Supreme Court upholds the Right to Bear Arms

[Jingus 0]

Kinda reminds me on All In The Family when someone was quoting statistics on the number of people killed by guns and why it meant that guns should be banned. Archie: "What, you'd rather they was pushed outta windows?"

[Nightwing 0]

I'm just annoyed that this law was pressed by people who don't even live in D.C., just because its the nations capital.

 

Not that they would every try to IMPROVE the city of D.C., but heaven forbid a city try to stem the gun violence inside it.

 

If Kansas City decided to implement an abortion ban within the city limits, would you say the same thing? No, because it's obviously setting a precedent to infringe on that right. It's cute that you'll ignore the slippery slope here.

 

And it's laughable to think that's what's going to improve D.C. I've never seen a gang-member at a Sports Authority picking up a gun and I doubt I ever will. Hell, Michael Moore pointed it out better than anyone in his film Bowling for Columbine that gangs are getting firearms from people outside of their area anyways (If anyone doesn't remember, it's the obligatory "Whitey is bad!" scene with the hick bragging about selling guns to inner-city kids), so it's not like this law was preventing anyone from getting them unless they set up checkpoints on all entrypoints into D.C. If you want to fix the inner-city, there are far better things that you can put an effort towards.

 

If you want to crack down on guns, crack down on illegal ones. Make the illegal sale of guns a far more serious crime, raise the sentence on using guns in a crime (except for murder, of course), and things that punish criminals and not law-abiding citizens.

 

And on the 33,000: Also consider that a significant portion of those are police-related or justifiable homicide. Then look at how many of them were illegally obtained. After you look at the net value of "legal guns" used in crime, gun restriction laws really start to look silly.

 

But the "Ban Cars!" cry doesn't work, as everyone owns a car, and not everyone owns a gun, thusly the numbers are very skewed. It's not a very hard point to disprove.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

I'm just annoyed that this law was pressed by people who don't even live in D.C., just because its the nations capital.

 

Not that they would every try to IMPROVE the city of D.C., but heaven forbid a city try to stem the gun violence inside it.

 

There's an easy way to improve the city of D.C., but it's not politically correct to mention it. It's called "gentrification".

 

It's already begun happening, which is why PG county is terrible now.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

I'm on the outside looking in living in the UK, but from what I can tell about your fine country is that the 2nd Amendment will be only Amendment never broken and always upheld. Its the one thing that will always be around despite all the opposition - the right to bare arms. Like I say, I don't live in America so I'm not affected at all by your constitution, but I feel that Guns is the most important one of all. Freedom of Speech? Nah, I'm pretty sure you still get censored, if you wrote something deemed 'traitorous' then you'd be hauled up into a room and interrogated about it.

 

I was reading some book the other day that said that 9/11 suspects had their gun applications chased up to see if they had bought guns illegally in the months before 9/11 and the Supreme Court declared that they had the rights to bare arms and it was illegally to use the applications to track them down. Several months later a report was leaked saying that it was perfectly acceptable to do this. I think this was some Michael Moore book where he was qouting a bunch of stuff from other sources though, so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

I just don't get the attraction to owning a gun.

[Nightwing 0]

I'd take your hilarious view of America more seriously if you realize it was "bear" and not "bare".

 

Seriously, for all the talk of "OMG TRAITOROUS" stuff, we censor less than most other countries, especially when it comes to viewpoints. If we go by censorship, boobs are the greatest enemy facing America today.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

lmao shit, erm... can't you just blame Michael Moore! I think this will be my last visit into a US based legal thread. Sorry for my Englishness!

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

Guns are made to hurt and kill people. Hurting and killing people isn't cool. Guns aren't cool.

 

I'll never understand why people see guns involved in any kind of ideal society.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Guns are made to hurt and kill people. Hurting and killing people isn't cool. Guns aren't cool.

 

I'll never understand why people see guns involved in any kind of ideal society.

Has "Dawn of the Dead" taught you nothing?

[godthedog 0]

I'm just annoyed that this law was pressed by people who don't even live in D.C., just because its the nations capital.

 

Not that they would every try to IMPROVE the city of D.C., but heaven forbid a city try to stem the gun violence inside it.

 

There's an easy way to improve the city of D.C., but it's not politically correct to mention it. It's called "gentrification".

 

It's already begun happening, which is why PG county is terrible now.

you have a strangely selective way of using the word "improve."

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Guns are made to hurt and kill people. Hurting and killing people isn't cool. Guns aren't cool.

Your logic is impeccable... A table has legs. Battlenuts has legs. Clearly, Battlenuts is a table.

 

You want to ban automatic/assault weapons, I'll be a hundred percent behind that. But the only thing that a ban on all guns is going to accomplish is making it so that only criminals have guns. So, in essence, it'd be illegal to protect myself.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

So, in essence, it'd be illegal to protect myself.[/color]

 

Only if you're some kind of defenseless little baby who doesn't know the special technique of shadow boxing

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Shadow boxing? What the fuck?

 

And what happens when (that's right; not if, when) the criminal is armed? This ain't The Last Dragon, motherfucker; real people can't catch bullets with their teeth...

[At Home 0]

Why are Americans legally allowed to own assault rifles? I don't understand that.

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

Your logic is impeccable... A table has legs. Battlenuts has legs. Clearly, Battlenuts is a table.

 

You want to ban automatic/assault weapons, I'll be a hundred percent behind that. But the only thing that a ban on all guns is going to accomplish is making it so that only criminals have guns. So, in essence, it'd be illegal to protect myself.

 

Yeah that's the logic I was using. Can't consider that missing the point.

 

We're talking about a weapon designed solely to hurt or kill life. If your only answer for needing one is "well bad guys have 'em" I think it'd be redundant of me to make the point again. The answer isn't some lame regulation the answer is to remove the gun from our society. If we're basing policy on the lowest forms of our humanity we have no chance of growing or evolving into peaceful beings.

 

It's the easiest logic in the word. No guns, no gun violence. It's evident everywhere, and yet we still continue to progress this notion that it's too late and somehow the answer is for everyone to be armed.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Your logic is impeccable... A table has legs. Battlenuts has legs. Clearly, Battlenuts is a table.

 

You want to ban automatic/assault weapons, I'll be a hundred percent behind that. But the only thing that a ban on all guns is going to accomplish is making it so that only criminals have guns. So, in essence, it'd be illegal to protect myself.

 

Yeah that's the logic I was using. Can't consider that missing the point.

 

We're talking about a weapon designed solely to hurt or kill life. If your only answer for needing one is "well bad guys have 'em" I think it'd be redundant of me to make the point again. The answer isn't some lame regulation the answer is to remove the gun from our society. If we're basing policy on the lowest forms of our humanity we have no chance of growing or evolving into peaceful beings.

 

It's the easiest logic in the word. No guns, no gun violence. It's evident everywhere, and yet we still continue to progress this notion that it's too late and somehow the answer is for everyone to be armed.

What? So violence didn't exist before gunpowder? Guns aren't the reason people are violent, and anybody who thinks that getting rid of guns will put a stop to violence is fucking stupid.

 

You can't remove guns from society any more than you can remove cars from society.

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

No guns aren't the reason people are violent, guns are the assistance to there violent urges, an assistance not needed.

 

Cars serve a purpose to our society, it's transportation. What purpose do guns serve? To protect us from other guns? Awesome, let's start raping kids to protect them from pedophiles while we're at it.

[Nightwing 0]

No guns aren't the reason people are violent, guns are the assistance to there violent urges, an assistance not needed.

 

Cars serve a purpose to our society, it's transportation. What purpose do guns serve? To protect us from other guns? Awesome, let's start raping kids to protect them from pedophiles while we're at it.

 

Well, you're entire concept of the issue is ridiculously simple. A lot of things can assist a violent urge, from a lamp to a steak knife to a car.

 

Do guns serve a useful purpose? Yes, yes they do. They are a tool of defense. And saying "We have guns to protect ourselves from more guns" is not what I mean. My family has a pair of rifles (A little trainer rifle and a hunting one) to keep things like badgers and other wild animals away from our house and consequently our pets (And to a lesser extent, us).

 

The fact of the matter is, taking away legally-owned guns doesn't stop violence in any real way. As I've already noted, most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained in the first place and laws preventing them to the sale of law-abiding citizens wouldn't do anything to stop that. Considering that legally-owned guns generally don't lead to crime, I don't see why they have to be arbitrarily taken away. If people want them, let them have them; Just register it with the government (That's my only stipulation) when you do.

 

If you want to cut down on violence, cutting down on the causes of it is far smarter than simply restricting its implements. A healthier society isn't one that bans guns, but deals with the problems (such as the plethora of inner-city problems) that result in violence. Cure the disease, not the symptoms.

 

Why are Americans legally allowed to own assault rifles? I don't understand that.

 

Because the legally-owned ones aren't actually that much of a problem.

[Cowboy Battlenuts 0]

Guns are not a symptom of violence, there a means of promoting the disease. I'm not talking about laws against guns I'm talking about getting rid of them completely, by whatever means, illegal and otherwise.

 

And really? For badgers? Guns are needed in our world because Joe Redneck can't find a better way to keep squirrels off his perfect patch of blue-grass? I'm not buying that.

 

Guns are made specifically with the purpose of hurting and killing life. Unless you want to make an arguement that hurting and killing life is neccesary, you're just wrong.

[Nightwing 0]

Guns are not a symptom of violence, there a means of promoting the disease. I'm not talking about laws against guns I'm talking about getting rid of them completely, by whatever means, illegal and otherwise.

 

Oh, so you're basically talking about a completely unrealistic scenario. Have you ever heard of Pandora's Box?

 

And they are symptoms, not a means of promotion. Again, legal gun owners are rarely the people who commit crimes with guns. How can it be a means of promotion if there is nothing that ties legal gun ownership with an increase in crime? Simple answer: It isn't.

 

And really? For badgers? Guns are needed in our world because Joe Redneck can't find a better way to keep squirrels off his perfect patch of blue-grass? I'm not buying that.

 

Would you rather me go out there with a spear or an axe? I don't see why I can't have a rifle for such a purpose.

 

Guns are made specifically with the purpose of hurting and killing life. Unless you want to make an arguement that hurting and killing life is neccesary, you're just wrong.

 

Hurting and killing life is generally a byproduct of nature itself. Even if you don't want to, other people in the world will; that's the nature of crime and free choice. Unless you want to brainwash everyone into being obedient, people are going to hurt and kill people one way or another. If gang-bangers can't use guns anymore, they'll construct other weapons to hurt people with (I'd wager explosives, considering their ease of construction). If police aren't using guns, how are they defend themselves against criminals who inevitably will?

 

If you think guns are horrible, fine. But talking about completely eliminating them is childish, as it won't happen and it's not going to solve the problem, only change it. Unless you can stop the fundamental urges that drive people to hurt each other, eliminating guns does nothing.

[Henry Spencer 0]

And really? For badgers? Guns are needed in our world because Joe Redneck can't find a better way to keep squirrels off his perfect patch of blue-grass?

 

You are a condescending jackass.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

While I understand the fear that once empowered with a(many) handguns that violence can certainly snowball out of control and in many cases WILL. Far too many people are just plain fucking irresponsible with how they handle themselves and their weapons. I get it. Those people are scary fools. The reaction to these people is sadly an overreaction much akin to anti-marijuana ads.

 

However, the harsh reality is people are vulnerable in their everyday lives and a gun can level the playing field should an assailant be armed or stronger. And while I do not buy for a second that "if everyone thinks everyone is packing heat nobody will attack you" I can't over look that a gun can save my life in the off chance someone try and take mine. If we lived in a world where the playing field was level and justice was common place on the street I might be inclined to say "Go ahead and ban them, who needs them anyway?" but we don't. So I own guns. I carry a gun at certain times. And I welcome anyone to come and try and take it from me when it has already been long established that it is my right. Because after you take my gun you might as well ask for my wallet right after.

[CanadianChris 0]

Guns are not a symptom of violence, there a means of promoting the disease. I'm not talking about laws against guns I'm talking about getting rid of them completely, by whatever means, illegal and otherwise.

So you're proposing, what, that we just uninvent the gun? Great. Why don't we uninvent cigarettes while we're at it? Anyone have anything else they'd like uninvented?

[tekcop 0]

Does cancer count? Because that would be pretty cool.

 

Anyways, what exactly is Battlenuts proposal to get guns out of everybody's hands? You take a gun away from a criminal, he goes and buys another illegally. See that? He already broke the law. You take guns away from law abiding citizens, then the only people with guns are people willing to break the law to have them. How can you not see that problem?

 

Also, have you ever seen a badger or opossum? They're mean fucks that aren't afraid to kill your pets, chickens, and anything else smaller than them.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Battlenuts seems to be in favor of global Clockwork Orange-esque social engineering. Which is just as retarded as thinking that we can "get rid" of all the guns but, if true, would at least tie up his lunacy into a nice, neat linear train of thought.

 

Anyways, what exactly is Battlenuts proposal to get guns out of everybody's hands?

Maybe he's going to build one of those EMP things like in the movies that causes all mechanics and electronics to stop working?

[Jingus 0]

If we're basing policy on the lowest forms of our humanity we have no chance of growing or evolving into peaceful beings.

It's nice to be idealistic and everything, but dude, this has zero chance of every happening within our lifetimes, or probably the lifetimes of our great-grandkids. How exactly do you propose to completely eliminate both violent urges and general stupidity from the human species? Having a peaceful utopia would be great, but only as long as there isn't a single group of armed people out there, because if an entire society is nonviolent, then a dozen guys with shotguns could take over the whole thing.

 

I'm not talking about laws against guns I'm talking about getting rid of them completely, by whatever means, illegal and otherwise.

How. Seriously. It's a nice pipe dream, but how would you, as CC put it, un-invent the gun?

 

And really? For badgers? Guns are needed in our world because Joe Redneck can't find a better way to keep squirrels off his perfect patch of blue-grass? I'm not buying that.

Never lived in or near the country or undeveloped land, have you? There are all kinds of vicious animals out there who are more than willing to take a pound of flesh from a human being. Let's say you live on a plot of land which is infested with rattlesnakes. How exactly would you deal with just walking around through that every day? Politely explain to them that you mean them no harm, so please don't bite and kill me? And don't say "move somewhere else", that's not a real answer.

 

Guns are made specifically with the purpose of hurting and killing life. Unless you want to make an arguement that hurting and killing life is neccesary, you're just wrong.

Yeah, sometimes it is necessary. (Do I have to pull out the story about The Time My Dad Got Shot again?) When you've got someone else out there who starts hurting and killing first, preying upon those who cannot defend themselves, that aggressor needs to be hurt or killed. It's ugly, but that's the reality of life on this planet.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Guns are not a symptom of violence, there a means of promoting the disease. I'm not talking about laws against guns I'm talking about getting rid of them completely, by whatever means, illegal and otherwise.

 

And really? For badgers? Guns are needed in our world because Joe Redneck can't find a better way to keep squirrels off his perfect patch of blue-grass? I'm not buying that.

 

Guns are made specifically with the purpose of hurting and killing life. Unless you want to make an arguement that hurting and killing life is neccesary, you're just wrong.

This is just...wow, this is just stupid. I wish could say more, but-damn.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Why are Americans legally allowed to own assault rifles? I don't understand that.

 

Keep the Chinese 'n Irish at bay.

[The Niggardly King 0]

If we're basing policy on the lowest forms of our humanity we have no chance of growing or evolving into peaceful beings.

It's nice to be idealistic and everything, but dude, this has zero chance of every happening within our lifetimes, or probably the lifetimes of our great-grandkids. How exactly do you propose to completely eliminate both violent urges and general stupidity from the human species?

 

Get rid of TV.

[SuperJerk 0]

And yet foriegn countries show insane amounts of American TV and movies in their own nations and have little (if any) of the same results.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Guns are fucking awesome. I read about this while I was gone and ran a clip out into the desert in celebration. Those in favor of banning guns need to admit to themselves that they're cowards in favor of running and begging for help from people who do have guns should a situation arise where one is needed.

 

Living out in the middle of nowhere, I'm not waiting 20 minutes for some worthless fat fuck cop to show up while I get robbed and killed. Considering how many casings are in my driveway, though, the odds of me getting robbed are pretty slim.

 

Hopefully, this ruling starts to repeal previous gun restrictions and bans so I can get some really cool shit.