Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination

13468923

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Also, I'll point out that the law can be a useful argument as to why we can or cannot do things.

    For instance, if you asked why we shouldn't continue to not recognize gay marriage, I'd say because it makes us horrible bigoted people.

    If you asked why we can't fail to recognize gay marriages, I'd say it's because of the Equal Protection and Establishment clauses in the US Constitution.

    As long as a law is not unjust, there's no real reason it can't be used as part of an argument on a policy...especially when talking about the Constitution, which is a bit more difficult to change than just "write your Congressman."


    Anyway, what it really boiled down to is that cars are not analogous to guns. Like, at all. However, I don't think that we shouldn't necessarily enact some sort of licensing or mandatory education for their ownership (and particularly for their carry). I'm just saying that such licenses should not be arbitrarily or summarily denied, and cannot be prohibitively expensive. Which are two tactics that are already in common use in some cases.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Is it just me or is this thread much ado about nothing? Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC. It explicitly doesn't prevent gun control less severe than prohibition.

    From what I can tell I'm in support of the decision. But man is Peeking setting off my retard alarm. Obama explicitly said he thinks that 2nd Amendment rights are by the individual, which should not be fundamentally at odds with 2nd Amendment proponents.

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    They've lost their argument that the interpretation is collective. The only thing to fall back on now is should be. Game over.
    Yes, it's a shame we don't have any precedents for other individual rights being regulated, huh?

    This. It's illegal scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater despite the First Amendment. So now that this is on the books what are technically classified as "arms"? Because you sure as hell can't acquire mortars, armor piercing rounds, stinger missiles, or drum-fed grenade launchers (or any weapon that would actually be effective against a modern army) legally, does that abridge the Second Amendment now? Where do they go from here with regards to classifications and restrictions?

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    Is it just me or is this thread much ado about nothing? Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC. It explicitly doesn't prevent gun control less severe than prohibition.

    From what I can tell I'm in support of the decision. But man is Peeking setting off my retard alarm. Obama explicitly said he thinks that 2nd Amendment rights are by the individual, which should not be fundamentally at odds with 2nd Amendment proponents.

    He said he wanted to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons, which I think is a pretty aggressive and unreasonable restriction. Stupid head. This ruling will also allow lawsuits to be filed against other cities. You can expect them shortly.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    They've lost their argument that the interpretation is collective. The only thing to fall back on now is should be. Game over.
    Yes, it's a shame we don't have any precedents for other individual rights being regulated, huh?

    This. It's illegal scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater despite the First Amendment. So now that this is on the books what are technically classified as "arms"? Because you sure as hell can't acquire mortars, armor piercing rounds, stinger missiles, or drum-fed grenade launchers (or any weapon that would actually be effective against a modern army) legally, does that abridge the Second Amendment now? Where do they go from here with regards to classifications and restrictions?

    My impression is that the status quo is maintained with regards to that. From what I can tell is the decision is "individuals have the right to guns, and the government can still regulate those rights." I'd have to read the case to nail that down beyond speculation though.
    Savant wrote: »
    Is it just me or is this thread much ado about nothing? Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC. It explicitly doesn't prevent gun control less severe than prohibition.

    From what I can tell I'm in support of the decision. But man is Peeking setting off my retard alarm. Obama explicitly said he thinks that 2nd Amendment rights are by the individual, which should not be fundamentally at odds with 2nd Amendment proponents.

    He said he wanted to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons, which I think is a pretty aggressive and unreasonable restriction. Stupid head. This ruling will also allow lawsuits to be filed against other cities. You can expect them shortly.

    [Citation needed]

    For some reason I'm thinking that the supposed ban on semi-automatic weapons is far more limited than what you are implying, or that he has backed off on it since then. But I'm not seeing a widespread ban on semi-automatic weapons happening anytime soon in America.

  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC.

    Actually, in the last thread about gun control, people argued that clause non-stop. And that's probably the most important thing to come out of this case.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Go to see his political survey on votesmart. It is available to the public. Of course he answered it before his current presidential campaign. So either he did it to pander to Illinois or truly believes it. Both are equally bad in my opinion.

    http://www.votesmart.org/

    Edited the link in for you, Savant. Do people not frequent this site anymore?

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC.

    Actually, in the last thread about gun control, people argued that clause non-stop. And that's probably the most important thing to come out of this case.

    Yes it is important, but unlike Roe v. Wade it doesn't change the status quo. It just provides explicit precedent for it. The militia interpretation didn't have enough legs on its own to do much in our political environment unless the SCOTUS had given support for it, even if the gun opponents desired otherwise.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    They've lost their argument that the interpretation is collective. The only thing to fall back on now is should be. Game over.
    Yes, it's a shame we don't have any precedents for other individual rights being regulated, huh?

    This. It's illegal scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater despite the First Amendment. So now that this is on the books what are technically classified as "arms"? Because you sure as hell can't acquire mortars, armor piercing rounds, stinger missiles, or drum-fed grenade launchers (or any weapon that would actually be effective against a modern army) legally, does that abridge the Second Amendment now? Where do they go from here with regards to classifications and restrictions?

    Well, today's SCOTUS ruling sets a pretty clear roadmap (or clear by 2nd Amendment jurisprudence standards, anyway), since not only does Scalia (of all people) state that individual Constitutional rights aren't beyond restricting, he explicitly states that this ruling doesn't invalidate pretty much any federal gun control law except the DC ban, and also explicitly refuses to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states. He also makes the rather odd claim that the 2nd Amendment right of individual gun ownership is limited to the types of firearms available when the Constitution was adopted.

    So yeah, I doubt this ruling is going to lead to people buying bazookas at the Quik-E-Mart anytime soon.

  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC.

    Actually, in the last thread about gun control, people argued that clause non-stop. And that's probably the most important thing to come out of this case.

    Yes it is important, but unlike Roe v. Wade it doesn't change the status quo. It just provides explicit precedent for it. The militia interpretation didn't have enough legs on its own to do much in our political environment unless the SCOTUS had given support for it, even if the gun opponents desired otherwise.

    It was basically the SC saying "fuck you" to all of the anti-gun people arguing over commas, and militias. It's nothing radical, it's just recognizing that guns are necessary for reasons other than being in a militia.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC.

    Actually, in the last thread about gun control, people argued that clause non-stop. And that's probably the most important thing to come out of this case.

    Yes it is important, but unlike Roe v. Wade it doesn't change the status quo. It just provides explicit precedent for it. The militia interpretation didn't have enough legs on its own to do much in our political environment unless the SCOTUS had given support for it, even if the gun opponents desired otherwise.

    It was basically the SC saying "fuck you" to all of the anti-gun people arguing over commas, and militias. It's nothing radical, it's just recognizing that guns are necessary for reasons other than being in a militia.

    It's not really a fuck you, it's more of a "well fine okay we'll go ahead and interpret this shit we've been avoiding forever, don't yell at us, GOSH"

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    He also makes the rather odd claim that the 2nd Amendment right of individual gun ownership is limited to the types of firearms available when the Constitution was adopted.

    So... people have a right to own muskets and cannons?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I think the intent was more about the derivation from those arms. Not that you specifically had to use that model. This was a point in Miller 70 years ago.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    He also makes the rather odd claim that the 2nd Amendment right of individual gun ownership is limited to the types of firearms available when the Constitution was adopted.

    So... people have a right to own muskets and cannons?
    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    He's actually re-affirming an earlier SCOTUS ruling that allows the federales to ban machine guns and other "dangerous and unusual weapons", but "in common use at the time" struck me as a bit odd.

    Of course, knowing Scalia, when the NRA sues for the right to own a surface-to-air missile, he'll agree with them because that weapon is not dangerous and unusual, unlike, say, a bazooka that shoots venomous toads.

  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    When did I ever say we shouldn't control guns? What's with you people putting words in people's mouths?

    The part where you said the government wants to kill us all. Or something.

    Dogs.jpg
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    What Lawndart said.

    Umaro - I like your avatar.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Sure SCOTUS set it down that 2nd Amendment rights are on an individual basis rather than deriving from the militia clause, which is important. However, that was the de facto interpretation of it beforehand, and is almost surely going to maintain the status quo outside of DC.

    Actually, in the last thread about gun control, people argued that clause non-stop. And that's probably the most important thing to come out of this case.

    Yes it is important, but unlike Roe v. Wade it doesn't change the status quo. It just provides explicit precedent for it. The militia interpretation didn't have enough legs on its own to do much in our political environment unless the SCOTUS had given support for it, even if the gun opponents desired otherwise.

    It was basically the SC saying "fuck you" to all of the anti-gun people arguing over commas, and militias. It's nothing radical, it's just recognizing that guns are necessary for reasons other than being in a militia.

    It's not really a fuck you, it's more of a "well fine okay we'll go ahead and interpret this shit we've been avoiding forever, don't yell at us, GOSH"

    Now I'm picturing Antonin Scalia doing the dance routine from Napoleon Dynamite.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    There's a lot of negative talk about the ability of the American people not being able to overthrow the government should it go batshit insane.

    Stop being so gosh darn pessimistic, the supply lines for extra arms and equipment are already established thanks to the black market which would change to bring in heavier equipment. The guns we have now are just the FOUNDATION of a greater force like in an FPS when you start with a crowbar and pistol but upgrade to the BFG5000. If a Humvee can be taken out with an IED well all of us have the resources in our own homes to make some nasty explosives. Common guerrilla tactics would work well in urban and rural environments, and there are enough armchair generals and Starcraft vets out there to lead us to victory.

    Come on guys, we could DO this! All we need is to stay upbeat and upload anti-government videos onto Youtube and we'd be set! Pffh the entire US military vs. 1/3rd of the American population? Easy as pie.
    Spoiler:

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    We've got 20:1 numbers, at a minimum. That isn't insignificant, especially long term.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I have some classified information on overthrowing the government here. Keep it on the down low.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I noticed people talking about the potential Chicago situation in here earlier. This decision has fuck all to do with the Chicago ban. Since it did not incorporate the 2d amendment (which it couldn't have done as there was no state issues before the court) the 2d amendment still does not apply to state laws. This only prevents the Federal Government from enacting similar laws.

    I really doubt that much of the remainder of the Bill of Rights is going to be incorporated if it hasn't been by now. All thats left is the 2d, 3rd, and parts of the 6th and 7th.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    I now predict that DC will start requiring licenses to own a gun. These licenses will be issued at a rate of 2 a year (SCOTUS has already ruled that this is totally legal).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I now predict that DC will start requiring licenses to own a gun. These licenses will be issued at a rate of 2 a year (SCOTUS has already ruled that this is totally legal).

    Is two really that much more subtle than one?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    I noticed people talking about the potential Chicago situation in here earlier. This decision has fuck all to do with the Chicago ban. Since it did not incorporate the 2d amendment (which it couldn't have done as there was no state issues before the court) the 2d amendment still does not apply to state laws. This only prevents the Federal Government from enacting similar laws.

    I really doubt that much of the remainder of the Bill of Rights is going to be incorporated if it hasn't been by now. All thats left is the 2d, 3rd, and parts of the 6th and 7th.

    ...14th amendment.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    I noticed people talking about the potential Chicago situation in here earlier. This decision has fuck all to do with the Chicago ban. Since it did not incorporate the 2d amendment (which it couldn't have done as there was no state issues before the court) the 2d amendment still does not apply to state laws. This only prevents the Federal Government from enacting similar laws.

    I really doubt that much of the remainder of the Bill of Rights is going to be incorporated if it hasn't been by now. All thats left is the 2d, 3rd, and parts of the 6th and 7th.

    Scalia strongly implied it wouldn't be incorporated if they ever had to rule directly on that issue

  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User
    edited June 2008
    I hope the Chicago ban doesn't get lifted, it's dangerous enough here as it is

    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I now predict that DC will start requiring licenses to own a gun. These licenses will be issued at a rate of 2 a year (SCOTUS has already ruled that this is totally legal).

    Honestly, in the general case (and not this exaggerated hyperbole case of two per year), I don't see what the problem is with requiring a training course and a license to own a gun. I mean, we already do it for concealed carry in almost every state. I wouldn't want someone driving a car if they didn't know which pedal was the brake, or how right-of-way worked, and I don't want someone owning a gun if they don't know good trigger discipline or to use the fucking safety. I'm not talking a stringent marksmanship test here, I'm talking basic shit like the four rules of how to handle a weapon.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »

    ...14th amendment.

    Doesn't strictly incorporate the entirety of the Bill of Rights.


    Medopine: I haven't had time to read through the entire opinion yet, but that doesn't surprise me. Scalia is really put between a rock and a hard place when it comes to states rights vs. stuff he doesn't like (gun control in this case).

    It's kind of sad though that with today's court you aren't trying a case before a panel of nine justices. You're trying it in front of just Justice Kennedy. The other 8 have already made up their minds before it even gets to oral arguments. (Though Scalia can be an exception, he does rule contrary to traditional conservative values especially in 4th amendment cases, see Kyllo.)

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I now predict that DC will start requiring licenses to own a gun. These licenses will be issued at a rate of 2 a year (SCOTUS has already ruled that this is totally legal).

    Honestly, in the general case (and not this exaggerated hyperbole case of two per year), I don't see what the problem is with requiring a training course and a license to own a gun. I mean, we already do it for concealed carry in almost every state. I wouldn't want someone driving a car if they didn't know which pedal was the brake, or how right-of-way worked, and I don't want someone owning a gun if they don't know good trigger discipline or to use the fucking safety. I'm not talking a stringent marksmanship test here, I'm talking basic shit like the four rules of how to handle a weapon.

    How is two per year hyperbole? We've already had examples of zero per year, therefore effectively making licensing a ban.

    I don't think most people would oppose a general license, as long as it was cheap. The problem is the above.

  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Tomorrow morning every single resident of Washington D.C. is going to be dead.

    Mark my words.

    Dogs.jpg
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Tomorrow morning every single resident of Washington D.C. is going to be dead.

    Mark my words.

    No, no, didn't you hear? Tomorrow morning, violent crime in D.C. just stops. Like that.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, you're both technically right; corpses don't commit much crime. :P

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Well, you're both technically right; corpses don't commit much crime. :P

    Unless they're zombies. Or vampires.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    He also makes the rather odd claim that the 2nd Amendment right of individual gun ownership is limited to the types of firearms available when the Constitution was adopted.

    So... people have a right to own muskets and cannons?

    I own both.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Can I own a Ship of the Line?

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, you can own ships, and you can own cannon; logic says yes. :P Unless there's a "you can't have more than X number of cannons, you fucking loon" law somewhere.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I now predict that DC will start requiring licenses to own a gun. These licenses will be issued at a rate of 2 a year (SCOTUS has already ruled that this is totally legal).

    Honestly, in the general case (and not this exaggerated hyperbole case of two per year), I don't see what the problem is with requiring a training course and a license to own a gun. I mean, we already do it for concealed carry in almost every state. I wouldn't want someone driving a car if they didn't know which pedal was the brake, or how right-of-way worked, and I don't want someone owning a gun if they don't know good trigger discipline or to use the fucking safety. I'm not talking a stringent marksmanship test here, I'm talking basic shit like the four rules of how to handle a weapon.

    How is two per year hyperbole? We've already had examples of zero per year, therefore effectively making licensing a ban.

    I don't think most people would oppose a general license, as long as it was cheap. The problem is the above.

    I think you should be a member of a state certified group to have a gun.

    As for the licenses, it's constitutional as long as you don't need to have a gun to get the license, which was decided by SCOTUS when the policy was applied to cannabis.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Cannabis isn't listed in the second amendment. Maybe you could incorporate it as an incendiary? :D

  • Dead LegendDead Legend Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So we all agree that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, correct?

    Now, after wading through ten pages of horseshit on a subject I feel strongly about, I need some answers to some questions.

    What's the big deal about gun control? All it does is control the law-abiding citizens and enforces laws that law-abiding citizens follow. HOLY SHIT! A criminal does not care about the law. If they are thinking about committing a crime, are in the act of committing a crime, or have committed a crime, then they are, in fact, a criminal. What tool they use is irrelevant. Yes, they could use a knife, a firearm, or a fucking dildo. It does not matter. Somewhere, along the way, they decided they were going to do something wrong and they were going to use a tool to make the job more effective.

    Now, as far as gun ownership goes, and how it would work in a perfect world. All law-abiding citizens own firearms, receive their training from all manners of different classes they pay for, and no criminals or mentally unstable own any firearms. Sure, we fill out that 4473 form, and answer those 12 questions truthfully. Some won't. And then that clerk will call it in to the NICS and it takes about ten minutes to clear up. If we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, great, it works! You should have to get a license to own a fucking firearm. In the great United States of America, it is a guaranteed right that you may own a firearm so long as you are not some sort of fucking nut-job criminal. My license to own a firearm was issued 12/15/1791. There should be no other questions about that. I shouldn't have to register my firearms or my ammunition so the government can keep tabs on that. I do it well enough on my own and it is none of their business. Just like it is none of their business how many DVD's, books, magazines, beer cans, or porno's that I own. You may say it's different, I believe otherwise. No criminal intent here, but if you can feel that bile rise up in your throat over, say, the Fed's listening in on people without warrants, then what's the difference?

    CHL. The Concealed Handgun License. A great concept, a beautiful system, and even better, encourages responsible gun ownership, training, handling, and more importantly, provides to the overall security of those that receive theirs! I know, it's amazing. Something that let's a citizen carry a firearm, concealed, adds to the security of everybody else, as a whole? Balderdash, you say. The intent of the course, is to stress that, using firearms is a last resort defense method. It is not about pulling your gun out over some asshole taking your parking spot. But let's say you take that asshole's parking spot, and for whatever reason, he flips out. You weigh 110 pounds wet, top off at about 5'5", and you have some enraged dillhole about 6'5", 270 pounds banging on your vehicle trying to drag you out. Are you going to reason with him? Should you? Do you believe that people have a right to be assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered simply because they lack the body type, training, etc, to fight off an assailant without a handgun? I hope not. The CHL pretty much guarantees that you must be a law-abiding citizen, because you're treated to sending your application off to your state department and they send it off to the FBI for several weeks of background checks and review. And what criminal would go through the trouble of legally applying for a license to carry a firearm, instead of just breaking the fucking law like they tend to do, and carry it without the license, concealed or unconcealed?

    Waiting periods aren't much good, sure, they can be used to deter a crime of passion! That's only if they don't already own a gun or aren't resolved to beat somebody's head in with a ball peen hammer! The majority of people that don't want you to own handguns live in their own special world, have an army of heavily armed bodyguards who get to carry handguns, and really don't care for the common folk. By trying to take guns out of the hands of the citizenry, it's like saying "We support rapists, robbers, murderers, abusers, kidnappers, etc." Having the means to defend yourself shouldn't be illegal. Leveling the field because that bad guy you're up against outweighs you by a deuce and a half and he has a knife. But he doesn't know you have that Smith and Wesson Model 642 in your pocket/purse. He will though, soon enough. If somebody breaks into my home, for whatever nefarious reasons, the first thing I'm doing is loading my shotgun. At the same time, I'm on the phone with the police. After that, I play it by ear. I have done my part by reporting the crime. I will do whatever necessary to defend family/life/and least of all property. Police response time varies. There are a number of reasons. Best thing you can do is be self-sufficient. Not to mention, a good portion of crimes are deterred because criminals believe their victim to be armed. Even more crimes are deterred with the firearm being drawn and not fired. This would take considerable restraint. However, the way some laws are written, you would be arrested for brandishing a firearm. Ridiculous.

    You say that you can't understand the Americans' point of view regarding firearms. Neither can I. I've been hunting since I was 5, and enjoy target shooting. I enjoy cleaning my firearms. It's a great way to spend the day, where otherwise it would be spent on the computer getting worked up over what some prick says online. I don't know where the attraction is. Well, I do, but if you don't understand it already, you really wouldn't until you went and enjoyed a day of shooting at the range.

    The problem does not lie with firearms. We can make all the laws and require people jump through hoops of fire to acquire those firearms. Those that intend to do wrong will do it with whatever tool makes it easier. They will not go through the trouble of getting that firearm legally. Why should they? They're already criminals and have intent to break the law. The real problem is what is wrong with our society. If we could fix the problems we have with our society, maybe all these violent deaths wouldn't be a big concern. But people have been killing each other for thousands of fucking years, don't expect anything to change suddenly. The criminals in DC already have firearms, the citizens should have them to defend themselves. The more capable a person is at defending themself or their family, the less likely they will ever be a statistic or a victim.

    Feel free to nitpick this post to death and argue with me about it. I don't think we would make any headway if you don't see merit in some of my points. Then again I'm half-delirious from lack of sleep, so I'm surprised if any of it makes for coherent reading. I'm more than willing to discuss these though.

    If you were being troubled by somebody with ill-meaning, whatever it may be, and you weren't armed, and all your pleading and cooperation, and things weren't going the way you thought it would, and I had happened to be witnessing this or passing by, you can be damned sure I'd help your sorry ass out. Armed or not. Just because it would be wrong to go about my business and do nothing.

    diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Just to be clear, the ban doesn't actually subside until they go through the appeals court, and the minimum for that is 21 days, apparently.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
13468923
Sign In or Register to comment.