Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I am not a prisoner of war and on top of that I am an American citizen. Why should we extend rights to suspected terrorists during a time of war? If you were caught in their country, not even suspected of anything just caught, you are more than likely going to die. One of the with this country, and I truly believe it started during Vietnam, is we are no longer willing to actually fight a war. Sure we say we are at war but we are not willing to do what it is going to take to win the war. I can guarantee you that if the same terrorist attack that happened on 9/11 would have happened in 1945 not only would we have waged war but we would have done it in a fashion that made sure it never happened again. If you don’t believe that just ask yourself why Japan has not attacked us since Pearl Harbor (atomic bomb x 2).

The reason we have won every war that we have won including the revolutionary war, the civil war, and even WWII was directly related to our willingness to do whatever was required to win. I know this might seem harsh but if you look at history there is no way you can survive as a people or a nation without being willing to defend your rights and stand up for what you believe in. I promise you if given the chance our opposition would not think twice about bombing our cities, killing innocent people (twin towers), and if they had the means necessary completely wiping us out. Now we have become a society that wants to protect our rights and have a free country, but lets also make sure that we don’t offend anyone who might disagree with our views and we surely can not wage war against people trying to kill us. If we do wage war we must be sure not to harm anyone in the process. In case you have missed it these people that we are fighting want to wipe America off the face of the earth. And if you think for a second they don’t play our media and our liberal left against our country to help ensure a victory for them you are wrong. They hide in temples and mosques and then complain when we bomb them or they contact media through the internet to make sure that it is very well known that we bombed a temple. They don’t bother to tell you that they were shooting down helicopters and killing our soldiers from the roof of the temple, they only want you to believe that we are a heartless nation that kills innocent people.

On top of this there are people in this country that would rather sympathize with these terrorists than with the American government. They seem to compoletly forget, or neglect the fact that we are fighting people who randomly attacked New York city and killed thousands of innocent people just because they disagree with democracy.

This is getting a little long winded but I think you get my point. I don’t know about you but I am sure not willing to give due process to someone who wants to kill my and everyone in my family just because I don’t have the same religious background as them. Do I believe they deserve a fair trial, probably but certainly not in a time of war. Once the war is over then we should deal with the prisoners of war and see who is actually innocent. If you don’t believe that this is how wars are fought and won just ask some of the WWII or Vietnam prisoners of war who sometimes spent years in a cage before being released.

Originally Posted by Saylor1322

I am not a prisoner of war and on top of that I am an American citizen. Why should we extend rights to suspected terrorists during a time of war?

Many of those suspects are citizens of the USA as well. If a known terrorist were to misdial and ring your house you could easily end up there. Sure it's a wrong number... thanks to the decision you can tell it to the judge.

We let the Nazis have a trial, we let Saddam have a trial, why shouldn't we allow trials for people just because they're suspected of something? They didn't say "let them go" they said "let's see if there's a reason for them to be there"

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The only sad part is that it was even a close vote.

I also find it sad that common sense and the "plain as day" meaning of the second amendment only prevailed by the smallest of margins, but at least it prevailed, which restores a little hope to this old soul!

Originally Posted by JMS

I also find it sad that common sense and the "plain as day" meaning of the second amendment only prevailed by the smallest of margins, but at least it prevailed, which restores a little hope to this old soul!

Not to mention that trigger locks or disassembling your weapon are no longer required. I like to hope if it wasn't for that it would have gone by a wider margin.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

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

well, I definitely agree with you there, the NRA is next to useless in my book.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Not to mention that trigger locks or disassembling your weapon are no longer required. I like to hope if it wasn't for that it would have gone by a wider margin.

Why is it the assumption that we are not capable of sound thinking and reasoning?
Do I appear incapable of thinking for myself? does WildTim? How about syslight? JohnP and mhailey are apparently pretty intelligent! Are they not capable of deciding whats best for them and their family?

Originally Posted by JMS

Why is it the assumption that we are not capable of sound thinking and reasoning?
Do I appear incapable of thinking for myself? does WildTim? How about syslight? JohnP and mhailey are apparently pretty intelligent! Are they not capable of deciding whats best for them and their family?

Exactly! I know what is safe in my home let me make that decision.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Not to mention that trigger locks or disassembling your weapon are no longer required. I like to hope if it wasn't for that it would have gone by a wider margin.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Exactly! I know what is safe in my home let me make that decision.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by JMS

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Am I wrong?

No, I was saying I was glad the locks and disassembling aren't required.

But I think if it still was (which would be BS) it would probably have had more than 5 votes on the logical side.