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

145791023

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    There's an appeals court for the SCOTUS?

    My civics education has failed me.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    There's an appeals court for the SCOTUS?

    My civics education has failed me.
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. With this decision, the case essentially will get retried, but with consideration of the Supreme Court hearing. At least, that's what I got from listening to NPR. The part I'm clear on is that nothing will really happen until 3 weeks from now.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Saint JusticeSaint Justice Mercenary Mah-vel Baybee!!!Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dead Legend, I heartily concur with your post. Well said. I'm extremely happy with the SCOTUS's decision, but I'm disappointed that it was only 5-4.

    Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
  • KevinNashKevinNash 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?

    Because there is no amendment saying that the right to drive a car shall not be infringed.

    In other news there is a difference between having a gun in your home and concealed (or not) carry in public places.

    You also don't need a drivers license to drive a car on your own property.

  • JohnDoeJohnDoe Registered User
    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.

    We shouldn't have laws. Criminals would just break them anyway!

  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Holy shit! You don't need a license to own a gun in the U.S.!? Doesn't ANYONE think that doesn't make sense at all?

  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Honk wrote: »
    Holy shit! You don't need a license to own a gun in the U.S.!? Doesn't ANYONE think that doesn't make sense at all?

    I don't need a license to drive a car on my private property, just like I don't need a license to fire a gun on my private property.

    I need a license to operate a car on public property, just like I need a license to carry a gun on public property.

    I know, it's an amazing concept.

    919UOwT.png
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    JohnDoe wrote: »
    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.

    We shouldn't have laws. Criminals would just break them anyway!
    As much as gun control laws are indeed of uncertain usefulness in actually reducing crime, this is the silliest argument that is frequently used in this discussion. Does any law have any theoretical effectiveness based on this criteria? After all, criminals won't care! Why bother having a law against breakng into someone's home? I was robbed last year and the criminals didn't even care about the law. Obviously, it's ineffective.

    Now, you could argue that the reason strict regulation would be ineffective is because significant illegal channels exist and anyone with even a moderate criminal connection would find getting a gun easy unless you imposed absolutely draconian controls, that would make some sense.

  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Honk wrote: »
    Holy shit! You don't need a license to own a gun in the U.S.!? Doesn't ANYONE think that doesn't make sense at all?

    I believe that is controlled at the state level. Some state's require you to have licenses while others don't. Mine doesn't, and Kansas isn't exactly the hotspot of gun violence. Kansas City Missouri is, though, and I can give you a couple of reasons why that is. Point is, there are a ton of reasons that influence gun violence, and having control on a state level makes more sense than the Federal level because what's good for some isn't necessarily good for all.

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

    Mark my words.

    Right, because its so hard to get a handgun there already.
    Silly hippie.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    pure awesome

    I would have just limed your post but I think that this is proper etiquette. This is essentially everything I would want to say on the subject. Thank you.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't get shot at once this morning on my way to work, obviously the hordes of newly-armed civilians are keeping me safe.

    Also, the mayor and police chief of DC are interpreting this to say that people can now have handguns in their homes - and that's pretty much it. So how much does this really change things?

    EDIT: In response to the below: Yeah, I knew you couldn't have handguns in your home. Basically I was trying to say what you did - that this isn't the huge deal everything is making it out to be.

    steam_sig.png
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    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.

    I didn't get shot at once this morning on my way to work, obviously the hordes of newly-armed civilians are keeping me safe.

    Also, the mayor and police chief of DC are interpreting this to say that people can now have handguns in their homes - and that's pretty much it. So how much does this really change things?

    Previously, you weren't allowed to have a handgun in your home (unless you had a special permit andit was unloaded and locked/disassembled at all times).

    This is neither the end of the world nor the huge victory that either side keeps spinning it into.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I think securing any civil liberty in this day and age of intrusive government qualifies as a huge victory. Or should we just elect Bush to a third term?

  • SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Dead Legend:

    While I don't advocate a complete ban on ownership, I'm going to go ahead and disagree completely on CCW permits.

    I live in a major metropolitan area and can with a modicum of awareness avoid any potential issues by being aware of my surroundings and not venturing into areas that I would deem unsafe. This is a fairly reasonable guarantee of my not being around people armed with weapons outside of police officers. However if every law abiding citizen has CCW permits that changes.

    Remember that every criminal starts out at least at one time or another as a law abiding citizen. What does it take to send a normal law abiding person over the edge? Not much nowadays. Whether you're in the mall and some clerk refuses to take a return and the redneck flips out and starts throwing shit (I've seen it); Road Rage incidents; drunks in a bar threatening to kill someone if they had the chance. Now what happens when you give them weapons with which to enact their rage upon others? Since previously they were completely law abiding citizens they would be eligible for CCW's if you had your way right? I personally would feel unsafe wherever I went knowing that for whatever reason the standing next to me could flip out and unload a clip.

    As to my knowledge all the recent school/mall/church shootings have been with legally owned and obtained firearms right? You said that the insane shouldn't get weapons, but how do we know that they are insane? It seems like you would oppose state mandated psych evaluations, but then how do we know they are insane or could be without it?

    Now I'm not advocating psych evaluations, in fact the opposite. Gun control works by reducing the amount of weapons out there. Even if in completely legal and safe hands (for the moment) the more that are out there, the higher the chance that someone close to the tipping point gets their hands on one too.

    And I've already thought of your counter-argument, ya ya ya but if we had CCW's people could just whip out their glocks and deal with someone who went psycho. But do we really want bloody shootouts all the damn time? Would kinda go back to the wild west days.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think securing any civil liberty in this day and age of intrusive government qualifies as a huge victory. Or should we just elect Bush to a third term?

    I didn't say it wasn't a good thing, I just said that it wasn't the huge victory that it was being touted as. It said nothing about non-Federal laws, for instance.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Thank Christ.

    Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

    Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/



    This is the important thing right here. SCOTUS did not rule gun control unconstitutional, which is what some of the shrieking, hysterical, liberal goons on my other forum have been crying and tearing their clothes about.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    "Liberal" goons are often pretty knee jerk. They don't believe in what they espouse unless it suits their agenda.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso 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.


    This is dumb.

    First off:
    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.
    That makes everyone a criminal.

    And then you spend way too many lines ranting about how gun control is a non-issue because people can be killed with rubber bands and garbage bags. :roll:

    Is anyone even buying that bit of sophism these days?

    "Hay guys, u cun kill som1 with a firecrackers so C4 shuld b suld @ 711 m i rite lolz"

    There's a reason why people get murdered more often with firearms than with purple dildos; One of these things is much more deadly than the other, and shit, it was actually designed for the purpose of killing people! Imagine that.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    KevinNash 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?
    Because there is no amendment saying that the right to drive a car shall not be infringed.

    In other news there is a difference between having a gun in your home and concealed (or not) carry in public places.

    You also don't need a drivers license to drive a car on your own property.
    Yes, but you're not going to drive your car through someone else's house driving it on your own property, either. There is also an amendment protecting your freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, however you still need a permit to hold a protest in most places.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Very long series of many strawmen and NRA cliches.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Ignorance. Ad hominem.

  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So I'm a bit detached from this, being European and considering gun control an obvious reality of life, a bit like air and Doritos, it just exists, but...

    Why is it an issue if gun control is unconstitutional or not? There are constitutional reform protocols, aren't there? It's a matter of taking that decidedly XVIII century anachronistic piece of legislation, dumping it and joining the rest of the western world here in modern times. Why keep going around the fact that it's a barbaric outdated law AND in the Constitution at the same time? It's not a religious text, but a legal one. It's bound to need upgrades every now and then.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Because we think you guys have failed on a massive level and have no intention of marginalizing our own country.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Because we think you guys have failed on a massive level and have no intention of marginalizing our own country.

    1 Euro = 1.5672 U.S. dollars.

    Just for example.

    "Failed on a massive level" isn't really borne out by evidence.

    Not that I support what he's suggesting.

    Anyway, Noel, it's just one of those things that we Americans get worked up about. Kinda like how Germans get pissed off when you talk about putting speed limits on the Autobahn.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I wasn't talking about the economy. But if we were, even in our weakened state from the current administration, we're still larger than a combination of the countries behind us. Temporary exchange rates don't mean much except that I have to worry about moving my money around.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Just so you guys know what you are up against here:
    A) How are you using second-rate in this case?

    I thought this was pretty obvious. Nations that aren't America.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I wasn't talking about the economy. But if we were, even in our weakened state from the current administration, we're still larger than a combination of the countries behind us. Temporary exchange rates don't mean much except that I have to worry about moving my money around.

    This complacent bullshit, this belief that the US is the best motherfucking country in the world and always will be, is what's going to make China the dominant superpower once they get their shit together.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I'm not complacent at all. We are currently the most powerful and need to work to maintain it. That includes not spending a lot of money on stupid social programs and engaging in expensive wars/occupations. It also includes protecting the freedoms of citizens.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm not complacent at all. We are currently the most powerful and need to work to maintain it. That includes not spending a lot of money on stupid social programs and engaging in expensive wars/occupations. It also includes protecting the freedoms of citizens.

    "Stupid social programs"? Why do you think we've got a better median standard of living than China or India? It ain't because of the right to bear arms.

    But this is rapidly going to be the kind of discussion that warrants its own thread.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Not all social programs are stupid. However, the disgusting expenditures of both the Neocons and the entitlement mentality of the Democrats is obviously weakening the nation.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Define "most powerful." China's economy is coming up fast on the US, and nobody is fucking paying attention. There isn't a lot we can do, other than somehow mandating that we won't have a trade deficit with them. Even that would be unlikely to stop it.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100024842/index.htm

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm not complacent at all. We are currently the most powerful and need to work to maintain it. That includes not spending a lot of money on stupid social programs and engaging in expensive wars/occupations. It also includes protecting the freedoms of citizens.

    The majority of serious economic fuckups in this country have been a result of lack of government regulation in business (Enron, Worldcom, Predatory lending, etc) and/or the stupidity of members of the private sector (the .com boom and bust, etc).

    The people in which we began owning economically (Post WWII) came on the heels of a President who ESTABLISHED most of our social programs (FDR), and during the Clinton era our government spent responsibly AND established meaningful social programs.

    Your "1 issue I've voting for the GOP based on gun rights" approach is going to fuck up our country's economic standing, just FYI.

    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
    Militarily, I think it is pretty obvious.

    As far as economy, I think GDP is a pretty common measuring stick.

    Is there any statistic that brings a single nation close to America in terms of economic power?

    Pretty funny you post an article that is in contention from the Chinese as bowing to the American dollar.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Who the hell said I was voting for the GOP?

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Who the hell said I was voting for the GOP?

    Ahh, I now see that you wrote you would "abstain" if not vote for the candidate that had a stronger gun rights platform.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Militarily, I think it is pretty obvious.

    Y'see, the problem with having a military budget equal to every other nation in the world combined is that it's not necessarily sustainable and could cause all sorts of economic problems. I mean, shit, the only country that ever spent close to the same amount of money on their military was the USSR, and look what happened to them. We beat them by playing chicken on the railroad tracks of total economic failure, and hey, we won, great. Why are we still spending as much as we did during the Cold War?

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I never said I supported the current military budget. I was answering his question with respect to two different types of power.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Just so you guys know what you are up against here:
    A) How are you using second-rate in this case?

    I thought this was pretty obvious. Nations that aren't America.



    Thank you, that explains the "brick wall" vibe I was getting.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I never said I supported the current military budget. I was answering his question with respect to two different types of power.

    But there aren't two different types of power: military power stems directly from economic power.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
145791023
Sign In or Register to comment.