Good ruling. Now onto a rant. Nobody is going to take away your guns Petty. Liberals and leftists have no problems in defending people having handguns and what not. Here's what we DO have a problem with. The NRA. You lot do NOT NEED to have semi-automatics with nightvision and whatever. You don't need it. Why fight for it? You lot look like supreme morons when you do fight for those things. Want a handgun or shotgun? No fucking problem. However, the NRA can go suck on something if they think they deserve to have any type of gun they want. It's when people fight for ak-47's that people roll their eyes at the NRA and 2nd amendment idiots. Nobody needs it and nobody deserves it.
^ Another county heard from, how nice. Who are you and what have you done with Don?!? All kidding aside, that was very, very well put. Especially the last two sentences.
Bullshit! All of it. And do you even know what a 'semi-automatic' is? Why not read up before you spout that moronic nonsense.
It's been awhile since I've held one, but I've held all kinds of gun sand they're entirely useless, unless you have a major man problem where you think a gun would make you more of a man. What do you need these things for? I'm extremely curious.
Poor, urban black men are the reason for the death toll in Baltimore... not guns. Similar stats in my favorite city of New Orleans (80% of murder victims are black men alone). Detroit, Chicago, and Philidelphia are having similar killing sprees. Once he's President, hopefully Obama can make some headway on the abominable things going on in these communities.
So, if I get this straight, you think there's some sort of 'being in thrall' associated with firearms. And you want to know how I use my vast collection of guns to increase my virility and enjoyment when 'handling all sorts of guns' had no such result for you? Boiled down: 'How do I get lucky with guns' I'll have to think on that. Meanwhile I'm pretty confident that those products promoted by 'this is grinning Bob and this is why Bob is grinning' adverts on late-night tv and possessing a gun DO have pretty much the same effect on one's 'feelings of manhood' for most. Take that as you will. - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - And can we please get over 'the death by gun' statistics in the Urban environs? The Heller decision has nothing directly to do with those numbers as Heller applies to lawful possession of a firearm and the overwhelmingly vast percentage of those incidents are with illegal guns. Blanket efforts to remove those guns is likely to have about the same effect as the War on Drugs has had on availability of marijuana. I'll put it another way: For Urban Youth, FFC24's analysis may indeed factor in. However it's also been suggested that for many of those, the motivation is ALSO protection against those who he sees as a danger. In essence the maintenance of a certain 'Balance of Power' What Heller is about is the right of an individual to project uncertainty in the mind of those who use guns illegally, before they assault him IN HIS RESIDENCE using an illegal weapon. In this case, the owner's residence. It's pretty difficult to come up with supporting statistics on that premise but if you take crime stats in states permitting concealed carry you might get an idea.
Almost all of you are putting words in my mouth. First of all, I am only talking about banning handguns, not rifles or shotguns. No one is going to start trying to ban knives if rifles are still legal. This is my basic position. Hand guns bring a level of danger to our society that is untolerable and unnecessary and that the second amendment, used to justify this condition, does not apply today. Anyone who truly knows their history, knows its origins. The founding fathers distrustsed national armies and they distrusted leaders who stored the arms of their armies/militias during peacetime. Petty wrote: I didnt say anything about the guns being locked away. The founders wanted citizens at home with weapons (muskets and rifles) so that when called, they were armed and ready to defend their country. The most direct origin of the second amendment came from the state consitutions of the time. This, written by George Mason, is what Virginia had. I dont believe the US had a peacetime standing army until after the Civil War. Andrew Jackson felt this way. I couldnt find the quote but it is in HW Brand's bio on Jackson and he (Jackson) clearly states his belief that standing armies are dangerous to the liberty of the people. It was clearly a distrust that a standing army in our country would eventually be used to subdue the people and take away their liberties. This had been bourne out enough times in European and Colonial history. Just look at the first draft of the second amendment The fact that it allowed an out for the concientous objector clearly shows that the second amendment was only addressing how the nation would provide for defense and security. It was providing a guarantee that they government could not seize your arms. This doesnt apply anymore, as Scalia himself pointed out in his majority opinion He says the fact that the second amendment is outmoded is only "perhaps" debatable. Like I said in my original post, the second amendment needs to be changed or abolished. Otherwise, if you really want to go along with its original intent, then you need to abolish our peacetime standing federal armed services. I think FFC24 is the only one on here who wants to do that.
Here is a post by one of the most 'balanced' of all the LawBloggers; Eugene Volokh In it, he points out that Stevens' dissent begins by asserting the vague individual right but becomes incoherent by ruling out instance after instance cited by Scalia. In practical essence, there is a right but only if government allows it. Thus it becomes a revokable, by fiat, privilege. That means it's revokable as a class, not individual. Sort of like a 'privilege to drive a car'. How many of you REALLY believe it's a 'privilege' to drive a vehicle? Who said so.. what sense does that make? Only as establishing the power of government to revoke a right. In that case the public acceptance of driving being a 'privilege' established the defacto power to revoke. In TRUTH the driving of a vehicle should be a RIGHT! It may be qualified, by the requirement of certification but labeling it a privilege gives authority power to deny the RIGHT of an individual to qualify, solely by testing and record of performance.
Mo, what made you think I was addressing specifically to you? I respect your opinion on it, no matter how wrong it is. It's a position long held and which I can without prejudice argue against. In fact your mention of the Conscientious Objection out can point to that, as well. Consider that one of the fears of 'Standing Army' is that the military is to be under civilian orders? I can project from that the 'worst case' and it would lead nowhere but to more argument. I'd rather you got away from your emotions on this, you're ignoring my argument above, relative to the old saw: 'When a firearm is outlawed, only outlaws will have those firearms' It's trite, it's hooted at roundly, and it's true.
I'm no fan of hand guns either. Problem as I see it is that they turn a simple everyday conflict into something very serious very quickly. Say its two neighbors or two guys waiting at the bus stop and the get in a verbal confrontation, which turns into a physical confrontation. If one guys packing heat what might have been a little shoving match or a fist fight can turn into a death as a result of a quick rash decision to pull a gun. Also as Mo points out you never do know who's packing and who's not. Another point a lot of gun crimes I read about in my city are stupid kids trying to be hard. see this article from last year; http://citypages.com/2007-01-24/news/gangs-of-st-paul They're 15, 16, 17, 18 in loosely formed gangs with access to guns. These are vast criminal enterprises battling for territory, there mobs of kids who pick fights with other mobs of kids and seeing as they don't have the guts to actually fight they shoot at each other usually from a distance. "Luckily, these guys aren't very good shots," notes Tim Flynn, commander of St. Paul's gang unit. I don't think its unconceivable that tougher laws or an outright hand gun ban would prevent alot of these kids from getting their paws on a gun. Or take this situation. Muggings at gun point on the nice side of town, in front of million dollar homes in some cases, often of people out for a walk. (The paper opting not to put a description in is a whole separate issue of craziness) http://www.twincities.com/ci_9686478?IA ... cities.com The thugs hold you at gun point tell you to spread eagle on the ground if you want to live, take your wallet, then drive off. As much as it sucks getting mugged what were to happen if you were carrying a hand gun for self defense? What if you in reaction to being confronted pulled your gun? The thief might freak out for an instant and pull the trigger. Instead of having a headache canceling all your credit cards and such your dead. But I think Don's pretty much right on this one. 2nd amendment is the second amendment and it seems this is a problem were just not going to be able to get over.
I think you miss a very large point, Spencer. Anyone carrying would be a fool to pull a gun when someone is drawing a bead on them. But what about passers-by? You guys can ignore crime stats and common sense all you want, but I'm not letting it go that easy. .. and GEE.. suppose we'd outlawed ALL guns, like in Britain. That would solve the problem, you'd think. Certainly the nannies thought so. uh, not so much, it turns out. Of course NOW 'the answer' is for Parliament to pass a law forbidding possession of sharp objects in public. Hoot all you want, it will happen. And then, we'll devise new technology to allow banning of sharp/stabbing objects in the home. Someone could get hurt couldnt they! -- -- - -- Ans Spencer and the rest of you, READ THIS There's two points to be made here: 1. The 'Urban Youths' were shot as they were forcing the customer into the store's bathroom. Not when they pulled their guns to rob the store. What do you suppose they meant to do in the bathroom, make him give them BJ's?. 2. Note Grandma blames the guy defending himself... "He didnt need to kill them" - How long are you going to allow Brady Gang's ilk to go on enabling idiots like this? Oh.. there's a THIRD point. IF they had come in to rob using knives the result MIGHT have been the same. The geezer might have drawn down on them earlier and no one shot OR he might have ended up doing the same thing. But the bottom line is word gets around the streets... you dont know who is carrying and who isnt.
