Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Nickelking

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.

Sometimes you surprise me!

Originally Posted by JMS

Sometimes you surprise me!

Ha! I'm for all the bill of rights!

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Just offhand, I would say the modern day criminal and civil justice system would = automobile where gun = horse. For the most part, we don't need guns to settle our disputes anymore. We no longer duel, in part, because we can get satisfaction from a relatively efficient civil court system, and we don't have to worry about stray bullets hitting someone who isn't party to our dispute.

When someone is trying to break into your home in the middle of the night, the "civil justice system" is pretty much the last thing on your mind ... ask me how I know. The Heller case overturned the complete, outright ban of handguns and the requirement for long guns to be unloaded and either disassembled or have a trigger lock in place within a resident's home in D.C. It doesn't go much further than that. It doesn't give felons the right to own firearms, it doesn't eradicate the gun control act of 1968 or anything like that.

This whole irrational fear of "blood running in the streets" is the same argument we heard every time a state passed "shall issue" carry permit legislation and you know what happened? Violent crime rates actually dropped in the majority of cases. Criminals aren't afraid of gun laws, they don't buy their guns through legal channels in the first place. What they do fear is armed citizens who just might be able to defend themselves.
Jack

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? If you were caught in their country, not even suspected of anything just caught, you are more than likely going to die.

May I point out that you are NOT at war, atm.
Bush likes to use the word a lot, that is true, but war is declared by congress.
There is no war. Hence there are no provisions for invoking laws that apply to war time.

And the argument 'but they would do worse' is pointless.
Yes, Kim Jong Il would take an even more extreme course of action with regard to suspected terrorists. But comparing yourself with the loewst scum in international politics does not may you look good, anymore than someone would be grateful only getting shot in the head while Hannibal lecter would disembowel you alive.

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?

Because habeas corpus and other rights are what our founders routinely referred to as the "laws of nature and of nature's god." They are, in fact, the very basis of our existence as a nation. They don't rely on human laws and jurisdiction and they apply to all humanity.

It's what we claim to believe. Are you telling me that our nation is hypocritical? That's what the rest of the world believes, in large part because we don't walk the walk in Gitmo.

It's always easy and safe to make cheap exceptions. It takes courage to stand for what you believe in.

j

Originally Posted by Saylor1322

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.

Atm you are fighting people in Iraq who sure as hell had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Btw, the US killed thousands of innocent people as well when they overthrew the regimes they didn;t agree with. Pot, kettle, black...

Originally Posted by Saylor1322

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.

There is no state of war. Soldiers are fighting, but congress didn't declare war.
And the war of terror
a) is not a war
b) will never be over, in which case you might just do away with those parts of the constitution convering the non-wartime rights.

Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff

You complain that your rights are slipping away, yet you already live in the city with the most extreme gun control in the USA...

et seq.

Okay, I'll say this one last time:

I'm a lifelong owner of firearms. I'm not the one you need to convince. Got it?

When gun owners finally decide to stop contemplating their own navels and deal with the huge perception problem they have, then maybe I'll feel better. This Supreme Court ruling will only stir things up more and hasten the constitutional amendment that so far lies at the end of this.

Now I give up. You've beaten me.

j

Criminals get guns, because this is what they are taught by society. As a civilization, we teach the people that when you are low on a resource, just attack somebody else and steal theirs. We never stop to question why we ran out of a resource on a planet that is full of abundance and life.

When a “criminal” wants to attack you, you want a weapon. When they want to attack you with a knife, you want a gun. When they have a gun, what then? Do you want a bigger gun, a bomb, a rocket, maybe a nuke? Do we as a society of people ever stop to ask why this “criminal” feels that he does not have enough and must steal from another? Could it be that we put more value on stuff than we do of life?

I see many comments about the “terrorist”. We can ask the same of them. Why did they blow up the trade center? Could it be that this country decided that we didn’t have enough oil so we set up puppet regimes and kept their country in a constant state of warfare so that we could step in and steal the resources from their lands?

Originally Posted by Nickelking

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"

The Nazis didn't get habeus corpus. Did Saddam? I don't know

Originally Posted by Bruno

There is no war. Hence there are no provisions for invoking laws that apply to war time.

It makes one wonder what sort of war crimes Bush and his cronies have committed that so many liberals are clamoring about

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It makes one wonder what sort of war crimes Bush and his cronies have committed that so many liberals are clamoring about

Who are these liberals? I don't know any. Do they have covert cells? Passwords? Secret handshakes and decoder rings?

They sure must be awful people, though, with all the rotten stuff they do. What is it that they believe that makes them so horrible?

j