2nd amendment confirmed by Supreme Court 5-4

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

(AP story)

[Bender]

how did sotomayor vote?

[CosmicCowboy]

how did sotomayor vote?

She voted against the ruling.

[Bender]

obama appointee voting against gun owners, not a shocker.

now we have another obama appointee coming in... great.

[balli]

Awesome. Thank you, conservatives, for yet again affirming that a person like me can buy as many handguns as I please no matter where I am. I'm very glad you have your rights. I'm very glad I have mine. Such lenience bodes very well for our collective future.

[RandomGuy]

obama appointee voting against gun owners, not a shocker.

now we have another obama appointee coming in... great.

:rolleyes
6 of the 9 current ones were Republican appointments.

Odds are very good, if Obama gets a second term, that he will get another 1 or 2.

The thing is that once they get in, they tend to disappoint their backers almost universally, and (gasp!) develop their own opinions.

Much ado about nothing, although no liberal in their right mind isn't secretly wishing Scalia would retire. :lol

[boutons_deux]

I don't think Scalia, Roberts, Uncle Tom, Alito have disappointed ANY right-wingers.

[Bender]

no eye roll needed. Sotomayor voted against gun owners rights. Who's surprised?

Unfortunately, looks like Obama will have appointed 1/3 of the SC by time time he's gone, like you said.

Stock up while you can.

[CosmicCowboy]

Odds are very good, if Obama gets a second term, that he will get another 1 or 2.

Just one more good reason to defeat him in 2012.

[LnGrrrR]

obama appointee voting against gun owners, not a shocker.

now we have another obama appointee coming in... great.

Haha, you're a tool. Obama is replacing perhaps the most liberal member of the court, with someone likely to be far less liberal.

[Winehole23]

Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About Gun Rights, Again (http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/justice-john-paul-stevens-is-w)

Posted on June 28, 2010, 12:24PM | Damon W. Root (http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root)

(http://reason.com/people/damon-w-root)
Two things jump right out of Justice John Paul Stevens’ lengthy dissent in today’s landmark gun rights decision McDonald v. Chicago. First, Stevens isn’t backing down from his error-riddled dissent in D.C. v. Heller, where he asserted that the Second Amendment secures only a collective right to keep and bear arms, not an individual one. Here’s a relevant passage from Stevens’ McDonald dissent:

the Second Amendment differs in kind from the Amendments that surround it, with the consequence that its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is not merely unhelpful but positively harmful to petitioners’ claim. Generally, the inclusion of a liberty interest in the Bill of Rights points toward the conclusion that it is of fundamental significance and ought to be enforceable against the States. But the Second Amendment plays a peculiar role within the Bill, as announced by its peculiar opening clause. Even acceptLuck_The_Fakers_ing the Heller Court’s view that the Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms disconnected from militia service, it remains undeniable that “the purpose for which the right was codified” was “to prevent elimination of the militia.”
Second, Stevens has endorsed Chicago’s misguided argument that the states should be allowed to “experiment” on the Second Amendment as part of their role as “laboratories of democracy.” Here’s Stevens again:

even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their
police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.
As a legal authority for this claim, Stevens cites Justice Louis Brandeis’ famous dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932). The trouble with Brandies' argument—as I’ve previously discussed (http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/31/laboratories-of-repression)—is that the Supreme Court would never allow Chicago to "experiment" on the First Amendment, so there’s no legitimate reason why the Second Amendment should receive any less respect. Thankfully, Stevens’ hostility to gun rights is once again the minority view.

[MiamiHeat]

winehole, what is up with you sticking "Luck_The_Fakers" in your articles...

[manufan10]

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elli0t, Debates at 380)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elli0t, Debates at 646)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

Edit: had to fix the Elli0t.. :depressed

[boutons_deux]

"protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Musket-era Tom never imagined that a gun-loving, killing-loving gun nut would be always underarmed against the "government's" highly militarized SWAT police teams, nevermind a $1T year military.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just one more good reason to defeat him in 2012.

Obama for 2012!

[Bender]

Haha, you're a tool. Obama is replacing perhaps the most liberal member of the court, with someone likely to be far less liberal.
big deal.

"most-liberal" anti-gunner vs "less-liberal" anti-gunner

anti gun-rights is anti gun-rights.

[LnGrrrR]

Tell me Bender, would you rather have a Judge who agrees with all your platforms, or just some.

Plus, that judge is the last former military member on the SCOTUS, which bums ne out :lol

[clambake]

how many guns you need?

[Bender]

if the Justices agreed with all my viewpoints, the country would most likely be in huge trouble.

I'm pro-individual rights, including gun rights.

Don't Tread On Me... and all that.

[Bender]

how many guns you need?

25 or 30. and it's not "need", it's want. I collect them, and have several 100 years old, or almost.

[vy65]

I'm curious how people who think that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to "gun up" reconcile the amendment's text with those of other "individual right giving" amendments i.e. The 1st or 6th.

[Winehole23]

Instead of pissing on us sideways, you could just tell us what you're talking about.

[Winehole23]

It wouldn't take that much longer.

[Wild Cobra]

Awesome. Thank you, conservatives, for yet again affirming that a person like me can buy as many handguns as I please no matter where I am. I'm very glad you have your rights. I'm very glad I have mine. Such lenience bodes very well for our collective future.
If you don't like it, change the constitution. I find it appalling that four members voted against the 2nd amendment.

[Wild Cobra]

Haha, you're a tool. Obama is replacing perhaps the most liberal member of the court, with someone likely to be far less liberal.
True, I think his appointments are pretty good considering how far to the left he is. I think they are less extreme than who they are replacing. I say let her be appointed, even with the bad stuff I hear about her because I fear if she is denied, someone even more liberal will get appointed.

[vy65]

If you don't like it, change the constitution. I find it appalling that four members voted against the 2nd amendment.

They voted against the Amendment? Really? They said it was unconstitutional? Illegal? That it shouldn't be in the Constitution? I must have missed that part of the dissent.

[Wild Cobra]

how many guns you need?
Need?

We should all own one or two. Maybe nobody needs 6 or more guns, but some people collect cars, some people collect stamps, some people collect palying cards.

Does Jay Leno need all the cars he owns?

Need is irrelevant. This is suppose to me a free nation, or do you prefer an authoritarian government?

[Wild Cobra]

if the Justices agreed with all my viewpoints, the country would most likely be in huge trouble.

I'm pro-individual rights, including gun rights.

Don't Tread On Me... and all that.
So you go a few steps past libertarianism right to anarchy?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm curious how people who think that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to "gun up" reconcile the amendment's text with those of other "individual right giving" amendments i.e. The 1st or 6th.Instead of pissing on us sideways, you could just tell us what you're talking about.
No kidding. I'm wondering that myself.

[Wild Cobra]

They voted against the Amendment? Really? They said it was unconstitutional? Illegal? That it shouldn't be in the Constitution? I must have missed that part of the dissent.
The decision should have been a 9-0 decision. Not 5-4.

[DarkReign]

The decision should have been a 9-0 decision. Not 5-4.

Agreed.

The fact that the Court barely let this slide speaks volumes.

[Bender]

The vote was actually whether the 2nd amendment also applies to States, not whether it is constitutional or not.


Agreed.

The fact that the Court barely let this slide speaks volumes.
that's what I was meaning in my earlier posts. After a couple more obama appointees, stuff like this might not even pass.

[MiamiHeat]

25 or 30. and it's not "need", it's want. I collect them, and have several 100 years old, or almost.

do you have any Winchester repeaters? 1870's type ? :P

[vy65]

Long story short, the majority of the other amendments in the bill of rights specify that they apply to individuals ("no person shall be forced ..."). Obviously, courts construe those amendments to protect individual rights. The second amendment is different. It specifically recognizes the right to organize a militia then recognizes a right to bear arms. I'm wondering what the argument is for construing the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to firearms beyond the militia.

[MannyIsGod]

Good ruling.

[Bender]

militia schlmilitia...

the entire BOR is about individuals.

anyway, didn't the SC in the past vote that the 2nd Amendment pertained to Individuals...?

[DarkReign]

Long story short, the majority of the other amendments in the bill of rights specify that they apply to individuals ("no person shall be forced ..."). Obviously, courts construe those amendments to protect individual rights. The second amendment is different. It specifically recognizes the right to organize a militia then recognizes a right to bear arms. I'm wondering what the argument is for construing the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to firearms beyond the militia.

Plainly, it has been a right of the American citizen since the birth of the nation. No matter your meandering on the 2nd, it has always been interpreted and understood to mean that every citizen has the right to bear arms.

Period.

To change the meaning on your basis would be to overturn 200+ years of precendent for no other reason than some wanton technicality.

Moreover, in the big picture, the legal gun owner is not the problem in this country. Its the illegal gun owners. Of that, there are plenty. Remove the right of citizens to own firearms and there would only be an explosion in the black market of otherwise law-abiding citizens seeing the writing on the wall.

Youd create a far worse problem in some lame attempt at reducing crime misassociated with gun ownership.

[MiamiHeat]

The vote was actually whether the 2nd amendment also applies to States, not whether it is constitutional or not.


Technically, you are correct. In essence though, that's not true.

Because if the SC had ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states, then they are basically saying that a state can basically revoke your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Might as well just call it "unconstitutional", it would be only taking it one step further.


What's next? Today, your State revokes your CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms.

Tomorrow, how about the 1st amendment? or the 6th? How the hell would you feel when the Supreme Court rules that the 1st amendment does not apply to States? Live in Texas? Yeah, in 2021, Texas creates a law where you lose your 1st amendment rights because X reason.

Somehow it's ok to challenge gun laws? Ha ha ha.

No. NO LEGAL PRECEDENT can be set in this matter.

I am shocked that it BARELY made it through. Fucking shocked.

[baseline bum]

This shitty Supreme Court finally gets something right.

[MiamiHeat]

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8650/criminalguns.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/209/guncontrol.jpg

[vy65]

Plainly, it has been a right of the American citizen since the birth of the nation. No matter your meandering on the 2nd, it has always been interpreted and understood to mean that every citizen has the right to bear arms.

Period.

To change the meaning on your basis would be to overturn 200+ years of precendent for no other reason than some wanton technicality.

Moreover, in the big picture, the legal gun owner is not the problem in this country. Its the illegal gun owners. Of that, there are plenty. Remove the right of citizens to own firearms and there would only be an explosion in the black market of otherwise law-abiding citizens seeing the writing on the wall.

Youd create a far worse problem in some lame attempt at reducing crime misassociated with gun ownership.

I wasn't aware I was saying anything other than the text of the amendment probably doesn't support an individual right to arms.

As for these hundreds of years of precedent, what cases are you talking about. To my knowledge, there have only been a few, with Heller and the Chicago case being the only two for the past hundred years or so.

[Winehole23]

I'm wondering what the argument is for construing the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to firearms beyond the militia. The distinction as we think of it probably didn't even occur to the founders. Membership in a state militia basically required private maintenance of arms.

[vy65]

Maybe. But I don't think that explains why the Amendment singles out a "well regulated militia." if what you say is true, the founders intent would still be accomplished sans the militia clause.

[DarkReign]

I wasn't aware I was saying anything other than the text of the amendment probably doesn't support an individual right to arms.

Fair enough.


As for these hundreds of years of precedent, what cases are you talking about. To my knowledge, there have only been a few, with Heller and the Chicago case being the only two for the past hundred years or so.

Not "200+ hundred years" of Court precedent, but application precedent. American citizens, whether in the state/local militia or not, have been able to "keep and bear arms" since the birth of this nation.

Thats what I meant by overturning hundreds of years of precedent. Maybe my use of the word precedent suggests Court rulings, if so, I am ignorant of that.

[Bender]

the federal government has been wiping their jackboots on much of the BOR anyway, for quite a while... and yeah I admit that they were doing it pre-obama.


Not "200+ hundred years" of Court precedent, but application precedent. American citizens, whether in the state/local militia or not, have been able to "keep and bear arms" since the birth of this nation.
in the past, the SC has purposely avoided 2nd amendment issues.

[MiamiHeat]

Maybe. But I don't think that explains why the Amendment singles out a "well regulated militia." if what you say is true, the founders intent would still be accomplished sans the militia clause.

uh, wha?

Winehole explained it, and you say you still don't think it explains it?

There's really no other way to explain it to you without repeating oneself.

The founders of this country lived in a time where each able bodied, white male, was encouraged, and even required in some places, to own a musket or rifle.

This was because we relied on the population, citizens, to enforce the peace and protect our nation from foreign invasion.

In time of war, the population, with all of their firearms, was called upon and organized.

When there were disturbances in local communities, unpaid night watchmen, and sheriffs, would enforce the law and keep the peace. It was a civic duty and honor to do this, and it was done by armed citizens.

A well armed "police force" and even a standing army was something the early Americans did not support. The "police" as we have it today, was non-existant back then. They hated the idea. They believed local communities should take care of themselves, and would ask for help when needed.

Nowadays, we apparently think we are too incompetent to do this anymore.

Even if we don't need the firearms to protect from foreign invasion, due to our military, we need them for personal defense.

Castle doctrine, etc. A man can defend his home and his family from many intruders if he is well armed.

This is something the founding father have always been vocal about. Now, grow some nuts, own a gun, be responsible with it, and shut the fuck up, hippies..

[boutons_deux]

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/209/guncontrol.jpg

What bullshit.

A gun is primarily meant to kill.

the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.

Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.

[Phenomanul]

One of the major problems with the drug war in Mexico is that law abiding citizens are at the mercy of criminals, and can't protect their homes since gun ownership is illegal...

We don't want that here...

[MiamiHeat]

What bullshit.

A gun is primarily meant to kill.

the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.

Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.

Picture this :

You have a wife, and 3 children. A 5 year old son, and an 11 and 16 year old daughters.

A man breaks into your home, and he is stronger than you. He overpowers you, and ties you up.

You now watch as he rapes your wife, and rapes your daughter right in front of you. Then he robs you, and leaves.

If you got lucky and called the police, they take about 10-30 minutes to show up.


or...

you could have had a gun, and protected your home.

Of course, you're too much of a brainwashed little faggot to realize how the world works.

News flash, bouton : We will never live in Utopia. In a perfect world, we don't need guns, but we live on Earth. Some people use them for hunting, some for SELF-DEFENSE, whatever.

Grow some nuts.

[Bender]

What bullshit.

A gun is primarily meant to kill.

the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.

Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.my son & I go shooting most weekends. Local ranges, target shooting. We're gun nuts alright... :sleep

[elbamba]

Here is a pretty good source if you are looking for case law. Obviously the site creator uses a lot of his own language to explain the rulings but is a great start if anyone is interested.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11

[MiamiHeat]

my son & I go shooting most weekends. Local ranges, target shooting. We're gun nuts alright... :sleep

you're talking to the pussified Wal-Mart generation. They get their food on store shelves, all neatly packed.

What's hunting?

We should ban all knives. They were designed to kill, too.

[Stringer_Bell]

What bullshit.

A gun is primarily meant to kill.

the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.

Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.

No, that's bullshit!

Guns are used for sustaining life when its in danger from bears and large ravenous birds. A secondary use is to fuck people up that disagree with you or look at you funny. Grow a pair, buy a gun!

PS: People fish with guns and in some cases you can conduct heat with them if you're trapped in a frozen tundra and can heat the barrel by firing shots into the sky. Or if it's really desperate, into your own skull.

[MiamiHeat]

You see, these hippy children don't stop and think about what they are saying.

If they lived 100 years ago, they would know the importance of firearms. Hunting, protecting your property, and self-defense.

but because they don't "use" guns in their daily lives, they never stop to think about it. They use knives, so that's ok. It doesn't matter that many many people get stabbed to death or robbed at knife point. Knives are important, we cut things with them!

Cars, criminals use them to transport drugs, commit crimes, traffic human sex slaves, but but...we need them to go to the mall or the new Justin Bieber concert ~!!!!!

but guns? oh yeah, I have no need to hunt for food or protect my family, so yeah, fuck guns, people get hurt by them!!!!!! wooo!!!

Fuck.

[MiamiHeat]

Oh, and how about you lost hippies go look up crime rates in some of the most well-armed places in the USA?

Yeah, they have the lowest crime rates in the nation. Fact.

When a thief is scared of getting shot in the face, he thinks twice before breaking into your home or trying to mug you.


I'm done, not gonna waste my time trying to teach these misguided idealists.

[Bender]

the whole point is that bad guys don't give a flying fuck about any gun laws or restrictions, gun restrictions only restrict honest, lawful people.

the anti-gun pacifist in this thread can't get that through their heads apparently. "Let's ban guns... we will have Utopia!"


Oh, and how about you lost hippies go look up crime rates in some of the most well-armed places in the USA?

Yeah, they have the lowest crime rates in the nation. Fact.
and vice-versa, check where the WORST violent crime is.... yep, the places that have the MOST gun restrictions... such as washington DC.

[lefty]

Great


More retarded people handling guns

[Bender]

biggest retard in this thread lives in canada

[clambake]

who said to ban guns?

[Bender]

any discussion about guns soon degenerates into a "guns are bad" vs "guns are good" shouting match

[LnGrrrR]

if the Justices agreed with all my viewpoints, the country would most likely be in huge trouble.

I'm pro-individual rights, including gun rights.

Don't Tread On Me... and all that.

Don't get me wrong; I'm relatively happy about this decision (just not sure about the reasoning being used). I'm just pointing out that not all liberals are alike, especially when it comes to a position as important as SCOTUS.

[LnGrrrR]

Her'es my question: Why do people care how many guns someone owns?

I mean, if I buy a 2nd TV for my upstairs bedroom, no one's running around shouting, "Really? ANOTHER TV? How many TVs do you really NEED?" If people want to buy guns, then they should be able to.

The only big contentious issue I see with guns is where the line should be drawn in restricting their purchase. (Ie. should we allow former criminals, mentally handicapped, etc etc to purchase one). After all, if it's a "right" as much as the second amendment, then kids/mentally handicapped/former criminals should all be able to buy guns with as much impunity as the rest of the citizenship, but that doesn't seem sensible.

[jacobdrj]

Meh, if more people carried personal firearms, maybe tragedies like the VT massacre could have been drastically less lethal...

MAD works.

Right to bear arms was a good call by the founding fathers. However, I don't see the big deal with requiring registration of said firearms, and background checks to own those firearms. Sure, criminals will get their guns either way. The idea is to just make it a bit harder... No different than needing a driver's license. Problem is people got to stop thinking of driver's license as a privilege, as in the modern US, we need it to just get by...

[clambake]

how many tv's do you need?

[MiamiHeat]

The only big contentious issue I see with guns is where the line should be drawn in restricting their purchase. (Ie. should we allow former criminals, mentally handicapped, etc etc to purchase one). After all, if it's a "right" as much as the second amendment, then kids/mentally handicapped/former criminals should all be able to buy guns with as much impunity as the rest of the citizenship, but that doesn't seem sensible.

Citizens lose their rights once they commit serious crimes. Can't vote, can't own guns....

A Judge has to specifically restore their rights on an individual basis, if the Judge deems the person is worthy of having all of their rights restored.

[LnGrrrR]

how many tv's do you need?

:lmao :toast

[MiamiHeat]

Meh, if more people carried personal firearms, maybe tragedies like the VT massacre could have been drastically less lethal...

MAD works.

Right on. Someone would have put him flat on his ass and saved lives, instead, they ran like cattle and more people got killed.

[Blake]

Picture this :

You have a wife, and 3 children. A 5 year old son, and an 11 and 16 year old daughters.

A man breaks into your home, and he is stronger than you. He overpowers you, and ties you up.

You now watch as he rapes your wife, and rapes your daughter right in front of you. Then he robs you, and leaves.

If you got lucky and called the police, they take about 10-30 minutes to show up.


or...

you could have had a gun, and protected your home.

Of course, you're too much of a brainwashed little faggot to realize how the world works.

News flash, bouton : We will never live in Utopia. In a perfect world, we don't need guns, but we live on Earth. Some people use them for hunting, some for SELF-DEFENSE, whatever.

Grow some nuts.

wow......so one dude is able to break in and overpower 1 man and 2 adult sized women? what a weak family. They need to learn self defense.

so how are you going to get your gun if you are tied up?

[LnGrrrR]

Citizens lose their rights once they commit serious crimes. Can't vote, can't own guns....

A Judge has to specifically restore their rights on an individual basis, if the Judge deems the person is worthy of having all of their rights restored.

A citizen doesn't lose all their rights. Former criminals still have their 1st Amendment rights, their 5th Amendment rights, etc etc. Why are some allowed and some aren't?

Along with that, there's nothing in the Consitution that specifically bars felons from voting, is there? It's arguable if that's even Constitutional.

[Bender]

Right on. Someone would have put him flat on his ass and saved lives, instead, they ran like cattle and more people got killed.
better term is sheep.

gun free zones are paradise for wackos.

[DarkReign]

My question:

Why do some Americans want to remove guns from private citizens?

Follow up question:

Do you prefer that firearms only be trusted in the hands of government officials (ie police, military, etc.)?

[Blake]

My question:

Why do some Americans want to remove guns from private citizens?

IMO,

I rarely, rarely, rarely ever hear about a gun saving someone's life.

More often than not, I hear of the tragedies of handguns.

The cons for handguns grossly outweigh the pros, imo.


Follow up question:

Do you prefer that firearms only be trusted in the hands of government officials (ie police, military, etc.)?

I do.

Why wouldn't I?

[jacobdrj]

My question:

Why do some Americans want to remove guns from private citizens?

Follow up question:

Do you prefer that firearms only be trusted in the hands of government officials (ie police, military, etc.)?

Most of this comes from incidents where parents don't secure their weapons, and a kid accidentally (and occasionally on purpose) injures or kills someone or themselves...

Once this happens, people (and emotional mothers) try to limit the guns, rather than 'waste time and money' teaching dealing with the parents.

I DO NOT think the initial parties calling for gun control are looking for a power grab. I do think that SOME politicians and corrupt government officials are, but are in the minority.

Follow up rhetorical question:

Why are there laws requiring people to have driver's licences to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, but not parenting/breeding license's to be allowed to raise children that come into public places?

[DarkReign]

IMO,

I rarely, rarely, rarely ever hear about a gun saving someone's life.

More often than not, I hear of the tragedies of handguns.

The cons for handguns grossly outweigh the pros, imo.

I do.

Why wouldn't I?

They were just questions that when answered, provide perspective. Nothing more substantive or world-changing.

Its just...radically opposite of myself. It is America, youre allowed to think and say whatever the hell you want.

But if youre serious with the "Why wouldnt I?" question, I'd be happy to lend my opinion on the subject.

[DarkReign]

Follow up rhetorical question:

Why are there laws requiring people to have driver's licences to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, but not parenting/breeding license's to be allowed to raise children that come into public places?

Like you said, rhetorical.

[Blake]

But if youre serious with the "Why wouldnt I?" question, I'd be happy to lend my opinion on the subject.

I'm serious. I'd like to hear your opinion.

[LnGrrrR]

I do.

Why wouldn't I?

For one thing, keeping guns in the hands of citizens is a safeguard to government takeover. Now, granted, if the government WERE to take over today (and let's say that said government/military were all gung-ho about it, since this is a hypothetical), firearms wouldn't do much against tanks.

Which is why I'm all for citizenry possessing tanks and bazookas. Doubt that gets passed though...

Still, a gun is a strong deterrent against abuse of power by governments. One look at the increasing power of local police departments (no-knock raids, extra liberties given to police depts to fight the war on drugs, etc) shows that it might be good if their zeal was tempered by the realization that the local citizenry possessed firearms.

I'm military, and even I wouldn't trust us and only us to have the weapons.

And regarding your pro/con argument, I can find a lot of things that have visible cons without pros. Fatty foods. Cigarettes. And that's not even going into all the risky, yet fun stuff.

Where's the "pro" in deep-sea diving? How about para-sailing? The cons are pretty obvious with these (injury, death, expensive, etc etc) but the pros (fun, excitement) aren't very noticeable.

[Cleveland Steamer]

...Why wouldn't I?

My guess "why you wouldn't" is because you've never lived in a remote area where access to police protection/government intervention is limited at best and people really do need to own a firearm to protect their lives, property and livestock.

Speaking of protecting your property, there are endless stories of guns protecting people's property. Here's a high profile example that didn't even take place in a remote, rural community: Hurricane Katrina. When police officers laid their badges down in the face of anarchy and the government did not bring aid, the people whose houses were not looted were the ones who were prepared to protect themselves.

Katrina was eye-opener for me as far as blindly trusting law enforcement or the government to protect me...and I don't even own a gun.

[z0sa]

Agreed.

The fact that the Court barely let this slide speaks volumes.

I agree 100%.

[DarkReign]

I'm serious. I'd like to hear your opinion.

I am not trying to be rude or condescending here, but I think we can all agree that the media (ALL media) are in it for profit. It would seem, viewership is increased with controversial stories.

Kids dying, gang violence, crime in general, etc.

The news, especially local news, around the country I dont believe is very interested in law-abiding citizens doing law-abiding things. It doesnt create viewers, increase circulation (apparently, judging by their tendencies).

I believe armed citizens successfully avoiding and/or defending themselves, their property and their family happens rather often. Three members of my family have told me stories of them having to brandish weapons in order to avoid dire situations. Those situations, I guarantee, did not make the news for the consumption of everyday Americans.

Its just one small example of the right to bear arms, pardon the pun, bearing fruit. I keep a loaded 9mm in my nightstand, I am childless so there is no safety concern. My house was robbed a while back and admittedly the circumstances surrounding it are far from a typical B&E, but make no mistake, my wife enjoys the added safety.

IMO, especially in places like Michigan where the economy is literally circling the bowl, crime is getting more violent and more widespread. Read the Detroit News sometime. Murder is up, robbery is up, population is declining, there are entire swaths of the city the police wont even go and those facts have nothing to do with legal gun ownership, its illegal ownership.

The "bad areas" are spreading like wildfire, too. North and West, mostly.

All of this has nothing to do with government officials being the only ones with the right to firearms, of which I am diametrically opposed. I do not trust government because government does not trust me. Realistically, is an armed populace still at the mercy of the government? Of course, so long as the local police forces keep buying surplus military equipment for a civilican populace, this will always be true.

It would seem my instincts are far less trusting than yours and the sentiment gives me pause.

[spursncowboys]

IMO,

I rarely, rarely, rarely ever hear about a gun saving someone's life.

More often than not, I hear of the tragedies of handguns.

The cons for handguns grossly outweigh the pros, imo.



I do.

Why wouldn't I?

There in lies the problem. No one ever talks about the saved lives from the UT Tower shooting, because of all the citizens who had their rifles and fired back which kept whitman pinned down.

[Winehole23]

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11Thanks.

[elbamba]

I'm serious. I'd like to hear your opinion.

Nazi Germany. Though I myself do not own a gun, I do not want to live in a country where the only person between me, my house, bank account, possessions, work, church, etc... is the government pointing the gun.

[angrydude]

the only people that think people shouldn't be trusted with guns are the people who've never owned one.

[Wild Cobra]

What bullshit.

A gun is primarily meant to kill.

the other three have primarily non-fatal uses.

Typical NRA gun-nut "logic" that convinces the bubbas/red-staters how smart they are.
It doesn't matter. The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. If you don't like it, change the constitution instead of supporting activist judges. Supporting them means you are a traitor to the heart of America.

[Stringer_Bell]

There in lies the problem. No one ever talks about the saved lives from the UT Tower shooting, because of all the citizens who had their rifles and fired back which kept whitman pinned down.

Interesting, I did not know about that.

[FromWayDowntown]

supporting activist judges

It's funny that use of the 14th Amendment to incorporate rights to the states draws criticism as an activist result with respect to some rights but is the paragon of judicial restraint when it comes to other rights.

I think it's the right decision in this case. But it's also predictable that as the conversation broadened, someone would bring up judicial activism and illustrate again that activism depends almost entirely upon whether one agrees with the result and not with the rationale that leads to that result. It's truly a hollow term.

[ChumpDumper]

Good decision.

Good to see conservatives are now against states' rights.

[ElNono]

At least Texas can secede if they don't like it... :rolleyes

[DarkReign]

Good to see conservatives are now against states' rights.

Good salient point, minus the angle taken to get there.

It is odd how the size of gray areas in law are always expanding. This is certainly one instance (of probably many that one could imagine) where I think the Federal government got it right.

[ploto]

The same people who are usually concerned with the federal government having too much power are glad they just confirmed their power over the states in this issue.

[ploto]

...make no mistake, my wife enjoys the added safety.

I sincerely do not believe that a gun makes someone safer. I know that personally it would not make me feel safer.

[Veterinarian]

tbh if you take every person's guns away, they are completely at the mercy of their government and local law enforcement. Besides this nanny state shit is the reason I can't just go out and totally become a liberal. That and the fact that they come off like whining pussies all the time.

[boutons_deux]

"if you take every person's guns away, they are completely at the mercy of their government and local law enforcement. "

do you really think you and your 50 cal fully automatic machine gun can hold off the typical armored, militarized, airborne SWAT team?

[lefty]

biggest retard in this thread lives in canada
You live in Canada?

[Sec24Row7]

"if you take every person's guns away, they are completely at the mercy of their government and local law enforcement. "

do you really think you and your 50 cal fully automatic machine gun can hold off the typical armored, militarized, airborne SWAT team?

This is a disputed quote, but it fits...

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. -Isoruko Yamamoto

[elbamba]

http://openjurist.org/328/f3d/567/silveira-v-lockyer

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or ... the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

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 sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed.

[Blake]

For one thing, keeping guns in the hands of citizens is a safeguard to government takeover. Now, granted, if the government WERE to take over today (and let's say that said government/military were all gung-ho about it, since this is a hypothetical), firearms wouldn't do much against tanks.

exactly. it's not much of a safeguard.


Which is why I'm all for citizenry possessing tanks and bazookas. Doubt that gets passed though...

I've heard that handguns are just gateway guns to the big stuff myself.


Still, a gun is a strong deterrent against abuse of power by governments. One look at the increasing power of local police departments (no-knock raids, extra liberties given to police depts to fight the war on drugs, etc) shows that it might be good if their zeal was tempered by the realization that the local citizenry possessed firearms.

so you think it would be good to have police officers too scared to go ask for warrants?

it would be better if they are tempered by laws.


I'm military, and even I wouldn't trust us and only us to have the weapons.

the military has had the nuclear weapons. Who else would you trust to have them?


And regarding your pro/con argument, I can find a lot of things that have visible cons without pros. Fatty foods. Cigarettes. And that's not even going into all the risky, yet fun stuff.

If you try to throw some fatty foods or blow some cigarette smoke in my face, chances are, I'll survive those blasts.

Not so much with a bullet to the face.


Where's the "pro" in deep-sea diving? How about para-sailing? The cons are pretty obvious with these (injury, death, expensive, etc etc) but the pros (fun, excitement) aren't very noticeable.

You can't kill someone else directly with your deep sea diving. Other than a freak landing, same thing with para-sailing.

[Blake]

My guess "why you wouldn't" is because you've never lived in a remote area where access to police protection/government intervention is limited at best and people really do need to own a firearm to protect their lives, property and livestock.

Speaking of protecting your property, there are endless stories of guns protecting people's property. Here's a high profile example that didn't even take place in a remote, rural community: Hurricane Katrina. When police officers laid their badges down in the face of anarchy and the government did not bring aid, the people whose houses were not looted were the ones who were prepared to protect themselves.

Katrina was eye-opener for me as far as blindly trusting law enforcement or the government to protect me...and I don't even own a gun.

I think I'd rather work at fixing the government failures such as Katrina, but those are some good points.

[Winehole23]

Good decision.

Good to see conservatives are now against states' rights.And liberal lions like JP Stevens are for them, at least in this case.

[Blake]

I am not trying to be rude or condescending here, but I think we can all agree that the media (ALL media) are in it for profit. It would seem, viewership is increased with controversial stories.

Kids dying, gang violence, crime in general, etc.

The news, especially local news, around the country I dont believe is very interested in law-abiding citizens doing law-abiding things. It doesnt create viewers, increase circulation (apparently, judging by their tendencies).

I believe armed citizens successfully avoiding and/or defending themselves, their property and their family happens rather often. Three members of my family have told me stories of them having to brandish weapons in order to avoid dire situations. Those situations, I guarantee, did not make the news for the consumption of everyday Americans.

I'm not trying to be condescending either, but it appears to me that these contoversial, violent stories struck enough fear into you that you felt the need to buy a 9mm and keep it next to your bed.


Its just one small example of the right to bear arms, pardon the pun, bearing fruit. I keep a loaded 9mm in my nightstand, I am childless so there is no safety concern. My house was robbed a while back and admittedly the circumstances surrounding it are far from a typical B&E, but make no mistake, my wife enjoys the added safety.

Just curious, if you had a kid, where would you keep it?


All of this has nothing to do with government officials being the only ones with the right to firearms, of which I am diametrically opposed. I do not trust government because government does not trust me. Realistically, is an armed populace still at the mercy of the government? Of course, so long as the local police forces keep buying surplus military equipment for a civilican populace, this will always be true.

It would seem my instincts are far less trusting than yours and the sentiment gives me pause.

how much firearm power should the general populace be able to have?

[Blake]

This is a disputed quote, but it fits...

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. -Isoruko Yamamoto

I forget, did he die before or after the US dropped the bombs on Japan?

[MiamiHeat]

Did anyone bother to point out blake's

"I never hear about..."

as his sole source of logic? Because he hadn't encountered something, it was his foundation for his argument. Ugh. *bangs head on table*


Here's a true story :

When I was around 4 years old, and my family lived in New York, my father, his sister, and my mother went out somewhere one day.

When getting out of the car, a man came to assault/mug them. Before he reached out his arm to grab my dad's sister's purse, my father pulled out his S&W revolver on the guy. The criminal got scared shitless, and ran away and left my family alone.

[EmptyMan]

The same people who are usually concerned with the federal government having too much power are glad they just confirmed their power over the states in this issue.

If the fed govt doesn't give a shit about illegal immigration, why should they care about illegal possession of firearms?

awwwwwwyea

LOL @ the ppl scared of guns. That's like being scared that the sun comes up. It is what it is. Just accept reality. No one forces you to own or operate a firearm against your will.

[Bender]

The people like ploto who joke that members who are for states rights are happy with decision to squash states rights regarding the 2nd amendment...
well, for stuff like immigration that the government refuses to do anything about, the states should be able to take their own steps. For Constitutional rights, the states should not be allowed to mark out or erase parts of the Constitution that they don't like, for example the 2nd amendment.

[PublicOption]

well there was a time that all states in the union confirmed the 2nd amendment.


thats why its the 2nd amendment of the constituition

[EmptyMan]

I sincerely do not believe that a gun makes someone safer. I know that personally it would not make me feel safer.

You are absolutely right in a way. Just owning a gun does not make you safer. It puts you in a lot more danger and more importantly it puts everyone around you in a lot more danger.

If you understand the firearm, how it operates, and you train with it for different situations...then it makes you exponentially safer along with everyone around you.

Having confidence is mainly what increases survival. Knowing you are prepared is what gives you that confidence.

[boutons_deux]

The guns and ammo industry got the business stimulus it scare-mongered for, and lobbied for. The 2nd Amendment bullshit is pure smokescreen for business activity.

[Veterinarian]

LOL @ the ppl scared of guns. That's like being scared that the sun comes up. It is what it is. Just accept reality. No one forces you to own or operate a firearm against your will.

tbh I'm pro gun but thats about the most nonsensical argument for guns I've ever heard. The people who want gun control of afraid of getting riddled with bullets not being forced to own one.

[Wild Cobra]

tbh I'm pro gun but thats about the most nonsensical argument for guns I've ever heard. The people who want gun control of afraid of getting riddled with bullets not being forced to own one.
There is no way to prevent those who kill or hurt with guns because you could never get a reasonable number of guns off the streets. All you do is make the average person less protected, and increasing gun crimes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think the answer is to flood the streets with guns! Everyone has a gun...! No need to limit the manufatcuring of firearms because we need to make sure that everyone has a gun! Maybe two or three guns per man, woman , and child!

[boutons_deux]

"answer is to flood the streets with guns"

For some reason, America's police forces think this is the worst answer.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"answer is to flood the streets with guns"

For some reason, America's police forces think this is the worst answer.

it would make everyone safer silly!

[Bender]

not to mention names, but there is quite a bit of stupidity in this thread.

[Drachen]

The people like ploto who joke that members who are for states rights are happy with decision to squash states rights regarding the 2nd amendment...
well, for stuff like immigration that the government refuses to do anything about, the states should be able to take their own steps. For Constitutional rights, the states should not be allowed to mark out or erase parts of the Constitution that they don't like, for example the 2nd amendment.

So then, if a state made a rule excluding anchor babies from getting citizenship, would you be against that?

[boutons_deux]

it would make everyone safer silly!

For some reason, the guns & ammo business thinks flooding the world with guns is the best answer.

Always follow the money.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html

(AP story)

Nothing on the peekaboo ruling? I'm shocked.

I would have thought that would have you more worked up.

[DarkReign]

I'm not trying to be condescending either, but it appears to me that these contoversial, violent stories struck enough fear into you that you felt the need to buy a 9mm and keep it next to your bed.

Then you would be incorrect with your assumption about "fear" being the driving force behind my owning a gun.

I own a gun because I choose to and have a constitutionally protected right to do so.

There isnt one member of my family over the age of 14 that doesnt know how to handle a firearm, especially something as simple as a handgun.

I keep a gun in my nightstand because crazy shit happens all the time. For instance, and I am sure a couple Michigan folks can confirm this story, but within the past 2-3 years (my memory sucks) there was a home invasion in Chesterfield township (FAR north of Detroit) where a young married couple (whom my wife graduated with both of them) were bound, beaten and robbed.

Since the dipshit felons didnt wear masks or the like, they knew the two suspects could identify them, so they had to kill them. So they beat them with clubs while they were tied to chairs, but it didnt finish the husband. So they injected him with bleach...numerous times. It still didnt kill him. So they continued to beat him...still didnt die. Smothering, choking, etc...wouldnt die. He finally died probably from the cumulative effect of all the abuse and poisoning.

This happened 10 miles from my house and I knew (vicariously) the victims.

The murderers were apprehended a few short days later. Turns out, they were a young couple who were riding around with a dead hillbilly in the trunk/bed of their car. That poor soul made the mistake of offering help to the young couple up north (where police services arent around the corner). He let them stay in his trailer on his property for free for a couple days, then they tortured and killed him, but didnt know what to do with the body. They burned it, etc.

So while fleeing the scene up north, they needed fast money. They picked a random house, found a young woman there, invaded and accosted her, made her call her husband home for "an emergency". She (unforgivably) complied with their demands and called him home. He rushed home and was assaulted as soon as he entered the front door. They beat and tortured them all night and ended up killing both of them via the methods described above.

That isnt happening to me or my family, ever. I keep a 9mm in my nightstand for when I am sleeping (wife is a notoriously light sleeper and knows to wake me up should she become alarmed), I keep a .380 near my person everywhere in the house, especially in my basement (worst place to be in your house is the basement...no exits). I have patrolled twice in my five years living there, one was a false alarm, the other, IMO, was not. A suspicious car kept circling the neighborhood slowing down in front of our house every time (we were watching them through the window in the den). This literally went on for about a half hour, over 15x they passed by, slowed down.

My wife was trippin', very nervous. She called the police, they said theyd send someone right over. 40 minutes later, no cops. Car is still there and at this point, I know there are 3 people in the car. Too dark to get a license plate and only a dumbass, pacifist with no brain goes out to the driveway with a baseball bat like thats a show of force.

So I holstered my 9mm on my belt, tucked my shirt in and stood at the end of my driveway near a very thick, mature tree and waited for them to come back around. They did. They slowed down near me and scoped me out, all I did, no macho shit, is turn my body to show the piece. They, literally, sped off and never returned.

I stood awake in my den for a good two hours with a loaded 12 gauge seeing if they'd come back. The first car to come around...the police. I explained the exact situation, description of the car, number of people in it, how our house had been robbed recently and every detail. His exact words "You did the right thing."

My father had a person try and break into his house (in Detroit) from below the floor. When the perp got through the floor somehow, he peeked his head through to see a side-by-side 12 gauge pointed at his nose.

My uncle was on a 25ft extension ladder tying a new service in for a commercial building just outside Detroit. A precarious position, to be sure, especially working with 10,000 volts. A group of hoodlums strolled up and started to shake the ladder, demanding his wallet. He said "Sure". Reached in his back pocket for his .38, pointed it at them, cocked the hammer and they scattered.

My aunt was broke down on the side of the road on I-75, I dont know if I was ever told what was wrong with the car, a pedestrian pulled over and offered assistance. She accepted, but kept her purse on her. The guy got under the hood and asked her to take the driver's seat to try the engine. He leaned under the hood and she got into the seat. Not 30 secs go by and the guy came around the driver's door and tried the door, never said a word. He started hitting the driver's window to break it, to get in. She reached in her purse, pulled her 9mm, and pointed. He ran back to his car and sped away. She collected herself and looked under the hood. He pulled all the spark plug wires.

The "other outcome" in those situations is not going to happen in my presence or in my life. I have been training with firearms almost longer than I can remember. Only untrained, deliquent morons or untrained children shoot themselves or other people with firearms. My father bought me my first gun (20 gauge, pump action Mossberg) when I was 11. In the first day, I could disasemble it, clean it, and put it back together with no help. Thats the rule in my family before you can keep your first gun.

If you have had the good fortune to never be in a situation where being armed is desirable, good for you, hope that works out for you and your family the rest of your life.

But I have been in two situations where being armed was incredibly desirable...the story I told above and another situation where I was unarmed staring at person pointing a gun at me (I was a teenager, at a party and someone came to the house with a weapon out of anger, I just so happened to be the poor bastard nearest the backyard gate he entered in). No thanks.

You can be content trusting your local police force to protect you, you seem to have had no reason to be otherwise. I, otoh, will take active measures to protect myself above and beyond my ability to get to a phone (which, imo, is no "protection" at all). Someone breaks into my house while my wife or I are home, they may have walked in, but theyll be carried out, alive (should they comply) or dead (should they refuse to comply).


Just curious, if you had a kid, where would you keep it?

Same place my father kept it when I was too young to know anything about firearms, in a safe. After that, he always had a lock on his door, I'll do the same.

But my child will be raised with firearms just the same as I was. I never pulled out my "daddy's gun" to show off to my friends. I didnt have to. I shot every single kind of gun before the age of 12, the novelty and "WOW factor" of guns had worn off long before that. They were and are not toys to me. I stopped playing with fake guns before the age of 10 (why play with the fake shit when youre shooting the real shit whenever you ask?).

To answer your question, I havent decided. I am thinking of mounting my 9 in a holster behind my headboard to get it out of the drawer (too obvious) and also have a lock on my bedroom door. I keep the safe in the basement, so thats no issue.

Mind you, I have children in my house all the time, so I am constantly locking up my firearms. But they dont stay the night (never will) and they get unlocked every time they leave.


how much firearm power should the general populace be able to have?

Assault rifles, sniper rifles, handguns, kevlar vests and every single type of ammunition made. As much as they want, so long as they legally purchase and qualify under Federal guidelines (no convicts, mentally disabled, have to be of age, etc).

/story

[Bender]

good post DR, interesting.

my son has been shooting with me since he was 8. He knows quite a bit about all types of firearms - semis, bolt rifles, revolvers, and single shots. He also knows all the safety rules and is always very responsible.

[clambake]

darkreign laying it down.

[Drachen]

So then, if a state made a rule excluding anchor babies from getting citizenship, would you be against that?

Honestly, I shouldn't be commenting in this thread, I haven't taken the time to read it, and could be taking stuff out of context.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's my point; even if the guns we are allowed to purchase wouldn't necessarily prevent the citizens from defending themselves adequately from, say, a dictatorship backed by the military, this doesn't mean that we just throw out all forms of protection we do have. Let's face it; guns are a great equalizer and no matter how much Kevlar a person is wearing, they know that a gun fired in the right spot can kill them. It's a sobering thought.

For all those worried about deaths from guns, I would argue that there seem to be far more deaths due to car accidents; that just doesn't get half the sensationalism.

[RandomGuy]

Then you would be incorrect with your assumption about "fear" being the driving force behind my owning a gun.

I own a gun because I choose to and have a constitutionally protected right to do so.

There isnt one member of my family over the age of 14 that doesnt know how to handle a firearm, especially something as simple as a handgun.

I keep a gun in my nightstand because crazy shit happens all the time. For instance, and I am sure a couple Michigan folks can confirm this story, but within the past 2-3 years (my memory sucks) there was a home invasion in Chesterfield township (FAR north of Detroit) where a young married couple (whom my wife graduated with both of them) were bound, beaten and robbed.... [remainder of post omitted due to length-RG]
/story

Yup. I have never really had a problem with guns, but have never really bothered getting one yet.

Both boys are at the ages 7 and 4, where at least the older one is ready to start learning, and the little one can at least be taught that they are as dangerous as the outlets on the wall.

I will probably trip down to the local walmart in the next year or so, and get a shotgun and pistol, and whatever it takes to keep the kids out of them.

Any suggestions? I don't have a safe or gun cabinet yet and live in a duplex.

[boutons_deux]

"I would argue that there seem to be far more deaths due to car accidents"

Well, yes, cars' primary use is to kill people, so that makes sense, while guns' primary use is transportation.

What about the probability of needing gun to fight back against civil/military troops herding everybody into concentration camps?

What's the probability of getting killed in a car compared to the probability of killing or being killed during a home invasion?

What's the probability of Magic Negro confiscating all legal gun owners' guns? From what the gun nuts and NRA have been saying, it's about 100%, starting from 21 Jan 09.

[Blake]

There in lies the problem. No one ever talks about the saved lives from the UT Tower shooting, because of all the citizens who had their rifles and fired back which kept whitman pinned down.

How many lives did those private citizens save?

[spursncowboys]

Then you would be incorrect with your assumption about "fear" being the driving force behind my owning a gun.

I own a gun because I choose to and have a constitutionally protected right to do so.

There isnt one member of my family over the age of 14 that doesnt know how to handle a firearm, especially something as simple as a handgun.

I keep a gun in my nightstand because crazy shit happens all the time. For instance, and I am sure a couple Michigan folks can confirm this story, but within the past 2-3 years (my memory sucks) there was a home invasion in Chesterfield township (FAR north of Detroit) where a young married couple (whom my wife graduated with both of them) were bound, beaten and robbed.

Since the dipshit felons didnt wear masks or the like, they knew the two suspects could identify them, so they had to kill them. So they beat them with clubs while they were tied to chairs, but it didnt finish the husband. So they injected him with bleach...numerous times. It still didnt kill him. So they continued to beat him...still didnt die. Smothering, choking, etc...wouldnt die. He finally died probably from the cumulative effect of all the abuse and poisoning.

This happened 10 miles from my house and I knew (vicariously) the victims.

The murderers were apprehended a few short days later. Turns out, they were a young couple who were riding around with a dead hillbilly in the trunk/bed of their car. That poor soul made the mistake of offering help to the young couple up north (where police services arent around the corner). He let them stay in his trailer on his property for free for a couple days, then they tortured and killed him, but didnt know what to do with the body. They burned it, etc.

So while fleeing the scene up north, they needed fast money. They picked a random house, found a young woman there, invaded and accosted her, made her call her husband home for "an emergency". She (unforgivably) complied with their demands and called him home. He rushed home and was assaulted as soon as he entered the front door. They beat and tortured them all night and ended up killing both of them via the methods described above.

That isnt happening to me or my family, ever. I keep a 9mm in my nightstand for when I am sleeping (wife is a notoriously light sleeper and knows to wake me up should she become alarmed), I keep a .380 near my person everywhere in the house, especially in my basement (worst place to be in your house is the basement...no exits). I have patrolled twice in my five years living there, one was a false alarm, the other, IMO, was not. A suspicious car kept circling the neighborhood slowing down in front of our house every time (we were watching them through the window in the den). This literally went on for about a half hour, over 15x they passed by, slowed down.

My wife was trippin', very nervous. She called the police, they said theyd send someone right over. 40 minutes later, no cops. Car is still there and at this point, I know there are 3 people in the car. Too dark to get a license plate and only a dumbass, pacifist with no brain goes out to the driveway with a baseball bat like thats a show of force.

So I holstered my 9mm on my belt, tucked my shirt in and stood at the end of my driveway near a very thick, mature tree and waited for them to come back around. They did. They slowed down near me and scoped me out, all I did, no macho shit, is turn my body to show the piece. They, literally, sped off and never returned.

I stood awake in my den for a good two hours with a loaded 12 gauge seeing if they'd come back. The first car to come around...the police. I explained the exact situation, description of the car, number of people in it, how our house had been robbed recently and every detail. His exact words "You did the right thing."

My father had a person try and break into his house (in Detroit) from below the floor. When the perp got through the floor somehow, he peeked his head through to see a side-by-side 12 gauge pointed at his nose.

My uncle was on a 25ft extension ladder tying a new service in for a commercial building just outside Detroit. A precarious position, to be sure, especially working with 10,000 volts. A group of hoodlums strolled up and started to shake the ladder, demanding his wallet. He said "Sure". Reached in his back pocket for his .38, pointed it at them, cocked the hammer and they scattered.

My aunt was broke down on the side of the road on I-75, I dont know if I was ever told what was wrong with the car, a pedestrian pulled over and offered assistance. She accepted, but kept her purse on her. The guy got under the hood and asked her to take the driver's seat to try the engine. He leaned under the hood and she got into the seat. Not 30 secs go by and the guy came around the driver's door and tried the door, never said a word. He started hitting the driver's window to break it, to get in. She reached in her purse, pulled her 9mm, and pointed. He ran back to his car and sped away. She collected herself and looked under the hood. He pulled all the spark plug wires.

The "other outcome" in those situations is not going to happen in my presence or in my life. I have been training with firearms almost longer than I can remember. Only untrained, deliquent morons or untrained children shoot themselves or other people with firearms. My father bought me my first gun (20 gauge, pump action Mossberg) when I was 11. In the first day, I could disasemble it, clean it, and put it back together with no help. Thats the rule in my family before you can keep your first gun.

If you have had the good fortune to never be in a situation where being armed is desirable, good for you, hope that works out for you and your family the rest of your life.

But I have been in two situations where being armed was incredibly desirable...the story I told above and another situation where I was unarmed staring at person pointing a gun at me (I was a teenager, at a party and someone came to the house with a weapon out of anger, I just so happened to be the poor bastard nearest the backyard gate he entered in). No thanks.

You can be content trusting your local police force to protect you, you seem to have had no reason to be otherwise. I, otoh, will take active measures to protect myself above and beyond my ability to get to a phone (which, imo, is no "protection" at all). Someone breaks into my house while my wife or I are home, they may have walked in, but theyll be carried out, alive (should they comply) or dead (should they refuse to comply).



Same place my father kept it when I was too young to know anything about firearms, in a safe. After that, he always had a lock on his door, I'll do the same.

But my child will be raised with firearms just the same as I was. I never pulled out my "daddy's gun" to show off to my friends. I didnt have to. I shot every single kind of gun before the age of 12, the novelty and "WOW factor" of guns had worn off long before that. They were and are not toys to me. I stopped playing with fake guns before the age of 10 (why play with the fake shit when youre shooting the real shit whenever you ask?).

To answer your question, I havent decided. I am thinking of mounting my 9 in a holster behind my headboard to get it out of the drawer (too obvious) and also have a lock on my bedroom door. I keep the safe in the basement, so thats no issue.

Mind you, I have children in my house all the time, so I am constantly locking up my firearms. But they dont stay the night (never will) and they get unlocked every time they leave.



Assault rifles, sniper rifles, handguns, kevlar vests and every single type of ammunition made. As much as they want, so long as they legally purchase and qualify under Federal guidelines (no convicts, mentally disabled, have to be of age, etc).

/storygreat post. In my experience the kids who played around with guns as kids or bought them illegally as teenagers were the ones who's parents didn't have them or show them how they work.

[Goliadnative]

How many lives did those private citizens save?

This is a snippet from the Wikipedia link, so take it for what it's worth.

Charles Whitman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#cite_note-memoirs-19)

"Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

He seemed to be a decent shot since he killed 14 and wounded 32 so it may have been significant. This doesn't answer your question since it really can't be answered with certainty.

[vy65]

I don't get it. That Kosinski dissent suggests that the right to bear arms goes hand in hand with fear of government. I guess that makes sense given the amendment references the militia, as opposed to the armed forces, which would be an extension of the national government. So what I'm hearing is that the right to be armed is a corollary to distrust of government such that, if push comes to shove, citizens have the means to figt "tyranny."

If that's true, I got two questions: (1) why isn't the idea of armed rebellion against government completely antiquated. Why didn't the 14th and 15th amendments, along with the drastic changes to the constitution that began in the new deal era court eschew the idea of an agrarian based republic where a populace distrusted their government and needed guns in the event push came to shove. (2) are seperatist movements, like the rpublic of Texas, validly exercising their right to bear arms as well as the corollary right to rise up against government?

[Blake]

Did anyone bother to point out blake's

"I never hear about..."

as his sole source of logic? Because he hadn't encountered something, it was his foundation for his argument. Ugh. *bangs head on table*

fwiw, I said "rarely ever hear about..."

ugh.



Here's a true story :

When I was around 4 years old, and my family lived in New York, my father, his sister, and my mother went out somewhere one day.

When getting out of the car, a man came to assault/mug them. Before he reached out his arm to grab my dad's sister's purse, my father pulled out his S&W revolver on the guy. The criminal got scared shitless, and ran away and left my family alone.

Was your life also saved that day or just your aunt's purse?

Lucky you, lucky us.

[DarkReign]

Any suggestions? I don't have a safe or gun cabinet yet and live in a duplex.

Honestly, Bender schooled me up a while back on a gun subject, he is a far better person to ask.

I want to make it known that I am by no means an expert on guns (or anything for that matter, besides stabilizer bars, go fig). But I know guns well, how to see quality, maintain working order and use down range. I am, admittedly, rusty with my marksmanship (been awhile, until recently), but that comes with constant practice.

I couldnt hit a silhouette's center from 50ft with my 9mm the first time I took it to range, but 3 clips later (~45 shots) I was putting a 4" group together. Thats not great, or even good, but its more than accurate enough in any situation.

To answer your question, RG, about which firearm to purchase, I would only ever suggest what I was taught and learned from.

A pump action 20 gauge Mossberg (or Remington, Winchester...go with a good, strong name, theyre all relatively cheap...less than $150).

Reasons:

Ease of use - A 20 gauge doesnt "kick" nearly as hard. Good for young men to learn with. Obviously, shoot it yourself and judge from that. If 20 gauge seems too much gun for your youngin, go with a 410 gauge. Problem with 410 is its a useless piece for anything but learning (you arent killing deer with a 410 unless youre riding them while aiming). But that alone makes it useful, in its own way.

Simple design - Pump action shotguns are about the simplest firearm there is in the world. It will teach them (and you) about the mechanics of a basic firearm. Incredibly easy to break-down, clean, lubricate and put back to together. Even an untrained eye (such as myself) can identify the important aspects of a firearm. Firing pin, magazine, slide, barrel, action, etc. Breaking it down and putting it back together is simple and elegant in its design. They never jam (like an auto-loader does when its dirty or old) and about as reliable a weapon as there is in the world. Say that out loud though and someone is going to show you a YouTube of an AK47 being pulled from the desert sand and then fired. Nevermind them.

Lethality - A 20 gauge shotgun can kill anything short of a bear (with the right ammunition, slug rounds being the operative here). This includes humans, obviously. If youre a good-ish shot, it will fall, period. I killed my first and only deer with my 20 gauge (for which I am still laughed at for to this day...no one hunts deer with a shotgun, I see the humor now).

Home defense - Any cop or knowledgeable firearm dealer will tell you the best home defense weapon a family can have is a shotgun with buck shot (preferabbly 8oo (the "oo" is pronounced "aught")). The reason is because buckshot doesnt penetrate much after a cetain distance is traveled. When you fire, the shot only hits what youre aiming at. In a house, this means your kids and your neighbors will not be in danger of stray pellets killing them (or even hurting them). Unless theyre, literally, on the other side of a drywall wall that youre aiming at, theyre safe and nowhere near harms way (even buckshot making it through a drywall wall and still being lethal, is questionable). If there is brick between you and those you want safe, there is ZERO chance your shot makes it through the brick (or even cinderblock). This isnt true with high caliber rifles (30-06, .308, .302, 30-30, etc). Their penetration is extreme...it isnt uncommon to shoot a deer and have the bullet pass right through almost completely unnoticed by the deer (until they bleed to death if you hit any vitals, hit the heart and they drop exactly where they stand). Shotgun + buckshot = perfect home defense weapon, period.

Safety - Shotguns are incredibly easy to disable for storage. All of them have a safety switch, but any gun enthusiast will tell you that "the safety of a safety isnt safe". You can buy a lockout, which is just a long, plastic-wrapped metal cord with a lock on the end which connects through the action of the shotgun, preventing the slide from closing the action (and therefore disabling the firearm from being shot until that is removed, no matter how hard you try). Moreover and more easily, removing the slide altogether. Its just a metal piece about 1" x 1" x 4" that houses the firing pin. Remove that block and you have a very useless, albeit real looking gun. Put that somewhere safe and you can leave that gun wherever youd like, its completely useless for anything more than an oversized paperweight or coat rack (unless someone has the exact model slide in their pocket to replace the one you took out...doubtful). Shotguns are, again, incredibly simple designs, especially pump-action shotguns. This simplicity of design is a big reason why theyre so damn popular...that and they pack one helluva punch.

As for safes and which kind to buy, you just cant go wrong with any on the market. If you have a Gander Mountain somewhere near you, go there and ask/explore. Do you want a fireproof safe? A safe that can double storing important documents? Low profile? Large? Custom? Millions of questions and there is no wrong answer. Mine is a a fireproof (not fire resistant, fireproof), 6 rifle storage safe (multiple shelves for handguns) with a file cabinet in the base. It was $1200, but you can spend significantly less than that and get the protection and storage you desire. A non-fireproof, small safe can cost you less than $500.

[Blake]

Then you would be incorrect with your assumption about "fear" being the driving force behind my owning a gun.


I keep a gun in my nightstand because crazy shit happens all the time.

We must have different definitions of fear.

[Blake]

This is a snippet from the Wikipedia link, so take it for what it's worth.

Charles Whitman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#cite_note-memoirs-19)

"Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

He seemed to be a decent shot since he killed 14 and wounded 32 so it may have been significant.

interesting read.


This doesn't answer your question since it really can't be answered with certainty.

pretty much.

[boutons_deux]

"why isn't the idea of armed rebellion against government completely antiquated."

it is. It's the nutjob paranoid fringe that thinks it's still simplistic 18th century, they're going to be "tread on", and they're all ready to go "irregular" and go "swamp fox" on the US's $1T/year military/police force.

"rpublic of Texas" ain't been no such thing for 150 years. Secessionist Perry is a rabble-rousing asshole, even if there is a lot of rabble in TX.

[CosmicCowboy]

"why isn't the idea of armed rebellion against government completely antiquated."

it is. It's the nutjob paranoid fringe that thinks it's still simplistic 18th century, they're going to be "tread on", and they're all ready to go "irregular" and go "swamp fox" on the US's $1T/year military/police force.

"rpublic of Texas" ain't been no such thing for 150 years. Secessionist Perry is a rabble-rousing asshole, even if there is a lot of rabble in TX.

Uhhhh....armed rebellion against government antiquated? What do you call what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[vy65]

We meant in the US, not a third world country/warzone

[CosmicCowboy]

Just sayin, that those low tech rebels seem to be doing pretty damn good against that $1T/year US Military.

[boutons_deux]

Right, CC, Iraq and Afghanistan are "insurging" against the predatory, greedy invader.

The US nutjob paranoid fringe see the US govt as the "invader" of their freedoms and rights.

If any force contemplating invading USA is lot more worried about the US military than about bunch of paranoid NRA bubba nutjobs.

[CosmicCowboy]

Right, CC, Iraq and Afghanistan are "insurging" against the predatory, greedy invader.

The US nutjob paranoid fringe see the US govt as the "invader" of their freedoms and rights.

If any force contemplating invading USA is lot more worried about the US military than about bunch of paranoid NRA bubba nutjobs.

:lmao & "predatory, greedy invader"

Last I checked both of those countries had democratically elected governments.

And using the military to control civilians is a hell of a lot harder than you think. Actually, I think it would be impossible in the US unless they just started arresting/killing everyone that was not in uniform.

[LnGrrrR]

"I would argue that there seem to be far more deaths due to car accidents"

Well, yes, cars' primary use is to kill people, so that makes sense, while guns' primary use is transportation.

So then, we should not have a military, as its primary job is to kill people and there's no ability to defend. Peace through strength is a doctrine I believe in. A civilization of pacifists can't and won't work, because some jerk will eventually pick up a big stick.


What about the probability of needing gun to fight back against civil/military troops herding everybody into concentration camps?

Considering it's happened before in multiple situations throughout history, I'd say it'd be a decent probability if guns were outlawed to the populace. Even if the probability is low, I think it's useful to defend against that situation. What are the chances that someone drops a bomb on Boston? Probably low. Does that mean that all those disaster response personnel are useless?


What's the probability of Magic Negro confiscating all legal gun owners' guns? From what the gun nuts and NRA have been saying, it's about 100%, starting from 21 Jan 09.

No argument here from me Boutons. I agree with you 100% that gun sellers pump up the non-existent threat of "Govmint gone take our guns!" in order to boost sales.

[LnGrrrR]

If that's true, I got two questions: (1) why isn't the idea of armed rebellion against government completely antiquated. Why didn't the 14th and 15th amendments, along with the drastic changes to the constitution that began in the new deal era court eschew the idea of an agrarian based republic where a populace distrusted their government and needed guns in the event push came to shove. (2) are seperatist movements, like the rpublic of Texas, validly exercising their right to bear arms as well as the corollary right to rise up against government?

The Founding Fathers believed that it was the duty of citizens to fight against a corrupt government, more or less. That thought is, I think, a foundation of American ideals.

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, a question: If the ability to purchase guns legally were removed, do yout hink criminals would no longer have guns?

[boutons_deux]

"Last I checked both of those countries had democratically elected governments."

Both countries are still overwhelmingly occupied and dominated by the greedy, predatory invader. Both governments are US puppets, and will fall when the US support withdraws.

"arresting/killing everyone that was not in uniform."

as always, paranoid delusions, fantasies with no chance of happening, paranoia fanned by somebody aiming to make money off the paranoia.

[vy65]

The Founding Fathers believed that it was the duty of citizens to fight against a corrupt government, more or less. That thought is, I think, a foundation of American ideals.

Maybe, but part of my question was why didn't the civil war and the constitutional amendments it produced produce a change in that belief?

[CosmicCowboy]

"Last I checked both of those countries had democratically elected governments."

Both countries are still overwhelmingly occupied and dominated by the greedy, predatory invader. Both governments are US puppets, and will fall when the US support withdraws.

"arresting/killing everyone that was not in uniform."

as always, paranoid delusions, fantasies with no chance of happening, paranoia fanned by somebody aiming to make money off the paranoia.

I'm not saying they would do that. I'm just saying that would be the only way they could come even close to controlling the population. It's been proven over and over that a civilian population willing to go "guerrilla" is virtually impossible to stop.

[DarkReign]

We must have different definitions of fear.

No, we dont. What we have is different definitions of what constiutes safe.

You feel safe with a phone.

I feel safe with a gun.

Thats all.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe, but part of my question was why didn't the civil war and the constitutional amendments it produced produce a change in that belief?

That's the interesting part about the Civil War. The South, in my eyes, was pretty much doing what the Founding Fathers suggested, fighting against a government that had gone corrupt. (Now, granted, the South wasn't some knight in shining armor...)

But the North kicked their ass, and said, "Nope, you're not leaving". And somehow, it all worked out. For the most part. I always thought that strange.

I'd still say that anti-authoritarianism runs strong in most Americans, and is part and parcel of the "freedom" that most Americans hold dear.

[Bender]

Honestly, Bender schooled me up a while back on a gun subject, he is a far better person to ask.

I want to make it known that I am by no means an expert on guns (or anything for that matter, besides stabilizer bars, go fig). But I know guns well, how to see quality, maintain working order and use down range. I am, admittedly, rusty with my marksmanship (been awhile, until recently), but that comes with constant practice.

I like collecting and shooting guns, but I'm not that good with pistols, though. I prefer rifles.
I'm ashamed to say that, in all my guns, I don't own a shotgun. I have two gun safes at home. I don't keep a pistol beside the bed. I would like to, but I don't want it stolen. Sometimes people come by while I am not there (ex-family members). I'm not worried about my son and guns around the house. He is extremely responsible and safe with guns. He even corrects me sometimes, on safety issues.

Any suggestions? I don't have a safe or gun cabinet yet and live in a duplex.
they make small, quick open gun safes. Seems like someone could steal a mini-safe though.

handgun safe (http://www.deansafe.com/gun-gv-1000.html)

[DarrinS]

I don't own a gun, but I support others' rights to own them.

[CosmicCowboy]

I keep a double stack 9mm in a yellow 8 1/2 X 11 manilla envelope on my nightstand with a small stack of books/magazines. Not obvious at all.

[Bender]

CC, you don't strike me as a 9mm kind of guy.

maybe a revolver in .45LC or something...

[CosmicCowboy]

CC, you don't strike me as a 9mm kind of guy.

maybe a revolver in .45LC or something...

Ahhh....just variety. I carry a .38 S&W model 642 in my back pocket at the ranch and keep a Para Ordinance P12 in the truck.

I don't like to shoot pistols much bigger than that.

I actually prefer shotguns for self defense if it ever gets serious.

[DarkReign]

Maybe, but part of my question was why didn't the civil war and the constitutional amendments it produced produce a change in that belief?

Because as cloudy and muddy as the issues underlying the Civil War have become, it was about slavery and nothing else.

The forced bondage of human beings to be owned as property and be recognized as such by the law. Property and nothing more.

Good lawyers argue that the Civil War was about state rights and a states ability to self determine.

Bullshit.

Lincoln, for as noble as he is held by history, was a pussy on the issue. He was willing to allow slavery to continue in the established Southern states and let them determine when the atrocity would end. What he wouldnt budge on is the expansion of slavery to (for example) the Missouri Territory which was applying for statehood.

Thats what the war was about. And nothing about it should change the Constitutional rights provided by the Federal government.

States can and should be self determinate...so long as their law does not abridge the Constitution.

For example, drugs and drug use is not in the Constitution. There are Federal laws against them, state laws as well. But that is a current issue that should be left to the States, because their law in no way undermines the Consitution and its protections.

State and city gun laws, however, do undermine the Consitutional rights of citizens. The fact that is was a meager 5-4 vote bodes negative for gun owners and Constituional authority. Because the implication that a state or city can restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens has far-reaching implications. It cant be a case-by-case argument, meaning "Oh, guns you can regulate, but free speech you cant". The Consitution either is fully and wholly the absolute Law of the Land, or it is not.

If it is not and local authorities can determine what applies and what does not, then...this country has a serious problem.

Moreover, I think youre suggesting that the Civil War and the amendments that came from it should have alleviated citizen fear of overzealous government. If I am reading you right, that seems a strange thing to suggest that perception is the key here and that once perception should have changed due the CW (although there is no reason to believe a universal shift should have or even did happen), then all Americans after the CW should have just bowed to Federal authority on the grounds and lessons learned during the CW.

That is odd.

[DarkReign]

CC, you don't strike me as a 9mm kind of guy.

maybe a revolver in .45LC or something...

Ha...

I am actually upgrading to a S&W .40

Maybe one day when I grow up, I'll get a .45M :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I own a Ruger Security Six .357 magnum. I can get 4-5" groupings at 45 ft with only a 2.75" barrel. While not great, I'm pretty happy with that grouping.

Alot of fun to start off with .38 loads then squeeze off a few magnums.

[Blake]

No, we dont. What we have is different definitions of what constiutes safe.

You feel safe with a phone.

I feel safe with a gun.

Thats all.

Yes we do.

You said crazy shit happens all the time.

You keep a 9mm next to your pillow because you are afraid the crazy shit might happen to you.

I don't really fault anyone that does, but I don't really fear the crazy shit.

That's really all.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll let you guys handle the close in stuff. I specialize in the long range stuff. I'm not military sniper quality but head shots at 350 yds are well within my capability.

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, I'll ask again: If guns were illegal, do you think criminals wouldn't have guns? Would have less guns?

[Bender]

I'll let you guys handle the close in stuff. I specialize in the long range stuff. I'm not military sniper quality but head shots at 350 yds are well within my capability.

I have no experience with long range shooting. The range I go to only goes out to 200yds.

I think Bullethole in San Antonio goes out to 300yds, but that is a long drive for me.

other than that, I need to know somebody that has some land...

[CosmicCowboy]

I have no experience with long range shooting. The range I go to only goes out to 200yds.

I think Bullethole in San Antonio goes out to 300yds, but that is a long drive for me.

other than that, I need to know somebody that has some land...

We go prairie dog hunting every memorial weekend out in West Texas. 300-500 yard shots on a target the size of a beer can are pretty normal.

[Winehole23]

What if any impact on Texas from extension of Second Amendment by SCOTUS to the states? (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-if-any-impact-on-texas-from.html)


Yesterday the US Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states. As Matthew Scarola at SCOTUSBlog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-state-gun-regulations-and-mcdonald/) put it, "Today’s opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago) means that for the first time, state and local governments’ gun regulations must comport with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right 'to keep and bear Arms.'”

Scarola thinks "McDonald’s extension of the Second Amendment to state and local gun regulation will undoubtedly prompt a flood of firearm-related litigation – especially because the Court did not specify a standard of review." Along those lines, “Justice Stevens lamented, 'today’s decision . . . could mire the federal courts in fine-grained determinations about which state and local regulations comport with the Heller right . . . under a standard of review we have not even established.'”

Willl Texas see any successful gun rights litigation based on McDonald? We're already a pretty gun friendly state, but there are also stiff penalties for certain gun crimes. I wonder if any Texas statutes - or perhaps ordinances by municipalities - may be implicated by the McDonald decision?

Doug Berman notes (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/06/puzzling-through-the-doctrine-and-dicta-of-mcdonald-on-the-second-amendments-limits.html) that the court held "individual gun rights are 'fundamental,' they help safeguard another 'basic right,' and they must not be treated as 'second-class [and thus] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees'." This raises the question of whether felons can lose their "fundamental" right to bear arms after their sentence is complete; after all, they don't lose their rights to free speech, which is also a "fundamental" and "basic right." Scarola also raised this question, saying "In McDonald, the court left this area of the law in turmoil."http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-if-any-impact-on-texas-from.html

[DarkReign]

Yes we do.

You said crazy shit happens all the time.

You keep a 9mm next to your pillow because you are afraid the crazy shit might happen to you.

I don't really fault anyone that does, but I don't really fear the crazy shit.

That's really all.

Agree to disagree, then.

[DarkReign]

We go prairie dog hunting every memorial weekend out in West Texas. 300-500 yard shots on a target the size of a beer can are pretty normal.

...thats fucking ridiculous...

30-30? 30-06? Poor dog, a .50?

Or, are you the type that uses a black rifle? 5.56 or 7.62?

I mean, I dont think a .22LR reaches that far, does it?

[DarkReign]

nevermind

[Bender]

We go prairie dog hunting every memorial weekend out in West Texas. 300-500 yard shots on a target the size of a beer can are pretty normal. I wanna be friends with you

edit: I know there is nothing out in west texas, but I thought it was all privately owned. Some states you can drive off somewhere and set up targets and shoot - 500yds or whatever. Can you do that in TX?

edit 2: :lol a .50BMG on prairie dogs...

[CosmicCowboy]

...thats fucking ridiculous...

30-30? 30-06? Poor dog, a .50?

Or, are you the type that uses a black rifle? 5.56 or 7.62?

I mean, I dont think a .22LR reaches that far, does it?

A .17hmr out to 200 and a 22-250 beyond that.

[Blake]

Blake, I'll ask again: If guns were illegal, do you think criminals wouldn't have guns? Would have less guns?

I think criminals would have illegal guns, as some currently illegally possess them today.

If we are talking handguns, if making handguns also became illegal, I would think there would be less handguns.

[DarkReign]

I think criminals would have illegal guns, as some currently illegally possess them today.

If we are talking handguns, if making handguns also became illegal, I would think there would be less handguns.

I think you think wrong. The means to manufacture handguns is incredibly simple. A person say, like myself, could easily and cheaply fabricate handguns from literally scratch and sell them on the black market for astronomical prices to a crime world that would pay it happily.

Youd basically create an equal problem the size of the drug trade. A multi-multi-billion dollar, untaxed industry.

[Bender]

not only that, but there are millions and millions of handguns already around. Stopping making them will do absolutely nothing.

[LnGrrrR]

I think criminals would have illegal guns, as some currently illegally possess them today.

If we are talking handguns, if making handguns also became illegal, I would think there would be less handguns.

Much like making alcohol during the Prohibition Era illegal prevented criminals from selling alcohol, or the current War on Drugs prevents people from purchasing drugs?

[Blake]

I think you think wrong. The means to manufacture handguns is incredibly simple. A person say, like myself, could easily and cheaply fabricate handguns from literally scratch and sell them on the black market for astronomical prices to a crime world that would pay it happily.

Youd basically create an equal problem the size of the drug trade. A multi-multi-billion dollar, untaxed industry.


not only that, but there are millions and millions of handguns already around. Stopping making them will do absolutely nothing.

eh, you could be right...or wrong. I haven't really done any real looking into the gun manufacturing part because I don't really see it as an issue for me.

Whether legal or illegal, I think the criminal element that wants to use a gun for something like a drive by shooting will always be there.

What I currently think is that there are too many stupid people with guns, like Miamiheat's dad. I think that kind of stupidity needs to be taken off the streets.

[LnGrrrR]

What I currently think is that there are too many stupid people with guns, like Miamiheat's dad. I think that kind of stupidity needs to be taken off the streets.

The bolded part is the true part. Stupid people will find ways to be stupid and possibly hurt others. Guns just make it easier to cause more damage.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wanna be friends with you

edit: I know there is nothing out in west texas, but I thought it was all privately owned. Some states you can drive off somewhere and set up targets and shoot - 500yds or whatever. Can you do that in TX?

edit 2: :lol a .50BMG on prairie dogs...

Yeah, it's all private. We basically rent a 13,000 acre ranch for the weekend. I drag my BBQ pit out there and we eat, drink, shoot, and tell lies for 4 days.

We have definitely taken some fun hardware out there in the past. Our recent favorite is 20 gauge grenade simulators. you just shoot them out of a regular shotgun. They blow up with a big bang and big puff of yellow smoke. the dead prairie dogs attract buzzards and we will shoot the grenade simulators at the buzzards flying around...like shooting flak at airplanes LOL. That and tannerite. When the prairie dog shooting gets slim we will just set up a 400 yard tannerite range. Theres no arguing hits and misses LOL.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, it's all private. We basically rent a 13,000 acre ranch for the weekend. I drag my BBQ pit out there and we eat, drink, shoot, and tell lies for 4 days.

We have definitely taken some fun hardware out there in the past. Our recent favorite is 20 gauge grenade simulators. you just shoot them out of a regular shotgun. They blow up with a big bang and big puff of yellow smoke. the dead prairie dogs attract buzzards and we will shoot the grenade simulators at the buzzards flying around...like shooting flak at airplanes LOL.

You should see if you can get any C4... makes a fun boom. :lol I'm more of an explosives fan than a gun fan, to be honest.

[CosmicCowboy]

Check my edit. We use tannerite.

[Blake]

Stupid people will find ways to be stupid and possibly hurt others. Guns just make it easier to cause more damage.

Basically yes.

I trust law enforcement officials with weapons because of the intensive training they go through.

I don't trust miamiheat's dad if someone comes up at me with a knife asking for my wallet. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather give the dude my wallet than to see him get shot by a nervous daddy.

[CosmicCowboy]

gotta run to the ranch now.

[Blake]

gotta run to the ranch now.

oh good, because we were wondering.

[LnGrrrR]

Check my edit. We use tannerite.

Nothing like a big ol' BOOM to put a grin on me. :lol :tu

[LnGrrrR]

Basically yes.

I trust law enforcement officials with weapons because of the intensive training they go through.

I don't trust miamiheat's dad if someone comes up at me with a knife asking for my wallet. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather give the dude my wallet than to see him get shot by a nervous daddy.

Understandable Blake, and I can see your thought process. But I think those cons are outweighed by the pros. Add in the fact that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution and I definitely come out on the "pro-gun" side.

The police may be trained to use guns, but there are stupid cops out there too. If I were to share stories of cops who abused their privileges, would you then argue that we should take guns away from cops as well, because a few bad apples didn't use theirs properly?

Might I also point you to statistics of crime in places like Britain, where violent crime was lower (last I checked anyways), but the INCIDENCE of crimes like break-ins were MUCH higher than the states. By lowering the defensive potential, attackers with a weapon are much more confident in their success, and more willing to carry out their plans.

[DarkReign]

eh, you could be right...or wrong. I haven't really done any real looking into the gun manufacturing part because I don't really see it as an issue for me.

Whether legal or illegal, I think the criminal element that wants to use a gun for something like a drive by shooting will always be there.

What I currently think is that there are too many stupid people with guns, like Miamiheat's dad. I think that kind of stupidity needs to be taken off the streets.

The thing with some drugs is, the means to produce them require fields of crops.

The thing with making a gun is, you need a bridgeport, a lathe, commercially purchased metal and a design. A one man operation in my basement could outfit the entire Detroit Metro area in 3 years and I would be a billionaire.

God forbid I invest and buy a 6-axis CNC for the stock parts, reduce that time to 1 year.

One remaining problem would be ammo. A brass sheet, lead, one die set, a flute (not the instrument) and the means to aquire sulfur (easy), charcoal (even easier) and saltpeter (potassium nitrate, of which Michigan has the largest supply of in the world).

Fuck, the more I think about this...

[DarkReign]

Nevermind, read about potassium nitrate. It is not easy to make and has absolutely nothing to do with Michigan's volumous salt mines.

[CosmicCowboy]

oh good, because we were wondering.

Dude, you suck. You and Manny should be lovers. It's OK with me if you pitch.

Look at the time line. We were bouncing posts back and forth like ping-pong. I didn't want to be rude and just disappear. No brag, just fact.

[doobs]

The Court's incorporation jurisprudence is so fucked.

If the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I would like to know what the drafters' understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868. It could be that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment was identical to that of the Framers in 1791. But maybe it was different.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868. (One's rights against the federal government under the Bill of Rights should be understood based on the Framers' intent in 1791.)

What does all this mean here? What do I look like, a historian?

[Wild Cobra]

The Court's incorporation jurisprudence is so fucked.

If the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I would like to know what the drafters' understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868. It could be that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment was identical to that of the Framers in 1791. But maybe it was different.


Well, it reads like this within the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To me, it means cities and sates cannot limit the 2nd amendment.

[doobs]

Well, it reads like this within the 14th amendment:

To me, it means cities and sates cannot limit the 2nd amendment.

Hence, my next sentence: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868."

But that's not how the Court does it. The Court selectively incorporates rights based on the Due Process Clause.

[Blake]

The thing with some drugs is, the means to produce them require fields of crops.

The thing with making a gun is, you need a bridgeport, a lathe, commercially purchased metal and a design. A one man operation in my basement could outfit the entire Detroit Metro area in 3 years and I would be a billionaire.

God forbid I invest and buy a 6-axis CNC for the stock parts, reduce that time to 1 year.

One remaining problem would be ammo. A brass sheet, lead, one die set, a flute (not the instrument) and the means to aquire sulfur (easy), charcoal (even easier) and saltpeter (potassium nitrate, of which Michigan has the largest supply of in the world).

Fuck, the more I think about this...

sounds like a meth lab

[Blake]

Dude, you suck. You and Manny should be lovers. It's OK with me if you pitch.

Look at the time line. We were bouncing posts back and forth like ping-pong. I didn't want to be rude and just disappear. No brag, just fact.

"I gots to get back to my ranch"

whatever... :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

"I gots to get back to my ranch"

whatever... :lol

Dude

I had an appointment at 5:30 an hour away.

I had to scoot.

Get over your penis envy.

[MiamiHeat]

The Bill of Rights is constitutionally guaranteed.

No state can override it. Period. This is not an issue of state's rights. It's an issue of citizen's rights.


Now, what we CAN agree on is what types of weapons are OK to own, and what are not OK.

For instance, there is no need for anyone to own an RPG or Stinger Missile.

what IS OK?

Handguns - personal defense
Shotguns - personal defense, hunting
Rifles - personal defense, hunting


what is NOT OK?

Grenades - No
Rocket/Grenade launchers - No

etc...

[Mr. Peabody]

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-if-any-impact-on-texas-from.html

Grits For Breakfast is a great blog.

As to his concerns that convicted felons here in Texas could bring challenges to out Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by Felon statutes, it's highly doubtful. The Court in Heller was clear that the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

I think that also means that Heller and McDonald aren't going to mean much in terms of assault rifle bans and automatic weapon bans. Both Heller and McDonald were focused on the issue of handguns, which the Supreme Court has said is the quintessential means of self-defense here in the US (i.e., weapons typically possessed). Given that, it's hard to see how one could argue that more exotic weapons fall under the decisions of these cases.

[Bender]

the worst gun-grabber politicians hate all guns.

I remember about how Ted Kennedy was going around saying that cartridges such as the 30-30 should be banned - they penetrate bullet-proof vests, and thus are "cop killer" ammo. LOL - the 30-30 is an antique cartridge that came out in the 1890's.

Some politicians want all semi-autos ("assault weapons") banned, or scoped rifles ("sniper rifles").

Senator Kennedy:
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.":lol what a moron

[vy65]

The Court's incorporation jurisprudence is so fucked.

If the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I would like to know what the drafters' understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868. It could be that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment was identical to that of the Framers in 1791. But maybe it was different.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868. (One's rights against the federal government under the Bill of Rights should be understood based on the Framers' intent in 1791.)

What does all this mean here? What do I look like, a historian?

The privileges AND immunities clause is in Article IV of the constitution and has no relevance here. The privileges OR immunities clause really has no substantive meaning here; how do you argue gun ownership is a privilege or immunity when there's an amendment giving the right (ostensibly at least).

The purpose of the 14th amendment was to insure states did not deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. To cabin that understanding to the views of 1868 would vitiate pretty much every substantive protection for individual rights that have come about in the past 150 years.

[Blake]

Dude

I had an appointment at 5:30 an hour away.

I had to scoot.

Get over your penis envy.

dude

do you always get this defensive over silly comments?

was this the kind of comment that led to you grabbing (your boss?) by the neck with one hand and lifting him up off the ground?

get over your butthurt.

[Blake]

The Bill of Rights is constitutionally guaranteed.

No state can override it. Period. This is not an issue of state's rights. It's an issue of citizen's rights.


Now, what we CAN agree on is what types of weapons are OK to own, and what are not OK.

For instance, there is no need for anyone to own an RPG or Stinger Missile.

what IS OK?

Handguns - personal defense
Shotguns - personal defense, hunting
Rifles - personal defense, hunting


what is NOT OK?

Grenades - No
Rocket/Grenade launchers - No

etc...

grenades are not ok because most states prohibit explosive weapons.

do you feel that semi-automatic weapons are ok?

[Sportcamper]

I am just wondering when the U.S. will join civilized countries like France & England & abolish private citizens entitlement to own firearms…There is no reason why anyone should have the right to shoot rifles or handguns or keep them in their home or campsite…

Also, hunting is a barbaric act that needs to be abolished…:nope

[spursncowboys]

The Court's incorporation jurisprudence is so fucked.

If the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I would like to know what the drafters' understanding of the 2nd Amendment was in 1868. It could be that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment was identical to that of the Framers in 1791. But maybe it was different.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the P & I Clause provides ample textual support for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, with the incorporated rights being interpreted based on the understanding of the drafters in 1868. (One's rights against the federal government under the Bill of Rights should be understood based on the Framers' intent in 1791.)

What does all this mean here? What do I look like, a historian?

the drafters of what? the 14th amendment?

[CosmicCowboy]

I am just wondering when the U.S. will join civilized countries like France & England & abolish private citizens entitlement to own firearms…There is no reason why anyone should have the right to shoot rifles or handguns or keep them in their home or campsite…

Also, hunting is a barbaric act that needs to be abolished…:nope

:lmao

http://cdn-www.trails.com/Cms/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/3084/280816-main_Full.jpg

[Sportcamper]

Did I mention that F-150’s & Silverado’s should all be replaced with Prius’s?

[doobs]

The privileges AND immunities clause is in Article IV of the constitution and has no relevance here. The privileges OR immunities clause really has no substantive meaning here; how do you argue gun ownership is a privilege or immunity when there's an amendment giving the right (ostensibly at least).

The purpose of the 14th amendment was to insure states did not deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. To cabin that understanding to the views of 1868 would vitiate pretty much every substantive protection for individual rights that have come about in the past 150 years.

Good Lord. I know the difference between the 14th Amendment and Article IV. I was obviously referring to the P or I Clause of the 14th Amendment. Apologies for writing P & I, and thanks for the valuable insight.

There's a difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has said it says. You've clearly drunk the Slaughterhouse Cases and Selective Incorporation kool-aid, which is fine. I happen to think the P or I Clause is the proper vehicle for total incorporation. It was meant to have substantive meaning. (Or are you one of these people who thinks there are constitutional provisions that mean nothing and are there for no reason at all?)

[DarkReign]

grenades are not ok because most states prohibit explosive weapons.

True, as they should be.


do you feel that semi-automatic weapons are ok?

Absolutely. Semi-automatic is a very broad term that applies to every kind of firearm there is.

IMO, fully-automatic should be legal.

[Veterinarian]

There is no way to prevent those who kill or hurt with guns because you could never get a reasonable number of guns off the streets. All you do is make the average person less protected, and increasing gun crimes.

You realize he said that people shouldn't be against guns because no one forces you to own one? I don't know how he did it but he mixed up a pro gun argument with an argument for letting the Howard Stern show stay on the air.

[CosmicCowboy]

dude

do you always get this defensive over silly comments?

was this the kind of comment that led to you grabbing (your boss?) by the neck with one hand and lifting him up off the ground?

get over your butthurt.

So you never read the original post about that but just jumped on the bandwagon?

The guy nearly got me killed. He intentionally didn't turn in a $30,000 check request for a contractor I had submitted just to fuck with me. The contractor pulled a .357 and I barely talked him out of shooting me in the face.

Yeah, I was fucking pissed and when the contractor finally pulled the gun out of my face and left I went in and confronted my boss. I'm a big strong guy (6'5", 250#) and yeah, I picked the little weasel up by the neck and held him against the wall and told him if he ever did that to me again I would kill him.

So fucking what?

[doobs]

the drafters of what? the 14th amendment?

Yes. To be fair, perhaps it should be the plain meaning as understood by the voting public in 1868. But this is only with respect to how the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states.

To illustrate. The 2nd Amendment right recognized in Heller should have been interpreted based on the Founders' intent (or the plain meaning as understood by the voting public) in 1791. The 2nd Amendment right incorporated against the states in McDonald should have been interpreted based on the 14th Amendment's framers' intent (or the plain meaning as understood by the voting public) in 1868. In all likelihood, the two interpretations would have been identical. But in theory, they could diverge.

[DarkReign]

I am just wondering when the U.S. will join civilized countries like France & England & abolish private citizens entitlement to own firearms…There is no reason why anyone should have the right to shoot rifles or handguns or keep them in their home or campsite…

Also, hunting is a barbaric act that needs to be abolished…:nope

:lmao

Do you eat meat?

[Bender]

IMO, fully-automatic should be legal.

actually fully automatics are legal (Class III). You just have to go thru many steps to get one. Fingerprinting, etc. Also, full autos cost major money, and you have to pay hundreds of dollars "transfer tax" that goes into the government's pockets.

[vy65]

Good Lord. I know the difference between the 14th Amendment and Article IV. I was obviously referring to the P or I Clause of the 14th Amendment. Apologies for writing P & I, and thanks for the valuable insight.

There's a difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has said it says. You've clearly drunk the Slaughterhouse Cases and Selective Incorporation kool-aid, which is fine. I happen to think the P or I Clause is the proper vehicle for total incorporation. It was meant to have substantive meaning. (Or are you one of these people who thinks there are constitutional provisions that mean nothing and are there for no reason at all?)

Since you know the difference, I take it that you also know that writing and vs. or references completely different lines of cases. If you want to be taken seriouly, pay attention to details that impact what you say.

Aside from trivial or what Sanford Levinson calls "hard wired" constitutuional provisions like age requirements to be a senator, pretty much every legal scholar and constitutional lawyer would disagree that there is a difference between the constitution and what judges say it means. In fact, the idea that the text is evolving and means different things at different times was espoused back in McCulloch v Maryland.

I'm also curious why you think P or I is a good vehicle for incorporation. What is a P or I, what makes it difference from a P and I and those rights protected by amendment? What's that substantive meaning?

I don't necessarily disagree that there may be something to the clause, but I also have no problem reading out portions of a document over 220 years old, if there's a good reason for doing so. This may be surprising to you, but shit changes over the course of 2 centuries so neurotically clinging to every provision of the text is not the most prudent way to interpret the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

grenades are not ok because most states prohibit explosive weapons.

do you feel that semi-automatic weapons are ok?
I agree that more modern types of weapons are in a gray area. I'm on the fence about this. Maybe they thought we should have all forms of weapons for protection? Do we really know?

Semiautomatic weapons are fine in my book. Automatic, in that gray area.

[Sportcamper]

DarkReign
I am trying to go Vegan but once in a while I enjoy a filet or t-bone or rack of lamb…There is a difference though, I only buy free range where the animals enjoy a happy life, graze on natural foods, no hormones & they are slaughtered in an efficient humane matter…In general these animals are harvested anyway for their hides or wool…It would be shameful to let the meat go to waste…

[Wild Cobra]

actually fully automatics are legal (Class III). You just have to go thru many steps to get one. Fingerprinting, etc. Also, full autos cost major money, and you have to pay hundreds of dollars "transfer tax" that goes into the government's pockets.
The point of the argument is should such things even be required, at least I think. The constitution does give us the "right to bear arms." Arms simply means weapons, and as far as I know, the only reason to limit arms is the likes of insurrection. Not any crime, or assumed quality of the person. Just specific types of crime. Although I fear the idea, I think felons, once they have served their time, should be able to have weapons. If we want to reintegrate people into society, shouldn't they be treated as equals?

[Bender]

The point of the argument is should such things even be required, at least I think. The constitution does give us the "right to bear arms." Arms simply means weapons, and as far as I know, the only reason to limit arms is the likes of insurrection. Not any crime, or assumed quality of the person. Just specific types of crime. Although I fear the idea, I think felons, once they have served their time, should be able to have weapons. If we want to reintegrate people into society, shouldn't they be treated as equals?
yeah I know. Personally, I love all guns, but I have no interest in full-auto. I don't care if they are allowed or not. I enjoy the shooting sports... hitting what I'm aiming at, not spraying lead...

[doobs]

Since you know the difference, I take it that you also know that writing and vs. or references completely different lines of cases. If you want to be taken seriouly, pay attention to details that impact what you say.

Aside from trivial or what Sanford Levinson calls "hard wired" constitutuional provisions like age requirements to be a senator, pretty much every legal scholar and constitutional lawyer would disagree that there is a difference between the constitution and what judges say it means. In fact, the idea that the text is evolving and means different things at different times was espoused back in McCulloch v Maryland.

I'm also curious why you think P or I is a good vehicle for incorporation. What is a P or I, what makes it difference from a P and I and those rights protected by amendment? What's that substantive meaning?

I don't necessarily disagree that there may be something to the clause, but I also have no problem reading out portions of a document over 220 years old, if there's a good reason for doing so. This may be surprising to you, but shit changes over the course of 2 centuries so neurotically clinging to every provision of the text is not the most prudent way to interpret the constitution.

You're still on this? I'll repeat: I OBVIOUSLY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT. It was a typo, and one without any real meaning. Get over it.

(And, by the way, the terms "privileges" and "immunities" were pretty much interchangeable in 1868, so it actually does not make much of a difference whether you use "and" or "or.")

Some shocking quotes from you.

"pretty much every legal scholar and constitutional lawyer would disagree that there is a difference between the constitution and what judges say it means"

- if that's the case, then it would offend the Constitution to ever overturn precedent, and legal scholars and constitutional lawyers would have very little to do

"I also have no problem reading out portions of a document over 220 years old, if there's a good reason for doing so", "neurotically clinging to every provision of the text"

- a good reason? if there's sufficiently good reason, then amend the Constitution; every word means something, even if you don't like it
- it's cute that you think "shit has changed" enough that there is good reason to "read out" the P or I Clause; what's the threat posed by it?


Now. In what way is P or I Clause a good vehicle for incorporation? For one, look at its text and then compare it to the Due Process Clause. How can any substantive rights be incorporated against the states based on a guarantee of procedural protection? Selective incorporation is bunk, an accident of history after the wrongly-decided Slaughterhouse Cases. But you seem to be at peace with that, since a wrongly-decided opinion is sacrosanct because it represents what a judge says the Constitution means.

[vy65]

Wow, you still don't get it. Whatever privileges or immunities meant in 1868 is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that different interests are protected by the different clauses. You say that it's a typo. The law indicates your typo has meaningful consequences.

I don't know where you're getting this precedent stuff from, but I don't really put much purchase in stare decisis anyway. Plus, you haven't explained how there's a constitutional "meaning" above and beyond how judge interpret it. That and the fact that since McCulloch, a guiding principle of constitutional interpretation is to adapt the document to the times.

I'm glad you think my reading is cute. I think it's sad that you don't respond to my argument. You were up in arms about reading portions of the text out. I said no big deal - the document is old, and shit will fall out. There's no threat posed by the clause, but you still haven't given a good reason for why I shouldn't ignore it.

If you're argument is that due process means only procedural due process, then you've never heard of substantive due process. If you're claim is due process should not include substantive due process, you've given no reason why. If you're argument is that P or I should be the vehicle used to incorporate over due process, you've given no reason why one is more preferable than the other.

I'll give you a reason why use of the p or I clause is bad. The clause protects only those p or I incident to us citizenship. Therefore, common law rights would not be incorporated as against the states if not recognized by the us. More importantly this dicks over foreign detainees who might have their rights violated by state detention because they're not us citizens. Due process is better because it's broader and would avoid this situation.

[DarkReign]

DarkReign
I am trying to go Vegan but once in a while I enjoy a filet or t-bone or rack of lamb…There is a difference though, I only buy free range where the animals enjoy a happy life, graze on natural foods, no hormones & they are slaughtered in an efficient humane matter…In general these animals are harvested anyway for their hides or wool…It would be shameful to let the meat go to waste…

So, you were serious about "hunting should be illegal"?

Honestly, SC, if thats true, then our continued conversation is only going to get ugly and sarcastic.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, you were serious about "hunting should be illegal"?

Honestly, SC, if thats true, then our continued conversation is only going to get ugly and sarcastic.

Jim Bob (SC) is as redneck as we are. He's just trolling.

[DarkReign]

Jim Bob (SC) is as redneck as we are. He's just trolling.

HA! I was going to say, I thought I seen him around before...

<----trolled

Bravo, sir!

[LnGrrrR]

I agree that more modern types of weapons are in a gray area. I'm on the fence about this. Maybe they thought we should have all forms of weapons for protection? Do we really know?

Semiautomatic weapons are fine in my book. Automatic, in that gray area.

You stated above that you thought that states shouldn't be able to write any laws that go counter to the 2nd Amendment, correct? That would imply that you're also against laws that ban explosives, missiles, etc.

To take your logic to its conclusion, that would imply that laws banning bombs, missiles, grenades and any other sort of "arms" would also be unconstitutional.

[LnGrrrR]

The point of the argument is should such things even be required, at least I think. The constitution does give us the "right to bear arms." Arms simply means weapons, and as far as I know, the only reason to limit arms is the likes of insurrection. Not any crime, or assumed quality of the person. Just specific types of crime. Although I fear the idea, I think felons, once they have served their time, should be able to have weapons. If we want to reintegrate people into society, shouldn't they be treated as equals?

What about people with mental handicaps? Do we have the right to deny them weapons?

[Blake]

What about people with mental handicaps? Do we have the right to deny them weapons?

yup

[Blake]

So you never read the original post about that but just jumped on the bandwagon?

The guy nearly got me killed. He intentionally didn't turn in a $30,000 check request for a contractor I had submitted just to fuck with me. The contractor pulled a .357 and I barely talked him out of shooting me in the face.

Yeah, I was fucking pissed and when the contractor finally pulled the gun out of my face and left I went in and confronted my boss. I'm a big strong guy (6'5", 250#) and yeah, I picked the little weasel up by the neck and held him against the wall and told him if he ever did that to me again I would kill him.

So fucking what?

so then it's a 'no', and you're slightly less sensitive to hurtful message board words as previously thought.

yippee for you.

[Blake]

For one thing, keeping guns in the hands of citizens is a safeguard to government takeover. Now, granted, if the government WERE to take over today (and let's say that said government/military were all gung-ho about it, since this is a hypothetical), firearms wouldn't do much against tanks.

Which is why I'm all for citizenry possessing tanks and bazookas. Doubt that gets passed though...




To take your logic to its conclusion, that would imply that laws banning bombs, missiles, grenades and any other sort of "arms" would also be unconstitutional.

so you are serious in saying that the citizenry should possess tanks and bazookas?

[Wild Cobra]

You stated above that you thought that states shouldn't be able to write any laws that go counter to the 2nd Amendment, correct? That would imply that you're also against laws that ban explosives, missiles, etc.

To take your logic to its conclusion, that would imply that laws banning bombs, missiles, grenades and any other sort of "arms" would also be unconstitutional.
I agree to a point. Hard to tell what was meant for certain when the 2nd amendment was debated. I haven't read the minutes. Have you? I will assume the intent was known weapon types. Unless you or I can show more than just the words, it's not an argument that has much merit either way.

Wouldn't it be cool to have all that stuff?

[Wild Cobra]

What about people with mental handicaps? Do we have the right to deny them weapons?
When you apply the correct usage of "militia," I would say yes, you can deny them. If they are not "able bodied" militia candidates, then I would say they can be denied the right.

[Mr. Peabody]

Although I fear the idea, I think felons, once they have served their time, should be able to have weapons. If we want to reintegrate people into society, shouldn't they be treated as equals?

Well, we do allow for that here in Texas. A felon can have a firearm after five years has elapsed from the end of their sentences, whether it be imprisonment or probation. Although, my understanding is that they are still in violation of the federal ban.

[LnGrrrR]

so you are serious in saying that the citizenry should possess tanks and bazookas?

I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority. :lol I figure, if a person is rich enough to afford a tank, they're probably going to be looked at quite closely by the government once they purchase it anyways. :D

[LnGrrrR]

When you apply the correct usage of "militia," I would say yes, you can deny them. If they are not "able bodied" militia candidates, then I would say they can be denied the right.

So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either? :lol

[Winehole23]

So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either? :lolIt could threaten the existence of for profit online shooting galleries, once you start encouraging quadraplegics to own and shoot their own guns.

[EVAY]

I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority. :lol I figure, if a person is rich enough to afford a tank, they're probably going to be looked at quite closely by the government once they purchase it anyways. :D

no shit!

[Blake]

I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority. :lol I figure, if a person is rich enough to afford a tank, they're probably going to be looked at quite closely by the government once they purchase it anyways. :D

a tank for self defense against the government? a tank won't protect them any more than a handgun or a bazooka...

nukes, otoh....

[LnGrrrR]

a tank for self defense against the government? a tank won't protect them any more than a handgun or a bazooka...

nukes, otoh....

Sounds like a challenge! Ok, jump onto GTA4 online, I'll use a tank, you use a handgun, no hijacking allowed, and we'll see who wins. :)

[Blake]

Sounds like a challenge! Ok, jump onto GTA4 online, I'll use a tank, you use a handgun, no hijacking allowed, and we'll see who wins. :)

in this case, more =/= longer

[Wild Cobra]

So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either? :lol
What would the reason be to deny them? Couldn't the man a post, or a checkpoint?

I'm just taking the words to their understanding of the time. Still, I'm up to playing this game.

[Wild Cobra]

no shit!
What's the harm in it?

[Wild Cobra]

a tank for self defense against the government? a tank won't protect them any more than a handgun or a bazooka...

nukes, otoh....
What if we were invaded by another country? The more armed citizens we have the better. that is what a militia is. An armed citizenry that is capable of fighting. Someone with a tank would simply be better armed against an invading force than most citizens.

What's the harm in it?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you guy's think someone who buys a Tank would go all "Zack Carey" on someone?

[Bender]

I'm the biggest pro-gun guy around. Handguns & rifles - yes.

Bazookas, tanks, etc - no.

[Blake]

What if we were invaded by another country? The more armed citizens we have the better. that is what a militia is. An armed citizenry that is capable of fighting. Someone with a tank would simply be better armed against an invading force than most citizens.

What's the harm in it?

:lol

among other reasons, the odds that we get invaded by another country are currently so astronimcally low that it in no ways justifies arming our citizenry "just in case".

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

among other reasons, the odds that we get invaded by another country are currently so astronimcally low that it in no ways justifies arming our citizenry "just in case".

Well, if you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2nd amendment.

[Blake]

Well, if you don't like it, push for a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2nd amendment.

I'd rather someone have a tank in public than a concealed handgun.

That aside, what is the cut off point as far as weapons go under the 2nd Amendment as you see it?

Should the citizenry be allowed to keep explosives just in case we get attacked?

[Wild Cobra]

I'd rather someone have a tank in public than a concealed handgun.

That aside, what is the cut off point as far as weapons go under the 2nd Amendment as you see it?

Should the citizenry be allowed to keep explosives just in case we get attacked?
I've never really thought much about that point. It seems to me the constitution allows us to have any we want. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that. lots of pros and cons. However, when you make something illegal, only criminals have it. Makes it rather unfair for those who remain legal.

[Blake]

I've never really thought much about that point.

I can tell.

[Wild Cobra]

I can tell.
So? I'm not trying to make a solid decision, and if I did, what I would think is best, and how I think the constitution is interpreted could be different.

You have a point, or just think it's funny that this is rather low on my priority list?

[CosmicCowboy]

Uhhh guys...you can legally own tanks, cannons, bazookas, etc. already. you don't even have to register them, but the explosive AMMO is controlled/registered.

[Blake]

So? I'm not trying to make a solid decision, and if I did, what I would think is best, and how I think the constitution is interpreted could be different.

You have a point, or just think it's funny that this is rather low on my priority list?

I think it's funny.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's funny.
Fine with me. I simply have more pressing issue to than take the time that topic would take for me to arrive at a more solid conclusion.

[Blake]

Uhhh guys...you can legally own tanks, cannons, bazookas, etc. already. you don't even have to register them, but the explosive AMMO is controlled/registered.

depending on the state, you have to register the actual bazooka, grenade launcher, etc.

[CosmicCowboy]

hmmmm. Don't think so. I know for a fact you can own a fully functioning tank complete with cannon without it being registered. It's the cannon shells that are regulated.

[Blake]

Fine with me. I simply have more pressing issue to than take the time that topic would take for me to arrive at a more solid conclusion.

True or false: The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep nuclear weapons.

[Bender]

well, in lots of states things like slingshots, bb guns, airsoft, etc. are restricted. Not illegal I mean, but not allowed to be ordered thru the mail and maybe not even to sell in state. Hard to believe, I know.

[jack sommerset]

True or false: The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep nuclear weapons.

I'm going to say, no.