Shoot em if ya got em

[iSDK]

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=ApEvZxSqC_M0JHgDrr9uYHCs0NUE

[TrueVCU]

And so, the supreme court ensured that this would be the best 4th of july EVER!

[masonite]

How sad that modern society is restrained by archaic and irrelevant laws.

[JasonXe]

my brain is fried so I can't understand this. I'm going to go to bed and hopefully I can comprend this tomorrow.

[Bryan]

If I buy a weapon for home defense, I'm not gonna disassemble the goddamned thing. Trigger locks are a good idea, though. I don't really need one because kids don't come to my place.. but it's a good thing overall.

Legally mandated? Well, I don't know about that.

How sad that modern society is restrained by archaic and irrelevant laws.

Restrained from what? And how is the Bill of Rights irrelevant? Are you suggesting that we can pick and choose parts to follow?

I see your point, though. That's what our government does with the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth. The First being ignored by Neo-Cons in the interest of winning over the Christian Right. The Fourth being violated daily by The Patriot Act and an overzealous executive branch, and the Fifth and Sixth being demonstrated as somewhat "archaic" and "irrelevant" by our government's actions toward "terrorists" they take into custody. And God knows when else. We aren't privvy to that information, I suppose.

Fuck it. Why not? Let's get rid of that Second one, too. So then when the People have decided to do something about it, the government will have all the power.

Sounds great, dude.

[D3adcell]

What is with the quote at the bottom? If i lived in a shitty neighborhood with a lot of crime I would damn sure have a loaded gun to keep safe.

I think that what they should do is teach people to not be criminals. If they break into someones house and get shot and killed in the process, it's their own fault. Should have known better.

[TheGreenElf]

This should probably be World Affairs as it's going to bring up touchy Ammendment rights/etc. But if you ask me this was stupid. Not because people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, but because nine times out of ten the only reason the said person should need to defend themselves is due to somebody else's 2nd Ammendment "rights".

[Viper]

This should probably be World Affairs as it's going to bring up touchy Ammendment rights/etc. But if you ask me this was stupid. Not because people shouldn't be able to defend themselves, but because nine times out of ten the only reason the said person should need to defend themselves is due to somebody else's 2nd Ammendment "rights".

Will be getting moved.


However, that last bit is incorrect. You think 9 out of 10 criminals acquired their handgun legally?

[Bryan]

No. In fact, and correct me if I'm mistaken here Jimmy.. But I believe the figure was something outlandishly ridiculous like 98%. Ninety-eight percent of these gun crimes aren't even committed with a legal weapon. Look it up in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports if you don't believe me.

Laws will only keep honest people honest.

[Viper]

Sounds about right, B. Very, very few and it's usually a domestic violence issue, not your run of the mill weapons assault.

I've been a part of both ends of the spectrum, ran with the wrong crowd and have taken Criminal Justice courses. You're a moron committing a crime with a legally purchased handgun. A 10th degree retard.

[Bryan]

Besides, people who go through the motions and the bullshit to purchase a firearm legally wouldn't commit a crime with it in the first place. They could have bought a Glock off of Romero the Fence for $150.

I'd imagine that the biggest "gun crime" that legal owners commit are transportation issues. The police are very particular about that, and it's really easy to break the law in that sense without trying too hard.

But as far as actual violent crime is concerned.. look somewhere else.

[Mach]

That's the problem with neo-cons and liberal Democrats. Both sides work feverishly to totally ignore their most hated aspects of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Problem is, its the rule of law and they fail to understand that if you eliminate one right, the entire Constitution implodes in on itself. Government is no longer bound by the necessary chains needed to prevent tyranny.

Oops, that kinda already happened starting with Woodrow.

[TheGreenElf]

Will be getting moved.


However, that last bit is incorrect. You think 9 out of 10 criminals acquired their handgun legally?

No, but seriously, I can understand handguns and don't mind them as much...my problem lies elsewhere...

99% of killings aren't random either, they are related with other crimes, drugs, and money. Therefore opening the floor to guns include things like assault rifles, and no amount of Constitutional BS can justify them. I don't care about handguns kept safely in the house for your own protection, but from my understanding that was already legal and this is legalizing them in public where the chances of actually needing one are slim and none.

[D3adcell]

No, but seriously, I can understand handguns and don't mind them as much...my problem lies elsewhere...

But 99% of killings aren't random either, they are related with other crimes, drugs, and money. Therefore opening the floor to guns include things like assault rifles, and no amount of Constitutional BS can justify them. I don't care about handguns kept safely in the house for your own protection, but from my understanding that was already legal and this is legalizing them in public where the chances of actually needing one are slim and none.

They are already legal in public as long as you have a license to carry said weapon. Most people aren't going to carry guns in public though.

[Viper]

No, but seriously, I can understand handguns and don't mind them as much...my problem lies elsewhere...

99% of killings aren't random either, they are related with other crimes, drugs, and money. Therefore opening the floor to guns include things like assault rifles, and no amount of Constitutional BS can justify them. I don't care about handguns kept safely in the house for your own protection, but from my understanding that was already legal and this is legalizing them in public where the chances of actually needing one are slim and none.

If you close the gate on gun ownership, you open the flood gates on illegal guns.

If you think we have an illegal gun problem now, just wait. China and Russia are begging us to outlaw guns. They'd have so many crates of illegal weapons hit our shores in 24 hours, it'd blow your mind.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

It'd be prohibition all over again.

[Mach]

How do you think Switzerland remained neutral and untouched by Hitler during WWII? One main reason was that they allowed their citizens to have open carry of fire-arms and still do to this day.

Oh, and if money and drug problems are causing gun-related crimes, you don't strip away more of the Constitution to fix it. The answer lies in following more of the Constitution. If we had a gold and silver-based currency, money wouldn't be so tight. Lot more prosperity to go around after a few decades of this system. Also, the Constitution doesn't allow for a federal War on Drugs, which has only incited the drug crimes we have today.

And yes, the reason we have the 2nd amendment is for hunting season....
on tyrants and despots.

[TheGreenElf]

^Did you even read my post or are you avoiding answering what I asked? My problem lies with the assault rifles...give me a good reason to allow them?

[Mach]

on tyrants and despots.

[TheGreenElf]

Oh...you were serious about that line?
Haha...

[Mach]

Haha, so you think the founders were not serious?

You think these men of letters and enlightenment philosophers were some how foolish or ignorant for believing this?

Or maybe, you just have too much fluffy hope in human nature propped up by vestiges of power... Gotta have that ChangeTM.

[TheGreenElf]

Different times, Mach, different times. What they said was entirely justifiable and a valid concern at the time and I truly believe that. However, eople today aren't just going to grab their shotgun today because they think we are under the rule of a tyrant, otherwise, Bush probably wouldn't be alive. Although I wouldn't call him a tyrant many people are quite convinced otherwise. Much of the constitution could use some retooling as it's just not practical anymore such as what we've discussed in the last few posts.

[masonite]

a·mend·ment (ə-měnd'mənt)
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion




It still fail to see how People defend a section of the constitution because "its the constitution", when the part they're defending was an amendment in the first place. If changes were never made, there'd be no right to firearms, and no right for african americans or women to vote, amongst other things. Whenever other amendments have been made no-one has ever complained about how "its the constitution", so why the sudden complaints now?

[Mach]

Different times, Mach, different times. What they said was entirely justifiable and a valid concern at the time and I truly believe that. However, eople today aren't just going to grab their shotgun today because they think we are under the rule of a tyrant, otherwise, Bush probably wouldn't be alive. Although I wouldn't call him a tyrant many people are quite convinced otherwise. Much of the constitution could use some retooling as it's just not practical anymore such as what we've discussed in the last few posts.

The Constitution cannot be scrapped for convenience. It is the government. We are a Constitutional republic. If you want to change anything in it, you must go through the constitutional process of amending it. Want to remove the total right to keep and bare arms? Get your representatives to craft an amendment nullifying it. Otherwise, any infringement on the protections guaranteed in the Constitution is illegal.

The founders didn't create the Constitution with just shorthand issues in mind. They created it to be a timeless law base for citizens countless generations to come.
"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in
man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson
"This Constitution, ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." - Article VI of US Constitution

The reason why the 2nd amendment guarantees the lawful carry of any weapon necessary to effectively repel governmental assault is because the founders understood human nature. They realized that just as quickly a nation was freed it could also be enslaved by a power-hungry executive that went too far. Hell, the colonists rebelled over issues such as excessive taxation. If we have a president in the near future that continues to abuse the Constitution further, seize private property, totally destroy privacy, imprison people for dissenting against war, and deeming anti-war voices as "enemies" (similar actions have happened before under Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, etc), than the American people have a right to abide by the Declaration of Independence's mandate:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

[Bryan]

a·mend·ment (ə-měnd'mənt)
a change made by correction, addition, or deletion




It still fail to see how People defend a section of the constitution because "its the constitution", when the part they're defending was an amendment in the first place. If changes were never made, there'd be no right to firearms, and no right for african americans or women to vote, amongst other things. Whenever other amendments have been made no-one has ever complained about how "its the constitution", so why the sudden complaints now?

I wasn't alive to complain.

[TheGreenElf]

If we have a president in the near future that continues to abuse the Constitution further, seize private property, totally destroy privacy, imprison people for dissenting against war, and deeming anti-war voices as "enemies" (similar actions have happened before under Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, etc), than the American people have a right to abide by the Declaration of Independence's mandate:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Sure that's what it says but you'd be fooling yourself if you think somebody would be able to defend themselves in court by saying "I assassinated this government official because he abused the constitution and I was simply abiding by the Declaration of Independence." What it says and what it allows are two very different things, unfortunately as every president in the last century has abused the constitution to some extent.

[Viper]

Um, Elf, it's not so much referring to an individuals action to assassinate (which is against the law in its own accord) but to gather as a citizen militia and forcibly unseat the Constitutional threat.

[Bryan]

But everyone wants to pretend that something like that could never be necessary.

[Mach]

That's why you can't reduce the 2nd amendment to allowing just pea shooters. It's got to allow munitions that can effectively be used by a citizens' uprising. Tyranny creeps against virtually all societies in history. We would be totally naive and foolish to believe we are somehow exempt from this specter.

[TheGreenElf]

No, we aren't exempt from tyranny, as I said in my previous post, but we are basically exempt from the right to handle it forcibly.

[Mach]

No, we are not. Not until someone goes through the constitutional process of amending the Constitution to strip the 2nd amendment of its scope.

[Viper]

No, we aren't exempt from tyranny, as I said in my previous post, but we are basically exempt from the right to handle it forcibly.
No we aren't. It's one of the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence.

That would be dumb as hell for them to say, "We could fight for our right but you guys later on can't."

Outlawing them would solidify the entrenchment of any power base.

WE are supposed to have that control that right...the right of change but you aren't changing shit with rocks. It's a sad fact that guns of exceptional deadliness are required but they are in fact THE last option of power we have over our government.

[Bryan]

Exactly.

But that doesn't mean you can shoot a politician with a high-powered rifle, or even with a .380, okay? There's a difference.

[Viper]

As I mentioned above, assassination itself is still illegal but we sure as hell have the right to march into Washington and overthrow our government.

[JasonXe]

As I mentioned above, assassination itself is still illegal but we sure as hell have the right to march into Washington and overthrow our government.

I brought that point up b/c they mention it in John Adams. Hurray I'm not useless and hurray for television!!

Here is text that includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

All I know is that several of my bill of rights have been tamper by this government. Once we let go of one right then we let go our freedom and liberty.

Post 2,300 as in the movie 300!! Fits perfectly...

[Viper]

It's basically chapter 1 of the DoI. The right to abolish our government is more a fundamental right than the entire Constitution itself.

[JasonXe]

Why can't you let me have my moment to shine? I never get to shine.... *sniffle*

[Viper]

*is letting Jason shine*

[JasonXe]

I feel like Sloth the fire king from ice age 2. Everyone dance!!!

sh1i6tCnJ_A&NR=1

[Bryan]

Exactly.

But that doesn't mean you can shoot a politician with a high-powered rifle, or even with a .380, okay? There's a difference.

I was just trying to reiterate for the weirdos, Snake.

[Viper]

I was just trying to reiterate for the weirdos, Snake.

Consider it triple redundancy. Goodness knows it's needed sometimes.

[jaxmkii]

^Did you even read my post or are you avoiding answering what I asked? My problem lies with the assault rifles...give me a good reason to allow them?

i would rather help my nation repell a invading population (foreign or domestic ) or defend myself from 3-4 home invaders with a SAR or AR-15 with a 30-200 round magazine than some 7 round 9mm getto poper.

than again a nice Mosberg 500 and 00 buck would be nice too.

[jaxmkii]

Different times, Mach, different times. What they said was entirely justifiable and a valid concern at the time and I truly believe that. However, eople today aren't just going to grab their shotgun today because they think we are under the rule of a tyrant, otherwise, Bush probably wouldn't be alive. Although I wouldn't call him a tyrant many people are quite convinced otherwise. Much of the constitution could use some retooling as it's just not practical anymore such as what we've discussed in the last few posts.

if you study world history you would know NOTHING has changed for thousands of years.

we still have empires
we still have kings
we still have lords
we still have subjects
we still have slaves

we just call them buy different names... and as long as the peasants and the samuri own the same type of blades the king will stay fair.

[Viper]

This is why I love this site. Jax and I may be opposite ends of the video game spectrum but we take up the same arms in world affairs.

[jaxmkii]

This is why I love this site. Jax and I may be opposite ends of the video game spectrum but we take up the same arms in world affairs.

EPIC HIGH 5!

[Bryan]

I wanted to buy an M4 this next month, but I have to put $1100 into my truck instead.

Maybe around Christmas..

[jaxmkii]

we have been having alot of home invaders in CT, im thinking short barreled shotgun. or a custom Mosberg.

maybe even a civilised P-90. local gun shop has one for 2100usd.

my boltaction .22 target savage and M1 garand makes for poor close quarters.

[Khaos]

I, for one, am glad that this ruling has done away with unconstitutional violations of rights.

[Black Dragon37]

Haha, so you think the founders were not serious?

You think these men of letters and enlightenment philosophers were some how foolish or ignorant for believing this?

Or maybe, you just have too much fluffy hope in human nature propped up by vestiges of power... Gotta have that ChangeTM.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v365/BlackDragon37/Oh_lawd.jpg

[TheGreenElf]

I still am not convinced our high powered rifles will be used for any good when compared to the amount of evil used, because I don't feel people would really know when to use them if the time came which is my main problem. Not that we need to change the amendment of the constitution because it's so important to do so in our time.

And Jax, some of history changes more than others, but to say it's always the same is not true. If history has shown us anything, it's that history is unreliable.

[Viper]

And Jax, some of history changes more than others, but to say it's always the same is not true. If history has shown us anything, it's that history is unreliable.

He was referring to an overall tone, not the minutia of dates and actions.

[jaxmkii]

I still am not convinced our high powered rifles will be used for any good when compared to the amount of evil used, because I don't feel people would really know when to use them if the time came which is my main problem. Not that we need to change the amendment of the constitution because it's so important to do so in our time.

And Jax, some of history changes more than others, but to say it's always the same is not true. If history has shown us anything, it's that history is unreliable.

If history has shown us anything, it's that... Kings will be kings

[masonite]

i would rather help my nation repell a invading population (foreign or domestic ) or defend myself from 3-4 home invaders with a SAR or AR-15 with a 30-200 round magazine than some 7 round 9mm getto poper.

than again a nice Mosberg 500 and 00 buck would be nice too.

[ninety year old man sitting in a rocking chair voice]
Aaaahhhh yes..... reminds me of the great invading population of ought-three....ten million of 'em, ya hear! But i got 'em all, me an me trusty 30 round assault rifle, yup yup yup...almost as big as the great foreign or domestic invation of nineteen-and-eighty-six, if it wasn't for my eighteen pounds of high explosive, welllll, the whole country coulda been gone over night! yup yup yup, i tells ya, if i didn't have me trusty AR-15 or 200 round whatchafuckinmacallit, we'd all be speakin' french! or German! yup yup yup...
[/ninety year old man sitting in a rocking chair voice]

Unfortunately, i think you'll be polishing your gun right through to the firing chamber by the time someone invades the US... And whats with the "fear of invasion" paranoia anyway? Tell me honestly, do you expect anyone to invade the US overnight? and if someone did decide to invade, nothing is going to stop you from walking down to the local gun shop and saying "i need a gun for the invasion".

If you're that serious about helping your nation repell an invading force, why not join the army? admittedly, they do most of the invading themselves, but you still get your guns...

[Viper]

It's more a domestic issue than foreign. Foreign, we have the best military on Earth and I doubt they'd even get here before we blew them out of the sky/sea.

[Bryan]

The US Army is not an expeditionary force. They occupy.

And if we aren't going to use our guns anyway, what the fuck do you foreigners care? Come take them from me if it bugs you so much. You saw what happened to Iraq, so sit down.