The Supreme Court and Gun Control

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So, the court has signaled that it is going to decide with the plantifs. Which means that they are going to say that We the People, do in fact, have the Right to own guns and there isn't much the states or cities can do about it. What are your thoughts?

[phee]

My thoughts are that people do have a right to own guns... I am not sure where the "control" of guns came to mean "take away" them. I just think that they need to be very careful with them is all.

[Msterbeau]

So, the court has signaled that it is going to decide with the plantifs. Which means that they are going to say that We the People, do in fact, have the Right to own guns and there isn't much the states or cities can do about it. What are your thoughts?

Um. What plaintiffs? What case?

I think you know better then to say that just because the current court decides something is OK that the ruling is absolute. A future one could rule differently. I'm on the fence about guns. I see benefits, and yes you can defend yourself more easily with one, but we opened a Pandoras box long ago that we will likely never undo because we permitted them freely. My feeling on the Constitution is that they were intended for military and police use only. People stretch the "militia" thing a long way to suite their purposes. I could be wrong. Perhaps they did mean for all to have them, with the revolution fresh in their mind.

[candyman]

Well, when they wrote the Constitution there was also a greater number of people that used the gun for defense AND food. They would probably have used the gun year round to get this food...and where I live that is the case for quite a few people.

I'm not going to get too deep into this now...but once again too much blame is being put on an object that can do nothing while very little blame is being put on humanity.

[phee]

Well, when they wrote the Constitution there was also a greater number of people that used the gun for defense AND food. They would probably have used the gun year round to get this food...and where I live that is the case for quite a few people.

I'm not going to get too deep into this now...but once again too much blame is being put on an object that can do nothing while very little blame is being put on humanity.

I think drive by knifing would be really hard.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Um. What plaintiffs? What case?

I think you know better then to say that just because the current court decides something is OK that the ruling is absolute. A future one could rule differently. I'm on the fence about guns. I see benefits, and yes you can defend yourself more easily with one, but we opened a Pandoras box long ago that we will likely never undo because we permitted them freely. My feeling on the Constitution is that they were intended for military and police use only. People stretch the "militia" thing a long way to suite their purposes. I could be wrong. Perhaps they did mean for all to have them, with the revolution fresh in their mind.

McDonald v. Chicago

The Supreme Court can't take Rights away once they have been established. Nor can Congress or the President. That takes an Admentment of it's own. The process is laid out right in the Constitution.

Well, according the the governments own definition ever man 17 years old to 65, of able body, is part of the militia.

BTW. How can you not know about this case?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think drive by knifing would be really hard.

True. A drive by slicing would be easy. Sabers were designed for it.

[candyman]

I think drive by knifing would be really hard.

Depends on the knife and the skill of the user. I can't butter toast to save my life and tend to puncture the bladder when gutting the deer...other people are much better.

[phee]

True. A drive by slicing would be easy. Sabers were designed for it.

An image that paints.... lol

[TitsMcGee]

I'm glad that the court seems to have some sense on this issue. The only way anyone will take my guns away from me is when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

[Nate Kriepp]

I'm glad that the court seems to have some sense on this issue. The only way anyone will take my guns away from me is when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

That's how I feel about my pancreas.

Seriously though, having grown up in suburban Chicago where handguns were banned (Ooooooh, scary dangerous object! Oooooooohhh!), I think this is a good thing.

It's the same suburb (Oak Park) that had the 'balls' to declare themselves a nuclear weapon-free zone. It's not like they were in any danger of someone building a missile silo in the middle of town, but they just wanted to make a gesture. An empty, useless one at that. A suburb that claims to be progressive and such but does its' best to keep out the riff raff (meaning, anybody without money).

Yeah, I don't miss my home town a whole lot.

Rant off.

[Soulrev]

My feeling on the Constitution is that they were intended for military and police use only. People stretch the "militia" thing a long way to suite their purposes. I could be wrong. Perhaps they did mean for all to have them, with the revolution fresh in their mind.

Dude, no. Why would you want the government and crooks to be the only ones who own firearms? They placed all these checks and balances to make sure THE PEOPLE are protected, not the country. Protected from oppression same as with "seperation of church and state" (even though that phrase is not written in the constitution), is placed there to keep the government from forcing religion upon you. ie- england pre-revolutionary war, oppressed for not converting, etc.

Same with firearms. It allows the PEOPLE, who, really run this country, to be on equal playing grounds if "shit ever hit the fan" - so to speak..

[Msterbeau]

Dude, no. Why would you want the government and crooks to be the only ones who own firearms? They placed all these checks and balances to make sure THE PEOPLE are protected, not the country. Protected from oppression same as with "seperation of church and state" (even though that phrase is not written in the constitution), is placed there to keep the government from forcing religion upon you. ie- england pre-revolutionary war, oppressed for not converting, etc.

Same with firearms. It allows the PEOPLE, who, really run this country, to be on equal playing grounds if "shit ever hit the fan" - so to speak..

Ideally.. the crooks wouldn't have them either. That's the pandora's box I referred to. Once we allowed everyone to have them... we made it easy for criminals. I don't WANT anything but for people to stop hurting one another. It's a sad thing that we have figured out how to make some magical bits of technology yet we can't figure out how to live together without greed and violence. :-(

[n0Mad]

Ideally.. the crooks wouldn't have them either. That's the pandora's box I referred to. Once we allowed everyone to have them... we made it easy for criminals.

Most firearms used in a criminal act were not purchased through legitimate channels. I wish I had my sources on hand to give you direct quotes, but I recall one instance where the FBI had a cache of 200 firearms just up and vanish. A couple weeks ago I read in a newspaper (USA Today maybe?) that the Homeland Security Department lost/misplaced/had stolen just over 100 firearms over the course of 2009. Closing the gun shop won't stop criminals from getting firearms. They can get better hardware, cheaper, and more easily than I can.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Most firearms used in a criminal act were not purchased through legitimate channels. I wish I had my sources on hand to give you direct quotes, but I recall one instance where the FBI had a cache of 200 firearms just up and vanish. A couple weeks ago I read in a newspaper (USA Today maybe?) that the Homeland Security Department lost/misplaced/had stolen just over 100 firearms over the course of 2009. Closing the gun shop won't stop criminals from getting firearms. They can get better hardware, cheaper, and more easily than I can.

People seem to think that if you take away all legal ownership of guns, the criminals will magically not have guns or ways to get them.

[phee]

People seem to think that if you take away all legal ownership of guns, the criminals will magically not have guns or ways to get them.

As I said... control and banning are not the same thing IMO.

[Msterbeau]

People seem to think that if you take away all legal ownership of guns, the criminals will magically not have guns or ways to get them.

Again.. The pandora,s box. The free availability of firearms in this country from day one meant there would always be firearms floating around both legally and illegally. Like it or not, this is the reality of what we have to deal with now.

[Slogo]

same as with "seperation of church and state" (even though that phrase is not written in the constitution), is placed there to keep the government from forcing religion upon you. ie- england pre-revolutionary war, oppressed for not converting, etc.

Actually Great Britain was not exactly that bad with religion most of the time. Revolutionary America being one of those times. They had an established church but nothing they would force upon anyone else

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

As I said... control and banning are not the same thing IMO.

But we are talking about a state or cities ability to take our guns away, not control them.

Marc, did you know that it's illegal for a civilian to own a gun in China? They still have gun crime. It's China, if they admit to 10,000 gun related crimes you can bet that there is really 100,000. You know where the least amount of gun related crime is? Switzerland. The land where every male between the ages of 20 and 42 has a selective fire (single shot or 3 round burst) rifle and a semi-automatic hand gun. Where anyone can own the same weapon as the military carry. Sure, they have strict laws to control them but damn near everyone has a gun.

[phee]

But we are talking about a state or cities ability to take our guns away, not control them.

Marc, did you know that it's illegal for a civilian to own a gun in China? They still have gun crime. It's China, if they admit to 10,000 gun related crimes you can bet that there is really 100,000. You know where the least amount of gun related crime is? Switzerland. The land where every male between the ages of 20 and 42 has a selective fire (single shot or 3 round burst) rifle and a semi-automatic hand gun. Where anyone can own the same weapon as the military carry. Sure, they have strict laws to control them but damn near everyone has a gun.

Sorry you said gun control in the subject line.... not banning....

Controlling what I do with a gun is very different then not having one.

[Rev.Reverence]

Actually Great Britain was not exactly that bad with religion most of the time. Revolutionary America being one of those times. They had an established church but nothing they would force upon anyone else

..for really though...no, they did not 'force-conversion'...but, they DID, discriminate, & persecute...they did not SAY why...but, it was religion, & class based...THAT..is why everyone came runnin' over here...

But we are talking about a state or cities ability to take our guns away, not control them.

Marc, did you know that it's illegal for a civilian to own a gun in China? They still have gun crime. It's China, if they admit to 10,000 gun related crimes you can bet that there is really 100,000. You know where the least amount of gun related crime is? Switzerland. The land where every male between the ages of 20 and 42 has a selective fire (single shot or 3 round burst) rifle and a semi-automatic hand gun. Where anyone can own the same weapon as the military carry. Sure, they have strict laws to control them but damn near everyone has a gun.

Hey...women serve in the military as well...they keep their weapons too!

(Good point..probably the best for the +firearms argument...& as a ghetto-graduate..I don't like any of the -firearms arguments...I could go & find a piece RIGHT NOW..probably..even get delivery....)

[torn asunder]

this may come across as being really stupid on my part, but for some reason, it finally clicked with me that gun control doesn't equal gun removal. gun control means strict licensing, testing, training, etc. but the truth of the matter is, is the goverment takes the guns away from law-abiding citizens, the criminals will be the only ones with guns...

[Soulrev]

Yeah Gaf pretty much hit the nail on the head. It would be great if removing guns from the picture would solve the problem but it really won't. I've always agreed with Switzerlands policy. I mean think of it this way- if u KNOW someone owns a gun and knows how to use it, you're going to be less likely to want to step foot in their house to rob them. That's just the way I would think. I've been known to be a shady character in my time so criminal activity isn't anything foreign to me lol. Gotta know how to think like one if u wanna stop one..

[Slogo]

Here's my point. Nobody will ever take away the guns...ever. Gun rules have actually been eased under the current administration and congress. So why is everyone under the ridiculous impression that the people who just eased your gun laws are doing that as a ploy so when they take you gun it'll be a surprise attack and the black helicopters will follow you and the communists are flourdizing(*) our water.

[torn asunder]

...and the black helicopters will follow you ...

whaddya mean, will? they already are!!

Edited March 5, 2010 by torn asunder