wasn't made by the lowest bidder.

I may be exaggerating a bit. However, I don't know many people who have been in firefights with the M-16/M-4 who haven't had to stop and clear at least one jam.

With a few minor changes, it could be the weapon it's supposed to be. It could be redesigned so the dust cover on the ejector port is open only when a round is actually being ejected. The bolt could also be gas driven in both directions. That should give more consistent speed to the bolt as it opens.

Originally Posted by artilleryo

There are AR-15's and there are M-16's. Identical in nearly all ways except the three round burst setting and the fact that the AR-15 wasn't made by the lowest bidder.

I may be exaggerating a bit. However, I don't know many people who have been in firefights with the M-16/M-4 who haven't had to stop and clear at least one jam.

With a few minor changes, it could be the weapon it's supposed to be. It could be redesigned so the dust cover on the ejector port is open only when a round is actually being ejected. The bolt could also be gas driven in both directions. That should give more consistent speed to the bolt as it opens.

most of the problems I've had with the Stoner platform tend to stem from the fact that it shits where it eats, so to speak, e.g. direct impingement is WAY WAY WAY dirtier than a nice short-stroke piston. you can get some pretty nice aftermarket piston conversion kits, they're great!

Originally Posted by artilleryo

But would the common people have the skills? Seriously, how many people in the US know what it means for a machine gun to fire from the open bolt position? How many of them could emplace and lay a howitzer?

I hate the fact that a law abiding person has to justify owning a weapon. I've owned weapons in the past and the only thing I posed a danger to was paper and watermelon (.44 mag does beautiful things to a watermelon).

Cars are way more dangerous than guns and we let pretty much everyone have one of those.

Careful about deriding the ability of the common man to acquire difficult skills quickly. Until I had the desire to learn I didn't know a Double Duck from a Boker, or even how to hold a razor, its didn't take long for me to learn though. Or to stay on topic I have a friend who is a New Yorker born and bred, she had never touched a gun until a few months ago, she passed her Concealed Pistol Certification just this weekend, and I would trust her to be able to handle any pistol in my collection with ease and competence. Anyone who has the desire or need can rapidly acquire the skills and knowledge so their general lack should never be justification for denying anyone anything.

I'm pretty sure a person with average intelligence could figure out a machine gun or make a howitzer do more or less what it's supposed to do. I love my soldiers, but some of them aren't exactly the most complicated tools in the shed.

The risks for blowing a turn on the learning curve are pretty high though.

My dislike for the M-16 will be pretty moot soon anyway. I'm getting out of the reserves shortly. The work-guard-family balance is getting too hard to maintain.

I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thread, or its responses, as mine is the only one I care about. Thing is, every other right in the Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL right. Why not the Second? People want to parse it and make it say what they want it to say, but the bottom line is that it's just as essential and individual as the others. To all you folks who support abrogation of the Second amendment, what right do you think guarantees all the others? It ain't the Congress, and it damn sure isn't every other country who would think to invade us, but they know about 2 out of every 3 Americans is armed, or has access to a weapon. Frankly, that's the only thing our government is still afraid of, since they know that due to 40 years of Dimocratic policies ( agreed to by the Repukelicans) Americans aren't smart enough to outthink them. Unfortunately, this lack of critical thinking and personal responsibility, is the reason the right is under attack in the first place. Whatever happened to fistfights?

You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.

I actually saw with my own eyes just about a year ago several US issued M-16s and a case of hand grenades that were being sold on the black market.
It happens more than you might think.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Then, in order to drive the car, you must pass a written test, a practical test, a vision test, and a background check. You must be recertified every few years. And your driving privileges can be revoked for a variety of reasons.

In fact, the car analogy is as good an argument for gun registration as I've ever heard. Please stop using it.

Yet people drive every day without a license, or insurance, or tags, or common sense for that matter... The problem isn't the car, It's the owner. I've yet to hear of someone suing Ford because the drunk who ran over their grandmother was driving a mustang...

Originally Posted by Bruno

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen)

There are 3 major reasons an individual should/could be allowed to have these:
The first, and probably least substantial one is because they can be used for recreational purposes, safely and without harming anyone. Firing a full auto is actually a lot of fun.

Secondly, The threat of overwhelming force will often deter attackers from engaging. If you are thinking of invading a home, and you have to wonder who's inside, and how much force are they going to respond with, you might think twice.

And Third, Open revolt against the government does happen, the French revolution, the American Revolution, It's happened throughout history, and is a possibility in the future if government encroaches into the personal liberties of it's people.

People should not fear their government, the government should fear it's people. This is what keeps a government honest.
No it should not happen, and it's unlikely, but our founding fathers saw the necessity, and wanted the option to remain there should the government ever become a threat to the people.



You ask why we would own a gun unless it was for shooting people...
I own several handguns, rifles, shotguns, I have a bow and arrow, and I'm actively on the lookout for a reasonably priced cannon as well.
Yet I have no intention of shooting people with them.

I keep a loaded handgun within reach 90% of the time, this is simply a safety measure. I have had home invaders try to force entry into my home. They failed.
I have had 2 other incidents where guns were pointed at me, and threats were made, I believe I am alive today, and not a statistic because I was armed and willing to defend myself.

In all 3 cases I'm certain the agressor would have never tried me had they believed me armed. I looked like an easy target, and that was their mistake.
And FYI I didn't have to fire a shot. As soon as I drew my weapon, they turned tail and ran.

Criminals fear a well armed victim. I worked as a nurse in a state prison, and the inmates would try to intimidate me. Some would go as far as making threats. My answer was always the same...
"I'm going to take your word on that, These officers here heard you say it, and just to make sure we have an understanding... If I ever see you on the street, I'm going to assume you are there to make good on your threat. And seeing as you are a convicted felon with a violent history, I will shoot you down where you stand. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."
My ability and willingness to defend myself, is important to me, and has kept me safe so far.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

But when some imbecile walks into McDonalds to take out his frustrations with his mother, I'd just as soon he had to reload once in a while.

j

Frankly this to me is the perfect argument for concealed carry.
In modern society, with the number of gangbangers increasing, a poor economy, and the disturbing trend that seems to have started with Columbine, I think responsible well trained gunowners should carry concealed weapons more. I'm not advocating everybody to carry a gun, but a well trained individual with a firearm could potentially stop a rampage before it becomes a massacre.

That's real gun control, knowing and respecting your weapom, and hitting your target every time.

If the majority of upstanding community members, your pillars of the community, retired police and firefighters, business owners, and accountants...
If those people recieved proper training, (and passed all their background checks of course) and were allowed or even encouraged to carry concealed weapons, criminals would fear us.

They might think twice if they walk into a room and realise that probably every third person here has a gun hidden on them. If they don't think twice, they would most likely end up a statistic.

A couple of months ago I saw something about a recent murder at a women's dress shop, the guy walked in with I think it was an AK47? herded everybody to the back room, and killed them all. He didn't care that he was killing unarmed women... I can't say that those women would be alive today if they had been armed, but at least they would have had a fighting chance.
a single assailant can't keep his eyes on everyone in the store, until he has them all herded together. In that time, there might be a chance to fight. Frankly even if it's a slim chance, I want that chance. I'd rather die fighting than be executed in a back room.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I was hoping the responsibility word would come up. I never hear the word "right" without "responsibility" immediately springing into my head. I'd like to think that, by these judges ruling in favour of individual rights, what they are really saying is "we think our people are responsible enough to handle it".

Geez, I sound like my father! What was it Mark Twain said? "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

James.

I know I'm double posting, but this part deserves to be addressed all by itself.

Responsibility

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty Audio Help (rĭ-spŏn'sə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. re·spon·si·bil·i·ties

2. The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
3. Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
responsibility
noun1. the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty] 2. the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province] 3. a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility" [ant: irresponsibility]

"Every right implies a responsibility"
We have the right to free speech, we have the responsibility to not yell fire in a crowded theatre.

The second ammendment gives us the right to protect ourselves, it is the right that bears the burden of protecting all of the other rights and duties we as a free people hold.
Not only do we have a right to bear arms, but we have the responsibility to protect ourselves out families and our community.

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

Many of you will say the police are here to protect us, they hold that responsibility.
They do not, and can not protect you. If they respond at all you are lucky, if they arrive in time to save your life, wonderful. But to place your life in the hands of a small group of outnumbered overworked and overstretched officers is foolish at best.
The police spend most of their time investigating and gathering evidence after the crime has been committed. They can not be everywhere at once, and I really don't think your attacker is going to set up an appointment so that you can arrange for police protection before hand.

I've stated before that the police are not here to protect us, here's the proof.

The police have no legal obligation to protect you.

Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981 - Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.
When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

1982 -A husband and wife who were assaulted in a Laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn.
The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.

Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252

1975 - Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

911 doesn't even have to respond...

04/08/2006 - Michigan - A 5-year-old boy called 911 to report that his mother had collapsed in their apartment, but an operator told him he should not be playing on the phone, and she died before help arrived.

The family of Sherrill Turner, 46, does not know whether a swifter response could have saved her life, but relatives want to know why the operator apparently treated the call as if it were a prank.

Police said the 911 response was under investigation.

Turner's son, Robert, placed two calls to 911 after his mother collapsed Feb. 20 on the kitchen floor. During one of the calls, an operator said: "You shouldn't be playing on the phone."

In a tape of the call, parts of which were broadcast by Detroit-area television stations, the operator said: "Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."

In an audio of the tape played on TV, some of what the boy says is unintelligible.

Delaina Patterson, the eldest of Turner's 10 children, said police did not arrive until three hours later. She said only Robert and his mother were home at the time.

Detroit police spokesman James Tate said it was at least an hour before authorities arrived, but he said he did not have details. By that time, the boy's mother had died, he said.

"The operator may have believed he was playing on the phone," Tate said.

The 911 operator remains on the job amid the investigation, Tate said.

Have you ever called 911 and been put on hold?


Now that the supreme court has ruled in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would like to know where in the second amendment it says this only applies to in our own homes...