Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

1235723

Posts

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.

    I'm not sure what kind of enforcement you're envisioning that would work without the cops stomping all over the 4th amendment.

    Law enforcement absolutely loves to abuse gun control laws in this country in the name of safety to confiscate everything BUT guns. Doing a sweep in the name of safer streets usually yields few guns but turns up plenty of drugs, outstanding warrants and lots of money in fines for infractions unrelated to existing gun laws.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    The ban will be lifted and replaced with something similiar to other cities and probably what DC winds up doing itself. And I doubt it'll change much of anything since most all of the shootings that occur are gang related.

    tea-1.jpg
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    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
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.
    I'm not sure what kind of enforcement you're envisioning that would work without the cops stomping all over the 4th amendment.

    In Heller's case, a local gang leader typically concluded his meetings by firing a gun up in the air from outside the housing project across the street from his residence.

    I envision the kind that, you know, stops that. Sadly, though, there are areas of the city (most notably in Southeast) where the police don't have the resources/drive/whatever you want to call it to actually have much of an impact on that sort of thing.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    I'm betting that its easier to buy a gun in Chicago illegally regardless of any gun laws.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited June 2008
    You know, in a rather funny way, this could end up being a rather Pyrrhic moment for the GOP.

    This is like roe v wade getting reversed, but opposite like. Unless you can convince gun owners that a later court would reverse the decision, then this basically took any scenario in which gun rights are significantly affected by the legislature off the table. Which is a great thing, as far as democrats are concerned.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    You won't be. See: Canada.

    Alright, let's see Canada.
    Spoiler:

    That said, gun control is of course not the only factor at play here, nor is it by itself a sufficient factor to reduce crime. But it certainly helps.


    EDIT: Fixed table.
    EDIT2: To hell with the table. Just look at the damn website.

    Where did it reduce crime? What year did the controls go into effect? I was under the impression that gun restrictions didn't get particularly draconian in Canada until the early 90's, and I'm not seeing much of a drop there (and nothing whatsoever that can't be attributed to other factors).

    See, comparing rates of violent crime between nations is useless, and more than a little stupid. Because there are a billion factors. Correlation is not causation, and you haven't even shown correlation. You've shown that Canada always had lower crime, independent of their gun legislation.

    I've looked at similar graphs for the UK and AUS. You'd be hard-pressed to, shown the graphs of crime rates, identify when gun restrictions went into effect. Because they had no real impact. Crime was lower than the US, and is still lower than the US but about the same as before. Whoopdefuckingdo.


    EDIT: And agreed that this is a net loss for the GOP, and a net gain for gun owners. Win-fucking-win.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Thanks for answering ElJeffe.

    Also I still think this is a pretty large issue to the majority of gun rights advocates. There are some pretty old justices out there and there could be appointments in the coming term.

    Overall though, I do think the GOP will have lost some fervor with regard to criticizing Obama. Which is probably a good thing. They deserve to get whipped for pushing out the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    I'm betting that its easier to buy a gun in Chicago illegally regardless of any gun laws.

    This. I'm pretty sure that plenty of muggers and armed robbers were already using guns. See, making them illegal doesn't make them disappear.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    You could come up with a scenario where the mugger was a law abiding citizen (and therefore following the DC/Chicago firearms laws) right up until the minute he decided to become a mugger, but I suspect you already know that would be a stretch.

    There's no shortage of firearms and firearms are desired by criminals and non-criminals alike. Which one isn't likely to care about firearms laws?

    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
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    I'm betting that its easier to buy a gun in Chicago illegally regardless of any gun laws.

    This. I'm pretty sure that plenty of muggers and armed robbers were already using guns. See, making them illegal doesn't make them disappear.

    Actually they don't so much. Not that they couldn't, of course, but from what I remember violent crime is down and most of it doesn't involve a gun. Those that do are chiefly gang related issues. Most muggers just nock you down, grab what they want, then run. Armed robbery of a store, though, uses guns.

    tea-1.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Actually they don't so much. Not that they couldn't, of course, but from what I remember violent crime is down and most of it doesn't involve a gun. Those that do are chiefly gang related issues. Most muggers just nock you down, grab what they want, then run. Armed robbery of a store, though, uses guns.

    Well, provided Chicago doesn't start issuing concealed carry permits, that's unlikely to change much. Muggers probably don't bother with guns because they'll just increase the sentence if they're caught [EDIT: or make the police quicker to shoot them]. As long as the victims don't have guns, why bother?

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    an_alt wrote: »
    Heartlash wrote: »
    On a seperate note, I wonder if this will have an effect on Chicago crime (assuming the ban is lifted there too). That's one city that I could actually see suffering.

    Remember all the carnage and gunfights over parking disputes that were supposed to happen when CCW went from rare to common? You know, the carnage that didn't occur?

    Most people don't change their minds on the "should I shoot people" issue based on the legality of firearms. The gang members will still shoot each other and Joe Lunchbucket won't shoot anyone.

    Well of course not, but I wonder about smaller changes.

    Muggers using guns, etc.

    I'm betting that its easier to buy a gun in Chicago illegally regardless of any gun laws.

    This. I'm pretty sure that plenty of muggers and armed robbers were already using guns. See, making them illegal doesn't make them disappear.

    Actually they don't so much. Not that they couldn't, of course, but from what I remember violent crime is down and most of it doesn't involve a gun. Those that do are chiefly gang related issues. Most muggers just nock you down, grab what they want, then run. Armed robbery of a store, though, uses guns.

    Indeed, I know the majority of muggings in Boston are either knife or unarmed. But yeah, you guys still make pretty solid points. I wonder how city residents feel though.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Indeed, I know the majority of muggings in Boston are either knife or unarmed. But yeah, you guys still make pretty solid points. I wonder how city residents feel though.

    The ones that don't own guns will whine, the ones that do will be happy or possibly neutral.

    And I've got $5 that says there's no significant change in crime.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'll take that $5 with "slight downward trend"

    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
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Thanks for answering ElJeffe.

    Also I still think this is a pretty large issue to the majority of gun rights advocates. There are some pretty old justices out there and there could be appointments in the coming term.

    It is. But gun rights are about #384 on my list of priorities right now, since it's unlikely they're going anywhere.

    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.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?

    Lovely idea, now get down from the Ivory Tower please. Or better, implement it perfectly in all fifty states, although that's probably impossible.
    The reason for this is that a car is ever so slightly larger than a gun.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?
    Car ownership is not an individual Constitutional right (gun ownership is now officially), and we don't require licensing on private property.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?

    Lovely idea, now get down from the Ivory Tower please. Or better, implement it perfectly in all fifty states, although that's probably impossible.
    The reason for this is that a car is ever so slightly larger than a gun.
    It's also larger than a nuclear warhead.

    So I guess we shouldn't control them, either, right? o_O

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    When did I ever say we shouldn't control guns? What's with you people putting words in people's mouths?

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Car ownership is not an individual Constitutional right (gun ownership is now officially).

    The Bible says it, so it must be true.

    Same argument.

    We're not talking about what the law is. We know what it is. We're talking about what we think it SHOULD be.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?

    Lovely idea, now get down from the Ivory Tower please. Or better, implement it perfectly in all fifty states, although that's probably impossible.
    The reason for this is that a car is ever so slightly larger than a gun.
    It's also larger than a nuclear warhead.

    So I guess we shouldn't control them, either, right? o_O

    I'm saying that it's completely impossible to destroy the black market for firearms without a severe crackdown.
    By severe I mean something along the lines of the military invading major cities and going block by block looking for guns.

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

    My opinions are my own. I am aggressively cynical about gun control and believe that it is a waste of time considering that laws wont change the culture or the demographics which cause gun crime.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?
    Car ownership is not an individual Constitutional right (gun ownership is now officially), and we don't require licensing on private property.
    Good luck trying to buy a car without a license or a shitload of money.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    When did I ever say we shouldn't control guns? What's with you people putting words in people's mouths?

    My opinions are my own. I am aggressively cynical about gun control and believe that it is a waste of time considering that laws wont change the culture or the demographics which cause gun crime.

    I was talking to Thanatos, not you.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Chicago has very good community programs to combat crime. They are one of the cities actually doing something about it instead of hoping that controlling guns of law abiding citizens will stop anything.
    We control cars, why shouldn't we control guns?
    Car ownership is not an individual Constitutional right (gun ownership is now officially), and we don't require licensing on private property.
    Good luck trying to buy a car without a license or a shitload of money.

    Plus it's hard to acidentally kill someone with a car on your property. The statistics for accidental gun deaths I'm willing to bet are much higher.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Good luck trying to buy a car without a license or a shitload of money.

    Claimers go for $300 around here and you can race them the next week. Well, you might be required to have a license to race them depending on track rules, but not for the purchase.

    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
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Good luck trying to buy a car without a license or a shitload of money.

    Claimers go for $300 around here and you can race them the next week. Well, you might be required to have a license to race them depending on track rules, but not for the purchase.

    Yeah, it's not that hard to get somebody to bring an old pickup truck to you to use on your ranch up here...and if it's not leaving your property I'm pretty sure you don't need to register or insure it, nor do you need a license.

    I'm not talking about driving one off a car lot.
    Heartlash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Car ownership is not an individual Constitutional right (gun ownership is now officially).

    The Bible says it, so it must be true.

    Same argument.

    We're not talking about what the law is. We know what it is. We're talking about what we think it SHOULD be.

    Well, given the thread title I thought we were discussing gun control and rights in light of the recent ruling. Made sense to me. Otherwise we've already done the whole "second amendment doesn't guarantee a right and guns are evil and Australia is a crime-free utopia" dance before.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    That's what they think, until the kangaroo army attacks and they are left defenseless. Then they'll see. Oh yes, they'll see.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Also, the Bible comment was fucking retarded anyway. The Bible is a collection of stories that, for the most part, are unverifiable and of questionable origin.

    The Constitution, this ruling, and the law in general are quite verifiable and of pretty reliable origin. I'm not claiming Jesus crawled down off the cross and made the blind see, I'm saying that the Supreme Court just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right.

    Hint: one of these is absolutely and provably true.

    EDIT: And the topic of this thread, to boot.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Well, given the thread title I thought we were discussing gun control and rights in light of the recent ruling.

    Right, but the question you were responding directly to was "...why shouldn't we control guns?" Hence my response.

    EDIT:

    I'm also not comparing the Bible to the Constitution. I'm stating that the argument "Look, it says so right here!" as a response to something questioning the logic of a practice is similar in both cases. The arguments are similar, not the documents.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    They've lost their argument that the interpretation is collective. The only thing to fall back on now is should be. Game over.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, the Bible comment was fucking retarded anyway. The Bible is a collection of stories that, for the most part, are unverifiable and of questionable origin.

    The Constitution, this ruling, and the law in general are quite verifiable and of pretty reliable origin. I'm not claiming Jesus crawled down off the cross and made the blind see, I'm saying that the Supreme Court just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right.

    Hint: one of these is absolutely and provably true.

    EDIT: And the topic of this thread, to boot.
    I think he was pointing out that both are an appeal to authority.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, the Bible comment was fucking retarded anyway. The Bible is a collection of stories that, for the most part, are unverifiable and of questionable origin.

    The Constitution, this ruling, and the law in general are quite verifiable and of pretty reliable origin. I'm not claiming Jesus crawled down off the cross and made the blind see, I'm saying that the Supreme Court just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right.

    Hint: one of these is absolutely and provably true.

    EDIT: And the topic of this thread, to boot.
    I think he was pointing out that both are an appeal to authority.

    Except that in one case it actually is the authority.
    Right, but the question you were responding directly to was "...why shouldn't we control guns?" Hence my response.

    Oh, sorry. I actually believe that a constitutional republic is a spiffy form of government, and that to maintain it the constitution of that republic should be followed. That constitution now says that gun ownership is an individual right, so any restrictions must be viewed in light of that. If that's an issue, amend that constitution. Mainly because even if you hate guns, you probably like some of the other rights in there and would like to see them respected.

    And really, I'm not even saying that guns shouldn't be controlled**. I'm just saying that they are in no way fucking analogous to cars*, which is the first half of his question that you failed to quote.

    * - For the two reasons given, for those with short memories.

    ** - Or, for that matter, can't still legally be controlled.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    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?

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, the Bible comment was fucking retarded anyway. The Bible is a collection of stories that, for the most part, are unverifiable and of questionable origin.

    The Constitution, this ruling, and the law in general are quite verifiable and of pretty reliable origin. I'm not claiming Jesus crawled down off the cross and made the blind see, I'm saying that the Supreme Court just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right.

    Hint: one of these is absolutely and provably true.

    EDIT: And the topic of this thread, to boot.
    I think he was pointing out that both are an appeal to authority.

    Except that in one case it actually is the authority.
    Right, but the question you were responding directly to was "...why shouldn't we control guns?" Hence my response.

    Oh, sorry. I actually believe that a constitutional republic is a spiffy form of government, and that to maintain it the constitution of that republic should be followed. That constitution now says that gun ownership is an individual right, so any restrictions must be viewed in light of that. If that's an issue, amend that constitution. Mainly because even if you hate guns, you probably like some of the other rights in there and would like to see them respected.

    And really, I'm not even saying that guns shouldn't be controlled**. I'm just saying that they are in no way fucking analogous to cars*, which is the first half of his question that you failed to quote.

    * - For the two reasons given, for those with short memories.

    ** - Or, for that matter, can't still legally be controlled.

    Um, I think you're getting confused, because I agree about it being an issue of ammending the constitution. What do you think "What the law SHOULD be" means?

    Also, if the authority of the Consitution were set in stone and impossible to change, why would we ammend it? Context can always show the Constitution to be flawed; it's not a perfect document, so the existance of something written in it doesn't automatically make it right or suited for contemporary legal practice. It should be examined and refined whenever doing so has merit.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
Sign In or Register to comment.