Soooo... what will it be?

[slngsht]

Will the DC gun ban law be upheld?

 

 

Next thing you know, we'll have to give up fire extinguishers :ack: :ack:

 

 

:leaving:

[stevet]

:boxing: :boxing: :boxing: :boxing: :boxing: :boxing:

[twestrup]

It will be interesting to see how the "Strict Constructionists" view this issue. Generally they fit into the camp of the right to keep arms.

 

An argument will be made today that writers of the Constitution were limiting the scope of the Constitution to State sponsored militias and that each state has the right to institute its own laws relative to individual citizens keeping guns. The end result is a conflict for "Strict Constructionists."

 

 

[Kitcat]

Fearless prediction: Gun law is going down-this is now a group of God fearing, government-hating, anti-regulating folks who think a person's right to carry a gun is right up there with their right to carry a bible. (Whoops, that sounds a lot like a rant).

 

Better to say, we now have a group of wise and learned jurists who are not afraid to restore to the people the gun rights that our Founding Fathers intended (There, that's better).

[slngsht]

I'm pretty sure it's a hell of a lot easier to give up this right, than it is to get it back.

 

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I think I fall in the "right to carry a gun is right up there with their right to carry a bible" camp... Although, there is a higher likelyhood you'll win the lotto jackpot multiple times in the same week than catch me with a religious book. All the same, I respect the people who practice religion and their beliefs... as long as it doesn't step on my rights...

 

[Davemk1]

The whole thing is funny to me considering the statistics and the "human factor" if you will.

 

* you are more likely to be shot by your own gun if there is one in the house.

 

* your kids/family are more likely to be shot by your gun.

 

* will you really have the guts to look at another human being and pull the trigger knowing you might kill them? Many folks will say "yes" but when push comes to shove they will hesitate and it's a done deal.

 

* your gun will do you no good if the "bad guy" gets it from you. As cocky as it sounds I can take your gun from you. If I'm within 5 - 6 feet of you I can take your gun. If I'm further away than that I can talk you into letting me get closer. It's what I'm trained to do. The gun owner doesn't want to shoot anyone and will, thank goodness, shoot at the last possible moment. This delay will let me take it from you. One might say "yeah but you are not a 'bad guy' who is going to break into my house" and you are right. I have no plans to do this. But it's not just "good" guys who have the training and experience.

 

* cops are more likely to get shot when they show up at your house after you have call them to come save you.

 

* the statistics show that the least likely person to get shot is the bad guy.

 

* the last and weakest argument about the right to bear arms is the whole "we should be able to overthrow the government" deal. Does anyone really think that we as citizens, no matter how many guns we have and how good we are with them, can overthrow the government at this point? I don't really think our handguns are going to do much against the strongest military in the history of the planet. It's just not realistic to think that we can be effective this way. That ship sailed a long time ago when one could take common hand tools and a crude rifle and take over city hall. The Constitution, as wonderful as it is, was written in a place and time much different that we live in now and I feel it doesn't address this very well at this time.

 

 

 

I personally don't fall definitively on one side or the other on this. I just wish folks were more realistic about their ability to use a gun and how effective it will be to keep the bad man away, while at the same time not killing the ones they love. It all looks easy on TV but the reality of the situation is real and different.

 

 

dave

[slngsht]

alot of valid arguments there, and on a one on one situation, sure, homeowner has the disadvantage, and we'd be better off if NOBODY had guns. Telling the guy who broke into your house "Hey, you're not supposed to have that. It's against the LAW" won't get you far. I have a feeling he won't care much.

 

In alot of cases, there are multiple residents in the house. If a guy walks in and has already shot someone in my household, no amount of sweet talking is gonna disarm me. Well, there won't be much talkin Knowing that the homeowner *might* be armed is a form of protection in itself.

 

Take the case of what happened in New Orleans a couple of years back. That can happen to ANY city, particularly DC. As it was clearly demonstrated in NO, the local government will not be able to do jack. You will be on your own to protect your family. In that situation, I'd rather have access to a firearm.

 

Finally... the amendment simply says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

There IS a proper way to do away with this amendment... another amendment, and the rules are pretty well defined. Nobody wants to play that game when it's not convenient though...

 

[Kitcat]

Slngshot:

 

When was the last time a state mustered a well-regulated militia? And if that's the predicate for gun-totin rights, maybe the gun rights evaporated with the militia?

 

Mostly I am OK with this whole deal-for reasons I cant explain, but believe, a lot of people who I respect feel incredibly (irrationally?) passionate about their right to bear arms.

 

As long as people don't point their guns (or bibles) at me, its cool.

[yellowss7]

Dave, just curious, do you own a gun? and do you really live in Montana? :d :flag: Tom

[Davemk1]

Dave, just curious, do you own a gun? and do you really live in Montana? :d :flag: Tom

 

No I don't own a gun. I do have a big oak stick under my bed an 10 years of martial arts training on how to swing it. I sleep just fine.

 

Yes I actually live in MT. I'm the token non-gun owner.

 

dave

[slngsht]

Slngshot:

 

When was the last time a state mustered a well-regulated militia? And if that's the predicate for gun-totin rights, maybe the gun rights evaporated with the militia?

 

Mostly I am OK with this whole deal-for reasons I cant explain, but believe, a lot of people who I respect feel incredibly (irrationally?) passionate about their right to bear arms.

 

As long as people don't point their guns (or bibles) at me, its cool.

 

Last time should have been New Orleans. CLEARLY the government was incapable of ensuring the citizens' safety on its own.

 

I used to be neutral on this topic... not sure why I'm more passionate now. There is certainly merit on both sides. I guess I just don't have the trust and faith in our government like I used to.

 

BTW, I don't practice any religion, but I'll be just a passionate about any proposed ban of reasonable religious practices.

[slngsht]

Dave, just curious, do you own a gun? and do you really live in Montana? :d :flag: Tom

 

:lol:

[slngsht]

 

No I don't own a gun. I do have a big oak stick under my bed an 10 years of martial arts training on how to swing it. I sleep just fine.

 

Yes I actually live in MT. I'm the token non-gun owner.

 

dave

 

If you weren't as physically capable, would you still feel the same way?

[Davemk1]

 

If you weren't as physically capable, would you still feel the same way?

 

 

That's impossible to say I guess. I only have this one perspective. I know when I get older I won't be as able to protect myself but I can't say for sure how I'd feel. My opinion might change.

 

I do know that we all make choices and this is a great country that allows us to do so. I left the east coast where I made much more money than I do now to live where I live. We seldom lock the doors. I leave me keys in my car most of the time. Our neighbors are very in tune with our movements and likewise. If anything is amiss something happens. It's as safe a place to live as I know of. There is of course still crime. There was a drug related murder in town last year. A very big deal and a rare thing.

 

In the end I don't think guns are a real deterrent nor are they particularly effect at getting the bad guy. They might make use feel better but that only goes so far. Every time I read about one little kid shooting another with dad's gun it makes me sick. Sure dad should not leave a gun around loaded. But is he supposed to lock the ammo up in the gun safe and unlock it at 3AM and load his gun while the bad guy is stealing his stereo? Not a practical thing at all. The gun won't do squat without bullets. And if the gun isn't kept in the gun safe then it's ripe for being stolen. They have large street value and easy to sell. I doubt many folks that buy their guns from the local thug go out and register them so they can go to the target range for practice. They are sold and used in more crimes. It puts more guns on the streets.

 

The idea that guns might deter crime just by the notion that there MIGHT be a gun in a house is nonsense. The criminal mind doesn't work that way. They don't look at cost and effect. They want your TV so they can sell it and buy some dope. Simple stuff. Sure if everyone in your area knows you are packing then maybe the crack-head will pick a different house but it's a concealed weapon so how are they to know. It just doesn't add up to me.

 

 

IMO a good alarm system and good lighting are much more effective in keeping the bad man away.

 

dave

[stevet]

Dave. Good for you.

 

As the token Brit I try to avoid having an opinion on some else's constitutional rights. However I do own some guns - I brought a shotgun with me from the UK and have since added a rifle and a handgun - they are kept in a big safe in the basement and I usually can't remember the combination, so not much use if some one breaks in...

 

This may amuse you, but when I arrived here (having filled out a whole bunch of forms from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms - the same forms you would fill out if you were an arms dealer BTW), I went to my local police station to register my shotgun. They laughed. I explained that in the UK you would have to apply for a shotgun license, meet with the police (twice), and have a secure metal cabinet bolted to both wall and floor, before they would even consider granting you a license. This was met with a combination of more laughter and general disbelief. I further explained that you could no longer get a firearms license in the UK (which means you cannot own or buy a handgun or rifle), and they looked genuinely sorry for me.

 

As the NRA is fond of pointing out, deaths by shooting have gone up in recent years in the UK. What they fail to point out is that most of these deaths are inner-city, drug related, and 'black on black' and not private citizens being terrorized in their own homes. The vast majority of folks in the UK have no interest in guns, and the regular police still don't carry them, so most people will go through life without ever seeing a gun in daily life, other than on television.

 

The UK gun 'ban' is not going to stop gun crime - bad people will always do bad things, and there's a thriving black market for guns coming over from mainland Europe - but it does reduce the chances of accidental shootings, random shootings (arguments getting out of hand etc), and a 'gun culture' ever taking hold. That said, I'll bet a few more folks keep a big stick under the bed...

 

 

[Kitcat]

I just listened to some snippets of the argument in Court today. Justice Kennedy, by his questions, strongly hinted that he thought that the right to bear arms was independent of the militia language.

 

Since J Kennedy is the closest thing to a "swing vote" on the Court, if he's in favor of endorsing a right to bear arms, then the four staunchly conservative members can be expected to line up behind him. Hence the DC law will be struck down by at least a 5-4 vote.

 

This wouldn't mean all gun control laws are banned, just that all will now be given a new look. How the Court frames its opinion is critical to future developments here.

[slngsht]

If there were no guns in the society, then sure, it would make sense to keep guns out... same thing goes for not creating nuclear weapons, if no country had them.

 

Steve, private citizens are being terrorized in their own homes here... happens here all the time, and we live in a relatively nice neighborhood. It's just simple risk / return. Neighborhoods with decent amount of valuables inside, no protection to speak of. Guys break in, owners roll over and give them whatever they want, they walk out. Just in the last few months I recall several instances of break-ins, owners bound and gagged, goods stolen. Sure, nobody was killed. These cases often go unsolved. Simply not enough police resources to do anything about it unless it was a murder. Dave, that's what criminals consider IMHO... they can take something, get away with it time and time again... no consequence.

 

Gun safety is a matter of personal responsibility and common sense. It's not the same for everybody. For me, not having a gun is safer with little kids running around the house. For a single guy living by himself in the woods, I would have no problem having guns and ammo readily accessible.

[slngsht]

I just listened to some snippets of the argument in Court today. Justice Kennedy, by his questions, strongly hinted that he thought that the right to bear arms was independent of the militia language.

 

Since J Kennedy is the closest thing to a "swing vote" on the Court, if he's in favor of endorsing a right to bear arms, then the four staunchly conservative members can be expected to line up behind him. Hence the DC law will be struck down by at least a 5-4 vote.

 

This wouldn't mean all gun control laws are banned, just that all will now be given a new look. How the Court frames its opinion is critical to future developments here.

 

Thanks for the update :thumbs:

[solder_guy]

I just want to make a point:

 

Guns don't kill people .. bullets kill people .. guns just make bullets go really really fast!

 

:d

[Kitcat]

The issue before the Supreme Court isn't whether its a wise law, or not, it's whether its constitutional or not. The citizens of DC, thru their elected representatives have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that it is a wise law.

 

As the Conservative members of the Court like to remind everyone, their job is not to act as a "super-legislature", by overruling the informed opinions of elected officials. Instead, their role is more limited-regardless of the law's merits and demerits, is it barred by the language of the Constitution?

 

Unfortunately, the Constitution is ambiguous. Tho they wont admit it, the conservatives (just like those hated liberals) will fill in the blanks with their own biased opinions on the issues.

 

No guns here either, tho my nice middle class area is right next to the "Hood". We have had 14 break-ins in the last 2 months, most while the owners were home. One of our neighbors and good friends was murdered on his front porch when he scared a would-be burglar late one nite last year.

 

Our friend was returning from a memorial for a another friend's son who had been murdered in a holdup. Three of our neighbors walked with us to our friend's memorial, held in the neighborhood. On the way back we split up and they were robbed at gun point a few minutes later. Its like Baghdad at times.