High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Dogs are loud and messy, not to mention the added responsibilty. Guns are quite (when not in use) and easy to store.

Dude! That's the most ironic post I may have ever seen!

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Its a valid point, but it applies to more than just guns...
less swimming pools, less cars, less motorbycles etc.. all equal less people dying. The common denominator here is people. I understand the need to protect people from their own stupidity, so if you are going to do it for one item, just do it for all. Not practical.

Yeah but swimming pools, cars and motorcycles aren't designed to kill. The only purpose of a gun is to sqeeze the trigger and end a life. Do you really trust people enough to give everyone that power?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Its a valid point, but it applies to more than just guns...
less swimming pools, less cars, less motorbycles etc.. all equal less people dying. The common denominator here is people. I understand the need to protect people from their own stupidity, so if you are going to do it for one item, just do it for all. Not practical.

Pools, cars, fast food... all have primary uses beyond just killing people. Handguns were created and designed for one purpose and one purpose only. That's why they are so good at it, and why access to them needs to be restricted IMO.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The old teenager at summer camp excuse eh?

Any chance that was 20 years ago or so? I remember an article (much less vividly) that I used in an extemporaneous speaking competition my senior year in high school that was of a similar vein. The part I remember compared gun deaths in the UK, Japan and the US (among other nations) and the numbers were startling. Sound like the same article?

Home invasion robberies are all the rage these days, I'm afraid a dog doesn't really protect your family from an intruder with a gun. Trust me, most people in bad neighborhoods have dogs. They die pretty easily when shot.

Time flies when you're having fun. It was 1989.

Time cover on all Gun Deaths in a week

Here's the article:
Article

If the U.S. were losing this many people to a killer virus or to a war, there would be a public outcry. Yet more Americans die of gunshot wounds every two years than have died to date of AIDS. Similarly, guns take more American lives in two years than did the entire Viet Nam War. Only automobile accidents (total deaths per year: 48,700) surpass shootings as the leading cause of injury-induced fatalities.

Anybody think more guns is still better for society after reading the article? This was for me the pivotal point where I realized that guns for "protection" was way more likely to kill you or a loved one than save you.

The summer camp I was at was VACC by the way. Vernon Army Cadet Camp. So it's not like I don't know (or respect) firearms.

[Hack&Lube]

The right to bear arms is there so that Americans can protect themselves when total revolution happens or a zombie breakout occurs.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Time flies when you're having fun. It was 1989.

Time cover on all Gun Deaths in a week

Here's the article:
Article



Anybody think more guns is still better for society after reading the article? This was for me the pivotal point where I realized that guns for "protection" was way more likely to kill you or a loved one than save you.

The summer camp I was at was VACC by the way. Vernon Army Cadet Camp. So it's not like I don't know (or respect) firearms.

Different article, but around the same time. I graduated in May of 89. There was a similar, less personal, article published that winter by either Time, Newsweek or US News and World Report that compared gun crime statistics among developed nations. Eye opening.

I think this goes back to my original post in this thread. The government needs to start doing a better job of getting these clowns and their weapons off the street if they expect people to feel safe.

People who own guns for protection need to be responsible about it as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Isn't it quite obvious that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns? I'm surprised it went this far.

Yanks have the right to own a gun. It's part of the deal.

It gets murky when people claim they have a right to keep an arsenal in the basement, but a simple handgun in the house is pretty straightforward.

[Ozy_Flame]

Hey, if I could get my hands on a U.S. Military M4A1 Carbine to scare emo kids, hippies, and unruly teenagers, I say go for it!

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Dude! That's the most ironic post I may have ever seen!

Sorry I should have added . But I thought it was obvious.

edit: Oh ironic (in my hast I read Moronic). That is what I was thinking. Dogs messier than guns? Depends on the situation.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hey, if I could get my hands on a U.S. Military M4A1 Carbine to scare emo kids, hippies, and unruly teenagers, I say go for it!

Just buy an airgun or airsoft weapon to do that. Heck, these things shoot off plastic or copper coated BBs at 500 feet per second and can go right through metal cans. You can do some serious damage to emo kids, hippies, and unruly teenages.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by pepper24

From a Canadian perspective, the whole second ammendment right to bear arms thing seems a bit out of date and unnecessary.

What if the King comes into your house and starts pushing you around? What then?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Reaper

What if the King comes into your house and starts pushing you around? What then?

Crack open the Zombie survival kit before he eats you....

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by worth

The right to bear arms is fundamental to a truly free society. More guns in the hands of lawful competent citizens is better for everyone. When you ban guns, the only people who have them are criminals. Anyone who is law abiding will turn them in, otherwise they too are a criminal. So how does that help any situation?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding and moreover an ideal in some peoples minds that by somehow taking guns away from responsible people, this will stop the shootings. Focus on taking the guns away from criminals and there will be less crime. If you focus on taking guns away from law abiding citizens, there will be more crime and more victims of crime that could have prevented such an eventuality in the proper circumstances.

You forgot to highlight this green. In all seriousness, I don't need a semi-automatic glock to hunt bucks. I use my rifle.

Maybe in the States where guns are already rapid your point might be valid as it could be tough to weed out guns from the criminals but in other truly free societies such as Canada with tight gun control and with most used for hunting it's not an issue. The average Canadian citizen doesn't need a gun for protection from others.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The extemism on both sides is mindboggling. On one hand you have right wing gun nuts who think it is their inalienable and constitutional right to possess any arms they deem necessary. Any intrusion on that right is unconstitutional and will lead to the impotence of citizens. (the ol' slippery slope).

Then you have the anti-gun lobby nuts saying that this is telling street gangs that its ok to have guns. Go get some.

Both are total crocks.

+1

Quoted for truth.

I do believe they should have rights to own firearms, the US is different than Canada, it fought against an oppresive government to gain its independence, Canada didnt.

Example, if Texas ever wanted to exit the Union, and they voted on it and the vote passed and the Fed said, sorry cant do that, then they need to have the rights to then take up arms if they so choose to.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The extemism on both sides is mindboggling. On one hand you have right wing gun nuts who think it is their inalienable and constitutional right to possess any arms they deem necessary. Any intrusion on that right is unconstitutional and will lead to the impotence of citizens. (the ol' slippery slope).

Then you have the anti-gun lobby nuts saying that this is telling street gangs that its ok to have guns. Go get some.

Both are total crocks.

I agree with the decision, but not because of the constitutionality of it (that's up for debate IMO). Washington, DC is one the most violent cities in the civilized world. If you ban handguns you get compliance from law abiding citizens. Bad guys who would use handguns for bad things don't care if they are banned or not. They can still get them and they will still use them.

At least let citizens protect themselves because clearly DC cops (among others in this country) ain't getting the job done!

What a sad state of affairs.
Somethings wrong and the people who want to change it just got shot down.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I might agree with you if life was like a western movie..but its not. How many times do you hear of a law abiding family or citizen successfully thwarting an attack because they pulled out their home gun and had good old fashion shootout with some kind of criminal attacker. I've heard of very few cases. Actually I can't remember any off hand.

And how many times do you hear about accidental gun deaths related to having guns in the home. Or guns being stolen from law abiding homes. Or a law abiding citizen going psycho and resorting to using that home gun, or his kids going psycho and using that gun at school.

I agree with Flashpoint, more guns in general equates to less safety.

I say we ban cars. Less cars = less car related accidents = less people being killed. And while we're at it...ban alcohol too. Less alcohol = less drinking and driving accidents = less of our friends being killed in high school because they were too stupid to realize that they shouldn't drink and drive.

Get the picture?

The problem isn't with the people that own handguns and properly store and look after them. The problem is the idiots who don't look after their guns, and use them as IF it were the Wild West.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What a sad state of affairs.
Somethings wrong and the people who want to change it just got shot down.

You mean the people who want to ban guns thinking it will lower gun crime?

Which is strange, because I really, REALLY doubt that any criminal is going to suddenly give up his gun because the stupid government made a law to make themselves look good.

[Azure]

What Obama had to say...

In response to the Supreme Court's decision earlier this morning to strike down the in District of Columbia's handgun ban, Senator Obama released the following statement:
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

I think he's riding the fence a bit here...not in a bad way, but in a way where he approaches both sides of the issues and makes a statement that covers everything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Different article, but around the same time. I graduated in May of 89. There was a similar, less personal, article published that winter by either Time, Newsweek or US News and World Report that compared gun crime statistics among developed nations. Eye opening.

I think this goes back to my original post in this thread. The government needs to start doing a better job of getting these clowns and their weapons off the street if they expect people to feel safe.

How? I mean, I agree, but how?

People who own guns for protection need to be responsible about it as well.

You know, after reading through the ruling and everything, I believe this ruling was specifically made to say that people have the fundamental right to own guns for the 'self defense' of their own home.

It says NOTHING about carrying laws at all....although such rulings are very likely going to come.

Part of 'owning' that gun, is also owning the responsibility of being 'safe.' Too many people forget about that.

[Clever_Iggy]

If you read the opinion, it is extremely narrow in its application. The Supreme Court is reluctant to make broad laws and under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has become even more narrow. In lay man terms - the Supreme Court doesnt like the case and didnt want to say to much and having to be bound by it in the future.

This ruling is not a surprise at all, but in the same breath, it is far short of the victory gun supports hoped for and are trying to save face by declaring victory now.

Stemming from my rather lengthy post in the "Supreme Court Death Penalty" thread with Iowa, the votes from the likes of Scalia and Thomas are strictly reading the Second Amendment textually. Whether they agree with it or not is irrelevant... it's just constitutional.

The NRA is already positioning themselves to challenge similar gun laws here in Illinois and in San Francisco. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this ruling does not necessarily effect existing municipal or state gun bans - it only effects DC because currently, the police power only extends to DC.

Gun enthusiasts are jumping for joy, but the educated ones in the group know this is as narrow of a ruling as the Supreme Court hands out.