What the United States Supreme Court Says

[tessa]

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

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

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

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

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

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

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

Full article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)

[butterflySlave4u]

I own one...it was obtained legally, and is licensed...

by law, i am required to qualify for accuracy at a local police department gun range yearly...i have since, in addition, obtained a CCW (Citizens Concealed Weapons license) that allows me to carry it on my person at all times for my personal protection. I can't run down to the local bank and legally stop a bank robbery in progress (unless the gun is leveled directly at me, in front of witnesses) but i can use it within the confines of my legally defined home, to defend myself or my loved ones against armed intruders....

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

[denuseri]

Me too butterfly me too,, i am a responsible law abiding gun owner,, i inherited three guns from my father and have a pistol for personal protection just in case, heck my whole famiely knows how to keep and bear firearms we couldnt imajine nor stand our government stripping away our common right to defend ourselves if need be.

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

"Fear the government that fears your guns"

[tessa]

I don't own a gun. Don't know if I want to. Conflicted feelings on this for me.

What doesn't cause conflict is the way a gun feels in my hands, the way it almost pulses with life as you pull the trigger, the way you hold on tight after the shot, very aware of the power you have at your fingertips.

Maybe the above lends itself to my conflicted attitude about it all. Still, I can't find it in myself to wish for the disallowing of gun ownership.

One of the few topics I can't seem to level within myself.

[Thorne]

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

Actually, you can pretty much drop the deterrence part of that statement. In most cases, there is precious little the police can (or will) do prior to the actual commission of a crime. And in far too many instances there seems to be evidence that even during the commission of a crime they will wait until after the criminals have left, then make a show of "investigating" the crime.

For sure, I wouldn't want to put my life on the line as the police do, especially for the pitiful pay they generally make. And in many of the cases there are judicial bars to them actually doing anything constructive before the crime. And now it's gotten to the point where, when they do catch a criminal, they have to treat him or her with kid gloves or risk a lawsuit and horrific publicity.

It's just not worth it! People had better be prepared to defend themselves and their own.

[DowntownAmber]

Gun toting subbie here, with all the proper permits papers and accoutrement.

That being said, I firmly believe it should be effin' DIFFICULT to obtain a gun and to keep it. You need to pass tests to drive, same thing for guns. You drive without a liscense or you hurt someone with a vehicle, you lose the priveledge and there are penalties. With guns, doubly so. Holding a firearm of any sort is hold the power to take someone's life in the blink of an eye and there should be the utmost of respect for that.

[butterflySlave4u]

said with humor, but it makes a whole lot of sense...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

[_ID_]

I am conflicted about gun laws. I personally feel that if you want a gun in your home, it should be something with a barrel longer than 8 inches, not be automatic, and that you must have proven your ability to use it by someone licened to say you have. Guns have the same potential to kill as an automobile. Use it wrong it will cause great harm. Use it well, and it will serve you well.

[Virulent]

I am conflicted about gun laws.

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

[fetishdj]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable. It is a fact that the reason why the firearms clause is in the constitution is now obsolete becasue:

a) America has a standing army not a citizen's militia which is perfectly capable of defending its own shores and can recruit as needed.
b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas. If she does let me know of any such plans, I would be sure to let you know :)

However, precedent is the lifeblood of the law and I think there has been a mass of precedent supporting the interpretation of that written law to be any citizen may bear arms regardless of the circumstances.

Maybe you should look to the model in Switzerland where there is no standing army (apart from the Swiss Guard who don't count as they are in the Vatican) and every male between a certain age range is expected to bear arms and train as a soldier in case of invasion but generally keep their guns in the house until needed during war.

The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms. The trouble with gun regulation is that criminals are rarely known for their respect for the law and so ignore it. This leads to an arms race between police/honest citizens and the criminals where the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

This is a tricky loop to get out of as once you have allowed guns you can rarely manage to ban them again - especially when so many consider it part of their constitutional rights. Once Pandora's box is opened it cannot be closed.

An interesting piece of trivia. For many centuries, nobles and gentlemen of England were not only permitted to bear arms but were actually required to do so. A gentleman of the 17th century could not be seen without a blade in public and there were many fashions around that requirement (hence all the various decorative rapiers on display in many museums). It was (I think) Robert Peel (home secretary during part of the Victorian period, founder of the metropolitan police and source of the name Bobbies and Peelers) who brought in legislation to ban weapons. In Leeds Armouries (a museum of weapons and warcraft in Leeds) there was an exhibition on Victorian weapons and there were an awful lot of 'secret weapons' used after the ban was in place - swordsticks originated in this time, there were a lot of small knives and coshes for the lower classes and, the wierdest exhibit, an umbrella gun. A working shotgun hidden inside the shaft of an umbrella. All of these were made because certain criminals needed secret weapons and certain gentlemen bridled at the loss of their right to bear arms.

[stripedangel]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

One must remember that the people were the militia back then, too. Everybody was involved, not just those who "signed up."

Master and i have had and will have guns again. Master and i believe in this right. Sure, regulate it, monitor it, make people wait three days to buy a gun, whatever...

Criminals can go and get guns on the streets, under the radar. They have their militia, in a sense...which makes me, law abiding, gun-toting citizen a part of a militia too...and our shores are protected by the folks in uniform who are spread around the globe, rather than being here to do said protecting.

i gotta say this...i'm too small to fire a rifle or shotgun. The fly right out of my hands and hit the dirt..the deathgrip i have on these guns means nothing, and this creates a danger to anyone who is nearby. i can fire a lil .22 pistol just fine. It woulod do me absolutely no good to have a rifle or shotgun, i must have something with a short barrel.

Train us up and license us and make sure that we are all able to clean, keep, and handle with respect, our very own firearms. Teach us to respect the power and danger that we wield when we hold a gun, but don't make us unable to protect ourselves when the police put us on hold.

...and as Chris Rock says, charge $5000 for each bullet.

[Warbaby1943]

I'm glad the Supreme Court finally got off their asses and got something right for a change.

[MMI]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

[denuseri]

also in the United States, it is implied several times by many of the founding fathers that we the people need and must have the wherewithall and means of changing our government as need be with or by force if nessesary,

our right to own guns is also our right to protect ourselves from tha macications of tyranny in any form including both those foriegn and domestic

a bad guy can get a gun from anywhere in the world,,under the table etc

take away our right to defend ourselves with guns and you place us on the mercy of the criminals and or at the wellfare of the "state"

as far as the usa being invaded by brittian,,LMAO
as far as the consitution no longer being aplicable,, we have ammended it a few times as needed

as far as taking our guns away,,you might as well take our freedom away with it

i say give me freedom or give me death, call me old fashioned lol

thanku for letting me rant,, adjusts my shooting glassess and goes back to blowing holes in paper targets with my pistolas

[rora]

I am also a legal gun toting citizen.

Gun control is using both hands.

Ok, I am out of here. Off to ask my hubby if we can practice today.

[Warbaby1943]

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.Tell that to those countries who have tried your suggestions. Try convincing them that you are right and the statistics kept since guns were outlawed are incorrect.

That is bullshit rhetoric and I'm, glad most people see through it.

[MMI]

Like I said - set back 300 years

[MMI]

Reposted below

[Warbaby1943]

Like I said - set back 300 yearsI'm very happy they didn't agree with you.

[butterflySlave4u]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

[Warbaby1943]

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.

[MMI]

I live in Britain. We abolished the right to have unlicensed guns years and years ago. It was virtually impossible to own a gun unless you were a farmer: and then only a shotgun (to kill foxes and scare crows). We then had a shooting where a lunatic (who belonged to a gun club) killed several school children, and our politicians decided, in the interests of the people's safety, to make it even harder to own or even possess guns. The majority of the population gladly endorsed this

But, there were still illegal guns and gun murders, too. However, our police, even today, walk around unarmed. And many - I dare say, the majority - of our people have never held or seen a gun close up, and likely, they never will. True, we have armed response units, and cetain police are armed now - at airports, for example - but that has little to do with domestic gun crime, more to do with international terrorism.

Even with the growth of gun crime in UK, due mainly to Jamaican drug dealers, our police do not need to carry firearms. "Home grown" felons do not normally use guns - they don't need to - and they regard other miscreants who might use guns as among the lowest of the low lifes they mingle with.

And murders by firearms in UK are confined mainly to the criminal fraternity killing each other in drug wars. Sadly, there have been instances of one or two innocent children being killed by those illegal guns, but there is absolutely no way that the legal possession of firearms by the parents (or anyone else) would have prevented those killings. We, as a nation, think that the accidental killing of children through the misuse of guns is outrageously irresponsible, not a simple hazard of life.

It's not my vision that the bullshit is obscuring.

As for people wanting their guns back, why would they? I bet you got that information from the NRA or the Ku Klux Klan or some othe similar organisation. Anyway, you're utterly wrong!

Apart from a hunting rifle (on which I'll suspend judgement), I can only asssume that, if you own a gun, you contemplate killing someone. Why else would you need one? With so many intending killers roaming free, exercising their right to bear arms, how does that make America a better society?

[Warbaby1943]

As for people wanting their guns back, why would they? I bet you got thoat information from the NRA or the Ku Klux Klan or some othe similar organisation. Anyway, you're utterly wrong on that. I got it from a video by an Englishman and I wish I could put my hands on it now. Not all over there agree with your point of view form what this video says and points out. Actually he was urging Americans to not allow it to happen to them and thank God so far it hasn't.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html 5th paragraph says it well.

http://rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

[MMI]

I agree, not all Britons think guns should be restricted so severely. Likewise, not all Britons think that Bin Laden is an evil man. But most of us do.

Your Englsihman is representative only of himself. But he has the freedom to say whatever he did say, and, here, that freedom doesn't have to be protected by the threat of an armed insurgency by the "people".

[MMI]

So who are Reason and Mr Brown?


You and I face the problem of an ever expanding and intrusive state. Big Government sticks its hands in our pockets, its eyes in our bedrooms, and nose in our checked-baggage.

We have to do more than grit our teeth. We have to fight back.

...

Thank you for helping us hold the torch of liberty aloft.

I think that just about says it all ... if not NRA, then something like it. (Pardon me if my contempt shows.)

Didn't even bother to google Brown: I'm sure the result will be similar.

It would take a long time to rebut the highly selective, prejudiced and out-of-date cant you have referred me to: do you really want me to? Would it make a difference? I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.

But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?

[Thorne]

I got it from a video by an Englishman and I wish I could put my hands on it now. Not all over there agree with your point of view form what this video says and points out. Actually he was urging Americans to not allow it to happen to them and thank God so far it hasn't.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html 5th paragraph says it well.

http://rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html

Very interesting links, WB. Sorry to say I'm not surprised, but it is certainly telling.

It only stands to reason that, when you take away peoples ability to defend themselves, you make them targets for the wolves in their midst. And then you disarm those who are supposed to help protect them? As the article stated, the police now have to fear that the kid on the bicycle might have an automatic weapon. And he would use it, too. Knowing that there's damned little the police could do to stop him!

No, gun control, and turning over our safety to a government committee, are not the way to go. Licensing weapons, restricting certain weapons, mandatory training and testing, these are all doable and things which no reasonable person can protest against. When criminals know that any person they might confront could be armed, and trained to use the weapon, they must think twice about attacking people. Those who don't think, such as drug addicts, deserve whatever fate overtakes them. Better they should be wounded, or even killed, than those law-abiding citizens who are their prey.

[denuseri]

Yes but the rate of violent crimes in brittian committed with knives is getting attention now, you think the anti-gun establishment revisionist government of england will ban all knives soon to stop that???? What about cars,, traffic fatalities still make up more deaths per capita in both nations compared to murders guns or not. Shall we ban cars too? it would save more lives, and before yu call these spurious corelations yu should examin your own.

criminals will use whatever means they have available

its not our fault your government took away your right to own firearms

and if you complacently gave it up on your own well what does that say ......complacency was the downfall of the romans in times past

as for your murder rate,, well lets see are we talking % per population,, cuz if yu mean total murders the U.S. population is substantially larger than that of jolly ole englands

lets see what kind of near police state yu get when brittan reaches 300+million people if yu start banning everything george orwell wont have been that far off the mark is my guess

the vast majority of countries in the world have many issues, governments throughout history have a tendency to try and restrict the freedom of individual citizens in every single government that has ever existed brittian and the usa are no exception

the big difference here is our system of government is one created and chosen by our people for the express purpose of keeping as many of our individual freedoms as possible

We have the right to arm ourselves,

unlike so many unfortunate countries that have allowed thier governments to surpress their natural right to defend themselves

[Thorne]

I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.
Approaching any discussion with a closed mind is counterproductive.


But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?

One point made in, I think, both of those articles was that the crime rates were reported differently in the two nations. Here in the US, apparently, they try to consider every homicide as a murder, regardless of the circumstances, while in the UK, they are much more selective. My understanding of what the articles stated is that, if a person kills another person and then, through legal manipulation, plea-bargains down to a lesser offense, the police apparently reclassify the crime as something other than murder.

Both of these stands make sense to me! In the US the more liberal sections of the government wish to inflate the statistics, trying to terrorize civilians into giving up their freedoms in lieu of some nebulous safety (see everything which has happened here since 9-11). While in the UK they are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."

[Thorne]

criminals will use whatever means they have available


Excellent point! I just saw, within the last day or two, video of a street riot (which started out as a Mardi Gras celebration in, I think, Seattle). The video clearly showed one cowardly hoodlum smashing his skateboard over the head of an unsuspecting victim. And apparently that hoodlum, later that same night, killed someone with the skateboard.

So should we ban skateboards?

[rora]

Well we didn't get to practice shooting today. We got a call from our youngest...can you and dad please come and help? *laffs* Of course we were off to help. Afterwards we went to the store for some groceries. I live in a small Oregon town. I noticed as we were walking around there were several young men dressed in that washed out cammo pants. The light olive green T shirts..nothing on them. All the young men had their heads shaved and last but not least ..everyone of them had a tactical holster strapped to their mid thigh. The holsters were not empty. I looked.

We got up to the check out and I commented. Those young guys were all gone. Where but here could all those guys be walking around the store packing a weapon. Nothing to tell what they were. No writing on the t shirts..nothing, and nobody was the least bit concerned. We walked by them and smiled..they smiled back and we both went on our way. The clerk commented...just think if that was California or New York! *laffs*

We guessed them to be DEA or something like that.

I could also pack openly, but I don't.

Just sharing....

MMI did Britian get knives banned too? I know at one time they were thinking about it.
I had a Dom that was a Brit. He was also totally against guns, so I am not wasting my breath arguing with You. *laffs* I wish You well.

[MMI]

I don't think it's fair to call us revisionist. Why, our supposedly left-wing govenrment, that was elected on a good social democratic platform is more right wing then many Amrican movements. But, yes, knife crime is rising. And we are concerned. But we don't see the answer as being, Let's encourage everyone to carry a big knife so they can slash the face of anyone who they get scared of.

Anyway, knife attacks cause fewer deaths - especially accidental deaths - than do gun attacks.

And, yes, there is pressure to legislate more against knives. My son informs me that my penknife with a 3 inch blade is now automatically classified as an offensive weapon, which, if I carrry it in public could make me vulnerable to a term of imprisonment. I can't vouch for the truth of that, but the sentiment to restict knives that can be used as weapons exists. It is a fact that any knife can be classified as an offensive weapon in particular circumstances, and to carry an offensive weapon in public is a serious offence.

It appears that most kinfe carriers' weapon of choice is a small pointed kitchen knife, and I do know that there is a move to ban the manufacture of kitchen knives with sharp points - they must all have rounded or squared-off ends. Such knives are useless as weapons.

If it's not law yet, it will be.

I agree that criminals will use whatever means is available, and, I would go on to say, criminals will always get guns if they need them. But they won't bother if they don't. As I said, outside the drugs gangs here, criminals with guns are the exception, not the rule. Even in London's gangland, now being overtaken by Turkish gangs, knives are preferred to guns. No-one but the most dehumanised people want to kill when they don't have to. But just because criminals will break the law doesn't mean there should be no laws, does it?

And of course we shouldn't ban skateboards, or cars because they can be used to kill. No more than we should ban pencils, because they can be used to kill too, and God-knows-what-else. The reasaon they shouldn't be banned is because they are made to fulfil a specific and useful purpose: skating, drawing, driving. But guns are made to kill and have no other useful purpose.


its not our fault your government took away your right to own firearms

We're not blaming you, but if it had been your fault, we'd have applauded. We (most of us) are happy that guns are so restricted: we would gladly go along with stronger restictions, so we could enjoy ourselves and our freedoms without fear of armed lunatics or dangerous obsessives taking pot-shots at us. We didn't do it out of complacency, we did it because we realised guns were causing too many innocent deaths. It was positive action, and it works!

So far as the murder rate is concerned, I have quoted no statistics, but I understand most murder rates are quoted in percentage terms or some similar ratio, so it doesn't matter how many people are living in which country.


lets see what kind of near police state yu get when brittan reaches 300+million people if yu start banning everything george orwell wont have been that far off the mark is my guess

George Orwell was a very shrewd if cynical writer. And as Britian is the most watched nation on Earth, with so many CCTV cameras your mind'd boggle, he is already being proved right. We are a nation the size of Kansas - smaller, actually. The area of Great Britain is 81,000 square miles. Its population is about 60 million. That's 742 people per square mile. And we can all get along with each other, more or less.

The USA occupies 3,794,000 square miles and has a population of about 304,000,000. That's 80 people a square mile.

So your point is?

All countries have been subject to oppression by their leaders, and mostly, those oppressions have come at a time when the population was allowed to cary arms. It seems to me that the freedom to own arms makes it easier for revolutionaries and vigilantes to operate. Consider Russia and China as examples of the first. Consider also the American colonies, roused into revolution by seditious lawyers, greedy landowners and smugglers (all of whom were represented in your first Congress). Consider Stalinst Russia, Nazi Germany, modern Serbia and Zimbabwe today as examples of where government vigilantes have benefited form the right to bear arms.

Why was/is it that Russians, Germans, Serbians and Zimbabweans cannot rise up against their governments? Why is it that Americans could not overthrow Geroge Bush if he went bad? Because the government has all the weapons and resources it needs, regardless of how many guns the disorganised population has, to keep the people cowed and under control. Only with outside help is revolution possible, as virtually every succesful revolution that has occurred demonstrates.

Your government was created for reasons of individual greed disguised as noble liberty. Barely a third of colonials wanted the "freedom" to pay more taxes to the Continental government and fewer still wanted to fight for it until the rebels threatened to confiscate their lands and tar-and-feather them if they didn't. As an example of its duplicity, the American government has still not honoured its promise (given two, or three times) to restore land to Loyalists on the pretext that it might encourage some dishonest people to make false claims. They knew who owned the land before. They wanted to keep it for themsleves, just like Mugabwe's freedom fighters wanted white farmers' land in Zimbabwe. They had guns, so they got the land.

The right to bear arms to protect individual freedom is a fatuous self-deception. If you tried to stand up to your government, you'd fail.

As a Briton, I have not lost my right to defend myself. I can even use a gun to do so, if there is one handy. Don't be misled into thinking I can't. I don't have a right to own or carry a gun unless I live at permanent risk of murderous attack. No-one, except politicians and gang-land members do in this country. But I know that it is most unlikely that I will ever need to defend myself against a gun atttack because of our laws.

Thorne: I don't agree that this discussion is couterproductive. If there is one person reading this thread who is pro-guns, and a bigot, then he will realise that there is another point of view; and if he doesn't change his views (I expect to convert no-one) he will understand what our objectins are, and he might see how weak his own position really is, based on out-of-date liberties, paranoia, scare-stories and deliberate misreporting.


The links in Warbaby's post are not telling. They are gross distortions of the truth to promote a particular viewpoint: everyone's out to get the free American pioneer. It's all a load of bollocks - and that's a typical British understatement. Why, if denuseri is right, and you have the government you all want, are you so scared of it? Why do you think it's there to strip you of your hard-won freedoms? Why did you vote it in? Why don't you vote it out?

Your argument about UK statistics being manipulated looks to me very much like the writers are trying to manipulate them back again to something more to their taste. Murder over here is murder. We don't have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder and so on. We just have murder. We have manslaughter too, to cover accidental killings that are somehow culpable - e.g., caused by negligence, but manslaughter statistics are usually coupled with, or appear side-by-side with murder figures. And if not, they are easily obtainable.

Plea bargaining does not happen in this country, and it would be regarded as a criminal offence if it did occur.


... in the UK [the Government] are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

That's something they just don't have to do. If violent crime figures are up, they must get it down again - no question. But we don't want to be armed. That's a liberty we can do without, thank-you very much.


I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

That's not justice. That's not even rough-justice: your being acquitted would be rough-justice. No, to convict the other person of murder because you shot his accomplice is simply perverse! He might not even have been armed! He might just have been the getaway driver. It's this kind of vengeance is mine attitude that gives your country the reputation it has.

Under a fair legal system, if you killed the intruder because you were in reasonable fear that your own life was in danger from him, you would be acquitted. If you killed him, just in case, or, worse, just because he broke in, then you would be convicted of unlawful killing, whether that would be murder or manslaughter would depend on the circumstances - such as, was the intruder armed, and how did you come to be in possession of a gun ...



But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."

That is so much boloney, it doesn't deserve an answer; but if I ignored it, you'd consider you'd scored a home run or something. I concede, in the first place that it's easier to rationalise peaceful freedom as preferable to at best armed neutrality, but probably suspicious hostility is what you really feel. But I don't deny the right to use deadly force (see the paragraph above), and Britons have the right to use deadly force if necessary, as I've already pointed out. I just think that owning a gun contemplates the use of deadly force before the need arises - which means you have the time to contemplate other less lethal courses of action. And it increases the probability - and in USA that's a racing certainty - that innocent people will also be killed - in a school or shopping mall, for example.

How many people who conducted murder campaigns in your schools, malls and colleges had previously had to use their weapons inthe situation you described, Thorne: where the killer's family were themselves at risk of death by an intruder, but were saved by the timely appearance of a gun-toting hero?

[MMI]

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

Great Britain

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

Yes, I am willing to make the promise because I am certain I am right. As for your nocturnal stand-off with a moronic intruder, I doubt the law will evenup the odds. He's awake - you're half asleep. He's expecting trouble, you're not. He's already armed, and gun is ready to use - yours is safely hidden from the kids, with amunition hidden somewhere else for safety reasons (hopefully under lock and key and in a fireproof safe). How much safer are you?

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

My understanding of "Americans" is everyone in America, including lunatics and criminals. That's what I meant by universal.

But I hate guns with a passion and if I'm guilty of misinterpreting the ruling, then so be it. I withdraw nothing

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

That the right to possess firearms is bad law and probably a dangerous one. I'd defend any other right for you. But that one? Never.

[stripedangel]

Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.


Yep, and when you take away the right of the people to defend themselves, you give the criminal the freedom to commit whatever crime he wants, because they cannot take all of the guns off the streets without committing other acts that infringe on our rights. Nope, don't think so.

That whole line is a crock, about crime rates going down, and jeez, especially now when i can go on ebay and buy items directly from Hong Kong, or hell, for that matter, i can build a gun if i want one...or will my right to look at a blueprint (pattern, diagram, dunno what that would be called lol) for a gun become a crime too?

This matter is simply out of line altogether. If the people of the US actually wanted a gun ban, we would have figured out how to amend the Constitution in order to make it so. Some states have been allowing gay marriage...i know if that can be done, and the majority of Americans wanted it done, guns would be banned too. 300 years? OK i'm old fashioned anyway. Guns are traditional, if nothing else, and i like tradition. Guns are how this country was formed. i like knowing that i have the right to own one.

[_ID_]

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Thanks, I don't always state clearly what I mean. I'm conflicted because I also see the enjoyment of sport shooting and competitive shooting with the guns I would choose to have removed.



Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

I think pistols don't have a use in the personal protection department. To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me. I actually don't mind if someone has a gun in public, and a large rifle would look just dam silly carrying it around wally world, whereas a pistol is convenient, as well as can be concealed. Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.




Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

People get automatic weapons for sport shooting, and shooting wildlife. I don't see the point in either with an automatic weapon in either of those situations as being functional. To me they are simply the for the sole purpose of spooging all over the gun range.

When I mentioned the part about someone saying you are qualified to use a gun. I mean that they themselves have met a minimum standard as well. Say expert shot on a target 50 yards down range with whatever classification of weapon you chose to be qualified in, to include zero safety incidents within a 5 year time frame. Something similar to the way we license people to drive cars now (though on second thought, perhaps it should be more stringent as we have some real ass-hats on the road today).

To the other posts ranting about the idiocy of the verdict I think I will just over look them, as they are based on anything but fact, reality or rational thinking.

[MMI]

To the other posts ranting about the idiocy of the verdict I think I will just over look them, as they are based on anything but fact, reality or rational thinking.

If that's aimed at me (I'm the only anti-gun poster here, it seems), I said the verdict was right. The Supreme Courst has clarified the law. And now it is clear, it can be seen to be wrong.

I reject your statement that my arguments ... no my "rants" ... are not based on fact, reality or rational thinking. I have repudiated wrong "facts" put forward by proponents of guns, and I have shown real examples of how gun controls work and are popular.

If it wasn't aimed at me, do I have a new friend somewhere?

[claire]

I refuse to live in fear. So I don't and never will own a gun or allow one in my house.

[denuseri]

Sorry MMI it just allways sounds like instead of debate the issue your trying to bash Americans and our way of life ,, one derogatory post after another, so I tend to get a little deffenceive and based on some of your opinions it looks like its a good thing we here in the United States did rebel and overthrow Brittish tyranny but thats not what this thread is about is it??

In any event I respectfully apologize if I take comments made about my country a little to close to heart.

I am out.

[Virulent]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable.

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.


b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas.

Are you making a joke, or do you actually believe that the implicit right to revolution in American law exclusively refers to revolution against the United Kingdom?


The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms.

Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?


...the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

Guns don't work that way; small-caliber low-quality guns kill far more people than large-caliber high-quality ones. One of the most hilarious examples is the recent onerous restrictions against owning .50 caliber rifles; weapons that have never been used in civilian conflict.

"criminalize guns and only criminals will have them"


To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me.

In the United States, the average distance at which a firefight occurs is 7 feet, according to the FBI. Range and accuracy are functionally irrelevant in civilian situations. What is important is that your weapon have great stopping power, that you be comfortable enough with it that you don't panic, and most importantly, it must be comfortable to carry... if you don't have it with you at all times, it is proportionately less useful.


Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.

Whats wrong with that?


Why, if denuseri is right, and you have the government you all want, are you so scared of it?

I don't know, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Thatcher's U.K. ;)

I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

[Thorne]

I refuse to live in fear. So I don't and never will own a gun or allow one in my house.

I'm with you, to a point. I also do not own a gun, and don't foresee owning one in the future. Though I have to admit, the way this country is going, having a gun in the house sometimes seems more prudent than not.

But that doesn't imply fear, just caution, just like wearing your seat belt when you drive, or having a life insurance policy.

And even though I don't own one, I still support the rights of others to own them, provided they are properly licensed and trained.

[Thorne]

I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!

[Warbaby1943]

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!
God is that a well worded and accurate statement.

[MMI]

I'm sorry you think I'm attacking the American way of life. I'm not. I'm attacking a law which I believe to be so palpably wrong it amazes me so few here can see it. If I have offended the States or Americans in any other way, I apologise and take back whatever I said unreservedly.

Don't withdraw, denuseri.



War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

Anarchistic nonsense. Mugabwe is at war against his people because he has no popular support now that Zimbabweans have withdrawn their approval. George Bush is not at war with his people because he does have power and needs popular support to retain it. He would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole, not because they'd rise up in armed revolution, but because they'd vote him out (ignoring the fact he's near the ned of his term anyway).

[Virulent]

(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out.

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

[Mr.FixIt]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

...or the local pawn shop! But it's still my decision.

[MMI]

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

Yes, I mean it. The US government will not "inevitably" progress into a fascist dictatorship: it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability.

[MMI]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

I missed that until MrFixit pointed it out.

All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, butterfly

[Virulent]

I feel like you're back-pedaling MMI, can you help me understand your rationale? You said: "(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out." then you said "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability".

So I think I misunderstood you originally; you DON'T believe that you can vote out fascism, you instead believe that "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability", right?

So it sounds like you're saying that democratic governments never make it to fascism to me... but I don't think you could possibly mean that, the counter-examples being kind of obvious.

So... what do you mean?

[fetishdj]

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.


And yet there are several amendments which are considered to be immutable by the majority. The right to bear arms is one of them.



Are you making a joke, or do you actually believe that the implicit right to revolution in American law exclusively refers to revolution against the United Kingdom?


I am making a joke.



Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?


No, the problem with making guns illegal is that criminals do not care about the law. The same goes for any registration system - there are always loopholes whereby someone who is determined enough can acquire a firearm, or drugs or anything they want. Though applied effectively any restriction should make things harder for the criminals to do this, just not impossible.



Guns don't work that way; small-caliber low-quality guns kill far more people than large-caliber high-quality ones. One of the most hilarious examples is the recent onerous restrictions against owning .50 caliber rifles; weapons that have never been used in civilian conflict.


Any gun will kill someone, no matter what the calibre. However, automatic weapons will kill more people far quicker. Sniper rifles will kill them at a greater range more accurately, targetting equipment improves (better scopes, more accurate rifling), stopping distances, rate of fire and risk of misfire improve and so on. The basic nature of a firearm has been unchanged for centuries (right back to matchlocks) but the basic model has been extensively refined over the years and is still being refined. Therefore there is always scope for improvements and this leads to an arms race between the police and the criminals.



In the United States, the average distance at which a firefight occurs is 7 feet, according to the FBI. Range and accuracy are functionally irrelevant in civilian situations. What is important is that your weapon have great stopping power, that you be comfortable enough with it that you don't panic, and most importantly, it must be comfortable to carry... if you don't have it with you at all times, it is proportionately less useful.


And as far as I am aware, most people keep their guns in their houses locked away (as regulations on gun use state) for safety and only carry them when they intend to use them.



I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

In a true democracy you should be able to affect government policy on a significant level. However, I do not beleive there is anything in existence in this world today that can be called a true democracy. They all have inherent bias in the system for one group or another. Political apathy is a sign of this - voting levels fall because the electorate do not beleive that they can have an influence, that one vote makes a difference.

My personal belief is that the role of defending the populace is the job of the police force and the army. I am all for guns being allowed for sporting and hunting activities (though not sure about the use of automatic weaponry for this, where is the sport?) and even as a hobby or for professional use (farmers, for example) but I do not see the benefit in an individual owning a gun purely for home defense. I just see a greater risk of accident. Yep, sure, many are disciplined and trained enough to handle one correctly but how many out there are not? All it takes is one person, who may be fully licensed and registered, to go out there and shoot up a shopping mall because they had a nervous breakdown and couldn't take the pressure of modern life or because the pixies told them to do it. Its happened numerous times and many innocent non-criminal people died as a result. With a knife if you go 'postal' you might get one or two people before everyone gets the hell out of your range and calls the police. With a rifle you can kill many people very quickly before anyone even knows you are doing it and the police have a hell of a time stopping you because you can hole up somewhere secure and shoot anyone who tries to get close - at least until you run out of ammo and by then hundreds could be dead.

However, I also know that Pandora's box is open. It would be better if guns never existed (then we may be having this conversation about trebuchets or crossbows :) ). It would be better if nuclear weapons never existed. Hell, it would be better if human beings had descended from the nice, quiet monkeys who didn't get their kicks out of clubbing other monkeys to death with rocks and eating their children. However, if we had chances are we wouldn't be sitting here now. We'd still be in the wild wondering why those other monkeys are so mean to us. Yes, evolution has a dark side... To win the evolution game you have to be a complete and utter vicious bastard. Hence guns exist because we are still those monkeys at heart.

I am not convinced that now guns have been made legal in the US that it would be easy or even necessarily a good idea to ban them again. Some of the posts here demonstrate the strength of public resistance, for example. However, what I do think is needed is more education. Crime rates need to be tackled at the root rather than the stem. Kill one criminal and there are hundreds to take their place, take away the reason for committing crime and there is no need for criminals. Ok, maybe a nice idea of utopia and probably not 100% possible but a worthy goal nontheless. Education is also need around the guns themselves - education on use, risks and so on to minimse accidental deaths (which I know are already done but maybe they need to be improved?)

No solution would be perfect but there must be a good compromise out there somewhere...

[MMI]

So... what do you mean?

I'm saying I believe that the government of the United States is unlikely to become a fascist dictatorship because there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent it. This means that, if the President decided to move towards fascism (or any other undemocratic philosphy) he would either be voted out, because the electorate would reject his policies, or he'd be forced out of office - by impeachment, perhaps.

I also think that's the case for most "stable" governments - France, Germany, Australia and so on.

I believe some kind of coup would be necessary to install fascism in those countries.

[MMI]

Thanks fetishdj for saying things so much less contentiously than I have. There's little in your last post I would take issue with other than to say, if you've made a bad law, you should repeal it, not look for a compromise, because you won't find one.

[Virulent]

I'm saying I believe that the government of the United States is unlikely to become a fascist dictatorship because there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent it.

I agree with everything in this statement other than the word "sufficient". I think that sufficiency is a judgment that can only be made in retrospect. I, for one, feel better the more checks and balances there are, to no end. The more policies and provisions there are to obstruct any legislative or executive action, the happier I am. Filibuster everything!


That government is best which governs least.

[MMI]

It can be seen whether it was enough in retrospect, but (unless we adopt your attitude, that nothing is sufficient) we must make our judgement at the time. However, I would have been happy to write ... there are checks and balances ...

I understand the attitude that says governments should protect their borders and maintain the common peace, and do nothing else, but the strings of power stretch much further than that nowadays. Less is more is not a useful standard, in my opinion.

[denuseri]

Facsim was elected to power in Germany legally if anyone bothers to look it up, not in fact put into power by a coup.

True democracy never really existed except mabey in its infancey and then only very briefly in ancient greece as far as western standards of it are conserned and even then it was a limited democracy in practice. Like vote for who you want your tyrant to be for the next few years. It had so many problems in Athens that it was revised by allmost every single ruler to suit his needs at the time, and only really fuctioned because it only involved about 10-30th "citezens" in the voting proccess. The Republican form of government that the United States of America adopted is more influence based on a mixture of some of the English and French systems modified from its Roman predessessors(which is one reason we have a senate). Who were in turn influenced by the greek colonists in southern italia that exposed oligarchial rule after the fall of athens to sparta in the thirty year peloponisian war. The Romans like ourselves (Americans) were in the proccess of overthrowing the tyrantical rule of what they considered a foriegn king when they made thier republic.

Unlike parlimentary systems of government that need a clear "majority" that must collect several multi party minorities to its side to rule,(like Brittian. Isrealand many others), America uses a "driect" representation method of government, in other words you vote for an individual representing his party, not a party that chooses an individual upon election, thus resulting in the need to consolodate in groups for strength makeing a basically two party system with many goals as oposed to a multi party system as we see in parlimentary governments.

As for the guns, Americans are divided on the issue to some degree, not as divided as we are over abortion but divided. The supreme court of the usa has only ruled that we have a "RIGHT" to bear arms that should not be infriged upon according to thier very learned interpetation of current constitutional law. I would not begin to say that these honorable men and wemon are 300yrs behind the times in anyway shape or form, our nation is a young one and only reached two hundred years in 1976 after a very long and ardourous amount of "reasearch" as to the BEST type of governemnt possible to function and yet preserve individual freedoms. of which the amendments to our consittution including the 1-10th were INSISTED upon by the majority of people of that age to be included in our consittution before they would all ratify it as law. If anything our governement system is a couple of hundred years ahead of most of western europes that is based on "old" dynamics raised out of fueadalism and modified by Cromwell to suit his needs when he overthrew his King.

The surpreme courts dicission is a modern interpetation of current law no more no less.

[MMI]

Maybe, on another thread, we could discuss whether Hitler's Nazi Party really was elected legally, but not here. What I really meant in my earlier post was modern Germany.

Here, in Britain, and I imagine for all other Parliamentary systems based on the British model, we vote for individual MP's, not for a particular party. That's not to say that people aren't elected because they belong to a particular party. Is that so differeent from your system? Generally, in Britain at least, but I'm sure also in many of the other Parliaments a single party has a sufficient majority to rule without the support of other parties. The present British Government has a clear majority and needs no support from anyone. However, coalitions do occur also.

As for the guns ... I agree with you that the Supreme Court merely declared what the law is. A law that was made some 200 years ago (give or take) is still in force, and the Supreme Court has now said what it actually means. I said as much earlier.

I also said it can now be seen to be a bad law. I dare say it was a good and useful law when it was first enacted, but not now. Now, no-one can give a convincing reason why it is a good law. I think the Supreme Court got it wrong by failing to interpret the law much more restrictively. That's my opinion, and I believe it to be a sound one...

[Warbaby1943]

I also said it can now be seen to be a bad law. I dare say it was a good and useful law when it was first enacted, but not now. Now, no-one can give a convincing reason why it is a good law. I think the Supreme Court got it wrong by failing to interpret the law much more restrictively. That's my opinion, and I believe it to be a sound one...There were many convincing reasons why it was a good decision. You, as you said, early in this thread, will never be convinced of that so it seems useless to discuss it further with anyone who feels as you do. I know it was the right decision and that is all that matters to me.

[Kuskovian]

One reason the second ammendment is still in place:

The ammendment when added to the constitution was very viable as the people of the nation were reluctant to relinquish thier right to defend themselves.

Defence including that from thier own government if nessesary; but, also against the any foriegn power as well as the native population and or any one intending them harm.

Sufficient means for any sort of law enforcement to be involved in the equation on the American frontier did'nt even exist but by the "self initiated" ,in any large scale format until the 1920s or there abouts.

Law enforcement response times have gradually increased over the years, yet the vast majority of rual Americans still own and maintain firearms for the purposes of hunting and or self defence. They do so for a variety of reasons, traddition, poor hope of help from emergency responders due to remote locations etc etc.

Self sufficiency has allways been an American rual tradditional pride.

Police in many rual areas cannot repond to emergencies for sometimes upwards of 2-4 hours if at all.

Quite naturally these people have a lot of vested intrest in protecting thier right to protect themselves and are amongst the many forces influencing the Surpreme Courts discission to up hold the law of our United States.

It all comes down to protecting our individual freedom to the rights of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for "ourselves and our posterity".

[Thorne]

Police in many rual areas cannot repond to emergencies for sometimes upwards of 2-4 hours if at all.

Reminds me of a joke which, alas, has all too much truth behind it.

Seems this man heard someone breaking into his tool shed in his back yard and called the police. The 911 operator, busy with many calls, informed him that it would be at least an hour before the police could show up.

Frustrated, the man waited a few minutes, all the time hearing the burglar rattling around in the shed. Then he called back and informed the operator that there was no longer any need for the police to hurry, as he'd shot the burglar and killed him.

Within two minutes, six police cars showed up, sirens blaring, and caught the criminal red-handed. Finding him uninjured, they arrested him, but the sergeant approached the home-owner, saying, "I thought you said you shot him?"

The homeowner replied, "I thought you guys couldn't get here for at least an hour!"



Sadly, this kind of attitude seems more and more prevalent in our police forces. Granted, some crimes are more manpower intensive than others. But when someone calls to report a break-in, failing to respond immediately puts the victim in an extreme state of risk. If we cannot depend on the police to arrive in a timely manner (and it's becoming increasingly obvious that we can't) then we have to take measures to protect ourselves, our families and our property.

Yes, property! While it's easy to say that property isn't worth your life, you are less likely to have to make that decision if the criminals have to decide if your property is worth their lives! In my opinion, my property, which I've worked hard for all my life, is far more valuable than the life of someone who believes he has the right to steal whatever he wants.

[Virulent]

In my opinion, my property, which I've worked hard for all my life, is far more valuable than the life of someone who believes he has the right to steal whatever he wants.

I'll second that.

To me the property is ancillary, though. Those who through violence or threat of violence impinge upon the sovereignty of others can all fucking die as far I'm concerned. :)

[Stealth694]

I also approve of the Supreme Courts Decision on the Second Amendment.
What I would like to see is, If a crime is commited with a gun, the criminal is looking at
the full sentance, No Good Time, No Option of Parole. If someone is shot add another 5 yrs to the sentance. If someone is Killed, then they shooter is locked up with no option of parole.

The Sad thing is most crimes are usually commited by convicts on parole, better to keep these violent people locked up, instead of just letting them out on the promise they have learned their lesson and will never do it again.

[Wind_Walker25]

I do not own a gun, never did ,and may never own one, I do not care about the left or right, so throw that out the window, they both suck anyways, If we are free then let us be free, good ppl should be able to buy the guns they wish. war baby, amber these are good ppl, and should have all the rights promised to them, to many good men and women died for these right, and the Dems or rep, do noit have the right to take these away, So I may not think I need a gun, but to the others more power to them!!!

[John56{vg}]

I am a gun owner, a Remington 30/30 Deer rifle, and a Browning Automatic Shotgun that was my dad's. And my basic belief is that the polivce and military should not be the only ones with guns.

However, I am for gun control. TO me the NRA is more radical than the gun control folks that want a total ban. All guns should be VERY hard to get and fully automatic assault rifles should be banned.

It is just tragic to me when (and I read about this a few months back) a child can reach into her grandmother's purse, pull out a handgun and shoot herself with it.

The part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court forgot was the "WELL_REGULATED" part of the amendment. Having a gun SHOULD be regulated and you should have to be trained in gun safety and licensed somehow.

My opinion here, of course.

[Virulent]

The part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court forgot was the "WELL_REGULATED" part of the amendment.

I don't think they forgot that part. They just realized that it needs to be constructed as two different topics... topic 1, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", topic 2 "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What the SCOTUS has finally affirmed is this disjunction; the people need not, and never needed to be, engaged in a militia in order to bear arms.

[John56{vg}]

I was not referring to the Militia part. It is the "well-regulated" part. THAT is the part that people like the NRA and, in this case, the Supreme Court, failed to look at. Gun ownership needs to be "well-regulated/" Not just being able to walk in off the street and buy.

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment. "A WELL_REGULATED militia . . ." The amendment was created to allow for TRAINED citizens to keep firearms in order to keep themselves and their neighbors safe.

It is part and parcel of the amendment. Therefore it was forgotten and not taken into account.

So I stand by my original posting.

[Virulent]

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment.

I agree completely. You also can't change the order of the words in it.

A militia must be well-regulated to ensure the freedom of the state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.

[Warbaby1943]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.Thanks for pointing that out. I thought such was the case.

[John56{vg}]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.

You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.

Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.

And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

[Warbaby1943]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.

You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.

Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.

And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.I'm afraid that 4 of the supreme court justices may have had similar logic. Too bad it wasn't a more unanimous decision. However, it was the correct one.

[Virulent]

Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment?

As I said below, it is two statements (grammatically, a 'complex sentence'), on one topic. The Founding Fathers did this frequently. For example, the 7th article of the Bill of Rights states:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That is clearly multiple statements in a complex sentence, dealing with a single topic.


... militias are comprised of ... people. Therefore the people are ..."regulated."

I agree with you that Militia is a subgroup of People. I don't follow you from there though. By your rationale, any law which acts upon a subgroup of people also acts upon people in general. Example:


Each House (of government) shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.

A House of Government is compromised of people. Therefore, people are required to keep a journal of their proceedings, and from time to time publish the same. Yes, that's right, BLOGS ARE MANDATORY!


So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.

Yes, I do believe that there should be no regulations or requirements, except that which individuals choose to apply to themselves. I call it anarchy though.

[denuseri]

I for one am glad they havent taken the often only recorse for defence that i would have available if attacked, pepper spray and martial arts wouldnt get me very far in defending myself from most men bent on harming me.

[Virulent]

I for one am glad they havent taken the often only recorse for defence that i would have available if attacked, pepper spray and martial arts wouldnt get me very far in defending myself from most men bent on harming me.

"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

[Warbaby1943]

"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."Now you know how I feel about guns but men will never be equal to women. They have all the, err shall we say, power. What they don't control isn't worth having anyhow.

[denuseri]

lol, where is all this power guys i aint feeling it lol,, i think they gave it all to the dommes ,,,pouts, oh well, as a slave i wouldnt really want it any other way,

goes out to the back forty to blow away some beer bottles and scare the liberals


protecting my owners property (me) by deadly accurate force if nessesary

[Warbaby1943]

lol, where is all this power guys i aint feeling it lol,, i think they gave it all to the dommes ,,,pouts, oh well, as a slave i wouldnt really want it any other way,

goes out to the back forty to blow away some beer bottles and scare the liberals


protecting my owners property (me) by deadly accurate force if nessesary
Maybe you should blow away the liberals and keep the beer bottles. They at least had a useful purpose.

OH yeah, that power that all women have is lower than the your naval right about where your legs come together at the top.

[John56{vg}]

Maybe you should blow away the liberals and keep the beer bottles. They at least had a useful purpose.

OH yeah, that power that all women have is lower than the your naval right about where your legs come together at the top.

One of the EXACT reasons I am a Liberal and FOR gun control. Because if a conservative nutjob comes for me because he hates me because I believe different from him and he can't stand that I will meet force with force.

Warbaby, you may have been kidding, but there are a lot of nutjobs out there that aren't. I am a live or let live type of guy. Most Liberals that I have met are.

The problem with COnservatives is to get along you have to believe JUST as they do.

[Ozme52]

Like I said - set back 300 years

You mean 1708? Nothing like a little hyperbole.

You probably think that it was a bad idea that the English yeomenry owned longbows too. :D

------------------------
(more)

Now that I've read more of this thread... it's too much like religion. One believes what one believes and no arguments will sway one from their beliefs.

So my parting comment is that I believe heartily in gun control... because you can't hit what you're aiming at unless you can control your weapon. ;)

[MissElizabeth87]

So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?

[Thorne]

So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

[John56{vg}]

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)

[Virulent]

Most police organizations are FOR gun controls. :-)

Why this leaves you smiling I don't know. Police obviously want to reduce the number of guns that citizens have; this makes police more necessary. One of the overriding goals of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence, so that the resistance to their initiatives is limited.

If I disagree with, for instance, the income tax, I could choose not to pay it. Soon the police will come, and attempt to use the threat of violence to compel me to accept whatever punishment the State deems fit. Obviously the police would prefer if I was unarmed; if I had a weapon designed to punch through bullet-proof vests and kevlar helmets, the police would have to question the necessity of using violence to enforce the will of the State against me.

How many police officers are willing to risk their lives to ensure that the gore-encrusted cogs of the State machine keep turning?

[John56{vg}]

Wow. First killing Liberals and now killing cops. Perfect reasons for having controls on guns.

[Virulent]

Wow. First killing Liberals and now killing cops. Perfect reasons for having controls on guns.

I think you misunderstood me? I've never advocated either of those things. To be clear, I'm strongly anti-murder; and any other act against individual sovereignty. Murder is only acceptable as an act of defense of one's own autonomy. I just don't believe that police deserve the deified standing they hold in our society. They're just people doing a job, and often times their job is flat out evil.

[Thorne]

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)
I'll admit to it being a generalization, just as those who rant most about gun ownership in the US generalize over the attitudes here. But if you read through this thread you will see that there are quite a few people, many of them from outside the country, who are far more interested in the banishment of all guns than in proper controls.

No, I'm not a member of the NRA. In fact, I feel that the NRA is about as good for the image of gun owners as bin Laden is good for the image of Muslims. Yes, there are many members of the NRA who are rational and who do want proper controls. But the public persona of the NRA seems to me to be far more radical.

In fact, as I've stated often, I do NOT own any guns, never have and, barring a radical change in my perception of safety within my home, I don't plan on ever owning one. But I do believe that responsible people should have the right to have guns if they feel they need them. It's just that I believe there should be proper, enforceable and enforced control measures, not total prohibition.

[Ozme52]

...

[MissElizabeth87]

I think banning guns is bad. Even if you say that no law abiding citizens can have a gun, obviously, criminals don't CARE about the law. So lets not ban them.

I think selling scary automatics and such is bad. But we have laws against that anyways, and they are hard to come by, as far as I know. So it's okay.

I think having laws about training, locking guns up, who can own guns, and where you can keep them is good.

On top of all of that, I have every intention of becoming a member of the NRA and about half my family are NRA members. It is not that MOST or A LOT OF members of the NRA are crazy and think that there should be no laws about guns. It's just that the radicals/fundamentalists are generally louder than the normal people. It's just like most Muslims don't agree with Bin Laden, most Christians aren't a big fan of televangelists/other radicals I tend to ignore, most Conservatives think that Ann Coulter is crazy... etc. So QUIT talking about how the NRA stands for crazy nutcases who don't care about the safety of normal citizens and children please!

[Virulent]

I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter is a comedienne. Like Stephen Colbert. :)

[MissElizabeth87]

I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter is a comedienne. Like Stephen Colbert. :)

Really? I definitely just thought she was a nutcase... Comedienne makes sense though too. haha. :)

Either way: I think I made my point.

[John56{vg}]

I think banning guns is bad. Even if you say that no law abiding citizens can have a gun, obviously, criminals don't CARE about the law. So lets not ban them.

I think selling scary automatics and such is bad. But we have laws against that anyways, and they are hard to come by, as far as I know. So it's okay.

I think having laws about training, locking guns up, who can own guns, and where you can keep them is good.

On top of all of that, I have every intention of becoming a member of the NRA and about half my family are NRA members. It is not that MOST or A LOT OF members of the NRA are crazy and think that there should be no laws about guns. It's just that the radicals/fundamentalists are generally louder than the normal people. It's just like most Muslims don't agree with Bin Laden, most Christians aren't a big fan of televangelists/other radicals I tend to ignore, most Conservatives think that Ann Coulter is crazy... etc. So QUIT talking about how the NRA stands for crazy nutcases who don't care about the safety of normal citizens and children please!

I respectfully will not stop talking about the NRA. Not until they stop holding "pro-gun" rallies at the sites of major gun violence, RIGHT after the event. A despicable, political, and uncaring action.

I will not stop talking about the NRA until they push for sane gun laws.

And as I said earlier, my generalization about ALL the NRA members being radicals was in response to another infammatory wrong-headed statement about those that want sane gun control. I KNOW many sane members of the organization. However, the leadership and political arm of the group is radical and uncaring.

So, even though I believe much as you do. I would not belong to the radical NRA.

[Kuskovian]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same way

[Warbaby1943]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same wayAmen!!!!!

[John56{vg}]

LOL. It is a mute point.
I am glad to see all these opinions, even if I personally think some of them are bull.

My uncareing, inflamatroy wrong headed, radical, multiple gun owning, active NRA member, conservative, crazy self, didn't go put my life on the line in two wars to defend your rights to free speech or to bear arms for nothing after all.

Looks like the cake eating liberal civillian stereotype still holds true in some corners.

Fanatics are apparently located on both sides of this so called argument.

In defence of the NRA, who are in no way "crazy". We work hard to keep the "right to bear arms" available to the American people. Thats it plain and simple. Without a group of individual conserned citizens like ourselves (the NRA) to prevent it, the government would eventually attempt to remove such rights.

It is not the first nor the last time we shall probably see them try.
I thank the Godess that aparently at least 5 of those Justices on our Supreme Court, see it the same way

My grandfather, my father, my uncles have ALL fought to keep this nation free. I own guns and support the owning of guns. But I DO believe in controls and regulation.

I have said here what I believe in. What I have gotten in return has been the support of shooting and killing liberals. Being called a "cake-eating Liberal stereotype." I DO believe the leadership of the NRA are radical and unfeeling in some of their actions.

I have never said ALL the members are.

I have never said that those that believe that some here are stereo-typical or should be shot.

Stereotypes work both ways though it seems. As does resorting to name-calling. I know that I have a different opinion from the bulk of the people here.

I will not change your opinion, I know that. But I will always support the right for you to say your piece. And you will not change my opinion either. But expressing a different opinion seems to be a crime to some of the people here. Or at least could get you shot.

So I will stop expressing my opinion here.

Sorry that people who think differently are not allowed to have their opinions respected.

[denuseri]

I guess seeing all the manes yu called people put back to yu in a post was hard sir, i respect yur opinion as being your opinion, as far as stereotypes i belive my owner was indirectly saying yu were fufilling one of them with your previous posts,, both he and i are all for gun control laws, just adamantly opposed to removing our legally obtained firearms from us is all. Respect is a two way street in other words.

[John56{vg}]

I never disrespected a person, as you two did. I disrespected an organization. You and your owner made it personal.

Respect DOES work both ways as does stereotypes.

MY words were not thrown against. I simply disagreed with you. I never personally called anyone's names. But if you can't argue without getting personal then far be it from me to coninue the arguing. You can argue with yourself.

I have stated again and again I am for gun control and NOT the banning of firearms, but I guess you don't read that far in the posts. You see Liberal and you make up your minds.

I WILL always respect anyone's right to speak their mind.

Too bad you don't have the same viewpoint. Sad really. MY relatives fought hard for everybody to have that right.

[Alex Bragi]

...I will not change your opinion, I know that. But I will always support the right for you to say your piece. And you will not change my opinion either. But expressing a different opinion seems to be a crime to some of the people here. Or at least could get you shot.

So I will stop expressing my opinion here.

Sorry that people who think differently are not allowed to have their opinions respected.

John, this is always going to be a very divisive issue.

Everyone here is welcome to express their opinion so long as they respect others. So, please continue, if you wish. :)


Please, (all) try to stay objective here. :)

[MissElizabeth87]

My grandfather, my father, my uncles have ALL fought to keep this nation free. I own guns and support the owning of guns. But I DO believe in controls and regulation.

I have said here what I believe in. What I have gotten in return has been the support of shooting and killing liberals. Being called a "cake-eating Liberal stereotype." I DO believe the leadership of the NRA are radical and unfeeling in some of their actions.

I have never said ALL the members are.

I have never said that those that believe that some here are stereo-typical or should be shot.

Stereotypes work both ways though it seems. As does resorting to name-calling. I know that I have a different opinion from the bulk of the people here.

I will not change your opinion, I know that. But I will always support the right for you to say your piece. And you will not change my opinion either. But expressing a different opinion seems to be a crime to some of the people here. Or at least could get you shot.

So I will stop expressing my opinion here.

Sorry that people who think differently are not allowed to have their opinions respected.


I am really sorry if you felt I was disrespecting your opinion. I was just saying that you should really stop saying that even MOST NRA members are like that. I realize that the majority of the leadership is rather crazy, but generalizations are insulting to either side. I was not saying you can't have your opinion, or even voice it. I think the point of free speech was so that we could all hear each others' opinions and be informed. Honestly, I AGREE with you about gun control. I was just very much insulted by your insinuations that even most NRA members are crazy and not for that. It's not anymore fair than assuming that most people for gun control actually mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun.

[John56{vg}]

I am really sorry if you felt I was disrespecting your opinion. I was just saying that you should really stop saying that even MOST NRA members are like that. I realize that the majority of the leadership is rather crazy, but generalizations are insulting to either side. I was not saying you can't have your opinion, or even voice it. I think the point of free speech was so that we could all hear each others' opinions and be informed. Honestly, I AGREE with you about gun control. I was just very much insulted by your insinuations that even most NRA members are crazy and not for that. It's not anymore fair than assuming that most people for gun control actually mean that no one should be allowed to own a gun.

The only statement that I wrote that said ALL or MOST members of the NRA are crazy was to make a point. Thorne stated that "Those who proclaim . . . gun control . . . really want to ban guns completely."

THis statement was a blanket statement and not even near true. If you read my post further you will see that I put the offending remark in italics, and explained that it was a blanket statement and was wrongheaded and not meant to be taken as comeplete fact.

Like you, my problem is with the Leadership and some of the group's political posturing that is uncaring and, yes, crazy, in my opinion.

I have stated again and again how I am sure their are many members of the NRA that are for responsible gun ownership and for sane gun laws and regulations. In fact many of my family and friends are members.

So I ma sorry you got that impression, but if you will read the whole post you will find I did not mean to blanket every member (or even most) with being crazy.

But, even as a gun owner I would never belong to the NRA because of the actions of the leadership. I consider THOSE people as radicals. Again, my opinion. I totally respect yours and even the opinions of those that do NOT respect mine.

However, getting personal and making "jokes" about shooting and killing those that don't agree with you, gets NO respect from me.

Thank you for your post and I am sorry that I left the impression you received. It was not meant to leave that impression, it was an illustration.

[denuseri]

Well John I am sorry too, my owner and myself thought this was just a debate, not a shooting gallery, i am perhaps too passionate in my views, i think both sides here said things offencive sounding that sure could and were taken as derogatory and were perhaps not clearly stated in such a way as to not leave that impression or we wouldnt be having this part of the conversation,

If for instance if i said that all of the leadership of one party or the other was crazy stupid etc (even with what was thought to be taken as obvious political satire), it is an opinion and not a personal attack.,
i can see how not being clear enough to keep from offending those who identify with a paticular group led to some angst and for that i am truely sorry

[Ragoczy]

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

Factually incorrect. Restrictive gun laws increase the crime and murder rates.

When Florida instituted concealed weapons permits, violent crime in the State went down. This trend has been the case in every State that's instituted carry permits since.

Statistics that indicate you're X-times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home are cooked -- the only way the math works is if incidents where a gun owner injured a criminal or the criminal fled are ignored and only incidents of death are counted.

When Florida's carry permits went into effect, Dade County began a separate database to track criminal incidents involving individuals with carry permits. Seven years later they terminated the project ... the database had three entries.

[mkemse]

Interesting thought AND I HOPE IT NEVER EVER HAPPENS, what would happen if a grandchild, wife daughter son ect of any member of the NRA, a card carrying member or their upper people like Wayne LaPiere, or one ofthe Supreme Court Justices ever had one of their family members killed by a handgun, or a unregistered gun, or a semi or fully assault rife??
I wonder if they would go back to review their decison,

Makes for intresting thought if nothing else