The Supreme Court's Gun Ruling This Week - Not A Debate

[Buster]

Quote:
Your point is well taken. There are fanatics on both sides of the arguement, both trying
to use emotional arguements. The trouble with banning guns is it takes away the
law abiding citizens right to carry. Criminals don't care.

Amen.

 

[DuckyBoys]

The second amendment guarantees me and every other law abiding citizen of the United States the right to own a gun, a hand gun, a rifle, a cannon, a shotgun, and every other weapon technology that comes down the pike. The founding fathers knew that the right of the people to bear arms was insurance agianst oppressive forms of government i.e. should the government take things too far - the people have a right to revolt. Being able to "bear arms" is how revolution takes place should it ever become necessary.

I'm thrilled with the ruling to say the least and we are pro NRA. In fact - out 4h shooting club just got a nice grant from them.

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
And lets not forget what I said here - its crucial:

The 2nd Amendment isn't about weapons development, or who should be allowed to own what; those who feel they must control us have created that argument, Instead it is part of a greater ideal:

The privilege and responsibility of the citizens of the nation to uphold the nation itself...

The Constitution warrants that the safety and survival of the Nation lies in the hands of the citizens, not a government, or a police force or any other "outside agency." We each have the unequivocable duty to step up, at all times in which we remain citizens.

 

[PurpleChicken]

"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."

A well regulated militia - Hmmm, does that mean the government should know
who has guns in case it needs to call upon them. For a while I believed the answer
was yes but people's opinions, like the ones here, made me change my mind.
It's best the government doesn't know.

Security of a free state - What does this mean????

This is where is gets gray. If those two statements were'nt there and the 2nd
ammendment only read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed" there really could be no debate.

 

[CrowinKing]

I'm a NRA member as well!!

 

[spatcher]

The "right" and "infringed" are pretty much self explanatory! Should never have been decided by these old farts anyway! I carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy!!!

 

[PurpleChicken]

Quote:

That's classic. I hope we have a few police officers who are members here
catch that one.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Wow, I guess I don't belong here, and I'll probably get chewed on but I will still add my 2 cents because I teach college. I've been held up, I've been shot at in the line of my job, I can carried concealed, and I can handle a shotgun.

I CAN carry concealed, but I don't. Everyone who says that everyone has the right to own a gun is correct, BUT, it should NOT be an easy thing to do. College students, full of raging adolescent hormones and often drinking to excess for the first times in their lives are the last people on the planet that should be armed. They get really wound up and they blow up at teachers over grades, they blow up at each other over girlfriends and sporting events. The next day they are chagrined and embarrassed. Embarrassed beats the hell out of dead or imprisoned for murder.

Banning weapons or allowing weapons isn't really the issue. Look at Canada: more weapons per household than we have here, but FAR fewer homicides. WHY? Because weapons are for hunting NOT for protection.

I believe the 2nd amendment was written to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government and repel invaders as the first post here said. Generally speaking, handguns aren't what is used in those activities. (Don't jump all over me, I said generally, I know I carried one too.)

It's not just our laws about guns that need to be changed, it is our whole way of dealing with them. Criminals DON"T care, that would be part of them being criminal, but there is a whole category of middle men who supply them, who are NOT considered criminal. The NRA treats it like a macho cold dead hand thing instead of as a tool. A weapon is a tool. We keep alcohol from people who we allow to go to war with weapons, we prevent people from driving more often than we prevent them from having a gun. If you believe the 2nd amendment is about owning a weapon to hunt, protect yourself (I have a problem with this but I'll go with it,) or repel invaders, then you should not have a problem with extended waiting periods. If we're being invaded we can suspend them, if you are planning a revolution plan ahead. Waiting periods should only inconvenience some and can stop others who are not people who should be armed.....

Common sense is simply not common.

 

[spatcher]

"Spatcher" is a retired police dispatcher!

 

[JaciesCoop]

This was a non issue years ago when handguns were not as prolific as they are in this day and age.

Households had guns but they were rifles and shotguns used for hunting or to pepper pest.

When handguns became so numerous the fight was on!

I was raised in a household that had over 100 rifles and shotguns in cases around the house. My grandfather was a writer and tested loads and guns for all the big companies, then wrote articles for all the gun mags on his findings. We had a gun range out back and my sister and I could shoot a rifle or a shotgun practically before we could walk.

But in all those guns there were only 2! handguns.

My grandfather was a national officer in the NRA and believed totally in the right to own guns but when I wanted a handgun for my 16th birthday he ask me one question. WHY? What do you want to do with it.
"For protection" I said.
He just got that silly grin and said to me. "Use your foot!" LOL!
So I got a beautiful Winchester 308 with a Tony Guyman stock made just for me instead and killed my 1st game with it the next year.

His point was. A handgun is to do mainly one thing. Kill or harm another human. If you're not ready and willing to do that, a handgun is pointless. You don't use them to threaten. You use them to kill.

But he totally believed in the right to own one if you wish, he just didn't wish! LOL!.

My point is that many people believe that the proliferation of handguns has been the proliferation of crime in this country and if you get rid of the guns, you get rid of the crime so there has been this overreaction.
Law enforcement, military etc should be allowed to carry handguns. If people wish to carry one in there purse or on their hip, that should be their right but personally I would never carry one because when it came right down to it, I'm not sure I could shoot a human being so therefore I'd probably get shot first. But I want the right if I choose.

Problem is, you can't undo what's done. The handguns in this country or any country will not disappear now. And unfortunately most of them are in the wrong hands. What can be done about it. Probably NOTHING! Will anti gun laws help. NO!
Will everyone wearing a gun on their hip help! NO! Because unfortunately for every sane gun owner there are 4 out there that are not so sane.

Jacie