The W
Views: 95777347
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.4.14 0345
The W - Current Events & Politics - SCOTUS upholds gun rights
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 3.91
Pages: 1 2 Next
(137 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Striking down the Chicago ban on handguns, the SCOTUS rules individuals have the right to own a gun for self defense.
Promote this thread!
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
No shock there. Did Scalia once again back pedal on his going as its written which means there is no individual right to own guns or did he "interrupt" this law, but forget about the other 100 cases, he uses the oh so convenient rule with?
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 616 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.31
    Originally posted by lotjx
    No shock there. Did Scalia once again back pedal on his going as its written which means there is no individual right to own guns or did he "interrupt" this law, but forget about the other 100 cases, he uses the oh so convenient rule with?


I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here, but it probably is worth noting that in Heller (sorry no link since this is being written from my BlackBerry) all nine justices, not just Scalia, agreed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. It is also pretty clear that, without seriously torturing some grammar, that the original text and understanding of the Second Amendment were explicitly calling for the right to possess firearms. Anymore, the only people who seriously argue otherwise are hoplophobes or those so wedded to the need for the state to control all aspects of our lives that they are unwilling to actually look at both the text and the contemporary arguments with anything resembling an open mind.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
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.

If you read as is it, it does not refer to the people in the United States having a right to bear arms. Its only through a slight interperation which Scalia is totally against, do we infer that people means the people of the United States of America and not as just the militia. Granted, it has been established that it does mean the people of the United States of America can own guns. I am sure the original intent was for people to own weapons considering the circumstances that the country was in. They need to hunt for food, the threat of an another British Invasion and of course, the fact that it was mostly ordinary folks who helped defend the country with guns. However, I doubt the founding fathers ever that we would get the technology of being able to fire 20 bullets in a matter of seconds or that the crimenal element would seize upon this to create their utter choas. I truly believe, we will never see gun control due to this law and I am sure the NRA is pleased as punch, but please don't cry to me when someone shoots your kid in the street with a gun.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 14 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.51
    Originally posted by bash91
    hoplophobes


I had never heard this word before right now, and, having looked it up, I must say it's one of the most ridiculous things to have entered this tired, never-ending debate. It's no surprise that its coinage is attributed not to someone who studied mental health but rather a member of the military and an "expert" on handguns.

To dismiss gun control advocates as having an irrational fear of weapons is pretty irrational. I think there's a pretty clear and logical reason to not want my neighbor to have assault rifles or concealed handguns. Oh but there's a word for it, so I must be mistaken!


    Anymore, the only people who seriously argue otherwise are hoplophobes or those so wedded to the need for the state to control all aspects of our lives that they are unwilling to actually look at both the text and the contemporary arguments with anything resembling an open mind.


Please. Suffice it to say, I don't think the interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is nearly as universal as you imply it is. But I'm just a close-minded hoplophobe!

I'll be back as soon as I can make up a scientific-sounding word for people with an "irrational infatuation with weapons" and apply it to you. THEN I'll have proven my point and won this argument.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 29.6.10 0934)

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
The vast majority of people who legally own handguns are responsible and safe with them.

Your worries about your neighbor having a weapon is indeed irrational, since if your neighbor really wanted to bring harm to you, there are hundreds of household objects you could be killed with.

I think another aspect of the argument for gun rights is the equal protection clause. If people in Montana can freely own handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc, the people in Chicago should have the same rights.

Not only that, but how many shootings happen in Chicago now? And that's WITH a ban on guns, so it's already apparent that CRIMINALS will use the guns, regardless of the laws, and to not allow a citizen the opportunity to protect himself, or his property is reckless.

Violent crime is 81 percent higher in states that do not have concealed-carry laws than in those that do. Robbery is 105 percent higher and murder is 86 percent higher where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to carry concealed guns. Moreover, the FBI’s annual crime figures for all 3,054 counties over a recent 15-year period show that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crimes.

(edited by StaggerLee on 29.6.10 1040)
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02
From: Champaign, IL

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 49 min.
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    I'll be back as soon as I can make up a scientific-sounding word for people with an "irrational infatuation with weapons" and apply it to you.


I believe the word you're looking for is Hoplophile.

"-phile, -philia, -philiac" mean want/love
"-phobe, -phobia, -phobic" mean fear/hate

Mike Z
-logophile



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    The vast majority of people who legally own handguns are responsible and safe with them.

    Your worries about your neighbor having a weapon is indeed irrational, since if your neighbor really wanted to bring harm to you, there are hundreds of household objects you could be killed with.

    I think another aspect of the argument for gun rights is the equal protection clause. If people in Montana can freely own handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc, the people in Chicago should have the same rights.

    Not only that, but how many shootings happen in Chicago now? And that's WITH a ban on guns, so it's already apparent that CRIMINALS will use the guns, regardless of the laws, and to not allow a citizen the opportunity to protect himself, or his property is reckless.

    Violent crime is 81 percent higher in states that do not have concealed-carry laws than in those that do. Robbery is 105 percent higher and murder is 86 percent higher where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to carry concealed guns. Moreover, the FBI’s annual crime figures for all 3,054 counties over a recent 15-year period show that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crimes.

    (edited by StaggerLee on 29.6.10 1040)

I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but the argument that my neighbor being able to assault me with a screwdriver or kitchen knife is equivalent to being able to blow my brains out from a distance seems a bit flimsy to me. The mere fact that the Second Amendment has to exist at all implies that there is a special nature to firearms that no other form of weapon or other implement possesses.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 14 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.51
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Your worries about your neighbor having a weapon is indeed irrational, since if your neighbor really wanted to bring harm to you, there are hundreds of household objects you could be killed with.


You do not understand what irrational means. An irrational fear is running away from a non-venomous spider the size of a nickle. There are plenty of reasons to support gun control, you just happen to interpret those reasons differently and reach a different conclusion. There is tons of gun-related violence in America - that is a reason. Your nonsense analogy notwithstanding, guns are far more dangerous than any other weapon or potential weapon a person might have in their house - that is a reason. You happen to not worry about these facts, and that's fine*, but that doesn't make people who DO irrational.

I hope you're not one of the many calling for "bipartisanship" and breaking down of the epic political divide in this country right now - because dismissing those who disagree with you as "irrational" regardless of how rational their arguments actually are is pretty dumb. You're basically saying that approximately half the facts relevant to this particular issue - or at least all the facts that don't support your conclusion - don't actually exist.

* - To clarify, by "fine" I actually mean, I'm not going to argue the role of gun laws with you, because neither one of us has anything to say that hasn't been stated and restated a trillion times.



StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
Personally, I do think that it's irrational to think that because a person who lives in close proximity to you owns a firearm, that you are in danger.

The presence of a firearm in the hands (or on the hip, or in the house) of a law abiding citizen is no threat to you whatsoever. It's the criminal action of assaulting somebody else with that weapon, in an unlawful manner that brings the harm.

It's the person who is going to break a law and assault you with a weapon that is the problem, and 99.99999% of that time, it is a criminal, with an unregistered weapon, committing a crime, and not a person who legally owns and registers a handgun.

SPF, the proximity of the assault is what you have a problem with? If a person really wanted to bring harm, he would do so whether it's up close and personal, or at a thousand yards.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
You could not achieve a gun free society in one hundred years if you started making guns illegal today. There are enough guns in America today to last generations if we stopped producing them now. There are enough guns owned by my family that we could potentially give one gun out per household in my family for the 3-4 generations of Zimmermans.

Arguing about guns is dumb. There are going to be guns in America forever, just due to the large number of guns that are already in America. You might as well argue about eliminating roads or cars.

The second ammendment is being interpreted to protect individual gun rights and gun ownership. In our lifetime, there will continue to be individual gun ownership.

I think it is more likely that we would see a constitutional ammendment allowing for gay marriage and explicit gun ownership rights (how's that for a package deal) than the confiscation of all guns by the government.

I continue to have faith in the Supreme court.

(edited by Guru Zim on 29.6.10 1252)



Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
I love the slippery slope for guns if they take the handguns in a city then they'll take every gun everywhere. Zim is right though which makes his argument weak. What needs to be done is more registration like bullets to help police identify the weapons in crime. If we go by the interpenetration it says firearms nothing about the ammunition. And if we took the original meaning of the word People, it would be white men who would own the guns. The reality is that Scalia's reading it as is would invalidate a number of current laws including the current decision. That is why he is one of the worst judges on the court which is my original point. I also doubt we will get anything done with gay marriage or anything with gays since most people view them as second class citizens including the law. We will continue to get more pro-gun decision, so its pointless to debate. I say go back to the Wild West days since that is pretty much with the NRA wants anyone. It would equal more profits for them anyway.

I have zero faith in court who made corporations into living beings as well as the 5-4 decisions which tend to be more political then anything else. Especially when dealing with big business.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.12
    Originally posted by lotjx
    I love the slippery slope for guns if they take the handguns in a city then they'll take every gun everywhere.

If a politician was on a crusade to ban all firearms, would it be easier to get the public used to the idea by banning handguns in the cities, where they can say "Oh, it will stop crime"? Then, after the public has been used to not being 'allowed' something that is in plain English in the Constitution, make a move on other type of firearms. Surely you don't think any politician would be trying to ban absolutely every weapon at once.


Zim is right though which makes his argument weak. What needs to be done is more registration like bullets to help police identify the weapons in crime.

Registering bullets? Because criminals wouldn't STEAL some bullets to use in a shooting spree, or a murder, or an assault, right?
I can buy a box of ammo, and give twenty people ammo from that box. One of them kills somebody but due to 'registering' the bullets, you are going to solve a crime?
That's laughable and not anywhere near practical.


    If we go by the interpenetration it says firearms nothing about the ammunition.

Well, let's not outlaw pot, but lets keep lighters locked away.


    And if we took the original meaning of the word People, it would be white men who would own the guns.

Yeah, until you read 12 spaces down to the "EQUAL PROTECTION" clause, and your theory is blown out of the water.


    I also doubt we will get anything done with gay marriage or anything with gays since most people view them as second class citizens including the law. We will continue to get more pro-gun decision, so its pointless to debate. I say go back to the Wild West days since that is pretty much with the NRA wants anyone. It would equal more profits for them anyway.

Jesus, can you be more silly? Just out of curiosity, how much do you actually KNOW about the NRA, except that they fight for 2nd Amendment rights? You know they are first and foremost about promoting SAFE USE of firearms. Do you REALLY think the NRA, or any person who owns a gun, just wants to walk around town shooting people who give them the evil eye?


    I have zero faith in court who made corporations into living beings as well as the 5-4 decisions which tend to be more political then anything else. Especially when dealing with big business.

On this, we can agree.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.59
Its still a slippery slope argument that if we get rid of a certain weapon in one part of the country that we will get rid of them everywhere. A smart politician in this day and age won't go on a crusade against banning of any type small or large since the NRA would spend a ton of cash trying to get them ousted. Again, its a bad argument that you are making for guns, at one point in time cocaine, marijuana and opium were all legal drugs. Their ousting didn't cause us to lose Aspirin, Penicillin or an number of other drugs that can be bought without a prescription at your local Walmart.

Registering bullets would be no different then registering guns which law aiding citizens should do now anyway. It would at least point the police into a direction as opposed to the scratching of heads when it comes certain crime scenes. It amazes me how gun owners have no desire to help police in their work even in the theory stage of the gun debate. Maybe I shouldn't buy a car, because someone might use it for a get away or kill someone wit it. Its another way to use fear to justify a point.

Once again, you mistake the reasoning behind why I used ammunition in the first place. I used to point how Scalia's "We have to go by the letter of the law" approach which would mean that ammunition is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. It is more of a shot at the fact that Scalia uses certain arguments to justify this rather bad rulings. The NRA's manta of You will get my gun out of my cold dead hands is more Wild West then it is SAFE USE. Also, when the idea of putting safety locks on guns was introduced in the 1990s,, who was the first ones against, the NRA. The NRA does promote SAFE USE to make them look less like the gun crazed maniacs the left portrays them as. The fact they seem to have no compromise room as far as gun control or any logical discussion on why we need more safety in a world where technology in weaponry advances on an almost daily rate makes me weary of them. The fact they showed up at Columbine a week after the massacre and a few other school shootings, as they parade their guns like the a bunch of three year olds with a new toy is disgusting. They are basically saying, "Yeah, guns did this, but don't take them away, because we will kill you too."

I am pro-gun. I think everyone should be entailed to own a gun, but I am not blind to see guns are a problem in this country. My family and friends are gun owners as well and are not crazed maniacs, yet even they agree there needs to be more safety with them. The real problem is that the 2nd Amendment gives everyone free reign to own them and once there is a free market created, there is usually a black market created as well. Until the day, we get DNA type weapons when they can only be used with the registered user. Even if that day happens, I fully expect the NRA to come out in waves saying its unconstitutional and I am sure the Supreme Court will back it by having no choice since the Framers never thought ahead in the technology aspect of the country. They did ok with the liberty stuff and the elastic clause, but lets face it, there is nothing really about science at all in the Constitution and most rulings are made in a very seat of their pants type of way or up to Congress.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Personally, I do think that it's irrational to think that because a person who lives in close proximity to you owns a firearm, that you are in danger.

    The presence of a firearm in the hands (or on the hip, or in the house) of a law abiding citizen is no threat to you whatsoever. It's the criminal action of assaulting somebody else with that weapon, in an unlawful manner that brings the harm.

    It's the person who is going to break a law and assault you with a weapon that is the problem, and 99.99999% of that time, it is a criminal, with an unregistered weapon, committing a crime, and not a person who legally owns and registers a handgun.

    SPF, the proximity of the assault is what you have a problem with? If a person really wanted to bring harm, he would do so whether it's up close and personal, or at a thousand yards.


It isn't just proximity, it is ease. The reason people love guns and use guns to kill people is that it requires very little skill, very little strength, and very little danger to the person who is shooting the gun. Sure there are other distance weapons, but they generally require far more skill or physical dexterity. And again, I have no issue with guns, or the right to their ownership. I'm very much a supporter of the Second Amendment, and as a Chicago resident am looking forward to being able to legally procure and keep a handgun in my home.

I just find the idea that a gun is just like any other weapon, as you implied in your post, to be untenable. If my neighbor really wants to kill me, as was the scenario in the original post, he's going to have a pretty tough go of it with anything other than a gun. A gun though he just flexes a finger and the deed is done. I normally wouldn't argue something so seemingly trivial, but I find it somewhat annoying when the really hard-core gun lovers act as though someone with a hammer is as dangerous as someone with a semi-automatic handgun. That sort of false equivalency leads to fighting against common sense things like background checks or requiring basic firearms training to get an FOID card. And I'm not saying you're arguing those things, but having dealt with enough such people, I know the argument is out there and certainly not a rarely-held viewpoint.

Now if only Illinois would allow concealed carry I'd be a happy guy.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
spf, I agree, every state should have concealed carry permits. Missouri has them, and the training is pretty thorough on safety, the law, and responsible use.

But, to say it takes no skill to kill somebody with a firearm just isn't true. "Flexing a finger" doesn't get it done. How many police shootouts have you heard about where there are ten or fifteen shots fired and nobody gets hit, or they only hit with one shot? It happens all the time.

spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    spf, I agree, every state should have concealed carry permits. Missouri has them, and the training is pretty thorough on safety, the law, and responsible use.

    But, to say it takes no skill to kill somebody with a firearm just isn't true. "Flexing a finger" doesn't get it done. How many police shootouts have you heard about where there are ten or fifteen shots fired and nobody gets hit, or they only hit with one shot? It happens all the time.



No skill is an oversimplification perhaps, but versus the level of skill, effort, and exposure to danger involved in pretty much any other form of weaponry, they are in a class all their on. Along with the fact that they are really the only form of readily available weapon that enables a poor user to cause collateral damage to unintended targets. It's really hard to stab the wrong guy, or to get someone with a crossfire bludgeoning unless you're REALLY missing your mark :)



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128186209&ft=1&f=1057

Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago's streets.

I am not saying that guns should NOT be registered, or that people who own/carry sidearms should not be required to take a safety training course. But, I just don't think saying "they're bad, let's ban them" is anywhere near feasible or logical.
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally...

    I am not saying that guns should NOT be registered, or that people who own/carry sidearms should not be required to take a safety training course. But, I just don't think saying "they're bad, let's ban them" is anywhere near feasible or logical.


Those statistics are terrible. Does it say how many of those 52 people were criminals or average citizens? Does it give details of the shootings; accidental, during a crime, O.K. Corral style gun fight? Just stating that '52 people were shot' really doesn't say anything.



Forget it Josh... it's Cerebustown.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
Unfortunately it didn't break down the statistics.

But, with guns being illegal, I would venture to guess they were all the result of illegal activity.

Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 3.91
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: The oil has stopped. (for now)
Next thread: Federal court overturns FCC Censorship policy
Previous thread: As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief goes to yacht race
(137 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Which of course is my point. You make the claim that "Actually, too many journalists become accessories to crimes" without seemingly knowing how many journalists actually use anonymous sources in the first place.
- messenoir, Judith Miller Jailed (2005)
The W - Current Events & Politics - SCOTUS upholds gun rightsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.175 seconds.