Supreme Court Rules: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right

[BIGDANIEL]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

 

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

 

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “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.â€

 

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.â€

 

In 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.â€

 

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.â€

 

[BigMoneyNacku]

LOL. I just finished reading this. Very cool. One more step in shutting up the anti-gun people.

[[-VR-] Tool_Minion]

BigMoneyNacku ]

LOL. I just finished reading this. Very cool. One more step in shutting up the anti-gun people.

 

We will NEVER shut them up, but............

 

KC now has the "Castle" law in effect. You can now shoot fuckers on your property without them being armed.

 

Look out Bible salesmen.

[brown_mustang]

This is GREAT news! ;D

[lX-OSCEOLA-Xl]

The right to bear arms is in the constitution, so as far as I am concerned you should be able to walk down the street with a gun on your hip

[Playerdown]

Tool_Minion ]

BigMoneyNacku ]

LOL. I just finished reading this. Very cool. One more step in shutting up the anti-gun people.

 

We will NEVER shut them up, but............

 

KC now has the "Castle" law in effect. You can now shoot fuckers on your property without them being armed.

 

Look out Bible salesmen.

 

Ohio just passed the same.

 

I'm gonna invite my ex over this weekend.

[mrsdd]

LORD_LUCIFER ]

The right to bear arms is in the constitution, so as far as I am concerned you should be able to walk down the street with a gun on your hip

 

you can in AZ and apparently now in fairfax, va. I love open carry!

[Guest M16Assassin]

Maybe its just me but is it really necessary for somebody to be walking down the street strapping 2 glocks? It just makes me more nervous to walk down that street.

[HogWild_101st]

A law abiding citizen with guns is nothing to be concerned about. It's a criminal with guns that cause concern. One armed law abiding citizen in the right place at the right time will save lives.

[[-VR-] Tool_Minion]

Prane ]

Maybe its just me but is it really necessary for somebody to be walking down the street strapping 2 glocks? It just makes me more nervous to walk down that street.

 

I carry my .45 every day, everywhere. I will NOT be a victim to a violent crime Prane. That my friend is a personal choice. I am not one of these douche bags that ache to shoot someone, in fact I hope I never NEED it. But I still won't allow myself to be victimized.

[(U$)Shadowboxin7]

Lol the fact that pro-gun people can still hide behind an archaic and completely outdated amendment is simply ridiculous. The whole concept has been reduced to this retarded line, "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.†This amendment was meant to protect the States right and authority to organize militias. The wording has given a chance for gun nuts to argue, for over 2 centuries, their right to carry weapons wherever they please.

 

All this judgement did was send us back 100 years. It was another panel of individuals misinterpreting this one crucial sentence. All it did was provide the slippery slope of making it easier for all individuals to carry firearms. Oh wait hold on, they did make this statement: The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous." HAHAHAAHHA allowed for the room to prohibit DANGEROUS weapons!!!! RETARDED

 

You people do understand that this amendment was created by a group of men who at that time did not give women or african americans the right to vote, right? You understand that the amendment that we are still arguing about 230 years later was created by a group of white slaveowners who felt that all men were created equal, right? These brilliant men who fought for our independence from England, over money, lived in a time that had little to no violent crime. They created the amendment for states to have militias because it was in a time that our country was not truly unified. And now in 2008, in a world that is over run with violent crimes (68% of last years murder was gun related), you want to keep the guns in our hands so we can protect ourselves from the criminals who have guns in their hands?? Like George Carlin said: "Why do they ban toy guns but keep the fuckin real ones!?!?!?!!"

 

The fact that you are carrying a weapon will not diminish your chances of being involved in a violent crime (it actually may increase that chance.) The only people who will not attempt to hold you up at gun point or attack you are those individuals who know you. Criminals dont know you from baby Jesus so why would they be less apt to targeting you?? The fact is that if a man approached you and put a gun in your face, you wouldnt even have time to take out your weapon and defend yourself. If you did attempt to take out your weapon you would probably end up getting yourself killed or possibly somebody who was with you. Simply put, most of the time when you are the victim of a violent crime the criminal has the upper hand. You may actually increase your chances of being victimized because you will feel more comfortable placing yourself in riskier situations because you carry said weapon. Just my opinion

 

One law abiding citizen with a gun in the right place at the right time will save lives??? Probably not, he will probably just get people killed. If that law abiding citizen is an off duty police officer then he/she probably will save lives (most likely by not using their weapon), because they are trained individuals. In all honesty I would rather not see that Dirty Harry wannabe pull out his weapon in the attempts at stopping that bank robbery. He would probably shoot himself in the foot and then shoot three others when he is dancing around like an asshole

 

You also cant just shoot anybody who comes onto your property. You have to have a just cause. There has to be threat or danger at hand. You cant just sit at your window and snipe anybody who walks on your property so theres nothing to be excited about in this sense. The reason why people get hard ons over "Castle" laws is simply beyond my understanding. Their are plenty of self-defense statutes and laws at hand that state you have the right to defend yourself so why would you need an extension of those laws to say that you can shoot somebody?? Ridiculous

 

Most regular people who freely carry weapons wouldnt even have the balls to use them. Most would freeze up like little girls when the situation arose rendering the weapon useless. Hell they would probably hand it over to the criminal lol. I would say that most people who carry a firearm, barring police officers, military officers, etc, are just doing so because it makes them feel like a BIG man. It is there to inflate their sense of manhood and to make up for something else. A few of those people are reading this right now.

 

I would love if all of you gun enthusiasts could interview a family member of somebody who was killed by a gun and see how they feel. Watch the tears that run down their eyes. Watch the pain that is caused all because you assholes want to walk around like John Wayne lol. Watch the suffering of the mother of a 10 year old girl who was killed, stray bullet, by a 15 year old showing off for his friends (happened here in albany last week). All this could be ended if everyone accepted how big their dicks were and for the good of the nation joined in removing dangerous weapons from EVERYONES HANDS. But like George Carlin said: "The world is run by the bigger dick policy. What they have bigger dicks?? BOMB THEM. And all the missles, rockets, bullets are all shaped like dicks."

 

In my opinion the only intelligent statement made in this room was, "I hope I never need it". And you would never need it if this archaic and misunderstood amendment was repealed and a real attempt was made to remove guns from our streets

 

 

 

JUST MY OPINION

 

[[-VR-] Tool_Minion]

I saw all the disclaimers of "JMO" Shadow, but that won't keep me from responding. ;D

 

I will keep this civil, because we are all entitled to our opinions. That is another thing those old slave owners entitled us to.

 

The fact that you are carrying a weapon will not diminish your chances of being involved in a violent crime (it actually may increase that chance.) The only people who will not attempt to hold you up at gun point or attack you are those individuals who know you. Criminals don't know you from baby Jesus so why would they be less apt to targeting you?? The fact is that if a man approached you and put a gun in your face, you wouldn't even have time to take out your weapon and defend yourself. If you did attempt to take out your weapon you would probably end up getting yourself killed or possibly somebody who was with you. Simply put, most of the time when you are the victim of a violent crime the criminal has the upper hand. You may actually increase your chances of being victimized because you will feel more comfortable placing yourself in riskier situations because you carry said weapon. Just my opinion

 

 

OK, to this you need to consider a few things. One, I spent five years as a bounty hunter. I was trained, not just some monkey who jumped into it. I put ALOT of people behind bars, in fact it wasn't odd for me to capture and surrender up to four individuals a night. So to say my head is on a swivel would be an understatement. I WON"T fall victim to a violent crime because of this. Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but if it's avoidable, I'll avoid it. I doubt EVERYONE'S motivation and actions everywhere I go. I will take myself out of any situation I can't readily control, but at the same time I have no fear of using my weapon. It has become as much a part of me as my cell phone. I have NEVER had to shoot another human being with a lethal round, and I pray I don't. Make no mistake, I live by the mantra of I would rather be on trial for your death than you be on trial for mine. But that doesn't make me some vigilante who needs to hurt another person.

 

Second, in Missouri, SINCE the concealed carry law has been passed, we have seen dramatic declines in both armed robbery and carjackings. It's real simple man. Arm the citizens, and the criminals have less inclination to act against them. The law doesn't arm anyone, you still have to procure your weapon in the same manner as always, but you now have the ability to get a license to carry your weapon, concealed, on your person. These laws DONT PROTECT THE CRIMINALS, OR PUT MORE GUNS IN THEIR HANDS. It puts them in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

You do realize that Doctors kill more people in a month than all gun related fatalities PER YEAR!? Where the fuck is the law at that controls them?

 

We don't need a .40 to hold off the US government from attacking us. Your deer rifle won't stop them. They have the upper hand. So I can see where your getting at there. My guns aren't for them. It's for the guy who decides to break into my house one evening to steal my property. It's the sexual predators who would harm any of my three daughters, my son, or my wife. Make no mistake. I'm not some quaking old maid who won't fire. I will worry about the consequences once my family is safe.

 

I would love if all of you gun enthusiasts could interview a family member of somebody who was killed by a gun and see how they feel. Watch the tears that run down their eyes. Watch the pain that is caused all because you assholes want to walk around like John Wayne lol. Watch the suffering of the mother of a 10 year old girl who was killed, stray bullet, by a 15 year old showing off for his friends (happened here in albany last week). All this could be ended if everyone accepted how big their dicks were and for the good of the nation joined in removing dangerous weapons from EVERYONES HANDS. But like George Carlin said: "The world is run by the bigger dick policy. What they have bigger dicks?? BOMB THEM. And all the missles, rockets, bullets are all shaped like dicks."

 

I'll get right on that, right after you interview the family members of a woman who avoided being raped and killed by being armed. We could go back and forth on that one for a year and never make any head way. I promote fire arm safety in my house, and ALL of my weapons are unloaded and locked up except the one I carry. My oldest two (14-12) both girls have been to the firing range with me, and understand the deadly power of a gun. They also know they don't have to fear it because it could kill. So can a car, a microwave, hell even a cell phone under the right circumstances could be deadly. If my children want to touch, view, or shoot my weapons, they ask. I promise you, if more parents would take the mythical bullshit out of the equation and let there kids explore their curiosity supervised, there wouldn't BE any stories about kids killin each other accidentally. That entire responsibility rests in the hands of parents.

 

Lastly, you bring up families who have suffered through tragic, gun-related deaths. Me and my partner put a man behind bars who got into a shoot out with police and escaped. He killed two of them. I got phone calls from both widows thanking me for arresting him. He was wanted from an unrelated charge, and we got the file. We got him before he killed anyone else. I had to shoot the man in the stomach with a bean bag round to keep him from firing on us. Completely nonlethal. He deserved a different ending, but that wasn't up to me. So not all of us "pro-gun nuts" are dangerous. Some of us are necessary in this society.

 

I'm done. ;D

[(U$)Shadowboxin7]

Hahah you mean "those old slave owners entitled to us white tax paying men", dont you??

 

You are trained which is great. Which means you dont fall into the "most" category.

 

In regards to the Missouri law: I am glad that the law has armed EVERYONE which has cause a dramatic decline in armed robbery and carjackings. I just ask you this one question: If arming EVERYONE can cause a decline in those crimes, what do you think arming NOONE would do? I figure if nobody had guns then their would be much more than a decline. Hell it might render the whole crime virtually non-existant.

 

This law CAN also indirectly puts more guns in the criminals hands because it is opening up the gun laws to all citizens and putting more guns onto the street. Maybe the criminals will now forget about jacking cars and will start to break into houses in order to steal the guns. Somebody might get held up for their gun. What a novel idea. A criminal, knowing most people are armed, walks up behind somebody, puts a gun to their head and steals the victims gun. Now the criminal can have TWO GUNS. Whatever happens, more guns are still hitting the streets. What a great world we live in.

 

Doctors might mis-diagnose or fail to save (in your words, kill) more people then guns do but doctors also save more people then guns do. I dont remember the last time an open heart surgery was successful because of a gun (besides in the movie John Q.). I dont remember the last time a gun walked through the door and said, "Betty, your husband is going to live." Plus when the doctor "kills" people and it is deemed malpractice, at least the family can sue for millions of dollars. When that guns goes off and somebody dies, the gun doesnt pay millions in damages.

 

I agree that we could go back and forth on the interviewing topic but do you really feel it is beneficial to put more products of violence into the violent society in order to counteract the other products of violence??

 

About your story: Ironically if their were NO guns, their would be NO shoot out, which would mean NO dead officers, which would create NO dead widows, who would make NO thankful phone calls, to the bounty hunters who DIDNT have to catch the man, that the NON dead officers would have had already caught.

 

 

Have you ever heard of the nuclear arms race? We built up a massive amount of weapons to protect against the enemies massive amount of weapons. We just kept building weapons because they were building weapons and they were building weapons because we were building weapons. This went on for years until somebody sat down and said, verbatim, "What the fuck" lol. Three near disasters and some realization later caused a different train of thought. Now I ask you, does it make sense to have more guns than the criminals do or to just get rid of them altogether?

[[-VR-] Tool_Minion]

OK, I told myself that I had spoke my piece and that I was done. I lied.

 

Riddle me this: Before the invention of the fired projectile, was there violent crime? I'm pretty sure people were killing one another long before the gun.

 

Take a gun away, and they pick up a sword.

Take the sword away, and they pick up a knife.

Take the knife away and they pick up a slingshot.

Take the slingshot away, and the bastards will still throw rocks.

 

Guns don't MAKE US VIOLENT. We already have that built in, free of charge.

[BIGDANIEL]

As a member of the Law Enforcement community I have to say, that while I see the logic behind your argument and I thank you for introducing the "OTHER SIDE", there are valid points to both sides of this discussion.

 

I have to comment on the below two statements.

 

Shadowboxin7 ]

prohibit DANGEROUS weapons!!!! RETARDED

 

Are there any other type than dangerous?

 

Whether used for good or evil a weapon is dangerous. What matters is in what circumstances it is used. A woman being raped who kills her rapist with a knife kills him with a dangerous weapon, but we justify it. A rapist who kills his victim with a knife kills her with a dangerous weapon, but we convict him (hopefully and with great prejudice as well).

 

The only true way to prohibit dangerous weapons would be to cease the manufacturing of weapons as we know them. I say as we know them because when we say weapons we think of things like guns, knives, bombs, etc. But I think we can all agree that we can make weapons out of anything. Our hands, our furniture, our vehicles, inmates can make weapons out of toothbrushes and rolled up paper that is soaked in water and then allowed to dry (when done correctly its as hard as a steel rod), hell if we were to get creative enough I bet we could make weapons out of the mouse and keyboard we're using right now.

 

Since we obviously can not halt the making of weapons we need to create regulations for those who use them. While I agree with the 2nd amendment. I don't agree with just anyone being able to own a gun. I believe that anyone who owns a gun must pass a more rigorous test than a simple background check and waiting period. I believe that when someone, who is not properly trained (there's more to training than shooting it) to carry a gun, is confronted with a situation involving weapons, they may not cycle through their "toolbox" of choices before reverting to that final move of drawing their gun. And in doing so may do more harm than good.

 

But since we cant stop those who want guns from getting guns, we're left with no choice but to allow those capable of defending themselves to do so. Will there be accidents? Yes. Will tragedy sometimes come from those accidents? Yes unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]You people do understand that this amendment was created by a group of men who at that time did not give women or african americans the right to vote, right? You understand that the amendment that we are still arguing about 230 years later was created by a group of white slaveowners who felt that all men were created equal, right? These brilliant men who fought for our independence from England, over money, lived in a time that had little to no violent crime.

 

These are the same men who wrote the 1st amendment that gave us our "Freedom of Speech." As archaic as you may find the 2nd amendment and as hypocritical as you find the men who wrote it, they are our founding fathers and deserve respect. Until you find the "PERFECT" group of leaders who can and will propose a new way of life that removes all the bad from our society. I believe we will continue to fight for our rights as they are written in our Constitution. Of course as we do that there will no doubt be naysayers right there to continue the debates.

 

 

 

Here's a saying I live by everyday:

 

It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

 

[BIGDANIEL]

Shadowboxin7 ]

Hahah you mean "those old slave owners entitled to us white tax paying men", dont you??

 

Lets not turn this into a race thing.

 

Shadowboxin7 ]

This law CAN also indirectly puts more guns in the criminals hands because it is opening up the gun laws to all citizens and putting more guns onto the street. Maybe the criminals will now forget about jacking cars and will start to break into houses in order to steal the guns. Somebody might get held up for their gun. What a novel idea. A criminal, knowing most people are armed, walks up behind somebody, puts a gun to their head and steals the victims gun. Now the criminal can have TWO GUNS. Whatever happens, more guns are still hitting the streets.

 

What?? You obviously are unaware that the majority of guns on the street are stolen guns taken from homes during burglaries. A crack dealer doesn't walk into their neighborhood gun dealer and legally buy a gun. Allowing people to arm themselves is not going to put more guns on the street.

 

A criminal that believes you to be armed will second guess robbing you. UNLESS, you have what he wants. Then he doesn't care. It doesn't matter if you're armed or not.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]What a great world we live in.

 

We live in a great country too.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]Doctors might mis-diagnose or fail to save (in your words, kill) more people then guns do but doctors also save more people then guns do.

 

Please post the stats you're using for this statement. I would like to see where you're getting your information.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]About your story: Ironically if their were NO guns, their would be NO shoot out, which would mean NO dead officers, which would create NO dead widows, who would make NO thankful phone calls, to the bounty hunters who DIDNT have to catch the man, that the NON dead officers would have had already caught.

 

You think that by removing guns from our society that there would be no more violent crimes? Interesting. Completely misguided though.

 

Would you also have our military disarmed? You may not know this but quite a few of the weapons on the street today are old military issued weapons that were stolen by people driven by greed. So to follow your logic, we would need to disarm all of our military as well. Of course we couldn't do that because the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to that issue. SO that would allow guns to still exist. And as long as they exist the ability for them to be stolen exists. And if the ability for them to be stolen exists then the possibility of them winding up on the streets exist. You get the picture. We all know what happens next. The criminals have guns and the law biding citizens, including the police who have sworn to protect you, do not.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]Have you ever heard of the nuclear arms race? We built up a massive amount of weapons to protect against the enemies massive amount of weapons. We just kept building weapons because they were building weapons and they were building weapons because we were building weapons. This went on for years until somebody sat down and said, verbatim, "What the fuck" lol. Three near disasters and some realization later caused a different train of thought. Now I ask you, does it make sense to have more guns than the criminals do or to just get rid of them altogether?

 

You're comparing NUCLEAR BOMBS to guns now? Nuclear bombs are global. The 2nd amendment gun issue pertains to this country and those that live within its borders. Not a super power struggle between nations.

[BigMoneyNacku]

Well this is getting out of hand. The Doc just posted my point while I was typing. You will NEVER stop criminals from obtaining what they want. Guns, drugs, bombs, whatever. If they want it, they WILL get it. Then like he said, you have bad guys with guns and unarmed policemen trying to stop them. The problems will never go away until you find a definitive way to change human nature for good. Don't see that happeneing. I too have taken training classes. I too promote firearm safety in my house. I've been around firearms my whole life, and they are only dangerous in the hands of ignorant people.

 

 

As far as the "slaveowners" writing those laws, who gives a fuck? Really? Are you still holding a grudge about that 200 years later?

[(U$)Shadowboxin7]

Tool_Minion ]

 

Take a gun away, and they pick up a sword.

Take the sword away, and they pick up a knife.

Take the knife away and they pick up a slingshot.

Take the slingshot away, and the bastards will still throw rocks.

 

 

Great throw rocks cause theyre easier to get away from especially when their arms get tired lol

 

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

Are there any other type than dangerous?

 

 

Lol thats the point I was making...

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

These are the same men who wrote the 1st amendment that gave us our "Freedom of Speech." As archaic as you may find the 2nd amendment and as hypocritical as you find the men who wrote it, they are our founding fathers and deserve respect. Until you find the "PERFECT" group of leaders who can and will propose a new way of life that removes all the bad from our society. I believe we will continue to fight for our rights as they are written in our Constitution. Of course as we do that there will no doubt be naysayers right there to continue the debates.

 

 

And the First Amendment, as well as any others that needed to be, has been ratified from that time to this to go with the times. The Second Amendment decision has now been set back 100+ years and does not at all consider the time we live in. Yes we will continue to fight for our rights and I guess well continue to do so with deadly weapons instead of with our intellect and we will fight violence with violence instead of with common sense. I live by a motto too: The pen is mightier than the sword

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

What?? You obviously are unaware that the majority of guns on the street are stolen guns taken from homes during burglaries. A crack dealer doesn't walk into their neighborhood gun dealer and legally buy a gun. Allowing people to arm themselves is not going to put more guns on the street.

 

 

Please reread my statement.....

 

Also, allowing people to arm themselves would mean that more guns would be entering the homes of the civilians which would give more opportunity for criminals to steal said guns. What if, in the town where everyone had a gun, the criminals decided to stage a mass string of burglaries with the target being the weapons. They would rob houses when the people were not at home and steal their guns. Well we have just given those criminals an arsenal....

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

A criminal that believes you to be armed will second guess robbing you. UNLESS, you have what he wants. Then he doesn't care. It doesn't matter if you're armed or not.

 

 

What if he wants your gun....?

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

You think that by removing guns from our society that there would be no more violent crimes? Interesting. Completely misguided though.

 

 

Dont have to do the research but no guns would create a steeper decline in crime than the interesting idea of many guns, which numerous towns have adopted. lol

 

Snake Doctor ]

 

You're comparing NUCLEAR BOMBS to guns now? Nuclear bombs are global. The 2nd amendment gun issue pertains to this country and those that live within its borders. Not a super power struggle between nations.

 

 

LOL really....

 

The statement was not meant as a literal comparison between the two. By the way thank you for pointing out those concrete differences. And I did not compare the bombs to the guns. I actually compared the nuclear arms race of the cold war to the policies being created by town boards of arming all civilians.....

[(U$)Shadowboxin7]

The slaveowners comment was misinterpreted. Let me just explain what I was getting at. The young brilliant men who framed our constitution had their own faults and shortcomings. They were not perfect. They did things wrong just like anybody else. What I am saying is that through the years we have ratified amendments and added to the constitution, to go with the times, but we have continuously misinterpreted and protected this truly outdated amendment. The framers got this amendment wrong. This amendment has no place in a modern world and needs to be repealed. I was just using the slaveowner comments to get across that these men were not perfect and we should not be protecting one of their mistakes out of the principle that is in the bill of rights.

 

 

Does everybody in this room understand that we are the most violent society, not fighting a holy war, on the planet?? Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem.

 

I just think guns should be systematically removed from society and the second amendment will always prohibit that.

 

The continuum of force teaches officers that the last resort is to fire your weapon. Why is it that our first resort in anti-gun policy is to introduce more guns? Wouldnt that be the last resort?? Are we at the last resort?? The last resort usually means people die....

[[-VR-] Tool_Minion]

Does everybody in this room understand that we are the most violent society, not fighting a holy war, on the planet?? Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem.

 

So, to kill in the name of a god is acceptable? Im glad we at least got past blaming an entitiy for our desire to control the populous and own all the land. I see that as a step in the right direction.

[BigMoneyNacku]

Shadowboxin7 ]

Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem.

 

 

Canada has more guns per capita than we do. Yet they aren't as violent as the US. You can't take away guns and expect it to fix our SOCIETY.

[RNG187]

i'm not going to comment here. :X

[Chili327]

BigMoneyNacku ]

Shadowboxin7 ]

Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem.

 

 

Canada has more guns per capita than we do. Yet they aren't as violent as the US. You can't take away guns and expect it to fix our SOCIETY.

Thats what i wanted to point out.. even though i could care less about owning a gun, why is it that EVERYWHERE else in the world the murder rate is 100 times less (or more) than ours.!?

[BIGDANIEL]

Shadowboxin7 ]

...we have continuously misinterpreted and protected this truly outdated amendment. The framers got this amendment wrong. This amendment has no place in a modern world and needs to be repealed.

 

That is your opinion. Its the opinion of the Supreme Court however, which was established by our Constitution, that the 2nd amendment is not outdated and in their opinion, it stands as true and just today as it did the day it was written. Their decision did not set us back 100 years. The right to bear arms does not set us back as a society. Social ignorance sets us back. The lack of true understanding of society and how it works is what sets us back.

 

You are not mandated by any means to arm yourself. So feel free to live without guns or dangerous weapons. I hope you never have the need for them.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]Does everybody in this room understand that we are the most violent society, not fighting a holy war, on the planet?? Do you think it might be due to the fact that we have the most guns lol?? Or can you admit that it may at least be part of the problem.

 

Guns don't commit crimes. People do. People will commit the crimes with or without guns.

 

Shadowboxin7 ]I just think guns should be systematically removed from society and the second amendment will always prohibit that.

 

To remove guns from our society would decrease the number of people shot during a crime. It WILL NOT reduce crime in our society. And whatever DANGEROUS weapon takes the place of the gun will become the next amendment for you and those like you to complain about.

 

Where will it end? The systematic removal of Popsicle sticks from our society. If engineering students can build a weight bearing bridge out of them, imagine what types of dangerous weapons could be made as well.

 

 

Shadowboxin7 ]

The continuum of force teaches officers that the last resort is to fire your weapon. Why is it that our first resort in anti-gun policy is to introduce more guns? Wouldnt that be the last resort?? Are we at the last resort?? The last resort usually means people die....

 

The last step on the Use of Force Chart is not shooting your gun. Its Deadly Force. This can be done without using your firearm.

 

Whatever was last done to stop a situation is the last resort. Stopping a situation does not always involve the shooting of someone. Therefore shooting is not always the last resort. As a matter of fact shootings happens less than you would think in comparison with the other ways used to stop situations.

 

Do you know why cops carry guns? Because criminals do. Do you know why criminals carry guns? To have the bigger stick. The bigger stick scares people and makes them comply more. Do you know why law abiding citizens carry guns? Because you cant have a cop with you every where you go. You cant have a cop at your house at night while you and your family are sleeping.

 

Take away the guns and the criminals will find an alternate stick and they'll make sure that they always have the bigger stick.

 

Removing guns from our society is not the answer.

[HogWild_101st]

The United States is a gun "society". We won our freedom with guns, we tamed the west with guns, and we keep the rest of the world in line with guns. We are a bunch of "cowboys" and that's not something I am ashamed of.

 

Want to know what outlawing guns does? Look at Australia. They outlawed guns, and murder, rape, and robbery crimes statistics have gone through the roof. Want to know why? Only the crooks have guns.

 

Protect your rights to defend yourself. If someone breaks into your house, do you REALLY want to verify if they have a gun? That is YOUR castle and you are KING. If someone is there and is not invited, they don't belong there and must be up to something illegal.

 

Do you want to wait until they finish THEIR CRIME before deciding what to do?

 

If so, you are a moron.

 

It's not about killing someone else. It's about protecting yourself and your loved ones. Every living thing has the right to protect their own life. Period, end of story.