Guns and the Supreme Court

McTag wrote:

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me,
as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

It means that everyone shud be prepared
to handle an emergency; their lives depend on it.

Its better to HAVE emergency equipment
and not need it,
than to NEED emergency equipment and not HAVE it.

The State of Alaska repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
Crime dropped.
Criminals don 't like to get shot by dissatisfied victims.
During interviews in prisons, criminals are very open about admitting this.


There is NO chance at all that criminals will be disarmed.
U might as well try to make gold out of water.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

McTag wrote:

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me,
as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

It means that everyone shud be prepared
to handle an emergency; their lives depend on it.

Its better to HAVE emergency equipment
and not need it,
than to NEED emergency equipment and not HAVE it.

The State of Alaska repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
Crime dropped.
Criminals don 't like to get shot by dissatisfied victims.
During interviews in prisons, criminals are very open about admitting this.


There is NO chance at all that criminals will be disarmed.
U might as well try to make gold out of water.
David

Right. So somebody tries to steal your wallet (or your hubcaps, or anything)
because he is poor, desperate, or deranged,
and you feel justified in shooting at him (with your dumdum bullets).

A court, on conviction, could not sentence him to death
but you feel justified in using a firearm.

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me, as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

We the people have the constitutional right to bear arms - period!

Pretty cheap here...

No thanks, I'll stick with Colt - it's the real thing.

McTag wrote:

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me, as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

Actually, it boils down to whether the Constitution should be obeyed or scrapped, and I believe that every single word and punctuation mark should be obeyed whether I agree with it or not. If I disagree with something in the Constitution, then maybe I'll try and get an amendment passed, but I am absolutely committed to the idea that it will be obeyed.

The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is simple language. This idea that it only means that armies can have guns is a recent attempt by some people to find a pretext to ignore it. It couldn't possibly be more clear that the Bill of Rights was intended to give the individual people the means to limit the power of the government over them. I suppose that next the rights of freedom of speech and religion will be said to be referring to the rights of states and not individuals.

I think US gun owners should stop playing at being Davy Crockett, and look at the damage they are doing.

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me, as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

Actually, it boils down to whether the Constitution should be obeyed or scrapped, and I believe that every single word and punctuation mark should be obeyed whether I agree with it or not. If I disagree with something in the Constitution, then maybe I'll try and get an amendment passed, but I am absolutely committed to the idea that it will be obeyed.

The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is simple language. This idea that it only means that armies can have guns is a recent attempt by some people to find a pretext to ignore it. It couldn't possibly be more clear that the Bill of Rights was intended to give the individual people the means to limit the power of the government over them. I suppose that next the rights of freedom of speech and religion will be said to be referring to the rights of states and not individuals.

This seems like mixed-up thinking to me.

The right of the people to bear arms was to allow them to be part of a militia, that means, to face an external threat.

That part has been well superseded in the course of three centuries and now seem wellnigh redundant to me.

I think US gun owners should stop playing at being Davy Crockett, and look at the damage they are doing.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

What do u intend to get ?

I have found revolvers to be much more
mechanically reliable than pistols.

My own taste goes to a .44 revolver
loaded with .44 special hollowpointed slugs,
to optimize energy dump into the target.





David

Something that takes no real skill to kill and offers me the best chance of blowing away an intruder.

I'm thinking a shotgun

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:

What does it boil down to, the gun debate in America?

"I support the right of my fellow citizens to possess the means of shooting holes in me, as long as I can have the means of shooting holes in them"?

That would almost make sense if everyone was 100% rational, all of the time.

But they're not, and it doesn't.

Actually, it boils down to whether the Constitution should be obeyed or scrapped, and I believe that every single word and punctuation mark should be obeyed whether I agree with it or not. If I disagree with something in the Constitution, then maybe I'll try and get an amendment passed, but I am absolutely committed to the idea that it will be obeyed.

The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is simple language. This idea that it only means that armies can have guns is a recent attempt by some people to find a pretext to ignore it. It couldn't possibly be more clear that the Bill of Rights was intended to give the individual people the means to limit the power of the government over them. I suppose that next the rights of freedom of speech and religion will be said to be referring to the rights of states and not individuals.

This seems like mixed-up thinking to me.

The right of the people to bear arms was to allow them to be part of a militia, that means, to face an external threat.
That part has been well superseded in the course of three centuries and now seem wellnigh redundant to me.

Also to quote this "the Bill of Rights was intended to give the individual people the means to limit the power of the government over them" seems to indicate to me that you would be willing to take up arms against the National Guard if "the government" sent them into your neighbourhood.
Is that remotely realistic?

I think US gun owners should stop playing at being Davy Crockett, and look at the damage they are doing.

Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.

The Constitution says that the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is simple and clear.

edgarblythe wrote:

Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.

Not quite. Today there are no state militias (and the states violate our rights by not having them).

Which to me fulfills the criterion.

edgarblythe wrote:

Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.

Not quite. Today there are no state militias (and the states violate our rights by not having them).

We're an all-volunteer State Defense Force whose primary mission is to support the California National Guard in its Homeland Defense and Homeland Security missions.

High Demands, High Satisfaction
Soldiers in the CSMR are sworn members of the California Military Department. Applicants must be California residents, be in good health and physically capable of performing the CSMR mission

We offer you the chance to use your skills and learn new ones in defense of California.

edgarblythe wrote:

Which to me fulfills the criterion.

You are mistaken. The Constitutional criteria for the militia limit it to serving only within US borders. The National Guard serves outside US borders.

The Second Amendment says militiamen can keep their weapons at home. National Guardsmen are not allowed to take their M-16s home.

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.

Not quite. Today there are no state militias (and the states violate our rights by not having them).

Actually, that isnt totally true.
California DOES have a state militia, and it has its own website...

http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/intro.aspx

Quote:

We're an all-volunteer State Defense Force whose primary mission is to support the California National Guard in its Homeland Defense and Homeland Security missions.

Quote:

High Demands, High Satisfaction
Soldiers in the CSMR are sworn members of the California Military Department. Applicants must be California residents, be in good health and physically capable of performing the CSMR mission

So California has its own military dept.

Quote:

We offer you the chance to use your skills and learn new ones in defense of California.

So they want to be able to defend themselves, instead of letting the US military do it?