Supreme Court Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban

[Joe_Steeler]

D.C. is just jealous because their neighbor city Baltimore took away the #1 murder ranking. Funny thing is it's so peaceful here in Annapolis just 30 minutes from both cities. I'm no country boy but you can have that big city shat.

I could think of at least one person in Annapolis that you can pop for me.
Then you take the #1 ranking. :ROTF:

[thetroy]

I'm all for the "right to keep and bear arms".
Its not the gun that kills people, its the idiot using/holding the gun.
I don't own my guns for offensive behavior, but to defend and protect I will use the guns if need be. That's the rights that we gun owners should have. I'm glad it turned out like it did, very positive.

They're supposed to be used to defend and protect your country, not your Jacksons!

It's actually kind of absurd that only relatively "weak" weapons are allowed. If we need to be safe from our own government/military turning on us, we should have access to the same kind of weapons as them. Otherwise it's rather silly.

If Dubya decides to declare himself Emperor, what good will our handguns be against the US Army?

As it is, most of our gun owners do NOT own them for the purposes which were in mind when the 2nd amendment was written.

[guitarsjb]

Bengal, I can't really argue that point
but as we both know we ARE in this mess, and yep there is no way out of it now.

G, I haven't really kept track of stuff, but I know these gang bangers that shoot each other here on almost a daily basis, aren't LEGAL gun owners. There are the accident, jealous husbands/wives etc occasionally, but the majority of it, is gang/crime related and ridiculous.

[Bengal]

G,
I too don't have the stats to back up what I'm saying but it seems to me that the majority of gun violence comes from "illegal" uses of firearms. I think the majority of responsible American gun owners are just that, responsible.

But there are some irresponsible gun owners as well. But I bet a majority of stolen firearms come from robberies at gun stores instead of burglary of houses.

I'd like to see more restrictions on them but that's not a popular opinion.

I also agree wholeheartedly with what thetroy said, the second ammendment was put there to protect us from the Government. A handgun is not going to do shit against the military.

[SouthernXer]

They're supposed to be used to defend and protect your country, not your Jacksons!

:ROTF:

Now that's funny! However, here in Texas all we need is a half-assed reason to shoot the bad guy and we will get away with it 99% of the time. I have my CHL. Yes I carry and yes I will shoot anyone that threatens my family, steals my property or breaks into my house.

It doesn't matter how the bad guys get their guns, they have them. What matters is, if said bad guy confronts you with the intent to kill you or your family it is going to be a lot better situation for you if you also have a gun.

While both my wife and I carry handguns, (hers is a Glock 23c and mine is a Sig Sauer P220) our home security system is a Brinks Alarms system backed up by a 12 gauge Benelli M2 with 3 inch magnums.

Bad guy is going to be suprised when he comes through my door.

[Soap]

Bengal, I can't really argue that point
but as we both know we ARE in this mess, and yep there is no way out of it now.

G, I haven't really kept track of stuff, but I know these gang bangers that shoot each other here on almost a daily basis, aren't LEGAL gun owners. There are the accident, jealous husbands/wives etc occasionally, but the majority of it, is gang/crime related and ridiculous.

Your right with a valid view indeed and I agree.

There needs to be a much better way to determine guns in the hands of criminals.
Unfortunately, there's not.
Criminals will always figure out a way to get weapons one way or another.
That will never change because we are dealing with criminal mentality, behavior.
We can change the crime but not the criminal intent on committing a crime.
A mind made up is usually a mind made up and it ends in bad way nearly every time.

Meaning, stiffer hand gun requirements and restriction can potentially decrease possibly hand gun crimes and offenses, but the determined criminal will find a way to get weapons illegally and use them illegally.

Criminals are a necessary evil. You remove them out society? Wow, alot bankers, investors, politicans, businesses, doctors, agencies and etc would not only belly up financially, but their dirty hands would be found out. It would change the economy, social structure, nearly everything in society would be tremendously effected and not necessairly in an good positive way. We live in a society that has been structured to have need and dependency of criminals of all type.

Here's my view about the thugs.
Let them shoot each other.
Meaning they're fight and kill over territory and drug related issue.
Scum killing scum is how I see it and it takes care of itself.

Speaking of young, middle age and elderly adults alike and not the children.
Its the children I have sympathy for in these environments and neighborhoods.

There's a point in ones life regardless of being born into it or not,
(isn't just cause for the behavior), a decision to live like that or get out and away from it and try to live a better life. When the decision is to stay and live in it, then roll the dice because the daily scenario. That's a very high risk and they chose it because one can most certainly get out of it IF they want to, bottomline.

[joelayres]

Both England and Australia experienced large increases in violent crime when they banned guns. Take guns away from citizens and only criminals will have them. I have packed a pistol almost every day of my life since the mid eighties and have fortunately never had to draw it. Others I know have been less fortunate, but at least they are not the ones who were buried.

An armed man is a citizen - an unarmed man is a subject
A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone

[joelayres]

We're having this discussion on the other forum I frequent. It's probably even more conservative than this board.

They insist that the "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, "

part of the amendment means absolutely nothing. In their eyes the amendment simply reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. "

If you are one of those people, I suggest you take some English classes.

Think about it - if guns are banned the people do not have the ability to form a militia.
If guns had been banned in the days of our forefathers, we would still be under British rule.
And - every other amendment to the constitution refers to rights of the individual - why in the world would you think that this is any different. Bottom line - the Supreme Court got it right.

[thetroy]

Think about it - if guns are banned the people do not have the ability to form a militia.
If guns had been banned in the days of our forefathers, we would still be under British rule.
And - every other amendment to the constitution refers to rights of the individual - why in the world would you think that this is any different. Bottom line - the Supreme Court got it right.

My point is that most people are no longer using their guns for that purpose, hence their activity is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment.

[Newc]

"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. "

Which "people" is it referring to - those who are enlisted in the Militia? And who is "the Militia", if not the general populace?

So if they had been illegal from the start we wouldn't be in this mess, right?

Wrong. Somewhere someone would have Grandpa's rifle from The War (pick one) and used it against someone who didn't have one of their own.

Maybe if the first guy to invent the gun had accidentally killed himself with it and caught his notes on fire so no one else ever built one, then yeah, but as long as one person has something, another will want one "to defend against the other guy".

After that, it's the proverbial snowball effect.

Maybe they should take the initiative and do a preemptive strike by banning rocks and sticks, since those have also been used as weapons.
Also anything made of metal, or wood, or plastic, or water (drowning's a popular one), any electrical device, fire, all glass materials, and all gaseous substances other than the nitrogen/oxygen mixture we breath.

[Bengal]

Newc,
I'm not talking about all firearms. As I read it, the ban was for handguns. That's what I was refering to, handguns.

[Bengal]

My point is that most people are no longer using their guns for that purpose, hence their activity is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment.

That is a very interesting take and one I had not thought of.

[Newc]

My point is that most people are no longer using their guns for that purpose, hence their activity is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment.

It doesn't require that everyone serve in the organized Militia, and nowhere does it state that arms may only be used for that purpose.

You cannot change these two facts:
#1 - Criminals will always find a way to get guns
#2 - Non-criminals must be allowed to carry at least as much of a gun as will be used against them in the commission of a crime, to defend themselves to the death, including their property.


Criminals do not have rights. They traded their rights when they became criminals. The law only acknowledges those who abide in its light. You step outside of it, and you are not protected by it. Ergo, anything done to you, being a criminal, is not a crime, since under the law you do not exist. You forfeit all human, legal, and civil rights when you choose a life of crime. If you are injured by your intended victim while committing a crime, you have no legal recourse, and administering medical care to your injuries should be classified as treason, regardless of the Hypocratic Oath.

That should have been written into the Constitution long ago. It should be carved in stone somewhere.

[Bengal]

You know as well as I do Newc that what you wrote is not the case at all. In most states, including Iowa, criminals have the same rights as everyone else.

Iowa is an equal force state. You can only meet an intruder with the same force he is meeting you with. Pretty equal ground, if you ask me.

Now is it enforced? Not really. But it's there.

Hell, my house was just broken into. For a split second I thought about buying a gun but tossed that idea right out the window the next time I spent some time with my boys. Just too damn risky.

[Newc]

Newc,
I'm not talking about all firearms. As I read it, the ban was for handguns. That's what I was refering to, handguns.

The first time someone sawed the barrel off a hunting rifle, it became a handgun.

Handguns serve one purpose only: killing another human being. Period.

Anyone that hunts with a handgun is merely doing so for the technical challenge of it that a rifle does not provide.

That being said, a handgun is the perfect self-defense weapon, because you are more likely to be confronted by a criminal with a handgun than a rifle, and with a knife more than a rifle as well. In that common situation, you need something that is small, lightweight, and that you cannot lose control of: a handgun.