Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[Pandaemoni]

Didn't read the Brief did you?

Self Defence, was specifically enumerated in the decision.

Didn't understand my post, did you? My post specifically stated "[a]ssuming that is true" in reference to the post I was quoting, which post referenced only the right to rebel against the government as a reason for the second amendment. My parenthetical was therefore not a statement of some "fact" which I believe, but a a note that I was setting aside the assue as part of the assumptions I was making.

My point was, taking the other poster's characterization of the second amendment (as a "bad idea") at face value, his argument still has a potential flaw: the Court is not empowered to remove sections of the Constitution on the grounds they are a "bad idea."

The right of self-defense is irrelevant to that argument, save that it may impact whether or not the second amendment is deemed to be a "bad idea" in the first place. That, however, is a subjective question and a side issue to the point I was making, so I referenced it only obliquely, by noting that I was discounting the right of self defense for purposes of the argument.

I do happen to agree with him that suggesting that the people have the right (in certain cases) to kill government employees, officials and members of the police and military acting in their official capacities—which I think was a part of the original intent of the framers (more clearly expressed in the test than self-defense, even)—is a pretty bad idea.. Anyone who maintains he needs guns because he's stockpiling in case he needs to shoot federal or state employees or officials is a nut, a potential terrorist, and in no way can claim to be a patriot. But that one use of the second amendment giving aid an comfort to the terrorist America-haters changes nothing about how the Court should have ruled, even if one accepts that as the sole reason for the amendment.

 

[phlogistician]

Assuming that is true (and the reasons for gun ownership do not include a right to effective self-defense), ....

The recent decision includes the right to self defense, but that is an amendment in the making surely, as the original wording mentioned nothing of the sort.

So, there are several reasons for gun ownership enshrined in law, two of which are bogus. The populace are never going to revolt, and self defense is not really a requirement, as stats on the matter clearly inflated.

Gun ownership for sporting purposes I have no issue with, however. I just think that a law abiding citizen should have no problem with registration, understanding it's the only way to restrict sales to felons. Bad guys don't play by rules, so the law abiding need to stick together. If that means registration to exclude bad guys from buying guns, that's the solution. Assuming of course, people actually want a solution, and don't want to keep the excuse that bad guys have guns, so they need them too.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The recent decision includes the right to self defense, but that is an amendment in the making surely, as the original wording mentioned nothing of the sort.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”16

See 1 Blackstone136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot
possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service.
It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation,”
id., at 139, and “the right of having and
using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140;

So, there are several reasons for gun ownership enshrined in law, two of which are bogus. The populace are never going to revolt, and self defense is not really a requirement, as stats on the matter clearly inflated.

And exactly how do you come up with those assumption?

self defense is not really a requirement

Really? what are you going to do between the time you call the police and the hope for arrival?...........be raped? maimed? killed?

What about your children, the rest of your family? How do you protect them from assault? Rape? Murder? do they not have the right to self protection?

Remember the Police don't have a responsibility to protect you as a individual, that is law.

Self defence is the right of any living thing, just watch nature.

Gun ownership for sporting purposes I have no issue with, however. I just think that a law abiding citizen should have no problem with registration, understanding it's the only way to restrict sales to felons. Bad guys don't play by rules, so the law abiding need to stick together. If that means registration to exclude bad guys from buying guns, that's the solution. Assuming of course, people actually want a solution, and don't want to keep the excuse that bad guys have guns, so they need them too.

So as you say:

Bad guys don't play by rules,

So what good does it do for the Honest Citizen to have to register his fire arm?


Tell me of a bad guy, you know the criminal,

Main Entry:
criminal
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: One who commits a crime.
Synonyms: lawbreaker, malefactor, offender

The guy who doesn't obey the law in the first place,

Bad guys don't play by rules,

who registers his gun?

What good does it do at all to restrict the honest citizen?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Didn't understand my post, did you? My post specifically stated "[a]ssuming that is true" in reference to the post I was quoting, which post referenced only the right to rebel against the government as a reason for the second amendment. My parenthetical was therefore not a statement of some "fact" which I believe, but a a note that I was setting aside the assue as part of the assumptions I was making.

My point was, taking the other poster's characterization of the second amendment (as a "bad idea") at face value, his argument still has a potential flaw: the Court is not empowered to remove sections of the Constitution on the grounds they are a "bad idea."

The right of self-defense is irrelevant to that argument, save that it may impact whether or not the second amendment is deemed to be a "bad idea" in the first place. That, however, is a subjective question and a side issue to the point I was making, so I referenced it only obliquely, by noting that I was discounting the right of self defense for purposes of the argument.

I do happen to agree with him that suggesting that the people have the right (in certain cases) to kill government employees, officials and members of the police and military acting in their official capacities—which I think was a part of the original intent of the framers (more clearly expressed in the test than self-defense, even)—is a pretty bad idea.. Anyone who maintains he needs guns because he's stockpiling in case he needs to shoot federal or state employees or officials is a nut, a potential terrorist, and in no way can claim to be a patriot. But that one use of the second amendment giving aid an comfort to the terrorist America-haters changes nothing about how the Court should have ruled, even if one accepts that as the sole reason for the amendment.

Then why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[phlogistician]

Buffalo, in the UK, guns are restricted, and rare, so in the time between me calling the cops, and the cops arriving, I am kicking an umarmed mans butt.

Gun registration is the only way to prevent sales of guns and ammo to criminals. It worked in the UK, and gun crime is exceedingly low. Maybe it's too late for the USA because there are so many guns around, and criminals will still have a huge black market.

What is the solution to the ease with which criminals can get access to guns then? Laws won't prevent them, so it's up to the law abiding to band together, and not sell guns nor ammo to them. How do you think this could be achieved?

 

[snake river rufus]

The recent decision includes the right to self defense, but that is an amendment in the making surely, as the original wording mentioned nothing of the sort.

So, there are several reasons for gun ownership enshrined in law, two of which are bogus. The populace are never going to revolt, and self defense is not really a requirement, as stats on the matter clearly inflated.

Gun ownership for sporting purposes I have no issue with, however. I just think that a law abiding citizen should have no problem with registration, understanding it's the only way to restrict sales to felons. Bad guys don't play by rules, so the law abiding need to stick together. If that means registration to exclude bad guys from buying guns, that's the solution. Assuming of course, people actually want a solution, and don't want to keep the excuse that bad guys have guns, so they need them too.

We have background checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unstable. Of course if you are a felon you will get an illegal firearm and not register it. And the medical records of the mentally unstable are sealed unless there was a court order involved.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo, in the UK, guns are restricted, and rare, so in the time between me calling the cops, and the cops arriving, I am kicking an umarmed mans butt.

Really? what happens when it isn't a unarmed criminal?

Gun registration is the only way to prevent sales of guns and ammo to criminals.

Explain exactly how that works, even in Britain gun crimes are on the rise, and the criminals still get ammo and weapons.

It worked in the UK, and gun crime is exceedingly low. Maybe it's too late for the USA because there are so many guns around, and criminals will still have a huge black market.

Really, then why are gun crime sill rising?

What is the solution to the ease with which criminals can get access to guns then? Laws won't prevent them, so it's up to the law abiding to band together, and not sell guns nor ammo to them. How do you think this could be achieved?

Well guess what? it is already Illegal to sell guns, or ammo, to felons, so why restrict the law abiding?

When you buy a Fire Arm you have to go through a background check, State and Federal, so again why should I have to register a firearm if I have no criminal background?

 

[snake river rufus]

I would just like someone to cite an instance when registration did not lead to confiscation. Do that and I will have less of a problem with registration schemes.
Another thing, England, being an island does not have an open border with a fairly lawless country such as Mexico.

 

[Norsefire]

Good. I don't understand people who are against guns. They are only objects.

 

[snake river rufus]

Good. I don't understand people who are against guns. They are only objects.

just an inert peice of metal and wood or plastic capable of containing a fairly simple chemical reaction.
I don't understand why people who don't live in the U.S. concern themselves with our gun laws. :shrug:

 

[Norsefire]

Ha, true.


Guns aren't bad. They are tools which serve a purpose. It's the people who use them for purposes that are bad, that are bad.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Good. I don't understand people who are against guns. They are only objects.

It's clearly a question of degree, balancing the functional uses of the item against its lethality.

Grenades are just objects too, as are nuclear missiles, but even the Supreme Court agrees those can be restricted. We invaded Iraq because we believed they had a collection of objects that we did not want them to have because we did not trust them to be used properly. We don't hate the WMDs, we have and will never give uo our own. We just disliked the way Saddam might have used them.

The truth is, people who want gun control are the same way. They don't distrust the objects, they distrust people who own and love guns because the see gun lovers as being akin to children who love to start fires.

 

[phlogistician]

Really? what happens when it isn't a unarmed criminal?

That's pretty rare. So rare as not to be a concern.

Explain exactly how that works, even in Britain gun crimes are on the rise, and the criminals still get ammo and weapons.

Where did you get that idea from? Gun crime fluctuates, but in the UK, as it is so low, one event can serious dent the statistics. Criminals have to resort to reactivating deactivated weapons guns are so hard to get. Guns often bought from the USA in fact, at least three MAC-10's have been used in murders, that were bought and reactivated by the same man, who is now in jail.

Really, then why are gun crime sill rising?

Are they?

"Facts & figures
The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2006/07; Homicide, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006-07.)"

Check your facts, eh?

Well guess what? it is already Illegal to sell guns, or ammo, to felons, so why restrict the law abiding?

When you buy a Fire Arm you have to go through a background check, State and Federal, so again why should I have to register a firearm if I have no criminal background?

What about second hand sales, gun shows, and other such loopholes? Your system clearly allows felons to get easy access to guns, because so many have them. If you are happy living with the paranoia, carry on with your flawed system, but please, don't try to defend it with allusions to rights or self defense and other such BS. You think you needs guns because others might have guns. There is a simple solution if only you dare to use it.

 

[snake river rufus]

phlog, there is no gun show loophole. All laws apply at a gun show as they do at a gun shop. I know that everyone has heard of "the gun show loophole" but it''s a red herring.

 

[phlogistician]

phlog, there is no gun show loophole. All laws apply at a gun show as they do at a gun shop. I know that everyone has heard of "the gun show loophole" but it''s a red herring.

Private sales at guns shows do not require background checks. Private sales anywhere do not require background checks. That is the loophole.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That's pretty rare. So rare as not to be a concern.

Really?

French Students' Slayings Shock London
By JILL LAWLESS,AP
Posted: 2008-07-08 22:19:02
Filed Under: Crime News, World News

The two young Frenchmen, promising research students at one of Britain's top universities, had been bound and stabbed repeatedly in the head, neck and torso before their bodies were doused in fuel and set alight. A senior Scotland Yard detective said their wounds were the worst he had ever seen.

Even for a city assailed almost daily by reports of knife crime, this was shocking -- a seemingly senseless burst of brutality reminiscent of a Quentin Tarantino film. No one has been charged in the June 29 deaths that horrified people on both sides of the English Channel, and prompted some French journalists to depict London as a city of mean streets, rampant crime and "no-go" areas.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Private sales at guns shows do not require background checks. Private sales anywhere do not require background checks. That is the loophole.

Now you need to check your facts, there is no relaiable evedence that there is such a thing as a Gun Show Loop Hole.

 

[S.A.M.]

just an inert peice of metal and wood or plastic capable of containing a fairly simple chemical reaction.
I don't understand why people who don't live in the U.S. concern themselves with our gun laws. :shrug:

Probably because Americans supply 50% of the world arms. And small arms are the cause of 90% of civilian casualties.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Probably because Americans supply 50% of the world arms. And small arms are the cause of 90% of civilian casualties.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp

And what is the percentage of casualties from AK-47's the most widely distributed fire arm on the planet?

or even better yet, Suicide Bombs carried by Islamic on Jihad?

The death toll from Islam's temper tantrum, far out weighs any death toll in the U.S..........1 million +...............and counting.

Now your cite is talking about conflicts, wars......................

The growing availability of small arms has been a major factor in the increase in the number of conflicts, and in hindering smoother rebuilding and development after a conflict has ended. It is estimated, for example, that:

There are around half a billion military small arms around the world;
Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year;
They are the major cause of civilian casualties in modern conflicts.

People killed in conflicts, most of them Islamic inspired, Muslems on Jihad.

Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was released from the Russian prison before the attack. ..... Ossetians would attack their mostly Muslim Ingush and Chechen neighbours to seek revenge, ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

BBC NEWS | UK | London bombings toll rises to 37
Jul 7, 2005 ... The group's statement said the attacks were revenge for the "massacres" Britain was committing in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the country ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4661059.stm

Photo Gallery: The Spain Terrorist Attack in Pictures ...
On March 11, 2004, al-Qaida terrorists bombed three commuter trains in Madrid, bringing the organization's brand of mega-terror to the continent for the ...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,345868,00.html

BBC NEWS | Africa | Terror blasts rock Casablanca
Both the US and British authorities have issued a number of recent warnings about possible terrorist attacks in East Africa, particularly Kenya, ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3035803.stm

Spain Alarmed by Recent Terrorist Attacks in North Africa
Apr 24, 2007 ... Spain Alarmed by Recent Terrorist Attacks in North Africa. By John C. K. Daly. A year ago, the major concern in the Spanish Moroccan ...
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373345

Terrorism - Radical Islam - North Africa - Egypt - Morocco ...
North Africa: Under Attack, and Relying on Repression ... given the conservative religiosity sweeping the Muslim world, it is simply too dangerous to allow ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/weekinreview/15smith.html

Philippines: Extremist Groups Target Civilians (Human Rights Watch ...
The attacks, mostly in Mindanao, Basilan, Jolo, and other southern ... groups based in the predominantly Muslim areas of the southern Philippines (“Moro” is ...
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/27/philip16515.htm

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - Bomb attacks raise new ...
Aug 28, 2007 ... All of these areas lost a total of 3280 people in terrorist attacks between January 2004 and March this year, while India alone has lost ...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH28Df02.html

Jaipur Blasts Demonstrate Continuing Indian Vulnerability to ...
May 14, 2008 ... The terrorist attack in Jaipur was the latest in a string of bombings ... the BJP accuses of showing favoritism to India's Muslim minority. ...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2008/05/sec-080514-voa01.htm

Militants Attack Pakistan Army Fort, Again, 5 Soldiers Killed As ...
Jan 22, 2008 ... 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Washington has given Pakistan billions of dollars in ... rule as well as surging violence by Muslim extremists. ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/22/world/main3735403.shtml

 

[snake river rufus]

Private sales at guns shows do not require background checks. Private sales anywhere do not require background checks. That is the loophole.

The only people selling guns at gun shows are licensed dealers. An indivual may trade with or sell to a dealer (holder of a Federal firearms license). Indivuals may swap at gunshows but that means they both already had a firearm.
Again I will ask "how is it your concern?" I seem to recall that you do not care for the U.S. interfereing in the affairs of others yet you seem to fell free to involve yourself in ours. Strange.
If I have you confused with someone else, Let me apoligise now.