Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I agree with you about these statistics in the US, but I reiterate that this phenomenon only occurs because guns are already nearly ubiquitous in our society. It makes no sense to ban something that's nearly everywhere. If it were possible to suddenly remove all the guns held by private citizens (and I don't think it is) things would be very different, and more like they are in the UK and Japan. And gun owners are pushing the position that gun ownership is absolutely permissible. I agree that it is and ought to be permitted in many cases, but I don't think felons should be allowed to own guns, I don't think automatic weapons ought to be allowed to be carried in urban areas, and I don't think private citizens should be allowed to make or buy armor piercing or tracer rounds. But more importantly, I think that these questions ought to be decided at the local level, with sensitivity toward local concerns and cultural beliefs. Guns are not necessary for any aspect of private life that I can think of, including hunting, since you can hunt with a bow, or even knives and swords. Given this lack of necessity, I see no way that anyone can argue that gun ownership or use ought to be absolutely permissible. But at this point, I think the only route to reduce gun violence is through gun safety education and gun exchange programs

Trying to use the insurgency in Iraq to support the notion that private gun ownership would give us the capacity to overthrow our government won't fly either. We've been in Iraq for over 5 years now, with an insurgency for nearly that entire time, and they haven't succeeded in running us out. Indeed, I think everyone here would agree that if the US is determined to stay, that insurgency will never succeed in running us out. That is the only metric we can use to support the notion that, if only citizens were allowed unrestricted access to own and use guns, they would have the power to overthrow their government.

By the way, I do want to state for the record here that I like guns. I like hunting and target shooting. And I'm a pretty good shot, if I do say so myself. I taught my younger brother to shoot, and when he joined the army, he was one bullseye away from some sharpshooting patch, despite the fact that his M16 had broken and he had to load each round by hand. (The test was to get a certain number of target hits in a certain amount of time) But I am also very much aware that a gun is a tool, and it is a tool designed to do just one thing, kill stuff. Just like I don't think everybody should be allowed to own and use any tool they wish, I don't think everybody should be allowed to own and use a gun. I put guns in the same category I put cars, and we require licensing and certification before we let people use cars.

I think you are missing one of the basic points of this ruling. The ruling was that the people have a right to own guns in their homes for protection or even hunting. There is nowhere in this ruling that says every person has the right to own a gun and absolutely nowhere that it says every person has the right to carry a gun in public. In fact not only does the ruling not specifically state that everyone has the right to own a gun but it leaves room for interpretation, allowing local governments to regulate guns based on local laws. This means that there are still going to be requirements on who can buy a gun, for example no felon should be permitted to own a gun, and there can also be regulations on the requirements for guns in homes. This means that the government can still require the guns to be registered and they will still be able to regulate concealed weapon permits etc. I am all for having the right to own guns but at the same time I am all for the regulations requiring registrations and background checks to ensure that the people who are owning guns are responsible. I am also completely against any law that prohibits me from buying firearms for protection, hunting, or simply collecting. If these laws are allowed to continue the only people that will have guns are the criminals.

The only thing that laws do is keep the honest people honest.

Kantian Pragmatist I am getting the impression that you believe the police are actually there to protect us...
If you look at various 1st and 2nd world countries, and compare their gun control laws with their crime rates you will see that gun control actually increases the crime rate.

Years ago a Washington DC court ruled that the police have a responsibility to protect a community as a whole, and that they have no responsibility whatsoever to protect individuals in the community.

So when you have someone breaking into your home, and you call 911, they don't have to come to your aide. And barking like a dog is only going to make the laugh at you as they rape and kill your family.

I believe our founding fathers saw that even the most adept justice system has it's limitations, and they saw the need for the people to defend themselves from both corrupt government, and from local threats.

At the time the second ammendment was written, a militia was more than a small army, it usually consisted of any and all law abiding men of a community, and could be called into action to protect both the community, and individuals in it in case of emergencies.
Think of it like a modern telephone tree... You need help, you call on a neighbor, they come to your aide, and at the same time call several more neighbors.

This type of system still exists today, it's called a neighborhood watch.
The difference today is they call the police for you, and serve as witnesses.

I live in rural America, and I both pity and fear individuals such as yourself who are so willing to surrender your rights because you believe the old days are gone.

I owe my life to my right to bear arms, not once, but 3 times in my short life, I have looked down the barrel at someone who intended me bodily harm, 2 of those times the agressor had a gun pointed at me as well. And by the grace of god they all backed down and ran away.
Had they not turned before I had time to disengage the safety on my firearm, I would have fired in each and every one of these occurences, and that certainty of action is what has kept me alive.

Nord Jim, I understand your concern about the number of children who are killed each year by firearms, however this is not an issue of regulation, but an issue of education. Every handgun owner in America has to take the same class, and show knowledge of handgun safety. It is the responsibility of the owner to educate their children and insure their safety. We are all required to have safety devices, and to lock our guns up. I would fault poor parenting, and education for this not general gun ownership. Also consider the fact that the United States has more firearms per capita than any other country in the world. If you compare the number of firearms owned to the number of deaths, I believe the numbers would be more equal than you realise.

3. if the Second Amendment ever falls, I can personally guarantee that the tree of liberty will once again be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants. pretty sure I'm not the only one here that thinks this.

As for this statement, I will say this much, I would give up my life for my right to protect myself. Any government or individual that thinks to disarm me, and remove my ability to protect myself, or my family will have hell to pay.
My family has fought in nearly every war this country has waged, and we have done it willingly. We have fought and died for your rights, and will continue to do so. We have fought for your right for life and liberty, and without the right to bear arms, these are things that can be taken by anybody at their leisure.

If you are willing to give up your rights, and I mean any of your rights for the illusion of security, or the hope of peace, then you are a fool, and you don't deserve the freedoms you have.
If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. And don't ever think that criminals are going to give up theirs because you make it illegal.

Jim,

while I agree with you on many issues, the gun owners are not those that need to be educated (by in large). It is those that have been brain washed by the gun control lobby that need to be educated. I have known too many people that see a gun and freak out because "those things are just too dangerous." I feel that gun education should be a required course in the public education, as sex ed, and math. Guns are such a part of our culture, that education regarding the proper use of them should be required prior to graduation. However, this is not going to happen, because many of those that would be able to make this a requirement in the public education system, are those that have been brain washed by the gun control nuts.

Matt

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Yeah, sorry. My dark side, I suppose.

I get tired of arguing about this while my rights slip away. Don't get me started on the NRA. They represent gun manufacturers, not owners. They don't give a damn if my grandson inherits my favorite octagon barrel, as long as second quarter 08 is up over a year ago.

j

You complain that your rights are slipping away, yet you already live in the city with the most extreme gun control in the USA... You just got some of your rights back with this ruling... I would think you would be happy.

By the way, how does it feel to live in a city that has no guns? Is it the peaceful eutopia the liberals claim it should be? Are the crime rates down to zero yet?

Does anybody have crime statistics for DC? It might be interesting to compare to a large metropolitan city in a free carry state like Texas... How do the violent crime rates compare between Dallas and Washington DC?

Gentlemen,
We can rest easy at night now! Upon doing some research, I have discovered that murdering another human being is already illegal throughout the United States!!!
Not to mention, all crime in the U.S. has been officially declared against the law.

So, not only are none of us at risk of being murdered, but there will be no crime.



Right?


Firearms restrictions do not prevent crime. They encourage it. If someone is willing to murder you, (against the law btw) do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that he's more afraid of infringing a firearms law than capital murder laws? Suppose he'll find another method? Not to mention, other crimes that increase because, the police do not PREVENT, in most cases, they investigate after the fact. Lot of good it does you when you are lying in a pool of your own blood staring at the ceiling, or when you are trying to explain to your daughter that she had to be raped because she was not worth defending with lethal force, as owning a gun is somehow evil.
Good luck with that one.

Every time the government places a new restriction on citizens, because some through some logic of their own think it necessary, that same government then begins to think it has the right to place those restrictions on citizens. Seldom is a new law a freedom gained.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right, but acknowledges and protects it for US citizens who have not revoked their rights by becoming felons or denouncing citizenship, etc. etc.
It has also never been about sporting use or hunting, but to protect citizens right to be armed for a much more grim purpose.

I do believe that with potentially deadly tools like firearms, comes heavier responsibility. A basic firearms safety test, for instance, wouldn't be out of order, to sort through who got their "training" from watching TV.
Bad bad bad bad bad...


Just my thoughts on the subject.
John P.

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Have you read the dissenting opinions? Excruciating intellectual contortions. There is little ambiguity, the Constitution is perfectly clear: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet somehow leftist mental Jiu-Jiutsu manages to infer all sorts of secret hidden meanings, caveats and exceptions.

Otoh the right to their day in court for the gitmo detainees was also 5-4, and that was pretty straightforward as well. I't not only the lefts that can be stubborn.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you agreeing that the terrorists, who happen to be prisoners of war and in no way are U.S. citizens, deserve the right to a fair trial by jury? If that is what you are saying I have to strongly disagree. Lets have the terrorists, or terrorist suspects, released and tried by a jury under the premise of innocent until proven guilty. The only problem with this is that right is reserved for U.S. citizens not anyone in the world. These people would be more than willing to kill us than to talk to us, remember 911, and are trying to use our political system against us so they can be released to go back to their sandbox and continue to kill American solders or oppress their own people. I am sorry to say that I do not agree that prisoners of war have the right to a fair democratic trial. In case anyone that disagrees with me has not been paying attention over the last few years, when they capture one of our soldiers, or civilians they cut their heads off with a machete and broadcast it on the news and the internet. Don’t believe me just Google it and I guarantee it will come up. That is not exactly the type of people I want to have a fair trial.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

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.

I am not generally known as pro-gun, but this argument is not making any sense.

First of all, I just saw a documentary on national geographic that discussed self defense options.
The results were not what you might expect. people get insensitized to pepper spray after a couple of times. This was demonstrated by an ex special forces guy, who also demonstrated that a trained professional can rip the taser talons out of his body an attack the other guy within seconds.

Private security companies can protect you, but they are generally expensive, and unless you get personal protection, they are no more effective than police officers patroling the streets.
Neighborhood watches etc have the same problem, AND they require that you also take care of everybody else.

Ownership of a gun will not deter anyone, but the gun itself can. When someone is IN your house, your wits and weapons are what can save you. Not the neighborhood watch, not the security company... noone but you can take control of what will happen.

Now I don't want guns in my house, but that does not mean that I don't allow others to make the same choice for themselves.
With guns comes the responsibility to handle them properly, and to teach your kids not to play with them.
Whenever I read that a kid shot his brother or himself with daddy's gun, I think it is sad, but ultimately it's the parent's fault for being stupid .

The same holds true with razors. They can be used as weapons. They can cause horrible accidents. You don't need live blades. There are perfectly safe cartridge razors, doing everything you need, and they are used by the majority of the mob. Does that mean that I shouldn't have live blades? Because there is no need for me to make my own decisions, rather than to follow the group and go baaaaah?

Your argument boils down to some sort of communist approach to self defense, requiring you to take care of everyone, including those who are not taking care of themselves, and taking away your freedom to fend for yourself as you see fit, in favor of what the group decides for you.

Originally Posted by Saylor1322

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you agreeing that the terrorists, who happen to be prisoners of war and in no way are U.S. citizens, deserve the right to a fair trial by jury? If that is what you are saying I have to strongly disagree. Lets have the terrorists, or terrorist suspects, released and tried by a jury under the premise of innocent until proven guilty. The only problem with this is that right is reserved for U.S. citizens not anyone in the world. These people would be more than willing to kill us than to talk to us, remember 911, and are trying to use our political system against us so they can be released to go back to their sandbox and continue to kill American solders or oppress their own people. I am sorry to say that I do not agree that prisoners of war have the right to a fair democratic trial. In case anyone that disagrees with me has not been paying attention over the last few years, when they capture one of our soldiers, or civilians they cut their heads off with a machete and broadcast it on the news and the internet. Don’t believe me just Google it and I guarantee it will come up. That is not exactly the type of people I want to have a fair trial.

But you see here's the thing... they're suspected terrorists.

Let's say for some reason you became a suspect... boom, you're going to gitmo. Don't like it, too bad, you're not getting a chance to prove you shouldn't be a suspect.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I am not generally known as pro-gun, but this argument is not making any sense.

First of all, I just saw a documentary on national geographic that discussed self defense options.
The results were not what you might expect. people get insensitized to pepper spray after a couple of times. This was demonstrated by an ex special forces guy, who also demonstrated that a trained professional can rip the taser talons out of his body an attack the other guy within seconds.

Private security companies can protect you, but they are generally expensive, and unless you get personal protection, they are no more effective than police officers patroling the streets.
Neighborhood watches etc have the same problem, AND they require that you also take care of everybody else.

Ownership of a gun will not deter anyone, but the gun itself can. When someone is IN your house, your wits and weapons are what can save you. Not the neighborhood watch, not the security company... noone but you can take control of what will happen.

Now I don't want guns in my house, but that does not mean that I don't allow others to make the same choice for themselves.
With guns comes the responsibility to handle them properly, and to teach your kids not to play with them.
Whenever I read that a kid shot his brother or himself with daddy's gun, I think it is sad, but ultimately it's the parent's fault for being stupid .

The same holds true with razors. They can be used as weapons. They can cause horrible accidents. You don't need live blades. There are perfectly safe cartridge razors, doing everything you need, and they are used by the majority of the mob. Does that mean that I shouldn't have live blades? Because there is no need for me to make my own decisions, rather than to follow the group and go baaaaah?

Your argument boils down to some sort of communist approach to self defense, requiring you to take care of everyone, including those who are not taking care of themselves, and taking away your freedom to fend for yourself as you see fit, in favor of what the group decides for you.

My man Bruno! Tell it like it is!