Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court strikes down DC handgun ban (DC V. HELLER)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:14 AM
Original message
Supreme Court strikes down DC handgun ban (DC V. HELLER)
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 09:15 AM by derby378
Source: SCOTUSblog

Details to follow. Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm.

Read more: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Democratic discussion forum
   Replies to this thread
  - As expected.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:15 AM   #1 
  - As expected, too. Wish it could have been stronger, but they're conservative (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 09:22 AM   #10 
  - Obama should speak in favor of this ruling AND sponsor a senate bill in support  SlipperySlope   Jun-26-08 10:43 AM   #131 
     - Yep, he'd win the GE in a landslide n/t  Tejas   Jun-29-08 09:30 AM   #558 
  - remind me please... as im too tired to read all the articles...  comtec   Jun-26-08 09:30 AM   #32 
  - It went something like this...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:36 AM   #44 
     - thank you.. in THAT case.. yeah that's fucked up  comtec   Jun-26-08 09:38 AM   #49 
        - Chicago has something similar  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:55 AM   #85 
        - I just gots to see how all these conservative justices use the 14th! (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:07 AM   #97 
           - the 14th had nothing to do with this ruling  SlipperySlope   Jun-26-08 10:45 AM   #134 
              - Yeah, I know. But the Supremes WILL have to deal with it (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 03:39 PM   #358 
        - Well, the irony of course, is that literal minutes away in NOVA,  JerseygirlCT   Jun-26-08 10:25 AM   #115 
        - This has to do with legal rights  michreject   Jun-26-08 11:42 AM   #223 
           - Not talking about criminals  JerseygirlCT   Jun-26-08 01:58 PM   #325 
              - You can't buy a legal handgun  michreject   Jun-26-08 02:40 PM   #335 
        - No, I don't see that it does.  benEzra   Jun-26-08 11:05 AM   #170 
           - actually, it kills trigger locks  northzax   Jun-26-08 12:29 PM   #275 
              - It only kills the law that says a gun must always be unloaded and trigger-locked.  benEzra   Jun-26-08 01:08 PM   #296 
                 - i bet you are wrong  northzax   Jun-26-08 01:22 PM   #305 
                    - No. The ruling was very clear that the problem was in outlawing self-defense.  benEzra   Jun-26-08 02:13 PM   #332 
                       - Yes  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 05:01 PM   #376 
  - as expected  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:36 AM   #43 
  - What a happy day! I couldn't have HOPED for a better ruling!  SlipperySlope   Jun-26-08 10:29 AM   #120 
  - Yippee...  boilinmad   Jun-26-08 10:54 AM   #139 
  - Yahoo!  SlipperySlope   Jun-26-08 10:55 AM   #141 
  - Firearms are an integral element to the preservation of freedom.  skypuddle   Jun-26-08 11:34 AM   #213 
     - This will be an interesting day as my ignore list grows exponentially  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 01:49 PM   #322 
     - bogus meme 101  jaspoor   Jun-26-08 03:36 PM   #352 
     - Right, join the list, I don't suffer gun lovers well.  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 06:05 PM   #397 
        - Read the decision  DissedByBush   Jun-26-08 08:48 PM   #462 
        - I did and I don't agree which is my fucking right  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 08:50 PM   #464 
           - what about the american firearms worker ???  invader zim   Jun-26-08 09:46 PM   #484 
           - You may not agree, which is your right, but it's now THE LAW.  dbaker41   Jun-27-08 10:37 AM   #524 
           - Of course it is your right to disagree  DissedByBush   Jun-27-08 06:01 PM   #536 
        - MIlitary & Police  RNG   Jun-27-08 07:08 AM   #511 
        - I don't have to register anything.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 04:20 PM   #531 
     - Fascinating.  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 04:02 PM   #365 
     - You can't handle reasonable discourse? Or, a different point of view other than your own?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:28 PM   #404 
     - Dumb question. I do not suffer the love of guns, and that is my opinion to which I AM entitled  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 06:50 PM   #411 
        - Owning a gun does not make one incapable of "doing something good for humanity"  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:14 PM   #417 
           - You missed the point, and I will not take the bait, goodbye  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 07:17 PM   #419 
              - No bait - simple question. Your premises do not make sense to me. I am just trying to understand,  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:03 PM   #470 
     - You put people on ignore for supporting rights guaranteed in the Constitution?  kineta   Jun-26-08 08:08 PM   #441 
     - It's my 'right', but I guess only rights you believe in are ok  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 08:49 PM   #463 
        - Not at all. Your comment in your profile is interesting. Why so angry? Asking questions and trying  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:30 PM   #481 
        - Exactly - happens with my wife and I all the time  derby378   Jun-27-08 08:58 AM   #517 
        - It seems you chose your user name aptly.  kineta   Jun-27-08 12:24 AM   #500 
     - The length of your ignore list indicates just how narrow minded you are.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 04:18 PM   #530 
     - Amen!!  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 05:11 PM   #380 
     - The right to self defense, how many people DIE every year either 'protecting themselves'  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 06:08 PM   #399 
        - Good question. Where are your facts?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:15 PM   #418 
           - Find them yourself, Miss one-liner  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 07:19 PM   #421 
              - It seems those most against this individual freedom  pipoman   Jun-26-08 08:14 PM   #445 
              - Yes, it prevents me from wasting my time on bullshit  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 08:40 PM   #457 
                 - You are approaching this subject from the standpoint of gun owners perpetrating an offense rather  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:59 PM   #467 
              - Now, see? Hurling insults at me for asking you to back your argument, and I did it nicely.  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:45 PM   #461 
              - What insults? You don't know how to use Google, not my fault  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 08:53 PM   #465 
                 - Incorrect assumption  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:00 PM   #469 
                    - Goodbye  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 09:05 PM   #472 
                       - U-hyu'-s-ti  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:11 PM   #475 
                       - FIVE HUNDRED AND ONE POSTS... I wonder if  Endangered Specie   Jun-26-08 10:40 PM   #490 
              - It is fundamentally dishonest...  Dimensio0   Jun-27-08 09:39 AM   #519 
     - Tell that to citizens of nations that are MUCH freer than the United States  depakid   Jun-27-08 03:24 AM   #504 
        - Which countries? Europe limits free speech and gun ownership quite severely...  India3   Jun-29-08 04:26 PM   #561 
  - Impeach Scalia now !  jamesA   Jun-26-08 11:42 PM   #498 
  - 5-4  jaspoor   Jun-26-08 03:32 PM   #350 
  - Why is every other attack on the constitution bad, but not the 2nd?  kineta   Jun-26-08 08:04 PM   #439 
  - Some Just Don't Get It!!! Not a Clue!!!!  Mercracer   Jun-28-08 08:40 PM   #551 
  - It is just what BushCo and minions ordered!!!  BrklynLib at work   Jun-26-08 09:17 AM   #2 
  - Why woud Bush have "ordered" this ruling?  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 09:18 AM   #3 
  - so the gun industry profits  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:21 AM   #6 
     - Are you saying that you disagree with the ruling,  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 09:23 AM   #13 
     - Why Yes I DO... That's My Right  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:27 AM   #25 
     - Ahh....the "neener neener" gambit.  Squatch   Jun-26-08 09:30 AM   #31 
     - !  Lasher   Jun-26-08 10:23 AM   #113 
     - I think at this point...  sir pball   Jun-26-08 11:39 AM   #219 
        - I celebrated today...  Lasher   Jun-26-08 06:20 PM   #403 
           - Amateur.  sir pball   Jun-26-08 06:48 PM   #409 
              - But my CCW is now good until June 2013!  Lasher   Jun-26-08 07:22 PM   #425 
                 - Cheaper...  sir pball   Jun-26-08 07:59 PM   #435 
     - Your reply is ambiguous.  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 09:34 AM   #40 
     - Next, we're going after the Chicago handgun ban...  D__S   Jun-26-08 09:35 AM   #42 
        - Dumb... nice twisting of the Constitution (no militia)  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:46 AM   #64 
        - What is this "militia" you speak of?  D__S   Jun-26-08 09:49 AM   #69 
        - Militia... nice try though  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:55 AM   #83 
        - And I'm buying  michreject   Jun-26-08 11:46 AM   #229 
        - "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:33 PM   #405 
        - Yes it is, as of today.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 10:39 AM   #127 
           - exactly! someone else noticed  biermeister   Jun-26-08 10:55 AM   #140 
           - Jefferson - Right You Are  nels25   Jun-26-08 12:16 PM   #265 
        - Militia?  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:59 AM   #87 
        - Old Richard is pissed about the decision  Retired AF Dem   Jun-26-08 12:04 PM   #249 
     - Another red X added to my 'gun'  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 01:30 PM   #309 
     - If you're so concerned about fascism, why do you support gun control? (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #15 
     - Gun Control... LOL. Can You Own a Nuke  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:28 AM   #26 
        - Typical. Your fear of fascism is 2 hours in a movie house...  SteveM   Jun-26-08 09:31 AM   #33 
        - right..... guns will protect ya... keep telling yourself that  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:41 AM   #57 
           - Again: why do you fear fascism, yet support gun control? (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:04 AM   #95 
           - No worries ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-26-08 11:00 AM   #165 
           - "arming yourself will not make you safer from your own government. Tank meets SteveM"  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 11:15 AM   #190 
           - And was illustrated  michreject   Jun-26-08 11:50 AM   #235 
              - Nicely put!  derby378   Jun-26-08 05:15 PM   #382 
           - Small arms and small explosives seem to have done a bang-up job (no pun intended)...  skypuddle   Jun-26-08 12:04 PM   #248 
           - fascisthunter...How Ironic  MicaelS   Jun-26-08 12:27 PM   #273 
           - Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:39 PM   #406 
        - why dont you read the oppinion  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:50 AM   #70 
        - Nothing personal, but that opinion is batshit insane.  pt22   Jun-26-08 10:02 AM   #91 
        - What... the fact arms are regulated  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 10:07 AM   #96 
           - No shit. When seconds count, the police can be there in mere minutes.  pt22   Jun-26-08 10:12 AM   #99 
           - Read a cop's point of view on that subject - post 277  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:41 PM   #408 
           - Amusing a thought as that is... no that's not right  comtec   Jun-26-08 10:15 AM   #105 
           - Kind of a moot point...  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 10:32 AM   #123 
           - Well, you have smeared tens of millions of your fellow Americans...  SteveM   Jun-26-08 11:10 AM   #178 
           - Ironic...  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:21 AM   #198 
           - Since you like Gandhi...  milou   Jun-26-08 11:46 AM   #228 
           - Another Gandhiji quote  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 01:47 PM   #319 
           - THANK YOU! Especially for the Gandhi quote!  redqueen   Jun-26-08 01:08 PM   #295 
           - If somebody enters my home in the middle of the night  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:13 AM   # 
           - Then again, maybe it's just your spouse...  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:18 AM   #193 
           - Nope, my spouse doesn't have to sneak outside for a smoke.  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:34 AM   #215 
           - Glad you're so confident  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:42 AM   #224 
              - I'd love to see your empirical statistics  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 01:23 PM   #307 
                 - Why?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 01:33 PM   #311 
                    - Why? Because I think you're full of bullshit, that's why.  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 01:42 PM   #314 
                       - And, lucky you, in this country, you get to shoot me for that  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 01:46 PM   #317 
                          - Don't break into my house in the middle of the night while I'm there, and you'll be fine.  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 01:59 PM   #326 
                          - And you're going to recognize an "imminent threat" how, precisely?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 02:10 PM   #329 
                          - How does this figure into whether individual gun ownership is Constitutional?  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 02:34 PM   #334 
                          - See post 128  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 02:44 PM   #337 
                          - You're taking a rather ridiculous position with that as well.  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 03:09 PM   #342 
                          - More persuasive arguments? Please!  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 03:25 PM   #345 
                          - By all means point out the locomotive-sized holes in the logic of today's opinion.  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 03:44 PM   #360 
                          - Self-delete  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 03:40 PM   #359 
                          - Imminent threat  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 04:52 PM   #373 
                          - By whose definition?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 05:26 PM   #384 
                          - It is impossible to discern the intention of a home invader.  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 06:02 PM   #396 
                          - Excellent points!  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:20 PM   #494 
                          - Kevin, you raise some excellent points  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 07:20 PM   #423 
                          - Thanks  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 07:31 PM   #430 
                          - So it seems you believe the home owner should  pipoman   Jun-26-08 08:54 PM   #466 
                          - Actually, I have an apparently novel suggestion  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 09:06 PM   #473 
                          - That is the rub,  pipoman   Jun-26-08 10:04 PM   #486 
                          - Hopefully your neighbors will come to your rescue.  frank4570   Jun-26-08 10:28 PM   #489 
                          - It is also unreasonable  Dimensio0   Jun-27-08 12:29 PM   #529 
                          - KevinJ  SublimeFan1978   Jun-28-08 10:01 PM   #553 
                          - You are in my house at night, you are an imminent threat by nature.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:17 PM   #492 
                          - So I guess I should have shot the battered spouse sheltering in my garage?  KevinJ   Jun-27-08 01:58 AM   #502 
                          - Your garage is not your house.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 08:10 AM   #515 
                          - If you break into my house, you are an imminent threat  milou   Jun-27-08 10:54 AM   #526 
                          - If you enter someone else's house without their permission, you are a threat. (NT)  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 05:07 PM   #379 
           - weak argument. People ARE allowed to speak and say, "Identify yourself". Some of these posts  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:12 PM   #401 
           - Well, somebody did try to break into our house  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 01:10 PM   #299 
           - Defending yourself with a hot steam iron would not be boring, IMHO. Tell away!  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:21 PM   #424 
              - I was 19 and working in a dress shop  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 08:26 PM   #451 
                 - Glad you weren't hurt. It's that "fight or flight" thing, and used what you had to defend yourself  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:42 PM   #459 
           - I was gong to make a snappy comment about you 'killing the motherfucker'  DainBramaged   Jun-26-08 09:04 PM   #471 
              - Yes, let's all pity the "motherfucker" who breaks into others' homes  dbaker41   Jun-27-08 10:53 AM   #525 
                 - Excellent response, I'm sure you are on ignore now.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 04:26 PM   #532 
                 - .........................  DainBramaged   Jun-27-08 06:20 PM   #538 
           - Ummm... Hi, I'm Reality. Nice to meet you.  krispos42   Jun-26-08 11:34 AM   #214 
           - Thanks, you keep making my points for me!  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:58 AM   #240 
              - I think you need one of these  krispos42   Jun-26-08 12:07 PM   #254 
              - ... and every day, ordinary citizens kill innocent people. n/t  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:15 PM   #263 
                 - So do the police  Thothmes   Jun-26-08 01:07 PM   #293 
                 - 13470 in 2006  milou   Jun-26-08 01:18 PM   #302 
              - You DID notice that the chart said "justifiable homicides" didn't you?  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 01:47 PM   #321 
              - Yeah, but who really knows what happened?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 01:55 PM   #323 
                 - Please stop spelling it "homocide"  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 02:09 PM   #328 
                    - Oops, sorry, my bad  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 02:12 PM   #330 
              - 1. cannot assume that citizens have had no training; 2. chart is about justifiable homicides - why  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:25 PM   #426 
           - What percentage of people that own firearms qualify as "gun nuts" in your opinion?  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 12:02 PM   #247 
              - Well, the optimist in me would like to believe that it's a tiny percentage...  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:13 PM   #259 
                 - You didn't answer the question.  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 12:18 PM   #267 
                 - On the contrary, I did answer your question  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:34 PM   #276 
                    - "Now, do you have another question you would like me to answer?"  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 12:48 PM   #286 
                       - No, not all gun owners  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 01:13 PM   #301 
                          - If you think that, then why make such a silly statement?  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 01:20 PM   #304 
                          - Not every gun owner is a "gun nut"  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 01:39 PM   #313 
                          - You really don't know anything about guns do you?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:26 PM   #495 
                             - Enough to know...  KevinJ   Jun-27-08 01:53 AM   #501 
                                - High cap guns  RNG   Jun-27-08 07:21 AM   #513 
                                - So post some links to the makers of these ceramic guns designed to escape x-ray detection.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 08:16 AM   #516 
                                   - What am I, your staff researcher now?  KevinJ   Jun-27-08 09:48 AM   #520 
                                   - I'll be happy to educate you.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 10:24 AM   #521 
                                   - It only took about 20 seconds to feel smug and vindicated.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 05:56 PM   #535 
                                   - Self-Deleted  Paladin   Jun-27-08 07:22 PM   #540 
                                   - The Porcelain or plastic gun myth  Erebus67   Jul-01-08 03:42 PM   #567 
                 - Straw man much?  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 01:33 PM   #312 
                 - There is one post right on this thread.  ieoeja   Jun-26-08 02:01 PM   #327 
                 - "...a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later ..." Posted here? Where?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:27 PM   #427 
           - Actually, they police don't have to show up at all. They are under no legal obligation to respond  davepc   Jun-26-08 12:12 PM   #256 
           - You are wrong: the supreme court said the police are NOT obligated to protect ANYONE  gulfcoastliberal   Jun-26-08 12:14 PM   #261 
           - A cops point-of-view  jeepnstein   Jun-26-08 12:35 PM   #277 
              - Interesting, thanks for posting  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:44 PM   #280 
              - This seems like a pretty good place to be...  jeepnstein   Jun-26-08 12:46 PM   #283 
                 - It's got its moments  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:47 PM   #285 
              - Welcome to DU!  redqueen   Jun-26-08 01:10 PM   #298 
              - WoW! This needs to be its own topic, Might change the mind of ppl against gun ownership  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:17 PM   #402 
           - I'll sign up if I can quit paying property taxes.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:01 AM   #167 
           - That's cool...  MicaelS   Jun-26-08 12:25 PM   #272 
           - - Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789: "And that said Constitution be never  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:59 PM   #413 
           - Call the PD  RNG   Jun-27-08 07:13 AM   #512 
        - Sure, fascists love guns, when only THEY have them!  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:08 AM   #177 
        - I want the ability to protect myself.  DU Man   Jun-26-08 01:23 PM   #306 
           - Welcome, DU man...you've picked an EXCELLENT day to join DU....don't get carpal tunnel....:)  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:30 PM   #429 
     - Well, according to your logic...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:39 AM   #52 
     - It's all about Profits  fascisthunter   Jun-26-08 09:48 AM   #68 
        - Yes, it would be wonderful if people fought against the government taking away rights  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 05:05 PM   #378 
     - So?  jaspoor   Jun-26-08 03:38 PM   #356 
  - I suppose the smackdown of Bush's denial of habeas corpus for detainees...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #17 
  - The Bush Justice department submitted a brief in SUPPORT of the DC gun ban.  davepc   Jun-26-08 09:26 AM   #21 
  - Probably so they could claim that this was a nonpartisan decision by the court.  Gormy Cuss   Jun-26-08 11:14 AM   #187 
     - Or the Bush administration are fascists who prefer a disarmed populace  davepc   Jun-26-08 11:27 AM   #203 
        - The right to bear arms against fascist thugs hasn't been in question.  Gormy Cuss   Jun-26-08 11:29 AM   #207 
           - Uhm do you bear arms against fascist thugs when its illegal to bear arms at all, like it was in DC?!  davepc   Jun-26-08 11:42 AM   #222 
              - If the court decision only proscribed outright bans, you'd have a point.  Gormy Cuss   Jun-26-08 11:49 AM   #233 
                 - That's what this case was ABOUT!  davepc   Jun-26-08 11:52 AM   #236 
  - More likely that the neocons would like to disarm us, IMO.  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 09:27 AM   #24 
  - Wasn't William Bennett in on the drafting of the original AWB? (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 11:13 AM   #183 
     - I believe he was involved during his stint as Drug Czar. nt  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 11:35 AM   #216 
  - Actually, this was too right-wing for even the bushistas  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 10:24 AM   #114 
  - "...to overturn the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent."  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:48 PM   #433 
  - um, No  jaspoor   Jun-26-08 03:37 PM   #353 
  - Excellent News  Tinfoil   Jun-26-08 09:18 AM   #4 
  - That should decrease the average life expetancy a few more years. nt  jobycom   Jun-26-08 09:19 AM   #5 
  - Or not...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:30 AM   #30 
  - Yeah, that's because of the ban.  jobycom   Jun-26-08 09:36 AM   #45 
     - its unrelated  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:41 AM   #55 
     - So it's not because of the ban?  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:52 AM   #76 
        - It attempted to set an example  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:04 AM   #168 
           - Which is why it was a dumb idea to pass the law in the first place  krispos42   Jun-26-08 11:30 AM   #208 
              - By which reasoning, no state should ever attempt to pass their own laws  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:38 AM   #218 
                 - No a valid comparison  krispos42   Jun-26-08 12:13 PM   #258 
                 - Disagree  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:27 PM   #274 
                    - States can control smokestack emissions  krispos42   Jun-26-08 01:47 PM   #320 
                 - States must be willing to accept the consequences of their laws  Thothmes   Jun-26-08 01:01 PM   #292 
  - I am a third generation gun owner  Mojorabbit   Jun-26-08 10:27 AM   #117 
  - I'm a first generation non-gun owner.  jobycom   Jun-26-08 12:06 PM   #253 
     - I have plenty of experience  Mojorabbit   Jun-26-08 12:45 PM   #281 
     - So many of the incidents you mentioned had to do with mental health issues, criminal intent, etc.,  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:02 PM   #437 
  - Think of it this way ... it puts Social Security that much closer to solvency.  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:16 AM   #191 
  - One good thing about this...  Ryano42   Jun-26-08 09:22 AM   #7 
  - Don't worry, Ryano42, there are a few Democrats who will screw that one up for the rest of us  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:01 AM   #90 
     - Wanna bet that Mayor Daley...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 10:17 AM   #108 
        - Sort of like George Wallace standing in the door at Univ. of Alabama (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:18 AM   #110 
        - Does the ruling even apply to Chicago's ban?  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:21 AM   #111 
           - I can assure you that someon will take Chicago and NYC to court  Craftsman   Jun-26-08 10:47 AM   #136 
              - I'm sure that someone will too  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 11:13 AM   #182 
              - It's already happening  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 01:18 PM   #303 
  - Please remind me, the 2nd Amendment is bad thing because....?  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 09:22 AM   #8 
  - It's not, or at least wasn't  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 10:39 AM   #128 
     - You're misinterpreting. Honestly you are. Do please study the history of the BOR because  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 11:13 AM   #185 
     - For 200 years, the vast majority of legal scholarship has shared that interpretation  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:25 AM   #201 
        - Right....  milou   Jun-26-08 11:38 AM   #217 
        - So why do you suppose it's survived this long?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:49 AM   #234 
           - Last time this came up...  milou   Jun-26-08 12:06 PM   #252 
        - That's not as good an argument as you'd think, really. If you look at the record of legal  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 12:18 PM   #268 
     - Clear as mud is any concensus on what defines "Militia".  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 11:47 AM   #231 
     - Interesting point, but then how do you deal with "well-regulated"?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 12:05 PM   #251 
        - It sure wouldn't regulated by the federal government or the national guard.  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 12:15 PM   #262 
        - Meanings  milou   Jun-26-08 11:19 PM   #493 
        - the right of the PEOPLE  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-27-08 06:08 PM   #537 
     - You thought that  michreject   Jun-26-08 11:58 AM   #241 
  - Dupe..n/t  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 09:22 AM   # 
  - Great!!!!!  tidy_bowl   Jun-26-08 09:22 AM   #9 
  - Welcome back!  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:39 AM   #50 
     - Grabbers can't use that argument anymore nt  michreject   Jun-26-08 09:45 AM   #63 
        - People can still use it. All this ruling says is that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts disagree.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:48 AM   #67 
           - the difference is  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:51 AM   #73 
           - Indeed. They are controlling.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:52 AM   #78 
           - btw  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:51 AM   #75 
           - Um no...  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:55 AM   #81 
           - You'd rather be in the company of those against civil rights.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:06 AM   #172 
           - Argument is no longer valid  michreject   Jun-26-08 12:01 PM   #245 
  - YES!!!  D__S   Jun-26-08 09:23 AM   #11 
  - My money is on the "reasonableness" doctrine being applied.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:40 AM   #54 
     - You're probably right.  D__S   Jun-26-08 09:46 AM   #65 
     - And how will these justices deal with reasonableness w/out 14A? (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:17 AM   #107 
     - I suspect there is/will be a "compelling government interest"  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:20 AM   #196 
  - i only saw a snippet, but this only applies to one's home?  comtec   Jun-26-08 09:23 AM   #12 
  - WHOO HOOO  skywalkrNCSU   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #16 
     - Welcome to DU.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:43 AM   #60 
     - Why because tht poster  Mojorabbit   Jun-26-08 10:30 AM   #121 
        - I hope you don't.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 10:40 AM   #129 
        - I'm pretty damn happy with it too  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:22 AM   #199 
     - NC State? Hi, down the road from Carolina--Tarheel Country!  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:15 AM   #189 
  - This is a paradigm shift in the debate over gun legislation  derby378   Jun-26-08 09:23 AM   #14 
  - This decision is fucked up. We have a weaker country today because of this.  Xenotime   Jun-26-08 10:58 AM   #162 
     - Individual rights were affirmed the country can't be weaker.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:08 AM   #175 
     - Individual rights were fabricated and the country can be weaker  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 11:32 AM   #211 
     - That's funny I just drove from the Fire Dept training center and  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 03:20 PM   #344 
        - Obeying traffic laws?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 03:29 PM   #348 
           - I thought you said anarchy was ruling the day.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 03:30 PM   #349 
              - Nope, just pointing out that regulation doesn't automatically equate with fascism. n/t  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 03:35 PM   #351 
                 - and freedom doesn't automatically equate with anarchy. n/t  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 03:37 PM   #354 
                    - Agreed. n/t  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 03:39 PM   #357 
                       - Likewise. n/t  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 04:33 PM   #372 
     - "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 07:06 PM   #416 
     - We are stronger because the 2nd Amendment  tidy_bowl   Jun-26-08 11:47 AM   #230 
  - Activist judges again usurping local administration  TOJ   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #18 
  - Local administration can't take away your rights  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:27 AM   #22 
  - Exactly - makes me wonder who's more "fascist," SCOTUS or the architects of the DC ban  derby378   Jun-26-08 05:13 PM   #381 
  - it is called the constitution  skywalkrNCSU   Jun-26-08 09:27 AM   # 
  - This is landmark in that the court now says states and municipalities can violate the 2nd.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:43 AM   #58 
     - Uh... no. The court said states and municipalities can NOT violate the 2nd. n/t  whopis01   Jun-26-08 11:58 AM   #239 
  - Uh, sounds to me like banning gun ownership would be more fascist  ButterflyBlood   Jun-26-08 09:34 AM   #38 
  - How does that make us fascist??  virginia mountainman   Jun-26-08 09:35 AM   #41 
  - It seems to me that our 2nd Amendment has done nothing to stop  TOJ   Jun-26-08 09:41 AM   #56 
     - The Second Amendment has been infringed  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:04 AM   #93 
     - If people aren't motivated to politically protest and get out on the streets...  krispos42   Jun-26-08 10:14 AM   #102 
     - "Liberals should have been pro-gun from the start,..." Amen! This is great news for the Party,IMHO  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:19 AM   #194 
     - So you're saying you're upset that the government is infringing some rights  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 12:36 PM   #279 
  - They had a lotta "local administration" in the Jim Crow South...  SteveM   Jun-26-08 09:38 AM   #48 
  - Like Lawrence vs. Texas?  pt22   Jun-26-08 09:59 AM   #88 
  - No, it affirms the right of INDIVIDUALS to control their own homes, bodies, and property  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:03 AM   #92 
  - guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm ?  edwardlindy   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #19 
  - Arms=weapons that can be carried and used by an individual person n/t  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:28 AM   #27 
     - So presumably that includes  edwardlindy   Jun-26-08 09:32 AM   #35 
        - Weeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh  joeglow3   Jun-26-08 09:33 AM   #36 
        - If I had a rocket launcher  iverglas   Jun-26-08 09:39 AM   #53 
        - All of that bluster and this is the best you got.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:10 AM   #179 
        - I want one of those mounted on my car  dbaker41   Jun-26-08 11:25 AM   #200 
        - If you could find a place to legally buy one  michreject   Jun-26-08 09:43 AM   #59 
        - As a matter of practical public safety, no  krispos42   Jun-26-08 09:47 AM   #66 
        - So you do believe in SOME restrictions on arms ownership  TOJ   Jun-26-08 09:52 AM   #77 
        - yes  comtec   Jun-26-08 10:00 AM   #89 
        - ah yes, they do  iverglas   Jun-26-08 10:16 AM   #106 
        - Oh, so YOUR opinion of what is reasonable is more important than mine  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:27 AM   #118 
        - ah, so you'd rather pretend I said something I didn't say  iverglas   Jun-26-08 10:38 AM   #126 
           - Let's go back to where the Heller case started...  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 11:12 AM   #181 
        - Now iverglas you hate it when people speak for you.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:13 AM   #184 
        - "Just what the right wing ordered."  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 11:27 AM   #202 
        - That has ALWAYS been the debate  krispos42   Jun-26-08 10:26 AM   # 
        - So a rocket launcher would be ok provided  edwardlindy   Jun-26-08 09:58 AM   #86 
           - Except the rocket itself is a projectile  krispos42   Jun-26-08 10:30 AM   #122 
           - If it kills anyone but your intended target, you're going to jail  michreject   Jun-26-08 12:15 PM   #264 
        - No  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:21 AM   #112 
        - No. People, READ THE OPINION!!!!!!!!!!  benEzra   Jun-26-08 11:08 AM   #174 
  - Woo hoo!  scrinmaster   Jun-26-08 09:24 AM   #20 
  - WONDERFUL ruling! Bless their pea pickin hearts!  colt equalizer   Jun-26-08 09:27 AM   #23 
  - Not sure the opinion will be that far reaching. Welcome to DU anyway.  jefferson_dem   Jun-26-08 09:45 AM   #62 
  - Yay!  Lasher   Jun-26-08 09:28 AM   #28 
  - According to the blog, a narrow ruling  JustABozoOnThisBus   Jun-26-08 09:29 AM   #29 
  - That's why the focus should now be on gun SAFETY instead of gun OWNERSHIP  derby378   Jun-26-08 09:33 AM   #37 
     - It IS your right to own a AK-47  comtec   Jun-26-08 09:34 AM   #39 
     - If I want full-auto, I'll get an NFA license...  derby378   Jun-26-08 09:37 AM   #46 
     - Actually, it IS your right to own a fully-automatic weapon  Squatch   Jun-26-08 09:37 AM   #47 
     - You can even own fully automatic weapons in most states...  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 09:44 AM   #61 
        - as long as there are permits and a process, i agree  comtec   Jun-26-08 09:55 AM   #84 
           - Any idiot generally won't have $8-10,000 to pony up for an AK.  seawolf   Jun-26-08 11:07 AM   #173 
              - Poor people have rights, too.  jeepnstein   Jun-26-08 12:49 PM   #287 
              - guns have always been the rich man's weapon  comtec   Jun-27-08 04:22 AM   #505 
                 - A good pistol is cheaper than most TV's  jeepnstein   Jun-27-08 09:38 AM   #518 
              - The going rate now is $17,000 and up. (n/t)  benEzra   Jun-27-08 06:01 AM   #507 
     - Most of us can own a "sorta" AK  JustABozoOnThisBus   Jun-26-08 11:05 AM   #169 
  - specifically a handgun  michreject   Jun-26-08 09:32 AM   #34 
  - This is an great day to be an American!  NM Independent   Jun-26-08 09:39 AM   #51 
  - Sadly, the 2nd amendment has not prevented all the others from  TOJ   Jun-26-08 09:50 AM   #71 
  - Stop being dishonest.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:18 AM   #192 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Jun-26-08 09:50 AM   #72 
  - "ONLY in a facist society" LOL. I guess evey other western nation with responsible gun restrictions  depakid   Jun-27-08 03:21 AM   #503 
     - If we had a reasonable drug policy in this country - like Europe  hack89   Jun-27-08 06:28 AM   #510 
  - well, at least there will be  Blue_Tires   Jun-26-08 09:51 AM   #74 
  - exactly  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:54 AM   #80 
  - This issue is not going away  Craftsman   Jun-26-08 10:44 AM   #132 
  - Whatever my opinion is on guns, I think the Court got it wrong.  GOPNotForMe   Jun-26-08 09:54 AM   #79 
  - interesting though  bossy22   Jun-26-08 09:55 AM   #82 
  - Like the founding fathers debated at length and came to a consensus  Gman   Jun-26-08 10:04 AM   #94 
  - That SCOTUS is political is old news here...  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:52 AM   #138 
     - It's sarcasm  Gman   Jun-26-08 11:20 AM   #195 
        - What Planet are you...  tidy_bowl   Jun-26-08 11:57 AM   #238 
        - Well, I think I see what you're saying...  SteveM   Jun-26-08 03:38 PM   #355 
  - With all due respect to the writers of the ban,  SeanQuinn   Jun-26-08 10:08 AM   #98 
  - not even a little  comtec   Jun-26-08 10:14 AM   #104 
  - I'm pleased with this decision. Not pleased it was 5-4 however. eom  Purveyor   Jun-26-08 10:14 AM   #100 
  - Complete decision here.  D__S   Jun-26-08 10:14 AM   #101 
  - EVERYBODY PANIC  AngryAmish   Jun-26-08 10:14 AM   #103 
  - Reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon  cobalt1999   Jun-26-08 10:18 AM   #109 
  - I think I agree with you  robicon   Jun-26-08 11:00 AM   #164 
     - Exactly...  tidy_bowl   Jun-26-08 11:59 AM   #244 
  - I agree with this ruling  tammywammy   Jun-26-08 10:26 AM   #116 
  - Huzzah! Huzzah! More Penis Boosters! n/t  NBachers   Jun-26-08 10:27 AM   #119 
  - Nothing in the ruling relates to "Penises".  Dimensio0   Jun-26-08 10:35 AM   #125 
  - Still wrestling with yourself under the sheets? Who will win? (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 10:56 AM   #142 
  - Hmmm.... my 'puter is getting hot & bothered w/ that quote - having to fan the ol' girl...  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:33 AM   #212 
  - Excellent! However, it should have been struck down 9-0, not 5-4.  lynne   Jun-26-08 10:33 AM   #124 
  - no kidding, its like the "right" to eat food  Bacchus39   Jun-26-08 10:42 AM   #130 
  - THANK YOU!!  lynne   Jun-26-08 10:47 AM   #135 
     - thanks, I'll be able to stop banging my head against the wall for awhile now  Bacchus39   Jun-26-08 11:01 AM   #166 
  - Agree!! Thank you!  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 06:41 PM   #407 
  - Awwww...Diddums Not Like The Nasty Old 5-4?  Paladin   Jun-26-08 07:34 PM   #431 
     - Supreme Court Justices  SublimeFan1978   Jun-29-08 12:44 AM   #555 
        - You Know What You 5-4 Whiners Remind Me Of?  Paladin   Jun-29-08 08:52 AM   #556 
           - Please justify your assertion.  Dimensio0   Jun-29-08 01:20 PM   #559 
              - I'm Not Going To Waste My Time.....  Paladin   Jun-29-08 01:51 PM   #560 
                 - I see.  Dimensio0   Jun-29-08 09:46 PM   #562 
  - If anyone has said this already I'm sorry  liberalpress   Jun-26-08 10:45 AM   #133 
  - No surprise there  Prophet 451   Jun-26-08 10:48 AM   #137 
  - That's not supported by recent ruling  Caentor   Jun-26-08 04:08 PM   #369 
     - Fair point  Prophet 451   Jun-26-08 04:19 PM   #370 
        - I agree  Caentor   Jun-26-08 04:24 PM   #371 
  - Supreme Court Says Americans Have Right to Guns  Liberty Belle   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #143 
  - Where's the original intent, Justice Scalia?  gratuitous   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #144 
  - I think you should read the whole decision before you make comments like that  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #147 
  - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another  endarkenment   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #148 
  - The decision didn't say it's an absolute right.  benEzra   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #159 
  - have you ever considered that all your "rights" aren't enumerated in the Constitution?  Bacchus39   Jun-26-08 11:06 AM   #171 
  - Boy these whackos have been busy destroying the country lately, haven't they? Trying to influence...  Triana   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #145 
  - Scalia is a true lunatic. I'd bet money he's diagnosable.  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #158 
  - Scalia: Another psychopath/narcissist in gov't/law....  Triana   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #161 
     - The idea of them having to undergo psych eval is an *excellent* one, imo  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 11:59 AM   #242 
     - I disagree  Caentor   Jun-26-08 04:06 PM   #367 
        - You might have mis-read.  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 05:41 PM   #389 
     - so  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:18 PM   #269 
        - Not for jobs that involve the use of public power, no.  bean fidhleir   Jun-26-08 05:45 PM   #391 
  - its' called hearsay  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:22 PM   #271 
  - It would be a TERRIBLE mistake for Dems to allow this wedge issue to be on the front burner  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #146 
  - My partner said just 50% of Democrats are pro-choice. Is that right?  colt equalizer   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #149 
     - It probably depends strongly on how the question is asked  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #152 
  - This actually works for dems  surf   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #150 
  - It helps Dems who are wise enough to shut the fuck up about it  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #153 
  - I agree. It ABSOLUTELY works for Dems - may even attract RW gun owners who don't like McSame  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:39 AM   #220 
  - Was the issue expressly stated as one of self defense?  TechBear_Seattle   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #151 
  - The main statement: "...unconnected with service in a militia"  Baclava   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #156 
  - So arguably...  TechBear_Seattle   Jun-26-08 11:40 AM   #221 
     - It says it's unconnected with a militia  Caentor   Jun-26-08 04:04 PM   #366 
  - i'm sorry  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:17 PM   #266 
     - Has anyone welcomed you to DU? Wow, what a day to join! Don't get carpal tunnel.... :)  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 12:46 PM   #284 
     - they have now  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:50 PM   #288 
     - I not only was there, I live on Capitol Hill where much of the police brutality took place  TechBear_Seattle   Jun-26-08 02:28 PM   #333 
  - I'm dancing in my chair here at work.  SlipperySlope   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #154 
  - You got that right! Have a son and DIL just south of DC, and they have permits to carry concealed..  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:08 AM   #176 
  - Come the Revolution...  mckara   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #155 
  - I happen to agree with SCOTUS on this one  askeptic   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #157 
  - Fascinating logic from these bozos  Prospero1   Jun-26-08 10:57 AM   #160 
  - Original intent  milou   Jun-26-08 11:29 AM   #206 
  - Fascinating reading your type-set, delivered on a horse (nt)  SteveM   Jun-26-08 11:30 AM   #209 
  - "I suspect the framers would not view modern assault and sniper weapons quite the same way" .  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:44 AM   #225 
  - NFA 1934  jeepnstein   Jun-26-08 12:45 PM   #282 
     - Welcome to DU! What a day to join! Don't get carpal tunnel!  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 01:43 PM   #316 
  - There are a lot of thinks that the framers of the  Thothmes   Jun-26-08 12:54 PM   #289 
  - Fantabulous point! Issues today that were not faced by the framers of the Constitution! n/t  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 01:46 PM   #318 
  - Fascinating logic abounds.  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 02:57 PM   #339 
  - Gun locks pretty much ruin your ability to use it  Endangered Specie   Jun-26-08 11:21 AM   #197 
  - This is greatness, a capital punishment and gun Issue in same day  snooper2   Jun-26-08 10:59 AM   #163 
  - More than enough to make DU explode  Bleachers7   Jun-26-08 11:12 AM   #180 
     - The cognitive dissonance on DU today is deafening  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 11:14 AM   #186 
        - I think this is a going away present for the outgoing mods.  Bleachers7   Jun-26-08 11:15 AM   #188 
  - I just feel sorry for those people.......  llmart   Jun-26-08 11:27 AM   #204 
  - would you have the same response  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:14 PM   #260 
  - Then why dont' the gun-control advocates stop?  krispos42   Jun-26-08 02:13 PM   #331 
  - Sorry you feel peoples ability to defend themselves is crap.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 03:25 PM   #346 
  - I would say  Caentor   Jun-26-08 04:01 PM   #364 
  - Yay guns! Now we are Free to shoot our teenager when he comes home late at night...  onehandle   Jun-26-08 11:28 AM   #205 
  - You must have never heard that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 11:45 AM   #226 
  - That needs to be updated.  onehandle   Jun-26-08 11:59 AM   #243 
  - If you are dumb enough to do this  Bleachers7   Jun-26-08 12:01 PM   #246 
  - We call that "natural selection".  NYC_SKP   Jun-26-08 12:05 PM   #250 
  - Could you please point out which portion of the opinion grants you  Raskolnik   Jun-26-08 12:09 PM   #255 
  - More guns = More dead people  onehandle   Jun-26-08 04:54 PM   #374 
     - More guns = More dead criminals. nt  tidy_bowl   Jun-26-08 05:25 PM   #383 
  - Aw, c'mon...don't you think that argument is a little weak? Our sons are still living, ages 33 &36  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 12:36 PM   #278 
  - I wouldn't do that if I were you.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 03:28 PM   #347 
  - BEST news from this court in quite awhile...  QuestionAll   Jun-26-08 11:32 AM   #210 
  - The U.S. is the largest exporter of weapons.  followthemoney   Jun-26-08 11:45 AM   #227 
  - relevant?  paulstylos   Jun-26-08 12:12 PM   #257 
     - Good decision, now on to other bans/infringements  Erebus67   Jun-26-08 01:25 PM   #308 
        - Does this strike down licensing and registration?  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 01:33 PM   #310 
           - nope, not at all, but I imagine DC will try something like that  Bacchus39   Jun-26-08 01:43 PM   #315 
           - That is basically what they were doing, and it got them sued  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 02:44 PM   #336 
              - He's accountable to his constituents  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 09:18 PM   #478 
                 - "...don't believe that the people have the right to make that decision for themselves..."  slackmaster   Jun-27-08 07:30 PM   #541 
                    - Therein lies the crucial difference alright  KevinJ   Jun-28-08 01:01 AM   #544 
                       - People have the right to make bad decisions, and they are usually the ones that suffer  slackmaster   Jun-28-08 10:22 AM   #546 
                          - Well, I'll go along with part of what you say  KevinJ   Jun-28-08 11:32 AM   #548 
                             - Beautifully Stated, KevinJ (n/t)  Paladin   Jun-28-08 12:48 PM   #549 
           - No it doesn't  Erebus67   Jun-26-08 01:58 PM   #324 
           - I would suggest  Caentor   Jun-26-08 03:58 PM   #363 
  - YaaaaaY!!!!  Contradistinction   Jun-26-08 11:48 AM   #232 
  - Excellent. Chicago's next.  atufal1c   Jun-26-08 11:55 AM   #237 
  - Ooh... DC's Constitutional-limbo status comes into play  dmesg   Jun-26-08 12:19 PM   #270 
  - ACLU must now recant it's position that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual RKBA.  jody   Jun-26-08 12:56 PM   #290 
  - Why? Because a handful of right-wingers say so?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 02:54 PM   #338 
  - Because the Democratic Party says so as supported by SCOTUS' decision in Heller. Either ACLU  jody   Jun-26-08 02:58 PM   #340 
  - The ACLU can disagree with the Scotus  Caentor   Jun-26-08 03:57 PM   #362 
  - Hey, the Court never GAVE an actual interpretation until today - not even in MILLER  derby378   Jun-26-08 04:58 PM   #375 
  - No ... because ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-26-08 05:55 PM   #394 
  - Here's what the ACLU has to say about it  Erebus67   Jun-28-08 10:23 AM   #547 
  - Here is the Opinion  happyslug   Jun-26-08 01:00 PM   #291 
  - I am instinctively suspicious of authorities, and thus, I like this decision. Everyone  closeupready   Jun-26-08 01:07 PM   #294 
  - I have no problem with their decision.  KillCapitalism   Jun-26-08 01:09 PM   #297 
  - Not good enough  desk   Jun-26-08 03:08 PM   #341 
  - Glad to see this!  redqueen   Jun-26-08 01:11 PM   #300 
  - This shouldn't affect the only real important thing concerning gun ownership  brentspeak   Jun-26-08 03:10 PM   #343 
  - correlation =/= causation  Caentor   Jun-26-08 03:54 PM   #361 
  - NJ doesn't experience the kinds of gun massacres that WA does:  brentspeak   Jun-26-08 05:35 PM   #387 
  - Out of curiosity...  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 07:58 PM   #434 
     - I know  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:28 PM   #452 
  - It's great that NJ suburbs are safe, but tell me one thing  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 04:07 PM   #368 
     - As I've already said many times before, in past discussions  brentspeak   Jun-26-08 05:40 PM   #388 
        - But the nice people in the suburbs, who could just as easily get guns illegally, don't  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 05:57 PM   #395 
        - Georgia and Florida  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 07:05 PM   #415 
  - Meh, I am in a small minority, but I wish we weren't so gleeful about the right to own guns.  krabigirl   Jun-26-08 05:04 PM   #377 
  - Some are frightened of glee ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-26-08 06:09 PM   #400 
     - Excellent comments  VermeerLives   Jun-26-08 06:50 PM   #410 
     - Then again, some of us are afraid of what guns do  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 07:28 PM   #428 
     - What's the story behind the picture, e.g.. was he possibly a serial rapist who was finally stopped?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:07 PM   #440 
     - Would it be more attractive if he was?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 08:12 PM   #443 
        - On the other hand, if he had had a gun, maybe he could have defended himself?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:39 PM   #456 
           - On the other hand, if his attacker hadn't had a gun, maybe he wouldn't have needed to?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 09:10 PM   #474 
              - Circular reasoning?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:17 PM   #476 
              - You mean, like, if he'd had a gun, maybe he could have defended himself?  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 09:28 PM   #480 
                 - LOL. I give up. I 'm tired.......  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:34 PM   #482 
                    - I hear you  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 09:50 PM   #485 
              - That argument only works ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-27-08 11:45 AM   #528 
     - Banning guns would ENSURE that the dead guy was the good guy ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-27-08 10:26 AM   #522 
     - Big difference  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 08:00 PM   #436 
        - a gun owner  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:23 PM   #450 
        - That legal gun can be stolen  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 08:34 PM   #454 
           - look  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:39 PM   #455 
        - I live in Florida  Mojorabbit   Jun-26-08 10:12 PM   #487 
        - Not so much ...  KneelBeforeZod   Jun-27-08 11:07 AM   #527 
        - I don't think anyone should have to justify to the government...  Erebus67   Jul-09-08 02:40 PM   #568 
  - oh goody! more guns! more dead people! more dead children!  kenzee13   Jun-26-08 05:32 PM   #385 
  - "i can't wait! Do I need a sarcasm thingy?" Only in your subject line.....  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:11 PM   #442 
  - Can I ban guns from my personal property?  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 05:34 PM   #386 
  - Yes, you have the right to do that  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 05:49 PM   #392 
  - Then can't those employers say  HockeyMom   Jun-26-08 06:59 PM   #414 
     - it depends  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:13 PM   #444 
  - yes, you can "ban them" in a sense  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:20 PM   #449 
  - Goodness Gracious, just what we need, even more guns to shoot Innocent people with  Doug.Goodall   Jun-26-08 05:45 PM   #390 
  - That's sexist  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 05:50 PM   #393 
  - "Moron" is misspelled in your avatar, isn't it?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 06:06 PM   #398 
  - Inside joke  KevinJ   Jun-26-08 08:03 PM   #438 
  - Have seen the picture, didn't make the connection with your avatar....thanks.  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 08:16 PM   #448 
  - You're new here, aren't you?  mycritters2   Jun-26-08 08:14 PM   #446 
     - Yes, but I have been busy posting. You're from Iowa? What is the latest?  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:41 PM   #483 
  - Not the issue  Antinius   Jun-26-08 08:15 PM   #447 
  - That's good for people with the CCW  Doug.Goodall   Jun-27-08 05:11 AM   #506 
  - As an armed woman  Mojorabbit   Jun-26-08 10:14 PM   #488 
  - To be expected from these right-wing pieces of shit.  alarimer   Jun-26-08 06:50 PM   #412 
  - Amen  jamesA   Jun-26-08 11:55 PM   #499 
  - Given the fact that a quarter or so of Dems personally own guns, and most Dems support the right to  benEzra   Jun-27-08 06:04 AM   #508 
  - I Disagree With The Decision----But It Could Have Been Worse  Paladin   Jun-26-08 07:18 PM   #420 
  - They also reduced enron damage to only 500 mil to pay instead of 2.5 billion today  superconnected   Jun-26-08 07:19 PM   #422 
  - Exxon not Enron  Thothmes   Jun-27-08 06:27 AM   #509 
     - Yeah I realized I mistyped that when I got home last night :)  superconnected   Jun-27-08 05:35 PM   #534 
  - If Scalia voted for it, the ruling must be flawed!  minnesota_liberal   Jun-26-08 07:48 PM   #432 
  - Always nice to see such a thoughtful, open-minded post  slackmaster   Jun-26-08 08:43 PM   #460 
     - I guess some people need the "sarcasm" smiley.  minnesota_liberal   Jun-26-08 08:59 PM   #468 
  - Good. (nt)  w4rma   Jun-26-08 08:34 PM   #453 
  - the Constitution confers no right to bear arms  Bacchus39   Jun-26-08 08:41 PM   #458 
  - Does Now.  Thothmes   Jun-27-08 06:37 PM   #539 
  - EEEEHHHHH  Endangered Specie   Jun-29-08 10:02 PM   #564 
  - Let Freedom Ring....  ileus   Jun-26-08 09:18 PM   #477 
  - Indeed! :)  1Hippiechick   Jun-26-08 09:24 PM   #479 
  - two words..virginia tech!!  scarface2004   Jun-26-08 10:42 PM   #491 
  - Guns were banned there, how did that work out?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jun-26-08 11:31 PM   #496 
  - "Funny how criminals and mentally unstable people don't seem to obey the law. " BINGO! n/t  1Hippiechick   Jun-27-08 07:29 AM   #514 
  - 2 words: APPALACHIA STATE  Endangered Specie   Jun-29-08 09:59 PM   #563 
  - 4 words: Pearl High School shooting  beevul   Jun-29-08 11:55 PM   #565 
  - Impeach Scalia  jamesA   Jun-26-08 11:38 PM   #497 
  - What high crime or misdemeanor do you believe Justice Scalia has committed?  slackmaster   Jun-27-08 10:31 AM   #523 
  - Wow, Epic thread...  beevul   Jun-27-08 05:23 PM   #533 
  - Divisiveness Accounts For The Length Of This Thread  Paladin   Jun-27-08 08:09 PM   #542 
     - A fair point, Paladin...  beevul   Jun-27-08 09:12 PM   #543 
     - Glad To Agree With You, Truly (n/t)  Paladin   Jun-28-08 07:47 AM   #545 
     - I dunno...  derby378   Jun-30-08 04:59 PM   #566 
     - What could possibly  xdoctor   Jun-28-08 11:05 PM   #554 
        - Try An Actual Response To My Comments (n/t)  Paladin   Jun-29-08 09:17 AM   #557 
  - Tough crowd derby  Tejas   Jun-28-08 08:09 PM   #550 
  - This Thread illustrates that some people are just absolutely clueless!!  Mercracer   Jun-28-08 08:42 PM   #552 
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. As expected.
Fuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. As expected, too. Wish it could have been stronger, but they're conservative (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
131. Obama should speak in favor of this ruling AND sponsor a senate bill in support
Time to start striking down bad gun laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #131
558. Yep, he'd win the GE in a landslide n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
32. remind me please... as im too tired to read all the articles...
but what exactly does the DC law do (did?) and why is was it important that this law be struck down?
It seems to me this kinda falls under states rights.
The states have certain rights to restrict dangerous things.
For those of you jumping up and down no one has E V E R suggested TAKING AWAY already owned weapons... only restricting CONTINUED SALES!

The general danger is and always has been that people with this kind of power (WEAPONS) ABUSE IT. Not all, certainly not even many.
But that's why there have been reasonable restrictions on firearms.

I don't know the details, so that's my 2 cents so far.

If the DC law was looking to actively take away people's firearms FROM THEIR HOME, then, yes I agree it should have been shot (no pun intended) down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #32
44. It went something like this...
You could only have a registered handgun in DC.

They stopped issuing registration certificates in 1976.

Long guns (rifles and shotguns) could not be kept loaded or otherwise ready for immediate use. They had to be either assembed or locked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulatio...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. thank you.. in THAT case.. yeah that's fucked up
if they stopped issuing licenses all together, then I agree that IS unreasonable!
I am concerned a bit about all this jubilation however.
Yes it takes away a major issue, but it also opens the doors to eliminate reasonable laws as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #49
85. Chicago has something similar
They're probably next.

The anti-gun city and states will cling to their laws because they're not going to be pushed around by "gun nuts", so it's going to take more lawsuits to get them overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #85
97. I just gots to see how all these conservative justices use the 14th! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #97
134. the 14th had nothing to do with this ruling
14th amendment incorporation wasn't addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #134
358. Yeah, I know. But the Supremes WILL have to deal with it (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #49
115. Well, the irony of course, is that literal minutes away in NOVA,
you can practically buy guns at the nearest 7-11. So I'm not sure how effective DC's laws were, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #115
223. This has to do with legal rights
not criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #223
325. Not talking about criminals
I'm saying that VA's gun laws are so loose, that I can remember seeing guns for sale *everywhere*. And of course, it's an extremely short hop from DC (which is tiny) to NOVA.

So even try as they might to regulate guns, I cannot imagine DC was very successful, since anyone wanting one - for legal or illegal use - was a very quick car ride or metro hop away from one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #325
335. You can't buy a legal handgun
outside of your state of residence. Short hop or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #49
170. No, I don't see that it does.
Yes it takes away a major issue, but it also opens the doors to eliminate reasonable laws as well.

No, I don't see that it does. The opinion specifically states that the existing Federal controls on automatic weapons, state restrictions on concealed carry without a license, state restrictions on carrying guns in schools and government buildings without authorization, background checks for purchase, prohibition on felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing guns, are OK.

What are NOT OK are sweeping bans on commonly owned guns (which would probably include the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), and the outlawing of armed self-defense in your own home.

This opinion changes nothing in most states, only those jurisdictions with draconian restrictions. It does put the kibosh on most of the gun-control lobby's ban-more agenda, though, but very little of that has been enacted outside of D.C, Chicago, and California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #170
275. actually, it kills trigger locks
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 12:30 PM by northzax
as mandated. and gun safes. I would interpret this ruling as superceeding any regulation about safety in the home entirely.

got a toddler in the house? keep your loaded pistol on the coffee table, you have the constitutional right to do so.


personally, as a DC resident, I can't wait to take my new gun to the fence just by the white house. it's for hunting, see? surely that will be legal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #275
296. It only kills the law that says a gun must always be unloaded and trigger-locked.
It would allow laws that make it a crime to leave a gun where a child can access it, as most states have. You can still prosecute people if a child gets hold of a gun. The purpose of the D.C. law wasn't child safety, but to outlaw keeping guns in a usable state for defensive purposes. It succeeded at that, which is why the Court struck it down.

The problem with D.C.'s law was that there was no legal way to have an assembled, loaded gun in a usable state in your own home, even if you didn't have young children.

I have two children (aged 9 and 7). We keep our guns in a safe when not in use, but at least one carbine in the safe is loaded when we are home. It is also legal for my wife or me to have a handgun on our person. It is NOT legal in this state for us to leave it lying on the coffee table for a child to play with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #296
305. i bet you are wrong
if it is unconstitutional to mandate trigger locks or safes, then that superceeds 'child safety' laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #305
332. No. The ruling was very clear that the problem was in outlawing self-defense.
The no-child-access laws of most states do not outlaw self-defense as D.C.'s law did. There is no constitutional hurdle to enacting criminal penalties for allowing a child unsupervised access; the problem is with D.C.-style laws that use preventing child access as an excuse to outlaw armed self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #332
376. Yes
There was also the case in D.C. in the 1970's where women were attacked in their home for several hours. Can't remember if any of them were killed, but for some reason the police also did not respond properly. Had these women been armed, they might well have been able to defend themselves.

"You can't beat a woman who shoots."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
43. as expected
but yeah!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
120. What a happy day! I couldn't have HOPED for a better ruling!
It would have been nice if they somehow could have added 14th amendment incorporation, but that wasn't the question in front of them.

OUR RIGHTS ARE SAFE!!!

Whoo-Hoo!

I am SO stoked today. I'm walking on clouds!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilinmad Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #120
139. Yippee...
...we can all keep our instruments of death. GUNS FUCKING SUCK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. Yahoo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leftist Agitator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #139
213. Firearms are an integral element to the preservation of freedom.
To say nothing of their value with respect to self defense.

:hi:

"GUNS FUCKING SUCK"

When society inevitaby collapses, we shall see if your shortsighted belief remains intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #213
322. This will be an interesting day as my ignore list grows exponentially
Gun lovers, get a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaspoor Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #322
352. bogus meme 101
i support gun rights.

i don't "love guns"

i support abortion rights

i don't "love abortion"

get it?

amazing that opponents of this fundamental civil right love to use ad hominems like "gun lover" "gun nut" "gun fanatic".

i don't note similar ad hominems used against supporters of other rights

"abortion lover" "privacy fanatic" "free speech lunatic"
etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #352
397. Right, join the list, I don't suffer gun lovers well.
The U.S. DOESN'T need a 'well armed militias', we have a MILITARY and POLICE force to protect us. You want to hunt, fine, but don't fucking tell me you NEED guns because it's your 'right' as a member of a militia, THAT is bullshit and a useless meme. You still have to REGISTER your guns, especially handguns, THAT is what the Court says today. This wasn't about rifles or shotguns, it was about owning handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #397
462. Read the decision
Part of it recognized the fact that this is an individual right, not one predicated on membership in any militia. Similarly, I don't expect to have to be a member of a government-organized "free speech club" in order to exercise my right to free speech.

Another part of it specifically addressed firearms other than handguns.

You really need to read decisions before commenting on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #462
464. I did and I don't agree which is my fucking right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invader zim Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #464
484. what about the american firearms worker ???
You seem to be actively working against good paying american manufacturing jobs. I guess only us auto workers jobs worth saving??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #464
524. You may not agree, which is your right, but it's now THE LAW.
Get over it. (Wow, I've been waiting years to be able to say that!!)

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #464
536. Of course it is your right to disagree
But you showed that you didn't read it, especially with your statement that it was only about handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RNG Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #397
511. MIlitary & Police
911. Government sponsored dial-a-prayer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #397
531. I don't have to register anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #322
365. Fascinating.
Are you choosing to ignore positions with which you disagree in response to a fear that you will otherwise be confronted with the possibility that your position is not rational?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #322
404. You can't handle reasonable discourse? Or, a different point of view other than your own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #404
411. Dumb question. I do not suffer the love of guns, and that is my opinion to which I AM entitled
Don't like those of us who feel those of you who love guns should be trying to do something good for humanity instead of discovering new ways to kill or maim others?

Too bad the gun nuts have as little tolerance of us as we do of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #411
417.  Owning a gun does not make one incapable of "doing something good for humanity"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #417
419. You missed the point, and I will not take the bait, goodbye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #419
470. No bait - simple question. Your premises do not make sense to me. I am just trying to understand,
and what do I get? Insults. Tsk, tsk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #322
441. You put people on ignore for supporting rights guaranteed in the Constitution?
on ignore? maybe you should 'get a life' - or at least some perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #441
463. It's my 'right', but I guess only rights you believe in are ok
typical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #463
481. Not at all. Your comment in your profile is interesting. Why so angry? Asking questions and trying
to create a meaningful dialog is the key to communication and understanding. We have opposing viewpoints, but can't those be discussed calmly? I certainly am not angry, but I am interested in why you are so angry. Is that an ok question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #481
517. Exactly - happens with my wife and I all the time
If we can discuss our differences and remain calm about it, surely it can't be that hard for everyone else to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #463
500. It seems you chose your user name aptly.
bravo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #322
530. The length of your ignore list indicates just how narrow minded you are.
What's wrong with being challenged about your beliefs? I never have understood why some liberals are so quick to be narrow minded and judgemental.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #213
380. Amen!!
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 05:11 PM by VermeerLives
Without the right to self defense, what other rights are there? It is the second amendment, after all, not the fifth, the sixth, or the tenth.

"Freedom of choice includes the right to choose to prevail in a violent encounter."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #380
399. The right to self defense, how many people DIE every year either 'protecting themselves'
or their families or friends (or children) who mishandle a gun. Don't give us that shit. I was plenty proficient in handling and using guns of all types before I realized they didn't save lives, they took them.

Cya
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #399
418. Good question. Where are your facts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #418
421. Find them yourself, Miss one-liner
real easy.

Step one, install Google toolbar.

Step two, think about a question about gun deaths you may want to ask the all powerful Google

Step three, read answers.

But I'm asking too much, aren't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #421
445. It seems those most against this individual freedom
are always the angriest, loudest, and nastiest in these discussions. My theory is they know that they themselves can't be trusted with the responsibility of firearms ownership so they believe everyone is as angry and irresponsible as they are.

Ignore, ignore, ignore

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #445
457. Yes, it prevents me from wasting my time on bullshit
or dwelling on death and those who think dealing death is a right. Including you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #457
467. You are approaching this subject from the standpoint of gun owners perpetrating an offense rather
than protecting themselves. Please go back and look at some of the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc., regarding the right for individuals to bear arms. Their quotes were from the era that our Contsitution was written. So, my question to you is this: how does today's decision violate our Constitution?

There are two sides to this coin. I sincerely hope that you or a loved one is never a victim of serious crime. What if a loved one were murdered in your presence and you had no means to protect them or yourself, and there were no time to dial 911, or the phone could have been ripped out of the wall, or a thousand other scenarios. Think about it.

My other relevant question to you is this: since you are so against the death caused by guns, I'm guessing that you are proLife--opposed to the death penalty, abortion, etc. Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #421
461. Now, see? Hurling insults at me for asking you to back your argument, and I did it nicely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #461
465. What insults? You don't know how to use Google, not my fault
(sigh) and I thought we were progressive here, not regressive. BTY, can you formulate more than one sentence at a time, or is that too much to ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #465
469. Incorrect assumption
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #469
472. Goodbye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #472
475. U-hyu'-s-ti
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #472
490. FIVE HUNDRED AND ONE POSTS... I wonder if
Universal Healh Care or even the Iraq War would get that many?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #421
519. It is fundamentally dishonest...
...to respond to a request for a substantiation of your claim by demanding that those making the request do the research on their own. As you have made specific claims, it is your responsibility to supply evidence for them, and it is dishonest for you to refuse to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #213
504. Tell that to citizens of nations that are MUCH freer than the United States
They would (and do) laugh at you. And rightly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #504
561. Which countries? Europe limits free speech and gun ownership quite severely...
Not to mention some countries (U.K) have a CCTV camera for every three citizens.

Which countries are you talking about again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamesA Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #120
498. Impeach Scalia now !
Its time to impeach Scalia, and make room fro Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. The democratic Congress can make it hapen, right after the first Tuesday in November. Then we can all walk on the clouds!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaspoor Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
350. 5-4
was surprising. several knowledgeable folks, on great legal blogs like scotusblog and volokh.com predicted a 7-2 or even 9-0. i was surprised it was as close as it was

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
439. Why is every other attack on the constitution bad, but not the 2nd?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mercracer Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
551. Some Just Don't Get It!!! Not a Clue!!!!
The issue was NOT overturning the requirement of safe storage. The issue was NOT overturning the requirement to secure guns so that children can not readily get a hold of them and harm themselves and others. The issue WAS that a gun lock could NEVER EVER EVER EVER be removed from the firearm while it was in your home especially if you needed to use it for self defense. You could NEVER do something so simple as clean or inspect your guns in your home... The DC Gun Ban prohibited DC citizens from ever using a gun for self defense in their home. This is plain and simple. THIS is why the law was found to be in CLEAR direct contradiction to the CONUS!!!! A City, County State, etc CAN NOT implement legislation to strip away our Constitutional Rights!!! The "right" to self defense supercedes even the CONUS!! The 2nd Amendment is not the source of your right to defend yourself. It merely affirms this basic human right which everyone naturally has. It goes right along with the Rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLib at work Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. It is just what BushCo and minions ordered!!!
Tell me again how there was no difference between Bush and Gore ...or Bush and Kerry!!!!!!!!!!!
They have made a mockery of the Supreme Court..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Why woud Bush have "ordered" this ruling?
This ruling is contrary to the brief that the Bush Administration submitted to the court in support of DC's position. Why would they have "ordered" a ruling to contradict their brief, and in what way does this ruling demonstrate a "mockery" of the Supreme Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. so the gun industry profits
you really think this is about rights? Fascists in the Supreme Court don't give a shit about rights. They protect those who want to profit and they rule to protect that profit taking irregardless of the People's rights.

TO many have been sucked into the NRA meme.... now if only these same folks worked so hard to keep this FISA bill from passing.... yeah rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Are you saying that you disagree with the ruling,
or are you saying that you disagree with the alleged motivation behind the ruling? If it is the latter, what evidence have you that "gun industry profits" directly motivated the ruling. If it is the former, what evidence have you that "gun industry profits" directly motivated the ruling and why do you believe that the ruling should have been different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. Why Yes I DO... That's My Right
get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Ahh....the "neener neener" gambit.
Well played, sir....well played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #31
113. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir pball Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #31
219. I think at this point...
"neener neener" is our gambit...seriously, if I were in the neighborhood, I'd be standing in front of Brady or VPC HQ with my thumbs in my ears, flapping my fingers, sticking my tongue out and going "thbpthhhhhhhhhhhhh".

As is, I'm just going to rip off a few hundred rounds into some innocent milk jugs :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #219
403. I celebrated today...
by picking up my renewal for my concealed carry permit. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir pball Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #403
409. Amateur.
My CCW is good till 2011 (I think PA is 5 years...at any rate it isn't going out soon) so I went through ~300 rounds of .45, same of .223, and 100 of .308. Jugs of water are So Satisfying to shoot!

Now that the guns are clean and away, it's two gigantic juicy ribeyes on the grill and a nice bottle of Bordeaux that I got yesterday in anticipation (prolly would have shot it if the ruling went the other way ;)). Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #409
425. But my CCW is now good until June 2013!
I suppose that must have been .45 ACP you were firing. Gotta Model 1911 right here with military holster, web belt and clip pouches just like I had when I qualified expert with on in 1970 in Seoul.

Those high caliber rounds are fun but also expensive. Lately I've been shooting my .22 rifle and pistol at cans hanging from strings. Being quite the hick, my back porch is my range. My recent target shooting favorite is black powder. It's as much fun to load as it is to shoot. But when it's time to put food on the table I reach for my Browning BAR II Safari .30-06.

I'm glad you've enjoyed the day. That meal sounds top notch too.

Lasher

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir pball Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #425
435. Cheaper...
If you handload. You should look into it, it's really not that pricey for a few calibers.

After the press and components, the 45 is about 12 round assuming 5 rounds per brass, the 308 is 50 per round assuming the same...the 223 is Wolf, like 12 once-used :)

A 185-gr JHP ACP out of a 1911 is FUN to put into a gallon of water at 10 yards...SPLOOSH!

But the steaks and wine were even better!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
40. Your reply is ambiguous.
I asked whether you held one position or another. Saying that "you do" does not constitute a logical response to my inquiry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #25
42. Next, we're going after the Chicago handgun ban...
with the intent of seeking 14th amendment incorporation so that the individuals right to keep and bear arms applies to the states.

From there, it's on to overturning a myriad of state gun control laws.

Get used to it! :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #42
64. Dumb... nice twisting of the Constitution (no militia)
thanks for making America a less safe place only so gun manufacturers can profit.

Never was about the right to protect oneself from a tyrannous government. If it were, we'd have militias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. What is this "militia" you speak of?
Didn't you just get the memo?

It's an individual right... get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #69
83. Militia... nice try though
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 10:03 AM by fascisthunter
but the debate on this is not over no matter how many times you twist the Constitution for your obsession with guns.

You don't fool me one bit though you already fooled yourself. It's not about rights or the constitution, not for you.


It's about the right to sell arms to "individuals".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #83
229. And I'm buying
Not that anything stopped me before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #83
405. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #69
127. Yes it is, as of today.
I think this is the first majority ruling in probably half a century that references the second amendment in overturning a non-federal law.

The question now is where that consitutionally-protected individual right ends and reasonable government policy begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biermeister Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #127
140. exactly! someone else noticed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #127
265. Jefferson - Right You Are
And as you point out the next parts are to be determined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #64
87. Militia?
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 10:00 AM by krispos42
-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.



http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

<boldface mine>


That's about 55 million males in the militia, and maybe 30k females. Sounds a little gender-biased, this militia-only argument thingy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
249. Old Richard is pissed about the decision
crooks have always favored gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
309. Another red X added to my 'gun'
that's my right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. If you're so concerned about fascism, why do you support gun control? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. Gun Control... LOL. Can You Own a Nuke
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 09:30 AM by fascisthunter
save the rhetoric. Where's your militia... ya... didn't think so.

All about fear, cowards, suckers and profit takers. Not about your rights. With a gun, you endanger more than protect. But don't let your ego stop ya. Fascists love guns.. it give them a sense of security. Might makes right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. Typical. Your fear of fascism is 2 hours in a movie house...
So, how serious are you about fascism when you give the government the power to control arms? Not very, evidently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
57. right..... guns will protect ya... keep telling yourself that
and when it comes time, pray to the ghost in the sky that you don't blow an innocents head off. Your pee shooter will do nothing to stop tyranny. Only political solutions and peaceful solutions will ever do anything. Meanwhile, you'll feel safe thinking you will know what to do when that Hollywood script presents itself. I find this whole debate laughable.

No wonder America has selected the likes of Bush for two terms. Everybody thinks they are John Wayne.... FEAR without THINKING. More guns will only make us less secure and de-evolved as a society. May as well get rid of the Police Force too... who needs their protection anymore, we'll just privatize security and leave personal security up to the individual.

Fear is the motive behind the need for gun protection. It begins with fear and rolls downhill from there. It's why we have an arms race, but hey, don't let those facts stop ya.

PS - arming yourself will not make you safer from your own government. Tank meets SteveM. That destroys your theory that people like me want you to at the whims of your government. You already are unless you try to change the government. Having a gun is ban aid on your insecurity and if you are planning on protecting yourself from your government you might want to pay attention to those other freedoms you are presently losing. Those freedoms that allowed you more protection than any idiot gun you will ever hold in your hand.

I see people filled with fear grasping for guns because they gave up on trying to fix a mess. More band aids for the fearful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
95. Again: why do you fear fascism, yet support gun control? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KneelBeforeZod Donating Member (146 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #57
165. No worries ...
>> and when it comes time, pray to the ghost in the sky that you don't blow an innocents head off.

I'm a pretty good shot. No worries.

>> Only political solutions and peaceful solutions will ever do anything.

Tell that to the couple that was murdered execution-style after a home-invasion in Pasadena, TX just this week.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5856533.html

If they'd been armed, the other guy might've died instead.

>> More guns will only make us less secure and de-evolved as a society.

The right to self-defense is pretty fundamental. If you're attacked with deadly force, you have the right to kill your attacker. Gun laws do not take guns from criminals -- as a criminal, by definition, doesn't abide by laws -- it only takes guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

Forcibly disarming the good guys isn't much of a solution to crime or tyranny. When only the bad guys have guns -- be they criminals or tyrants -- they will always win.

KBZ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #57
190. "arming yourself will not make you safer from your own government. Tank meets SteveM"
I believe that idea is currently under review in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #190
235. And was illustrated
against Russia in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #235
382. Nicely put!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leftist Agitator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
248. Small arms and small explosives seem to have done a bang-up job (no pun intended)...
...against the greatest military power that the world has ever known in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Your pee shooter will do nothing to stop tyranny."

Sure thing, boyo.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
273. fascisthunter...How Ironic
Since the most infamous "fascist hunter" used a GUN to kill a DEMOCRATIC President of the United States. :sarcasm: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #57
406. Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races
to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
- Adolf Hitler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
70. why dont you read the oppinion
it will answer many of your questions

its much more productive than fear mongering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pt22 Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
91. Nothing personal, but that opinion is batshit insane.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. What... the fact arms are regulated
but pro-gunners still throw out the same meme to support their insane need for guns or the sale of guns? Then I'd agree.... it is insane especially to pretend this issue is about our collective rights. It's about an industry being able to sell guns to individuals who care less about the fact that guns make society less safe. But man does it feel good to hold one. Make little men feel like big shots.

Well, I say every person who buys a gun for security should sign a waiver saying, no need for police to come to their homes when something happens. Afterall, a gun makes them safer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pt22 Donating Member (400 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #96
99. No shit. When seconds count, the police can be there in mere minutes.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
408. Read a cop's point of view on that subject - post 277
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #96
105. Amusing a thought as that is... no that's not right
The police, such as they are, need to protect everyone, even the gun licking toadies.
EVERYONE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #105
123. Kind of a moot point...
... since gun nuts don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves. It's so much tidier that way: with your victim dead, there's no way s/he's going to contradict your side of the story. With police, you've got all of those inconvenient things like due process of law, it's just a nuisance. Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #123
178. Well, you have smeared tens of millions of your fellow Americans...
Maybe that is why "liberal" Democrats have had such a hard time winning elections; I mean, who wants to vote for a "philosophy" that sanctions smearing of tens of millions of Americans.

I see you are a fan of Gandhi. So am I:

"Taking life may be a duty...Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Gandhi, M., SELECTIONS FROM GANDHI, by Nirmal Kumar Bose, Navajivan Pub. House, Ahmedabad, 1948.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #178
198. Ironic...
... that out of of all of the teachings of a man renowned for his abhorence of violence and devotion to peaceful resolutions of disputes, even at the cost of self-sacrifice, you should latch on to that one quote. Ghandi must be spinning in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #198
228. Since you like Gandhi...
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #198
319. Another Gandhiji quote
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 01:48 PM by bean fidhleir
"Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly ... has made us think we cannot ... even defend our homes and families".

(That's not a "selective" quote - the material I elided was lead-in about Britain's occupying army)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #178
295. THANK YOU! Especially for the Gandhi quote!
Jesus, these threads... *sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:13 AM
Original message
If somebody enters my home in the middle of the night
knowing that my family and I are at home, I think it's a safe bet they're not there for a social call. But I'll be sure and politely ask them to wait a few minutes while I call 911.

:sarcasm:

Better yet, I'll kill the motherfucker and THEN call 911 to have them pick up the body. If it comes down to him or me (or one of my loved ones), it's going to be HIM that gets it. If that's a problem for you, don't come through my door at 1:00 AM.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
193. Then again, maybe it's just your spouse...
... having snuck outside for a cigarette. And, as you say, you'll kill that motherfucker and have the police pick up the body. Thanks, you just made my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #193
215. Nope, my spouse doesn't have to sneak outside for a smoke.
We go to bed together, and generally get up together (oh, and we smoke together too ... we still have that right also). And my doggies will sound the first alarm so I'll be wide awake and knowing exactly who/what I'm shooting at.

Contrary to popular belief, at least among the gun-grabbers, not all of us are "gun nuts" who will blast away at anything that moves without making sure it's necessary. Nice attempt to paint us all with that broad brush, though.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #215
224. Glad you're so confident
I sincerely hope you aren't mistaken. Whether you personally are or are not vindicated in that optimism only time will tell, but whether you ultimately are or aren't doesn't change the fact that a great many innocent people die every year at the hands of people just like you who are totally sure that they could never make a mistake... and are proven wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #224
307. I'd love to see your empirical statistics
regarding the number of people who are shot and killed BY MISTAKE in someone else's home because they were mistakenly thought to be a burglar/home invader. You can include the family members, if you wish, who are mistakenly shot and killed.

In other words, "LINK PLEASE."

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #307
311. Why?
Does it make a difference to you whether it's 10,000 dead each year or 1,000 or 100? How many innocent corpses are you will to step over in order to be allowed to continue playing with your lethal toys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #311
314. Why? Because I think you're full of bullshit, that's why.
And you just gave yourself away, anyhow. To you it doesn't make a difference whether it's 10,000 or 100. If you can find EVEN ONE, you'll take away our "lethal toys."

Stop being so condescending to the other side and we MIGHT listen to you. We don't look at them as toys. I treat my firearm with the utmost respect and care. I'd prefer never to have to use it except for target practice (on inanimate objects, if you must ask). I have the utmost respect for all human life. But so help me God, if I have to use my firearm and kill someone in order to save the life of one of my loved ones, I will.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #314
317. And, lucky you, in this country, you get to shoot me for that
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 01:47 PM by KevinJ
All you got to do is say that you thought I was a threat and, hey, your conscience is clear. And, of course, you needn't worry about me contradicting you because, hey, I'll be dead!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #317
326. Don't break into my house in the middle of the night while I'm there, and you'll be fine.
On the other hand, if you DO, then you're probably right. You won't be able to contradict me.

I neither "get to" nor would I want to shoot you for disagreeing with me, or for being full of shit, or any other reason short of being an imminent threat to my life or the life of my loved ones. Another nice attempt at a straw man. You're not doing your argument any good at all like this.

I'm still waiting for that link, if one exists.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #326
329. And you're going to recognize an "imminent threat" how, precisely?
See, the rub here is that breaking and entering isn't a death penalty offense. Well, excuse me, I guess I'm wrong about that in that, if I break into the house of a gun owner, they get to judge and execute me immediately without a trial based upon whatever kind of threat their adrenaline pumped imaginations think I may pose to them. C'mon, you can't imagine someone being alone at home, late at night, reading Alfred Hitchcock, hearing a strange sound downstairs in the dark, and going off half-cocked? I mean, of course, it would never happen to you, because, as you've explained, you're the world's first infallable human being incapable of ever making a mistake, but can you not imagine lesser mortals making such a mistake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #329
334. How does this figure into whether individual gun ownership is Constitutional?
If you don't like guns, don't think people need guns, don't like people that think they need guns, or generally find guns and their owners distasteful, have at it. However, your personal dislike of firearms and/or their owners doesn't really matter one whit when it comes to the issue that was before the Supreme Court.

If you think the Court got it wrong on Consitutional ground, let's here why. If you think that a Constitutional amendment is necessary and wise, let's here why. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind, even by internet standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #334
337. See post 128
But you're right: as usual, the thread has strayed from the original topic. But that's natural - people come here not only to discuss the specific details of a decision or policy, but what they perceive to be the probable consequences of that development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #337
342. You're taking a rather ridiculous position with that as well.
Until today, the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms. The problem enters in when you a cherry picked group of ultra right-wing justices conclude that the Framers were on crack when they wrote the Constitution and really didn't intend to include the language about a well-regulated milita - that bit just somehow was slipped in by accident but nobody ever really intended for it to be there - and extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry a new right which never existed. But that's not the Second Amendment's fault - the Second Amendment has always been quite clear - that's purely the fault of right-wingers trying to give a veneer of legality to the achievement of their Wild West wet dream by attributing their homicidal aspirations to the Second Amendment.

You may think that the Court got it wrong, but to try and argue tha the 2A "was always understood" as a collective right and that today's interpretation somehow pulled a "new right" out of thin air is just rubbish. There have been good-faith arguments on both sides of the issue, and I think we are beeter off because the more persuasive arguments carried the day at the Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #342
345. More persuasive arguments? Please!
As if Scalia and Roberts gave a shit about legal reasoning. You could drive a locomotive through the holes in the "logic" they've traditionally employed in justifying their decisions. They're right-wing ideologues, always have been, always will be. Right-wing ideology governs their decisions, not whose arguments are more persuasive.

I'm not sure why you claim it's "rubbish" to state that the prevailing legal wisdom on the Second Amendment has been what it has been for the past 200 years. It's all right there in black and white. In ruling after ruling, the courts have held that the well-regulated militia language included in the Second Amendment probably wasn't there by accident and the Second Amendment therefore did not impart an absolute right to firearm ownership. That kind of makes today's ruling stand out as a landmark change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #345
360. By all means point out the locomotive-sized holes in the logic of today's opinion.

You could drive a locomotive through the holes in the "logic" they've traditionally employed in justifying their decisions. They're right-wing ideologues, always have been, always will be. Right-wing ideology governs their decisions, not whose arguments are more persuasive.

Conspicuously absent from from that passage is any mention of what today's opinion got wrong.

I'm not sure why you claim it's "rubbish"

Because you are absolutely wrong to suggest that there was unity about the scope of the 2A. By and large, courts did their damndest to avoid the question, and they were pretty successful at doing so. If you think there was academic unity on the subject, then I can only conclude you chose to remain wilfully ignorant about the scholarship that did not support your interpretation of the 2A, despite it being there so plainly in black and white.

Isn't that funny, by the way, how your own interpretation of the 2A is plain for any reasonable person to see, while the contrary interpretation is a "Wild West wet dream" inspired by "homicidal aspirations?" I read the briefs in this case, and I listened to the oral arguments, and I didn't find the issue black and white in the least, despite my preferred outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #342
359. Self-delete
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 03:45 PM by Raskolnik
wrong place


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #329
373. Imminent threat
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 04:57 PM by VermeerLives
Kevin: Anyone breaking into your home, your safe haven, is by definition an "imminent threat." Particularly if you have a spouse and children. And especially of they have a weapon of their own, and start heading for the bedrooms. That shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

If you are worried about someone else being your judge, jury, and executioner, then don't break into someone else's home. That's the real mistake. Your reasoning makes no sense at all, and seems to indicate that you are more concerned about the criminal than the potential victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #373
384. By whose definition?
I know, I know, that is the existing legal definition just about everywhere. But, you know, I keep thinking about crime report reports I used to read in my parents' small town newspaper, in which they described how someone broke into so-and-so's house and stole a ham sandwich and a bottle of beer from the refrigerator and left. Okay, so this was a pretty small town and obviously not all crime is that innocent, but conversely, the blanket assumption that any type of crime constitutes an imminent threat warranting the utilization of deadly force seems like overkill. I mean, if someone were arrested breaking into someone's home, they might get, what, a few years in jail? Certainly no one would ever be executed for simple B&E. But if the owner happens to be at home and has a gun, then suddenly it's okay to execute someone on the spot. You suggest that I'm more concerned about the criminals than the potential victims. Well, the key word there for me is "potential." For all you know, when you creep down the stairs in the dead of night with your gun, the source of the strange noise you heard may have been someone in trouble and in need of help, maybe they just needed food to feed themselves, or maybe they're a drug addict who just wants to rip off your stereo in order to support their habit. Who knows? Certainly you won't, pumped to the gills with adrenaline, tip-toeing about in the dark. I remember one occasion from my own experience when I was a teenager living in my parents' house. We had been awakened in the middle of the night by a strange noise coming from the garage and found a badly beaten woman who had been fleeing her abusive spouse and sought shelter from the inclement weather in our garage. Legally, according to this prevailing definition, simply by virtue of having entered our property, she constituted an imminent threat and we would have been within our rights to kill her on the spot, no questions asked. Happily, we weren't armed and didn't believe is was appropriate to shoot first and ask questions later, so we listened to her story, took her to the hospital, found her a homeless shelter, and put her in touch with a good lawyer. How often do such things happen? I honestly don't know, but I'm very wary of blanket definitions which give people authority to take human life because you don't know. And, if it were the case, as in the situation I experienced with a "break-in," that the "criminal" was simply seeking shelter or food or whatever, at no point posed any danger to you or your family, and you blew him away anyway without knowing anything about what he was doing there, I'd have to say it was the "criminal" who was the victim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #384
396. It is impossible to discern the intention of a home invader.
Therefore it is irrational and unreasonable to suggest that a home occupant be required to restrain the use of force against a home invader. As the possibility that the invader wishes to do harm is nonzero, a home occupant is and should be legally justified in using deadly force to repel the invader.

That individuals who illegally enter the dwelling of another individual may not have nefarious intent yet may still be met with deadly force is unfortunate, but it is irrational, unethical and unresonable to require that homeowners assume that any home invader does not have intent to cause harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #396
494. Excellent points!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #384
423. Kevin, you raise some excellent points
I can tell from your post that you are a good person and have a concern for doing what is right, and you are to be commended for that. The situations you described require judgment, as do all such circumstances. Bless you and your family for recognizing that and taking care of someone.

It is very important to understand the seriousness of owning a gun. The responsible gun owner does not wish for the day they can shoot someone. Sometimes showing your weapon is enough for someone to leave, and I don't think shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing, especially if they are unarmed, is right. Sometimes what is required is to keep someone there until the police arrive, if the intruder doesn't have a weapon. That happens, too. I would never, ever advocate simply shooting someone just to shoot.

But if an intruder is armed, they usually mean business, and once a line is crossed, like coming up the stairs toward the bedrooms, then it becomes a completely different manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #423
430. Thanks
I appreciate the gesture of civility, there's so little of it to be found on this topic on either side, and I confess I'm no better. I see images of innocent people lying dead from gunshot injuries and it's very dificult for me to be as calmly rational as I would like to be. Thank you again and have a good evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #384
466. So it seems you believe the home owner should
watch the murder, injury, or other heinous act against themselves or a family member, be a good witness and let the courts decide at a later date what is suitable punishment? Or allow the intruder to kill them and hope the police catch the perp before he kills again...sooner or later the perp will see justice, huh?

Maybe criminals in your neighborhood only B&E for ham sandwiches, in my neighborhood some B&Es play out something like this which happened not far from my house just a few years ago...

The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had serious criminal records when they began their spree. On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against 23-year-old assistant baseball coach Andrew Schreiber. Three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian Ann Walenta as she tried to escape from them in her car.

Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when they invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and a young woman identified as H.G. , all in their twenties, were spending the night. Initially scouring the house for valuables, they forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual humiliation, including rape and sodomy. They also forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They then drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before finally bringing them to a snowy deserted soccer complex on the outskirts of town and shooting them execution-style in the backs of their heads, leaving them for dead. The Carr brothers then drove Befort's truck over the bodies. Muller was a pre-school teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School. Every year the school awards a deserving 8th grade student the Heather Muller Love of Mary Award.

They returned to the house to ransack it for more valuables. It was then they claimed their final victim, Nikki, H.G.'s muzzled dog who was beaten and stabbed to death.

H.G. survived (thanks to her plastic hairpin having deflected the bullet), after running naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to report the attack and seek medical attention. In a much-remarked point of tragedy, she had seen her boyfriend Befort shot, after having learned of his intention to propose marriage when the Carrs, by chance, discovered the engagement ring hidden in a can of popcorn.

The Carr brothers, who took few precautions, were captured by the police the next day, and Reginald was identified by Schreiber and the dying Walenta. Law enforcement officials ultimately decided that the Carrs' motive was robbery, despite the other aspects of the crime.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #466
473. Actually, I have an apparently novel suggestion
... which is get the hell out and go to some place of safety. Strangely, though, that never seems to occur to people who profess to be so concerned about the safety of themselves and their family, all they ever want to do is whip out their six shooter and walk right on in to the OK Corral, thereby assuring that shots will be fired. Me, I'd take my family and bolt out the nearest window and call the police from the safety of a neighbor's house. I don't have to kill anyone, no one has to kill me, everyone's happy. So no, to answer your question, obviously I do not propose sitting around and watching a bona fide homicidal maniac carve up my family. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I understand that you would rather just dismiss my point of view as that of an irrational idealist, but I'm afraid I can't oblige you. I do believe in protecting the safety of myself and my family, I just don't happen to agree that the best way to accomplish that is by charging into an unknown situation with guns blazing. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #473
486. That is the rub,
to pretend that because roughly 1/3 of American households have a gun for self defense, the owners of said guns are blood thirsty maniacs not capable of making a rational decision concerning their own safety. Utilizing every alternative to killing another person as any trained (and most are trained) gun owner would. Roughly 1/3 of American households have guns for self defense yet no OK Corral, imagine that. In addition, your choice not to own guns is dandy, it is hard to argue that you enjoy some deterrent value to those with less than savory intentions not knowing if there is a homeowner with a gun on the other side of your door.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank4570 Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #473
489. Hopefully your neighbors will come to your rescue.
You seriously underestimate the speed and violence of a criminal home invasion. You won't be gathering anybody up and rushing them out the window. If you are even still on your feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dimensio0 Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #473
529. It is also unreasonable
to demand that a home occupant flee his or her home, possessions and family instead of defending them. While a home occupant should certainly be free to do so, the law should not require such action.

I believe that it is fundamentally irrational to suggest that the consequences of a home invasion lay upon the occupants of the home; the consequences of a home invasion are the direct responsibility of the invader, up to and including the death of the invader from the actions of the occupants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SublimeFan1978 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-28-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #384
553. KevinJ
Have you ever thought about writing as a hobby?

You certainly have a vivid and wild enough imagination. This entire thread is full of you with your puppies and bunnies getting mowed down by crazed gun owners stories while completely ignoring the facts.

I normally just lurk, but I have read your imaginative stories one after the other and frankly, I wonder where you became so angry and acquired such a negative stereotype towards gun owners.

I thought we were the party that doesn't profile and discriminate and fights against prejudice?

Many criminals burglarize houses to feed drug habits which in case you've never done drugs(unlikely) means these people are dealing with less than perfect rationale. Plus, with the implementation of 3rd strike rule many criminals find is easier to kill witnesses instead of facing them on the witness stand.

There are 300 million guns owned by 80 million Americans. If a VERY small minority abuse that right, then you don't remove that right from the rest of America. If everyone lost the right to free speech because Fred Phelps is an Asshole (capital A)then we'd all be screaming bloody murder as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #329
492. You are in my house at night, you are an imminent threat by nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #492
502. So I guess I should have shot the battered spouse sheltering in my garage?
Edited on Fri Jun-27-08 01:59 AM by KevinJ
How about the young woman I found hiding on my porch just this week, who was waiting for a couple of tough-looking guys who were hanging out in front of her house to depart? You think I should have iced her too? After all, she was on my property after dark, ergo, by your reasoning, an imminent threat simply by virtue of her presence. Damn, there's pretty cold. Here's hoping no one ever shows up on your doorstep in need of assistance, they'll evidently get nothing more than a chestful of lead from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #502
515. Your garage is not your house.
A person in your garage does not pose an imminent threat to your life. If you are going to say I said something, do it accurately, misleading people doesn't serve your cause. I said someone in MY house at night, is an imminent threat by nature. I have 5 large dogs, so if you decide to break in to my house at night then you are a threat. Notice I didn't say garage or property, I leave it to you and the republicans to misrepresent people to try and make a point.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #326
526. If you break into my house, you are an imminent threat
Whether you're here to steal my TV or rape my wife or kill my family, it's not my job to guess. You don't want to risk being shot, don't break into my house. Plain and simple. You're an imminent threat solely because you're in my house at 2:00AM and I don't know if there's more of you outside or what your intentions are, and I'm not going to ask.

California makes it awfully hard to defend yourself, but fortunately juries are sympathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #317
379. If you enter someone else's house without their permission, you are a threat. (NT)
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 05:08 PM by VermeerLives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #193
401. weak argument. People ARE allowed to speak and say, "Identify yourself". Some of these posts
make me think that the ppl opposed to handgun ownership are the very ppl who don't need guns which is great. You can't handle a gun, don't get one, but leave alone the rest of us who KNOW how to use guns and use common sense, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
299. Well, somebody did try to break into our house
when we were asleep at night. He tried to jimmy open a downstairs window. It woke me up. I woke up my husband who went to the closet to get his gun.

I walked over to the window and pushed out the metal window fan. It went crashing downstairs and just missed the guy. Think he struck around? He ran the hell out of there. In addition, when that fan hit the concrete below, it woke half the neighborhood who came running out to see what happened.

Nope, the burglar was long gone by the time my husband got that gun out of the closet.

I also defended myself once with a hot steam iron, but I don't bore you with that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #299
424. Defending yourself with a hot steam iron would not be boring, IMHO. Tell away!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #424
451. I was 19 and working in a dress shop
Guy came into the store flashing a knife, went right over to the register, and the took the money out. I was ironing a dress, just stood there and let him take the money without saying or doing anything. He then started coming towards ME. That made me mad. He got his money. Get away from me. I yanked the iron out of the socket and threw it at him. The ironing board fell over. The iron just missed him, hot water splashing all over, and crashed though the plate glass window. The owner's dog was sleeping in the back bathroom. All the noise woke him up and he came running into the store barking and snarling.

That guy turned and ran out of there like a bat outta hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #451
459. Glad you weren't hurt. It's that "fight or flight" thing, and used what you had to defend yourself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
471. I was gong to make a snappy comment about you 'killing the motherfucker'
but if you think having a loaded gun that close to you thinking you will react fast enough while keeping your family from hurting themselves or their friends with a loaded gun in plain sight, I don't need to make a snappy comment. The gun is simply an extension of your penis, nothing more.

'Kill the motherfucker'. What if that 'motherfucker' was your kid sneaking in past curfew and you just happened to think they should be picked up after you call 911?

Beyond bravado, just plain stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #471
525. Yes, let's all pity the "motherfucker" who breaks into others' homes
Poor, poor "motherfucker." I'm sure somehow it's MY fault he is forced to break into my house in tyhe middle of the night. Maybe I should just offer him a ham sandwich, since that's clearly what he's there for. We could sit up all night and watch movies on cable.

And I DO know the difference between a home invader and a battered spouse seeking shelter. Unlike you, perhaps, I **have** had someone trying to break down my door with me on the other side of it trying to push it closed. (Oh, by the way, I called the cops that night, and when they got there 45 MINUTES LATER the perp was long gone - fortunately it was ME pushing back on the door and not my wife or child!) I've walked out to my car the next morning to find a threat written in the dust on my back windshield, "I'm going to fuck up your girl."

I bought my first gun that same week.

Sorry, but in my book, somebody who wants to do harm to me or my family IS a motherfucker. And if he comes into MY house, he's going to be a DEAD motherfucker. Call it bravado if you wish; I really don't care. THE LAW OF THE LAND says I have the constitutional right to own a firearm. You don't like it? GET OVER IT.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #525
532. Excellent response, I'm sure you are on ignore now.
I know that probably hurts your feelings. It's funny though now he'll lose every argument, he just won't know it.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #525
538. .........................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #123
214. Ummm... Hi, I'm Reality. Nice to meet you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #214
240. Thanks, you keep making my points for me!
Let me explain something so basic I can scarcely believe I need to explain it: police officers are professionals engaged in law enforcement, they are trained to deal with dangerous situations and their jobs exist to deal with precisely those situations. They are supposed to be the ones who deal with those instances when the use of deadly force cannot be avoided. Yet, according to your little graph, citizens, who have no training and whose number of homocides should be zero, routinely rival or even exceed the kill rate of the pros! Oh yeah, I feel safer now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #240
254. I think you need one of these



Or perhaps one of these:




Because you are wound up tight.


People all across the country, every single day, find themselves dealing with dangerous situation precisely because those that have the training and equipment, aren't there!

Every day, ordinary citizens save people from drowning, use CPR to stop heart attacks, pull kids out of burning cars, perform the heimlich maneuver to save chokers, etc., all without proper training or equipment, because the professionals weren't there!.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #254
263. ... and every day, ordinary citizens kill innocent people. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #263
293. So do the police
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #263
302. 13470 in 2006
That's how many people died because of unrestricted alcohol consumption along with driving licensed but still dangerous automobiles. This doesn't even include liver disease! I think they were right when they passed the amendment banning alcohol, it's evil and must be stopped!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #240
321. You DID notice that the chart said "justifiable homicides" didn't you?
Justified, as in NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS KILLED BY MISTAKE?

By the way, it's "homicide," not "homocide" .... just sayin'.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #321
323. Yeah, but who really knows what happened?
It turns out now that nearly half the guys on death row, who underwent years of trials and appeals and intensive investigations, have been exonerated by DNA evidence of the crimes for which they were convicted. Even under the most carefully crafted, controlled settings we can muster, we've proven that we are ultimately incapable of determining guilt with any reliability. But I'm supposed to have faith, based solely upon the say so of the individual responsible for committing a homocide, that the killing was justifiable and such people never make mistakes in judgement or make serf-serving misstatements to the police? I dunno, I always find those "justifiable homocide" stats kind of questionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #323
328. Please stop spelling it "homocide"
Someone will misinterpret you.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #328
330. Oops, sorry, my bad
Thanks for the correction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #240
426. 1. cannot assume that citizens have had no training; 2. chart is about justifiable homicides - why
should citizen's rates be zero, according to your opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #123
247. What percentage of people that own firearms qualify as "gun nuts" in your opinion?
I am extremely curious to hear how many people in the U.S. "don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #247
259. Well, the optimist in me would like to believe that it's a tiny percentage...
... but the number of posts I see around here militantly asserting a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later once everyone's dead I confess does little to support that optimism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #259
267. You didn't answer the question.
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 12:18 PM by Raskolnik
You made a plain statement about "gun nuts" and followed it with an even more sweeping proclamation that "Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters."

On what basis do you make such ridiculous claims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #267
276. On the contrary, I did answer your question
... which was how great a percentage of gun owners I thought were gun nuts. You are now asking a second question, which is what is the basis for my concern that gun owners feel comfortable taking the law into their own hands and passing out death sentences to anyone they rightly or wrongly perceive to be somehow threatening. I will be happy to answer that question as well. My basis for that concern is the large number of people who are killed or injured by guns every year in this country and the vehemently stated views of my fellow DUers who plainly, openly, unashamedly, and repeatedly assert their right to blow away anyone they perceive to be threatening. Now, do you have another question you would like me to answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #276
286. "Now, do you have another question you would like me to answer?"
Please point out where you fin the posts of DU'er who "plainly, openly, unashamedly, and repeatedly assert their right to blow away anyone they perceive to be threatening." Apparently, you find these posters to be represetnative of gun owners as a whole, so I would be very interested in seeing what those posts actually said.

With all due respect, I think you're spouting nonsense. Clearly, there are gun owners who are douchebags that enjoy nothing more than spouting off about how tough they are. If you think that you can make judgments about all gun owners (which you obviously have) based on those douchebags, you are either being intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #286
301. No, not all gun owners
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 01:13 PM by KevinJ
You're carrying my point too far. I don't for an instant believe that every gun owner is of the douchebag variety. I'm sure that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Where I part company with gun owners is in how we weigh the costs versus the benfets of gun ownership. It may well be a small percentage of gun onwers who fall into the douchebag category, but the problem is, when someone does use a gun irresponsibly, somebody dies. And you can't fix that. It's permanent, irrevocable, unappealable. And people, even well-intended ones, do make mistakes. At the point, the question for me becomes, how small a percentage of gun owners need to be irresponsible before we decide that gun ownership is simply a luxury we can't afford? How mnay innocent people need to die before we decide that the costs outweigh the benefits? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Reasonable people obviously can and do disagree on that calculation. For me personally, as I perceive virtually no benefit to be had from guns, the number of accidental deaths at their hands that I'm willing to tolerate is pretty damned small. But that arithmetic too varies depending upon the context being discussed. Many people hunt and augment their family's diet that way. Well and good, there's a clear, valid purpose in owning a hunting rifle and using it for that purpose. You don't need an Uzi though to go hunting. You don't need a fingerprint-resistant, x-ray defying ceramic handgun which fires armor piercing rounds in order to go hunting. So the number of innocent people I'm prepared to watch die in order for Americans to preserve their perceived right to own and operate weaponry goes down when I perceive no lawful purpose to be attained through the ownership of such weapons. At that point, even if the number of douchebags out there is only a miniscule percentage, the cost relative to the benefits is too great as far as I'm concerned.

As for the posts of other DUers, DU rules prohibit naming specific individuals, but look around, it's not hard to find cowboys proudly proclaiming their right to shoot first and ask questions later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #301
304. If you think that, then why make such a silly statement?
This:

gun nuts don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves. It's so much tidier that way: with your victim dead, there's no way s/he's going to contradict your side of the story. With police, you've got all of those inconvenient things like due process of law, it's just a nuisance. Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters

simply cannot be reconciled with this:

You're carrying my point too far. I don't for an instant believe that every gun owner is of the douchebag variety. I'm sure that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

If you're now acknowledging that your previous statement was unsupportable (if not ridiculous) then I will leave it at that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #304
313. Not every gun owner is a "gun nut"
Sorry, you're right, that was kind of unclear from my post. I use the term "gun nut" to distinguish the especially hardcore gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #301
495. You really don't know anything about guns do you?
I have never seen or heard of anyone hunting with an uzi. I only know of one person that owned one and he was a cop. What manufacturer makes a ceramic handgun that fires armor piercing rounds? Your ignorance of the situation virtually disables you from rationally discussing this issue.


David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #495
501. Enough to know...
... that there are munitions manufacturers who make armor piercing rounds, as well as hollow point rounds, as well as explosive rounds; that there are such things as fingerprint resistant coatings and ceramic guns designed to escape x-ray detection; that some gun companies produce tiny, cheap guns which they market to children; that there exist high calibre guns and high cyclic rate guns and high muzzle velocity guns; and, most important of all, I know that none of those things are needed for hunting deer. One does not need to be a gunsmith acquainted with every last technical detail of every firearm in order to have an opinion about their utility, a basic knowledge of their destructive potential is sufficient. Nice try, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RNG Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #501
513. High cap guns
I take it you've never walked into the middle of a herd of 50 or so wild hogs or javalinas in the middle of the woods. These critters don't care that humans are at the top of the food chain. If not, you're welcome to come walk through the woods on my farms, and the fields, witness the crop damage hogs cause, and the resulting economic losses to the farmers, the environmental devastation these things cause and then come up suddenly on a herd of 30+ wild hogs rooting around for lunch. If we don't have high-cap firearms, I won't be going, but I'll be glad to come along later and take you to the hospital, if you survive.

RNG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #501
516. So post some links to the makers of these ceramic guns designed to escape x-ray detection.
Munition manufacturers do not make rounds designed to pierce armor or explosive rounds to sell to the public. If you have links to those that you think do so please post them, they would be in violation of federal law. You don't need to be a gunsmith, you do need to do some research.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #516
520. What am I, your staff researcher now?
I have to hand it to you gungeon denizens, you've really mastered this trick of challenging opponents to document everything under the sun and, if they don't feel like blowing a few hours doing research for you, you get to feel all smug and vindicated. Yet you're never obliged to produce any research yourselves. A clever tactic. Nevetheless, having frittered away the better part of a day yesterday to following this thread, I'm behind in my work and really need to be productive today. So, do your own damned research. Have a nice day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #520
521. I'll be happy to educate you.
From wiki here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock and a snip

"Plastic pistol" myths.

Glock 22 in the new Olive Drab frame (with magazine)Glock pistols do set off metal detectors and can indeed be detected by X-ray machines, due to their metal barrels, slides, magazines, and ammunition. The claim that they could not was first made in an article by columnist Jack Anderson, entitled, "Quaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol", published in The Washington Post on January 13, 1985. The claim was then reported by the Associated Press and further reported by many United States television news stations and newspapers. It has since become an urban legend that to this day continues to appear in news reports and movies, and has even been a topic of debate in the United States Congress and during oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

In fact, 83.7% (by weight) of the Glock pistol is normal ordnance steel and the "plastic" parts are a dense polymer known as "Polymer 2", which is radio-opaque and is therefore visible to X-ray security equipment. In addition, virtually all of these "plastic" parts contain embedded steel not to make the firearms "detectable", but to increase functionality and shooting accuracy. Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder, neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "porcelain", "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices. Even if a pistol were completely undetectable by either X-ray machines or metal detectors were to be developed, the ammunition inside would still be detectable.

In Die Hard 2, the character John McClane portrayed by Bruce Willis specifically referred to a non-existent "Glock 7" with many fictitious characteristics:

That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!

Mike Papac, an armorer at Cinema Weaponry, which supplied the Glock pistols used in Die Hard 2, has stated, "I remember when we did that scene, I tried to talk them out of it. There's no such thing as a gun invisible to metal detectors, and there shouldn't be, but they wouldn't budge. They had it written into the script and that was that."<3>

snip

You'll notice this statement, "Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder, neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "porcelain", "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices." in the second paragraph.


Maybe if your arguments were more reality based, then people would take them more seriously.

David

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #520
535. It only took about 20 seconds to feel smug and vindicated.
That's how long it took me to do a google search for ceramic firearms and go to the wikipedia article. You have a nice weekend.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #535
540. Self-Deleted
Edited on Fri Jun-27-08 08:21 PM by Paladin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erebus67 Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #520
567. The Porcelain or plastic gun myth
Kevin,

The problem with that myth is that only steel is strong enough to handle the chamber pressure created when a cartridge is discharged. If they were to make it out of porcelain or plastic it would rupture and likely blow up in the shooter's face.

Also hollow point bullets have two specific purposes. The first is to transfer all the bullet's energy into the target. It's that energy, which causes hydraulic shock, that incapacitates the target effecting the stop. And that(should be anyway) the goal in shooting another human being, immediately stopping them. It is a fact that it is very likely fatal. The second is to prevent over penetration. Basically to prevent the bullet from going through the intended target, continuing on and hitting someone or something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #259
312. Straw man much?
I haven't seen ANYBODY here "militantly asserting a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later once everyone's dead." You have (typically) overstated and exaggerated the other side's argument in an attempt to make it look both extreme and ridiculous.

I did say that if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, it's safe to assume they're not there for a social call. If there is a home invasion, I don't think you have to ask a lot of questions.

You make your argument weaker by resorting to hyperbole in stating the opposing argument. Let's see some statistics please. How many people kill innocent people every day (to use your words) under those circumstances?

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #312
327. There is one post right on this thread.

Here is the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


This post pretty much says shoot first, talk second.

Some guy going to a party finds all the doors locked. He was with some friends a few weeks ago who pulled this as a prank on another friend. Assuming the same situation, he slips around back and climbs through a window.

Only it turns out he's got the wrong house! He just snuck into the above poster's home, and gets killed because the above poster WANTED to kill, and just needed the legal excuse to do so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #259
427. "...a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later ..." Posted here? Where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #105
256. Actually, they police don't have to show up at all. They are under no legal obligation to respond
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 12:12 PM by davepc
"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)


See also the decisions in:

* Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
* Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
* Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
* Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
* Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
* Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
* Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
* Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
* Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
* Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
* Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and
* Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #105
261. You are wrong: the supreme court said the police are NOT obligated to protect ANYONE
Sad but true!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #105
277. A cops point-of-view
When I went through the police academy, they made a special point to explain to all of us that it wasn't our problem to "protect" anyone. Our job is to protect society at large by catching folks who do commit crimes. It's nice if you can catch a robber while he's inside the house but it's really not our problem to protect you. Ask any cop. They'll tell you the same thing. Anyone who thinks they can protect every individual citizen from criminals is insane and won't last long on the job.

I'll bust my tail to get there when the call comes in. I'll do what I can for you. But don't think for one second that it's my personal responsibility to protect you individually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #277
280. Interesting, thanks for posting
And welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #280
283. This seems like a pretty good place to be...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #283
285. It's got its moments
As you can see, we've got our differences of opinion and the conversations can get pretty animated, but it's an interesting place to hang out. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #277
298. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #277
402. WoW! This needs to be its own topic, Might change the mind of ppl against gun ownership
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #96
167. I'll sign up if I can quit paying property taxes.
No need for the police for me, cut my propery taxes by 70%. Where do I sign?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #96
272. That's cool...
Well, I say every person who buys a gun for security should sign a waiver saying, no need for police to come to their homes when something happens. Afterall, a gun makes them safer.

That's fine with me. ... And I say every animal rights zealot should sign a waiver saying they refuse any and all medical care and medicines since they were derived from animal testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #96
413. - Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789: "And that said Constitution be never
construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
- Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789


You know, I think it interesting reading to read quotes from the era of our Constitution, instead of all the speculation about what the framers' "intent" was....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RNG Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #96
512. Call the PD
I don't call the police. I call the coroner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
177. Sure, fascists love guns, when only THEY have them!
As for profit takers, I'm not opposed to Smith & Wesson making a reasonable profit when I exercise my constitutionally-protected right to purchase one of their products.

If the protection of my right allows them to make a reasonable profit, so fucking what?

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU Man Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
306. I want the ability to protect myself.
You please tell me how, when a violent crime happens to me (hope it never does) I am actually supposed to assume to police will help me? Please explain that without twisting it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #306
429. Welcome, DU man...you've picked an EXCELLENT day to join DU....don't get carpal tunnel....:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
52. Well, according to your logic...
if crime, injury, deaths go up as you apparantly believe they will, well, the money to be made is in the medical treatment of those injuries!

Gun makers have narrow profit margins, the medical industry (including insurance) have big fat ones. How do you know that BushCo didn't order this as a way to protect their profits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #52
68. It's all about Profits
can you imagine we had this much of a push to get rid of the Patriot Act? Or how about that bill that destroys our rights to privacy. What good is a gun without privacy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
378. Yes, it would be wonderful if people fought against the government taking away rights
My fondest wish is for people to stand up against the infringement of *any* constitutional right.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself and the current adminstration treat the Bill of Rights like a salad bar--picking and choosing which rights are convenient at that moment and which you'll ignore.

I say bah to the lot of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaspoor Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
356. So?
Roe v. Wade wasn't about privacy? It was about corporate abortionist PROFITS!

Lawrence v. Texas wasn't about sexual freedom. It was about lubricant company PROFITS!

yea. that makes a lot of sense. There are plenty of companies that will profit. Just like many profit from other laws. So what?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. I suppose the smackdown of Bush's denial of habeas corpus for detainees...
a couple of weeks ago is also what BushCo ordered?


This court may generally suck, but they managed to get a few things right. This DC handgun ban is one of the them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. The Bush Justice department submitted a brief in SUPPORT of the DC gun ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
187. Probably so they could claim that this was a nonpartisan decision by the court.
The Bush administration itself knows that they've already stacked the deck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #187
203. Or the Bush administration are fascists who prefer a disarmed populace
It's a lot easier for fascist thugs to kick in your front door when the thugs don't have to worry about the citizens shooting back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #203
207. The right to bear arms against fascist thugs hasn't been in question.
It's the right to play judge, jury, and executioner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #207
222. Uhm do you bear arms against fascist thugs when its illegal to bear arms at all, like it was in DC?!
How does one accomplish such a task?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #222
233. If the court decision only proscribed outright bans, you'd have a point.
It goes beyond that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #233
236. That's what this case was ABOUT!
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 12:20 PM by davepc
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



The D.C. law in question made it impossible to have a legally held firearm in ones residence.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. More likely that the neocons would like to disarm us, IMO.
They're more visionary than to only be thinking about NRA and gun manufacturer support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
183. Wasn't William Bennett in on the drafting of the original AWB? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #183
216. I believe he was involved during his stint as Drug Czar. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
114. Actually, this was too right-wing for even the bushistas
They opposed this, as it renders unconstitutional any attempt to regulate any weapons in anyone's hands. The shrub's crazy enough for that kind of reich-wing decision, but I think he must suspect that he's not terribly well-loved in this country and now that any escaped mental patient can assert a constitutional right to purchase a nuclear missile at any street corner ATM, he's got to be a bit worried. No, it took the Federalist Society half a century to stack the Supreme Court with wackos sufficiently right-wing to overturn the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent. A dark day for American jurisprudence indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #114
433. "...to overturn the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
- John F. Kennedy

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
- Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
- Adolf Hitler


"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
- Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth


"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini


"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings."
- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese dictator, August 1588


"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933


"Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."
- Don B. Kates


"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. <...> To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788


"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
- James Madison

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaspoor Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
353. um, No
Bushco supported the DC ban NOT the Heller side. They even wrote an amicus brief.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinfoil Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent News


Excellent news!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. That should decrease the average life expetancy a few more years. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
30. Or not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
45. Yeah, that's because of the ban.
Conservatives are so damn single-minded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. its unrelated
the ban had no affect either way on crime in the city- it will change nothing except give people back their rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #45
76. So it's not because of the ban?
Then what, exactly, did the ban accomplish besides making politicians look like they were accomplishing something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #76
168. It attempted to set an example
Since but a short five minute subway ride across the river lands you in Virginia, which has always felt that anyone and everyone should have free and unfettered access to any and all weapons of mass destruction quickly and easily, the efficacy of DC's ban is impossible to guage. I think DC's experience with their ban highlights why gun control needs to be practiced at the federal level, although that's obviously going to be a lot tougher to do now that mad dog Scalia and his reich-wing cohorts have reinvented the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #168
208. Which is why it was a dumb idea to pass the law in the first place
It's like DC decides to pass a $5-per-pack tax on cigarettes, then looks shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, when people are going to other states to buy them.



The SCOTUS did not reinvent the constition, though. They decided that "the people" means the same thing the Second as it does in the First. And the Fourth. And the Ninth. And the Tenth. And the Seventeenth. And Article One, Section 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #208
218. By which reasoning, no state should ever attempt to pass their own laws
California has certainly lost businesses to other states who have weaker labor and environmental protection laws. According to you, it was a dumb idea for them to pass those laws in the first place? If that were the case, then every state should compete in a downward spiral of reduced regulation in order to attract business. How long do you think it would take before we hit bottom and simply allowed businesses to dump toxic waste anywhere they liked and keep their workers in slave labor camps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #218
258. No a valid comparison
Buying a product is different from establishing a business. Establishing a business means looking at the area you want to put it, and there are dozens of factors that go into it, such as transportation, labor force, taxes, local market forces, energy, resources, other suppliers, etc. As opposed to crossing state lines, buying an object, then driving back and putting in in a drawer in your bedroom.

If what you were saying was true, every business would be in South Dakota. But they're not.


In addition, DC's gun was was not effective at anything. Enviromental laws at least improve the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #258
274. Disagree
Why do you think every credit card company in America is based in Delaware? Because Delaware has taken steps to make themselves a haven for those kinds of businesses. And environmental laws are likewise limited in their efficacy by the actions of states who elect to place business interests ahead of the environment. The vast, toxic slurry lakes produced by West Virginia's coal mining industry impact the environment well beyond West Virginia's borders. Toxic emissions pollute air that staunchly refuses to remain hovering over just one state. Yet it's still worth trying to pass environemtal protection laws, even though less scrupulous states can diminish their impact. The same applies to DC's gun control laws. How effective they were or might have been is impossible to know because of the number of variables in the equation, but it was nevertheless a courageous attempt by the people to do something to address public safety hazards posed by too many people having too many guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #274
320. States can control smokestack emissions
As well as the federal government. States can also, I believe, sue other states for their pollution.


Regarding Delaware, well, they're "based" in Delaware to the extent that they need room for a mailbox and a fax machine. Just like Halliburton is "based" in Dubai, or KBR is "based" in the Cayman Islands.

...to address public safety hazards posed by too many people having too many guns.


The problem is not the number of guns in DC, or in any other state. In fact, US citizens have some 68% of the worlds non-governmental guns, over 240 million of them.

The problem is, as always, the guns in the hands of the career criminals Which DC's gun law was not effective in combating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #218
292. States must be willing to accept the consequences of their laws
Look at the migration of industrial jobs from the strong union states to the right to work states is one example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
117. I am a third generation gun owner
and no one in my family has ever been killed nor killed anyone with one. I am happy as hell with this reaffirmation of my constitutional right to bear arms despite Bush's attempt to kill it. Esp since He is getting ready to be successful in undermining my 4th amendment rights later today with the help of congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #117
253. I'm a first generation non-gun owner.
And people in my family have been killed by handguns. All of my family has been gun owners for as long as I can remember. My father, his father, his father's father, my mother and up her family tree, my brothers and sister, my father-in-law and brothers-in-law. I grew up around them, used, married into them, have witnessed some pretty close calls, have had them pointed at me in situations where I wasn't sure I'd come out okay. If you think you've got anything on me as far as exposure to what guns are really like, you're deluded. I've had more friends killed by guns than car accidents and diseases, until you get to about age 60. I've had four friends killed in two separate murder-suicides, a family member (not close, fortunately) committed suicide in front of my sister (who no longer owns guns), and I've lost count of the family and friends killed in "accidental" shootings, although some of those accidents may have been murders or suicides.

Growing up where I did, on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, squarely between hunting territory and two military bases, (and now living in Texas) I've been surrounded by guns and gun deaths my whole life. When I was a teenager we used to start every school year by comparing notes on who had been shot to death that summer, and sometimes which of our friends had done the shooting. Once, and only once, one of my friends was saved by a gun, when he shot a man with a chainsaw trying to break into his house--but that was a shotgun, not a handgun, and we never did find out what he had done to piss off the guy with the chainsaw.

Guns empower people, so that they feel invincible, especially younger people. They romance guns, feel that they are safe if you take care with them, create delusions about protecting themselves with guns, or that they will somehow defend themselves against the government (like your comment about the 4th Amendment). People pull out guns to avoid a fist fight, and kill to avoid an ass whoopin'--many even seem to believe that's okay.

So more power to you if you are one of the few who are responsible. So are most of my family. So is my military aunt, and my military FIL, and my military BILs. But most are not, not even close, and the more guns you put out there, the more these things are defended and romanced and glorified, the more people are going to die for no good reason other than that some little boy who has enough years to be considered a man wanted to play with the toys in his favorite Rambo movie.

It's a real stretch to interpret the 2nd as about private gun ownership. Only the SCOTUS team that ruled that all votes don't have to be counted to decide an election could twist it thus. And that's a lot worse than anything Congress is planning to pass on FISA today. You may like it, but then again, you may not when you've got a little more experience in life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #253
281. I have plenty of experience
I am in my 50's and plenty old. Being that I grew up around guns I have a healthy respect for them. I was educated at an early age on how to safely handle them, saw the damage they can do, and that is the key. No one I know would think to point a gun loaded or not at anyone unless they were ready to use it which is the first thing anyone who has any education re guns learns.
I think the supremes interpreted the constitution correctly without the least bit of stretching today and I am a happy woman. I am sick of people trying to gut the constitution and this is a bright spot for me esp on a day when it looks like the 4th amendment is due to be trashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #253
437. So many of the incidents you mentioned had to do with mental health issues, criminal intent, etc.,
so IMHO it sounds like these people would have caused harm or death whether or not they used a gun. Just because they used a gun as their weapon of choice does not make the gun the problem. The issue is those PEOPLE'S issues.

Since you mentioned so many family members who are responsible gun owners, have you talked to any of them today to see what their viewpoint is on today's ruling? Just curious. And, obviously, you are entitle to your own opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
191. Think of it this way ... it puts Social Security that much closer to solvency.
Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ryano42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
7. One good thing about this...
There won't be a gun wedge issue clarion call for Puke voters...

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
90. Don't worry, Ryano42, there are a few Democrats who will screw that one up for the rest of us
If they haven't already done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #90
108. Wanna bet that Mayor Daley...
...will grandstand and refuse to lift Chicago's ban despite the Supreme Court ruling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. Sort of like George Wallace standing in the door at Univ. of Alabama (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Does the ruling even apply to Chicago's ban?
That may take another case.

I have not read the whole decision yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #111
136. I can assure you that someon will take Chicago and NYC to court
Using this as precident to overturn their gun bans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #136
182. I'm sure that someone will too
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #136
303. It's already happening
The NRA is filing suits in Illinois state courts today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Please remind me, the 2nd Amendment is bad thing because....?
An increasing number of my progressive friends have decided to generally support second amendment rights.
One friend in Santa Cruz even joined the NRA. Something about not trusting the government. Sound familiar?

I happen to agree with those who say that if we enforce and refine the laws we have now, there will be no need to scrap this important safeguard against a malevolent government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
128. It's not, or at least wasn't
Until today, the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms. The problem enters in when you a cherry picked group of ultra right-wing justices conclude that the Framers were on crack when they wrote the Constitution and really didn't intend to include the language about a well-regulated milita - that bit just somehow was slipped in by accident but nobody ever really intended for it to be there - and extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry a new right which never existed. But that's not the Second Amendment's fault - the Second Amendment has always been quite clear - that's purely the fault of right-wingers trying to give a veneer of legality to the achievement of their Wild West wet dream by attributing their homicidal aspirations to the Second Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #128
185. You're misinterpreting. Honestly you are. Do please study the history of the BOR because
it's awful for left-libs to remain confused and ignorant about very basic democratic issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #185
201. For 200 years, the vast majority of legal scholarship has shared that interpretation
And appropriately so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #201
217. Right....
Got any citations on the "'vast majority' of legal scholars believe"? Didn't think so. It's been contested for quite some time. From the fact that "well regulated" meant "well drilled" at the time of the framing to the fact that "the people" means "the people", not "the state" and some people believe, to the fact that it's two distinct but supporting statements. Funny how some people think "the peoples right" is somehow different in this amendment compared to all the other references in the constitution.

Try reading up a little before making statements like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #217
234. So why do you suppose it's survived this long?
If, as you assert, the prevailing intepretation of the Second Amendment is so unsupported by legal scholarship, why do you imagine that it's been upheld time and again for over two centuries? Why do you suppose that the ones to overturn that prevailing interpretation are a tiny handful of ultra right-wingers it took the Federalist Society half a century to maneuver into positions to be able to practice their revisionist Constitutional ideologies?

Try thinking a little before making statements like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #234
252. Last time this came up...
Was 1939 against the NFA, that was restrictions against things like sawed off shotguns, that was upheld. This was the biggest decision since then. This was the first challenge of the outright ban that DC enacted in 1977, and hopefully one against the Chicago ban will come down. Just because something hasn't been challenged since doesn't make it constitutional.

And your rights weren't touched by this decision, you still have the right to NOT buy a gun and have it in your household.

And I didn't say it was unsupported, I just said that your assertion that a "vast majority" believes that it is a collective right is a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #201
268. That's not as good an argument as you'd think, really. If you look at the record of legal
decisions in the US, almost all the "good" ones come from the heyday of the Warren Court.

The rest tend strongly *not* to come down on what we would probably think of as "our" side. History is packed solid with decisions against labor, against the First Nations people, against Black people, against the poor, against peace....it's pretty sickening when you really look at it. Decisions that attempt to restrict our natural human rights are part and parcel of that.

I think it got off onto the wrong foot at the very start, when Jay was appointed the first Chief Justice. You know, John Jay, Mr. "Those Who Own The Country Should Run It" Federalist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #128
231. Clear as mud is any concensus on what defines "Militia".
I agree insofar as the interpretation of "militia" largely determines the application of the amendment.

I do not, however agree with the statement, "No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms."

IMO, the National Guard became so nationalized as to no longer resemble what would have constituted a "well regulated militia" in 1791.

Scholars, jurists, and citizens will struggle and argue that point for years to come.

Personally, and given my sense of conditions at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights, I feel that a militia might not have to already be established to "qualify", and that what they had in mind was that ordinary citizens should be equipped to form a militia should events develop that would necessitate the formation of a militia to ensure the security of a "free state".

Of course, every word in the amendment is open to interpretation and becomes the basis of any number of arguments. It fascinates me!


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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #231
251. Interesting point, but then how do you deal with "well-regulated"?
I mean, I hear what you're saying and I agreee that part of the role of the militias was to act as a deterent to a central government ever getting out of hand and absuing its power. But the words "well-regulated" are, I think, important ones: I do not believe that the Framers perceived some lofty purpose in unorganized gangs of marauders, bandits, looters, rioters, lynch mobs, whatever, being armed to the teeth. Plainly such groups fail the "well-regulated" test. So how can we infer that the Framers intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply to any and all persons or groups, the vast majority of whom are not well-regulated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #251
262. It sure wouldn't regulated by the federal government or the national guard.
In the most strictest interpretation, I believe that the framers, if anything, meant for it to be left to the states to determine that. And each state might, in turn, decide to leave it to be decided by more local agencies on a county or city level.

In a less strict interpretation, it might be left to leaders of the community, as defined by that community and regulated by the government at no higher than the state level.

Good reads on the matter, and you probably already are familiar with:

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

Interesting sections:

Homeland security

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions that granted the President additional rights to use federal or state National Guard Troops and inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR).

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Natural disasters

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.


Just for kicks: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milou Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #251
493. Meanings
Well regulated meant well drilled back then. And your description of "unorganized gangs of marauders, bandits, looters, rioters, lynch mobs, whatever, being armed to the teeth" just about described the militia of 1776.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #251
537. the right of the PEOPLE
Notice they didn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well regulated at the time meant every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.

David




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #128
241. You thought that
the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

No one I knew thought that. It was always understood to mean an individual right. This affirms it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:22 AM
Original message
Dupe..n/t
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 09:23 AM by NYC_SKP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. Great!!!!!
The court has now spoken that my right to bear arms is secured as was intended by the original framers. This affirms that tyranny can always be challenged by the people and the 2nd amendment was 2nd primarily to protect the 1st amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
50. Welcome back!
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 09:39 AM by jefferson_dem
:hi:

SCOTUS drags out its sharpie and scribbles over "A well regulated militia..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #50
63. Grabbers can't use that argument anymore nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #63
67. People can still use it. All this ruling says is that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts disagree.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be in that sorry company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #67
73. the difference is
that scalia, thomas, alito, roberts, and kennedy's oppinions actually mean something

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. Indeed. They are controlling.
But that doesn't mean they are "right".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. btw
isnt that a bush administration policy- ignore the constitution?

"i dont believe the constitution applies to me- im the president"

so you are saying its okay to use that logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #75
81. Um no...
I'm saying the Court doesn't always get it right.

When I'm elected President, then you can accuse me of being "Bush-Like" when/if I ignore the Constitution. Right now i'm just a citizen who may disagree with our government, including SCOTUS, from time to time.

Were you whistling the "just move along...get in line" tune after Bush v. Gore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #67
172. You'd rather be in the company of those against civil rights.
Ok, if you say so.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #67
245. Argument is no longer valid
Now maybe people will stop using it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. YES!!!
:party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause:

My faith in the SCOTUS has been restored.

Now... lets just wait for the full opinion and hope that strict scrutiny is applied to the decision (no requirement or allowance of "reasonable restrictions")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
54. My money is on the "reasonableness" doctrine being applied.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #54
65. You're probably right.
I'd be a bit surprised if the opinion doesn't mention some degree of reasonable restrictions.

The big question... what restrictions are reasonable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #65
107. And how will these justices deal with reasonableness w/out 14A? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #54
196. I suspect there is/will be a "compelling government interest"
And that "reasonableness" will be the standard.

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. i only saw a snippet, but this only applies to one's home?
If it's just the home, than it should not affect the rest of society... I mean, people do have a local right to defend their home IMHO.
That said, if this is used to strike down all gun laws then.. yeah.. utter bullshit to be expected from the reich wing!

GOD How I have conservatives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skywalkrNCSU Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. WHOO HOOO
WOOOOT!!!!

this is a great day to be an American!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
60. Welcome to DU.
:hi:

Enjoy your stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #60
121. Why because tht poster
is happy with the decision? I am happy too and I ain't going anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #121
129. I hope you don't.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #121
199. I'm pretty damn happy with it too
And I've been here from the beginning and plan to be here until my computer dies ...

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
189. NC State? Hi, down the road from Carolina--Tarheel Country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
14. This is a paradigm shift in the debate over gun legislation
Now we can start talking about ways to decrease gun crime instead of gun ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
162. This decision is fucked up. We have a weaker country today because of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #162
175. Individual rights were affirmed the country can't be weaker.
Unless you are a facist.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #175
211. Individual rights were fabricated and the country can be weaker
Unless you're an anarchist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #211
344. That's funny I just drove from the Fire Dept training center and
everyone was obeying the traffic laws and there wasn't a single shooting. No news of anarchy breaking out anywhere in the US yet. Get back to me when it happens.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #344
348. Obeying traffic laws?
Obviously the work of fascists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #348
349. I thought you said anarchy was ruling the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #349
351. Nope, just pointing out that regulation doesn't automatically equate with fascism. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #351
354. and freedom doesn't automatically equate with anarchy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #354
357. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #357
372. Likewise. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1Hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #175
416. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #162
230. We are stronger because the 2nd Amendment
Protects the 1st Amendment ultimately. Can't you see the simple point of it all? I's amazed how some peope will so willingly give up our rights but a bit of security. Franklin said it best and you had best heed him:

<b>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.</b>

I'll go with Franklin thank you whilst you go with Stalin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top