Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

we don't need those sorts of weapons to secure our own defense any longer. Our social institutions have become stable enough and extend far enough into the world that we can rely on them to provide these protections

As long as there's violent crime, arms are the final defense against personal attacks on citizens' personal security. Social institutions don't mean much beyond the point when a threat decides to present itself anyway.

Like Matt said, the need for self-protection is not anachronistic.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

As long as there's violent crime, arms are the final defense against personal attacks on citizens' personal security. Social institutions don't mean much beyond the point when a threat decides to present itself anyway.

Like Matt said, the need for self-protection is not anachronistic.

+1. My local social institution is not going to be standing guard if an armed intruder breaks into my home in the night. I and my .38 Super, however, will be.

I see the issue for gun ownership to be a personal one. I personally don’t have a need for them. I don’t feel that the constitution grants me or guarantees me anything. I feel that if you need to possess a weapon in order to protect yourself and your family, then that should be your choice.

Originally Posted by CactusBob

What social institutions are you referring to? It cant be Law Enforcement, those men and women do on heck of a job but they just cant make it to me if someone is breaking in or attacking. Even if I was in a urban area they wouldn't be able to stop any type of attack on me or my family, the time required for them to respond is outside of what a situation would require. As for the dogs I have two of them, they're cute but basically dumb as rocks . They will bark and raise a commotion but wouldn't be able to stop an intruder. Thats where my 1911 comes in, yes guns are still Needed. The only one who can STOP something from happening to my family is me.

Bob

Not just Law Enforcement, but also private security companies, innovations such as pepper spray and mace or tasers, neighborhood crime watch organizations, and on and on and on. Guns can be a part of home security, and they can be an important part, but they are not, strictly speaking, necessary. And should (God forbid) you ever be the victim of a home invasion, your dumb as rocks dogs might surprise you. At any rate, the dog's greatest utility is not in being a physical barrier to the invader, but a psychological one. The invader is much more likely to skip you over when he hears a dog's bark, whether that dog is likely to attack him or not. And believe me, if an invader is intent on harming you or your family, it is unlikely that even your ownership and use of a gun would stop him.

And while it's true that a rag-tag militia of (really fairly poorly) armed citizens ran the superpower of their day out of the Colonies, a lot has changed since then. Back then, it took weeks or months to get reinforcements from the UK or Africa to the Colonies. Weapons were single-shot muskets that ran a significant chance of exploding on you, or cannons that ran a similar risk. The British were stuck in the warfare of lining up on the battlefield wearing bright red coats, while the Colonists engaged in guerrilla warfare. Why do you think we haven't seen a single successful internal coup of a nation's government in the 20th Century that wasn't essentially a military coup? After all, that's the power that you all are arguing for. That a well-armed citizenry would be able to overthrow their government from within, without needing military assistance.

You are at your apartment in a bad section of D.C., it's 2am, you hear someone trying to force open your rear door.

You call 911, but in a metropolis that large, with that many crimes, do you think they will get to you in time?

Out in the non-urban areas gun ownership may be for sport/hobby. Perhaps it is exactly in the urban environment that the self defense aspect truly comes into play.

Obviously, there is gun crime currently in DC, even with a ban. So, by now allowing the "good citizens" a chance to arm themselves it may allow them to protect themselves in a timely fashion.

Personally, I do not own, nor want to own a firearm, but I support that right.

kp said: "And remember, guns have only one use, to kill stuff. Target shooting, while it can be enjoyable in itself, is a means to the end of being more competent in using the gun to kill stuff, should it be necessary. The point of cars is to get us from point A to point B, the use of cell-phones is to allow us to talk to far away people without being tied to some wire, but the use of guns is to kill. Indeed, except for some highly engineered target rifles, ownership of a gun signifies an intent to kill something, even if that intent is based on a hypothetical circumstance."

couldn't disagree more. a gun is designed to send a projectile towards a target. the target and the projectile are entirely up to the user. guns aren't only for killing any more than bows and arrows or spears. (track and field, anyone?)

furthermore, it's a definite ad hominem that you accuse gun proponents of demanding that gun ownership is an absolute right that should be extended to felons, the mentally ill, and children. I mean, it's a pretty slick tactic to make us look reprehensible, and a common one at that (frequently used by the Brady bunch) but not, I would argue, a valid one. neither I nor most gun owners think that is the case; I am big on personal responsibility and have no problem with there being reasonable standards of responsibility required for gun ownership.

As a life-long owner of firearms, I find this potentially troubling. Not absolutely troubling, mind you, but potentially.

The problem we have that nobody is addressing is the perception of rampant gun violence. If nothing is done about that, the American people will amend the Constitution to try to effect a solution. Nobody -- not the NRA (the idiots), not the Congress, and certainly not the Supreme Court, seems to be dealing with this issue.

As long as the majority of the American People believe that firearms are a threat, our rights are in jeopardy.

It is absolutely true that our country has a higher rate of gun violence than any other developed nation. It is also true that most areas with gun control -- New York City is a prime example -- have lower rates of violence than areas with less control, like Texas and Florida. Contrary to a previous post, New York is a far less violent place than any other city even remotely its size in this country.

If we don't do something about gun violence, our rights will be curtailed, sooner or later. That's the issue, people. Not whether it's guaranteed in the second amendment or not.

I mean, who was the f---king idiot who gathered the NRA at Columbine within weeks of the killings? "From my cold, dead hands" indeed. The fricking morons!

Perception is everything, and we're losing the battle. Wake up!

j

In 1981 the Supreme Court ruled in "Warren vs the District of Columbia", that the police cannot be held liable for damages due to any inability perceived or not to protect the INDIVIDUAL. Police responsibilty is to protect society at large.

The ruling means that the INDIVIDUAL is responsible to protect him or herself.

Today's ruling helps to support the idea that we in this country hold near and dear to our hearts.

Let us do for ourselves.

A simple google search of local newspapers will render a HUGE number of articles detailing where every day citizens use a firearm to protect themselves or a third innocent party. Compare those numbers to the times when police officers have to do the same and there is nowhere near as many.

That about sums it up for me...
Oh and Yea!!! for the 5 justices who agreed and BOO, HISS to the 4 justices who dissented.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

It is absolutely true that our country has a higher rate of gun violence than any other developed nation. It is also true that most areas with gun control -- New York City is a prime example -- have lower rates of violence than areas with less control, like Texas and Florida. Contrary to a previous post, New York is a far less violent place than any other city even remotely its size in this country.
j

I would very much like to see some statistics backing this up.

these statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state
seem to not show that link. (california has a higher rate of gun violence than texas, new york has a higher rate of gun violence than wyoming, etc, etc)

Originally Posted by jockeys

I would very much like to see some statistics backing this up.

these statistics
Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
seem to not show that link. (california has a higher rate of gun violence than texas, new york has a higher rate of gun violence than wyoming, etc, etc)

Then look for them. Jeeze, this isn't hard to find.

j