Supreme Court upholds the Right to Bear Arms

[Guest !!!]

There are all kinds of vicious animals out there who are more than willing to take a pound of flesh from a human being.

Shylock?

[Jingus 0]

I say "animals", and your mind naturally jumps to Jews, eh? Well now we all know something new about you.

[Guest !!!]

I don't do facepalm jpegs, but.

[Jingus 0]

Come on, you can't serve up a fat slow softball like that and expect nobody to take a swing.

[Slayer 0]

It's not really a softball if all you can do is ground to first

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Jingus is so bad at being snarky. It's rly embarrassing.

[Jingus 0]

Well maestro, show us all how it's done then.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

It's not really a softball if all you can do is ground to first

This is 110% how it's done.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this business. On one hand I think regulation is smart, because fuck-all if I want idiots with heavy-duty weapons. On another hand, I think national standards for guns can be problematic because of the reasons Agent laid out; in a major urban area, I might see guns-4-all as a miserable idea quite likely to backfire horrifically, but in rural areas where you're 20 minutes from supposed authority, there's absolutely common sense working there. On a mysterious third (gripping) hand, my roommate borrowed a friend's AR-15 with a reflex sight this weekend, and it's kind of the best thing ever. After playing with it for 5 minutes, I totally get why people shoot stuff.

[Gary Floyd 0]

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.

 

Best post in the thread.

[godthedog 0]

It's not really a softball if all you can do is ground to first

This is 110% how it's done.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this business. On one hand I think regulation is smart, because fuck-all if I want idiots with heavy-duty weapons. On another hand, I think national standards for guns can be problematic because of the reasons Agent laid out; in a major urban area, I might see guns-4-all as a miserable idea quite likely to backfire horrifically, but in rural areas where you're 20 minutes from supposed authority, there's absolutely common sense working there. On a mysterious third (gripping) hand, my roommate borrowed a friend's AR-15 with a reflex sight this weekend, and it's kind of the best thing ever. After playing with it for 5 minutes, I totally get why people shoot stuff.

 

i'm sort of in the opposite mindset. i can more understand somebody in an urban environment wanting a gun for protection, because, well, gun violence is just much more likely to happen there. a month ago a house across the street from me got 4 bullet holes plugged into it. as somebody with a wife-to-be sleeping beside me, it's a scary thing wondering how i would be able to protect myself and her from something like that.

 

people in rural areas, at least to my understanding, just don't get nearly as much crime (especially violent crime). it takes a lot of effort to drive out into the middle of nowhere to rob and/or kill somebody. do people in remote areas really stay awake at night with that same kind of fear? i don't ask that rhetorically, i really don't know. i'm also pretty confident that gene could kill 2 men with his bare hands, so i don't know what he's worried about.

[Jingus 0]

people in rural areas, at least to my understanding, just don't get nearly as much crime (especially violent crime). it takes a lot of effort to drive out into the middle of nowhere to rob and/or kill somebody. do people in remote areas really stay awake at night with that same kind of fear? i don't ask that rhetorically, i really don't know.

They don't face as much crime, sure. But they're also a hell of a lot further away from any possible helps. The neighbors can't call the cops if they hear something weird, cuz there are no neighbors. The cops could be a long way away. Plus as mentioned earlier there are plenty of animals out there which do attack humans, and most of them tend to be found in rural areas.

[godthedog 0]

but there's a whole slew of unlikely things that become worse because you're farther away from public services. what if your house catches fire? what if there's a flood in the area? what if your kid is home by himself and starts to drown in your backyard pool? and so on down the line. those don't add up to reasons to keep a firehose, sandbags, and a lifeguard in your home, they're an implicit part of the more general risk of living far away from things. why is the fear of burglers or robbers any more urgent than those things, such that you need a gun but not, say, a firehose?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

It's true that the incident of crime is lower in rural areas, but the thing is, if some dumb shit happens, you're totally screwed unless you can defend yourself or are an amazingly fast runner with an amazingly fast wife and amazingly fast children and no regard for your personal property.

 

If I lived in say, Chicago or something, I can't imagine how many weapons I'd have. Right now, everything I have is pretty practical, really. A few shotguns, a high powered handgun, and a critter gun.

[Jingus 0]

but there's a whole slew of unlikely things that become worse because you're farther away from public services. what if your house catches fire? what if there's a flood in the area? what if your kid is home by himself and starts to drown in your backyard pool? and so on down the line. those don't add up to reasons to keep a firehose, sandbags, and a lifeguard in your home, they're an implicit part of the more general risk of living far away from things. why is the fear of burglers or robbers any more urgent than those things, such that you need a gun but not, say, a firehose?

People who live out in the sticks do tend to keep more emergency equipment onhand. If you're long miles away from any other civilization, you're more likely to have a backup generator, CB radio, stockpiled food, maintenance gear for your vehicles, all that kind of stuff. Plus, like Agent said, if shit goes down and the cops are an hour away, what are you supposed to do?

[Twisted Intestine 0]

Set boobie traps.

 

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

but there's a whole slew of unlikely things that become worse because you're farther away from public services. what if your house catches fire? what if there's a flood in the area? what if your kid is home by himself and starts to drown in your backyard pool? and so on down the line. those don't add up to reasons to keep a firehose, sandbags, and a lifeguard in your home, they're an implicit part of the more general risk of living far away from things. why is the fear of burglers or robbers any more urgent than those things, such that you need a gun but not, say, a firehose?

 

The main difference is that other situations you mentioned are all accidental and are risks that can be lessened by preventative measures like having a fire extinguisher (rather than a firehose) under the sink. Defending against crime isn't something that can be stopped by even an alarm system or a deadbolt.

 

Regarding crime in rural areas, I think the prevalence of guns in the hands of homeowners in areas like mine and the relative lack of violent crime, vandalism, and theft aren't a coincidence. Pretend you're a theiving dumbass; are you going to try to break in to Wilson's barn and steal a bunch of tools or copper pipe or anhydrous ammonia and shit when it's literally certain that he has a .12 gauge leaning against his closet wall?

[EricMM 0]

Anyone complaining about bears has no reason to even mention handguns.

 

And it's not necessarily like someone in the middle of an urban area can expect the po-po in 5 minutes after a call, far from it.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

All the more reason to be armed in an urban area.

[Perfxion 0]

If a .44 mag could stop a rhino, it could stop a bear. That should be the standard issue handgun for all law abiding citizens. A fucking hand-cannon that sight scares people away.

[EricMM 0]

I don't see the connection here.

 

A criminal is almost always going to draw first.

 

If you're in a one on one situation, and someone points a gun at you, are you going to try to be Quickdraw McGraw and pull and shoot faster than they can shoot?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Just out for a walk and someone sticks a gun in your face? No. You're fucked, then.

 

In the car? I carry my .380 in the door of my truck. I could empty a clip through the door in the time it takes me to open it with my other hand.

 

In my house? I would win in any scenario other than some kind of mafioso-style spray the house with bullets deal from the roadside.

 

I'll take 2/3 over 0/3.

[EricMM 0]

I agree that it's not that easy for someone to get the drop on you in your own home, as long as you sense them getting in.

 

But anywhere else, if someone literally surprises you or directly pulls on you, what do you do?

 

What, are you gonna walk around, gun out? Of course not.

 

Thats where this all falls apart.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

It's also a situation where a handgun ban does absolutely no good.

 

You think that guy after your wallet bought that heater legally?

 

 

[EricMM 0]

It makes it much easier to prove that he did NOT.

[Nightwing 0]

It makes it much easier to prove that he did NOT.

 

So what you're basically arguing is that the ban will not stop criminals from getting guns, but rather it will allow us to say that "Well, that gun is certainly illegal!" while we are getting mugged instead of wondering if they purchased and registered it properly. I suppose, though, peace of mind really is the most valuable thing I can have if I no longer have my wallet...

 

I'd say your argument falls apart, but it was never really stable enough to get that far. If someone gets the drop on you, yes, you are screwed. But, generally speaking, people are much less likely to rob people in a place with high ownership of guns because the chance the guy might pull one on you (Or worse still, another person on the street pulls one). Most criminals aren't about to put a high risk of life on a wallet or something.

 

Taking legal guns away doesn't stop crime. Generally speaking, it puts criminals more at ease because they know any person they assault will likely be unarmed.

 

A final note: I laughed at your "Po-po" comment. You must live in a very nice city, or stay away from the bad areas. There are places in Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, etc, that cops "take their time" or even just ignore. I'd argue you're more likely to have police response in the country quicker than you would in the really bad areas of inner-cities, which is saying something.

[EricMM 0]

Thats what I was saying, regarding police response times.

 

Did it not come across clearly?

 

The people in D.C. decided that they didn't want guns on their streets. Maybe they understand their situation better than some NRA member from Texas.

[Nightwing 0]

Thats what I was saying, regarding police response times.

 

Did it not come across clearly?

 

... No, I read it wrong, but now it makes less sense because Tzar is right; that's all the more reason to own your own gun. A police officer isn't likely to show up during a mugging (like you keep citing), but a home intrusion is something much different. Less police presence is a better argument for home gun ownership, not an argument against it.

 

The people in D.C. decided that they didn't want guns on their streets. Maybe they understand their situation better than some NRA member from Texas.

 

Two points that apparently need to be reiterated:

 

1) It's the same as an abortion ban within the city limits of Nashville. Say what you will, but the concept has much larger implications that affect laws outside of that municipality.

 

2) As has been pointed out over and over, gun bans don't take guns off the street. They simply take them out of closets. You're punishing legal gun owners and nothing else. Considering gang-bangers, muggers, and other criminals generally don't care about the 90-Day Misdemeanor that comes with not having your gun registered, you aren't having an impact on those that commit violent crimes.

 

In all honesty, a gun ban like this shows that they don't understand the situation as well as you think. Taking a gun out of someone's hand isn't going to stop gang violence, it will simply change it.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

The people in D.C. decided that they didn't want guns on their streets. Maybe they understand their situation better than some NRA member from Texas.

 

There's gun crime in Dallas, too. My biggest complaint about the DC ban is the precedent that could've set. Personally, I think it's outrageous that it took this long for the highest court in the nation to finally slap themselves in the side of the head and go "Hey, this thing says 'Shall not be infringed'."

 

 

 

[Jingus 0]

an abortion ban within the city limits of Nashville.

Wait. What? Did this happen? Has my hometown been doing stupid shit again?

 

There's gun crime in Dallas, too.

Oh yeah. The local news: 5% gas prices, 5% election stuff, 10% various alarmist in-depth pieces about how everything on earth can fucking kill you, and 80% ALL MURDERS ALL THE TIME. I don't know what the actual crime statistics are for Dallas compared to other cities, but the news stations here seem like they want to make the local residents feel like they're living in Bosnia or some shit.

[SuperJerk 0]

I want someone to explain how the "well regulated militia" part is supposed to work.