Win one for us gun-totin' Gippers! :-))

Today.

The Supreme Court says Americans have rights to guns. In a 5-4 decision, it also struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The Court had not conclusively interpretated the 2nd Amendment since it's ratification in 1791! "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."

Justice Scalia said: "An individual right to bear arms is supported by: "The Historical Narrative," both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted." Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans "preferred weapon" of self-defense in part because "It can be pointed at a burglar with one hand, while the other is dialing the Police."

Joining Justice Scalia in this decision were: Chief Justice John Roberts, & Justices: Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Gun Rights supporters hailed the decision "I consider this the openiing salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association.

The N.R.A. will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of it's suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursdays outcome.

Like I say, one was won, for us gun-toting Gippers!!!!!! ;-D

 

This event was related in Norwegian media aswell. No doubt this will spark yet another round of debate on gun control.

 

As a long time holder of a CCW permit in both Oregon and Washington states, I'm encouraged by this small step in the right direction. But I would ask Justice Scalia, and the other Supreme Court justices, precisely what language in the Second Amendment restricts the citizen's right to keep and bear arms to his or her residence? Doesn't the right to self defense exist wherever a person chooses to go?

As enumerated in the Second Amendment, the citizen's right to possess and bear arms is clearly an absolute and unrestricted right with which the governments cannot tamper.

 

I'm not an American, rather coming from an European country where ownership of guns is severely restricted. If I may, things would be much easier if your 2nd Amendment were rewritten in a clearer way instead of the currently arcane writing. Something like "There is no restriction in gun-ownership to citizens with no criminal record" or similar. The current version is so obscure and ambiguous that it raises more doubt and discussion than clear legislation.

 

I love weapons and one of my dreams is to get a master shooter license. However, I think american widespread use of guns is too broad. You have tons of gun problems and most of them is due to the amount of liberalization you have.
I think not only rewriten, but access to AR and war caliber weapons should harder (tough not as hard as Portugal since that takes many people to get illegal guns!).



Cheers...

 

Spit on gun control. That would leave us defenseless at the hands of criminals. Regardless of the wording, the criminals could still get their hands on guns. That is the problem. Now you have teens committing heinous crimes. Not an issue with me if some them get killed by an individual defending themselves. Better yet if they are killing each other. Hurrah for the right to bear arms.

 

I strongly disagree. The Supreme Court has just cleared up the only ambiguity in the Second Amendment; the theory that the Second Amendment requires membership in a militia (however the word "militia" is defined) is no longer in contention. No such membership is required, the right is an individual right, as gun owners knew all along.

As for the balance of the Second Amendment wording, "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", could not be clearer. The problem, of course, is that the politicians do not trust the People with guns, and insist on violating that wording by putting restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms despite the very explicit prohibition against doing so.

The Second Amendment can't be rewritten, it is part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, and, as such, constitutes the manifestation of the "consent of the governed". It was the price the government paid to get the people to grant the government the power to govern. If you rewrite any of the Bill of Rights, you call into question the very legitimacy of the government itself.

Moreover, the US Supreme Court, in United States vs. Miller, held that the Second Amendment applied only to those weapons likely to be of use to the militia. That means primarily military style small arms such as AR's, shotguns, high powered rifles, and military type pistols. The rule of thumb would be, if a police department uses it, it's protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was NOT established to protect a right to possess arms for hunting and defense against burglars, but the right to own firearms which would allow citizens to successfully resist the government, if all else failed.

As an aside, many years ago, on a long flight across the US, I happened to sit next to a Polish citizen traveling in the United States. This was during the time when the Soviet Union still called the shots in Eastern Europe. This particular gentleman and I struck up a conversation in which he generally expressed admiration for the freedom in this country. But he mentioned being absolutely horrified at the ability of any citizen to walk into a gun shop and buy any type of firearm; this kind of behavior would never be allowed in Poland, he assured me. I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying what I was thinking, which was, "Yes, but look who controls the government in Poland." What so many Europeans seem to forget is that here in this country we fought a bloody eight year-long war so that we could be different from Europe.

 

I think that the real problem is located specifically with shotgun purchases. You have a waiting time of a few months on handguns, special regulations to purchase high caliber semi-autos and even plenty of forms for regular rifles yet I can walk into a store, pick out a shotgun and walk out of it the same day. That being said, the number 1 murder weapon in the US is a shotgun. Just a coincidence.

 

I'd like to see something that validates the statement that the number one murder weapon is the shotgun. Besides that, it's well established that there is absolutely no correlation between murder rates and restrictions on buying firearms; many of the states with the highest firearms murder rates are also those with the strictest purchase requirements. Waiting periods are another absurdity. Did the murder rate plunge precipitously when waiting periods were instituted? No. Was there any discernible drop in the murder rate? No. The only government measure that has been proved to be effective in reducing the firearms crime rate is strict enforcement of severe penalties for the misuse of firearms; many jurisdictions that scream the loudest for new gun control laws are the same ones that fail to strictly enforce the measures they already have.

 

Well, extrapolate that to world level and you see that the country with the most deaths by firearms is US of A... Coincidence??
Also, not to you devilsadvocate but the excuse that you have the right to bear arms for selfdefense cause "the burglers would still get them" is highly misleading and increases violence in a society. A thief with a gun is more likelly to shoot you if he thins you have a gun. They are not really that good at stopping someone from entering your house.
Plus, if the burglar is any good you wouldn't have a chance at getting your weapon.
Anyway, I think that the freedom to buy any gun whatsoever leads to some problems.



Cheers...


Cheers...

 

Does the United States have the highest death rate caused by firearms? I don't thinks so, and the statistics that are cited to support this falsehood are usually manipulated. For instance, the following link includes a table which shows a comparison of violent deaths for several countries;

See:http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

This shows the US near the middle range of countries with high violent death rates

As for the right of self-defense, studies show that Americans use firearms thousands of times a year to thwart criminals. The idea that a burglar or other criminal is not likely to harm you if he believes you are unarmed is absurd and ignores the reason the criminal might be armed in the first place. It does NOT increase violence in society to defend one's self; studies reveal that an armed citizen is more likely to emerge unharmed from a confrontation with a criminal than an unarmed person. Finally, interviews with convicted criminals reveal a strong reluctance on their part to even consider illegally entering a house where they believe the occupants may be armed, so the idea that criminals are not deterred by armed citizens is false.

You may, of course, believe anything you want about firearms, but behavioral scientists have established that the best defense against criminal activity is not a police force, but an armed and alert citizenry willing to confront criminal activity with armed force. To expect the police or some other agency to take the responsibility for protecting individuals is not only foolish and cowardly, but dangerous, as well.

 

Speaking from experience you are wrong.

 

Nor will the change in the law increase the murder rate or the violent crime rate. It's a myth that gun laws have any effect on such things. Criminals have never paid any attention to gun laws unless the penalties for misuse of guns are severe and strictly enforced, which is seldom the case anywhere in the US.

Personally, I think that the Supreme Court ruling will eventually mean more guns in the hands of responsible citizens which is a positive thing. Out where I live on the Oregon-Washington border, many citizens carry weapons as a matter of course (both states are "shall issue" jurisdictions) and that makes me feel very safe. Violent crime between strangers is rare here because responsible citizens can carry weapons and the criminals know it. Most violent crime occurs between people who associate with questionable elements of society, or are involved in criminal activities themselves. Knowing that my friends and neighbors are armed is a very comforting feeling for me.

 

Who's to decide who the responsible citizens are? I can appear very sane and be preparing a colombine without you knowing...
Oh and I loved the site you gave me. Unfortunatly, statistics don't work that well here. Look at rough numbers. If you do the math you get 48000 deaths a year in the USA of wich 14693 are murders and 9589 are firearms murders. Let's compare it to Estonia; 1060 deaths a year from wich 423 are murders of wich 121 are firearm related. So, in Estonia 28% of the murders are firearm related while in USA 65% of the murders are firearm related. See the problem with statistics? With a bit of manipulation I can show whatever result I want. It is better to use rough numbers...
So that site for me is no good. Also, that table is based on total death, and, they don't diferentiate violent death from accidental death. Most of the deaths we have in Portugal are car crashes cause people here drive as retards. Does that make Portugal a violent society? Take for instance Portuguese suicide toll. It's mainly among elderly people who are alone and isolated in the interior of the country. Does that make a society violent? It makes our society a poor society in terms of social wellfare granted but not violent.
So sorry but I have to dismiss your post as it doesn't present anything valid. You can present the studiesyou want but guns kill people and people with guns kill more people. Thanks to your laws regarding gun posession how many people do you think died because a jelous hubby caugh the wifey red-handed and since he had his 1911 with him he blew his wife and his wife lover head of?

Oh and JC, speaking from experience, you're wrong too. A burglar is gonna get a lot more nervous if he thinks you're armed and accidents will ocour more frequently. A nervous person behind a gun is one of the most dangerous things...

Anyway, put it as you like, guns kill people and the right to bear arms (or to arm bears if you prefer) is not gonna help in reducing violent deaths (wich are the ones that matter).




Cheers...

 

Well, Miguel, I can see that you've made up your mind and you're not going to change it no matter what facts are presented nor how scholarly the arguments. There's no point in trying to educate you as to the truth of the matter when your emotions are obviously in control. You believe what you want to believe and here in the US we'll keep our system which seems to be working quite well.

 

Oh my emotions are not in control I assure you I rationalize everything (that's one of my main problems).
you were educating me? You presented facts? The facts you presented I explained why I discarded them and why I think they're less than valid.
Now, I merely expressed my opinion and presented my version of the facts to why gun sales should be more restricted (and I don't mean forbiden). As for the car thing, it's a problem in Portuguese society and "my logic" doesn't say cars should be forbiden. It says people should not be able to pass an exam by paying the instructor (tough this is a small percentage) and the mentality of the people has to change.
Now I've been mugged at gunpoint, knives on the throat and with the threat of beying pummeled to death with wooden sticks. In 2 of those three times they managed to rob me. If I had a gun they'd rob my gun too. Sure you have a gun and are "safe" but imagine this: a kid strolling on his bike passes by you stops and asks you for the time (a really polite kid) as you go and check your watch you have a 6.35mm on your head. Are you able to dodge bullets? If he wanted to kill me I'd been dead right there. The police caught the little creep tough and I was allowed a fun time with him. I bet he wished he shot me latter!
Then the cops warned the family and they came and picked him up where the mother promptly slaped the kids face and appologised to me.
Never saw that kid again...
Now how'd a gun help me there?
As I said if someone wants to mug or kill you, you won't stand a chance no matter what you're carrying.
They just approach you peacefully and do it. as for robbing a place, a good thieve will rob your place no matter what you do. Most likelly you won't even know he's in there. So, as I said, guns are not that necessary.


Cheers...