You have the right to own a gun, but just barely

[wra]

While I am happy with the ruling I can't help but be mortified and scared silly that it came down to a 5-4 vote to protect the second Amendment.



Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[ROFLStomp]

Damn straight. Good to see that the Second Amendment has been reinforced by the Supreme Court.

[wra]

Damn straight. Good to see that the Second Amendment has been reinforced by the Supreme Court.

But my God how close was it? That really scares the crap out of me that 4 judges would actually deny me my right to bear arms.

[Liberator13]

That's disgusting, 4 people voted against it?

Great to hear it has been shot down, now let's see what they do about it.

[Mr. Heskey]

Another attempt of the activist judges to control our lives.


Really the only time in American history when an activist judge was needed was during the civil rights movement and a few other instances.

But their ONLY job should be to take what the constitution says literally.




It was our second freaking amendment. Right behind freedom of speech. The founding fathers said that owning a gun was just as important as freedom of speech.


Here's a syllabus: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[chalupa]

Another attempt of the activist judges to control our lives.


Really the only time in American history when an activist judge was needed was during the civil rights movement and a few other instances.

But their ONLY job should be to take what the constitution says literally.




It was our second freaking amendment. Right behind freedom of speech. The founding fathers said that owning a gun was just as important as freedom of speech.


Here's a syllabus: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Running the risk of starting a shitstorm, they never specified "guns." They said, "arms," leaving it purposefully obtuse.

There is also that weird sentence fragment about organized militias...

I'm not arguing with you that we should be allowed to bear arms, I, however, am just reiterating that it is not as cut and dry as you claim.

Look at it this way, Hesk -- you justified the role of the activist judges in the Civil Rights movement because you agree with the outcome and cause. There were most certainly people at the time who hated the activist judges for giving blacks rights, just as there most certainly are people around today that agree with the role of activist judges in the gun debate, because they agree with the cause.

Frame of reference is key here.

[Liberator13]

The hell else would "arms" mean? Cannons? Corn stalks?

[Mr. Heskey]

Frame of reference is key here.

Obviously, since most of politics is based off of opinion. But even so, for the longest time, segregation was upheld by the federal government on the basis of states' rights. It was only then did the judges 'overturn' what the constitution had guaranteed. However the case of states' rights is very vague. Especially since the federal government seems to think that everything is tied to interstate commerce.

However this was explicitly stated as a right. To overturn it would be completely spineless.

[silverspade14]

The hell else would "arms" mean? Cannons? Corn stalks?

The dangly bits that hang off the side of our torso.

[chalupa]

The hell else would "arms" mean? Cannons? Corn stalks?

Swords, knives, katana blades...just ask jolly ol' England about that.

[evilmittens]

Nice ruling. Just as long as the NRA doesnt get cocky and now ask for machine guns to be legal again.

[Liberator13]

Nah, no reason to allow people to run around with M-60's and the like, though I do think you can own them in Nebraska's rural areas.

[ROFLStomp]

Yeah, is a tad scary that there were four judges who ruled againist it, but luckily the majority of them got the message out. I have to agree, it is in our Constitution, so...yeah.

[jn_powell]

Swords, knives, katana blades...just ask jolly ol' England about that.
Based on the context in which the Constitution was written, the obvious assumption would be personal arms like muskets ball/powder pistols as that is what the commonly owned and used arms of the day were, at least by the commoners who had fought in the war as militia. Today that would equate to personally owned firearms like rifles and pistols, at least in the eyes of most Americans with common sense, apparently something those 4 judges lack, at least in my opinion. Technically the definition is a weapon, but even the dictionary definition refers to it most commonly being a firearm and given the situation in the states at the time, guns are obviously what they were referring. How are people going to rise up and form a militia with knives?

[rebeldave]

In the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Did he not read the whole "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment? If the 2nd amendment isn't a "limit on the tools available to elected officials to regulate civilian uses of weapons," I don't know what is.

[Yuseke]

Based on the context in which the Constitution was written, the obvious assumption would be personal arms like muskets ball/powder pistols as that is what the commonly owned and used arms of the day were, at least by the commoners who had fought in the war as militia. Today that would equate to personally owned firearms like rifles and pistols, at least in the eyes of most Americans with common sense, apparently something those 4 judges lack, at least in my opinion. Technically the definition is a weapon, but even the dictionary definition refers to it most commonly being a firearm and given the situation in the states at the time, guns are obviously what they were referring. How are people going to rise up and form a militia with knives?

The same way they do in the UK :p

[rebeldave]

The same way they do in the UK :p

The UK doesn't have militias.

Also, it is a common misunderstanding that the 2nd Amendment ties the right to bear arms to membership in some organized militia. It says that the government may not infringe the right to bear arms because militias are necessary. Militias being necessary for national security was the reasoning for granting all citizens this right, but nowhere does it say that membership in a militia is required to be granted this right.

[Yuseke]

The UK doesn't have militias.

Also, it is a common misunderstanding that the 2nd Amendment ties the right to bear arms to membership in some organized militia. It says that the government may not infringe the right to bear arms because militias are necessary. Militias being necessary for national security was the reasoning for granting all citizens this right, but nowhere does it say that membership in a militia is required to be granted this right.

I know. It was just a little jab at their gun ban. :)

[jn_powell]

The UK doesn't have militias.

Also, it is a common misunderstanding that the 2nd Amendment ties the right to bear arms to membership in some organized militia. It says that the government may not infringe the right to bear arms because militias are necessary. Militias being necessary for national security was the reasoning for granting all citizens this right, but nowhere does it say that membership in a militia is required to be granted this right.

Absolutely correct. To add to that, the whole idea behind citizens owning arms in relation to militias is that those citizens, should it be necessary can rise up and form a militia. No prior membership of any organized, or semi-organized military organization was ever implied in any way.

[wra]

Yeah, is a tad scary that there were four judges who ruled againist it, but luckily the majority of them got the message out. I have to agree, it is in our Constitution, so...yeah.

Just goes back to the most important thing a President does.

Select the Supreme Court judges.

When Kennedy retires, his replacement will be the balancing block in the court.

Absolutely correct. To add to that, the whole idea behind citizens owning arms in relation to militias is that those citizens, should it be necessary can rise up and form a militia. No prior membership of any organized, or semi-organized military organization was ever implied in any way.

completely agree.

But the 4 most liberal judges were all for taking those rights away and that is truely scary. If anyone doesn't think the Supreme Court nominees are important you can point to this case.

[Spike Lee]

Another attempt of the activist judges to control our lives.


Really the only time in American history when an activist judge was needed was during the civil rights movement and a few other instances.

But their ONLY job should be to take what the constitution says literally.




It was our second freaking amendment. Right behind freedom of speech. The founding fathers said that owning a gun was just as important as freedom of speech.


Here's a syllabus: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
The real activist judge on that court is Scalia. The same people who voted against habeus corpus for the detainees are the same ones that voted for for this.

Antonin Scalia, look him up.

[JonG]

The hell else would "arms" mean? Cannons? Corn stalks?

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

What else?

[Mugatu]

Based on the context in which the Constitution was written, the obvious assumption would be personal arms like muskets ball/powder pistols as that is what the commonly owned and used arms of the day were, at least by the commoners who had fought in the war as militia. Today that would equate to personally owned firearms like rifles and pistols, at least in the eyes of most Americans with common sense, apparently something those 4 judges lack, at least in my opinion. Technically the definition is a weapon, but even the dictionary definition refers to it most commonly being a firearm and given the situation in the states at the time, guns are obviously what they were referring. How are people going to rise up and form a militia with knives?

Its a pretty fair statement. I wonder what happens though when common rifles are completely obsolete against future military and police inventions. Part of the reason for this was to defend against possible government tyranny. Maybe in the future civilians will be allowed to have lazer rifles heh. Seriously though, how is the 2nd amendment going to protect you when you are completely outclassed by a government military force. I dont really have an answer. Maybe arm civilans with rocket launchers, but that seems a bit excessive...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

This is a pretty cool link which helps clarify the overall issue a bit.

[Bo Jackson]

I disagree with the SC's opinion in this case. If DC wants to outlaw HANDGUNS (not guns), that is its business. You can't really argue a good case for owning a handgun. I own one, it's fun to shoot, I could protect my home with it, but I could protect myself with a shotgun just as easily. The problem with this ruling though is that it opens up ground for groups like the NRA to say assault rifles and other class 3 weapons should be legalized. Where do you draw the line on "arms"?

[Amadeus]

I think people should have the right to own a gun or two for self-defense, sure. . .but let me ask an honest question:

How do you figure a militia (hillbillies with a few handguns and rifles) is going to be effective against the military of today (with tanks, body armor, grenades, heavy assault weapons, experimental energy weapons, and of course sheer numbers)?

I seriously feel that if we entered a police state, that there wouldn't be much we could do, and violence would be the absolute worst thing to try (you'd be called a terrorist and thrown into a camp).

[chrisvet]

But my God how close was it? That really scares the crap out of me that 4 judges would actually deny me my right to bear arms.

Too fucking close, and not the great victory we think it is. Next time around we might kiss it all goodbye. (with a huge fight no doubt)

I seriously feel that if we entered a police state, that there wouldn't be much we could do, and violence would be the absolute worst thing to try (you'd be called a terrorist and thrown into a camp).

We out number 'them' by leaps and bounds.

[jn_powell]

I disagree with the SC's opinion in this case. If DC wants to outlaw HANDGUNS (not guns), that is its business. You can't really argue a good case for owning a handgun. I own one, it's fun to shoot, I could protect my home with it, but I could protect myself with a shotgun just as easily.
If DC wants to outlaw handgun as far as people carrying them on their person, fine, but telling them they cannot own one in the privacy of their own home is a blatant violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Until handguns are classified as a class 3 weapon, which would be ridiculous, my opinion will remain the same and I fully support the SC here. Hell I would not agree even if handguns were reclassified.
The problem with this ruling though is that it opens up ground for groups like the NRA to say assault rifles and other class 3 weapons should be legalized.
No it doesn't.:rolleyes:
Where do you draw the line on "arms"?
I think the current classification works just fine. Fully automatic weapons have no place in the average American home. Rifles, pistols, and shotguns are fine.
Its a pretty fair statement. I wonder what happens though when common rifles are completely obsolete against future military and police inventions. Part of the reason for this was to defend against possible government tyranny. Maybe in the future civilians will be allowed to have lazer rifles heh. Seriously though, how is the 2nd amendment going to protect you when you are completely outclassed by a government military force. I dont really have an answer. Maybe arm civilans with rocket launchers, but that seems a bit excessive...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

This is a pretty cool link which helps clarify the overall issue a bit.
Well common rifles will never be fully obsolete. Small arms will always have a use and would be more useful than you think if there were to be some sort of rebellion. Guerilla warfare is what it would be all about and there would be more success than you think. Those "hillbillies" as someone said earlier are a crafty bunch and you could always add homemade explosives to the arsenal, which seem to have been pretty successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would never underestimate a man defending his home and his rights when it comes to fighting a battle. On top of that you could add to the situation the fact that our numbers are far greater than our military numbers and I would imagine many, if not most, soldiers would not fight against their own countrymen. many would probably join their side and add to the numbers.

[chalupa]

I think people should have the right to own a gun or two for self-defense, sure. . .but let me ask an honest question:

How do you figure a militia (hillbillies with a few handguns and rifles) is going to be effective against the military of today (with tanks, body armor, grenades, heavy assault weapons, experimental energy weapons, and of course sheer numbers)?

I seriously feel that if we entered a police state, that there wouldn't be much we could do, and violence would be the absolute worst thing to try (you'd be called a terrorist and thrown into a camp).

i've made this argument here, before. The NRA types don't seem to buy into that logic, so...good luck with all that.

[Mugatu]

Well common rifles will never be fully obsolete. Small arms will always have a use and would be more useful than you think if there were to be some sort of rebellion. Guerilla warfare is what it would be all about and there would be more success than you think. Those "hillbillies" as someone said earlier are a crafty bunch and you could always add homemade explosives to the arsenal, which seem to have been pretty successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would never underestimate a man defending his home and his rights when it comes to fighting a battle. On top of that you could add to the situation the fact that our numbers are far greater than our military numbers and I would imagine many, if not most, soldiers would not fight against their own countrymen. many would probably join their side and add to the numbers.

Damn good answer. I certainly wouldnt want to invade Texas I can tell you that much.

[jn_powell]

i've made this argument here, before. The NRA types don't seem to buy into that logic, so...good luck with all that.
Because that logic does not make sense enough to be considered fact. See my last post please.

[Bo Jackson]

If DC wants to outlaw handgun as far as people carrying them on their person, fine, but telling them they cannot own one in the privacy of their own home is a blatant violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Until handguns are classified as a class 3 weapon, which would be ridiculous, my opinion will remain the same and I fully support the SC here. Hell I would not agree even if handguns were reclassified.

No it doesn't.:rolleyes:

I think the current classification works just fine. Fully automatic weapons have no place in the average American home. Rifles, pistols, and shotguns are fine.



First off, you're going to sit there and say a 9mm pistol with a 18rd magazine isn't as deadly in the right hands than an assault rifle?

You know, I guess it is the job of the SC to interpret the law, but I think they're interpreting this one wrong. It's just my opinion and I'm sure it's not popular opinion. But I just don't see a need for handguns in this country.

[jn_powell]

First off, you're going to sit there and say a 9mm pistol with a 18rd magazine isn't as deadly in the right hands than an assault rifle?
Absolutely. In the right hands any weapon can be just as deadly as any other. We are not talking about Delta Force snipers here for the love of God. Your average American could not hit Jared from Subway when he was fat from more than 15 yards away with a handgun, particularly in a stressful situation. An assault rifle on the other hand...... Not that it really matters. Personally I feel strongly that handguns are an integral part of personal self defense, but in my home I would usually pick up my pistol grip 12 gauge first.
You know, I guess it is the job of the SC to interpret the law, but I think they're interpreting this one wrong. It's just my opinion and I'm sure it's not popular opinion. But I just don't see a need for handguns in this country.

There is no guessing, it is most certainly their job. You are completely entitled to your opinion my friend, just as I am entitled to my opinion that you could not be more completely dead wrong. Agree to disagree as there is no right or wrong answer on a subject like that, whereas whether Americans have the right is clear cut. Thank you founding fathers, now if only you would have left that whole militia line out we would not have people trying to cling to it for dear life to claim you did not mean exactly what you said...that the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed.

[Bo Jackson]

Absolutely. In the right hands any weapon can be just as deadly as any other. We are not talking about Delta Force snipers here for the love of God. Your average American could not hit Jared from Subway when he was fat from more than 15 yards away with a handgun, particularly in a stressful situation. An assault rifle on the other hand...... Not that it really matters. Personally I feel strongly that handguns are an integral part of personal self defense, but in my home I would usually pick up my pistol grip 12 gauge first.

Yeah that little Asian faggot only killed 32 people with handguns at VT. Was he Delta Force? :rolleyes:

There is no guessing, it is most certainly their job. You are completely entitled to your opinion my friend, just as I am entitled to my opinion that you could not be more completely dead wrong. Agree to disagree as there is no right or wrong answer on a subject like that, whereas whether Americans have the right is clear cut. Thank you founding fathers, now if only you would have left that whole militia line out we would not have people trying to cling to it for dear life to claim you did not mean exactly what you said...that the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall NOT be infringed.

When did I ever say Americans didn't have the right to bear arms? I own arms, I plan on owning arms, and I think it is our right. I said the SC is defining arms in the wrong way on this one.

You couldn't care less about the Constitution. You only care about this because you enjoy your guns. Right?

[jn_powell]

Yeah that little Asian faggot only killed 32 people with handguns at VT. Was he Delta Force? :rolleyes:
You don't have to be a smart ass. Up until this point I have been completely respectful and acting like a douche does not really work in a debate, so please cut it out. Let me ask you this...if that "little Asian faggot" had an assault rifle instead of a couple of handguns do you think the body count would be only 32? If so then you are sorely mistaken. On top of that he could have done the exact same thing with a shotguns or rifles. The handgun did not cause 32 people to die.
When did I ever say Americans didn't have the right to bear arms? I own arms, I plan on owning arms, and I think it is our right. I said the SC is defining arms in the wrong way on this one.
I never said, nor insinuated that you said anything of the kind. I know exactly what you said and I also told you that I disagree with you and that we should leave it at that. Apparently you chose not to do so.
You couldn't care less about the Constitution. You only care about this because you enjoy your guns. Right?
Wrong. Again with the personal attack on me, what is your problem pal? Actually the only thing I care about is protecting the freedoms that are gradually being worn away by our government little by little and this happens to be one of those rights. I firmly support the second amendment and would fight to the death to defend it, along with all of the others. You can take your attempt at an insult and stick whereever you see fit, as long as it is not here.

[Bo Jackson]

No personal attacks from me. The only reason I used that stupid little "rolls eyes" smiley guy was because you used the exact same one to me a few posts before. So if you can't take his little blue ass, don't dish it out. There's really nothing left to argue here. You think handguns do the country good, I think they do not.

[jn_powell]

No personal attacks from me. The only reason I used that stupid little "rolls eyes" smiley guy was because you used the exact same one to me a few posts before. So if you can't take his little blue ass, don't dish it out. There's really nothing left to argue here. You think handguns do the country good, I think they do not.
Well I was more referring to your statement that I am somehow a gun nut who does not give a shit about the Constitution. The rolls eyes thing was not a big deal. I use that all the time. In any case, let bygones be bygones.

[Bo Jackson]

That's cool. I should have worded that differently. I'm not saying you don't care at all about the Constitution. I just think (and this is the case for me too), I care more about the fun I have from owning handguns than I do about the amendment.

[jn_powell]

That's cool. I should have worded that differently. I'm not saying you don't care at all about the Constitution. I just think (and this is the case for me too), I care more about the fun I have from owning handguns than I do about the amendment.
Well, I do enjoy shooting very much and spend a lot of time doing it but I never even fired a handgun until about 2 years ago but I have always held the same beliefs I profess here today. I quickly saw not only how much fun they can be but how useful should I ever find myself in a dangerous situation, which is why I went and earned my concealed carry license. I work and spend a lot of time in bad neighborhoods in Dallas so my concern, I feel, is a valid one.

[SurvivalistMan]

Nah, no reason to allow people to run around with M-60's and the like, though I do think you can own them in Nebraska's rural areas.

I may be taking your post wrong, but you can legally own fully automatic weapons...abet, you need to have a special lincense (which you get after a hefty paid sum and a huge background check) and you need to have plenty of cash to throw around. M-60s are not cheap; http://www.gunsamerica.com/976978593/Guns-For-Sale/Gun-Auctions/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles/Curio_Relic_M60_Model_T161.htm

[Danimal87]

I think the current classification works just fine. Fully automatic weapons have no place in the average American home. Rifles, pistols, and shotguns are fine.
Are you saying that automatic weapons are already banned? A friend of my Dad's owns a couple, including a mini-Uzi with a silencer, and I'm pretty sure it is legal. With the extended magazine it can hold about 120 rounds if I remember correctly (its a drum), you can't find a funner weapon to shoot.
Yeah that little Asian faggot only killed 32 people with handguns at VT. Was he Delta Force?
He could have been stopped by any one of his victims if they had a handgun themselves.

Edit: SurvivalistMan beat me to it...

[danman]

While I am happy with the ruling I can't help but be mortified and scared silly that it came down to a 5-4 vote to protect the second Amendment.



Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

EXACTLY... THE SUPREME COURT JUST RULED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WOW. SO THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS REALLY DOES MEAN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. WOW. I'M GLAD 16 MILLION DOLLARS COULD FIGURE ALL THAT OUT.

[chalupa]

EXACTLY... THE SUPREME COURT JUST RULED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WOW. SO THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS REALLY DOES MEAN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. WOW. I'M GLAD 16 MILLION DOLLARS COULD FIGURE ALL THAT OUT.

Stop fucking yelling, we are all friends here.

[jn_powell]

Are you saying that automatic weapons are already banned? A friend of my Dad's owns a couple, including a mini-Uzi with a silencer, and I'm pretty sure it is legal. With the extended magazine it can hold about 120 rounds if I remember correctly (its a drum), you can't find a funner weapon to shoot.
No they are not banned but they are certainly not available for just anyone to (legally) purchase. My personal opinion is that no one really needs to own a fully aotumatic weapon, but I am not going to bitch about allowing those who are qualified to do so, it is just not something I feel is necessary. I have shot a fully automatic .223 before, which was an absolute blast, but I really see no need for those weapons.....yet. I can see the argument for them though based on the reasoning behind the second amendment, and that is the same reason i put the "yet" on the end of my last statement.

[Dayve]

Swords, knives, katana blades...just ask jolly ol' England about that.

We've no need to arm ourselves to the teeth, our culture isn't as violent and trigger happy as Americas culture. Here, killing someone is actually a big deal.

It's violent in the sense that people get into a lot of fist fights, the English have always loved a good fist fight, but knife/gun crime is still incredibly rare.

[SurvivalistMan]

We've no need to arm ourselves to the teeth, our culture isn't as violent and trigger happy as Americas culture. Here, killing someone is actually a big deal.

It's violent in the sense that people get into a lot of fist fights, the English have always loved a good fist fight, but knife/gun crime is still incredibly rare.

Not as rare as you'd like to think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/24/politics.ukcrime1

[_Joe]

Look at it this way, Hesk -- you justified the role of the activist judges in the Civil Rights movement because you agree with the outcome and cause.

Then you get the ones who hand Bush the 2000 presidential election on a silver platter like Scalia. Not saying Gore would've been better as president or we would be better off as a nation, just that judicial activism is very rarely a good thing.

[modogthemonkey]

Not as rare as you'd like to think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/24/politics.ukcrime1

Better buy myself a musket.

[Sketcher]

It scares the hell out of me that four Supreme Court judges blatantly denied the wishes of the founding fathers on this freedom. If your confused because of the wording of the second amendment, just read some quotes from the fathers on guns.

[PsiRedEye22]

It scares the hell out of me that four Supreme Court judges blatantly denied the wishes of the founding fathers on this freedom. If your confused because of the wording of the second amendment, just read some quotes from the fathers on guns.

No offense, and I agree with you wholely on this issue, but the founding fathers were slave owners. Just because they say something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at in the future.

[Spike Lee]

The founding fathers were a group of folks whose compromise churned out the constitution. They didn't agree wholeheartedly with what was laid out. There were two main groups between the men, federalist and anti-federalist.

[Reptilian]

What's the real reason why they would try to eliminate the second amendment?

And say they went door to door with automatic weapons seizing weapons, when they got to your door would you fight or would you passively hand over your weapons?

[Spike Lee]

What's the real reason why they would try to eliminate the second amendment?

And say they went door to door with automatic weapons seizing weapons, when they got to your door would you fight or would you passively hand over your weapons?

NAR BROTHER DEY WNT TERK MEH GUNZ! NEWZ WORLZ ORDER!

[rordy]

As it has been said before the founding fathers had won their freedom from a tyrannizing government, one of the main problems of the revolution was the attacks on militias and the "confenscation" of their arms (muskets). To insure this problem never happened again they "evened" the playing field by making it a right for civilians to own the SAME weapons the armies used at the time. This way if the people should need to get their liberties back from a tyrannizing government (new U.S.) they would be an army against an army instead of a country of people who only got sufficant arms when France stepped in. Now, however much has changed, we couldn't get militias to combat a tyranny without it being stopped. Even if that were done the weapons allowed could NEVER even combat riot control weapons/technology controlled remotely. The second amendment had no way of anticapating the future of war fair and has no relevence to OUR society as it stands today.

[chrisvet]

As it has been said before the founding fathers had won their freedom from a tyrannizing government, one of the main problems of the revolution was the attacks on militias and the "confenscation" of their arms (muskets). To insure this problem never happened again they "evened" the playing field by making it a right for civilians to own the SAME weapons the armies used at the time. This way if the people should need to get their liberties back from a tyrannizing government (new U.S.) they would be an army against an army instead of a country of people who only got sufficant arms when France stepped in. Now, however much has changed, we couldn't get militias to combat a tyranny without it being stopped. Even if that were done the weapons allowed could NEVER even combat riot control weapons/technology controlled remotely. The second amendment had no way of anticapating the future of war fair and has no relevence to OUR society as it stands today.

so you're basically saying we just give up, its pointless to think we can take on a tyrannical government.

[rordy]

so you're basically saying we just give up, its pointless to think we can take on a tyrannical government.

no, I'm saying the origanal intention is no longer a reachable goal so it fails at what its purpose IS.

[FuNkYFreSH]

Another attempt of the activist judges to control our lives.


Really the only time in American history when an activist judge was needed was during the civil rights movement and a few other instances.

But their ONLY job should be to take what the constitution says literally.




It was our second freaking amendment. Right behind freedom of speech. The founding fathers said that owning a gun was just as important as freedom of speech.


Here's a syllabus: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

agreed. I need my gun to protect me from mother nature's super animals like big foot.

[rordy]

agreed. I need my gun to protect me from mother nature's super animals like big foot.

or a jackel?

[ROFLStomp]

No offense, and I agree with you wholely on this issue, but the founding fathers were slave owners. Just because they say something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at in the future.

yeah they basically stated in their federalist papers that people are too stupid to rule on their own so they wanted a mix between tyranny and anarchy... I've always wondered who they would support this election, by just looking at the platforms. We all know they would support Mccain because of his race probably, but its always a curious thing to look into...

[FugginBastid]

But my God how close was it? That really scares the crap out of me that 4 judges would actually deny me my right to bear arms.

Got Damn, OP! My thoughts, exactly.

I haven't got the chance to find out who the four idiots, who voted on the wrong side (jmho) of the matter was, but let me guess: Stevens?

We MUST NOT let a Barrack Hussein Obama disaster take place. This election cycle is the, IMHO, MOST CRUCIAL one, EVER!

Hit the voting booths hard, with your vote for John 'War Hero' McCain. I know he won't "save" us, but at least we will not be a third world country within 10 years. After four years, we'll find the RIGHT candidate.

F! I still cannot believe it -- Four F'ing idiots sitting on the highest bench in the land, and trying to legislate from it. Just.... just......Damn.

God Bless America!

[chrisvet]

no, I'm saying the origanal intention is no longer a reachable goal so it fails at what its purpose IS.

My question wasn't loaded, you're basically saying there's no longer a point, which I could conceive as a reasonable assessment. I however like to be more optimistic basing it on the old adage that nothing is impossible.

[Spike Lee]

Creating energy is impossible. It violates Newtons Laws.

[Roushpimpn]

Can't believe the decision came that close. Kind of scary. Even if it passed, good luck enforcing that shit, especially in the south.

[chrisvet]

Can't believe the decision came that close. Kind of scary. Even if it passed, good luck enforcing that shit, especially in the south.

R E V O L U T I O N

[American Infidel]

R E V O L U T I O N

With my temperament, at the time of this posting, I'm only an inch away from grabbing my gun and siding with you, in a foxhole. This whole election process has been a huge scam and a monumental slap-in-the-face to our forefathers.

...by the way, I do enjoy mints being left on the sandbags, when I return to our foxhole.

Just sayin'...

[OMFG FORUM RAGE]

American Infidel can I join ya in the foxhole?

[Liberator13]

I'm there with you. Unfortunately, the biggest gun I own is either a paintball gun or a pellet gun.

[clutch-monkey]

I'm there with you. Unfortunately, the biggest gun I own is either a paintball gun or a pellet gun.
a pellet gun in the right place at the right time is more effective than a battalion of heavy artillery 5 miles down the road and three hours too late!

[OMFG FORUM RAGE]

a pellet gun in the right place at the right time is more effective than a battalion of heavy artillery 5 miles down the road and three hours too late!

they will think it would be sniper fire

[Liberator13]

a pellet gun in the right place at the right time is more effective than a battalion of heavy artillery 5 miles down the road and three hours too late!

Very true! Plus the pellets are lead-based, I think.

Go me.

[Amadeus]

Because that logic does not make sense enough to be considered fact. See my last post please.

So, you believe that rifles + molotov cocktails = overthrown government?

Seems more like throwing rocks at a tank (http://alexweidmann.com/images/iraqkids.jpg) to me.

I'll say it again: I believe that people should have the freedom to possess firearms, but for the reason of small-time self-defense and "simply because I want to," not some bullshit, outdated excuse.

[Devastation]

Water guns filled with sulfuric acid are much more barbaric, provided you use up your ammo before it eats through the plastic of your crappy little gun, thereby destroying your hands.

[Liberator13]

So, you think rifles + molotov cocktails = overthrown government?

Seems more like throwing rocks at a tank (http://alexweidmann.com/images/iraqkids.jpg) to me.

You really think soldiers in the military could fire at us? Really? They are citizens, like you and I, they have just taken a different career path. They long to be home with us while deployed, their family and friends and boyfriends/girlfriends live among us, and you think they'd kill us?

[American Infidel]

Damn! This foxhole is getting overcrowded. But I do appreciate the 500 shot lever action Red Rider bb guns!

You're all invited, though Dev is hinting on chemical warfare, which is, (at the least), devious (which I suspected) and, at most, evil (which I expected). :)

[Devastation]

I wouldn't be me if I wasn't that way.

[OMFG FORUM RAGE]

Damn! This foxhole is getting overcrowded. But I do appreciate the 500 shot lever action Red Rider bb guns!

You're all invited, though Dev is hinting on chemical warfare, which is, (at the least), devious (which I suspected) and, at most, evil (which I expected). :)

sorry I prefer sniper rifles

[American Infidel]

sorry I prefer sniper rifles

Not saying that you're not invited. I'm just saying that you'll be positioned in the bell tower, 100 meters to my left. And, if you're captured, we knew nothing of your existence. That's all...

[Devastation]

I suggest a moat surrounding our foxhole, filled with liquid nitrogen. I also would like to see some pepper spray divisions covering our flanks.

[Liberator13]

Can I bring one of my paintball guns and use pepper ball ammo as well?

[2ndAmendment]

The pendulum has finally started swinging the other way. This landmark decision is crucial to gun owners; it will set a precedent and it FINALLY... FINALLY answers the long standing question: YES, gun-grabbers, we DO have a constitutional RIGHT to use FIREARMS for SELF DEFENSE... And NO, gun-grabbers, there isn't a DAMN THING you can do about it.

Ah, what a glorious, glorious day this is!! And perfect timing, too! Right before the 4th of July. Good to see a little bit of the true America coming back! :) Enjoy this day, everyone!! Especially DC residents ;)

[Spike Lee]

The pendulum has finally started swinging the other way. This landmark decision is crucial to gun owners; it will set a precedent and it FINALLY... FINALLY answers the long standing question: YES, gun-grabbers, we DO have a constitutional RIGHT to use FIREARMS for SELF DEFENSE... And NO, gun-grabbers, there isn't a DAMN THING you can do about it.

Ah, what a glorious, glorious day this is!! And perfect timing, too! Right before the 4th of July. Good to see a little bit of the true America coming back! :) Enjoy this day, everyone!! Especially DC residents ;)

See, this type of look for gun right advocates really makes the side look extreme, silly and kind of stupid.

[2ndAmendment]

See, this type of look for gun right advocates really makes the side look extreme, silly and kind of stupid.

How do you figure? Every word of it is true; it's not my fault if you can't embrace the truth and accept it for what it is.

[_Joe]

How do you figure? Every word of it is true; it's not my fault if you can't embrace the truth and accept it for what it is.

His point is that you're practically idolizing guns. To someone who doesn't hold guns in such high esteem, that can be scary.

[jn_powell]

So, you believe that rifles + molotov cocktails = overthrown government?

Seems more like throwing rocks at a tank (http://alexweidmann.com/images/iraqkids.jpg) to me.

I'll say it again: I believe that people should have the freedom to possess firearms, but for the reason of small-time self-defense and "simply because I want to," not some bullshit, outdated excuse.

Excuse? I hardly think so. While I agree with your assessment that people should be allowed to own weapons for self defense I completely disagree with the fact that said weapons would be useless against our government should it ever become necessary. THe sheer number of people we have compared to the size of our military is enough to show that. Sure we have lots of big cool weapons but those are of little use against guerilla style warfare. You throw 250,000,000 people with small arms and home made bombs, which by the way are far more powerful than mere molotov cocktails, against a reltivel small force of military and police and I think we would have more than a fighting chance. Win, possibly not, but I would still venture a fighting chance.

[Spike Lee]

Excuse? I hardly think so. While I agree with your assessment that people should be allowed to own weapons for self defense I completely disagree with the fact that said weapons would be useless against our government should it ever become necessary. THe sheer number of people we have compared to the size of our military is enough to show that. Sure we have lots of big cool weapons but those are of little use against guerilla style warfare. You throw 250,000,000 people with small arms and home made bombs, which by the way are far more powerful than mere molotov cocktails, against a reltivel small force of military and police and I think we would have more than a fighting chance. Win, possibly not, but I would still venture a fighting chance.

With the birth of the American standing army, the hope for an armed revolution is pretty bad now.

[2ndAmendment]

His point is that you're practically idolizing guns. To someone who doesn't hold guns in such high esteem, that can be scary.

I'm not idolizing guns. Where the hell do you get that from? I'm idolizing my AMERICAN RIGHTS. The Constitution. The Amendments. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment.

You'll forgive me for being overjoyed at the SCOTUS decision today, we've been waiting 32 years for it, allright? We're not idolizing, we're just HAPPY. The Gun-Grabbers have been a thorn in our ass for the last half-century because they're too stupid to figure out that Legal gun ownership does NOT equal crime, and today helped solidify it.

Red Sox fans were happy when they won the series, so what, we're not allowed to be happy?? And what the hell is there to be scared of? Jesus Christ, we're NOT the ones you have to worry about! Criminals don't purchase guns legally and get licenses to carry, my friend.

"Scary" Are you kidding me?

With the birth of the American standing army, the hope for an armed revolution is pretty bad now.

Why not, it did the trick against the most powerful military force in the world, back in 1776.

[ric]

.

I'll say it again: I believe that people should have the freedom to possess firearms, but for the reason of small-time self-defense and "simply because I want to," not some bullshit, outdated excuse.

When only the rich fucks and their bodyguards are armed, they have control. A lowly peasant with a rifle, or more properly, 150 peasants with rifles negate a lot of that power.

And another thing here, I have never understood how the government could legislate a RIGHT. Why do we need to come to any sort of compromise on a RIGHT...maybe we could compromise on free speech and big brother should screen everything before the news prints or airs it, or maybe we could compromise and make flag burning illegal.

It is either a RIGHT, or its not.

[2ndAmendment]

When only the rich fucks and their bodyguards are armed, they have control. A lowly peasant with a rifle, or more properly, 150 peasants with rifles negate a lot of that power.

And another thing here, I have never understood how the government could legislate a RIGHT. Why do we need to come to any sort of compromise on a RIGHT...maybe we could compromise on free speech and big brother should screen everything before the news prints or airs it, or maybe we could compromise and make flag burning illegal.

It is either a RIGHT, or its not.

Well said. It is a right, and that was just established today. The argument about that is over.

[Spike Lee]

I'm not idolizing guns. Where the hell do you get that from? I'm idolizing my AMERICAN RIGHTS. The Constitution. The Amendments. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment.

You'll forgive me for being overjoyed at the SCOTUS decision today, we've been waiting 32 years for it, allright? We're not idolizing, we're just HAPPY. The Gun-Grabbers have been a thorn in our ass for the last half-century because they're too stupid to figure out that Legal gun ownership does NOT equal crime, and today helped solidify it.

Red Sox fans were happy when they won the series, so what, we're not allowed to be happy?? And what the hell is there to be scared of? Jesus Christ, we're NOT the ones you have to worry about! Criminals don't purchase guns legally and get licenses to carry, my friend.

"Scary" Are you kidding me?



Why not, it did the trick against the most powerful military force in the world, back in 1776.

No it didn't. An army and militia did. And considering the advent of shit like machine guns, tanks, bombs and a whole array of technology that the founding fathers would of considered demonry, no.

[2ndAmendment]

What do you think a "militia" is, Spike?

[_Joe]

I'm not idolizing guns. Where the hell do you get that from? I'm idolizing my AMERICAN RIGHTS. The Constitution. The Amendments. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment.
And you love guns because they're the tools by which you ensure those things you ARE idolizing stay in your possession.

You'll forgive me for being overjoyed at the SCOTUS decision today, we've been waiting 32 years for it, allright? We're not idolizing, we're just HAPPY.
You just said you're idolizing "AMERICAN RIGHTS"

Red Sox fans were happy when they won the series, so what, we're not allowed to be happy?? And what the hell is there to be scared of? Jesus Christ, we're NOT the ones you have to worry about! Criminals don't purchase guns legally and get licenses to carry, my friend.

"Scary" Are you kidding me?
Whether held by a law-abiding citizen or a criminal, a gun is meant to kill, is it not? That's pretty scary, even to a pro-second amendment guy like me.

Why not, it did the trick against the most powerful military force in the world, back in 1776.
We don't have the hardware to go up against the air force. Infantry for a little while, but they would have total air superiority. What would help us in that situation most would be desertions, I think. A lot of servicemen and women are just kids who don't want to be shooting at their fellow Americans.

[Spike Lee]

An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.

[2ndAmendment]

No, Joe, guns are NOT designed to kill. Combat guns are designed to DEFEND. They're also designed for sport and recreation. I have a 22 target pistol, it's hardly "designed to kill". And I haven't killed anyone yet with my carry gun, except maybe a few stacks of paper targets. Wording is everything my friend, and self defense guns are NOT designed to kill. They are designed for self defense. If that includes killing you, the criminal, then that is YOUR fault, not mine.

An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.

Wrong, Spike. The national guard wasn't created until an act of congress in 1917, so it wasn't them. And there was no such thing as a "reserve army" back then, dude. Try again.

Militia = ARMED CITIZENS. That's it, and that's what it meant back then. Farmers, dude... that's all.

[Spike Lee]

No, Joe, guns are NOT designed to kill. Combat guns are designed to DEFEND. They're also designed for sport and recreation. I have a 22 target pistol, it's hardly "designed to kill". And I haven't killed anyone yet with my carry gun, except maybe a few stacks of paper targets. Wording is everything my friend, and self defense guns are NOT designed to kill. They are designed for self defense. If that includes killing you, the criminal, then that is YOUR fault, not mine.
No, their weapons. When they are used for self defense, they are called personal defense weapon. Regardless if for game or self defense, they are weapons.

edit: either way, militias back then eventually turned into an army. I admit defeat on that definition. But they are all going down should they revolt.

[2ndAmendment]

No, their weapons. When they are used for self defense, they are called personal defense weapon. Regardless if for game or self defense, they are weapons.

Wrong again, Spike. A weapon is a tool that you use to cause harm or death to another person. That ain't true for my little 22 target pistol, now is it?

My defense pistol IS a weapon, but when it's used for self defense, why is the word "weapon" a bad word? I don't care, call it what you like. Call it "Sceptor of flaming death by molten lead" for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that I'm not using it to KILL, that's the part you're missing. Because after 13 years of carrying one, I haven't killed anyone yet, nor am I inclined to. I WILL use it to defend myself, and if the criminal happens to die in the process, it ain't my fault. It's his.

[_Joe]

No, Joe, guns are NOT designed to kill. Combat guns are designed to DEFEND.
How do they defend? Do they reason with the enemy? Come on, I can't stand when one of you guys tries to say that guns are not designed to kill living things, that's like saying cars aren't designed to move.

They're also designed for sport and recreation. I have a 22 target pistol, it's hardly "designed to kill". And I haven't killed anyone yet with my carry gun, except maybe a few stacks of paper targets. Wording is everything my friend, and self defense guns are NOT designed to kill. They are designed for self defense. If that includes killing you, the criminal, then that is YOUR fault, not mine.
What's the difference between a self-defence 9mm and a criminal 9mm and a recreational 9mm? Semantics. What are you going to do when faced with an armed assailant? You kill him if he has a gun pointed at you or someone else.

[rebeldave]

No it didn't. An army and militia did. And considering the advent of shit like machine guns, tanks, bombs and a whole array of technology that the founding fathers would of considered demonry, no.

How many members of the active military do you think would actually fight to put down a rebellion in America if they believed in the cause? I saw a poll a year of two ago saying that somewhere around 50% of our troops said they would be willing to kill an American citizen. I wish I could find that poll now to get some firm numbers, but alas, I haven't found it. For the purpose of argument, I'd even be willing to say 75% of the military would fight to put down a rebellion. Even then, you are going to run into huge logistical problems that would give an advantage to a rebellion. Cutting a fighting force by 25% overnight causes problems many people wouldn't even believe. Technological advantages can only take you so far when your support structure refuses to do its job..

[Spike Lee]

Wrong again, Spike. A weapon is a tool that you use to cause harm or death to another person. That ain't true for my little 22 target pistol, now is it?

My defense pistol IS a weapon, but when it's used for self defense, why is the word "weapon" a bad word? I don't care, call it what you like. Call it "Sceptor of flaming death by molten lead" for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that I'm not using it to KILL, that's the part you're missing. Because after 13 years of carrying one, I haven't killed anyone yet, nor am I inclined to. I WILL use it to defend myself, and if the criminal happens to die in the process, it ain't my fault. It's his.

Weapons have been considered a bad thing since they were invented. Don't pretend that they are just now being referred to in the negative light.

Guns are weapons. Self defense or not.

And after looking into it, a bit more you are wrong on what a militia is. A militia has to be organised by a community, state or otherwise:


During the French and Indian Wars, town militia formed a recruiting pool for the Provincial Forces. The legislature of the colony would authorize a certain force level for the season's campaign, based on that set recruitment quotas for each local militia. In theory, militia members could be drafted by lot if there were inadequate forces for the Provincial Regulars; however, the draft was rarely resorted to because provincial regulars were highly paid (more highly paid than their regular British Army counterparts) and rarely engaged in combat.

[2ndAmendment]

How do they defend? Do they reason with the enemy? Come on, I can't stand when one of you guys tries to say that guns are not designed to kill living things, that's like saying cars aren't designed to move.


What's the difference between a self-defence 9mm and a criminal 9mm and a recreational 9mm? Semantics. What are you going to do when faced with an armed assailant? You kill him if he has a gun pointed at you or someone else.

Well if you want to look at it from that point of view, then I guess knives, fishing hooks, and meat slicers are all designed to kill too, right? Why aren't you attacking the fishing industry?

There is a huge difference between my defensive .45 and my target 22. But when I use my .45 for target, I'll explain what the difference is... The same difference between using a car to go to work, or getting drunk and killing someone.

Your argument is moot, my friend. They were NOT designed to kill. They are certainly capable of it, but that's not what they were built for. They were built to DEFEND. No, not with reason (smart ass), with a threat of death. Most lethal encounters result in 0 shots being fired. Most of the time, merely brandishing a gun will neutralize a threat, because you're no longer easy pickins' now are you? Out of 13 years of carry, I had to draw once, and fire never (knock on wood). I'd say it did it's job fairly well, wouldn't you?

Considering I've never killed anyone, and I've owned guns for a long time now, I think it's safe to say that they weren't designed to kill, because by your standard, I should be out killing people, shouldn't I? That's like saying "It's OK to drive into anyone I want because that's what insurance was designed for."

No, insurance was designed to cover you in the event of an accident. Think of defensive guns as the same thing: You hope you never need it, but you're damn glad you have it when you do need it.

[Spike Lee]

How many members of the active military do you think would actually fight to put down a rebellion in America if they believed in the cause? I saw a poll a year of two ago saying that somewhere around 50% of our troops said they would be willing to kill an American citizen. I wish I could find that poll now to get some firm numbers, but alas, I haven't found it.

This is diverging away from a second amendment issue. Sure, maybe they won't fight and they might take some weapons away from the lockers but that really isn't much of a dealing with what the second amendment says.

For the purpose of argument, I'd even be willing to say 75% of the military would fight to put down a rebellion. Even then, you are going to run into huge logistical problems that would give an advantage to a rebellion.
You are underestimating the power of bombs and knowledge of the home terrain here.

Cutting a fighting force by 25% overnight causes problems many people wouldn't even believe. Technological advantages can only take you so far when your support structure refuses to do its job.
And imagine the percentage lost in the civilian uprising.


edit: 2nd, you own a weapon. Like you said, it covers the criteria. Can cause harm and death. And it's a gun as well. The reason we don't talk about fishing hooks and saws is because the 2nd amendment talks about guns. It would be nearly impracticle to regulate sharp objects. Guns on the other hand are. Aside from some gun ban laws, I see no reason why we should not have regulation of guns.

[poopchow]

Running the risk of starting a shitstorm, they never specified "guns." They said, "arms," leaving it purposefully obtuse.

There is also that weird sentence fragment about organized militias...

I'm not arguing with you that we should be allowed to bear arms, I, however, am just reiterating that it is not as cut and dry as you claim.

Look at it this way, Hesk -- you justified the role of the activist judges in the Civil Rights movement because you agree with the outcome and cause. There were most certainly people at the time who hated the activist judges for giving blacks rights, just as there most certainly are people around today that agree with the role of activist judges in the gun debate, because they agree with the cause.

Frame of reference is key here.


People agree with it because people's rights were taken away because the color of the skin. It has nothing to do with what people's personal preferences are, and has everything to do with what is just based on our constitution.

[2ndAmendment]

Weapons have been considered a bad thing since they were invented. Don't pretend that they are just now being referred to in the negative light.

Guns are weapons. Self defense or not.

And after looking into it, a bit more you are wrong on what a militia is. A militia has to be organised by a community, state or otherwise:

.

OK for your first comment, you've just been written off as stupid. Go back to your world where everyone can be happy if we just hugged each other and there would be no crime or violence. Take away guns from law abiding citizens and all crime would come to a grinding halt. We'd all be safe. yay! You're an idiot, you live in a fantasy world, and for your own sake, I pray to god you never find yourself in a situation where you have to say to yourself "God I wish I had a weapon... because he does."

And back to militias: I don't give a damn what the french define as a militia, I'm telling you about what WE considered to be a militia back in the revolutionary war... The militia was comprised of regular citizens with their own personal arms and absolutely NO military training whatsoever. THAT was the American militia back in the 1700's, and THAT is the force that helped fight the British, whether you want to accept it or not.

[Spike Lee]

OK for your first comment, you've just been written off as stupid.
Well, if you want to sink that low, sink by yourself, I just reported you.



Go back to your world where everyone can be happy if we just hugged each other and there would be no crime or violence.

I never claimed such a thing. That statement was in regards to your statement about the feelings of people on weapons.

Take away guns from law abiding citizens and all crime would come to a grinding halt.
Gun control advocates understand that they are not going to rid the world of crime with gun control laws. Any person that believes that to be the case really has no clue as to what the debate is.
We'd all be safe. yay! You're an idiot, you live in a fantasy world, and for your own sake, I pray to god you never find yourself in a situation where you have to say to yourself "God I wish I had a weapon... because he does."
Again, reported.

And back to militias: I don't give a damn what the french define as a militia, I'm telling you about what WE considered to be a militia back in the revolutionary war... The militia was comprised of regular citizens with their own personal arms and absolutely NO military training whatsoever. THAT was the American militia back in the 1700's, and THAT is the force that helped fight the British, whether you want to accept it or not.
The British had a similar system. A group of three guys coming together and declaring themselves a militia are not.

[2ndAmendment]

Report away, pussy.

[_Joe]

Well if you want to look at it from that point of view, then I guess knives, fishing hooks, and meat slicers are all designed to kill too, right? Why aren't you attacking the fishing industry?
A knife is designed to cut. A butter knife is designed to spread things on bread or cut soft foods while not being so sharp as to hurt someone by accident. A combat knife is designed to kill (men or animals), as well as to be used as a cutting tool for preparing food in the wild or making shelter. Fishing hooks are meant to catch fish. Meat slicers are meant to cut meat.

There is a huge difference between my defensive .45 and my target 22. But when I use my .45 for target, I'll explain what the difference is... The same difference between using a car to go to work, or getting drunk and killing someone.
When you're taking target practice, what're you practicing for?

Your argument is moot, my friend. They were NOT designed to kill. They are certainly capable of it, but that's not what they were built for.
The first guns (hand cannons) were most certainly meant to kill in warfare. Later guns were meant for both war and hunting game (both uses that lead to death.) The first real shooting ranges in the US were set up to improve marksmanship of American men at young ages in case of future war. Target practice has its roots in improving marksmanship in order to be better at killing.

They were built to DEFEND. No, not with reason (smart ass), with a threat of death. Most lethal encounters result in 0 shots being fired. Most of the time, merely brandishing a gun will neutralize a threat, because you're no longer easy pickins' now are you? Out of 13 years of carry, I had to draw once, and fire never (knock on wood). I'd say it did it's job fairly well, wouldn't you?
What happens when the assailant pulls his own gun? It's too bad you have something in your hands that isn't meant to kill people, you might have had something that would be able to kill HIM. :rolleyes:

Considering I've never killed anyone, and I've owned guns for a long time now, I think it's safe to say that they weren't designed to kill, because by your standard, I should be out killing people, shouldn't I? That's like saying "It's OK to drive into anyone I want because that's what insurance was designed for."
This makes no sense. Your weapons were designed to deter violence through threat of bodily harm or death. So it's like saying "My car is sitting in my driveway right now, and I have to get to work. I should go use my car for what it was designed for and drive to work." That would be comparable to saying "Ok, my gun has its safety on and it's secure on my person, I'm ready to go out. (ten years later...) Oh shit, an assailant. *pulls gun* Freeze mother fucker. *saves day*"

You letting your gun sit there unused doesn't mean it was meant to sit there. It was meant to do whatever you use it for when you NEED IT. I don't need to run people over with my car, but I do need to drive to work everyday, so I do. I don't have to shoot someone everyday, so I only would use my gun when I had to.


Report away, pussy.

I hope he sees my reply before he gets banned, shit. I tore him up.

Just for your information, you aren't allowed to use personal attacks like that in CE. You're probably going to be banned.



k, goodnight.

[n00b_rocket]

The militia is defined in THIS country as consisting of every able-bodied male from I think 18-45, and all females in the National Guard. That's what it means here, now, legally, in America. France or England is irrelevant to this argument.

Second, for all those who think citizens with small arms cannot compete against a modern superpower's military, I give you these:

Vietnam (guess who the Viet Cong were?)
Iraq (what are insurgents?)
Somalia (bunch o' Africans with Kalashnikovs)
Afghanistan (bunch of mountain men with bolt-action rifles kicked Russia's ass near the height of their power)
Chechnya (similar situation)

[clutch-monkey]

Second, for all those who think citizens with small arms cannot compete against a modern superpower's military, I give you these:

Vietnam (guess who the Viet Cong were?)
Iraq (what are insurgents?)
Somalia (bunch o' Africans with Kalashnikovs)
Afghanistan (bunch of mountain men with bolt-action rifles kicked Russia's ass near the height of their power)
Chechnya (similar situation)
all of which involved hardy people brought up in war-torn areas and experienced to various extents in guerilla warfare, not soft americans :p

[n00b_rocket]

all of which involved hardy people brought up in war-torn areas and experienced to various extents in guerilla warfare, not soft americans :p

You'd be surprised how quickly someone can becone "hardy" and "experienced" when their own families and homes are at stake.

[clutch-monkey]

You'd be surprised how quickly someone can becone "hardy" and "experienced" when their own families and homes are at stake.
i can see that happening!
wait, no i can't. well actually, is hillary still in the running or what?

[Amadeus]

We don't have the hardware to go up against the air force. Infantry for a little while, but they would have total air superiority.

Yeah, they would discover a "terrorist strong-hold" within an area and drop a bomb on it.

Another thing to think about: Americans were terrorists for revolting against the British in the 1770s. If the British had the technology that's available today, they would have totally raped us (much like the Americans vs. the Iraqis today; So, they've killed a couple thousand of us with their guerrilla tactics. But. . .we've killed hundreds of thousands of them to date. Who do you think is winning?).

Now, if they were to legalize chainguns and anti-tank rifles, and were to become commonly available in local pawn shops? That would be a little different.

[wra]

Yeah, they would discover a "terrorist strong-hold" within an area and drop a bomb on it.

Another thing to think about: Americans were terrorists for revolting against the British in the 1770s. If the British had the technology that's available today, they would have totally raped us (much like the Americans vs. the Iraqis today; So, they've killed a couple thousand of us with their guerrilla tactics. But. . .we've killed hundreds of thousands of them to date. Who do you think is winning?).

Now, if they were to legalize chainguns and anti-tank rifles, and were to become commonly available in local pawn shops? That would be a little different.


I must disagree. Early Americans were not terrorists

Noun 1. terroristterrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
radical cell, terrorist cell - a

Early americans did not use voilence to intimidate civilians or religion as a weapon. They fought only the Redcoats and the major battles were fought in traditional warfare. This makes them freedom fighters.

Its always frustrating when reporters mix freedom fighter and terrorist. If you are a freedom fighter, you attack the military of the government you are wanting to change. You don't blow up lines of a civilians waiting for jobs or kill specific religious sects because they aren't like you. That is terrorism.

[Sketcher]

No offense, and I agree with you wholely on this issue, but the founding fathers were slave owners. Just because they say something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at in the future.

They never put "the right to keep slaves" in the Constitution, mostly because they understood it as being a states rights issue. But what they put in the Constitution were freedoms that hey felt all free men should have.

[jn_powell]

Well shit, I guess we should just give up al of rights right now and be done with it. I mean we obviously have no chance of fighting back so why even fight for our right to own whatever would help us if we needed to fight back. This defeatist attitude is fucking pathetic.

[Mugatu]

I must disagree. Early Americans were not terrorists

Noun 1. terroristterrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
radical cell, terrorist cell - a

Early americans did not use voilence to intimidate civilians or religion as a weapon. They fought only the Redcoats and the major battles were fought in traditional warfare. This makes them freedom fighters.

Its always frustrating when reporters mix freedom fighter and terrorist. If you are a freedom fighter, you attack the military of the government you are wanting to change. You don't blow up lines of a civilians waiting for jobs or kill specific religious sects because they aren't like you. That is terrorism.


This is not entirely true. Citizens that were loyal to the crown were often intimidated or treated poorly. This is why a large number of them moved to Canada to escape persecution. I dont think civilians were attacked outright which is the main difference but they were certainly told to leave or else. I wouldn't call this terrorism outright but it has similar traits. It's all about context. Iraqi people could be viewed as freedom fighters because America is an invading force. Intentions to liberate them is irrelivant because they never asked for it. It is something they needed to do themselves.

Dropping a nuke on a civilian population to speard fear and intimidation, now that is an act of terrorism. That however is a whole different story.

[Yuseke]

I must disagree. Early Americans were not terrorists

Noun 1. terroristterrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
radical cell, terrorist cell - a

Early americans did not use voilence to intimidate civilians or religion as a weapon. They fought only the Redcoats and the major battles were fought in traditional warfare. This makes them freedom fighters.

Its always frustrating when reporters mix freedom fighter and terrorist. If you are a freedom fighter, you attack the military of the government you are wanting to change. You don't blow up lines of a civilians waiting for jobs or kill specific religious sects because they aren't like you. That is terrorism.

Does that mean we as Americans were terrorists when we killed civilians in Japan? Or does that not count since it's going against what you think?

[Roushpimpn]

Had this passed they would only be taking guns from the innocent. Wouldn't help crime at all.

[jn_powell]

Does that mean we as Americans were terrorists when we killed civilians in Japan? Or does that not count since it's going against what you think?
I am fairly sure that specific event is what he was referring to with that statement. Arguing about that is going to drag this thread to another place we don't want to go, so please don't. I have seen it happen to many damn times.

[Yuseke]

I am fairly sure that specific event is what he was referring to with that statement. Arguing about that is going to drag this thread to another place we don't want to go, so please don't. I have seen it happen to many damn times.

The only way this could go south is if Fuggin comes in and starts yelling "SEE! I TOLD YOU TEH EVIL LIBERALZ H8 AMERICA! BLARFHGH *foams at the mouth*

I'm only said it because I have seen the "uber-patriots" as I call them try to change definitions of words so that it doesn't include their country or say "No, that's different."

Maybe that's not what he was going for, but with so many morons running around could you blame me for jumping on that?

[wra]

Does that mean we as Americans were terrorists when we killed civilians in Japan? Or does that not count since it's going against what you think?

Those were strategic targets during a war between two nations.

[Yuseke]

Those were strategic targets during a war between two nations.

Strategic or not, it is still terrorism according to the definition you provided

"act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

[wra]

Strategic or not, it is still terrorism according to the definition you provided

"act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

I'll say again. Strategic targets. ie military targets.

Both of those cities were production areas for the Japanese war effort.

This was also during a declared war so your terrorism accusation doesn’t work.

At best you could claim it was a war crime but then you would have to prove that those cities had no military productivity which would be incorrect.

[Yuseke]

I'll say again. Strategic targets. ie military targets.

Both of those cities were production areas for the Japanese war effort.

This was also during a declared war so your terrorism accusation doesn’t work.

At best you could claim it was a war crime but then you would have to prove that those cities had no military productivity which would be incorrect.

Hmm...strange. I don't see any of what you just said in that definition...


Don't get me wrong, I'm not some "liberal america hating asshole" I just tire of people changing definitions wording or just saying "no that's different" to keep their country for criticism.

[wra]

Hmm...strange. I don't see any of what you just said in that definition...

That's because the definition does not contain declaration or war or war crimes. It is strictly a definition of terrorism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some "liberal america hating asshole" I just tire of people changing definitions wording or just saying "no that's different" to keep their country for criticism.

And I wouldn't say you are. I understand the arguement you are making, I'm simply arguing that when 2 nations are at war, the rules of war are in effect.

If they weren't, the US, Germany, Russia, England would all be guility of terrorism during World War II when any city was bombed.

[Yuseke]

That's because the definition does not contain declaration or war or war crimes. It is strictly a definition of terrorism.



And I wouldn't say you are. I understand the arguement you are making, I'm simply arguing that when 2 nations are at war, the rules of war are in effect.

If they weren't, the US, Germany, Russia, England would all be guility of terrorism during World War II when any city was bombed.

Ok, fair enough. I'm also against hypocracy. So answer me this. If the Taliban regime of Afghanistan declared war before the 9/11 bombings, would you consider that terrorism or a strategic act of war? I'm not trying to pigeonhole you. After this I won't ask anythin else. I'm not seeing if you condone 9/11 or anything like that. Just checking for hypocracy. This will not in any way effect future debates with you.

[jn_powell]

Ok, fair enough. I'm also against hypocracy. So answer me this. If the Taliban regime of Afghanistan declared war before the 9/11 bombings, would you consider that terrorism or a strategic act of war? I'm not trying to pigeonhole you. After this I won't ask anythin else. I'm not seeing if you condone 9/11 or anything like that. Just checking for hypocracy. This will not in any way effect future debates with you.
I wouldn't. The Taliban, first off, were not a recognized government, therefore I would not consider a war declaration valid in this sense. Secondly, those acts were not carried out by uniformed soldiers who were the member of a legitimate military organization, therefore were not acts of the Taliban government, but terrorists to whom they had provided shelter. Also, I would not consider the trade towers military targets, the Pentagon I would. Not to jump in on your convo but thought I would address the question with my opinion.

[Yuseke]

I wouldn't. The Taliban, first off, were not a recognized government, therefore I would not consider a war declaration valid in this sense. Secondly, those acts were not carried out by uniformed soldiers who were the member of a legitimate military organization, therefore were not acts of the Taliban government, but terrorists to whom they had provided shelter. Also, I would not consider the trade towers military targets, the Pentagon I would. Not to jump in on your convo but thought I would address the question with my opinion.

I could have sworn that the Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan at that time :\

[jn_powell]

I could have sworn that the Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan at that time :\
Yes, but to my understanding the United Nations never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate ruling body. I could be wrong but I seem th remember hearing that. In any case, my other points would still be valid. This would be similar to China declaring war and then our planes being hijacked by triads or something.

[MelL]

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries to recognize the Taliban government.

Clicky Here for Details (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551/#7)

[chrisvet]

I could have sworn that the Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan at that time :\

They were, regardless of what the UN thought. And we set them up, just like we set up Hussain, and the Shaw.

I think the question previously posed is a good one: was 911 a strategic ploy by a gov't that wished to wage war on the US. And I think it was.

All in all it was an attack on American civilians in exchange for fucking with them for years, just like we attacked Japan in exchange for pearl harbor.

[wra]

Ok, fair enough. I'm also against hypocracy. So answer me this. If the Taliban regime of Afghanistan declared war before the 9/11 bombings, would you consider that terrorism or a strategic act of war? I'm not trying to pigeonhole you. After this I won't ask anythin else. I'm not seeing if you condone 9/11 or anything like that. Just checking for hypocracy. This will not in any way effect future debates with you.

If they declared war and the attack was done by their military then no it would not be terrorism IMO.

[Yuseke]

If they declared war and the attack was done by their military then no it would not be terrorism IMO.

*stamp of approval* Thank you for being honest. I feel that way too. I like when things stay civilized :D

[wra]

*stamp of approval* Thank you for being honest. I feel that way too. I like when things stay civilized :D

as do I :)