Supremes Affirm Right To Own Guns

[Liar]

I think that our "right to bear arms" is what makes us unique.

And it makes all the bears in the world nervous as hell.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

America is known as the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Yet, there's people who want to do away with one of the most basic rights of freedom that we have.

I own several guns. I've never killed or injured anyone with a gun. Why should I be required to give up that freedom when I've never done anything wrong?

Simplistic minds make the argument that outlawing guns will do away with gun violence. Did outlawing drugs do away with drugs?

Are the lives that are SAVED by having a gun not worthy of mention? Are they expendable to the cause?

 

[Elianna]

And it makes all the bears in the world nervous as hell.

Perhaps you should ask that of VM...

Darlin... do I make you nervous with my shotgun, or do you find me sexier than hell?

Hey... isn't there some trashy magazine that shows naked women with assault rifles. Who said there's no use for guns.

 

[TxRad]

America is known as the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Yet, there's people who want to do away with one of the most basic rights of freedom that we have.

I own several guns. I've never killed or injured anyone with a gun. Why should I be required to give up that freedom when I've never done anything wrong?

Simplistic minds make the argument that outlawing guns will do away with gun violence. Did outlawing drugs do away with drugs?

Are the lives that are SAVED by having a gun not worthy of mention? Are they expendable to the cause?

Most people who are against guns and want them outlawed have never held a gun or fired one. To them it is a dangerous weapon and that is all. Mind closed, move on to the next topic.

I learned about guns from my dad, grandfather, and uncles. I was five at the time. I learned to hunt and how to be safe and careful. My parents held me to account for my action and not just with firearms. That is part of what is missing today in a big way.

I never used a weapon for anything except hunting until I joined the Marines and went on senior vacation to Vietnam. That was a learning experience in so many ways but that is an entirely different thing than what's under discussion. It just points out that I can't say I've never killed anyone.

Since I've been back I've only shot one thing that wasn't game for the table. That was a 64' Buick, three guys were using as a getaway car after a liquor store robbery. No one was hurt except the car, which was completely dead. The owner of the store was a good friend of mine and spent three days in the hospital after the three guys beat him with a tire iron and a baseball bat.

The cops caught them still in the car, cowering on the floorboards. No one but my friend knows who shot the car.

Yes I own guns and plan on continuing to own guns. Outlawing guns isn't the answer. Just ask our Australian friends. It happened there not to long ago. Ask them about the crime rates and such, maybe you'll understand somethings.

As for the war on drugs. That's the biggest joke since prohibition. There's an easy way to fix illegal drugs but that is for another thread in the future perhaps.

 

[TxRad]

Perhaps you should ask that of VM...

Darlin... do I make you nervous with my shotgun, or do you find me sexier than hell?

Hey... isn't there some trashy magazine that shows naked women with assault rifles. Who said there's no use for guns.

I used a condom over the end of my gun barrel in Vietnam to keep the sand and mud out. Is that gun safety or sexy? A woman with a gun who knows how to use it safely is a plus in my book.

 

[Elianna]

I used a condom over the end of my gun barrel in Vietnam to keep the sand and mud out. Is that gun safety or sexy? A woman with a gun who knows how to use it safely is a plus in my book.

That might be it, too. My dad went to Vietnam. I grew up with guns around all the time. As kids, we were taught to respect the weapons and later to shoot them. Just like any dangerous implement, proper training and safety is essential.

I recently saw one of my students was convicted of murder. He did a drive-by and shot some girl. She was an innocent bystander. Funny thing. The gun didn't stand on trial, the kid did. It's about judgement.

Some people say that gun laws are to stop that kind of stuff. But, gangs can just as easily single someone out and knife them to death, too. They could mow people down with their cars and take out even more people. Killing is killing. The implement is secondary.

 

[Liar]

The implement is secondary.

Pragmatically true. But let's for the sake of the argument look at it philosophically.


What is a car? It's a tool designed to transport people.
Now... What is a gun?


One period of my life, I felt it nessecary to carry a knife for my protection. It was a balisong like thing with a mirrored blade (there's probably a name for 'em but I'm no expert), designed for one primary use - stabbing. Preferrably people. it had the right width to slde comfortably between ribs, and the right length to puncture lungs.

I carried it out of nessecity, and I leaned how to use it properly. But I hated the living shit out of the thing and what it stood for every second that I had it in my possession. It was a tool designed for fatally wounding human beings, and I wanted to take it on a hike across Midgaard and hurl it into the fiery pits of Mount Doom.

I understand the right to own guns. I can even understand that sometimes there's a need for them. What I can't understand, is the love for the sick fucking contraptions that some seem to feel.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Guns? Why is it that everyone who has never handled a weapon(gun) is so against them. I grew up on the southwest side of Chicago. There were five houses on my block that had guns in them. I could take you to each gun and I was twelve at the time. I learned in Boy Scouts about gun safety. I learned from my father and uncle about gun safety. I learned to shoot from my uncle when he took me duck hunting.

I grew up around guns. My wife grew up around guns. I own guns. And to the best of my knowledge none of my guns have ever killed a human being, in or out of my hand.

While in the Air Force I was a cop, the gun the AF issued me shot someone after he knifed my partner during a burglary. He was later hanged. The burglar not my partner or my gun. (It was South Korea - they looked very dimly on someone causing grave bodily harm to a police officer).

I also have several grandchildren who visit us quit often. They know better than to go into grandpa's closet. Of course when they are over the closet is locked. But they know better.

I wonder why the publicity of those attempted burglaries, muggings, murders, carjackings, etc. that are foiled because the person or persons who were the intended victims were armed are left on the cutting room floor so to speak?

Have I ever had to use my weapon(s) to protect myself? Thank God, no. I know how to use it, when to use it, and I hope I never have to use it, but I am prepared to use it when the circumstances deem it necessary.

Now do I think every law abiding citizen should walk around armed? No, not everyone. Some? Sure, those who get the license, get the training and follow the rules.

ETA: Do I love my guns? Not particularly. They have a function based on their design. Handguns - they are for close in self defense. Yes killing who or whatever

 

[TxRad]

Pragmatically true. But let's for the sake of the argument look at it philosophically.


What is a car? It's a tool designed to transport people.
Now... What is a gun?


One period of my life, I felt it nessecary to carry a knife for my protection. It was a balisong like thing with a mirrored blade (there's probably a name for 'em but I'm no expert), designed for one primary use - stabbing. Preferrably people. it had the right width to slde comfortably between ribs, and the right length to puncture lungs.

I carried it out of nessecity, and I leaned how to use it properly. But I hated the living shit out of the thing and what it stood for every second that I had it in my possession. It was a tool designed for fatally wounding human beings, and I wanted to take it on a hike across Midgaard and hurl it into the fiery pits of Mount Doom.

I understand the right to own guns. I can even understand that sometimes there's a need for them. What I can't understand, is the love for the sick fucking contraptions that some seem to feel.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. To me a gun is a tool and as such you need to learn how and when to use it and what to use it for. That is what is lacking so much in our society. The leadership and training that should begin at home and doesn't. Supervision of our young is sorely lacking also.

A criminal is going to continue to be a criminal until he is either killed or jailed. A kid is a clean slate that needs the adults in his/her life to write the right things on that slate. It ain't happening and kids are growing up with no sense of right and wrong. Life, especially other peoples life, have no value to them. The drivebys and such prove that. More innocent people are killed than the main targets.

 

[colddiesel]

Why?

Approximately 30 people a day in the USA are shot dead.That adds up to 30,000 per year or about 25 to 30 times the American death toll in Iraq.

Many non Americans see a direct correlation between Gun ownership and dead bodies.

BUT: Canadians own just as many guns per head, but Canadians don't kill each other . Why is that so?

It seems to me that the propensity to kill is the problem not the fact of ownership.

Even though I lived in the USA for almost 8 years I have never been able to understand why so many Americans want to kill each other .

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I am so glad the Supreme Court has finally put this to bed. It is our constitutional right to have drive-by shootings, armed robberies and mass murders like Comumbine High School. God Bless American

 

[Pure]

note to elianna

El said When you come to think about it, cars kill more people than guns; more kids, more pregnant women, more of everyone that seems so vulnerable. Never have we even considered denying cars to people. There are many things that can kill people, guns being one of them. It's about the responsibility we use when operating these tools.

I can guarantee that the number of teenagers killed with guns is far overshadowed by the number of teenagers killed driving recklessly in their own cars.

The number of accidents of children shooting each other is overshadowed by the number of kids hit while not paying attention when they crossed the street.

Now do I believe that EVERYONE should have a gun. No. Drunk drivers can't drive cars, violent offenders shouldn't own guns. I don't have a problem with a license... we have to get one for driving cars which are just as powerful and deadly as guns. Now... does everyone need a fully automatic assault rifle that can tear off body parts... um... there are limits. But hey, people ARE driving Hummers... so. (That was an attempt to be funny)

The car analogy is interesting; IF you followed it through gun users would have to take training pass tests, etc. I'm sure you don't want that.

Your other arguments are obvious fallacies, e.g. The number of accidents of children shooting each other is overshadowed by the number of kids hit while not paying attention when they crossed the street.

It seems to me that if getting guns out of most homes could prevent, say, 50 deaths of US kids per year, it would be worthwhile; the comparison of deaths crossing the street or from pneumonia or being struck by lightning is silly. something can be done about gun availablility.

As you are aware, you have an almost total laisser faire policy, must less restrictive than the SC decision allows. You aren't really clear about assault or automatic weapons. Probably you know your arguments, if they had any merit, would apply to these weapons as well: Far fewer teens are killed with assault rifles that are killed driving recklessly. Indeed, adults killed with anti tank weapons are VERY rare compared to the number of those who choke to death. So let's have assault rifles and antitank weapons too.

What your argument overlooks is the effects of having guns available to thieves in almost every home. Unless there is necessity, i see no reason to carry a gun or keep one in your home. Show me a high rate of home invasions in your area, and I'd issue you a permit; the other 90% of the population have no need for a gun in the home. IOW, the argument, in most civilized countries is: you want a gun show the necessity. In the US, it's the reverse: the right wing NRA folks say, "we HAVE our guns and you can't take them away unless you prove it's necessary to take it from me [i.e., prove i'm a criminal or a lunatic]."

 

[Le Jacquelope]

hahahahahaha

Too bad, so sad, eat shit and die liberals.

I'm a hard core liberal and the only reason I'm not partying right now is I just got home.

Saturday's gonna be rip roarin', though. I'm going with some friends to the gun range to celebrate.

I've always been in favor of the citizenry being VERY WELL armed.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yep. Some folks haven't gotten out of the eighteenth century yet, though.

I'd be pleased if everyone wanting to own a gun was automatically signed up for the National Guard--they'd then be swiftly sent to Iraq, where they'd be set against others who like guns have have minds set in the eighteenth century.

Then the people who oppose guns can be left to be subjected to England's crime rates.

Frankly speaking it's hard to tell which group would have it worse.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

Approximately 30 people a day in the USA are shot dead.That adds up to 30,000 per year or about 25 to 30 times the American death toll in Iraq.

Many non Americans see a direct correlation between Gun ownership and dead bodies.

BUT: Canadians own just as many guns per head, but Canadians don't kill each other . Why is that so?

It seems to me that the propensity to kill is the problem not the fact of ownership.

Even though I lived in the USA for almost 8 years I have never been able to understand why so many Americans want to kill each other .

I'd love to see the stats about the number of guns per capita in the US vs in Canada. Every survey on the subject I have ever seen, has America with a gun ownership rate anywhere from 3-10 times per capita.
Other than that I do agree that it's not the guns the kill people it's the people. Actually it's society that determines individuals values and ultimately sets the tone for acceptable behavior. Perhaps we should be looking at what is it about American culture that suggests that not only do they need to be armed, but also that they need to kill eachother at alarming rates.

There are several possible reasons ranging from a greater incidence of organized crime, an overburdened penal system, staggering poverty rates and the overall nature of gun culture that is ingrained into the populace. I agree with most gun advocates that it's not the guns that kill people, it's the reason why you have so many guns in the first place that kills people.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Approximately 30 people a day in the USA are shot dead.That adds up to 30,000 per year or about 25 to 30 times the American death toll in Iraq.

Many non Americans see a direct correlation between Gun ownership and dead bodies.

BUT: Canadians own just as many guns per head, but Canadians don't kill each other . Why is that so?

It seems to me that the propensity to kill is the problem not the fact of ownership.

Even though I lived in the USA for almost 8 years I have never been able to understand why so many Americans want to kill each other .

Half those are suicides, I believe.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Unless there is necessity, i see no reason to carry a gun or keep one in your home. Show me a high rate of home invasions in your area, and I'd issue you a permit

Thank you, master. You're so kind, master.

 

[sr71plt]

Perhaps we should be looking at what is it about American culture that suggests that not only do they need to be armed, but also that they need to kill eachother at alarming rates.

I think that the attitude of "I have a right to a gun and you can just shove it" provides the basis for ". . . and I just might feel like using it on you." Hand and glove I think in the attitude department.

 

[amicus]

Well, well, well, whoda thunk it!

So pleasing to not be required to present an opposing opinion, places me a step closer to retiring completely.

Now that the ice has been broken, so to speak, may I suggest that some concerned agency somewhere, arm and train all the vulnerable young women on college campuses and at late night employment venues?

Were such an effort made, I suggest the number of sexual assaults would decline greatly.

Somewhere I saw a little pink handgun advertised, perhaps a matching mace or pepperspray could be arranged.(Or it could be Lavender, if one preferred)

Even a wrist mounted, single shot device, triggered by a finger movement might deter a criminal.

Someone mentioned earlier a generation of children without values, without an absolute sense of right and wrong and individual responsibility. You know, those, 'normal' single parent kids raised by women?

My daughters all have weapon training and like me, shoot to kill.

Good going guys, proud of ya!

Amicus....(thanks JBJ, nice opening)

 

[keeblercrumb]

KEEBLER

It's a shame we aren't having this discussion in person, all armed. It would have been over by now.

An eloquent an argument for strict gun control as I have ever heard.

The irony is, of course, that you are exactly right. It is a far more likely outcome of having guns in your home, is to have it be used to "settle arguments" than to defend against some home invasion.

Okay... I am personally in favor of much stronger gun control laws. I am in favor of immediately forbidding the sale of handguns, absent a profound and demonstrated need to have one. Perhaps you are not.

And yeah.... I have used guns... big, nasty, full automatic ones... It is okay, apparently, for the government to not allow the populace here to have automatic weapons, or mortars, or claymores, etc... (outside of belonging to a 'well regulated militia")

Why are "hand guns", the easily concealable, relatively cheap, least effectual for home defense uses the "arm" considered uniquely to be "your basic right"?

Or do you favor the legalization of all weapons?

The case in hand, is about a community struggling to cope with handgun related crime. I think they have a right to that, just as much as they have a right to control drunk driving...

This conservative supreme court has had no problem restricting most articles in the Bill of Rights in the name of anti-terrorism, the drug war, and pornography... I find it's decision to expand the rights to the possession of handguns in the name of the constitution, more than a little hypocritical.

I have not, for that matter, yet forgiven them for electing George President despite our right to vote.

Have a day....

-KC

 

[DeeZire]

A five-to-four affirmation is the same as a four-to-five dissent. This issue has not been decided, it has been 'lawyerized' to suit the ideology of five zealots, an ideology that ignores the actual facts under scrutiny. These are activist judges, beholden to the Right. History will show their bias and the damage it has done, with GW's appointment to the presidency leading the list.

If I were a conservative, I would not be proud, I would be embarrassed and ashamed.

 

[amicus]

Well...hang around, tootsie, Obama will lose by a landslide and McCain will appoint four more strict constitutionalists over the next eight years and America will move forward into bigger and better things.

You can always move to Canada...

Ami...

 

[keeblercrumb]

Commissar, it is time we developed a new condom for the masses.

Well...hang around, tootsie, Obama will lose by a landslide and McCain will appoint four more strict constitutionalists over the next eight years and America will move forward into bigger and better things.

You can always move to Canada...

Ami...

You honestly think THIS is an example of 5 justices being "strict constitutionalists "? Maybe "strict traditionalists" or "strict conservatives" or "strict Republicans"... but it seems to me this was a highly interpretative reading of
"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"
And while I am asking questions.... if you also think, as many above do, that the whole "well regulated militia" thing is somehow not applicable and may be ignored, do you believe this "right to bear arms" thing should be absolute and applicable to all weapons?
Just curious....
-KC

 

[amicus]

I think the sentence is quite clear and does not need interpretation, it means what is says. "..., the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

"...necessary to the security of a free State..." Those, I think, are key words to understanding the intent of the sentence. a militia is composed of individuals, whose right to bear arms defends both the State and the individual.

There is only a conflict arising from those who do not comprehend the primacy of the individual in American history and political philosophy. It is also a failure to comprehend the meaning of inalienable rights possessed by the individual, not granted by government.

We Americans are not creatures beholden to the State nor looking to the State for our rights of life, liberty and property, we possess those rights and mutually employ government and a militia to protect and defend those rights from those who would usurp them.

In our Declaration of Indepence, even the right of rebellion against an onerous State, is noted to be innate, another right possessed by the individual.

Our government exists only with the consent and approval of the people and should it fail to protect our rights, we possess right to remove that government and replace it with something better suited.

So, yes, to answer the last part of your question, I think the right to bear arms should include the latest, most modern weapons, identical to those provided active duty military forces.

And, no, I do not envisage the military being turned against the citizenry and if you follow politics, a majority of military people support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and vote Republican.

You do see the vast divide and polarization between the right and left here, do you not?

It is that basic assumption by the left that all rights are granted by government while the right insists each individual is possessed of those rights and we merely hire the guns of government to protect us and our inalienable rights.

There is no bridge to terabithia to span that abyss. but at least one should be aware of it.

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

You do see the vast divide and polarization between the right and left here, do you not?

No... I do not.. this "divide" is a fantasy that exists only in your head. The differences in the left/right, Republican/Democrat political landscape of this country are minor and transitory, even if they do spark occasionaly heated debate...

I object to the government interferring with my body, you do not.

You object to the government limiting access to weapons, I do not.

I object to the government rolling over the rights of defendents, you do not.

You object to the government raising taxes on corporations or the rich, I do not.

I object to the government marching off to war without the consent of the people, you do not.

You object to the government ensuring people have food to eat and access to medical care, I do not.

I object to the government spying on me, you do not.

etc., etc, etc.

As I have repeatedly told you, I, and most if not all of the "suspects" here, whole-heartedly believe in the rights of the individual against government intrusion... I just think they should apply more to the rights of actual individuals than to corporations but that is what makes life interesting.

But I appreciate your response, in any case. I think you may find the vast majority of your friends on the "right" (mainstream "right") (the ones who vote)... will be something less than enthusiastic about your desire to arm the polulace with all manner of military weapons.. but perhaps I am wrong about that.

Meet you on the bridge.... wonder which way you will be walking today?

-KC