Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:38:53 AM   
MmeGigs


Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TracyTaken

quote:


Looks like the majority of the Supreme court pretty much has made up its mind that citizens are entitled to own gun.


It's called the Second Amendment.  It's nice, though, that all the top judges got together in a cluster-fuck and decided that US citizens are entitled to what they are guaranteed.  And it's such a momunental decision as to make it news of the day!  Yippee!  That puts my mind to rest.  


I'd wait and see what the decision is before starting the celebration.  Yesterday was oral argument.  The decision won't be coming for some time.  I watched most of the proceedings, and while I can see where the media got the idea that the judges were leaning toward the "individual right" argument, there was no indication that this is a done deal.  What occurs during oral argument isn't always an indication of the way the decision will come down.

(in reply to TracyTaken)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 4:40:02 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

In that case, should the Second Amendment extend to arms, such as assault weapons, invented after the amendment was ratified?

Where are we going with this? Virtually every weapon in use today was "invented after the amendment was ratified".
 
K.
 


Bingo.

The Second Amendment is now taken, often by so-called originalists, to embrace all kinds of weaponry the authors could not have intended or perhaps even imagined.


So?

The Constitution doesn't *GIVE* The People *ANYTHING*.

The Constitution *TELLS THE FEDS* what *THEY* are permitted to do.

So, since the 2nd Amendment *doesn't* say "The Feds May Regulate*, then simply put, The Feds CANNOT Regulate.

The key is to stop thinking like a Slave who is GIVEN Rights by the Government, and to think like a Person who is GIVEN Rights by THEIR CREATOR ( YMMV, but G-d, generally ).




_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:10:17 AM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I think an assault weapon in private hands might have given them pause, but of course we'll never know.



i think not. "Arms" of the day included cannon and field howitzers... care to speculate on the kind of damage somebody could do if they started dropping eight-inch explosive shells into a crowded urban area? Makes small arms look tame by comparison.

Something that people tend to forget about is that there were very few limitations on private ownership of firearms in the U.S. until 1934... If you wanted a military surplus machine gun, you could pick one up pretty cheaply. Browning Model 1919 were a formidable weapon, and they're still popular today. If you wanted something bigger, you could have that commissioned as well. But, the Feds used the organized crime syndicates spawned by Prohibition to generate enough FUD to get public acceptance for the NFA (really, they were much more concerned about Communists, the labor unions, and civil unrest surrounding the economic times)... and it all snowballed from there into the mess we have today, via knee-jerk reactions to one media "crisis" after another.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:15:55 AM   
LilMissHaven


Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline
I didn't read all the posts...its my day off I don't intend to anything involving true thought or work, sorry.

But, they can have my guns when they pry them from my lifeless body.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...take guns out of the equation and they'll still find a way.

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to Gemini1766)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:19:57 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The Constitution doesn't *GIVE* The People *ANYTHING*.

The Constitution *TELLS THE FEDS* what *THEY* are permitted to do.

So, since the 2nd Amendment *doesn't* say "The Feds May Regulate*, then simply put, The Feds CANNOT Regulate.



The 2nd Amendment is so imprecise and open to intepretation, it seems rather pointless to refer back to it because any intepretation will be more to do with contemporary politics than anything the authors of the amendment meant and who knows what they really meant anyway. It certainly isn't clear by reading the 2nd amendment.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:25:34 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...take guns out of the equation and they'll still find a way.


This cliche has been repeated so often it has become common knowledge to people who don't like to think.

What guns do, is make it easier to kill people. If those mass murders involving guns had guns taken out of the equation, it would have been difficult for the perpetrator to kill and injure so many people with a knife or any other potentially lethal instrument.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to LilMissHaven)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:39:20 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
I still don't get the equation that guns + 2nd amendment = freedom.

Surely, if the government is such a source of suspicion, it should be overthrown, and the whole sheebang restarted again.

Could it be that people are too chickenshit to use their guns to start a new revolution  ? I mean, that's what the founding fathers did. No?

Or is it that citizens are being played against each other by Smith & Wesson and the coffin industry? Which would keep them nice and shtum, and less likely to turn against big, bad, evil government?

I think we should be told.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 3/19/2008 6:43:43 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:44:25 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

As you can see, I am here. I got here soon enough to read it all this time :-)

The Constitution specifically states that it does not bestow rights. It merely defines them. People today do not see it that way though, thus the issue.

In my opinion everyone over the age of eighteen should have a gun, ammunition for it and know how to use it. There should be shooting ranges at schools. The Parents should bring in the gun that will be used to teach their kid, at the end of the course, if they pass, the gun is given to them to take home. And it is a required course, if the family cannot afford a gun for each of their kids, they are provided, they just don't get to take them home.

A government by the People, of the People and for the People would do this. A regime would not. Click click ?

I would support bans on certain types of ammo within city limits. Not only do you not need a thirty ought six in an apartment building, you don't want it. Those things with a nice load in them will penetrate the outside walls of houses, let alone walls between rooms.

So whatever gun you have, if you are in an urban area you are required to only shoot hollow points. They have less chance of completely penetrating the target and injuring someone standing behind them, let alone pierce them cleanly enough to go through a wall or a door. They also injure the target much more effectively.

I can understand such restrictions.

And as far as what are called arms, you use them with your arms. If you can't hold it up with one arm, I don't think you want it in an urban area. Like a fifty caliber. Somebody climbs into your window at night and you say "Hold on while I go get the tripod and clips". You need something in your hand. You need it now.

BTW, if something like that ever happens to you, you shoot first. You tell the cops (if they come) that you said "Stop or I'll shoot and he didn't stop". If you like for Karma's sake you can say it after you shoot, and they will not stop bleeding so you spoke the truth.

If you break into someone's house when it is dark you are asking for trouble because they are liable to be home. Sometimes you do run across someone who is tough and therefore you are probably armed. Whether you are really tough or armed does not matter.

Try that shit at my house most likely there will be a camshaft for a 1966 Chevy 350 down your throat. Try it over my buddy's house you will get a broken neck and then dragged out in the backyard, literally, you'll be found in the morning. The cover of darkness works both ways you know.

But what if it happened at my Mother's house ?

Well it almost did. My sister had a real dikhead for a boyfriend and one day he broke in. My Mother tried to shoot him but we got her a break action revolver. I think it was a five shot but we told her to keep it loaded with four, because it had a solid firing pin I think. Well she forgot it was loaded and opened it, which let some of the rounds slide down under the ejector plate. Therefore it would not close to reset the mechanism to again raise the ejector plate. If not this guy would be dead.

He was all high on acid, in love with my sister he thought, and rejected because he had abused her when they lived together. I almost killed him myself when I heard the saga of that and now you take it to my Mother ? I will not say exactly what I did, but surprisingly it was legal and effective. I am sure I lost more sleep over him being alive than I would've if he was dead. During that time I figured out what to do, and he is ruined now. All his mighty connections became worthless in a hurry. See when they busted him at my Mother's house he had a shitload of drugs and that all got swept under the rug. I knew who his connections were and I ruined them.

I had never done anything like this to anyone, and haven't since, but you don't fuck with Mom. Nuff said ?

This country was tamed by hard Men, much harder than I, and they meant for criminals to meet with their demise. I have no sympathy at all, not for a criminal. Someone who gets a shitty hand in life OK, but not a criminal. You have to draw a line somewhere.

And carrying a gun ? Just make sure you got those hollow points in it.

All the bleeding hearts are non sequitor because when it happens to them they will change their tune real fast. Wait until they get raped or something. In fact forcible rape should warrant the death penalty, as should using one of those date rape drugs. If you will do that I do not want you on the planet and I will look right into your Parent's eyes and say "You just can't go around doing that, you should've taught them better". Just like that.

Yes, just like that. Burying your kid would be the punishment for not teaching them right from wrong. Then sit back and watch the world change, for the better this time.

Maybe in some ways I am harder than those who tamed this country. As said in an old episode of Star Trek "Death is the equation". Well we are at about three hundred million and counting, so I think the results are in. Go figure. (I meant that literally, too many people, too much crime, getting worse, figure it out)

If we don't get to 100 pages by tomorrow I might be back.

T


T   Have you considered Frangible Ammo?   I particularly like it around the house because the ammo decentrigrates on contact with something harder which protects against over penetration.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 6:55:05 AM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

What guns do, is make it easier to kill people. If those mass murders involving guns had guns taken out of the equation, it would have been difficult for the perpetrator to kill and injure so many people with a knife or any other potentially lethal instrument.


You know what was used in the worst mass murder in U.S. history?

A dollar worth of gasoline.

Second?

Dynamite.

Firearms are a tool, no more, no less. 

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:02:10 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
It's not mass murder which is alerting... check this out:

In 2004, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were:

29,569 deaths by firearms;
64,389 injuries by firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

That's quite a lot of people, I think you will agree.

Then you hear things like "it's not guns that kill people". Talk about burying your head in the sand... if people like to own guns, fine, but let's not cover up the fact that guns are weapons of death. And that they're used as such.

A bit of intellectual honesty, peeps  .

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 3/19/2008 7:03:08 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:02:41 AM   
LilMissHaven


Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...take guns out of the equation and they'll still find a way.


This cliche has been repeated so often it has become common knowledge to people who don't like to think.

What guns do, is make it easier to kill people. If those mass murders involving guns had guns taken out of the equation, it would have been difficult for the perpetrator to kill and injure so many people with a knife or any other potentially lethal instrument.


*smiles, letting the insult roll off her back*  I am a firm believer in that statement.  A gun does not decide to point itself and pull its trigger.  Although, accidents do happen.

And while many mass murders were perpetrated with a gun there are also those many mass murders perpetrated by other means such as drowning, strangulation, knives, chemical, etc.  My argument is that if a person wants another dead they will find a way to make it happen.

The only instance I can see having the right to bear arms taken from the general public as being beneficial are most likely heat of the moment instances or accidental shootings (usually involving children).

Now, don't get me wrong I am a responsible gun owner not only do I employ trigger locks but I also at all times when not hunting (which is the only time except cleaning that my guns see daylight) they are kept in a locked gun cabinet.  I was raised to respect guns, we were not even ever allowed to point toy guns at people growing up.  Before I was allowed to touch a gun I had to take hunter's safety.  I am all for strict regulations and longer waiting periods before being approved to own a gun of any type.

But, to totally take away my right to bear arms is to me like forcing me to live in a totalatarian state.  Because, the fact remains its not that hard to find a gun on the street. *winks*

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:05:14 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I still don't get the equation that guns + 2nd amendment = freedom.

Surely, if the government is such a source of suspicion, it should be overthrown, and the whole sheebang restarted again.

Could it be that people are too chickenshit to use their guns to start a new revolution ? I mean, that's what the founding fathers did. No?

Or is it that citizens are being played against each other by Smith & Wesson and the coffin industry? Which would keep them nice and shtum, and less likely to turn against big, bad, evil government?

I think we should be told.


As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Indepence, men will suffer while evils are sufferable. Rebellion is not a thing to be undertaken lightly or friviolously. Mere suspicion of the government should not be used to sanction its overthrow.

Such suspicion would justify kepeing an eye on said government, and being prepared to rebel should the circumstances warrant that extreme solution.

By not banning the private ownership of wepaons, the Constitution sets up an ideal situation where the government emphatically serves the people, not the other way around (as is too often today)

< Message edited by celticlord2112 -- 3/19/2008 7:07:13 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:05:19 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
For each responsible gun owner, how many irresponsible ones? Too many, by the looks of things... if you're ready to take that risk, fine... but then, this society has to be ready for the everyday tragedies, as well as the more media-friendly ones (remember Colombine? That was a bad one, no? The parents of the two boys who committed that atrocity were "responsible gun owners".)

_____________________________



(in reply to LilMissHaven)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:11:25 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

For each responsible gun owner, how many irresponsible ones? Too many, by the looks of things... if you're ready to take that risk, fine... but then, this society has to be ready for the everyday tragedies, as well as the more media-friendly ones (remember Colombine? That was a bad one, no? The parents of the two boys who committed that atrocity were "responsible gun owners".)


Columbine would have happened in some fashion no matter what. Those kids wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Guns were just the choice at hand.

You prevent the Columbines from happening not by banning guns but by parents being more aware of their children's emotional health and well being.

_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:12:30 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Or is it that citizens are being played against each other by Smith & Wesson and the coffin industry? Which would keep them nice and shtum, and less likely to turn against big, bad, evil government?

I think we should be told.


A government will never ruin a profitable industry by telling the industry's customers they are being taken for a ride.

The needing of a gun seems to be a deep psychological need in American culture that is due to national myth. Gun ownership appears to have little to do with personal safety because...

1. We are told guns are just a tool and if you wanted to kill someone you always can kill them some other way.

2. Keeping tyranny at bay seems to be no more than a fig leaf of an excuse because to keep tyranny at bay one needs solidarity with ones neighbours, not view them with mistrust.

3. Guarding against an invasion from either Canada or Mexico would seem a legitimate excuse if the US didn't have the biggest military in the world.

Naah, its just a psychological need and there is nothing rational in gun ownership at all so its pointless of people like me trying to understand the rational.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/19/2008 7:14:55 AM >


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:18:03 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Columbine would have happened in some fashion no matter what. Those kids wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Guns were just the choice at hand.



Pure hypothesis, one that I wholly disagree with too.

Look, it's okay, the majority of people here love their guns and are frothing at the mouth at the mere thought that their toys might be taken away from them (which won't happen, as gun manufacturers and the NRA are huge lobbies) - I only wish they'd be honest about their motives, instead of going on about the Constitution.

Personally, I'd rather live in a place where guns were a rarity - I'm glad I'm in NH, the safest state in the country (latest figures published), where gun culture isn't as predominant as Texas. It's still taking a lot of adjustment after relatively gun-free, peaceful Europe - though it's changing over there too. Much to my chagrin.

We are moving towards an increasingly violent culture, and to argue that guns aren't a part of that is disingenuous.



_____________________________



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:22:47 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
kittensol your ratio directions are way off base.
It's not for every responsible owner how many irresponsible ones, It is for each irresponsible one there are thousands of responsible ones.

29,569 deaths by firearms;  includes [suicides (over 50%), justifieable homocides (including those killed by police), accidental deaths, as well as murders]

So even if we take out the 64K injuries and the 30K deaths compared to a 300 million population with roughly 40% of Americans who own guns. 120 Million gunowners 95,000 injuries and deaths, that's one injury or death per 1,263 gun owners.
(including suicides)




(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:26:39 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Columbine would have happened in some fashion no matter what. Those kids wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Guns were just the choice at hand.



Pure hypothesis, one that I wholly disagree with too.

Look, it's okay, the majority of people here love their guns and are frothing at the mouth at the mere thought that their toys might be taken away from them (which won't happen, as gun manufacturers and the NRA are huge lobbies) - I only wish they'd be honest about their motives, instead of going on about the Constitution.

Personally, I'd rather live in a place where guns were a rarity - I'm glad I'm in NH, the safest state in the country (latest figures published), where gun culture isn't as predominant as Texas. It's still taking a lot of adjustment after relatively gun-free, peaceful Europe - though it's changing over there too. Much to my chagrin.

We are moving towards an increasingly violent culture, and to argue that guns aren't a part of that is disingenuous.




Weapons are a part of the culture. They are a part of every culture.

The relevance of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is that it renders inviolate our right to choose gun ownership or no on an individual basis.

You can disagree with my particular rationale for owning weapons; that is your right. What you cannot do is use that disagreement as a basis for saying I should not be allowed to own weapons.

_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:28:04 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
I don't see how the figures are off base. Gun deaths qualify as such, whether they're the result of murder or suicide or accidents (how many are accidents, did you see? That's a worry as well.).

The ratio matters little: it's the overall figures that count. And they're scary ones. You might find them benign enough, but I disagree with your judgement. 

_____________________________



(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:29:23 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

You can disagree with my particular rationale for owning weapons; that is your right. What you cannot do is use that disagreement as a basis for saying I should not be allowed to own weapons.



Oh, I wouldn't dare: you own the weapons. I don't  .

I'm not going to die over your right to own weapons. Or... am I  ?



_____________________________



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.137