ThunderJam Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 For those of you who don't know the supreme court starts hearing a case today/tomoro about DC's hangun ban. Thought id toss this post up cuz I know theres been gun policy threads in here before.
tcsoccerman Posted March 18, 2008 Report Posted March 18, 2008 I'm not sure if the people in D.C. are aware, but there's an amendment that allows us to carry a firearm...
Bak Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 yeah but there's already lots of restrictions on that, most of which are reasonable. If you're a convicted criminal, you can't carry a firearm. If you're in a bar drinking alcohol, you can't carry a firearm. The question is where to draw the line.
JDS Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 Hi , I'm an American and i NEED to carry a gun because there is an amendment thats says we can.. YA we can have guns even though we dont need them.. just in case.. yep yep.. just in case i need to kill someone I'll carry a gun.. use your !@#$%^&* head, ban guns world wide. No Killing, More Healing, more cures, less dying, and less fear. And !@#$%^&* we can use the money to make and register guns on our health care... wow isn't that a pleasant thought.
SeVeR Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 So if and when the people of America choose by majority to outlaw guns, what will this "amendment" become?
JDS Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 ^ i imagine your above statement would never happen... they will have guns till they kill themselves , or get killed by someone else..
Bak Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 you can only overturn an amendment with another amendment, for which you need a 2/3 majority :/ plus I'd hate to be the country that invades the united states, almost one gun for every person
NBVegita Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 And what about the right to revolt against our government? It would be !@#$%^&* hard to revolt when the only people with guns are the government. You can say that is a radical ideal, but with the way the American government is going I could see the possibility of a revolution within the next century.
Cancer+ Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 Governments will never ban guns. They make money off of selling firearms.
ThunderJam Posted March 19, 2008 Author Report Posted March 19, 2008 Ok bunch of you are obviously misinformed. I have a little more idea i think whats goign on because i live 25 mins outside DC. They way in which the 2nd ammendment is worded leaves who the right of beariing arms belongs to, up to interpretation. The supreme court has never rules on this, and the federal government has not made any law regarding. Thus the issue has been left up to the states to create any gun laws as they see fit. The reason for the ambiguity in the ammendment is because it says like "the state has a right to maintain a militia, and the people have a right to bear arms." Because those two statements are back to back, some ppl have interpretted this suchg that PEOPLE having the right refers to the people of the militia, and not the average citizen. DC made a handgun ban, it was recently challenged, and the court ruled so that it was forced up to the supreme court. Because there is no precedent regarding this, the supreme court has a lot of room to interpret...
protoman.exe Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 You have the right to bear arms because your country was born on revolution.. The evil British might come back someday so you'll need your muskets.
»freakmonger Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 I have no problem with citizens possing guns IN THEIR HOMES. However, I think it should be unlawful for them to own, possess or use a firearm if: They are a convicted felonHave been deemed a drug addict, alcoholic or mentaly incompetent by the state or governing bodyUnder the age of 18 That is for having guns in their home. It should be unlawful for a person to carry a firearm if they are: Under the influence of drugs, alcohol or anyother substance that would impare their judgementConvicted of domestic violence I live in Virgina but work in DC. The gun law doesn't really affect me because I can carry anyway. I'm just suprised its taken this long for a case like this to go to the supreme court. This should have happened a long time ago.
Aileron Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 JDS, you obviously have no understanding of the difference between a democracy and a monarchy. Yes, elected leadership is a major difference, but it is not the major difference. The difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a democracy, citizens by default have a right to do whatever they want, and laws are installed in the interest of society. In a monarchy, the citizens have no rights other than the ones the government deems to permit them to have. Taking away a right because 'they don't need it' is the exact at!@#$%^&*ude which was the foundation of every dictatorship in history. Sorry, your thought process is beyond opinionated or even misguided. You have reached the point of being evil in the way you think. Please, consult a psychologist or a priest before you hurt somebody. As for me, I don't believe in de-clawing cats, and don't believe the idea works for humans either. (PS - My father got mugged in the DC area. If he had a handgun with him it probably wouldn't have happened.)
SeVeR Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 I don't have the right to go through red lights when driving.I don't have the right to play music as loud as i would like because it would disturb the public.I don't have the right to set fire to things.I don't have the right to own a rocket launcher or a suitcase nuke.I don't have the right to take a dump outside in public.I don't have the right to walk outside in the nude.I don't have the right to not pay taxesI don't have the right to take medical supplies to Cuba.I don't have the right to kill people or take what i want.I don't have the right to have sex with my dog. So, the first question is, why don't we have the right? The answer is there are laws put in place for our safety that restrict our rights. If by some argument it's determined that gun's are detrimental to the public safety, then that "right" should also be taken away. Why can't i be armed with a nuclear weapon? What if i need to defend myself against Iran?
»Lynx Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 Maybe it's due to America being bred under constant paranoia, that the feeling of something which can kill another person for reasons which the shooter or government may see as a good reason to do so, will make them feel any safer. It's a ridiculous idea, and only fuels the preposterous amount of gun crime the country has. If America had not been instated under revolution, the amendment wouldn't have been even been instated. The amendment was in place for a reason, and protoman.exe has already stated it: You have the right to bear arms because your country was born on revolution.. The evil British might come back someday so you'll need your muskets. even Bak made reference to it: you can only overturn an amendment with another amendment, for which you need a 2/3 majority :/ plus I'd hate to be the country that invades the united states, almost one gun for every person simply to protect your country from invasion. The Amendment is outdated, and especially doesn't work for a country filled with gun crime. It's refreshing to see that there's finally some pragmatic view on the whole matter - that somebody has finally taken a decent stand against guns. Alieron(PS - My father got mugged in the DC area. If he had a handgun with him it probably wouldn't have happened.) What if the gun got turned on your father, would you be so pro-gun then? Muggings happen, unfortunately, however empowering people with items which can kill another man at reasons which they see fit will not solve the matter.
SeVeR Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) America has a crime rate that is slightly lower than most European countries. However, they have a murder rate that is three times higher. Surely, this is due to the lethality of weapons in the USA: Crimes turn into murders far too easily. Lending further evidence is the fact that 66% of murders in America involve firearms, whereas in countries where guns are banned it is around 10%. Edited March 20, 2008 by SeVeR
Bak Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 simply to protect your country from invasion. The Amendment is outdated countries don't get invaded anymore? hmm obviously if everyone in iraq had a gun it would be a much safer place. In fact we should try just giving away guns on the street to civilians. That way al quita will think twice before they attack anyone. flawless logic there.
rootbear75 Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 you do know that if this gun ban gets overturned, it could mean the bans in other places get overturned.On the contrary, if the ban stays with the supreme court's backing, that could mean more bans in more places. 2, the amendment says the right to "bear arms" http://www.taylorstudio-taxidermy-art.com/files/bear1.jpg u sure they arent THESE arms ?
SeVeR Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Yea.... Iraq will be safer with more armed people in it. Those who already have guns sure as !@#$%^&* aren't shooting people with them.......
Bak Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 27 million people in iraq. An decent Ak-47 is about $800, throw in a few cases of ammo and we're up to $1000. so here's my get-out-of-iraq strategy. We give each man, woman, and child an ak-47 and a few cases of ammo and then leave. Obviously no one will attack anyone else since they all know everyone has a gun. Total cost: 27 billion dollars... man and we're spending billion every few months on iraq... obviously the people in charge are idiots if they haven't considered this cheap, flawless plan. edit: good news, apparently before we invaded iraq most households already owned a gun: ("Most Iraqi households own at least one gun, so there has been no particular run on armaments." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9659C8B63 ) we only have to arm the minority that isn't already safe because they own a firearm!
SeVeR Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 I don't think we should jeorpardise thousands of lives to test an excuse that the pro-gun lobby uses to justify their ownership of guns. Rival gangs in the USA are armed to the teeth, they know their opponents are armed to the teeth, yet they still shoot the sh!t out of eachother. Pro-gunners like guns, they love guns, they probably masturbate over their guns, and what this means is they'll come up with as many vaguely plausible arguments as they can to change the issue from a `want' into a `need'.
»doc flabby Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Edited March 20, 2008 by doc flabby
JDS Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 one person with drugs cant use drugs to kill another person one person with a gun can use it to kill another person.. people get mugged all the time in my town.. but they dont have a gun on them so no one gets killed and even though crime happens, we all get to live together to solve the problem... there are rare cases that someone gets shot and really, were all horified and taken back at this use of unnessesary brutality.. so.. Sure we have crime in BC , but we dont have too many gun deaths.. (except in vancouver.. asian crime is crazy over there...)
Bak Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Is it better for me to get mugged or me to kill the mugger? Is a human life, however misguided, more important than the $40 I have in my wallet?
Recommended Posts