Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

[Sabaron]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Short and sweet... I didn't read everyone, sorry, but I do have an opinion which matches a good many of yours.

I disagree completely with Malacite.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a protection implemented so that the People of the country always have the ability to fight against oppression. The Anti-federalists (aka the original Democratic Republican party founded by TJ) favored this installment because it is designed to allow the People to protect themselves from an oppressive regime by means of deadly force. This means that People have the right to disagree completely with the Government and resist it by means of force. If you read Thomas Jefferson's writings, you can easily come to this conclusion as Jefferson himself, if I recall/interpret correctly, envisioned armed conflicts arising periodically to "refresh" the system--his world view was probably a tad more violent than the average modern American, but still--he is quite the scholar.

Now, the government of the U.S. is not now, nor has it been since the Articles of Confederation, a Decentralized government as envisioned by the Democratic Republicans. The Federalists won, and Lincoln displayed the power of Federalism in the Civil War when he forced seceding states back into the union and freed the slaves. While this was a moral victory for human rights, it was at the same time a terrible blow struck against decentralization.

As for the bill, it is obviously Unconstitutional--any Joe Sixpack can quite easily see that. Any law that abridges the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms is in direct violation of Constitutional Law.

If you don't like it, you have to Amend the Constitution.

That is all...

Or is it?

I anticipate an argument from the Safety Nazi camp (read Malacite) involving possession of weapons by criminals and ex-convicts. Recall that Felons cannot vote--Felons themselves are not considered full citizens and as a result of their crimes have been forced to part with quite a few of their Constitutional rights in the interests of protecting the populace and in exchange for allowing them to continue breathing--in previous years such prisoners wouldn't live in prison, they would simply be put to death. Therefore, most of them would agree that they'd give up their rights to vote and bear arms, etc. in exchange for their lives. This is the equivalent of "Civil Unconditional Surrender".

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

there are plenty of good sports out there that don't require instruments of death.

Is there an NFL game that occurs that doesn't have someone with a criminal record involved? The ability to tackle someone doesn't seem devoid of its potential abuses, either.

People seem to get pretty riled up for getting checked in Hockey. They get to wear blades on thier feet and carry heavy sticks.

What is Rugby or Soccer without rioting?

We all know John McEnroe for hurling tennis rackets and temper tantrums.

Baseball games get thier time in the sun. You can't tell me getting beaned with a fastball doesn't hurt. Or being the pitcher that gets rushed after it happens.

Maybe we should ask Owen Hart how fake professional wrestling is. Or how stable a person Chris Benoit was... oh wait.

There doesn't seem to be one sporting event out there that doesn't have violence at times. Some of these could be considered tragedies, yes, but not all of it is devoid of violence just because no weapons are involved. Should we ban these events because these things happen, are the sports or shows themselves to blame? If death, crime and violence keep happening around them, we should stop allowing them to happen for the greater good of society, right?

This is what you people against concealed weapons are actually saying. I think some of these organizations should be held a little more responsible, yes, but not banned outright.

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I'm sorry, but your friend was stupid. I tend to side with the MP's view of things, don't draw a gun unless you intend to shoot. I'll also point out that it is illegal to carry a loaded gun in a car, might also be illegal to carry a gun in the car and ammunition within reach of the driver, I'm not sure on that point. Your friend had other options.

And while I don't know what kind of a neighborhood you live in Woven, I am probably equally disturbed about what the person did, and the fact that your wife felt that she had to bring a gun to answer the door. You don't have neighbors dropping by every now and again or various church groups? It seems odd to me that your wife thought that she should bring a gun, but I don't know, maybe you live in a bad area of town or something.

I'll have to disagree with you on my friend being stupid. One could always argue that you could always call the police. This is true. You can call the police. In a situation like that, I'd recommend it. I can't honestly say that he did or didn't have his phone. What he did do though was use the threat of force to resolve the situation. You might find that stupid, and that's ok. Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. "Threat of Force" is used daily; nearly everybody around the world, even those that don't know they are using it do so.

I'm not sure where you live, but I have to mention that I live in Utah. I can't speak for your place of residence, but here in Utah, as well as in Idaho and Wyoming, it is perfectly legal to carry not only a loaded weapon in your vehicle, but a chambered one as well, so long as it's in plain view. It's a very common practice. Socially acceptable in Wyoming too.

Here, if you want to conceal a loaded weapon in a vehicle, you must have a valid "CCW". The stipulation then becomes that you can have loaded weapon, not chambered and remove it from plain view. (I find that a bit odd...) Transport of ammunition and weapon at the same time is ok the last time I checked.

I'm aware that it seems odd to most people that my wife answeres the door with a gun on her person. She was raised that way, and I'm happy that she does it. Neither of us go to church, nor do we have the local church types dropping by. In turn to the neighborhood comment, while it's true that crime happens more frequently in lower income areas, I'll offer up that crime happens everywhere. Just because I live in a good neighborhood doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen here or that I or she or whomever should be any less prepared than if we lived in a shithole. If you aren't prepared, the thing that you aren't prepared for usually gets the better of you.

I just had a thought that crossed my mind. This isn't attacking or accusitory, but I'll bring it up as a point of discussion. I hope that you'll ponder it for a bit.

You find it odd that my wife answers the door with a gun. From todays societal standards, I agree, that's odd. Consider this then as well. When you walk down the street, do you know whom it is that you walk next to? In a mall? Do you know if they are good people or bad? What about when they come to your home? The same. We know nothing of them, unless they are known to us. Since we know nothing of them, including their intentions, true or masked, why not answer the door with a gun? Why give trust to someone you don't know and whos intentions aren't clear?

What's sad to me is that many people think that those who carry, or choose to live a life of preparedness, live in fear of something or that they are compensating(insert penis joke here...). While it is true that some that do carry and that's the reason that they do, most of the people that I've met that carry do so because if the time ever comes that they are to play the part of the victim, they won't have to.

[Malacite]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I anticipate an argument from the Safety Nazi camp (read Malacite) i

HEY!

I just don't feel guns ought to be so openly available (legally or otherwise). But you're right about it being a violation of the constitution, and I still feel they should amend that. That said, you have a point about being able to challenge the government openly with violence. HOWEVER, if George Bush wasn't enough to instigate such a rebellion (and honestly why the fuck hasn't there been one? This guy has literally gotten away with murder/war crimes) I can't imagine what would. While we're on the subject...


Family Guy / Right to Bear Arms - It's Funny Honey!


Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment for much less.

[Akashimo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Malacite's line of thinking will be the end of us all.

[Jonastb]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I would still love to see why Bush should be impeached, but that is a subject for a different thread.

However, I agree that there should be mandatory weapons training for anyone who applies for a weapons permit. I also agree there should be a serious background check for anyone requesting a permit. Once you pass those tests though, you should be able to get a weapon.

And sorry, I am not going to run and hide when someone breaks into my house to steal something I worked hard to get. Call me greedy, but that is just the way I am. Would you expect someone with martial arts training to hide in a corner? How is being able to kill someone with your hands, and yes, Martial Artists can do it, different than using a weapon on someone who shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Malacite]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

A guy can dream can't he?

The problem with impeaching Bush is it can't happen now. He (god only knows how) managed to push legislation that basically ignored the Geneva Convention's rules and circumvents the constitution (wire tapping)


How in the hell he managed to pass this BS through the Senate (Mc Cain is one of the only 3 senators who tried to fight the war crimes bill but like the other 2 backed down) is beyond me.

[Akashimo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

circumvents the constitution (wire tapping)

I fail to see how wire tapping is against the constitution. If you're fighting for privacy there, we really only have it as an implied. Truth is, any Justice can say that the tapping is constitutional if there was a case brought up to that level. Shrewd as it is, if we really want something kept, make an amendment.

And no, I will not support anything that limits the right to bear arms getting passed unless its within a damn good reason. Idiots shouldn't bear it, but they certainly should have the right for it. Personally, I don't like the idea of shooting outside of hunting. I rather use a bladed weapon against another(less likely in my opinion to deal any accidental lethality), but I won't stop others from gaining a tool of their use. Because as stated, guns = power, and we should be able to rise to arms as civilians if such a day comes(which i fear maybe soon with some of the liberals running around with power and socialist views taking a strong foothold).

[Nuriko]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

HOWEVER, if George Bush wasn't enough to instigate such a rebellion (and honestly why the fuck hasn't there been one? This guy has literally gotten away with murder/war crimes) I can't imagine what would.

Mind you, anybody who decided to oppose him in that way would have been pre-labelled a terrorist.

[Malacite]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I fail to see how wire tapping is against the constitution.

Well given that a judge eventually struck it down as unconstitutional for violating people's privacy and federal law... (you need a warrant to wiretap anyone)

[Akashimo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Well given that a judge eventually struck it down as unconstitutional for violating people's privacy and federal law... (you need a warrant to wiretap anyone)

Implied right for privacy, not written. Thus, it can easily be thrown out if someone where to challenge it in court making it no right to privacy if a judge is going by written rights. Might even been the case that the taps still exist.

I'm for privacy, but its still unsettling that it isn't defined in the Constitution with the words privacy. Until then, we pretty much don't have a true 'right to privacy' while its still implied.

[Malacite]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Timetheos: Bush violates Constitution

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

Bush administration vs. the U.S. Constitution - SourceWatch

Jennifer Van Bergen: Why the Bush Doctrine Violates the Constitution

Bush Violates Constitution . . . Is Anyone Surprised? yikes!


That enough for you?

[MrMageo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I'm just curious, albeit a little off topic (location wise) what your impression is then of Switzerland. Every person over 18 must take military training, where they are trained in use of small arms and assault weapons, It is also law that there must be 1 small arm weapon and 1 assault weapon per residence for person who have undergone this training.

Now the Swiss have a moderate population (2/3 that of the USA or more) of which you can say roughly 70% of the citizens have undergone this training and have two or more weapons in their residence at anytime. So would it surprise you to know that the Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world? Its consistently ranked in the top 10 safest countries to live in, where as the USA seldom breaks the top 100.

Of all the countries in the world wear arms are allowable, the USA constantly ranks in the top 10 most deadly. In 2005 there were more deaths due to guns, then automobile accidents the first time this has happened anywhere in the world since records were kept.

I don't think it has to do with the guns, but more so the society in which americans find themselves. It is a "keeping up with the jones' " mentality. Which spurs anger and hate, jealousy and greed, which lead to people feeling the need to rob, rape, murder etc at gun point.

I think its a lack of respect for guns to be honest, you have people that respect guns for what they are, and they seldom make the paper save for freak accidents when a child finds daddys .45. The ones who do make the papers are the ones who don't respect a gun as the tool it is. Im sure its sounds like a broken record but guns do not kill people, people kill people.

[Jonastb]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Timetheos: Bush violates Constitution

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

Bush administration vs. the U.S. Constitution - SourceWatch

Jennifer Van Bergen: Why the Bush Doctrine Violates the Constitution

Bush Violates Constitution . . . Is Anyone Surprised? yikes!


That enough for you?

Actually, no, since all of those articles were written by Liberals, it is hard to see them for more than a bash against the President.

[Jarre]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I think its a lack of respect for guns to be honest, you have people that respect guns for what they are, and they seldom make the paper save for freak accidents when a child finds daddys .45. The ones who do make the papers are the ones who don't respect a gun as the tool it is. Im sure its sounds like a broken record but guns do not kill people, people kill people.

and if they can't be used respectively then they shouldn't be able to access them, thats the problem, no matter what people say, the US is the easiest place to obtain legally a weapon. The fact that people feel the need to own one for their protection shows mass failings in the whole counties social infrastructure. It is a short term fix for a long term problem. You have to ask yourself who do you need to protect yourself from, why and why isn't the government / authorities dealing with these people you want to protect yourself against?