Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I have a funny feeling that the founders considered it common sense that the right to bear arms for home security would not even be in question. i don't have any historical evidence to offer you that statement, but that's where i am coming from for the most part.

Also, horse ownership was never considered as a fundamental necessity to the security of a free state. Arms are more than just guns, but even a gun can still neutralize the best soldier in any army today.

For many of them, I'm sure it was a common tool for use in the defense of themselves and their homes. Indeed, it was likely so necessary that it was hard to imagine living without one. But 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, and there are other, newer tools that we can make use of as well. Indeed, the oldest security tool of all time is the most effective in our current world of danger: man's best friend, Canis familiaris. So while the Founders may have believed that the day would never come when arms (whether firearms or swords or laser pistols) were not needed to secure himself and his property against the troubles of the world, this does not mean they were right. And while horse ownership was never considered a fundamental necessity for the promotion of a free society, freedom of movement was. This lead to many localities writing laws that gave horses and horse-drawn vehicles the right of way when cars came on the scene. I can easily imagine an alternate world where the citizenry, who, at the time, mostly did not own cars and did own horses, demanded a constitutional amendment that allowed and gave the right of way to ridden or hitched horses on public roadways. After all, they wrote and passed an amendment that prohibited the production and sale of alcohol.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

But 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, and there are other, newer tools that we can make use of as well. Indeed, the oldest security tool of all time is the most effective in our current world of danger: man's best friend, Canis familiaris. .

You must live in a land of pixie dust, lollipops, and ferries.
Here is a quick search for "home invasion." home invasion - Google News

You are basing your assertion that we no longer need guns because our society has progressed to the point that personal protection can be handled by the government. However, in almost the same breath you say that we can protect ourselves by owning dogs. If society is so evolved, why would you even provide an alternative to guns for self protection, when self protection is an obsolete issue?

Matt

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.

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)