Shelby07 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment today. Maybe tomorrow they'll let us smoke our cigars in peace. http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gener...26/Scotus.Guns/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Good day to be a freedom lovin' Yank! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 We have no voting representation but we can shoot back now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandholm Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 » The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment today. Maybe tomorrow they'll » let us smoke our cigars in peace. » » http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gener...26/Scotus.Guns/ hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate and then click the image... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg hmmm... interesting to compare murder ratio in different countries... example, some years Zimbabwe has been more safer then the us, and they got a very loving dictator there.... and a very stable culture, but they do have a lots of guns and a very open gun market.... dont get me wrong I love the us, did my senior high school year there, attended both MIT and Stanford and going there several time every year... but sometimes the facts just get me thinking... but what do get me upset is that sometime people get the word freedom and anarchy mixed up... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 » » The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment today. Maybe tomorrow they'll » » let us smoke our cigars in peace. » » » » http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gener...26/Scotus.Guns/ » » hmmm... » » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate » » and then click the image... » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg » » hmmm... interesting to compare murder ratio in different countries... » example, some years Zimbabwe has been more safer then the us, and they got » a very loving dictator there.... and a very stable culture, but they do » have a lots of guns and a very open gun market.... dont get me wrong I » love the us, did my senior high school year there, attended both MIT and » Stanford and going there several time every year... but sometimes the » facts just get me thinking... » but what do get me upset is that sometime people get the word freedom and » anarchy mixed up... » » cheers Interesting point. One thing I think you will not find a significent change in the number of homicides since 1976 in the District and the number in say 2006 (on a yearly basis of course). Now that is not to say all those homicides were by gun. But it is interesting as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudius Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Guns dont kill people, people kill people. My Swiss friends have assault rifles at home; dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Gargett Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 really loved DC when i lived there - back around 88/89 - but it was 'affectionately' known as the murder capital of the world. from memory, around 600 a year. the population of DC is, what, around 600,000 to 800,000? i would have thought that anything that would reduce the numbers of deaths would be a good thing. i will never forget picking up the Post on a monday morning and reading about 13 separate deaths/murders - all by gun, over one weekend. people had become so blase about it all that all of these were reported, not on the front page as you would expect in any other city on the planet, but in section B, or whatever they called t. the Metro section. and no one seemed bothered. i know that the vast majority were drug dealers shooting each other but there was also a young mother killed at her sink by a stray bullet. 20 years later, that still sticks with me. i can claim no expertise at all about the american constitution but, as has been said before, i'm fairly certain that the founding fathers were not thinking of uzis and their ilk when they gave citizens the right to bear arms. i should state here that i am banned by rob from expressing my full views on certain topics, gun laws being high on that list, so i assure you that this is an extremely watered down version of what i would like to post. big day for the supreme court all round with the exxon debacle. can't think why people don't respect lawyers (and yes, i was one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike33 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 » but what do get me upset is that sometime people get the word freedom and » anarchy mixed up... » » cheers While the debate about America's love of guns and how it correlates to our nation's alarmingly high murder rates are not new, calling it anarchy is something new (not sure what you are specifically referring to with that comment). Anyways, every country/culture is different. Saying that our nation's murder rate is the result of gun ownership is simplistic and naive. It is far too complex to be boiled down to one or even several issues. One of the more telling statistics I have found is that it is estimated that over 80% of homicides are committed using weapons purchased or obtained illegally. So tighter gun laws really wouldn't solve a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. I think we all would like to find an answer to the problem, but there is no magic bullet (no pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby07 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 » » The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment today. Maybe tomorrow they'll » » let us smoke our cigars in peace. » » » » http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gener...26/Scotus.Guns/ » » hmmm... » » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate » » and then click the image... » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg » » hmmm... interesting to compare murder ratio in different countries... » example, some years Zimbabwe has been more safer then the us, and they got » a very loving dictator there.... and a very stable culture, but they do » have a lots of guns and a very open gun market.... dont get me wrong I » love the us, did my senior high school year there, attended both MIT and » Stanford and going there several time every year... but sometimes the » facts just get me thinking... » but what do get me upset is that sometime people get the word freedom and » anarchy mixed up... » » cheers Time will tell... The US has a very different culture than most of the world. Our personal freedoms are very precious to us and our Constitution has served us well. In addition, the people who don't live in large urban areas (the majority of Americans, and the picture that most people of different countries don't see) have grown up with firearms and they are as much a part of their life as a car or a pickup truck. The vast majority of these people would no more point a gun at someone as they would run someone over with a vehicle. The problem is that criminals will always have guns, whether the laws say they can or not. In states where gun ownership is severely restricted, the number of crimes involving a firearm are higher than in states that allow gun ownership. When restrictions are lifted and ordinary citizens are allowed to own firearms the number of incidents involving firearms drop. This has been shown to be true in several states that have loosened gun restrictions. Washington DC has had a gun ban for 32 years in which no law abiding citizen has been allowed to own a personal firearm or keep one in their home for personal protection yet it has the largest number of gun related murders in the country. This might be interesting... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well, Ken for someone who was born, raised and reside in the District I get the feeling we certainly agree on this one. This is a triumph for DC and for America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Its about time. The only thing that scares me is the 4 that voted against it. What alot of people do not understand is that we as Americans need to defend ourselves and families against we Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartagas Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 » this is an extremely watered down version of what i would like to post. » big day for the supreme court all round with the exxon debacle. can't » think why people don't respect lawyers (and yes, i was one). It is a fact: where more people are permitted to own/carry guns, crime goes down. There was a University of Chicago study not too long ago which proved this. The author went into the study intending to prove that more liberal gun laws increased crime. In fact, he found the opposite. He ended up buying a gun. When Florida passed their "shall issue" carry law (making it easier for your average citizen to own and carry a weapon), crime went down everywhere except for one place: airports. Why? The criminals knew tourists wouldn't be carrying guns. Whether one believes in the current court's interpretation of the law or not, I for one think it is an eminently sensible ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigos Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I am australian by birth and grew up in rural Tasmania. I learnt to shoot with my dad and grand father and it was a great upbringing. I left Tasmania in 93 and went to Singapore for 4 years with HP, during which time the tasmania port arthur incident happened. Post port arthur most of my family had to turn in their guns. A few years after that my grandfather front door was kicked in and he was assaulted, had it been a few years earlier he would have use his trusty old shotgun he kept, but he wasnt able to defend myself. I came to the usa from singapore in 97, and in wa state you have to get an alien firearm license if you are not a usa citizen - that requires 4 years of residency. I did that and got my alien firearms license. During that 4 year period I had one drunken fool show up at my door and tried to force his way in, I felt useless, defenseless - I couldnt wait for the 4 years to expire. When it did I got fingerprinted and waited the 90 days and got my license and went and bought a shotgun (I always wanted to shoot sporting clays -- clay target). I did well with sporting clays - won a national competition and have won numerous state and regional competitions. When my father passed, every time I went and shot it was like I was spending time with him as he introduced me to shooting sports. But nothing makes me more grateful than the night I was in my apartment at 1am and someone kicked in my door, and waltz into my living room - luckily I had just finished cleaning the shotgun (double barrel, O/U Krieghoff) and I was able to hold it in front of me and kindly asked the guy wtf and to get out. He was drunk and had a bottle of booz in his hands and he was coming until he recognized what I had in my hands. His face went white, he mutted an apology and hauled his ass out the door. Now days, I keep a HK 45 in a hand safe in my room. I know I sleep better at night knowing if someone comes into my house I can defend myself, unlike my grandfather. Today was a good day - I do feel safer here .... because at the end of the day I can rely on me. And I trust me explicitly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike33 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 » » this is an extremely watered down version of what i would like to post. » » big day for the supreme court all round with the exxon debacle. can't » » think why people don't respect lawyers (and yes, i was one). » » It is a fact: where more people are permitted to own/carry guns, crime » goes down. There was a University of Chicago study not too long ago which » proved this. The author went into the study intending to prove that more » liberal gun laws increased crime. In fact, he found the opposite. He » ended up buying a gun. » » When Florida passed their "shall issue" carry law (making it easier for » your average citizen to own and carry a weapon), crime went down » everywhere except for one place: airports. Why? The criminals knew » tourists wouldn't be carrying guns. » » Whether one believes in the current court's interpretation of the law or » not, I for one think it is an eminently sensible ruling. While that is a perfectly valid point of view and does have evidence to support it, it does not tell the whole story. There are quite a few studies from both the gun-control and pro-guns side that are equally valid. If you think criminals stop and think that their victim may be carrying a weapon before attacking them and they stop, then you are in the same boat as those who believe the death penalty is a deterrent. Criminals who commit violent crimes don't stop and think about punishment or the consequences before acting; there is no pro/con debate in the mind of someone coming to rob or kill you. The real answer to violent crime is not more guns or more police, it is simple: eliminate poverty. Obviously it is not really that simple, but reducing poverty would have a greater affect on reducing violent crime than any other single measure. It would be nice if both sides would pour their resources and efforts into eliminating poverty rather than demonizing each other and lobbying lawmakers. Both could accomplish their goals: Reduce homicides and protect gun owners' rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 [link=http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/the-court-defers-to-plain-language/]Pruden[/link] gets it right. Again. . . :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfg2nrg Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I would not get too excited about this yet. The mayor has already indicated that there will be restrictions on gun ownership. My guess is they will make it so difficult that few will be able to have guns. It will be like smoking. It is legal to smoke but try to find a place in DC to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby07 Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 » I would not get too excited about this yet. The mayor has already indicated » that there will be restrictions on gun ownership. » » My guess is they will make it so difficult that few will be able to have » guns. » » It will be like smoking. It is legal to smoke but try to find a place in » DC to do it. The mayor is a huge anti-gun proponent. I think he may have lost some of his future footing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigFish Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I would suggest to all interested that they take the time to read the courts decision and gain some valuable knowledge about the forethought used in drafting the US Constitution and learn even more about the hard won rights of Englishmen that compelled the Framers to include this most important content in the Constitution. Considering that the Colonists had just won their freedom by force, by arms, it was of utmost importance to insure the new Americans that they could always defend themselves from tyrannies… tyrannies both public and private. Without the individuals’ rights to bear arms there exists nothing more than the ‘good will’ of governments. Without the personal right to defend each individuals’ freedom there would be no assurance that the new Americans would not find themselves enslaved by a new government… especially their own. This is a beautiful piece for those of you who like history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 » » I would not get too excited about this yet. The mayor has already » indicated » » that there will be restrictions on gun ownership. » » » » My guess is they will make it so difficult that few will be able to » have » » guns. » » » » It will be like smoking. It is legal to smoke but try to find a place » in » » DC to do it. » » The mayor is a huge anti-gun proponent. I think he may have lost some of » his future footing here. The mayor is a grandstanding know-nothing. Sure they will put restrictions or try to. We just have to wait and see. And oh, I can find places in DC to smoke every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartagas Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Mike, thank you for your thoughtful response. If you could show me a study that proves liberalizing gun laws increases crime, I would appreciate it. I don't believe I have seen one before, and I would like to believe that my opinion on this subject is, in fact, fully informed. To a large extent, I agree with you that reducing poverty would most likely reduce crime. However, this does not take into account two important factors: drug-users/intoxicated individuals and whackos. Neither is dependent upon one's income level, and both will cause individuals to commit crimes, either because they are not in their right minds (ie. high or just nuts), or they are committing crimes to feed their habit. Ted Bundy was a law student at Temple University before embarking on his infamous spree. The "Green River killer" confounded FBI profilers because he was a seemingly stable individual who had held the same job for years. He confessed to killing 48 people. In neither instance did education/income have any bearing on their willingness to commit heinous crimes. In any event, I don't think the Supreme Court's ruling really had anything to do with reducing crime - it simply allows DC residents the opportunity to defend themselves in their own homes with a legally-owned handgun. If it has the effect of reducing crime, fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effinwill Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 » » The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment today. Maybe tomorrow they'll » » let us smoke our cigars in peace. » » » » http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-gener...26/Scotus.Guns/ » » hmmm... » » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._by_murder_rate » » and then click the image... » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg » » hmmm... interesting to compare murder ratio in different countries... » example, some years Zimbabwe has been more safer then the us, and they got » a very loving dictator there.... and a very stable culture, but they do » have a lots of guns and a very open gun market.... dont get me wrong I » love the us, did my senior high school year there, attended both MIT and » Stanford and going there several time every year... but sometimes the » facts just get me thinking... » but what do get me upset is that sometime people get the word freedom and » anarchy mixed up... » » cheers If the people don't agree with the Constitution then it should be amended, but until then the court has an obligation to uphold the rights we have held for hundreds of years, IMO. I find it curious that some find a "right to abortion" in the document, but question the "right to bear arms", despite the absence of the former phrase and the clear presence of the latter in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anacostiakat Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 » In any event, I don't think the Supreme Court's ruling really had anything » to do with reducing crime - it simply allows DC residents the opportunity » to defend themselves in their own homes with a legally-owned handgun. If » it has the effect of reducing crime, fantastic. Quite right! This is a rights issue. Just like all the other intrusive issues that infringe our rights. This one just happend to be thrown out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike33 Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 » Mike, thank you for your thoughtful response. If you could show me a study » that proves liberalizing gun laws increases crime, I would appreciate it. » I don't believe I have seen one before, and I would like to believe that » my opinion on this subject is, in fact, fully informed. » » To a large extent, I agree with you that reducing poverty would most » likely reduce crime. However, this does not take into account two » important factors: drug-users/intoxicated individuals and whackos. » Neither is dependent upon one's income level, and both will cause » individuals to commit crimes, either because they are not in their right » minds (ie. high or just nuts), or they are committing crimes to feed their » habit. » » Ted Bundy was a law student at Temple University before embarking on his » infamous spree. The "Green River killer" confounded FBI profilers because » he was a seemingly stable individual who had held the same job for years. » He confessed to killing 48 people. In neither instance did » education/income have any bearing on their willingness to commit heinous » crimes. » » In any event, I don't think the Supreme Court's ruling really had anything » to do with reducing crime - it simply allows DC residents the opportunity » to defend themselves in their own homes with a legally-owned handgun. If » it has the effect of reducing crime, fantastic. There are many studies that go into great detail on varying aspects of the gun issue; here is a link to a site that contains studies from both sides of the issue: [link]http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gunlaw.htm[/link] You will never be able to eliminate all types of violent crime. Many random acts of violence are not the result of poverty, lack of education, or lack of proper upbringing. That is why it is exactly that....random. But, we can do something about crime that deals with drugs...which sadly accounts for most of this country's violent crimes in one way or another. Like I said eliminating poverty is not the only answer, but it is the one that would have the most dramatic and immediate impact on reducing violent crime. We will never be able to prevent serial killers or mass murders like Columbine; violence of this sort is not something that can be stopped by Government action. Regardless of all the above, the U.S. could ban all forms of gun ownership and it would probably only have a negligible effect on reducing homicides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby07 Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 » » In any event, I don't think the Supreme Court's ruling really had » anything » » to do with reducing crime - it simply allows DC residents the » opportunity » » to defend themselves in their own homes with a legally-owned handgun. » If » » it has the effect of reducing crime, fantastic. » » Quite right! This is a rights issue. Just like all the other intrusive » issues that infringe our rights. This one just happend to be thrown out! » I couldn't agree more. The Constitution and the amendments to it were designed to ensure our individual freedoms. Everything in our Constitution, the amendments, the Federalist Papers and other documents on which this country is founded has a recurring theme... that the power needs to remain in the hands of the people, and the gov't has the responsibility to ensure the power stays there. The Supreme Court in its decision upheld that theme, as it should have. The framers of the constitution wanted to make sure that the gov't had limited power. Every one of our founding documents reinforces that theme. The words "Congress shall make no law" is prevalent in their documents. The challenge to the DC gun ban had nothing to do with reducing crime. It had everything to do with the ongoing battle in this country of whether the Constitution is the law of the land or whether it should be a "living document" that changes and adapts to changing social conditions. It challenged whether the gov't overstepped its authority by denying the people of DC the rights that were granted to them under the supreme law of the land. It found that the gov't did, in fact, overstep its bounds, and it reinforced the principle that the rights of the people trump the authority of gov't. The basic principles of our Constitution work, and they must continue to work to preserve the principles that have served this country since its inception. It's the only protection we have that limits the power of the gov't over the people. The fact that the Constitution was defended and upheld is why so many here are celebrating the decision. Whether you own a gun or not, you should be happy that the court ruled the way that it did. Now... if they'd just let me smoke a damn cigar in public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkz Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 "If I didn't have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that, well do ya?" - Homer Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now