Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
We are getting yet another series of reminders of the vast gun gap in this country. There is the part that thinks a room full of red-faced men and women screaming at one another is the worst place in the world to bring a firearm. And then there is the part that holds it is exactly the place where you need it most.

“A firearm is a defensive tool,” said Kostric, in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. He was wearing a yellow T-shirt, and he told Matthews that if everybody in the crowd waiting for Obama to arrive had been armed, things would have been much safer. Beyond an air of mild surprise, he seemed like your average hard-core Ron Paul voter " male, smug and obsessed with the money supply. (“Where did we go wrong? I’d start with the Federal Reserve Bank.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html

Sound like our david has a like minded posse

Yeah. Clinton credited us with his loss of both houses
of Congress, and later with Al Gore 's loss to W.
The Demos had not lost the House since Roosevelt was President.

Gore 's own neighbors in Tenn. rejected him for that reason.
The right to self defense counts for a lot.

It is in that spirit
that we see how members of Congress are being received
by their constituents at home, in town hall meetings. Some SPIRITED encounters,
actively attended by the police on-the-job, throwing out the constituents.

In health care and in self defense, a citizen is concerned
with preserving his existence against threats thereto.

As to healthcare, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights,
unlike self defense.

David

0 Replies

Except that self defense IS healthcare

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I understand that there are 2 pending cases to achieve full incorporation.
One is against Chicago; I don 't remember the other one.

Is the pending appeal limited to defense of the home,
the same as HELLER or does it include the defensive rights of pedestrians ?

My question about "the pending appeal"
refers to the case against the government of Chicago.

That case is a straight "handgun inside the home, within city limits".

I think to make the focus 100% on incorporation, they tried to mimic the circumstances of Heller as much as humanly possible.

Here is the original complaint:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/complaint.pdf

The people suing Chicago have a website:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com

All the filed documents are available on this page:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings

Supreme Court grants cert in the Chicago case!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-rule-on-gun-rights-terrorism-law

Looks like another win for Gura.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

This is good news; especially as I consider moving into Chicago (I currently live in the burbs). The ban on hand-guns has been a huge factor in keeping me from moving to the city.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Porsche - things are looking up nationwide, not just in Chicago:

Quote:

Public support for a ban on handguns has fallen to 28%, the lowest level in nearly 50 years, according to a new poll from Gallup.

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14632169&source=most_commented

PS to our kind hostess, Ms Olga:
That's probably not the result you had in mind when you started this thread, but you can tell almost 3/4 of us in the States hope the question goes the other way, "how much longer will it take ...until all anti-gun legislation is declared null and void", for instance Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas, three-quarters? Really?

Ah.... I see. For a complete ban, 3/4s say they don't want that. Still surprising.

0 Replies

I haven't read much (any) of this thread. But, I imagine it involves a lot of arguing over terms that aren't commonly defined. What is gun control? To me it doesn't mean a ban on guns. There's a huge spectrum encompassed in gun control because it's a vague term. The spin by gun lobbyists seems to say that all people who want the sale of guns limited are really saying that guns should be banned.

4 Replies

@littlek,

Ive never made a secret of it, I own several guns and one or two are located where they can be used for home defense. HOWEVER, reasonable gun laws does not mean the "end of all anti gun laws". For example, the WHOLE KOOLAID 2nd AMENDMENT folks are totally against limiting their ability to buy an unlimited number of guns pwer month. In many cases, many of these gun show guns and bulk purchasers lead to guns that are used in violent crimes.
ALSO, in Pa, the GUN lobby (which is run by the gun mfrs through their shill organization the NRA) succesfully fought back legislation to require the reporting of lost or stolen guns. Several other reasonable ownership rules have been fought back by the gun lover lobby and I cannot understand it.
The 2nd AMendment makes NO statement in favor of unlimited gun ownership (They argue that the statement "shall not be infringed" is such license)
The authors of the Cosntitution had never in their imagination ever considered a world so loaded with unreasonable and dangerous thugs whod use guns against the rest of the population.

The concept of the basic freedoms seems to be totally ignored by the gun boys.

Would I give up my guns? As it stands, because the society is so broken down and unsafe, Id have to say no. However, I am against the lax law enforcement of existing gun laws and the gun lobby"s need to turn this country into an armed camp.
The gun lobby is peopled by a bunch of selfish uncaring folks who care not the least but for their own safety.

1 Reply

@littlek,

To be clear; I'm not in favor of eliminating all gun control.

I am opposed to the handgun ban in Chicago and other cities though. I and feel that the concealed carry laws that are currently in place in other states (such as Arizona) should be protected nationwide.

0 Replies

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

I haven't read much (any) of this thread.
But, I imagine it involves a lot of arguing over terms that aren't commonly defined.
What is gun control?
To me it doesn't mean a ban on guns.
There's a huge spectrum encompassed in gun control because it's a vague term.
The spin by gun lobbyists seems to say that all people who want the sale of guns limited
are really saying that guns should be banned.

For the most part, "gun control" is government discrimination (by licensure)
as to who can legally defend his life or other property and who cannot.

For some people, self defense is a felony.
Obviously, robbers and murderers have no interest in obaying any law,
least among them "gun control" laws; thay WILL arm themselves no matter what.

"Gun control" is a usurpation of power by government
of an area in which (as a condition of government 's existence)
government was supposed to have no jurisdiction, according
to the Founders of this Republic as set forth in the Bill of Rights
of the US Constitution.

David

0 Replies

Perhaps we should issue handguns to cons leaving prison to give them the means to quickly get back to making a living. We could work with shrinks to ensure that all psychos get their very own handgun.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Perhaps we should issue handguns to cons leaving prison to give
them the means to quickly get back to making a living.
We could work with shrinks to ensure that all psychos get their very own handgun.

Y what 's the problem? Thay ALREADY get them on the black market as soon as thay want them.
Y shoud I pay for THEIR guns? I 'm no socialist.
Thay don 't pay for MY guns.

Anyway: thay don' t need guns to commit crime
(e.g., Richard Davis qua Polly Klass and Atta, qua 9/11).

U can wait outside of prisons and give them YOUR guns, if u wanna.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The point is that you have no trouble with ex-cons and psychos having easy access to guns. This will help these people in their activities. It will certainly make it easier to get the pocketbook of an elderly woman. It will even make it easier to get Dave's wallet. (His gun will be in his NYC home.)

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

The point is that you have no trouble with ex-cons
and psychos having easy access to guns.

Thay have that
no matter WHAT. Thay have that NOW.
Don 't u see that??
Do u claim that gun control, even at its most severe,
has ever prevented even ONE robbery ?

R u so hopelessly Pollyanaish that u believe
that a criminal somewhere has ever thawt:
"Gee, its too hard to get a gun, or to make one
and I don't know any gunsmiths, not a single child
in the neighborhood who makes guns,
so I 'll get a job flipping hamburgers
and thereafter I will not apply any effort
to getting nor to making a gun
and I will not use a bomb nor any other weapon either."
Has that ever happened?
Before guns were invented, did criminals just wait around impatiently
for guns to be invented, pacing back n forth,
or did thay go out and commit their intended crimes anyway?
Will u explain that to me please, Advocate?

Then there is the matter of "equal protection of the laws"
which all states are constitutionally required to offer.
Constitutionally, Martha Stewart has as much right to personal protection as u or I do.

The only thing that the 2nd Amendment does is put any control,
or even any influence, concerning guns beyond the reach of government,
the same way that government has no jurisdiction to make u go to Church if u don 't wanna go,
regardless of whether government thinks Church is good for keeping crime down.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

This will help these people in their activities.

How is that significant to the result ??
Thay will commit the crimes anyway
even if thay do not get the "help".
Have u heard of any "gun control" law preventing even ONE crime?

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

It will certainly make it easier to get the pocketbook of an elderly woman.

Traditionally, pursesnatching is done with abrupt violence, gunlessly.
In a fully armed populace, if citizens see an old woman being robbed,
thay can kill the robber and have a good laff at his expense.

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

It will even make it easier to get Dave's wallet.
(His gun will be in his NYC home.)

not all of them

The answer is to reinstate the status quo ante
applying control upon THE CRIMINAL and forget about his tools.

ISOLATE criminally violent recidivists from the decent people.
I suggest that criminally violent recidivists be removed from
the North American Continent with sneaking back being prohibited
on pain of death, without permission.
Thay can have all of the guns and knives thay want
but thay must be 1000s of miles away from us.
THAT is OK with the 2nd Amendment
and it will make for a safe, quiet America.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

For example, the WHOLE KOOLAID 2nd AMENDMENT folks are totally against limiting their ability to buy an unlimited number of guns pwer month.

Nothing wrong with opposing radical measures such as this.

farmerman wrote:

ALSO, in Pa, the GUN lobby (which is run by the gun mfrs through their shill organization the NRA)

The NRA is hardly a shill for manufacturers.

farmerman wrote:

The gun lobby is peopled by a bunch of selfish uncaring folks who care not the least but for their own safety.

The fact that we value our Constitutional rights does not make us selfish or uncaring.

1 Reply

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

I haven't read much (any) of this thread. But, I imagine it involves a lot of arguing over terms that aren't commonly defined. What is gun control? To me it doesn't mean a ban on guns. There's a huge spectrum encompassed in gun control because it's a vague term. The spin by gun lobbyists seems to say that all people who want the sale of guns limited are really saying that guns should be banned.

I've heard so many people use "gun control" to refer to bans that I tend to just naturally assume they are talking about some type of ban unless they specify what they mean by gun control.

What exactly does "want the sale of guns limited" mean?

0 Replies

I 'm a little surprized at the Farmer,
who ususally has enuf of a scientific mind
to avoid making unfounded assumptions.
In this case he has (repeatedly) propagated the false assumption
that the gun lobby (which certainly includes me and some of my friends)
of consisting of gun manufacturers. If that were true, there 'd be
nothing rong with that, but he refuses to acknowledge citizens
fighting for our constitutional rights. For MY part, I AM SELFISH, not stingy,
but I try to be selfish; everyone shoud do so.

David

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You are correct about Clinton losing congress.
The NRA is a political force.

However, the ban was hardly unconstitutional.

"Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, ...
and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments
that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not
in existence at the time of the founding.

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization. [emphasis added by David]
US SUPREME COURT D.C.v. HELLER

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Ghetto entrepreneurs typically buy 30 to 50 guns per month for sale in the ghetto from car trunks. What could be wrong with that?

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Ghetto entrepreneurs typically buy 30 to 50 guns per month for sale in the ghetto from car trunks.
What could be wrong with that?

Nothing; "equal protection of the laws" being what it is,
the residents thereof have defensive needs like everyone else.

As I 've said earlier:
criminally violent recidivists shoud be ISOLATED from the decent people,
preferably not on the North American Continent, behind 1,000s of miles of water.

David

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know