The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination
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
Yes, because trying to control handguns when a state that has abysmal control is an hour away will totally be representative of effective gun control. Now, whether banning handguns is an effective gun control method or not I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't help when there's an easily accessed supply right next door.
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.
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.
The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.
The DC ban was ineffective for lots of reasons that it was pretty powerless to address. Having a fundamentally ineffective law on the books is kinda dumb.
Also, yay SCOTUS.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.
My pet theory is that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment quick on the heels of the American Revolution, and right in the middle of the French Revolution. Revolting against the government was like the cool thing to do, and you have to imagine that they were all for it having just reaped the benefits. So the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to revolt against an oppressive government.
In that case, it should be expanded to allow the private ownership of RPGs, assault rifles, fighter jets, and ICBMs.
Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.
Goddamn I've become a hippie.
How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?
Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
Because Obama keeps bringing it up. ALL THE TIME. It truly is one of his major campaign points.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
I'm going to hazard a wild guess here, and Jeffe can strike me down if I'm wrong.
I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.
OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.
I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.
Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.
Goddamn I've become a hippie.
How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?
Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
When did the President get restricted to only have influence on 1 single issue per term?
Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.
Goddamn I've become a hippie.
How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?
Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.
Obviously we can't take away the military's guns... I meant it as more of a "let's all smoke pot and achieve world peace" statement. Though we should definitely spend a lot less money on that shit.
They are developing all sorts of non-lethal weapons, which is great but doesn't exactly seem to be high-priority.
Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been, since it didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, and made sure to declare that the individual right to own a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is in fact rather limited:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“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.”
Oh, and if you ever want to re-affirm why you shouldn't have gone to law school, try reading the part of Scalia's opinion where he parses, in mind-numbing detail, the exact legal definition of every single word of the 2nd Amendment.
Lawndart on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
/sarcasm
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.
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.
Goddamn I've become a hippie.
Alright, let's see Canada.
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.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The DC ban was ineffective for lots of reasons that it was pretty powerless to address. Having a fundamentally ineffective law on the books is kinda dumb.
Also, yay SCOTUS.
It was pretty much impossible to enforce.
But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.
I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
I own a few, and I agree.
In that case, it should be expanded to allow the private ownership of RPGs, assault rifles, fighter jets, and ICBMs.
Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
Because Obama keeps bringing it up. ALL THE TIME. It truly is one of his major campaign points.
I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.
OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.
The Swiss own more guns per capita than we do...
When did the President get restricted to only have influence on 1 single issue per term?
In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
Obviously we can't take away the military's guns... I meant it as more of a "let's all smoke pot and achieve world peace" statement. Though we should definitely spend a lot less money on that shit.
They are developing all sorts of non-lethal weapons, which is great but doesn't exactly seem to be high-priority.
Spot the irony.
I would, yes.
You might say we... dodged a bullet.
:winky: