# Word on supreme court ruling? **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [March 18, 2008, 2:13pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231 "2008-03-18T14:13:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![drvnkd](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/drvnkd/32/109615_2.png) [@drvnkd](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/drvnkd)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 4:32am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/41 "2008-03-19T04:32:52Z")
> [@forthekicks385](#): > > the dems are just trying to strip us of our rights so we become more socialist. they don’t care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, end of story. i guess that those three items mean nothing anymore No, thats not it. They have to protect those that are not capable of protecting themselves. You cant fix bad parenting with Laws. There was some town on the news the other day. They mandated that all residents carry. Crime fell through the floor. Education, training, and licensing can only do so much. There will still be anomalies that kill as many people as they can once in a while. Laws are to protect society. The sheeple need as many laws as possible so that they do not have to have any personal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![JayS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jays/32/15375_2.png) [@JayS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JayS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/42 "2008-03-19T05:24:24Z")
> [@d3x](#): > > im glad to see there are so many people vehemently opposed to gun control. ive been trying to stay out of this because i know the whole argument from the advocates of gun control is based entirely on their own ignorance of guns. and arguing with someone who has blind faith gets you nowhere. but i just wanted to bring up one point. even if you ban guns all together to the public, criminals will still always have access to them. there are hundreds of millions of guns in america, a ban isnt going to make them all disappear. so essentially any law restricting ownership of guns to the public just inhibits the publics ability to protect itself and has no effect at all on the criminal elements ability to obtain a gun. the gun control lobbyists would have better results if they would focus on increasing the legal ramifications of gun crime rather than restricting ownership to the public. 👏 Even if you banned them and rounded up every one currently here there would STILL be guns. Cocaine is illegal, ecstasy is illegal, Cuban cigars are illegal… I think you see where I’m going with this. You will never ban them internationally so banning them nationally will only open up a new trade in gun smuggling. Ask the peopl of NO how they feel about gun control post Katrina. Nothing like a good natural disaster where those magical men with a badge disappear to make you realize how alone you are against criminals when you’re unarmed. I love how peopel niavely assume police will always be there to protect you. Even during the Oct storm here in WNY people were having generators stolen and could do nothing about it. They’d call the police and the response time would be 30+ minutes. I bet it wouldn’t have been 30 minutes had I called. “Yeah, I’ve got two robbers, face down in my backyard, with a 12 guage loaded with 00-buck pointed at them. You better get here before they start thinking about making a run for it or you’re gonna need to bring some baggies to scoop them up in”. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Eyed\_Devil](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/blue_eyed_devil/32/7292_2.png) [@Blue\_Eyed\_Devil](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Blue_Eyed_Devil)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 5:43am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/43 "2008-03-19T05:43:41Z")
Banning guns is just more Liberal Fascism. Hitler banned guns.(Have to include that with any gun thread) That is all. ---
**Author:** ![Fry](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/fry/32/7284_2.png) [@Fry](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Fry)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/44 "2008-03-19T06:06:52Z")
This debate is just like every other gun debate: Everybody gets so huffy that nobody thinks clearly. Do you guys even know what the debate in the supreme court is right now? Anyone? The debate is over whether the 2nd Amendment protects the individual’s or the state’s rights to own firearms, meaning whether or not the state can make its own gun laws. It has nothing to do with whether or not you get to carry a handgun just in case you get mugged. The government doesn’t care about that. That’s why we have police, as ILC kindly pointed out. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the relative physical superiority of the Federal government, not to allow Joe Schmoe to protect himself in an individual attack. Don’t get me wrong I think gun laws are nothing but an ineffective political pawn, but for the love of God stop invoking the 2nd Amendment when arguing for personal protection. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:10am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/45 "2008-03-19T06:10:31Z")
> [@ILCisDEAD](#): > > 1. Production of weapons. > > There will be less around if production decreases, sure it sucks for the companies but they will never lose their military contracts. Believe me the US military will not lose these weapons. Less guns around means less chance they can get into the hands of the criminals. Guns break, do you think your average criminal is going to make machine his weapon to fix it? I don’t see it happening, one less gun. > > 1. Do you even own a weapon/carry it. > > If you do have a weapon do you carry it all the time? Where would you keep the weapon? What percentage of situations that you get into where you could use your weapon to save you? > > Terrible logic, You get your gun stolen cause you can’t secure it properly (I’m not saying you don’t know how to secure a gun, this world is full of negligent people) That gun is out on the streets. I never had to buy a weapon or even look at another weapon for it to get out on the streets. I did nothing to put that gun in a criminals hands, you did. Your actions or lack of put ME in danger. > > Sure people should be able to do what they want, but there better be some serious responsibility shown when doing so. > > Clarification, I’m talking about hand guns here Arn’t you an E-4 somewhere in the military. If so, answer me this. entire FOB’s, Airfields and so forth are filled with people with guns, and enough ammo to kill thousands, yet there is almost NO crime. The instances of violent rape are pretty much zero, yet you have men that havn’t seen a woman naked for months. Why do you think this is, it the thought that if you try to harm a woman she will just shoot you a reason, probably so. Your logic is flawed, and again, your think that in your little eutopia that if we ban all handguns, that there will be NO GUNS, well that is where your logic ends. Britian is the poster child for a nanny state that you would love, yet they have huge crime, so much that they now want to ban knives. I don’t put your life in harm by owning a gun, and if stolen, I still didn’t. The CRIMINAL did. Just as much if a criminal stole your car and hit a person while driving drunk, its not your fault, its the CRIMINALS. But you will never understand this. You were not given the mental capacity to understand the world as it is, and not as you wish it should be. ---
**Author:** ![cougarspeed](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/cougarspeed/32/7468_2.png) [@cougarspeed](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/cougarspeed)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:16am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/46 "2008-03-19T06:16:11Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > - snip - Hmm i never thought of that FOB thing where we all have guns+ammo but low crime. Although you would also have to factor in the fact that these people are close quartered so its not like they can high tail it out of here after the crime. So the risk of getting busted would have to be high and probably has somehitng to do with it as well. Im pro guns im just putting my thoughts out there. ---
**Author:** ![Fry](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/fry/32/7284_2.png) [@Fry](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Fry)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:22am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/47 "2008-03-19T06:22:10Z")
Do you find a lot of drug addicts, psychopaths, and the like in those areas? I’d be willing to bet the typical population has something to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:23am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/48 "2008-03-19T06:23:01Z")
> [@Fry](#): > > This debate is just like every other gun debate: Everybody gets so huffy that nobody thinks clearly. > > Do you guys even know what the debate in the supreme court is right now? > > The debate is over whether the 2nd Amendment protects the individual’s or the state’s rights to own firearms, meaning whether or not the state can make its own gun laws. It has nothing to do with whether or not you get to carry a handgun just in case you get mugged. The government doesn’t care about that. That’s why we have police, as ILC kindly pointed out. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to limit the relative physical superiority of the Federal government, not to allow Joe Schmoe to protect himself in an individual attack. > > Don’t get me wrong I think gun laws are nothing but an ineffective political pawn, but for the love of God stop invoking the 2nd Amendment when arguing for personal protection. Actually, I hate to disagree with a person on my side, but this case is not about state vs federal laws. We as gun owners HOPE that this case will bring a ruling that is broad enough to clarify the line as to when states can make laws, but that is not the actuall case being presented. As this case stands, its to decide if the DC handgun ban is proper legislation, or a ban that goes against the 2A. DC argues a few points. 1. Because police, and retired police are allowed to own handguns, the ban is not a true ban, its just banning the average person. 2. There are many gun laws, and they are allowed to stand, so why not this one. ex Rochester NY bans rifles with “shrouded barrels”, for no reason other than its a cosmetic feature that scares sheeple (ex ILCisDEAD), so if that is good to go, why not a total ban. 3. These laws are needed to protect the people. 4. The 2A is not being violated by a ban, because the 2A only protects the state controlledstnational guard, not average person. 5. If the 2A did apply to the average joe, the 2A also says “well regulated” which they take as “regulated out of existance”. Now all of these points are total BS, and take away these gun grabbers 1A rights to freedom of speach, and watch their story change. More people are killed every year by cars, drugs, AIDS… but guns look scary, so they must be bad right. In the end, we can hope that this ruling in June will clarify what the SCOTUS believes is constitution approved laws. Once a ruling is layed down, I believe that we WILL have more firepower on our side (pun intended) to go after BS state and local laws that are a slow attempt to remove firearms from law abiding citizens. ---
**Author:** ![n20junkie](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/n20junkie/32/7396_2.png) [@n20junkie](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/n20junkie)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:26am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/49 "2008-03-19T06:26:44Z")
> [@Fry](#): > > Do you find a lot of drug addicts, psychopaths, and the like in those areas? I’d be willing to bet the typical population has something to do with it. The military is a cross section of society. We have everything, prostitution, drugs, alchohol, depression. There are alot of new privates, its not like we asses at local recruititing stations for issues that you mention. As we find them, we put them out. But we have just as many issues, and more so that society sometimes. We have a divorce rate well over 70 percent, that leads to some really depressed and desperate people, that turn to alot of things, but violence isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![JayS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jays/32/15375_2.png) [@JayS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JayS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/50 "2008-03-19T06:35:52Z")
Fry, you’re really not thinking this through far enough. This ruling could finally guarantee an individuals constitutionally given right to own a gun. If they confirm that, as well as strike down the ban, states lke NY will quickly find themselves in court over their pistol permit laws that make it almost impossible for a good citizen to have a handgun. As with most Supreme Court cases, the real issue is not the specific case at hand but the interpretation of the law they’re going to have to define to reach a decision in that case. That interpretation will become the basis for all cases going forward, and in the case of individual gun rights they have never really issued a decision like this before. ---
**Author:** ![Joe](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joe/32/7219_2.png) [@Joe](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Joe)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 6:47am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/51 "2008-03-19T06:47:08Z")
constitutional law is a bitch. fortunately, at least they have SOME inclusion in the original document to work with on this one, compared to something like computer privacy. ---
**Author:** ![ILCisDEAD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a87d85/32.png) [@ILCisDEAD](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ILCisDEAD)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 8:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/52 "2008-03-19T08:35:25Z")
> [@n20junkie](#): > > The instances of violent rape are pretty much zero, yet you have men that havn’t seen a woman naked for months. Why do you think this is, it the thought that if you try to harm a woman she will just shoot you a reason, probably so. What? regardless if the woman has a gun or not. I for one would not rape a woman because: I’m morally against rape, and there are strict penalties against rape. Never once did I think that a girl would shoot me if I did something to her. My utopia works, its very far from what we have right now, faith in the system will make it work ---
**Author:** ![The\_Russian](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/the_russian/32/7414_2.png) [@The\_Russian](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/The_Russian)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 10:46am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/53 "2008-03-19T10:46:42Z")
Utopias never work. They work in theory. Never in practice, becuase you will always have people who disagree with you, and will stop at nothing to end your control. ---
**Author:** ![Final\_GTS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/final_gts/32/7359_2.png) [@Final\_GTS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Final_GTS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/54 "2008-03-19T14:44:56Z")
utopia does not work for mankind because the same drive some of us have to create it, others have to destroy it. We are very innovative creatures, and that goes both ways. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:00pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/55 "2008-03-19T15:00:13Z")
The only way to stop handgun crimes, assault riffle crimes is to stop manufacturing/selling them (with the exception of police). I’d rather see much longer waiting periods, since immediate need of weaponry doesn’t really apply to good intentions. My solution: 1 mo waiting period. Better background checking system. “Red Flag” point system. And discontinue the production of assault weapons except for direct sale to law enforcement agencies. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Russian](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/the_russian/32/7414_2.png) [@The\_Russian](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/The_Russian)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/56 "2008-03-19T15:05:11Z")
Good intentioned people can still be targeted by bad intentioned people. Therefore I want to be able to put as many rounds downrange as fast as I can to that bad intentioned person. You better beileve that if a bad intentioned person comes into my house, they are getting every single one of the 7.62X39 rounds out of my banana. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/57 "2008-03-19T15:08:12Z")
> [@The\_Russian](#): > > Good intentioned people can still be targeted by bad intentioned people. Fine, but that still doesn’t counter my argument for an extended waiting period. My point is no one who “needs a gun ASAP” is being good intentioned. ---
**Author:** ![d3x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@d3x](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/d3x)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/58 "2008-03-19T15:23:40Z")
> [@JoesTypeS](#): > > The only way to stop handgun crimes, assault riffle crimes is to stop manufacturing/selling them (with the exception of police). how will this stop gun crime when there are already hundreds of millions of guns in this country? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Russian](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/the_russian/32/7414_2.png) [@The\_Russian](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/The_Russian)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/59 "2008-03-19T15:25:58Z")
> [@JoesTypeS](#): > > Fine, but that still doesn’t counter my argument for an extended waiting period. My point is no one who “needs a gun ASAP” is being good intentioned. I agree with that the waiting period( or cool down period) whatever you want to call it. but 9 months for a carry permit is obnoxious. ---
**Author:** ![TORQDSS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/torqdss/32/5125_2.png) [@TORQDSS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/TORQDSS)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231/60 "2008-03-19T15:26:40Z")
> [@JoesTypeS](#): > > Fine, but that still doesn’t counter my argument for an extended waiting period. My point is no one who “needs a gun ASAP” is being good intentioned. what if its the day before hunting season and Bambi is making fun of you by pacing back and forth in your yard and Bambi’s boy toy has a 14 point rack? I’m kidding, I actually agree with a SHORT waiting period, maybe like 3 or 4 days for a rifle/shotgun and a month or 2 for a pistol permit [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/word-on-supreme-court-ruling/45231.md?page=4)