WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Discuss.

I'm not surprised. If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, no state or local jurisdiction should be able to put any limits on guns. Not that I agree with it, but if you were a "strict constructionist" justice, you really couldn't rule any other way.

I am sure many jurisdictions will point to the decision and its focus on bearing arms "in the home" as that was the specific case at hand. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I doubt Virginia will change much because it complies with the Second Amendment pretty well... other places with more severe restrictions such as New York will probably need to change a bit.

At least now, responsible D.C. citizens can protect themselves legally when getting robbed by a gang of teenagers. It will undoubtedly lead to a higher body count, now that both sides are armed.

No, lower body count. Deaths of people caught in the act of robbery or a home invasion may go up temporarily until they learn what criminals in Virginia have already learned, which is be careful as the good guys can shoot back here.

The law is one thing, reality another. The fact is that infinitely more people end up being killed by their own guns through accidents, domestic violence, etc, than those handful of instances when a gun owner actually shoots someone in defense of his home.

s



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 07:04AM by inkahootz.

s



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 07:03AM by inkahootz.

inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Agreed. I remember they did a study several years
> back that stated that if you had a handgun in your
> house, the chance of it being used on you or
> someone you love was six times greater than that
> of an intruder. However, that being said, I do
> believe if a lawful, sane, sober, intelligent,
> American wants to own a gun for self defense, that
> is his constitutional right!

I have no problem with gun rights advocates arguing on the merits of how the 2nd Amendment is framed. Regardless of the "militia" phrase, I think it is pretty apparent that the Framers believed Americans should have the right to own guns...even without caveats of self-defense, hunting, etc. My problem is the NRA, etc, keep making these arguments about shooting intruders or stopping Columbine from happening without any regard for the facts. (By the way, there was an armed guard at Columbine and it did nothing to stop the massacre).

inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> How so? If you and I get in fight, and you have a
> gun, most likely, I will die. If you and I get in
> a fight and we are both armed, the odds of both of
> us perishing increases dramatically. I am by no
> means anti-second amendment, but the more people
> are armed, the greater the probability of a higher
> body count.

My point is criminals will, over time, become less likely to enter homes if there is a better chance that someone in the home is legally armed. Before this ruling there were no legally armed people in DC, and by armed I mean having a usable firearm in the residence as opposed to a disassembled rifle.

s



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 07:03AM by inkahootz.

You mean the same thugs who have no problem starting shit with other gang bangers who they know are most likely carrying Glocks are going to be afraid to enter the house of a 75-year-old lady because she might have a snub-nosed .38 floating around her house?

5-4 decision only proves one thing...no interpretation the 2nd amendment was "obvious". In my opinion it took a very activist Supreme Court to ignore the words "state militia" in the Amendment to come up with their decision. I had hoped that the Republikan nomonated Supreme Court members meant it when said they would interpret the Constitution strictly...I was wrong. Once a republikan...always a republikan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2008 04:01PM by Vince(1).

My prediction:

Crime rates stay about the same, a rise in accidental gun injuries and deaths, and some rare ocassions where a gun successfully defends a home.


And FWIW, I think they should have the right to have a gun in their home. I just think it doesn't really helps DC residents very much.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My prediction:
>
> Crime rates stay about the same, a rise in
> accidental gun injuries and deaths, and some rare
> ocassions where a gun successfully defends a
> home.
>
>
> And FWIW, I think they should have the right to
> have a gun in their home. I just think it doesn't
> really helps DC residents very much.


Your statement about the eventual effect and your FWIW are contradictory.

Vince(1) Wrote:
>>> Your statement about the eventual effect and your FWIW are contradictory.


I find it logically congruent to believe that

a) citizens should have the right to own a gun

and

b) more guns on the street will not solve crime problems


Neither statement asserts that the other is true.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 5-4 decision only proves one thing...no
> interpretation the 2nd amendment was "obvious".
> In my opinion it took a very activist Supreme
> Court to ignore the words "state militia" in the
> Amendment to come up with their decision. I had
> hoped that the Republikan nomonated Supreme Court
> members meant it when said they would interpret
> the Constitution strictly...I was wrong. Once a
> republikan...always a republikan.


Perhaps its because the phrase "state militia" DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the Second Amendment. Another attempt by the Left to create something out of nothing.

Here is the text if you need a refresher (which clearly you do).

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I read this comment on another website and liked it:



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control. In 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, that's 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'; Without them, we are 'subjects'.

Mofo...that is all bull shit!

What I found refreshing was the number of quotes by members of both parties supporting the decision. There were one or two expected comments from people like Feinstein saying this was a horrible mistake (plus an odd thing she said, "With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window"... I think the 2nd amendment is older than 70 years lol). But aside from that no one seems very surprised or even very angry with it.

At least the endless BS about only "militias" being able to enjoy the rights of gun ownership can finally go away. From the reactions of many from both sides as reported by the press, it appears they knew that argument was really unsupportable too and are ready to move on.

Now we can hopefully get to work on what lawful gun owners have wanted all along, which is let them do what is lawful and concentrate on the unlawful members of society.

Nothing is settled forever....

now we say 'welcome to san andreas foo!' [/cj]

!

Thursday’s narrow majority spent the first 54 pages of its decision, written by Scalia, trying to show that even though the framers inserted 13 important words in front of the assertion of a right to bear arms, those words were essentially meaningless. Does that reflect an honest attempt to determine the “original” intention of the Constitution’s framers?

In fact, it was the court’s four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution’s actual text and the history behind it.

It was telling that while Scalia argued the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home”—note that the Second Amendment says nothing about “self-defense in the home”—it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.

The court majority, Stevens said, “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” But such evidence, Stevens insisted, “is nowhere to be found” in the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer also defended the rights of democratically elected local officials in a separate dissent, saying the D.C. ban was “a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.”

In his intemperate dissent in the court’s recent Guantanamo decision, Scalia said the defense of constitutional rights embodied in that ruling meant it “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” That consideration apparently does not apply to a law whose precise purpose was to reduce the number of murders in the District of Columbia.

This just goes to show how much of a plagiarizing asshole Vince(1) is. In his every failing quest for an original thought, he copy-pasted the above from here:

http://www.heraldnews.com/opinions/x1346872403/DIONNE-Conservative-politics-controls-the-court-06-27-08

Why steal other people's writings and claim them as your own? That is a real shitty thing to do.

Thank you...I figured some spell checking nerd on here would gleefully point that out. As if there are many true free thinkers on here...I usually post my sources...just thought Id guarantee at least one person read the article...usually people dont.

like all the other spell checkers on here...you point out my BIIIIGGGGG mistake and fail to state or even copy-paste a reaction to the article.....so typical.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As if there are many true free thinkers on here...

perhaps you should think for yourself.


> just thought Id guarantee at
> least one person read the article...usually people
> dont.

now you have wasted at least one person's time.


> like all the other spell checkers on here...you
> point out my BIIIIGGGGG mistake

plagiarizing someone's work is a big deal. you are a fraud without an original thought in your mind.


> and fail to state
> or even copy-paste a reaction to the
> article.....so typical.

here's my reaction: you're wrong.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Posting someone else's work as your own is as bad as Meade posting pictures of his sister saying it is him.

And actually Vince(1), and this is no joke, the lack of spelling errors in your post is what made me suspicious of your plagiarism.

What DC will look like - I see why the Chief has "All hands on deck this weekend."

If can't win fair pull out the guns baby

OMG...call off the wolves...you all as phoney as they come...so go on...report me to the plagarism police....Gravis, you didnt even read any of it..so mind your own business. And I could care less about my typos on here...get over it...or better yet just ignore my posts.it's not as if you do anything but disagree. If I said the sky was blue you 2 idiots would disagree.

The video above is very close to how things will be...when we all have guns it'll come down to who draws their gun first...we'll all have to assume the person next to us is carrying...so when in doubt shoot first. The way you 2 bring out the worst in people....you should carry guns for self defense...and boys, dont forget to shoot first!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMG...call off the wolves...you all as phoney as
> they come...so go on...report me to the plagarism
> police....Gravis, you didnt even read any of
> it..so mind your own business. And I could care
> less about my typos on here...get over it...or
> better yet just ignore my posts.it's not as if you
> do anything but disagree. If I said the sky was
> blue you 2 idiots would disagree.
>
> The video above is very close to how things will
> be...when we all have guns it'll come down to who
> draws their gun first...we'll all have to assume
> the person next to us is carrying...so when in
> doubt shoot first. The way you 2 bring out the
> worst in people....you should carry guns for self
> defense...and boys, dont forget to shoot first!

If what you're saying was true VA would be like this everyday and it's not. In fact why is the crime here so much lower than neighboring and until recently entirely gun free DC?

There is actually a town in Georgia that required every household to have a gun and guess what happened?

-----------------

Gun town U.S.A., revisited - success of Kennesaw, GA's gun ownership requirement law in preventing cri,e
Luther M. Boggs, Jr.

In March 1982, responding to the passage of a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois, and the fawning media coverage that accompanied it, the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, decided to make a statement of its own. With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.

The moment the story hit the wire services, a media invasion swept into Kennesaw, a small city on the northwestern frontier of suburban Atlanta. The telephones of council members began ringing off the hook. CNN called. Today called. The then-mayor, Darvin Purdy, went on Donahue.

The press reacted predictably. The Washington Post issued a mock salute to "the brave little city of Kennesaw, Ga., soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." In a column titled "Gun Town U.S.A.," Art Buchwald described a place where routine disagreements would be settled in Wild West shootouts. Mayor Purdy declined to talk to the Post about his own guns, claiming that "the caliber of my weapons is a personal matter." In the hands of the Post's reporter, Purdy ended up sounding like Dr. Strangelove's General Ripper, the nut bent on preserving his "precious bodily fluids."

"The national media," recalls Chief of Police Dwaine L. Wilson, "made a big shadoo out of it, [but] most of the people in this area already owned some type of firearm." Actually, the media's amazement rang hollow. The press gang expected as much from the rural South. But it is safe to say they did not expect the results.

Today Kennesaw is a burgeoning town of more than 11,000, the population having doubled since 1982. Industrial growth has transformed the former bedroom community into a bustling hub of economic activity. The town built a new wing onto city hall in 1988 and this year bought a new garbage truck and a street sweeper. Tax receipts have soared, Mayor J. O. Stephenson notes proudly, even as tax rates have fallen.

Crime just isn't much of a problem in "Gun Town U.S.A." According to state figures, Kennesaw's per-capita crime rate has remained essentially static (and low) since 1983. The most recent homicide, in 1989, was committed with a knife. The last gun homicide, in 1986, involved two young men from out of state who were staying at a local motel. "A little alcohol," Chief Wilson recalls, "had something to do with it. They were daring one another to shoot each other, so one of them did." Aside from that incident, Wilson says, there have been no problems with "anybody shooting anybody," even by accident.

Mayor Stephenson is proud of Kennesaw and its unique gun law. A businessman who runs his own pest-control firm, Stephenson does his mayoring part-time. The mayor thinks the election of Bill Clinton, "a liberal, Ivy Leaguer type," gave gun-control forces a boost. Clinton may hail from a marginally Southern state, Stephenson says, but "he don't fit the mold of most of us down thisaway." Dismissing the Brady law as "a bunch of hogwash," he says waiting periods "just don't work and [only] make it inconvenient for people like me."

Stephenson fears the slippery slope. "Next year, I'll guaran-damn-tee you that there'll be another bill broadening the number [and] kinds of guns you can't own." I ask him if Kennesaw's gun law would work in, say, New York City. "I don't know, but gun control don't work in New York City either."

A third-generation lawman who worked his way up from patrol duty, Chief Wilson looks the part with his close-cropped hair and robust build. He says people, not guns, are the fundamental problem: "People are going to find ways to kill people if that is what they want to do." The chief doubts the worth of gun buybacks, but he is interested, musing dryly that he's got "several old pieces" he could swap for a nice new pair of tennis shoes.

Over at the Shanty House Country Restaurant, manager Judy Turner flashes a smile when asked about the gun law. "We don't have a [crime] problem like they do other places," she says, because would-be crooks "all know we'll have guns."

No one is more enthusiastic about the law than Dent "Wildman" Myers, proprietor of Wildman's Civil War Surplus. With a .45 holstered on each hip and a bandanna tied around his head, Myers looks like Willie Nelson retired from a biker gang. He sells an eclectic mix of books, memorabilia, war wares, and medicinal herbs. (One shelf of books is labeled "Margrat Mitchell.")

As conspiracists and misanthropes go, Myers seems oddly light-hearted, almost jolly. He hates Bill and Hillary and "Zig-Zag" (Governor Zell Miller); doesn't care for gays, blacks, Jews, or immigrants; mistrusts big business and big government; and figures if AIDS doesn't end the world, "race mixing" will. He thinks baseball is fixed and that William Buckley's "bombasticism" may have resulted from something in his childhood. (As for his own bombasticism, he says, "I've got no excuse.") Genuine and colorful yet hardly representative, Myers is the first guy out-of-town reporters want to interview. He fits the bill.

Just down the street, at Big Shanty Hardware, owner Dave Collier is selling lawnmowers. To Collier, the problem of gun violence is larger than guns. He wonders about all the dysfunctional families, the scarcity of good parenting. "There are some underlying problems in this country that they don't know how to solve," he says.

Twelve years after it began, Kennesaw's experiment in crime control does not present itself as an easy way to arrest the killing in America's streets. It does, however, suggest where the problem doesn't lie. As Mayor Stephenson told a national gun rally in Kennesaw a few years back, "We're the town that proves more guns doesn't have to mean more crime."

---------------------------

Again completely baseless nonfactual statements from Vince.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2008 04:41PM by Mofo.

Crime rates, Stats about oppressive governments are fine but Id like to see stats on police reports of successful home owner/crime prevention because of an armed citizen.

Here's an even better and more up to date article on Kennesaw. No guns in Illinois = higher crime and less population.

Required guns in Georgia= less crime and more population.

-------------
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.



By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.


This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

Reports of resulting burglary rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.[3] Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban.[4].

from wiki

Every constitutional right -- whether the right of free speech or the right to be free from intrusive searches and seizures -- is subject to limitation or regulation.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean the same thugs who have no problem
> starting shit with other gang bangers who they
> know are most likely carrying Glocks are going to
> be afraid to enter the house of a 75-year-old lady
> because she might have a snub-nosed .38 floating
> around her house?


Or an invassion of the Danes!!!!! If this isnt an argument against gun control, I dont know what is. And this IS a true story.

http://wonkette.com/363122/armed-redneck-lady-threatens-danish-journalist-outside-bushs-ranch

Sunday, June 29, 2008; Page B02 washingtonpost

Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.

In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently.

More than 20 years ago, a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2008 10:11AM by ferfux.

A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

Oh, one more thing: Scalia's ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn't fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property. In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

It is our Constitution, the law of the land. You can quote whatever "studies" you want (note that there is no mention of who sponsored or paid for the "study") but it is a law of the land. Feel free to exercise your right not to have a firearm in your house when you are old enough to have your own residence... I have no problem with that whatsoever. But if you want to stop _me_ from exercising my rights, then you need to get the Second Amendment overturned. Get to work, as it will take a bit more time than posting about anonymous "studies."

Every constitutional right -- whether the right of free speech or the right to be free from intrusive searches and seizures -- is subject to limitation or regulation.


That article as stated in the first post was from the Washington post. The writer didnt state his source, So I couldnt state the source.

The statistics strike home with me because I had a family member become a victim of accidental discharge of a firearm in the home.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2008 10:39AM by ferfux.

That is almost always the owner's fault, not the gun's fault. Just as with cars, the owner/operator has a responsibility to ensure safety. Rarely will critics place deaths due to vehicle accidents alongside of deaths due to firearm accidents.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is almost always the owner's fault, not the
> gun's fault. Just as with cars, the
> owner/operator has a responsibility to ensure
> safety. Rarely will critics place deaths due to
> vehicle accidents alongside of deaths due to
> firearm accidents.


oh come on! The old cars kill people like guns kill people argument is a total cop out! CARS are designed as transportation meant to get you from point a to point b to point c and back to point a. Guns are weapons and are meant to kill people and destroy objects. THEY FIRE A PROJECTILE MEANT TO CAUSE DAMAGE. Yes you can abstractly argue that guns are meant for self defense keeping me safe in my home and cars are abstractly making me feel sexy and fast in a sports car BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL purposes of these completely differant TOOLS one for transportation and one meant as weapons meant to kill. they are differant as Apples and rocks. You could CHOKE on either a rock or an apple but these two things are completely differant.

They are tools for different purposes, but they both kill people when not used properly. But because people are stupid with guns, cars, power tools, whatever is no reason to ban them for people that use those tools responsibly and safely.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is almost always the owner's fault, not the
> gun's fault. Just as with cars, the
> owner/operator has a responsibility to ensure
> safety. Rarely will critics place deaths due to
> vehicle accidents alongside of deaths due to
> firearm accidents.


Newt Gingrich in 1995 forbade the CDC from tracking gun related injury and death, a practice the CDC had been doing for decades. The CDC tracks injuries and deaths from soda cans but cannot track deaths and injury related to firearms.

Since the word "regulated" is in the second ammendment, I see no argument that the government, state, local, federal, cannot "regulate" firearms like they regulate cars (licenses, insurance, fines for misuse, etc.)

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are tools for different purposes, but they
> both kill people when not used properly. But
> because people are stupid with guns, cars, power
> tools, whatever is no reason to ban them for
> people that use those tools responsibly and
> safely.


yes but Used properly a gun IS meant to kill. thats the point.

If a car is used properly it wont kill, if used improperly it may kill. If a gun is used properly it WILL kill, if a gun is used improperly it may kill. If a car sits in my driveway it may attract a burglar. If it has alarms and antitheft it may deter a burglar if a gun sits in my drawer it may attract a burglar or may deter a burglar Or it may be taken away from me and used against me. So far Cars seem practically and abstractly LEss dangerous than guns do. So why SHOULDNT a county, state or Federal Government be allowed to regulate, limit etc etc guns?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2008 03:58PM by ferfux.

For the record-

The purpose of a car is transport people from one place to another.

The purpose of a gun is kill people.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a car is used properly it wont kill, if used
> improperly it may kill. If a gun is used properly
> it WILL kill, if a gun is used improperly it may
> kill.

So using your definitions (not mine) if the things that are not designed to kill actually kill more people in the country that things that are designed to kill, the things that kill fewer should be regulated and limited? lol. So it is logical to focus _away_ from things that are more dangerous just because they weren't "designed" to kill people? Again, lol.

2005 firearm deaths: 30,694
2005 Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 43,667
* source http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm

So how about focusing on the things that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights _and_ cause more deaths? For cause 'A' killing 12,973 more than cause 'B' it seems we should focus on cause 'A'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2008 05:11PM by pgens.

No, you dont leave a fire unattended in a forest or are careless with a fire in a forest. You dont allow guns in a high density population high crime area like DC. its common sense that the government for people's protection would regulate, limit and or disallow, in certain situations or areas something, ie firearms that will add to a problem not subtract from it. You can hang out in the Burbs all you want with your Gun. BUT in DC? nah thats letting anyone who wants to have one with very little regulation start as many forest fires as they want. Guns are designed to kill. If there are a billion cars, yes statistically there will be more deaths from misuse of something than the 100,ooo guns that ARE designed to kill. All im saying is that the governments SHOULD be allowed to regulate, limit and dissallow that wich is most dangerous to the people in certain areas and situations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2008 10:24PM by ferfux.

lol, using DC as an example of where firearm regulations can work is a total joke. They had a total, absolute pistol ban for however many decades and they still had more shootings than almost anywhere else. What kind of regulation are you proposing that is going to work there? How exactly is the DC government going to "disallow" the thugs that have been armed and shooting up the city for decades from continuing to do so?

did you read the quote from judge scalia? " a lil old lady can hold her weapon in one hand while dialing 911 in the other" Sorry I may be paraphrasing but WTF? is she dialing with her nose? adding more fuel to the fire, adding more guns to a bad situation is NOT going to help. A more thoughtful nuanced approach would have been better than to just allow everyone to get a handgun.

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the record-
>
> The purpose of a car is transport people from one
> place to another.
>
> The purpose of a gun is kill people.

I just ate some tasty venison filets on the grill I shot last fall for dinner. I used a gun and amazingly nobody died when I shot the deer.

Hunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For the record-
> >
> > The purpose of a car is transport people from
> one
> > place to another.
> >
> > The purpose of a gun is kill people.
>
> I just ate some tasty venison filets on the grill
> I shot last fall for dinner. I used a gun and
> amazingly nobody died when I shot the deer.

Tell that to the deer.

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hunter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jester Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For the record-
> > >
> > > The purpose of a car is transport people from
> > one
> > > place to another.
> > >
> > > The purpose of a gun is kill people.
> >
> > I just ate some tasty venison filets on the
> grill
> > I shot last fall for dinner. I used a gun and
> > amazingly nobody died when I shot the deer.
>
> Tell that to the deer.

I didn't realize deer were people. I guess they are to you? Seen BAMBI too many times?

Anti-Constitution people who don't like to hear that a firearm killed an animal for food are much happier eating their beef and chicken from slaughter houses that kill them in other ways. Because if it is with a gun it is bad, and if it is in restraints with a bolt through the front of the skull it is okay because no bullets were used. A laughable argument.

And if a family member of theirs isn't killed because a deer went through their windshield due to thinning herds via hunting they won't know the difference. In that case a gun saved a life of a family member but they are none the wiser.

Because stories of firearms saving lives is never reported...

http://blasphemes.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-lovell-is-alive-today.html

Also appropriate given the criticisms of Scalia suggesting an old person could use a firearm to save his or her own life.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have
> a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting,
> the justices' first definitive pronouncement on
> gun rights in U.S. history.
>
> Discuss.


Stick to talking cell phones you mental dwarf.