High court to look at ban on handguns

[Lov3ll]

High court to look at ban on handguns
Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM
By MICHAEL DOYLE

Justices to decide whether to take up case on strict limits approved in D.C.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly.
Behind closed doors, the nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions.
"If the court decides to take this up, it's very likely it will end up being the most important Second Amendment case in history," said Dennis Henigan, the legal director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Henigan predicted "it's more likely than not" that the necessary four justices will vote to consider the case. The court will announce its decision Tuesday, and oral arguments could be heard next year.
Lawyers are swarming.
Texas, Florida and 11 other states weighed in on behalf of gun owners who are challenging D.C.'s strict gun laws. New York and three other states want the gun restrictions upheld. Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban. A Northern California gun dealer, Russell Nordyke, filed a brief opposing it.

From a victim's view

Tom Palmer considers the case a matter of life and death.
Palmer turns 51 this month. He's an openly gay scholar in international relations at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research center, and holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University. He thinks that a handgun saved him years ago in San Jose, Calif., when a gang threatened him.
"A group of young men started yelling at us, 'we're going to kill you' (and) 'they'll never find your bodies,' " Palmer said in a March 2003 declaration. "Fortunately, I was able to pull my handgun out of my backpack, and our assailants backed off."
He and five other plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit challenged Washington's ban on possessing handguns. The District of Columbia permits possession of other firearms, if they're disassembled or stored with trigger locks.
Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and history all matter.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
Gun-control advocates say this means that the government can limit firearms ownership as part of its power to regulate the militia. Gun ownership is cast as a collective right, with the government organizing armed citizens to protect homeland security.
"The Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation of firearms to protect public safety and does not guarantee individuals the absolute right to own the weapons of their choice," New York and the three other states declared in an amicus brief.
Gun-control critics contend that the well-regulated militia is beside the point, and say the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns.

Clashing decisions

Last March, a divided appellate court panel sided with the individual-rights interpretation and threw out the D.C. ban.
The ruling clashed with other appellate courts, creating the kind of appellate-circuit split that the Supreme Court likes to resolve. The ruling obviously stung D.C. officials, but it perplexed gun-control advocates.
If D.C. officials tried to salvage their gun-control law by appealing to the Supreme Court — as they then did — they could give the court's conservative majority a chance to undermine gun-control laws nationwide.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5287469.html

[gaijinsamurai]

This is one of the few instances that I'm really happy to have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court right now.

[Geezah]

This is going to be interesting. I just picked up a copy of the Federalist Papers at the weekend, so I'll be very interested to see how the Judges side on this issue, considering the Founding Fathers looked at the 2nd Am as an individual Right not a collective one.

So long as these guys looks at all the sources we(being the law abiding firearm owners of America) should be in the clear.


"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

[seraosha]

I agree on it being an interesting case to hear, but I think they'll pass.
Gutlessness seems to be popular lately, and I hope I'm wrong.

[Geezah]

Reason enough, why the Brady Bunch should not be used as a source of information concerning firearms,


Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

[hank]

I agree on it being an interesting case to hear, but I think they'll pass.
Gutlessness seems to be popular lately, and I hope I'm wrong.

I wouldn't be so sure. With Roberts and Alito we now have 4 conservatives willing to stand up for the 2nd A. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas vote yes and the court has to hear it. The problem before was that O'Conner and Kennedy would likely vote not to hear this case and that meant only 3 votes. That is no longer the case. Fact is, though, that ultimately Kennedy will decide the case. How Kennedy votes so does the court on issues like this. Bad news is Kennedy is a real wild card and probably votes this constitutional.

hank

[T.H.E. rooster]

I like that, Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban, because everyone knows pediatricians are well known firearms experts.

That qoute from Brady was pretty scary, Geezah.

[bryanleu2002]

Whether or not the supreme court kicks it back to the lower courts, or the Supreme courts grant certorari and rules later next year on it's validity in the constitution, ( the right for the individual to have a firearm), it is mostly symbolic. It is not in the interest of the ruling class to have armed (lower class) individuals. The rights of the individual to own a firearm will continue to erode state by state..

My opinion and two cents...

[mudbunny]

I come from a very conservative part of the country and tend to hold conservative views, but I work in a city that is totally and completely out of control with violence and something has to be done.

[RxOnco]

Please...does anyone honestly believe that criminals buy their guns legally?

[LaoSexMachine]

Banning guns will not stop gun crime. Look at the "drug war". The many should not have to pay for the crimes of the few.

[mudbunny]

I agree, but you can also use that logic that there are innocent people dying on America's streets everyday because some of the people in their neighborhoods are going outside city's to gunshops to purchase weapons, lawfully, and bringing them back into the city limits to sell or exchange for other guns or narcotics. Those innocent people are paying a price as well for the sins of a few.

[Albatross]

If you outlaw guns, the only people that will have guns will be outlaws. That ain't right. I am pretty sure this is where i throw in the "you can have it after you pry it from my cold dead hands."

[LaoSexMachine]

I agree, but you can also use that logic that there are innocent people dying on America's streets everyday because some of the people in their neighborhoods are going outside city's to gunshops to purchase weapons, lawfully, and bringing them back into the city limits to sell or exchange for other guns or narcotics. Those innocent people are paying a price as well for the sins of a few.

Three people I knew died from gun violence. They got into gangs and the likes. Were they innocent? No they had it coming. They chose the lifestyle.

Yes innocents die. It happens everyday with or without guns. Banning guns is always use as a scapegoat. If someone wants kill another human being they will find away. How many of the homicides in DC were gang related? Will banning it stop gang violence? Doubt it.

[mudbunny]

Innocent people die everyday on the streets of Philadelphia, my friend. It's not hyperbole to say that. We had another 2 Philly PD guys (cops) who were shot today. This after a Philly PD guy was shot through the eye, and died, last week. Todays events mark the 6th cop that has been shot, in the last 2 weeks. Things are REAL bad here, as in Marshall Law bad.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

I wonder if would of said the same thing if he knew that in 100 years of his death. 90 actually that a weapon would be invented that was capable of 500rpm and who's descendants wiped out entire battalions in less then an hour when in his time it would take all day.

Actually the entire Continental Army contingent would of been wiped out if the British had the Maxim.

Just saying.

[LaoSexMachine]

I wonder if would of said the same thing if he knew that in 100 years of his death. 90 actually that a weapon would be invented that was capable of 500rpm and who's descendants wiped out entire battalions in less then an hour when in his time it would take all day.

People do the killing. A gun is just a tool. Like a knife, 550 cord, power cord, hands, or a baseball bat.

[mudbunny]

It's also kinda hard to look like a "bawla" out on the mean streets with a black-powder musket shoved down into said "bawla's" pants. Drive-by's are hard to pull off when the air from the open window is blowing all of the powder out of gun's tray.

[RxOnco]

That does it then...we must ban baseball.

[mudbunny]

People do the killing. A gun is just a tool. Like a knife, 550 cord, power cord, hands, or a baseball bat.

You have 550 chord that discharges a projectile? Holy sheet, what U.S Cav. store did you get THAT from?

[Buckeye67]

It's also kinda hard to look like a "bawla" out on the mean streets with a black-powder musket shoved down into said "bawla's" pants. Drive-by's are hard to pull off when the air from the open window is blowing all of the powder out of gun's tray.

Air wouldn't blow the powder out of the pan.

[mudbunny]

Air wouldn't blow the powder out of the pan.

Sorry Mr. Musket.

[Buckeye67]

I wonder if would of said the same thing if he knew that in 100 years of his death. 90 actually that a weapon would be invented that was capable of 500rpm and who's descendants wiped out entire battalions in less then an hour when in his time it would take all day.

Actually the entire Continental Army contingent would of been wiped out if the British had the Maxim.

Just saying.

I rather think he would. Actually, based on the things they (they being the "Founding Fathers") wrote - it would have been all the more important for everyone to have firearms.

[LaoSexMachine]

You have 550 chord that discharges a projectile? Holy sheet, what U.S Cav. store did you get THAT from?

Like I said people do the killing. Murder and mayhem will not stop just because you ban firearms.

I have a nail gun. Should they ban that too? It shouts a "projectile".

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Haha nail guns are cool. When working for a builder who for an ex teacher was pretty crazy had some fun times.

:)

[Buckeye67]

So is this thread going to actually have some sort of intelligent discourse, or is it going to descend into retardedness like every other gun-prohibition related thread?

MOLON LABE
THE GUBMENT HAS TO DO SOMETHING
MY COLD DEAD HANDS
INNOCENT PEOPLEZ BE DYIN'
UR DUM
NO U

[mudbunny]

Good discussion. I'm going to bed; sometimes it's important to play devils advocate.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think what I said about Washington's comments is valid.


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."

As we all know Washington was against the US having a standing army. Now could this phrase mean. That the Militia "people of the US" is to be well regulated?

It could very well be interpreted that although the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed the constitution does appear to give enough leeway to regulated the type of weapons the Militia "people of the US" have.

[Douros81]

If you outlaw guns, the only people that will have guns will be outlaws. That ain't right. I am pretty sure this is where i throw in the "you can have it after you pry it from my cold dead hands."


X2 ****ing-A that!

Wait, the UK has a firearms ban that stopped crime right? :roll:

[Buckeye67]

I think what I said about Washington's comments is valid.



As we all know Washington was against the US having a standing army. Now could this phrase mean. That the Militia "people of the US" is to be well regulated?

It could very well be interpreted that although the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed the constitution does appear to give enough leeway to regulated the type of weapons the Militia "people of the US" have.

Way to completely misinterpret what it says.

Do a search on previous 2nd Amendment discussions and look for quotes by the guys who wrote the bloody thing about what the thing means, then look for "Miller vs US" and then look for the federal law(s) that define what a "militia" is. If you really want to not look a (bigger) moron - read "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephan Halbrook.

[Hilbert]

I come from a very conservative part of the country and tend to hold conservative views, but I work in a city that is totally and completely out of control with violence and something has to be done.

I can relate.

I live right next to New Orleans, two or three people are stabbed or shot to death each night on average and that problem is now creeping onto the neighboring Jefferson Parish where I live, unfortunately.

Yet, despite these numbers, I know that banning firearms (whether it be handguns, long guns, shot guns, whatever) will only cause the number of crime and murders to go up! Just a few days ago on the news the NOPD reported on a "major" drug bust, and lord behold, almost all of the guns they found were purchased illegaly. So if mr. bad guy is already getting his firearms illegaly, what possible good would banning legal purchases do other than to disarm law abiding folks (such as myself) who keep a gun to protect ourselves?

Just my $0.02 worth.

--Hildebert

EDIT:
Regarding interpretation of the Second Amendment:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." <-- How much clearer can you get?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Further to this.

Up until the mid 20th The phrase "bear arms" was a common reference to military service. The Deceleration of Independence referred to this term in this context as well.

"To Keep" was also a term in the language at the time to maintain/upkeep.

And as we all know over time words/phrases change meaning.




Just a little side track. Whats above is more important.

Another interesting note. The English Bill of Rights and common law system (which the US draws from) gave the populace the right to ownership of weapons other then a knife for two reasons. One so Henry II could easily mobilize and army. And secondly for self defense since at the time there was no police force. However once 1st armies started policing and then police forces the issue of self defense was scrapped with subsequent legislation.

[Hollis]

Further to this.

Up until the mid 20th The phrase "bear arms" was a common reference to military service. The Deceleration of Independence referred to this term in this context as well.

"To Keep" was also a term in the language at the time to maintain/upkeep.

And as we all know over time words/phrases change meaning.




Just a little side track. Whats above is more important.

Another interesting note. The English Bill of Rights and common law system (which the US draws from) gave the populace the right to ownership of weapons other then a knife for two reasons. One so Henry II could easily mobilize and army. And secondly for self defense since at the time there was no police force. However once 1st armies started policing and then police forces the issue of self defense was scrapped with subsequent legislation.

Minny, you off a tad bit. Don't confuse your history with the US. You can read the discussions that took place when the Amendment was written.

[Buckeye67]

An even more interesting point is that in the vernacular of the time "Well regulated" meant "well trained and equipped" - not "restricted by the government". The "Militia" was, and still is under current federal law, comprised of all able bodied men (and women).

"The People" is also referred to in the 1st and 4th amendments and specifically refers to individual rights. "The People" also appears in the 9th and 10th amendments and refers to the common people (i.e. not the government).

Interesting revision of language and history with your assertion to the terminology to "bear arms" being related only to the military. It certainly is not implied that way in the writings of any of the people who wrote and/or debated the Constitution. However, even were your take actually the case - "the militia" being comprised of individual citizens - "bearing arms" would STILL be an individual right.

Of course, you've not read any of that, and you're simply pulling all of this out of your ass (as usual), so go figure.

[Hilbert]

Another interesting note. The English Bill of Rights and common law system (which the US draws from) gave the populace the right to ownership of weapons other then a knife for two reasons. One so Henry II could easily mobilize and army. And secondly for self defense since at the time there was no police force. However once 1st armies started policing and then police forces the issue of self defense was scrapped with subsequent legislation.

I appreciate the history lesson, but this is the United States of America were talking about, not England.

English Common Law was one of many sources of inspiration for the founding fathers, yes, but the idea that because of this you can take the objectives and reasons behind British Laws and apply them to U.S. laws is completely flawed. Just because something was created or designed with a certain goal in mind in one country, doesn't mean that it's the same in another.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Interesting revision of language and history with your assertion to the terminology to "bear arms" being related only to the military. It certainly is not implied that way in the writings of any of the people who wrote and/or debated the Constitution. However, even were your take actually the case - "the militia" being comprised of individual citizens - "bearing arms" would STILL be an individual right.

I'm not disputing the individuals right to take up arms.



Of course, you've not read any of that, and you're simply pulling all of this out of your ass (as usual), so go figure.

Chill dude. I'm just offering an alternative view nothing more. I'm deeply interested in the 2nd Amendment and other constitutional cases in British/Commonwealth/US

Hell there has been a couple of cases in the Australian High Court that has referenced decisions made in the US because of the common legal system.


Minny, you off a tad bit. Don't confuse your history with the US. You can read the discussions that took place when the Amendment was written.

No not really. Adams in his defense of the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre used the the English Bill of Rights as his legal argument. And this document was 600 odd years old at the time.

[Buckeye67]

Chill dude. I'm just offering an alternative view nothing more. I'm deeply interested in the 2nd Amendment and other constitutional cases in British/Commonwealth/US


Actually what you're doing is trolling the thread with the same ignorant assertions that you make every time this discussion comes up.

Again, if you're interested - get the book I refer to every time this topic comes up. At that point you should be reasonably informed enough to engage in the discussion without coming off like a tool.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I appreciate the history lesson, but this is the United States of America were talking about, not England.

English Common Law was one of many sources of inspiration for the founding fathers, yes, but the idea that because of this you can take the objectives and reasons behind British Laws and apply them to U.S. laws is completely flawed. Just because something was created or designed with a certain goal in mind in one country, doesn't mean that it's the same in another.


It wasn't meant to be applied to the US. Just little side topic with the same subject matter. :)

[Calanen]

Having passed the Bar in both Australia and the USA, I can say there are more similarities than there are differences. There is a greater role of statute though in the US than in Australia, generally speaking. When speaking of a really different system from these, look to Europe or South Africa.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Actually what you're doing is trolling the thread with the same ignorant assertions that you make every time this discussion comes up.

I'll admit I used to be a big smart ass to get you blokes blood boiling. Was quite fun because you were so easily fired up. It was like fishing with dynamic.

My intent here is not to troll if I was I would not actually defending a persons right to bear arms which I did in a post just above now would I? But hey if you think I'm trolling go right ahead and think that.

[Hollis]

Having passed the Bar in both Australia and the USA, I can say there are more similarities than there are differences. There is a greater role of statute though in the US than in Australia, generally speaking. When speaking of a really different system from these, look to Europe or South Africa.


Close only counts in grenades and horse shoes. A dog and a cat is similar but not the same.

At the time, the issue was power and who wields it. The colonialist launched a new concept for the time, of self empowerment. The government of the time was not a government of the people but of a elect few, those born to govern. The idea of a government of the people was not original but it has come into being. The driving force of equal rights is a government of the people not the elect few. The government needs to be accountable to the people. The people retain the final authority.

Any questions of this, read the declaration of Independence. It is a government of the people not the people of the government. This contest in still in being tested by political parties, power brokers and special interest groups.

The conflict was defined when it was so well penned 144 years ago is just as applicable today;

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

[Douros81]

Chill dude. I'm just offering an alternative view nothing more. I'm deeply interested in the 2nd Amendment and other constitutional cases in British/Commonwealth/US


The US is not "common law" its statutory and codified law, all US law are writen by the Fed & State legislature.

We have right to own firearms, it just that simple. the problem is that D.C. is not a U.S. State so it lacks a lot because of it. They don't have a Rep in the U.S. House either. There like some red-headed step child of the Federal Goverment.


If the Goverment and the Blue Helmets try to take away the firearms of the US people there will be a Civil War. Cause I'm not going to give up my rights, I'm not going to give up any of my rights, if the 2nd goes then whats next? I'll die a freeman before I'm made a subject or slave.

Like the King Leonidas said Μολὼν Λαβέ

[Nano]

Like the King Leonidas said Μολὼν Λαβέ



I don't read Greek or what language that maybe, but I figure that translates to come and take them? I agree with what Buckeye67 has written about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. The various papers written by our founders make it clear how they felt about government and human nature. There really is no other way to interpret the constitution particularly the 2nd. The only reason given by the founders for anyone to block that right is for our leaders to get away with anything without consequence.

[Douros81]

I don't read Greek or what language that maybe

Its Classical Greek:roll:



The Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) phrase Molōn labe! (Μολὼν λαβέ; approximate Classical Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greek) ****unciation [moˈlōn laˈbe], Modern Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek) [mo̞ˈlo̞n laˈve̞]), meaning "Come [and] take [them]!", is a classical expression of defiance reported by Plutarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch), roughly corresponding to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe

[bryanleu2002]

Having passed the Bar in both Australia and the USA, I can say there are more similarities than there are differences. There is a greater role of statute though in the US than in Australia, generally speaking. When speaking of a really different system from these, look to Europe or South Africa.


Calanen,I would caution you on touching on this topic, It is a general given by most pro gunner's that there should be a 1 day open season on lawyer's and politicians..And they typically don't differentiate a good one (pro gun)from a bad one(antigun), They just set them all up like bowling pins and open fire...

This is not an attack due to our previous conversations, Im looking out for ya.

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004012279_Display-35.gif

Like i wrote earlier in this thread, It is not in the interest of the ruling class to have armed individuals,(lower class). This supreme court ruling will mostly be symbolic, and the second amendment will continue to erode slowly over a long period of time...There will never be "Come and take them" one day..

Get in a fight with your family member? Your gun rights are gone! Courtesy Lautenberg act HR 3610. Hate crime? gun rights gone.. some of us cant afford a Lawyer, and we have to pay very close attention to these Laws that get on the books just to stay clear of potential trouble. know your rights and read current local state and federal law regularly.

Good luck!

[muck]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington (1732-1799)
First President of the United States

Sorry, I could not resist! p-)

[Hilbert]

Sorry, I could not resist! p-)

I don't get it.

[hank]

The US is not "common law" its statutory and codified law, all US law are writen by the Fed & State legislature.

Not to rain on your parade but there is tons and tons of common law under both state and federal law. Just a fact.

hank

[hank]

Calanen,I would caution you on touching on this topic, It is a general given by most pro gunner's that there should be a 1 day open season on lawyer's and politicians..And they typically don't differentiate a good one (pro gun)from a bad one(antigun), They just set them all up like bowling pins and open fire...

This is not an attack due to our previous conversations, Im looking out for ya.

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004012279_Display-35.gif

Like i wrote earlier in this thread, It is not in the interest of the ruling class to have armed individuals,(lower class). This supreme court ruling will mostly be symbolic, and the second amendment will continue to erode slowly over a long period of time...There will never be "Come and take them" one day..

Get in a fight with your family member? Your gun rights are gone! Courtesy Lautenberg act HR 3610. Hate crime? gun rights gone.. some of us cant afford a Lawyer, and we have to pay very close attention to these Laws that get on the books just to stay clear of potential trouble. know your rights and read current local state and federal law regularly.

Good luck!


Well, I'll agree to this if you'll agree to open season on dumb*sses. You'd pretty clearly be the subject on that day.

Who the hell do you think it is fighting for 2ndA right? It sure as hell better not be people with your intellectual abilities. If it is we are in trouble. Its lawyers dumb*ss.

hank

[Calanen]

The US is not "common law" its statutory and codified law, all US law are writen by the Fed & State legislature.



The US is a common law system, in that previous cases determine those that follow, and there is a hierarchy of courts that bind lower courts with the higher court decisions. It does rely more heavily on statute than many other common law jurisdictions, but it's still common law.

[Calanen]

some of us cant afford a Lawyer, and we have to pay very close attention to these Laws that get on the books just to stay clear of potential trouble.


I think Hank will agree with me on this one Bryan, representing yourself in a search and seizure case is a bit like trying to perform brain surgery on your own head, which is never a good idea, even if you are qualified in neurosurgery. Remember, you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you. The state provided attorney may not be top draw, but it will be better than you having a go yourself.

[lider_r]

People do the killing. A gun is just a tool. Like a knife, 550 cord, power cord, hands, or a baseball bat.


is an attack helicopter just a tool as well?


Please...does anyone honestly believe that criminals buy their guns legally?

Legal guns find their way into the hands of crims all the time. Obviously something is going wrong.

[muck]

I don't get it.
Washington lived in the 18th century! His quote, proudly presented on the first page of this thread, was made in a time which could not differ more from the situation of the US of A today.
In my eyes, at least the content of the Second Amendment is totally obsolete.

[Buckeye67]

Washington lived in the 18th century! His quote, proudly presented on the first page of this thread, was made in a time which could not differ more from the situation of the US of A today.
In my eyes, at least the content of the Second Amendment is totally obsolete.

So following that same logic, freedom of speech, the press, of religion, to peaceably assemble, protection against unlawful search and seizure & protection from being required to incriminate yourself are also totally obsolete.

You're a champion.

[hank]

I think Hank will agree with me on this one Bryan, representing yourself in a search and seizure case is a bit like trying to perform brain surgery on your own head, which is never a good idea, even if you are qualified in neurosurgery. Remember, you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you. The state provided attorney may not be top draw, but it will be better than you having a go yourself.

Absolutely. With the challenges Bryan faces with respect to critical thinking it would be tantamount to suicide to try and defend himself. But then again, with his obvious bias against lawyers maybe he would prefer that. The thing I love about this discussion is that with any other profession except doctors, a professional who knew his client felt the way Bryan does about his profession would never work for him. Lawyers, on the other hand, are duty bound to provide him a defense regardless of whether he can appreciate what he is getting. Ironic.

hank

[muck]

So following that same logic, freedom of speech, the press, of religion, to peaceably assemble, protection against unlawful search and seizure & protection from being required to incriminate yourself are also totally obsolete.

You're a champion.


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.

Is that still a valid statement today?
Provided that you are not a soldier or policemen (I don't know whether you are), does your gun really protect the freedom of your nation and if yes, who is threatening your freedom?
Because that's what I've meant.

[Buckeye67]

Yes. The statement is still just as valid today as it was when it was written (and my point still stands, if somehow the "usefulness" of the 2nd Amendment has passed with the years, then the same holds true from all of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights).

I was a soldier from 1985 until 1991. I was a police officer from 1988 until 1993. I currently still work in the law enforcement field as a 911 Dispatcher.

My individual firearms protect me from threats against my person. The firearms owned by the collective masses of the people of the United States are, as they were intended to be, a final "check and balance" against tyranny.

[Zoomie]

Is that still a valid statement today?
Provided that you are not a soldier or policemen (I don't know whether you are), does your gun really protect the freedom of your nation and if yes, who is threatening your freedom?
Because that's what I've meant.
Way to sidestep the question.

[Createdeemcee]

Legal guns find their way into the hands of crims all the time. Obviously something is going wrong.


Sure If they are stolen from the legal owner in some way shape for or fashon. A legit owner wont let the guns go unless they turn criminal which does happen but not frequently at all. And most of the time the burglar who steals those legal guns already had an illegal weapon.

[Buckeye67]

Sure If they are stolen from the legal owner in some way shape for or fashon. A legit owner wont let the guns go unless they turn criminal which does happen but not frequently at all. And most of the time the burglar who steals those legal guns already had an illegal weapon.

Not to mention there are firearms stolen from police officers/agencies and the military which end up in criminal hands.

[muck]

Way to sidestep the question.
Not really since a specification of my original question should have excluded the silly assumption that I'd regard freedom of speech as obsolete.

As I understand it, firearms are truly a part of American culture, being something I'm not entitled to judge about, and that's why I neither oppose nor support the Second Amendment. Still I doubt that this country needs more protection then it already receives by its Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Organizations.

[Zoomie]

Not really since a specification of my original question should have excluded the silly assumption that I'd regard freedom of speech as obsolete.

As I understand it, firearms are truly a part of American culture, being something I'm not entitled to judge about, and that's why I neither oppose nor support the Second Amendment. Still I doubt that this country needs more protection then it already receives by its Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Organizations.
Well, why don't you if you consider the 2nd Amendment to be?

Just wait till you have a home invasion or something similar, and the police are nowhere near, then maybe you might understand.

[muck]

Well, why don't you if you consider the 2nd Amendment to be?
Lack of comparability? If you hadn't had any other choice, would you rather want to live in a country that does not grant you free speech or in a country that does not grant you the right to carry and possess a firearm?



Just wait till you have a home invasion or something similar, and the police are nowhere near, then maybe you might understand.
Ok, but I thought the amendment would refer to the security of the state itself?

[gaijinsamurai]

It refers to the security of the PEOPLE.

[hank]

As I understand it, firearms are truly a part of American culture, being something I'm not entitled to judge about, and that's why I neither oppose nor support the Second Amendment. Still I doubt that this country needs more protection then it already receives by its Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Organizations.

The point to the second Amendment that cause the grief is that it is almost beyond dispute that the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry to protect the US from foreing invaders and to protect themselves in the event government overreached its bounds. The founding fathers never wanted to be faced with a tyrannical US government that the people could not violently overthrow (as they had the British) because they lacked the means to overthrow it. So there is a great argument that any gun the US govt has should be possessed by the people, lest the people be incapable of fighting with US govt soldiers who get out of line. That is the argument anyway. It is a bit absurd in this day and age what with F-22s and M1A1s abounding. The fact is that there is no way we can live in a society where people have unfettered access to current day military weapons.

The point that the pro-gun lobby never takes into account (or at least minimizes) is that the body of the constitution (not an amendment in the bill of rights) grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce. That "commerce" clause is the basis for all federal gun laws. It is beyond dispute that congress can regulate the shipment and sale of all firearms to the point of banning some of them under this clause. That is and has been the law since day 1.

The difference here is that this is a state/local government law that is sideways with the constitution. That is why this case is probably going to be heard. The outcome, however, is far from secure. It is likely that we'll get bad law from this case as we only really have 4 votes we can count on with Kennedy making the decision.

hank

[Hollis]

It refers to the security of the PEOPLE.


Exactly, the security of the people rest finally in the hands of the people. Check and balances applies to all aspects of our self-government. The founding fathers, new that power was a powerful opiate and that if a small group or a person could take control, all of our talk of freedom would be gone. Government lies somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism. Either extreme is deadly but for a free people to survive and move forward there needs to be a mix of both. Freedom of movement that is not infringed by the meddling of the government and social controls that prevents the chaos of anarchy.

[Hollis]

The point that the pro-gun lobby never takes into account (or at least minimizes) is that the body of the constitution (not an amendment in the bill of rights) grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce. That "commerce" clause is the basis for all federal gun laws. It is beyond dispute that congress can regulate the shipment and sale of all firearms to the point of banning some of them under this clause. That is and has been the law since day 1.


hank

I think the counter argument to the "commerce" clause is in the amendment itself.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think also, there has to be a reasonableness to the "commerce" clause. Is it reasonable for commerce or is it used to "Infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms.

Ownership of a F15 does not imply wrong doing in it self. If I could own a F15 and fly one, why not? I can buy a similar product, say a Lear Jet?

[lider_r]

Sure If they are stolen from the legal owner in some way shape for or fashon. A legit owner wont let the guns go unless they turn criminal which does happen but not frequently at all. And most of the time the burglar who steals those legal guns already had an illegal weapon.

the problem isn't primarily theft from the individual though,the loopholes in the law which allow for large volume sales and straw purchases are making a huge contribution to the illegal gun trade

[wicked_hind]

And instead of trying to rectify those loopholes in the law, they would rather ban handgun ownership to all.

[Laconian]

The point that the pro-gun lobby never takes into account (or at least minimizes) is that the body of the constitution (not an amendment in the bill of rights) grants the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce. That "commerce" clause is the basis for all federal gun laws. It is beyond dispute that congress can regulate the shipment and sale of all firearms to the point of banning some of them under this clause. That is and has been the law since day 1.

The difference here is that this is a state/local government law that is sideways with the constitution. That is why this case is probably going to be heard. The outcome, however, is far from secure. It is likely that we'll get bad law from this case as we only really have 4 votes we can count on with Kennedy making the decision.

hank

As you mentioned hank, the commerce clause gives the US Govt. the authority to regulate the firearms industry and firearms in general, notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment. Like you, I am concerned that this will lead to "bad law." It would be nice if this issue could be decided, once and for all, but I doubt that could/would happen with this case.

[California Joe]

Washington lived in the 18th century! His quote, proudly presented on the first page of this thread, was made in a time which could not differ more from the situation of the US of A today.
In my eyes, at least the content of the Second Amendment is totally obsolete.


We don't care what's in "your eyes" and don't presume to know what George Washington meant as if he was some doddering old grandfather with Alzheimers. That goddamned quote was pretty clear as to his intentions and his opinion, unlike yours, actually matters.

In short, STFU, you're really starting to piss me off.

[Firetxmi]

I do find it funny that they want to uphold the 2nd Amendment, but want to violate the 4th Amendment!

[Hollis]

A good read on the subject:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-levy14nov14,0,2444377.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)

Unholster the 2nd Amendment

The Supreme Court, in weighing D.C.'s handgun ban, has a chance to reaffirm the right to own guns.

By Robert A. Levy
November 14, 2007

It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban -- among the most restrictive in the nation -- unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law on the ground that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. If the high court takes the case, oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged 2nd Amendment violation might have occurred. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

The first is the knotty question of whether the 2nd Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.

Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the Washington ban (with the exception of current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

Meanwhile, the high court also will have to reexamine its 1939 gun case, United States vs. Miller, which generated more heat than light regarding the 2nd Amendment. The core holding of Miller, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia -- except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship -- some from prominent liberals -- that recognizes the 2nd Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

Considering the text, purpose, structure and history of our Constitution, and the clear weight of legal scholarship, it's time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the 2nd Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
__________________

[Firetxmi]

Court takes no action in guns case

Tue Nov 13, 1:57 PM ET

The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday in the case involving the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Friday, but reached no resolution.

Four justices must vote to grant an appeal. The court does not always reach a decision the first time it discusses a case.

At issue is the capital's 31-year ban on handguns, among the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. In March, a federal appeals court struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment.

The justices next meet on Nov. 20 to consider accepting appeals. Their decision could be announced then or when the court convenes for oral arguments on Nov. 26.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns;_ylt=AhvBMM_zRBgwndnJRU1omEKyFz4D

[Mastermind]

I agree with Hank about the ultimate purpose of the 2nd A to protect the people from an obtuse overbearing government. In that regard, the people would have to have every possible weapon at their disposal that the gvt had. That is simply not possible today and it was hardly possible in the day the US was finally become a nation. I can not see the average individual having a 32 pounder in his living room, although in those days that was perfectly acceptable under the law if the guy could afford it.

Yet, today we can obviously not have citizens armed with fully loaded and maintained M1A1’s and F-15s. Yet, the citizenry armed with at least semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols gives them the fair equivalency of an infantryman…which is just enough of a threat to keep the gvt a bit cautious…after all, look what just two idiots did in the North Hollywood shootout paralyzing the entire police force for a good part of a day. I would also refer to the 1970s fiasco of the SLA (remember Patty Hurst?)…they created havoc for quite a time.

So it is clear that a determined and even moderately equipped citizenry is quite capable of making itself felt in event the government were to go balls up.

Some here have suggested that is not likely in this day an age. I strongly disagree with that. Looking at the loons we have had run for President and nearly make it, and the stupid bstds we now have serving in the congress and Senate, I suggest it is highly possible the gvt could go nuts…and I cite many gvt laws today that are at least anti-Constitutional or super-Constitutional. Look at the SCOTUS decision recently that included references to European Laws! The SCOTUS is franchised only to review US Constitutional laws….and when it cited foreign law..I for one was stunned…and a bit spooked by that. Look also at the “Drug War” laws that have been upheld allowing search and seizure law that never would have been dreamed of in decades past as in any way Constitutional.

Although I am not worried by the recent “Home Land Security” laws we now are debating so hotly, some Americans I know and respect are deeply concerned about the effect they will have on our individual freedoms. Modern technology is introducing a great many threats to individual freedoms, with new RFID, public area cameras, GPS tracking and face recognition technology…how an oppressive government could misuse these technologies seems obvious to me…and likely.

Now more than ever, the government needs to be wary of it’s armed and vigilant citizenry. To disarm them now, would in my book be an alarm call that would most likely provoke my instinct to defend my nation from such a government…in my mind, that would be the first step toward the ultimate dictatorial system.

[hank]

I think the counter argument to the "commerce" clause is in the amendment itself.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think also, there has to be a reasonableness to the "commerce" clause. Is it reasonable for commerce or is it used to "Infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms.

Ownership of a F15 does not imply wrong doing in it self. If I could own a F15 and fly one, why not? I can buy a similar product, say a Lear Jet?


No reasonableness in the commerce clause.

US Con, Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

"Power of Congress to regulate commerce.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

You heard it here. The Congress's power to regulate commerce is unlimited so long as it is "interstate commerce."

The trade-off between the people's right and the congress's right is a matter for the Courts and the SC has repeatedly said that so long as the limitation has an effect on interstate commerce and that term is generally broadly defined.

Also you have to understand that the Court has continually taken the position that so long as peolpe can possess some firearms it is ok to limit certain classes of firearms. I'm not saying I agree with that I'm just saying that is the position that has been taken (i.e. automatic handgun magazine capacity and assault rifles).

Your point about the F-15 I'm not clear on. Individual American cannot own current military aircraft (as far as I know) like the F-15 and there is at least an argument that it was the intent of the fathers that the people be armed in the same way as the government. Despite that the courts have continually upheld limitations on "military" weapons (i.e. mortars, cannont, AFV, planes, etc.).

hank

[hank]

I should point out that this case is novel because it does not appear to involve interstate commerce. My thinking is that is the issue that will ultimately be address by our 9 friends in DC.

hank

[Mastermind]

Personally, I will be surprised if they decide to hear the appeal...I think they will actually turn it back to the lower court, letting the ruling stand as is....afterall, without further depth on the narrow issues as ruled on, what more can the SCOTUS do?.

[hank]

Personally, I will be surprised if they decide to hear the appeal...I think they will actually turn it back to the lower court, letting the ruling stand as is....afterall, without further depth on the narrow issues as ruled on, what more can the SCOTUS do?.

I don't want to belabor this point, but I really think Roberts wants to turn the clock back a little on the 2nd A. He has 4 votes to overturn this (him, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) I would think and he is feeling his oats. If they don't take it I would think it is because Roberts is convinced that Kennedy would vote to uphold it and he'd lose 5-4. I will interpret them not hearing it that way. I personally think the fact that they didn't immediately shelve it means that they just might hear it. I could of course be wrong and often am about the 9 in DC.

hank

[Mastermind]

In my feeling, they are going to be at odds on the matter ...here's why. The present security situation (terrorist worries, elections, political tensions high, etc) I think they will "wussey" out on this for right now. I think the issue is actually a bit narrow...and already defines that, law abiding folks do have the right to keep weapons in their homes...not necessarily to pack them on the hip waltzing down Pennsylvania Ave. (which is exactly how I view our 2nd A rights...that we should be able to pack a weapon anywhere...as long as we are law abiding). To hear this case and uphold it, really does not do anything earth shattering. But the court would accomplish less general alarm and debate if they just quietly turned it back and left the atmosphere a bit mysterious on how they might rule on a more serious question of the 2nd A.

After all, (in my opinion) the reason the court has left this issue alone for 68 years is mainly due to the fear both sides (pro and con 2A) have about a potential ruling doing damage or reinforcing it.

[Firetxmi]

No reasonableness in the commerce clause.

US Con, Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

"Power of Congress to regulate commerce.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

You heard it here. The Congress's power to regulate commerce is unlimited so long as it is "interstate commerce."

The trade-off between the people's right and the congress's right is a matter for the Courts and the SC has repeatedly said that so long as the limitation has an effect on interstate commerce and that term is generally broadly defined.

Also you have to understand that the Court has continually taken the position that so long as peolpe can possess some firearms it is ok to limit certain classes of firearms. I'm not saying I agree with that I'm just saying that is the position that has been taken (i.e. automatic handgun magazine capacity and assault rifles).

Your point about the F-15 I'm not clear on. Individual American cannot own current military aircraft (as far as I know) like the F-15 and there is at least an argument that it was the intent of the fathers that the people be armed in the same way as the government. Despite that the courts have continually upheld limitations on "military" weapons (i.e. mortars, cannont, AFV, planes, etc.).

hank

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted many different ways. Some Supreme Courts in the past (1976 for example) believe that "and among the several states" was meant to mean that they could control commerce within each state (their view was that only "several" existed then not the full slew that we have now).

Look at Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (One Supreme Courts view on the Commerce Clause): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authority


And look at New League Of Cities v. Usery for another Supreme Courts view on the Commerce Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_League_of_Cities_v._Usery


It is still a highly debated topic in our courts.

[Douros81]

Personally, I will be surprised if they decide to hear the appeal...I think they will actually turn it back to the lower court, letting the ruling stand as is....afterall, without further depth on the narrow issues as ruled on, what more can the SCOTUS do?.

The anti-gun pinko's told and asked the City of D.C. not to push this any more.

[hank]

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted many different ways. Some Supreme Courts in the past (1976 for example) believe that "and among the several states" was meant to mean that they could control commerce within each state (their view was that only "several" existed then not the full slew that we have now).

Look at Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (One Supreme Courts view on the Commerce Clause): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcia_v._San_Antonio_Metropolitan_Transit_Authority


And look at New League Of Cities v. Usery for another Supreme Courts view on the Commerce Clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_League_of_Cities_v._Usery


It is still a highly debated topic in our courts.

I am totally not arguing with you but neither of these cases would really apply to the analysis in this case. These cases both involve state's rights to legislate in areas where Congress has spoken under the commerce clause. That area is open to much debate and has been. Those cases all deal with whether one state's actions in regulating what is essentially a national activity regulated by Congress somehow usurp what Congress did in an area outlined as being within Congress's purview.

The argument with respect to guns is much cleaner because guns are a commodity. It is a little muddy because unless the gun never crosses a state line then it implicates interstate commerce. It is, however, truly beyond debate that the US Congress can regulate gun sales and shipment under the Commerce Clause.

Mastermind's points about why Congress will not hear this are well made as are yours that this issue is not cut and dried. Hopefully they will and it will be overturned.

hank

[Firetxmi]

I definitly understand. Both of those cases had to do with the FLSA (1936). I was just kind of showing how many courts differ in their view in regards to the Commodity Clause.

[Shellshock1918]

I don't want to belabor this point, but I really think Roberts wants to turn the clock back a little on the 2nd A. He has 4 votes to overturn this (him, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) I would think and he is feeling his oats. If they don't take it I would think it is because Roberts is convinced that Kennedy would vote to uphold it and he'd lose 5-4. I will interpret them not hearing it that way. I personally think the fact that they didn't immediately shelve it means that they just might hear it. I could of course be wrong and often am about the 9 in DC.

hank

Wait, you mean uphold the ruling or uphold the gun ban?

[timetraveller]

to cut a long story short what was the final ruling ..

[hank]

I definitly understand. Both of those cases had to do with the FLSA (1936). I was just kind of showing how many courts differ in their view in regards to the Commodity Clause.

You are definitely correct about that. The tough cases are when there is no actual interstate activity but an effect on interestate activity. The cases you cited fall under that rubrick and they are all over the map. Unless this law only dealt with guns made and sold in one single state I think it would ultimately be tought to justify but you never know.

One other thing to remember. The SC likes to take cases where there aren't a lot of bad facts. That way the case is easier precedent to follow. Meaning, if there ar 10 facts that point to one legal conclusion but 3 that point to another the Court probably won't take that case because the question will arise - does this case only count when you have those 3 bad facts? That leads to another decision and that is inefficient. A good example is Roe v. Wade. That case was brought by attorneys who knew the SC wanted to touch that issue and it is widely known that the SC was looking for the perfect case to take on that issue - Roe v Wade was the perfect case. If they don't take this case the existence of bad facts may well be the reason. The fact they are talking about taking it means they are looking for that right case and when they find it they'll take it.

In the end we usually never know why or why not the SC takes a case os ultimately mastermind may well be right. I just have a hunch that Roberts wants to make a name for himself as conservative through and through and the 2ndA/commerce clause is sure a good place to do that. He has been very critical of the current expanded view of the commerce clause.

hank

[hank]

Wait, you mean uphold the ruling or uphold the gun ban?


Decide to hear the case. That is what is being debated right now. If the court takes the case they will either uphold or overturn the law but that will be much later.

The ultimate decision is - nothing. They will talk about it again at the next case conference and decide then to take/not take the case.

hank

[gaijinsamurai]

I appreciate your insight, Hank!

[Asheren]

And instead of trying to rectify those loopholes in the law, they would rather ban handgun ownership to all.

And that would not work too well. In Poland they steal around 500 firearms. They detain around 500 peoples under illegal firearms posesing charges. Guess what amount of confiscated firearms per year is at last 2 times larger. I don't have access to a detailed statistic of stolen firearms but considering how difficult is to get a license for automatic weapon, my guess is that no more that 5% of that stolen firearms are automatic weapons. This means that at last 50%-75% was obtained illegaly. With automatic weapons that would be propably closer to 90%. Did gun ban stoped crimnals from comiting violent crimes? nope they switched to other weapons to a point when government put a regulation that baseball bat shaped items are considered a weapon.

[Hilbert]

is an attack helicopter just a tool as well?
Technically speaking, yes it is, it's a hunk of metal and electronic components which someone mounts some weapons on.


Washington lived in the 18th century! His quote, proudly presented on the first page of this thread, was made in a time which could not differ more from the situation of the US of A today.
In my eyes, at least the content of the Second Amendment is totally obsolete.

Then, as Buckeye67 said, I guess we might as well go ahead and say that the first amendment, hell, the entire Bill of Rights is "totally obsolete" since it was written ages ago. :roll:


Is that still a valid statement today?
Provided that you are not a soldier or policemen (I don't know whether you are), does your gun really protect the freedom of your nation and if yes, who is threatening your freedom?
Because that's what I've meant.
Of course it's still valid today. When the Bill of Rights was written, the founding fathers didn't include a little clock saying after [insert time and date here] that the 2nd Amendment would no longer be valid. The United States Constitution is the basic law of the land (in the US, of course).

Recall in the Declaration of Independence "...when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." The Second Amendment is the teeth that allows the people to abolish it, just as it allowed the colonists to free themselves from Great Britain. To answer your question, the government, to be more specific, the U.S. Government.

[T.H.E. rooster]

The 2nd Amendment is just as relevant then as it is today. Don't be as naive to think that people these days are too "civilized" or our country is too stable and that nobody will ever try to take our freedoms, rights, etc.. Unarmed citizens are weak citizens, and weak citizens are surprisingly easy to push around and oppress.
Saying the forefathers didn't understand that weapons would be much more advanced and too dangerous for civilians in the future would be like people a hundred years from now saying that the government of the twentieth century would have banned all weapons if they had known there would be frickin lazerbeams in the hands of the people in the future. Point is that people need and will need weapons for the same reasons then as they do today. However, this is America after all, so I am willing to hear out the other side.
As for this assualt rifles having no sporting purpose baloney... Go visit a few shooting events and count the number of AR's being used by competitors. End Rant. p-)

[bryanleu2002]

I think Hank will agree with me on this one Bryan, representing yourself in a search and seizure case is a bit like trying to perform brain surgery on your own head, which is never a good idea, even if you are qualified in neurosurgery. Remember, you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you. The state provided attorney may not be top draw, but it will be better than you having a go yourself.

How did search and seizure come out of what i said? This isn't about defending myself against search and seizure,

If it was, its about not having anything incriminating on my persons or in my house or property that would incriminate myself therefore having no need for a search and seizure in the first place..(Preventative maintnance so to speak.) just like paying your taxes dutifuly .

its about eliminateing any probable cause from the equation...

If a search and seizure case is such brain surgery then the 4th amendment is so severly perverted that it probably does not exist in it's true meaning layed down by the founders..

[bryanleu2002]

Well, I'll agree to this if you'll agree to open season on dumb*sses. You'd pretty clearly be the subject on that day.

Who the hell do you think it is fighting for 2ndA right? It sure as hell better not be people with your intellectual abilities. If it is we are in trouble. Its lawyers dumb*ss.

hank

Listen Hank.. "Money Has No Enemy". I am member of the NRA and the Second amendment foundation, And if you have been paying attention for the last 30 plus years, one thing is clear, Politician's and lawyers will sell you out in a heart beat.. If you get in trouble in your local town, It will be the local Prosecutor, and your defense attorney working Together to decide what is in the best interest of society to do with you....

I have served on a jury twice and seen everyday citizens get railroaded by attorney's and prosecutors with special instructions from the judge.



Good luck

[Geezah]

Having passed the Bar in both Australia and the USA, I can say there are more similarities than there are differences. There is a greater role of statute though in the US than in Australia, generally speaking. When speaking of a really different system from these, look to Europe or South Africa.

American law is based on British Law, so the fact that there are similarities between American and Austrlian law does not surprise me in the slightest.

The only problem is, the British chewed up their constitution and spat it out.

[Geezah]

Washington lived in the 18th century! His quote, proudly presented on the first page of this thread, was made in a time which could not differ more from the situation of the US of A today.
In my eyes, at least the content of the Second Amendment is totally obsolete.

I know Cali Joe told you to fix up, but I have to address your ignorant comment above.
The more I read quotes by the Founding Fathers, the more I realize how their train of thought was as relevant then, as it is now.
I actually believe they were far more intelligent, than allot of the so-called scholars today. Another thing is, they walked the walk and were entitled to talk the talk.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

American law is based on British Law, so the fact that there are similarities between American and Austrlian law does not surprise me in the slightest.

The only problem is, the British chewed up their constitution and spat it out.

What constitution? They don't have one! :)

[LaoSexMachine]

is an attack helicopter just a tool as well?



Yes. Without a pilot who is human; it just an expensive lawn ornament.

[lider_r]

so basically it shouldn't matter if children, criminals and terrorists get hold of firearms- seeing as they are just tools?

[gaijinsamurai]

Well, i wouldn't let my son use a chainsaw, and it's a tool.

[Redguy]

I find that the majority of people who support gun control are people who have never actually handled or used a firearm. To even think that any amendment is obsolete and worth getting rid of is the most un-American thing I've ever heard of.

[gaijinsamurai]

^ Many of these people refuse to even consider the idea that a person might have to depend on a firearm, sometimes on a daily basis.

An example is my dad, when I was a kid. We lived on a cattle ranch, and early every morning he would gather all his TOOLS for the day, including his .357 S&W m.19 and his Remington 700 .22-250. The .357 was for rattlesnakes and the .22-250 was for cougars and coyotes. To my dad, these were not toys or unnecessary novelties, but essential items for the protection of the herd, which was our livelihood.

When I've told anti-gunners this, they just tend to look at me with glossed-over eyes, and refuse to believe me.

[Nano]

LOL you're kidding they could not imagine the need and use of weapons in that manner?hmmm I wonder what early humans used sharp weapons for?I guess they missed the chapter in history where settlers nearly wiped out the buffalo. Anti-gunners give the impression that everyone lives in their utopia gated community with 24hour security which follows them around when they leave said community.

[gaijinsamurai]

^ Well, I think most of these idiots (most of whom were from big cities on the East Coast), found it hard to believe that cowboys still exist in America. I think they never paused to wonder where the beef in their Big Macs came from.

[lider_r]

so why can't i buy these 'tools' at my local hardware shop?


is a nuclear weapon a tool as well?

[Douros81]

http://www.nraila.org/images/parkerchart1.jpg

This should say it all, gun control doesn't fight crime.

http://www.nraila.org/:)

[Zoomie]

so why can't i buy these 'tools' at my local hardware shop?


is a nuclear weapon a tool as well?
A tractor is a tool as well, how come I can't buy that at my local hardware store too?:roll: :slap:

[Buckeye67]

Thing is, we can buy firearms in some hardware shops here (if they have an FFL).

We can buy firearms at WalMart, KMart and various sporting goods stores (if they have an FFL).

We can buy firearms from any FFL holder.

Edit: The "LOL Y CANT WE OWN NUCULAR WEAPANZ TEHN" strawman has been addressed before. I suggest you search past threads on the subject.

[LaoSexMachine]

so why can't i buy these 'tools' at my local hardware shop?


is a nuclear weapon a tool as well?

You are reaching. Stop while you are behind.

[Hilbert]

so basically it shouldn't matter if children, criminals and terrorists get hold of firearms- seeing as they are just tools?

May I be the first to ask, how the heck you've arrived to this idiotic conclusion?


so why can't i buy these 'tools' at my local hardware shop?


is a nuclear weapon a tool as well?

Now your just pulling words out of your arse.

[Nano]

Guys lidar stopped making any sense a few pages back and has simply diverted the attention from core argument to a side point about tools. If you ask me he classifies as one. It might be why he's so into this tool issue of his.

[lider_r]

This should say it all, gun control doesn't fight crime.


it would if it was nationwide. Passing laws in one state is useless when there are wide open borders. Its like designating a school a 'gun free zone' when the rest of the country is awash with guns, and then being surprised when a disaster happens.

There is evidence that nationwide gun laws can be effective, such as the case of Australia.


May I be the first to ask, how the heck you've arrived to this idiotic conclusion?

If a firearm is just a tool then why can't kids, criminals and terrorists have them? what does it matter if it is just a tool? It's think its a fair question, just like the nuclear weapon question which often gets shrugged off- if a firearm is a tool then why is a nuclear weapon not a tool as well?

[Buckeye67]

it would if it was nationwide. Passing laws in one state is useless when there are wide open borders. Its like designating a school a 'gun free zone' when the rest of the country is awash with guns, and then being surprised when a disaster happens.

There is evidence that nationwide gun laws can be effective, such as the case of Australia.

Debunked in various previous threads that you continue to willfully ignore.


If a firearm is just a tool then why can't kids, criminals and terrorists have them? what does it matter if it is just a tool? It's think its a fair question, just like the nuclear weapon question which often gets shrugged off- if a firearm is a tool then why is a nuclear weapon not a tool as well?

Terrorists will have firearms regardless of prohibitions of ownership on the law-abiding. Point Moot.

If by "criminal" you mean "convict", being convicted of a crime doesn't necessarily preclude one from owning a firearm. Convicted felons are, for the most part, prohibited from owning a firearm not (necessarily) because they're a "criminal", but because felons are stripped of a number of their rights - the right to vote and to own a firearm amongst them.

As I mentioned previously - the "nuclear weapon" strawman has been shot down in the past. Go read.

[lider_r]

Debunked in various previous threads that you continue to willfully ignore.

Are you referring to the gun stats in Australia when you say 'debunked'?

If so, can you point towards the specific thread to where it has been debunked? I'd be very interested to read that....

[Buckeye67]

Yes, I'm referring to "gun crime" statistics in Australia.

You can search for 'em yourself.

[lider_r]

hmm can't find anything, apart from the stats showing a decreased in gun crime since laws were introduced...

[Buckeye67]

You should keep searching.

Edit: I'm going home now. You can do your homework and have a book report for us tomorrow.

[gaijinsamurai]

lider_r is just a troll, and should be ignored. He already managed to get the previous gun control-related thread locked, and I can see he's aiming to do the same with this one. Since he obviously refuses to consider anything we write in response to his drivel, we ought to just ignore him and move on.

[Hilbert]

it would if it was nationwide. Passing laws in one state is useless when there are wide open borders. Its like designating a school a 'gun free zone' when the rest of the country is awash with guns, and then being surprised when a disaster happens.

Yawn. So then, why are we proposing to ban firearms in just one area when we know it will be to quote your own words, "useless." Oh, and just for the record sherlock, Washington D.C. isn't a state.


There is evidence that nationwide gun laws can be effective, such as the case of Australia.

That's funny as far I know crime went up after your "effective laws" or is that the whole point, to see a little reduction in crimes related to guns at any price of increase in crime as a whole?


If a firearm is just a tool then why can't kids, criminals and terrorists have them? what does it matter if it is just a tool? It's think its a fair question, just like the nuclear weapon question which often gets shrugged off- if a firearm is a tool then why is a nuclear weapon not a tool as well?

I don't know, maybe the idea that you don't want some tools in the hands of dangerous criminals and terrorists. Actually let me rephrase that, since I don't know what the hell your thinking and judging by your posts theres a clear lack of logic, you may well want criminals to have firearms or nukes; so the appropriate answer is, most of us don't think it's a good idea to make such tools legally available to criminals.

And, a nuclear weapon is a tool, sherlock. Since by default, a tool is anything that aids in a task; thus if one's goal was to destroy a city, a nuclear weapon would be a great tool.

Just out of curiousity, is english your first language?

EDIT:

lider_r is just a troll, and should be ignored. He already managed to get the previous gun control-related thread locked, and I can see he's aiming to do the same with this one. Since he obviously refuses to consider anything we write in response to his drivel, we ought to just ignore him and move on.

Alright, point taken. I'm done trying to install common sense into the guy.

P.S.
I know my DAOTW nomation.

[California Joe]

If a firearm is just a tool then why can't kids, criminals and terrorists have them? what does it matter if it is just a tool? It's think its a fair question, just like the nuclear weapon question which often gets shrugged off- if a firearm is a tool then why is a nuclear weapon not a tool as well?

As far as I can tell you're the biggest tool in here. Quit being retarded.

[hank]

As far as I can tell you're the biggest tool in here. Quit being retarded.

I'll have to take issue with this statement. Clearly bryanleu2002 has this honor.

hank

[California Joe]

Objection sustained.

[angry cow]

My thing about gun control is that if a government continues to ignore the people for long enough, the people should be able to effect change on their own. Personal weapons ownership serves as a means by which the power of the government can be counterbalanced.

In a country like Myanmar, the government has all the weapons, and all the power, and thus has the ability to continue to ignore the people for decades to come. The only hope for the Burmese people now is outside intervention.

I don't want to have to rely on the United Nations to restore my democracy should it ever fail.


PS: Another important reason for the Right to bear arms is to rapidly restore order in event of an alien attack or zombie rising. It's always good to be prepared.

[Geezah]

What constitution? They don't have one! :)

Bill of Rights, my bad........

[Createdeemcee]

I wish I had a statistical chart for murder rate comparison of maryland compared to the rest of the country. I bet that would be even sadder than D.C.'s

[lider_r]

That's funny as far I know crime went up after your "effective laws" or is that the whole point, to see a little reduction in crimes related to guns at any price of increase in crime as a whole?

Gun buyback cuts suicides, massacres (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20926083-1702,00.html)

this is just one piece of data out of many


I don't know, maybe the idea that you don't want some tools in the hands of dangerous criminals and terrorists. Actually let me rephrase that, since I don't know what the hell your thinking and judging by your posts theres a clear lack of logic, you may well want criminals to have firearms or nukes; so the appropriate answer is, most of us don't think it's a good idea to make such tools legally available to criminals.

This seems like a huge double standard. Many other tools can be used to kill and can be purchased by criminals,terrorists and children, why should guns not be allowed if they are just tools?

[lider_r]

My thing about gun control is that if a government continues to ignore the people for long enough, the people should be able to effect change on their own. Personal weapons ownership serves as a means by which the power of the government can be counterbalanced.



There are plenty of nations in the world that manage a healthy democracy even with gun control laws in place. I don't think anybody would disagree that the current US administration has ignored it's people for quite some time, yet widespread gun ownership hasn't stopped them.

[Buckeye67]

Objection sustained.

No, lider is in a class far beyond bryanleu (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/search.php?searchid=1263102).

[California Joe]

What are you referring to?

I was speaking to hank, he is a lawyer. It was a joke.

[hank]

Talk like Yoda you do. Confusing it is very. Clarification I need on your question.

hank

[hank]

I let you know in the P.M. I'm not an advocate of violence,
though except it, and those who advocate peace may push
violence.


Your pm I received. Appreciate much your sentiment. I often ponder the significance of violence vis-a-vis the modern gun culture and its unexpected interrelatedness for those advocates who push peace. Care for a jelly doughnut? I also like to drop down turn around pick a bail of cotton. Many are the times I say to myself, "self, does the modern gun culture promote peace for those advocates who like jelly doughnuts?" Usually I get no response but sometimes a Yoda-like voice comes to me and says, "self, you need to go to the bathroom." So I go and have a bowel movement. Other times I get no response and then I like to burn incense and find my inner child and give him some candy. Know what I mean?

hank

[gaijinsamurai]

Omega7?!?!?!

[Douros81]

it would if it was nationwide. Passing laws in one state is useless when there are wide open borders. Its like designating a school a 'gun free zone' when the rest of the country is awash with guns, and then being surprised when a disaster happens.

There is evidence that nationwide gun laws can be effective, such as the case of Australia.



If a firearm is just a tool then why can't kids, criminals and terrorists have them? what does it matter if it is just a tool? It's think its a fair question, just like the nuclear weapon question which often gets shrugged off- if a firearm is a tool then why is a nuclear weapon not a tool as well?


This is like talking to the wall. :roll:

You don't **** from apple butter when it comes to gun control.
The UK has no firearms and there is still crime?:bash:

GUN CONTROL DOSE NOT FIGHT CRIME !!!!!!! :roll::bash:

[bryanleu2002]

No, lider is in a class far beyond bryanleu (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/search.php?searchid=1261994&pp=25).


What do you mean by that statement, and dead linK? I am willing to defend myself!

Bryanleu

Is there a " the end justifies the means" attitude here? If so then this requires a whole new thread...

The end justifies the means....

[Buckeye67]

What do you mean by that statement, and dead linK? I am willing to defend myself!

Bryanleu

Is there a " the end justifies the means" attitude here? If so then this requires a whole new thread...

The end justifies the means....

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=123679&page=9

[bryanleu2002]

I'll have to take issue with this statement. Clearly bryanleu2002 has this honor.

hank

Not intirely understood , but just as well..

Thanks for the reply

[hank]

"Several of us "means that i have become some sort of celebrity! can you tell me who your are refering to ..You never Know .. I could be CID... Or Internal affairs...

good luck..

Dude, if you read (which its almost impossible you could) you would see that I voted for you as the biggest tool in this thread and you got a couple of other nominations and votes. As usual, though, I basically have no f**king idea what you are talking about.

hank

[bryanleu2002]

Dude, if you read (which its almost impossible you could) you would see that I voted for you as the biggest tool in this thread and you got a couple of other nominations and votes. As usual, though, I basically have no f**king idea what you are talking about.

hank

I did not know that Millitary photos .net was a democracy?

Sorry, My appologies This place is a dictatorship period...

[hank]

What does a dictatorship have to do with the fact that you can't express an opinion in a coherent, lucid fashion? Nobody is stopping you from running your piehole I'd just prefer that you do it in a way that I can understand it. Your posts don't make sense. I'm happy for your to say it but don't expect to not get questioned when you post the conclusory garbage that you do.

I mean do you know that a sentence requires a noun and a verb? From what I've seen I think not.

hank

[bryanleu2002]

What does a dictatorship have to do with the fact that you can't express an opinion in a coherent, lucid fashion? Nobody is stopping you from running your piehole I'd just prefer that you do it in a way that I can understand it. Your posts don't make sense. I'm happy for your to say it but don't expect to not get questioned when you post the conclusory garbage that you do.

I mean do you know that a sentence requires a noun and a verb? From what I've seen I think not.

hank

OK........ Ok I understand what you are saying, and I say " thank You".
your are right , your opinion is justified. as is mine. thanks for the repost and involvement with militarypotos.net.. it been great...

sorry for the aggression.. just venting....

Bryan

[hank]

Stay on Task

This book will help you understand what is going on at the supreme court.


the Supeme court is corupted ...Lets try to stay on topic... read this book "HanK" and you might get a glimpse of what is going on in America today.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51X82HC4VPL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Why don't you try, in your own words without using . . . . to express how this book relates to this thread. No more of your cutesy bs, write complete sentences and enlighten us all of your lucid and thorough thoughts on the subject.

hank

[bryanleu2002]

Why don't you try, in your own words without using . . . . to express how this book relates to this thread. No more of your cutesy bs, write complete sentences and enlighten us all of your lucid and thorough thoughts on the subject.

hank

Ok I will ... but not tonight.. I am too tired and have been working overtime for the man...

I will say this .. the supreme court was originaly given (at the time 17somthing). the enormous powers in which the other branches could not overtake,,, this was imaparative at the time.... 3 Branches...

Hind site is 20 20 ... What has happend is called "judcicial activisism"

Today the supreme court has taken over everything... (nobody knows it)

I will get more to you tommorow....

live free or die...
Bryan

[Hollis]

Stay on Task

This book will help you understand what is going on at the supreme court.


the Supeme court is corupted ...Lets try to stay on topic... read this book "HanK" and you might get a glimpse of what is going on in America today.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51X82HC4VPL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg



LOL, what Hanks says to you. That is utter nonsense.

[seraosha]

Who knew that Yoda had so many followers in grammatical sentence structure and complete incomprehensibility.

[lider_r]

This is like talking to the wall. :roll:

You don't **** from apple butter when it comes to gun control.
The UK has no firearms and there is still crime?:bash:

GUN CONTROL DOSE NOT FIGHT CRIME !!!!!!! :roll::bash:

dose?


anyways, i didn't suggest anything about the laws and the effect they've had in the UK and you haven't disproved how gun control has been effective in Australia so I hardly see how this argument of yours that 'gun control in its entirety is failed policy' actually carries any weight. Did you read the article i posted? I can only assume you didn't.....

[kamarian]

so why can't i buy these 'tools' at my local hardware shop?


is a nuclear weapon a tool as well?

as it has been said before,

you're the tool.

[gaijinsamurai]

Congratulations on being a recipient of the DUMBARSE OF THE WEEK AWARD, Lider_r!!! I knew you could do it!!!

[Hollis]

Congratulations on being a recipient of the DUMBARSE OF THE WEEK AWARD, Lider_r!!! I knew you could do it!!!


I wonder if he will buy the beers tonight?


Congratulations Lider_r.

[gaijinsamurai]

^ My guess is that he's probably the type who's for Prohibition, as he seems to know what's best for the rest of us, and thinks we have too much freedom to make decisions for ourselves.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but with the logic I've seen from him so far.......

[SPROCKET]

hmm can't find anything, apart from the stats showing a decreased in gun crime since laws were introduced...

Er, you do realize that banning guns and citing a decrease in gun related crime is like banning automobiles and pointing the decrease in DUI arrests as evidence that banning cars decreases drinking. :bash:

The anti-gun clique has a tendency to engage in magical thinking. "Remove the guns, and the savages won't act like savages anymore.", sorry to say, but this just isn't going to happen. The only thing that puts the brakes on violence is economic security and education. Until those are addressed, rearrange the deck chairs all you want, the boat is still going down.

[Hilbert]

Australia so I hardly see how this argument of yours that 'gun control in its entirety is failed policy' actually carries any weight. Did you read the article i posted? I can only assume you didn't.....

Yeah, Sherlock, about that article, what does suicides have to do with crime?

(Oh and before I forget, congratulations on your award; you truly deserved it. Keep up the good work and don't let us down!)

Since your obviously right and we poor misguided creatures are definately wrong, will you please be kind enough to show us some statistics of the crime rates (all forms of crime) and the homicide rate in Australia before and after the ban.

Heres what all of the statistics I've seen show:
Yes gun related crime actually goes down, lord behold - but catch 22 strikes again and every other form of crime shoots up like there's no tomorrow.

[Mastermind]

This thread has completely lost it's mind...Besides, this subject has been debated to the point of nausia. Let's all meet again after the SCOTUS has decided what they are going to do.

[11 Bravo]

It's also kinda hard to look like a "bawla" out on the mean streets with a black-powder musket shoved down into said "bawla's" pants. Drive-by's are hard to pull off when the air from the open window is blowing all of the powder out of gun's tray.


Well then , get a percussion musket you knucklehead, no powder blown out of the pan & frizzen then huh.
I do recall reading that in the UK alot of black powder pistols have been converted/sleeved to fire small cartidges like 25 auto and 22 rimfire. You know the ballsakees or whatever you call them are not as limitied in thinking as you suppose.

[Mastermind]

As a licensed gun collector in the US, let me disabuse you. I can buy any collector gun...of which the list is so large it is contained in an annual that is the size of the white pages for a meduim sized city. Everthing that is older than fifty years in manufacture, that has been discontinued, or is of any historical significance. My license excluded fully automatic weapons. I can buy these weapons direct from suppliers without ever having to go through any "paperwork" other than to give them a copy of my active license. I must keep accurate records of my collection and I must not knowingly sell any of my weapons to someone who may not be allowed to own a gun (felons, insane people or persons deemed otherwise unworthy) I applied for this license through the ATF&E, filled out their application form, and sent it along with $30.00 cash....and had to inform my local law enforcememnt agency (the county Sherriff) that I was a collector. Six weeks later I had my license and began to purchase (sometimes wholesale)...all kinds of old military weapons from Mausers to WWII .45ACP to Eastern block, Chinese, Japanese etc...All my weapons are in excellent condition, some came to me in their original military packing cases from the factory (never before issued). British .303, Italian, French, German...you name it, I can legally buy and posses them and their matching ammo.
As a law abiding American citizen, this is the exercise of my Constitutional right. I protect my weapons in the proper manner, and I can dispose of them in any legal way I see fit...which includes selling and trading them. If I were to srew up, sell a weapon to an unqualified individual, which I can assure everyone..that simply will never happen, I would lose that priveledge. I enjoy my weapons, I use many of them almost every weekend, I work on them, clean them and I study their history.

Every single law abiding American citizen is elegible to do exactly the same thing.

[11 Bravo]

Here's a good link to this thread......

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869


I used to have an 01 FFl , gave it up after my dad passed ( we were going to go full bore into it when he retired ).
As my avatar suggests I love old military rifles , and don't mind an evil semiauto version of a military select fire weapon. In collecting I have run into closet nazis , closet commies , revolutionists , to arrogant total wankers...the whole gamut.

[11 Bravo]

Iv'e owned quite a few 30+ caliber 6 shooters that were black powder pistols,
and I used pyrodex as it's much cleaner and does not corrode as quick if you
can't clean immediately. My 50 caliber single shot Hawkens used caps and were
fairly accurate to 100yds. out. These are legal in the UK? The last I checked they
don't require Brady or other registration in the US, though there are better modern
hunting and recreational tools, however require Brady other registrations and "now
classes for usage in CA." I suppose they assume their classes are better education
than family upbringing to teach responsiblities?


From what I recall in conversing with some english collectors , black powder arms over there have little to no restrictions. Not so with the powder and caps.
In the US places like the peoples republik of new jerky DO REQUIRE pistol permits on black powder pistols , BB pistols too. You need your firearms ID card to purchase even a BB gun there , and to hunt with a muzzle loader there you need to get a separate "rifle" license on top of your muzzle loader deer permit. Places like PA - in muzzle loading season you can only use a flintlock - no percussion hammer or inline rifles.
I had read where some replicas of modern revolvers had tunred up in the UK that had a rifled sleeve inserted in their formerly 'fake' barrels , as well as corresponding sleeves in the cylinders - again in 22 rim & 25ACP calibers. Oh those enterprising gun concious thugs.

[Yeti2424]

You don't need a license to enjoy the other 9 amendments you shouldnt need a license for the second either.

Thought this was an interesting read:
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

[DeltaWhisky58]

So you are saying in UK only flintlocks are allowed?

Sounds like awfully stupid Bureacrats.

My 30+ caliber black powder six shooters, and 50 caliber
Hawken rifle both replicas from the 1800's had rifled barrels
just as modern day pistols and rifles. I believe rifling was
invented in the 1800's and became available then also though
I'm not positive?

So they can only have single shot pistols in the UK?

You're about 200 years too late on your estimation of the invention of rifling.

Only muzzle loading and air/gas powered pistols are allowed in the UK - not even single shot breach loaders are allowed without special government dispensation. The only exceptions are for humane slaughter by vets, slaughtermen and other such users by government license.

[Hollis]

?
(In the late 1800s, the term "rifled musket" was used to distinguish between
smoothbore and rifled long arms.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

I have no interest in living there.

Military firearms and civilians where not the same. BTW I have a rifled musket, it started life out as a smoothie. It is a 1818 Springfield.

The ability to use google, only demonstrates the ability to use google............

[thunderbird84]

The violence isn't related to the weapons in question but to people who use them, things wouldn't change unless some anti-violence measures would be taken.
I think that Michael Moore resumed it pretty well when he compared the US of A to Canada regarding this weapons issue in his documentary 'Bowling for Columbine', specifically when he mentioned that the US guns deaths are mainly due to the US mentality and history and not really to the weapons, even if he declared that ironically.

[Hilbert]

I think that Michael Moore resumed it pretty well when he compared the US of A to Canada regarding this weapons issue in his documentary 'Bowling for Columbine', specifically when he mentioned that the US guns deaths are mainly due to the US mentality and history and not really to the weapons, even if he declared that ironically.

Yeah, and I think your crazy. Anything else?

[lider_r]

Er, you do realize that banning guns and citing a decrease in gun related crime is like banning automobiles and pointing the decrease in DUI arrests as evidence that banning cars decreases drinking.

so its just like pointing to violent crime figures in countries which have many guns, and saying that firearm ownership is responsible for declining crime rates?

Obviously if there is a few firearms in a country, its going to be harder to commit a firearm related crime...


^ My guess is that he's probably the type who's for Prohibition, as he seems to know what's best for the rest of us, and thinks we have too much freedom to make decisions for ourselves.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but with the logic I've seen from him so far.......

you really do have a bee in your bonnett, don't you?

[Buckeye67]

you really do have a bee in your bonnett, don't you?

No worse than yours.

[lider_r]

Heres what all of the statistics I've seen show:
Yes gun related crime actually goes down, lord behold - but catch 22 strikes again and every other form of crime shoots up like there's no tomorrow.

since when do lawmakers who introduce firearm control legislation announce it as a solution to tackle all crime?

I've not seen the other figures you refer to showing an increase in other types of crime, nor have i seen any data showing that their increase is due to tighter gun laws....

[Buckeye67]

I refuse to acknowledge any other figures showing an increase in other types of crime, and I refuse to believe any data showing that their increase is due to tighter gun laws....

Fixed for truth.

[digrar]

Fixed for truth.

Ha, that got reported...

[Buckeye67]

I'm a bad, bad man. :(

[thunderbird84]

Yeah, and I think your crazy. Anything else?
Yeah, The lack of arguments here makes this post totally useless and retarded.

[Hilbert]

since when do lawmakers who introduce firearm control legislation announce it as a solution to tackle all crime?

So, then, why the heck are we passing all of these bills when the result we see every single time is that violent crime as a whole goes off the charts? Is preventing a few people being shot really worth dozens of rapes, robberies, and home invasions? I sure as heck don't think so.

Where do you draw the line, or do you draw the line?


I've not seen the other figures you refer to showing an increase in other types of crime, nor have i seen any data showing that their increase is due to tighter gun laws....

Have you ever looked, if not why not, maybe because it will burst this little fantasy of yours? Or, perhaps you just don't care?

[Buckeye67]

^-and which previously banned member are you?

v-and who are you?

[Hollis]

Are they violating constitutional rights here in this forum?

??? I gather you are just plain clueless, this is a contractal service. IT IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM...........

Or did you NOT read the agreement you said YES too when you joined.

Amazing, roflroflrofl

[digrar]

Crazy bastard is talking to himself. Banned. Duplicate accounts, speaking in languages other than English, breaking forum rules, incoherent PMs and being a moon bat.

[WarriorMonk]

shyte, the Supreme Court actually WANTS to hear this case...

Bush your two appointees better hold out now...

[Calanen]

The Appellate bench for the District got it right. The majority decision was well researched, thorough and on point. I believe that the Supreme Court will see it that way too.

[bryanleu2002]

The Appellate bench for the District got it right. The majority decision was well researched, thorough and on point. I believe that the Supreme Court will see it that way too.

So much faith calanen... you surprise me! I didn't know lawyers even had a conscience , There may be hope for you yet, I hope your right! I still think it will ultimatley be in vein!

I was surprised to see it not get kicked back to the lower court.. therefore just leaving it as a "insignificant" State or DC issue, Yet it will go forward at this this time, to address the nation (March 08').. Well Well!! what a Symbolic gesture by the supreme law of the land..

Something tells me, that between now and then this issue will change..

We will see!!

[Calanen]

So much faith calanen... you surprise me! I didn't know lawyers even had a conscience , There may be hope for you yet, I hope your right!

We always had a conscience, it's just for sale at the right price.

For those who have not read the decision below (which is most of you) and who are really into the whole Second Amendment thing I think the judgment is a fascinating read, given it goes into the real reasons for the Second Amendment, absent all the BS we get on blogs and in the media (from people who really know nothing about constitutional law). The text of the lower court decision (Parker vs DC) to be determined on appeal is here:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

This is also the most conservative Supreme Court in a very long time. I don't see that the DC appeals court has committed appellable error. I don't know whether hank has a different view, but feel free to chime in if you do hank.

[bryanleu2002]

We always had a conscience, it's just for sale at the right price.

For those who have not read the decision below (which is most of you) and who are really into the whole Second Amendment thing I think the judgment is a fascinating read, given it goes into the real reasons for the Second Amendment, absent all the BS we get on blogs and in the media (from people who really know nothing about constitutional law). The text of the lower court decision (Parker vs DC) to be determined on appeal is here:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

This is also the most conservative Supreme Court in a very long time. I don't see that the DC appeals court has committed appellable error. I don't know whether hank has a different view, but feel free to chime in if you do hank.

You must have some classified access to .gov Pdf's because i cant get into it. and why does the link express "opinion" in it ? sounds bias! I would like to read...

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Can you copy and paste for us, or paraphrase . thanks in advance.

[bryanleu2002]

You must have some classified access to .gov Pdf's because i cant get into it. and why does the link express "opinion" in it ? sounds bias! I would like to read...

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Can you copy and paste for us, or paraphrase . thanks in advance.

Ok , I got it ,, thanks..

Bryan

[Calanen]

You must have some classified access to .gov Pdf's because i cant get into it. and why does the link express "opinion" in it ? sounds bias! I would like to read...


I'm glad you found it eventually Bryan, but it's not from anywhere classified. Legal decisions in the US are always called 'Opinions'.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Why wont somebody think of the children!

*faints*

[Buckeye67]

Why wont somebody think of the children!

*faints*

We do think of the children.

They are permitted to be armed while under adult supervision. p-)

[bryanleu2002]

I'm glad you found it eventually Bryan, but it's not from anywhere classified. Legal decisions in the US are always called 'Opinions'.

yes i got it, and will take me forever to decifer that jambylaya, I have to look at the definitions first before anything, this will take me awhile..

If you say that you can be bought at a price, than that makes you a slave no more than i am. You may make more money (paper dollars backed by nothing) than i do, You may be more educated than i am, I ENVY THAT. One thing that i will continue to do, is to educate myself,

The founders gave the supreme court enorrmous amounts of power , thinking at the time that it would get squashed by the other two branches. This has not been the case, infact it has been in reverse. This has been accomplished through judicial activism in the supreme court.

I still believe that this ruling will be in vein and just symbolic..

We will see in March 08'

Bryan

[Laconian]

Calanen, thanks for that link. An interesting read over this morning's coffee. Off to the range...

[Calanen]

If you say that you can be bought at a price, than that makes you a slave no more than i am. You may make more money (paper dollars backed by nothing) than i do, You may be more educated than i am, I ENVY THAT. One thing that i will continue to do, is to educate myself,


I was only kidding Bryan. Maybe I should have put the pirate smiley in.

[Calanen]

Calanen, thanks for that link. An interesting read over this morning's coffee. Off to the range...

No problem. It is isn't it! A very impressive review of all the different arguments about the Second Amendment I thought.

[hank]

Who was that wise legal mind that predicted the SC would take this case? His name escapes me. This law is getting struck down. You heard it here first.

hank

[lider_r]

So, then, why the heck are we passing all of these bills when the result we see every single time is that violent crime as a whole goes off the charts? Is preventing a few people being shot really worth dozens of rapes, robberies, and home invasions? I sure as heck don't think so.

Where do you draw the line, or do you draw the line?

Have you ever looked, if not why not, maybe because it will burst this little fantasy of yours? Or, perhaps you just don't care?

Well, if you are going to suggest a truth, which in this case is the idea that gun control makes other crime increase, then the burden of proof is on you.

[SPROCKET]

[quote=lider_r;2884929]so its just like pointing to violent crime figures in countries which have many guns, and saying that firearm ownership is responsible for declining crime rates?

Obviously if there is a few firearms in a country, its going to be harder to commit a firearm related crime...

quote]

Nice to see you know your point is rubbish. Although being far from perfect analogs for the US, the Australian and Canadian experiences seem to indicate firearm regulation has a negligable impact on overall murder and suicide rates.

[Geezah]

2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year in the US, and not all of those defensive uses involve a firearm being fired. All it may take, is the firearm being shown to halt a possible rape...

[lider_r]

2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year in the US, and not all of those defensive uses involve a firearm being fired. All it may take, is the firearm being shown to halt a possible rape...

so you keep saying.....


so are you o.k with writing off a percentage of your fellow countrymen each year as the margin of error in this theory?


Are these just broken eggs in the omelette making process?

[California Joe]

Are you some kind of selective reading autistic savant or something?

Bad guys that commit crimes with firearms use illegal firearms and they don't care about the laws that pertain to them. Clear enough? That percentage of my fellow countrymen don't care. The people that defend themselves with legal weapons do so because they are forced to........wait for it.....by the bad guys. See?

[Buckeye67]

Are you some kind of selective reading autistic savant or something?

Bad guys that commit crimes with firearms use illegal firearms and they don't care about the laws that pertain to them. Clear enough? That percentage of my fellow countrymen don't care. The people that defend themselves with legal weapons do so because they are forced to........wait for it.....by the bad guys. See?

Let's see if I can get him to report me again. p-)

Here's liderlogic:

If in a given area 1000 people are victims of violent crime, and let's say 500 of them involve a firearm. After prohibiting firearms ownership it's ok if, in the same period of time, 1300 people become victims of violent crime if only 200 of them involve a firearm.

It doesn't matter to lider if there's more crime, just so long as the crime isn't being committed with a firearm.

Hoplophobia in the truest sense.

While I'm at it:

so you keep saying.....


so are you o.k with writing off a percentage of your fellow countrymen each year as the margin of error in this theory?


Are these just broken eggs in the omelette making process?

You're apparently ok with writing off a percentage of your countrymen each year as victims of violent crime by removing their ability to defend themselves.

Pot, kettle - you know the drill.

Double secret ninja edit:

Of course, in the past lider has said (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2677629#post2677629):

I think the message Australian's are trying to convey to the Americans and other pro-gun types is: you're free to play with your toys, just don't bring them over to our house because they make too much of a mess.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why lider's posting so much in this thread if he doesn't care whether or not we allow firearms ownership (besides just trolling). I don't recall seeing where if SCOTUS rules in favor of the "individual" with regards to firearms ownership - that that will suddenly change the laws in Australia.

[gaijinsamurai]

That's the funny thing about a lot of liberals: they're all for individual choice when it comes to homo******ity, abortion, religion, etc., but because they don't personally like guns, want the rest of us to do without them.

[Geezah]

That's the funny thing about a lot of liberals: they're all for individual choice when it comes to homo******ity, abortion, religion, etc., but because they don't personally like guns, want the rest of us to do without them.

Hit the nail on the head, after all Rosie is quite an advovate for her chosen lifestyle, but does not approve of the likes of you and me defending ourselves. But wait she doesn't like the idea of the individual defending themselves because she has armed bodyguards to defend her. It must be nice having money and being bloody stupid.......

[Weasel]

I can´t imagine how anybody can live without a gun. The advantages are so obvious. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c035.gif

[Hunterhr]

I can´t imagine how anybody can live without a gun. The advantages are so obvious. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c035.gif

The great part about it is, you don't have to do anything. You can own a gun or not own a gun.

I hear the whole freedom thing is pretty cool.



so are you o.k with writing off a percentage of your fellow countrymen each year as the margin of error in this theory?


Well, since statistically the greatest percentage being written off is drug dealers, gang members and suicide victims...

[Weasel]

The great part about it is, you don't have to do anything. You can own a gun or not own a gun.

I hear the whole freedom thing is pretty cool.

I am enjoying the freedom of not having guns in my neighborhood.

[The Punisher]

I am enjoying the freedom of not having guns in my neighborhood.

Just as long as criminals can still get them while the law-abiding citizens are denied the right to defend themselves...

[Weasel]

Just as long as criminals can still get them while the law-abiding citizens are denied the right to defend themselves...

As if possessing a weapon would protect you from any crime. It may just give people a warm feeling.

[The Punisher]

As if possessing a weapon would protect you from any crime. It may just give people a warm feeling.

That is true. It's better to be unarmed and hope for the best in the unlikely, but possible, case that you need to defend yourself or your family.

I know you're European, and you generally have different ideas about personal firearms than we do, but in the US it is your constitutional right. Guns have always been an essential part of our culture, and they always will be.

[Weasel]

That is true. It's better to be unarmed and hope for the best in the unlikely, but possible, case that you need to defend yourself or your family.

That´s like always wearing a parachute while sitting in an Airbus or Boing. For the case of cases.......

I don´t want to change your constitution, nor do I care how many weapons kill how many US people. I just point out why a public ownership of weapons is wrong from my wussi-point of view.

[Weasel]

That is true. It's better to be unarmed and hope for the best in the unlikely, but possible, case that you need to defend yourself or your family.

I know you're European, and you generally have different ideas about personal firearms than we do, but in the US it is your constitutional right. Guns have always been an essential part of our culture, and they always will be.

Not able/willing to accept changes, eh?




(just winding you up a bit)

[Hollis]

I think we can break the responses down to two basic view of beliefs;

1) We are a people of the government.

2) this government is of the people.

Conflicting attitudes. One of the key phrase is the "Rights of the People", no where in the constitution does it say the "rights of the government". This means we are talking about Individual rights. That these rights are inalienable and can not be mitigated or infringed upon by action of the government.

For people who see the government as a pseudo parents of society and that they are mere children of that society there is never the need to become responsible and to control your own destiny.

A government of the people, requires the people to take control of their lives and destiny. This obviously is the harder road to travel and made the most complexed by all the differences in self interest in our society.

I agree children should not own guns, unless with adult supervision.

[theholeinthedonut]

I am enjoying the freedom of not having guns in my neighborhood.

Yeah....I envy you for your freedom and "gutmenschen" happiness...as well as I envy ou for the freedom to live in a country where a busload of brave citizen watch calmly when four Neonazis cut a swastika into the thigh of a 17 year old girl...maybe if one of the brave germans would have had a concealed carry license, he would have helped the girl...who knows....maybe it would not have made a difference and you have whole parts of your , oh so perfect, gun-free and safe coutry who are happy when young women that try to help six year old girls that get brutalized by aryan wankers, get a free scarification in the form of a german peace symbol.

[Weasel]

Yeah....I envy you for your freedom and "gutmenschen" happiness...as well as I envy ou for the freedom to live in a country where a busload of brave citizen watch calmly when four Neonazis cut a swastika into the thigh of a 17 year old girl...maybe if one of the brave germans would have had a concealed carry license, he would have helped the girl...who knows....maybe it would not have made a difference and you have whole parts of your , oh so perfect, gun-free and safe coutry who are happy when young women that try to help six year old girls that get brutalized by aryan wankers, get a free scarification in the form of a german peace symbol.

Is there a correclation between this incident and a discussion about guns?

[theholeinthedonut]

Is there a correclation between this incident and a discussion about guns?

No, but there is a correlation between your farkin tendency to give lessons to everyone from your perceived moral highpoint and the shyte that is happening at your own doorstep.....you teach me, I teach you master Weasel! There are still some people who are not interested in "am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen"http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/theholeinthedonut/Alpin%20truppen/divers/iconyeswq4.gif

[Weasel]

No, but there is a correlation between your farkin tendency to give lessons to everyone from your perceived moral highpoint and the shyte that is happening at your own doorstep.....you teach me, I teach you master Weasel! There are still some people who are not interested in "am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen"http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/theholeinthedonut/Alpin%20truppen/divers/iconyeswq4.gif

Did you miss what I wrote?

"I don´t want to change your constitution, nor do I care how many weapons kill how many US people. I just point out why a public ownership of weapons is wrong from my wussi-point of view."

I don´t want and I never will live in the USA. So why should I care?

[theholeinthedonut]

I can´t imagine how anybody can live without a gun. The advantages are so obvious. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c035.gif


I am enjoying the freedom of not having guns in my neighborhood.


As if possessing a weapon would protect you from any crime. It may just give people a warm feeling.


Not able/willing to accept changes, eh?




(just winding you up a bit)


Did you miss what I wrote?



No..............It's just that either you like to troll by spurting provocative BS, that is in no way relevant to the topic at hand, and once you're called to, you don't have the cojones to stand up...or you have split personality, which would be, from a pathological point of view, consistent with your fear of weapons.

[Hollis]

Did you miss what I wrote?

"I don´t want to change your constitution, nor do I care how many weapons kill how many US people. I just point out why a public ownership of weapons is wrong from my wussi-point of view."

I don´t want and I never will live in the USA. So why should I care?


So why even post anything on this thread?

[The Punisher]

That´s like always wearing a parachute while sitting in an Airbus or Boing. For the case of cases.......

I don´t want to change your constitution, nor do I care how many weapons kill how many US people. I just point out why a public ownership of weapons is wrong from my wussi-point of view.

Or like having airbags in your car in case you get in an accident, or smoke alarms in your home in case there is a fire...


And to your second post about not being willing to change- there are valid reasons for citizens owning firearms at the time the US Constitution was written that are still completely relevant today, and always will be in a free society.

[Weasel]

So why even post anything on this thread?

It´s an open discussion, isn´t it?

[Weasel]

Or like having airbags in your car in case you get in an accident, or smoke alarms in your home in case there is a fire...

Indeed. I see a difference between these two examples and owning a gun to avoid being a victim pf crime. Car accidents are the biggest danger in daily life. I don´t have smoke alarms. But unless you are a professional bodyguard, contractor, police officer and well trained using weapons you have no significant chances of preventing crimes by the use of weapons. At least I can´t imagine and that´s what I read.



And to your second post about not being willing to change- there are valid reasons for citizens owning firearms at the time the US Constitution was written that are still completely relevant today, and always will be in a free society.

That was just a joke. That´s why I wrote "winding you up".

[Hollis]

It´s an open discussion, isn´t it?


Do you know that means, or trolling is a open discussion to you?

[Gothjod]

Wait, isn't s every Adult male in switzerland issued an SIG 550 and (by law) has to keep it at home?

[Hilbert]

But unless you are a professional bodyguard, contractor, police officer and well trained using weapons you have no significant chances of preventing crimes by the use of weapons.

Is that why firearms are used by good folks over a million times per year in self defense here in the States, or am I missing something?

[lider_r]

That's the funny thing about a lot of liberals: they're all for individual choice when it comes to homo******ity, abortion, religion, etc., but because they don't personally like guns, want the rest of us to do without them.

Thats because its often innocents who eat the bullets.

Owning a firearm can affect the whole community, not just the owner. Every country knows what that is like.

[gaijinsamurai]

But what about when innocents protect themselves? Shouldn't they have the right to do so?
In many places in the western United States, it is a good idea to pack a large caliber handgun, or rifle, if you plan on spending time on hiking trails. Are these "innocents" who choose to spend time in the woods expected to take a cell phone and call the police if a grizzly or cougar attacks them? What about ranchers who need to protect their livestock from predators? What about innocents who've been victimized repeatedly by stronger people, and see a handgun as the only way to protect themselves?
What about someone like me, who works in law enforcement, and has been responsible for sending countless felons to prison? I'd be willing to bet there are dozens who would love to get revenge, on me or my family for what I did in the course of my job (some have even said they will kill me as soon as they get out). Do you expect me to put my wife's and son's lives at risk, just because you are worried about stray bullets?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Wait, isn't s every Adult male in switzerland issued an SIG 550 and (by law) has to keep it at home?

Only after completing their military training. And once they reach 30 this weapon has it's automatic function removed.

Even then the weapon is only allowed to be used with authorization. It's not as if you can use it on weekends and so forth.

[little icebear]

Only after completing their military training. And once they reach 30 this weapon has it's automatic function removed.

Even then the weapon is only allowed to be used with authorization. It's not as if you can use it on weekends and so forth.

I was under the impression, they could take it to the range whenever they want to. Am I wrong on this?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Very.

Even the ammunition must be registered and placed in a sealed container.

The Swiss government does encourage gun ownership and shooting however and their laws are very liberal. But the laws are not universal throughout the country. Some Cantons are very strict on who can get permits to buy firearms, others are pretty lax.

The laws in Switzerland do make very interesting reading and for anyone who is interested in the gun control debate whether you are pro-gun, anti-gun or somewhere in between I recommend reading up on it.

[Geezah]

Thats because its often innocents who eat the bullets.

Is it, any chance you could prove it?



Owning a firearm can affect the whole community, not just the owner. Every country knows what that is like.

That's right, there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year by law abiding citizens.

Do you understand what that means?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

A big waste of ammo?

:)

[Hollis]

A big waste of ammo?

:)


99.99% of the ammos is wasted so to speak. Not to put food on the table, protect citizens, or to protect one self.

Mainly to put holes in paper, cans, and dirt.


But you miss the major part, it is FUN!!!!

[Geezah]

^Not always the cases, just because it's a defensive use it does not mean the trigger is always pulled. Just brandishing a firearm is sometimes all it takes.

[Hollis]

^Not always the cases, just because it's a defensive use it does not mean the trigger is always pulled. Just brandishing a firearm is sometimes all it takes.


Geezah, good to see you back but you forgot the most famous sound that stops all movement, that has also cause pucker factors to rise above 10+ Max, the racking of the action of a 12 guage pump.

[SOG]

I have a 12 gauge Savage-Model 69 passed down from my step dad. I have never had to **** it in anger. Wait, that sounded dirty...

[D-gin]

I have tried my best to stay out of this damed thread but oh well.


^Not always the cases, just because it's a defensive use it does not mean the trigger is always pulled. Just brandishing a firearm is sometimes all it takes.

I can testify to that.


The one time I have had to draw my firearm with a purpose was in defense of a police officer that was in dire need of help and I was the only one there, besides of course the 6'3, 230lbs suspect that was beating the hell out of this police officer and trying to get the firearm out of the officers holster (this was before that Dept started issuing tasers).

We also had to wait an additional 5 minutes or so for his backup to arrive. No shots where fired by me or the police and the suspect was arrested.




Yes OMFG, a privet gun owning citizen pulled a handgun to help an officer in need.

But of course no privet individual needs a firearm.

[Beowulf]

I have tried my best to stay out of this damed thread but oh well.



I can testify to that.


The one time I have had to draw my firearm with a purpose was in defense of a police officer that was in dire need of help and I was the only one there, besides of course the 6'3, 230lbs suspect that was beating the hell out of this police officer and trying to get the firearm out of the officers holster (this was before that Dept started issuing tasers).

We also had to wait an additional 5 minutes or so for his backup to arrive. No shots where fired by me or the police and the suspect was arrested.




Yes OMFG, a privet gun owning citizen pulled a handgun to help an officer in need.

But of course no privet individual needs a firearm.

I presented my weapon when two guys (heavily tattooed shaved head hispanic types) cut me off and forced me to stop on the road and got out of their vehicle and came towards mine. Luckily I was able to convince them it was in their best interest to leave.

Apparently I had splashed them when I drove through a puddle in my truck. Who knew that could happen when it's been raining out?

This event went unreported.

[D-gin]

I presented my weapon when two guys (heavily tattooed shaved head hispanic types) cut me off and forced me to stop on the road and got out of their vehicle and came towards mine. Luckily I was able to convince them it was in their best interest to leave.

Apparently I had splashed them when I drove through a puddle in my truck. Who knew that could happen when it's been raining out?

This event went unreported.


I had a cousin that had a very similar experince but he had a chainsaw instead of a handgun, His six shooter was at his house.

:)

[Hilbert]

That's right, there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year by law abiding citizens.

Do you understand what that means?

Your wasting your energy typing Geezah.
He either isn't capable of seeing the the benefits or he already knows about them and simply doesn't care. I've told him, you've told him, hell at least a half dozen people have told him but he's still break neck stubborn.

[Hilbert]

Owning a firearm can affect the whole community, not just the owner. Every country knows what that is like.

Indeed, when a man is walking his dog and finds a couple of thugs assaulting his neighbor, draws a concealed weapon and holds the bad guys until the cops arrive I'm sure that has a very positive affect on the community. And, before you go lolly gagging about how such a scenario is a fairy tale, this has happened.

Although to be honest, your entire arguement is flawed. Owning a car can have an effect on the entire community or neighborhood too, not just the owner. Heck, just about anything can, so I ask you, what is your point?

[Beowulf]

I had a cousin that had a very similar experince but he had a chainsaw instead of a handgun, His six shooter was at his house.

:)

haha...sweet.

Did he yell IDDQD before charging in?

[D-gin]

haha...sweet.

Did he yell IDDQD before charging in?
Thanks Beo, now I feel even stupider then normal.

What the heck does IDDQD stand for?

[Beowulf]

Thanks Beo, now I feel even stupider then normal.

What the heck does IDDQD stand for?

It's pretty obscure...


http://www.consolecheatcodes.com/pc/doomcheats.html

[D-gin]

It's pretty obscure...


http://www.consolecheatcodes.com/pc/doomcheats.html
Wow, I haven't played that game in years, no way I ever would have caught that.

[lider_r]

Is it, any chance you could prove it?

you want me to provide evidence of innocent people getting shot?



That's right, there are 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms a year by law abiding citizens.

Do you understand what that means?

you seem to have a very exclusive view of this, do you not see that there are so many more issues here created by firearm ownership?

[Buckeye67]

you seem to have a very exclusive view of this, do you not see that there are so many more issues here created by firearm ownership?

You seem to have a very exclusive view of this. Do you not see there are so many more issues here created by banning firearms ownsership?

Edit: Of course, as has been mentioned previously - if you don't have a problem with the US allowing gun ownsership (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2677629#post2677629), why are you trolling this thread?

[Hollis]

Buckeye, Maybe lider_r needs to read something like this:

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[lider_r]

But what about when innocents protect themselves? Shouldn't they have the right to do so?

sure but when the laws that allow the innocent to buy a firearm to protect themselves are helping the criminals who are robbing them to indirectly obtain the firearm they might be robbing them with, then any advantage seems to be canceled out.

surely living in a place where there is little risk of having a gun pulled on you is a lot more preferable to living in a place where you can own a firearm but there is also an increased risk you'll have one pulled on you?

This is not forgetting that owning a firearm is not the only thing an individual can use for self defense...


In many places in the western United States, it is a good idea to pack a large caliber handgun, or rifle, if you plan on spending time on hiking trails. Are these "innocents" who choose to spend time in the woods expected to take a cell phone and call the police if a grizzly or cougar attacks them?If you knew somewhere was dangerous, and it wasn't a matter of life and death then maybe its best avoided altogether. Some parts of this planet just don't accommodate humans very well....


What about someone like me, who works in law enforcement, and has been responsible for sending countless felons to prison? I'd be willing to bet there are dozens who would love to get revenge, on me or my family for what I did in the course of my job (some have even said they will kill me as soon as they get out). Do you expect me to put my wife's and son's lives at risk, just because you are worried about stray bullets?Obviously in the case of a cop its a different matter.

[Geezah]

you want me to provide evidence of innocent people getting shot?

No, I want you to provide evidence for the following?



Thats because its often innocents who eat the bullets.

Owning a firearm can affect the whole community, not just the owner. Every country knows what that is like.

"It's often innocents that eat the bullets", please provide evidence to back this up?




you seem to have a very exclusive view of this, do you not see that there are so many more issues here created by firearm ownership?

No, I own firearms, I carry a firearm legally, there are no issues created by my decision to protect those I love and myself.
The only down side(I can see) is if myself or my family are ever threatened with physical violence, I will be able to do the right thing.

[Buckeye67]

No doubt lider needs to read that sort of thing, Hollis, but I'm afraid it won't matter at all. As I posted earlier in the thread, he's a hoplophobe of the highest magnitude. He doesn't care how many people are assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered. The only thing that matters to lider is that the assaults, robberies, rapes and murders aren't committed with a firearm. He will not accept any evidence that shows firearms ownership in a positive light under any circumstance... but we're the ones with a "narrow viewpoint".

Good article though. Well put.

[lider_r]

thanks for the article Hollis,but to me the authors opinion is just framed through the assumptions that

a) the attacker doesn't have a gun too(one which could be bigger than yours and that the attacker is more proficient with) and ,

b) the victim is going to be competent enough with the firearm to be able to use it in a life threatening situation. Easy for a former Marine corp major to be confident of that ,but perhaps not so for the average person...

[Buckeye67]

thanks for the article Hollis,but to me the authors opinion is just framed through the assumptions that

a) the attacker doesn't have a gun too(one which could be bigger than yours and that the attacker is more proficient with) and ,

b) the victim is going to be competent enough with the firearm to be able to use it in a life threatening situation. Easy for a former Marine corp major to be confident of that ,but perhaps not so for the average person...

The 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year disagree.

[lider_r]

"It's often innocents that eat the bullets", please provide evidence to back this up?

i think you understood my comments to mean that innocents are always on the receiving end of every confrontation, this is not what i was suggesting though....



No, I own firearms, I carry a firearm legally, there are no issues created by my decision to protect those I love and myself.
The only down side(I can see) is if myself or my family are ever threatened with physical violence, I will be able to do the right thing.This isn't really the bigger picture i'm referring to. You're personal ownership is not the issue per say, rather the laws and policies which allow you to obtain it are as they are no doubt helping increase you're risk of being a victim of gun violence.

[lider_r]

The 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year disagree.

can all the problems that gun ownership creates be ignored though?

i can't see that this is a credible argument given that the defensive uses you speak of don't mention anything about the situations being life threatening, coupled with the fact that for every legally justifiable shooting there are a great deal more criminal shootings.

[Buckeye67]

If you'd bothered to read, Dr. Kleck's study doesn't represent shootings alone. They also include instances where a law-abiding (and armed) citizen simply displayed a firearm - thereby diffusing an impending criminal act on their person.

I can't see any of the hoplophobic nonsense you've posted in the myriad of firearms ownership threads as a "credible argument" either. Can all the problems that restricting and/or prohibiting firearms ownsership be ignored? No, they can't.

Can all the problems that free speech creates be ignored?

How 'bout all the problems created by universal suffrage?

Since when do we restrict peoples' rights based on fear of potential "problems" ?

[Geezah]

can all the problems that gun ownership creates be ignored though?

i can't see that this is a credible argument given that the defensive uses you speak of don't mention anything about the situations being life threatening, coupled with the fact that for every legally justifiable shooting there are a great deal more criminal shootings.

Prove it!


...........................

[Red]

Let's say the gun ban in the district is repealed, would legal migrants be able to own handguns as they too are often victims of violent crimes?

[D-gin]

I like how Lider_r ignores my post of how a privet citizen owning a firearm can be a positive thing that can save a life.

[Laconian]

Obviously in the case of a cop its a different matter.

No, it's not. The private citizen has just as much right to defend himself against a criminal predator as does an individual in law enforcement.

If you are assuming that officers are much better trained to react, that's a bad assumption. Most cops ARE NOT good shooters, the vast majority will be the best shooter they can be in/right after they get out of the academy. In my experience, though, most private citizens carrying concealed are. They take the time to attend good training sessions and stay more than just marginally proficient.

This discussion has digressed from a discussion about the case pending before the SCOTUS to general pro-gun vs anti-gun argument. Nobody's changing anybody's mind over this.