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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because police, and retired police are allowed to own handguns, the ban is not a true ban, its just banning the average person.
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.
These laws are needed to protect the people.
The 2A is not being violated by a ban, because the 2A only protects the state controlledstnational guard, not average person.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
