First the death penalty thing with the guy in LA, now they've ruled the 2nd amendment applies to one's right to posses a firearm for legal reasons (self-defense) in re. District of Columbia. Yup, that's right, all you DC'ers can buy handguns now.
indeed, although SCOTUS worries me sometimes. you recall what the decision was on gitmo?
Its about dang time. I live in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia and our gun laws are getting out of hand. Now you can have an ar-15, but you have to have a fixed mag that breaks down in two to load and unload, or you can just get a mini-14 with detachable that shoots the same round because it doesn't have "evil features" :cookoo: I'm heading out to another state where the laws are a bit more relaxed and it doesn't cost so damn much for a house around here. I seriously don't understand the dems and their gun laws in cali.
So somebody please tell me how a handgun ban is UNconstitutional, but a ban on automatic weapons is allowed?
While you're at it, what does the first clause of the second amendment mean? Why is it there? How does some gang-banger in DC carrying a handgun fit into the "well-regulated militia" idea?
I support the idea of citizens owning guns. I (unlike some) believe that reasonable restrictions do make it more difficult for criminals to obtain handguns. I'm all for that. The idea that "criminals will always get guns" is no reason not to have a ban. If that were an acceptable argument, we would not outlaw ANYTHING -- criminals will always have whatever we outlaw, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be civilized. An entire country of (concealed) gun-toting vigilantes is not my idea of civilized.
If you want self-protection, use a shotgun. Greater stopping power!
Reasonable minds may differ, but you must answer my questions!
I guess they don't think you can kill as many people with a semi-auto or revolver as you can with a full auto.
Why is it there? It's there becuase it was written over 200 years ago, when there were no " standing armies" and that the militia was the only real source of defense, and that the people that formed the militia were everyday citizens and had to supply their own arms. Why was it never taken out after we formed our army? Simply incase the army got out of hand we would have a means to stop them. Of course 200 years ago they didn't know what type of tech we would have now, and it was belived that our army would never be as large as it is today.
Simple if we still had militia's said gang-banger would be dead. Militia members were everyday citizens that wanted to protect what was theirs be it county, the land they owend or their families.
But trust me on this the professional criminal doesn't go down to Dave's Guns & Ammo to buy a gun. So no matter what bans you place on firearm ownership it will only effect the people tying to buy a guns legally not from some gang-banger who's already packing a 9mm and trying to kill some old lady so he can go and buy some crack. Restrictions are ok, wait limits, back ground checks are all ok, and will probally stop spur of the moment murders or some psycho getting a gun to kill his fellow students.
Being robed then shot. I guess thats a civilized way to die.
TG, I get the urge to kick the shaZam! out of you every so often. A fully automatic weapon is not considered a viable tool for personal defense for many reasons.
Most don't apply numbers to the clauses of the amendment, they are generally referred to as the Operative and Justification clauses. I will assume you are referring to the justification clause allowing for a well armed militia. Oxford defines 'Militia' as a force of ordinary citizens. So, yes the justification clause very plainly allows for ordinary citizens to be 'well-armed' for purposes of defense.
So, TG, what is your opinion of the case SCOTUS ruled upon to come to this conclusion. A DC special policeman was unable to keep a handgun in his home for personal protection. Better yet, the weapons that were allowed in DC had to be trigger locked or dis-assembled. Tell me, if someone is threatening yours or your family's livelyhood, how fast can you undo that trigger lock or re-assemble that shotgun?? I've had many LEO's give me 'stern lectures' about keeping my sidearm loaded at all times, but it boils down to the simple fact that an unloaded weapon is as much good as a rock.
If you really want to make a difference, support more strict regulation of gun shows. Anyone, even an escaped felon, can go to one and purchase a gun in cash with no background check. That's where the majority of the problem lies. I've seen people I happen to know are convicted felons purchase firearms at gunshows. I've seen them slip that handgun in their pocket and walk outside like nothing ever happened. I've also seen the LCSD take a very serious stance on the issue. Lowndes County GA has a VERY low violent crime rate for two reasons. Everyone has a gun and the cops are well trained and very serious about protecting and serving the law-abiding community.
i'm actually happy that the ruling went the way it did. i'm one of those people who thinks that the main purpose for the 2nd ammendment was to ensure private citizens could own firearms legally.....why? so that in case our government got all dickheaded we could fix the problem the same way we originally fixed our problem with the british. ( i'm not bashin the brits, i promise! :icon_mrgreen: :cheers:) our founding fathers knew firsthand just how handy it was for all citizens to be armed. :thumb: but, i do agree with others on here... i'm not against regulations and laws, a way to control things. i also agree with the sentiment that the criminals will always have guns no matter what kinda laws you make or how you try to regulate it. i've found that many people who are against guns are just plain ignorant and don't know better. education is the key to proper gun ownership. especially in homes that have young children. i've been told you should keep you firearm locked in a safe, with a trigger and barrel lock on it with the ammo kept in a separate locked compartment. now, i can't remembe where i read that statement at but i almost fell outta the chair i was laughing so hard. you think the guy kicking in your door is going to wait until you unlock the safe with the gun, unlock the barrel and trigger locks, and then go to wherever you keep the ammo, unlock that safe and load your weapon? gee, might as well leave the door unlocked for him and the valuables all right in the living room so he won't wake you up. :laugh: :laugh: i'm not saying parents of young children should leave fully loaded .357's on the nightstand unattended. but lets be reasonable here. hmm..i had another point i wanted to make and forgot what it was. oh well, happy gun ownerhip DC! :cheers: :2guns: :2guns: :2guns:
The second amendment says NOTHING specifically about guns. It says "arms." So if I want a nuclear warhead or RPG as my arm of choice, why not?
My point is this:
If you accept that automatic weapons, grenades, etc. can be banned, you are for "gun control." You just draw the line at a different point than some other people (like me).
spcterry, it's just a conversation -- not worth getting worked up about. I'm trying to make people think. This ruling is not about "saving the constitution," or we'd be allowed to have whatever arms we'd like.
Quote from: spcterry on June 26, 2008, 10:21:37 PM
First the death penalty thing with the guy in LA, now they've ruled the 2nd amendment applies to one's right to posses a firearm for legal reasons (self-defense) in re. District of Columbia. Yup, that's right, all you DC'ers can buy handguns now.
It was illegal to buy handguns in DC ?
Isn't that unconstitutional ?
I don't get it. :|
It was illegal to posses a handgun in DC, and yes as the SCOTUS has determined, that is unconstitutional.
yes, DC had a gun ban....and one of the highest murder/crime rates in the country. (that's what i've heard anyhow. ;) :icon_mrgreen: )
personally i think DC is a poster-city for why banning guns simply does not work. just my opinion mind you. :icon_mrgreen:
Gosh, what would make you think that?? Maybe the fact that it has one of the highest murder rates in the country per capita???
my point exactly.
actually terry afaik nowadays, you have to have the standard paperwork filled out at gun shows to purchasea firearm. but NOT from private parties ( at least here in tn), on another note, i think this country has not been invaded mainly because invading armies would NOT know who had a weapon, and banning guns would never clear out privately owned weapons. they would jsut go "underground'
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 27, 2008, 08:12:59 AM
So somebody please tell me how a handgun ban is UNconstitutional, but a ban on automatic weapons is allowed?
While you're at it, what does the first clause of the second amendment mean? Why is it there? How does some gang-banger in DC carrying a handgun fit into the "well-regulated militia" idea?
I support the idea of citizens owning guns. I (unlike some) believe that reasonable restrictions do make it more difficult for criminals to obtain handguns. I'm all for that. The idea that "criminals will always get guns" is no reason not to have a ban. If that were an acceptable argument, we would not outlaw ANYTHING -- criminals will always have whatever we outlaw, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be civilized. An entire country of (concealed) gun-toting vigilantes is not my idea of civilized.
If you want self-protection, use a shotgun. Greater stopping power!
Reasonable minds may differ, but you must answer my questions!
btw didnt clinton impose the ban on auto weapons?, if not who was it?
private party gun sales are a grey area anywhere i think, not just at gun shows. i get the impression the govt really isn't sure how to approach this issue. but it is one that needs looked into.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on June 27, 2008, 07:58:01 PM
actually terry afaik nowadays, you have to have the standard paperwork filled out at gun shows to purchasea firearm. but NOT from private parties ( at least here in tn), on another note, i think this country has not been invaded mainly because invading armies would NOT know who had a weapon, and banning guns would never clear out privately owned weapons. they would jsut go "underground'
Yeah Clinton was the one f%$king with auto weapons. Great f%$king job too. Everyone who already had one was allowed to keep it and once again, there's no regulation on private sales.
Yama, the thing about gun shows is that most of the 'vendors' classify themselves as 'collectors' and are thus exempt from the standard NCIC requirements imposed upon dealers. I've seen a 17yo walk into a gun show and purchase a .45. I've seen a known violent felon do the same, fortunately he was shot as he exited the show (LEO's were keeping an eye on him and when they asked him if he would mind asking a couple of questions he went for his pocket)
TG, exactly, there is a line that needs to be drawn and there needs to be a massive crack-down on these unregulated transfers at shows. Unfortunately, the gun lobby so vehemently opposes any thing to do with firearms that they are unwilling to pursue a middle ground. If they would put their efforts into getting legislation passed prohibiting unregulated transfers and requiring basic safety courses there would be many fewer gun-related deaths. We require a license to drive on a road and vehicle registration, why not have all gun-owners be required to test for a license and register ALL firearms. I'm not opposed to a more strict system, I'm opposed to this bullshit mentality that says law-abiding citizens should be left naked and at the mercy of criminals.
I'm going to sleep, I'm tired.
aye, i could be a convicted felon, anbd buy " off the street" be it either via private party, OR through less than legal means
Or with the proper tools and a bit of time and a nice lil workshop space, i can make my own. :icon_mrgreen: seriously. if you want something bad enough, you can get it. the criminals ruin the fun for us decent folk. grandma always said locks ain't for honest folk. :thumb: i miss my g-ma.... :cheers:
Quote from: jserio on June 27, 2008, 08:11:37 PM
Or with the proper tools and a bit of time and a nice lil workshop space, i can make my own. :icon_mrgreen: seriously. if you want something bad enough, you can get it. the criminals ruin the fun for us decent folk. grandma always said locks ain't for honest folk. :thumb: i miss my g-ma.... :cheers:
your grandma sounded like a wise woman. and ive built shotties before, and TG, what about concealed carry users. referring to a coment you made earlier, shotties would NOT be practical :dunno_white:
Quote from: spcterry on June 27, 2008, 08:07:18 PM
TG, exactly, there is a line that needs to be drawn and there needs to be a massive crack-down on these unregulated transfers at shows. Unfortunately, the gun lobby so vehemently opposes any thing to do with firearms that they are unwilling to pursue a middle ground. If they would put their efforts into getting legislation passed prohibiting unregulated transfers and requiring basic safety courses there would be many fewer gun-related deaths. We require a license to drive on a road and vehicle registration, why not have all gun-owners be required to test for a license and register ALL firearms. I'm not opposed to a more strict system, I'm opposed to this bullshit mentality that says law-abiding citizens should be left naked and at the mercy of criminals.
Actually, I'm 100% in agreement with you here! And I'm glad you won't kick the sh!t out of me... :cheers:
Now, I'm ready to bet a pizza that DC's murder and crime rate do not go down in the next three years with the influx of handguns. Anybody on?
hell im in for that bet O0
They might, they might not. There are many criminal aspects of that city that never touch the average law-abiding citizen, so it's really up in the air. This is a small concession to ease troubled minds in my eye and if it saves one honest citizen's life while costing 50 criminals their's, it is well worth it in my eyes.
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on June 27, 2008, 08:49:11 PM
hell im in for that bet O0
Alright, Yama...July 27 2011. We'll look at it. I'll take a Pizza Hut supreme. :thumb:
fair enough, ill do the same. BUT lets get a few things straight. what if it went down for a bit next week, but up the following. would it still apply that it went down? or are we talking about on average over a 3 year total?
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on June 27, 2008, 09:24:01 PM
fair enough, ill do the same. BUT lets get a few things straight. what if it went down for a bit next week, but up the following. would it still apply that it went down? or are we talking about on average over a 3 year total?
I was talking about at the end of three years. How about the average of 2011 vs. average of 2008. Murder rate and crime rate. If either one goes down I'll buy the pizza.
fair enough. O0, you seem somewhat hell bent on it not working though. i wonder why?
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on June 27, 2008, 09:59:03 PM
fair enough. O0, you seem somewhat hell bent on it not working though. i wonder why?
It comes with being a member of the reality-based community (i.e. liberals). :flipoff: :laugh:
Gun ownership in homes will not decrease DC's violent crime rate.
OKlahoma's stranger on stranger violent crime offenses have declined with the passage of the self defense act but crime is still on the rise it is criminal on criminal crime that continues to rise.
I would be willing to bet you see decreased home invasion crime numbers in DC over the next 3 years. I am in for a pizza bet TG I will even ride into the flatlands to pay off if I am wrong.
Got a bet?
Quote from: trumpetguy on June 28, 2008, 07:15:05 AM
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on June 27, 2008, 09:59:03 PM
fair enough. O0, you seem somewhat hell bent on it not working though. i wonder why?
It comes with being a member of the reality-based community (i.e. liberals). :flipoff: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:(http://gstwins.com/gsboard/Smileys/oldboard_smiles/police.gif)
Alternate Reality???? :laugh: :laugh:
Quote
Gun ownership in homes will not decrease DC's violent crime rate.
OKlahoma's stranger on stranger violent crime offenses have declined with the passage of the self defense act but crime is still on the rise it is criminal on criminal crime that continues to rise.
I would be willing to bet you see decreased home invasion crime numbers in DC over the next 3 years. I am in for a pizza bet TG I will even ride into the flatlands to pay off if I am wrong.
Got a bet?
I'll take this bet just to see BP ride into the flatlands if I win. But can we get stats on DCs home invasion rates?
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,Q,543308,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C,.asp
And in all reality DC is city with a steadily declining population level. The overall crime numbers appear to be dropping. Lets use the burglary number that blends in business and home burglaries.
I wish they had specific data numbers breaking down home invasions, stranger on stranger, and criminal enterprise crime.
i don't know why America is such a violent country, with or without guns. it holds more people in prison than any other country 1 in 100 persons just recently beating out china. and i believe it kills more people with its death penalty including women and those with learning disabilities and borderline retarded either per capita or outright the most(i am unsure of the exact numbers) so something is wrong that goes beyond gun ownership. i guess there is a Nobel prize out there to be won to the person who can figure that question out...someone other than i
FrankieG, that was the big question asked by NRA member Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine." It is certainly a cultural thing, not caused by gun ownership, Canada (IIRC) has more guns per capita and much lower violent crime. Why?
Quote from: bettingpython on June 29, 2008, 09:18:06 AM
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,Q,543308,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C,.asp
And in all reality DC is city with a steadily declining population level. The overall crime numbers appear to be dropping. Lets use the burglary number that blends in business and home burglaries.
I wish they had specific data numbers breaking down home invasions, stranger on stranger, and criminal enterprise crime.
Agreed. But to be fair, we'll have to use crimes per capita. The population is declining, so crime should be, too. Unless only the good guys are moving out...
Modified -- HEY, I JUST QUOTED BP!!!!! Holy sh!t, Batman!!! New version of SMF, perhaps. :thumb:
BP is no longer "The Unquoted One." BWAHAHAHA :cool:
The per capita statistics are on the page when you scroll further down. I'm with BP, there probably won't be a huge change in violent crime due to the amount of gang on gang/criminal on criminal, but I bet there will be a sizable decline in home invasions/robbery.
one big thing i have noticed, being a dual citizen and living on both sides of the boarder, is fear. america lives in fear, fear of guns, fear of gangs, fear of terrorism, fear of the bogeyman. Canada just does not operate that way. right now the biggest fear in Canada is the change in the hockey night in Canada theme song :cheers: data da da dadada
i thought it was the fear of an american hockey team winning the big game :cheers: :flipoff: :flipoff: :flipoff: :laugh:
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/shootinfo.htm :icon_twisted: :icon_twisted: :icon_twisted: im so goin here