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

@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?

Tell me, Advocate: do u favor discrimination against the residents of the ghettos ?

David

0 Replies

Here are some of my favorite excerpts from the US Supreme Court in D.C. v. HELLER:

As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments,
and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community. * * * ”

". . . We start therefore with a strong presumption that
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. * * * "
[emphasis exultantly added by David]

" * * * Putting all of these textual elements together, we find
that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. "
[emphasis exultantly added by David again]

David

0 Replies

Coyotes kill unarmed hiker:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gekbJ0UUlqG_1NTZuslRDD1SrZdAD9BKI3783

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Even a little .22 revolver woud probably have been enuf
to drive away coyotes, if she popped a round or 2 into either of them.

I bet that instead, she probably turned around and ran like prey.

David

0 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?

I imagine they'll be out of business once people in cities are allowed to head to their neighborhood gun store and buy assault weapons legally.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

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?

I imagine they'll be out of business once people in cities are
allowed to head to their neighborhood gun store and buy assault weapons legally.

When the law of supply & demand is restored
black market prices will plummet.

As far as I have ever heard,
crime was no worse before the enactment of gun control laws than it is now.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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.

The gun manufacturers and the NRA actually seldom see eye to eye.

The gun manufacturers were fine with an assault weapon ban, figuring that the actual design of the gun doesn't matter since they can make just as much money selling a gun regardless of whether or not it is an assault weapon.

Even though the NRA are political moderates, the gun manufacturers absurdly act as if they are extremists -- simply because the NRA stands up for civil rights.

Claiming that the gun manufacturers and the NRA are somehow linked or are "in cahoots with each other" is pretty absurd.

0 Replies

This thread is kind of silly. The court has made it quite clear that gun control is constitutional. There is NO chance that this will change.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Once again, 'Gun Control' means many different things to many different people.

To msolga, the creator of this thread, I imagine it means a ban on all guns.

To me, it means taking many of the rules in place today (such as not selling guns to felons, insane people, etc) and actually enforcing those laws instead of creating new ones. It also means that we end all citywide bans on hanguns and assault and make sure that people are allowed to carry concealed weapons so that people can protect themselves.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

This thread is kind of silly. The court has made it quite clear that gun control is constitutional. There is NO chance that this will change.

Some gun control is constitutional.

Some gun control is unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Quote:

Once again, 'Gun Control' means many different things to many different people.

As a general rule, it means either
discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life
and other property (ignoring "equal protection of the laws")

or

full prohibition of all weapons for civilians.

maporsche wrote:

Quote:

To msolga, the creator of this thread,
I imagine it means a ban on all guns.

Probably.

maporsche wrote:

Quote:

To me, it means taking many of the rules in place today
(such as not selling guns to felons, insane people, etc)

Prohibitions have never been effective. I cannot understand how
a prohibition can be expected to stop underground gunsmiths
any more than thay have stopped purvayors of marijuana, etc.
Under the Constitution 's requirement of "equal protection of the laws"
(the late) Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart still have as much right
to defend themselves as anyone else. Even Walt Disney was a felon;
he had as much moral right to defend himself as anyone.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was simply to put civilian possession of guns
beyond the reach of government, but violent criminals can still be
isolated from contact with the decent people.

Quote:

and actually enforcing those laws instead of creating new ones.

Government has no jurisdiction for that.
"Gun control" can only exist as a USURPATION of authority.
Under the scheme envisioned by the Founders, who wrote the Constitution,
the citizens retained the physical power to overthrow (their employee) the government.

Thay argued that in the Federalist Papers, favoring ratification of the Constitution.

That was even before the Bill of Rights existed.
The later 2nd Amendment strengthened that concept
of sovereignty and ultimate power in the citizens, not in their hireling.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
This thread is kind of silly. The court has made it quite clear that gun control is constitutional. There is NO chance that this will change.

Some gun control is constitutional.

Some gun control is unconstitutional.

The only gun control that can be constitutional,
is that which does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms;
hence, a mandatory requirement of possessing them can be constitutional.
Any gun control limiting the right is in violation of the Constitution.

Insofar as defensive possession of guns is concerned,
government discrimination is ALSO banned by
the "equal protection of the laws" requirements of the Constitution.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Can you cite any authority for saying that gun control is ineffective? It is not perfect, but has certainly been effective for many, many, people.

In the UK, as in many other advanced countries, there is very strict gun control. Those countries have only a tiny percent of the gun crimes that we do.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Yes, a tiny percent of "gun crimes".....like no other crime exists right?

"Gun crimes" are all that matters.

I can't help but laugh whenever I hear someone quote a "gun crime" statistic like they are representitive of anything important.

1 Reply

Qua what arms the people have rights to keep and bear,
the US Supreme Court said in US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
that they should be:
"ordinary military equipment ... AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn] 154, 158." [emphasis added]

The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.

If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner
to repel any encroachments on their rights." [emphasis added]

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

Can you cite any authority for saying that gun control is ineffective?

I am not much of a statistician.
I might be able to come up with something; more likely not.
However, I invoke recent historical memory that there
was no observed difference in the rate of crime from the early 1900s,
thru the worst of the most oppressive gun control.
When gun control was rejected in favor of CCW in Florida in 1987, crime dropped.
This continued to be the pattern in other states that followed
in Florida 's footsteps and NO STATE HAS EVER CHANGED ITS MIND AND RETURNED TO GUN CONTROL.

No state has ever said:
"we made a mistake in going to CCW, crime rose,
so we are returning to gun control."

Anyway: if YOU claim that crime declined
after gun control was inflicted upon the populace,
then it is incumbent upon YOU to prove it.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative side.

Quote:

It is not perfect, but has certainly been effective for many, many, people.

Yes, it has gotten a lot of innocent people killed
by disarming them so that thay coud not fight back
against violent predators, be thay human or not.
The penalty for obaying gun control laws is DEATH,
at the discretion of violent criminals or animals.

Quote:

In the UK, as in many other advanced countries, there is very strict gun control.

The severe n oppressive gun prohibition caused increases of violent crime, especially burglaries
of occupied houses. Police later complained of being required to cook the books to make their gun control look good,
e.g. counting mulitiple felonies at the same time n place against several victims as only 1 crime.
Supporters of gun control are very dishonest.

Quote:

Those countries have only a tiny percent of the gun crimes that we do.

Violent crime is also very heavily race related.
When I was in practice as a trial attorney, I saw every morning in court,
a line of prisoners in chains, wrist-to-wrist, looking like something
from the pre-Civil War South, with typically maybe 1 or 2 whites or Chinese
out of around 70 blacks, day after day, on their way to be arraigned. That is just eyesight.
The Europeans do not have as many blacks as we do.

David

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Can you cite any authority for saying that gun control is ineffective?

What specific gun control? And effective at achieving what goal?

Advocate wrote:

In the UK, as in many other advanced countries, there is very strict gun control. Those countries have only a tiny percent of the gun crimes that we do.

As if it mattered whether or not the crime involved a gun?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Yes, a tiny percent of "gun crimes".....like no other crime exists right?

"Gun crimes" are all that matters.

I can't help but laugh whenever I hear someone quote a "gun crime" statistic like they are representitive of anything important.

Perhaps people who are killed with guns are "more dead" than people who are killed with knives??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The only gun control that can be constitutional,
is that which does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms;
hence, a mandatory requirement of possessing them can be constitutional.
Any gun control limiting the right is in violation of the Constitution.

Not all gun control limits the right though. Instant background checks for example.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Yes, a tiny percent of "gun crimes".....like no other crime exists right?

"Gun crimes" are all that matters.

I can't help but laugh whenever I hear someone quote a "gun crime" statistic like they are representitive of anything important.

Perhaps people who are killed with guns are "more dead" than people who are killed with knives??

Oh, you had not heard that guns are more dangerous than other weapons?

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know