Supreme Court Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban

[AK47]

I just read this entire thread. Wow this one was long and heated at times.

[COLOR=silver][FONT=Verdana]I am surprised no one touched on the point that the 2 amendment is a right and something such as a drivers license is a privilege. [/FONT
[

Don’t take this the wrong way and I agree with what you say but I want to point this out.

2nd amendment is a right we are born with which the constitution guarantees people think the constitution grants us these rights.

Second driving or being able to travel freely with person and effects is another Right Not a Privilege. By requiring a license to travel on a public road is a violation of your 4th amendmant right.

Lots of crappy horse riders back in the day so do you think licensing and sobriety checkpoints between home and the tavern would have went over well in 1776?

For these rights there is an understanding we have to give up some of our perceived safety. If you chose to live in a "safer" or more "secure" enviroment and give up your rights then may your chains rest lightly upon you.

[QuantumRider]

I've been involved in two "gun incidents" so far.

Once I was walking home from a bar with two other guys and three girls. We were all chatting and walking, with two of the girls lagging behind for some reason (girl talk or whatever). Then the rest of us heard,

"Hey guys?" from behind and turned around, to see the girls lying down on the sidewalk with two crackheads pointing guns at their heads. The crackheads yelled at the rest of us,

"Give it up, motherfuckers!!!" so we handed over our cash (as we were on our way home from the bar, I think I only had about $4 in my pocket at the time, though).

In this scenario, I wouldn't have pulled a gun even if I had been packing at the time, as I'm sure that it would have escalated the situation and gotten at least one of the girls shot.

The other time, I was upstairs in my house about to go to bed when I heard someone trying to get in my kitchen door. I went downstairs and entered the kitchen just as the would-be robber broke the window next to the door, reached in, and unlocked the deadbolt. When he opened the door, he saw me in my underwear pointing a shotgun at him, and took off running. I didn't give chase, just called 911 and filed a report.

In this scenario, I am glad that I had my shotgun, as the only thing I had to replace was the broken window.

BTW, both of these events occurred in Baltimore in the early 90's... I moved to DC shortly after the second incident, for a better job, higher pay, and an apartment NOT in the ghetto where crackheads roam free

[Rsmacker]

What if you were made to suggadick at gunpoint..in the parking lot at Walmart during store hours..that would be wrong IMO!
BUT what if you were armed and made the perp suck your stuff on principality.

Hmmmmm, I guess that would be wrong......................mostly.

[Newc]

Didn't think this thread was still alive.

Since it is, I have two requests:

First, going back to the issue of "social inequality" and "non-whites not getting the same educational opportunities": provide concrete, documented evidence of white-collar discrimination in the last 10 years. Prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone - anyone - but it has to be someone specific, not a generalization or "I heard" or "you know it happens" - that someone was passed over in the white-collar world based on skin color alone, and not because they did not have the documented qualifications, or the better documented qualifications to get the position in question.

Second, show me a public school in America that does not allow the American public school-age child to attend.

Discrimination? Please.
"Whitey" hasn't held anyone back in 40 years or more. It's all been self-inflicted since then.


Now, the anti-gun crowd touts this theory constantly that if you remove legal guns from the homes of law-abiding citizens, the criminals will not be able to steal the legally-registered guns of law-abiding citizens.

I will say this with 100% certainty: it's too late for that.

The other question Bengal raised was "where would criminals have gotten guns if no one was allowed to own them to begin with?"

I answered that a few pages back, but since it wasn't the answer he was looking for, it was ignored.

I'll repeat it here: From whatever the last war was, that's where. Yes, Great-Great-Great-Great Grandpa's Revolutionary War flintlock that has been in the attic since the 1800s still works, and it will be used against my fellow man in an act of violence.

We would not have gotten very far against Britain without guns.

Now, going back to the guy that robbed Bengal's house, it was mentioned that had the first victim killed the guy, that would have prevented that particular criminal from committing 36 more instances of the same crime, to which Bengal replied "yeah, but it would not have deterred other criminals".

Who said it had to?

You can kill an entire ant colony by killing the Queen. You can kill an entire hornet's nest by engulfing it in flames. You can even kill an entire cattle farm's livestock by poisoning the water hole or food.

However, just because killing one criminal doesn't stop the others doesn't mean it's not working, it's just not having the rapid results you get from the ant farm.

[AK47]

Bengal got mad when GOR called him a facist.

Which I am not going to agree or disagree with but one thing is for certain...

He is a Socialist and a Commie.


Regarding the comment of forced homosexual acts at gunpoint. Sometimes its just a better choice to die.

[lerxstcat]

I read that story in your link and even clicked on the slideshow where it said you could see the note the robber handed the teller. It said he has a bomb strapped around his waste :ROTF:

OH NOES!! A SHIT BOMB!!!


As long as there are machine shops in America, we will have guns whether they are legal or not.

But I agree, an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment would result in armed rebellion by tens of millions of gun owners.

Unless you actually sent the army against the citizens of the country, you wouldn't have a chance at enforcing confiscation. I am confident that like the Russian troops during the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops would refuse to attack the citizens they are oathbound to protect, in order to enforce an unconstitutional confiscation law.

I think it is the government that tried to do such a thing that would fall before the confiscation would succeed. Congress would have to barricade itself inside the Capitol with troops guarding the perimeter to keep themselves from being assassinated if they tried that shit. Same with any President trying that kind of power grab.

It's never going to happen. If it does, America is dead and there will be millions of deaths resisting it. Anyone who condones that, well your whole anti-violence platform is out the window and your hypocrisy would be on display. I am betting that with the Internet, a lot of known anti-gun activists would get the coup de grace if they were willing to see citizens killed in order to confiscate their guns.

If you are wiling to see me killed in order to take my guns, then I am willing to kill you to stop it from happening. I would consider that self-defense. That is how seriously many gun owners view their RIGHT to bear arms.

If you don't like that, well, that's tough. It is what it is.

[thetroy]

If you are wiling to see me killed in order to take my guns, then I am willing to kill you to stop it from happening. I would consider that self-defense. That is how seriously many gun owners view their RIGHT to bear arms.

If you don't like that, well, that's tough. It is what it is.

Just to mess with you - that reasoning is severely flawed. You believing you have a right to something does not justify that belief, even if you believe it so strongly that you are willing to die for it.

[lerxstcat]

Well the constitution says I have that right,Troy, and that trumps your opinion on the matter.

[Newc]

Ok, Troy, I lay the burden of proof in your lap: prove to me that I do not have the right to own a gun. Handgun, rifle, shotgun, whatever.

Since you say my personal belief that I have this right does not make it so, prove to me how your personal belief that I do not have this right makes it so.

[thetroy]

Well the constitution says I have that right,Troy, and that trumps your opinion on the matter.

The Constitution is also just a collection of opinions.

[thetroy]

Ok, Troy, I lay the burden of proof in your lap: prove to me that I do not have the right to own a gun. Handgun, rifle, shotgun, whatever.

Since you say my personal belief that I have this right does not make it so, prove to me how your personal belief that I do not have this right makes it so.

If you want to talk about "rights" as "things we can do" then I would hold that we all have the right to do whatever the fuck we want, we just ought be mindful of the fact that everyone else has that same right.

[Newc]

Taking that stance, then, logic would dictate that a rapist has the right to rape, because he believes he has a right to do it.

And a drug dealer has the right to deal drugs because he believes so.

And a man has the right to murder his wife to avoid paying her alimony or otherwise avoid a messy divorce if he believes he has the right to.

And a thief has the right to steal because he believes he has that right.

However, the one thing that all of those have in common, and what separates them from the right and belief in the right to own a firearm is that owning a firearm does not automatically have a negative effect on someone else.

There is no victim in gun ownership.

[asix]

The other time, I was upstairs in my house about to go to bed when I heard someone trying to get in my kitchen door. I went downstairs and entered the kitchen just as the would-be robber broke the window next to the door, reached in, and unlocked the deadbolt. When he opened the door, he saw me in my underwear pointing a shotgun at him, and took off running. I didn't give chase, just called 911 and filed a report.

In this scenario, I am glad that I had my shotgun, as the only thing I had to replace was the broken window.

What would have happened if you had just shot him?

Im British we dont have guns btw so i know little about this sort of thing.

[lerxstcat]

The Constitution is also just a collection of opinions.

But the gun in my hand, that I would shoot you with if you tried to take it, is very tangible and real.

If you disregard the Constitution, you disregard all the laws of humankind. If you repudiate that, then we are back to the law of might makes right. In that case my right to own guns rests on my stopping by force anyone who tries to interfere with that right.

If you want to repudiate all laws, and you also don't want to have a gun, then you are not adapted to survive in the resulting environment. Darwinian selection will take your genes out of the pool in that case.

[lerxstcat]

Asix: "What would have happened if you had just shot him?"

Depends on where in the country he lives, but in most parts of the country he would have to let the burglar completely enter his home, then if he shot him and he fell completely inside the home, and facing the homeowner, the homeowner would be justified in shooting him.

If he fell outside the doorway in the yard, or if he had turned to run, then the homeowner might be charged with a crime for shooting him, depending on the police investigation and the recommendations that came out of that.

The state of Texas gives the homeowner a lot more leeway, as a man was recently exonerated for killing 2 burglars who had broken into his NEIGHBOR's house. They were in his own yard when he killed them though; and he also shot them in the back as they turned to flee.

If you shot him in New York City, Washington, D.C., or Baltimore, MD, which have strict gun control laws, you would probably be prosecuted for even having the gun.

The prevailing opinion on shooting a burglar is that you are better off legally in killing them than in just shooting to incapacitate; however, if you already HAVE incapacitated them and then finish them off, that will be considered excessive and you would probably be tried for homicide in some degree. So the idea is to shoot for the head or the heart in the first place.