Supreme Court Rules: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right

[(U$)Shadowboxin7]

LOL went to Ocean Beach for a couple of days....

[Guest KingJunk]

 

 

Go to 5:30 best quote about guns

 

This should sum this whole topic up ;D

 

[Squid]

Shadowboxin7 ]

All this judgement did was send us back 100 years. It was another panel of individuals misinterpreting this one crucial sentence.

I wouldn't call it misinterpretation. The definition of militia includes "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service". That is pretty much the definition of selective service as well.

 

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?

Does this mean we should scrap the entire Constitution?

 

Shadowboxin7 ]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.)

Perhaps you should take a moment to read this article about "Gun Town USA" Kennesaw, GA. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

Shadowboxin7 ]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.

I don't know where you get this. While it's rare, I have read stories of armed individuals being in the right place at the right time and saving lives, but I can't recall one where they've cost more lives.

[RNG187]

im going to stay quick here, i'm for the second amendment, i just think we should have stronger gun control policies simply for the fact that most guns are used for hunting(which i have no problem with) and killing/hurting other humans. 'guns are used to protect ourselves' okay, how many times has a person(other than a cop/law official/bounty hunter/military personnel) used a gun to save his/her life? somebody else's life?

[CDBS14]

i wish i had a gun but in NY you cant have a gun.

[Squid]

I think that with this ruling, you'll see some challenges in state and local courts concerning gun bans.

[[503] Cynical2U]

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.

 

This link is for the above Quote saying that Canada has more guns per capita than the US. In this article it says that out of 250 million people in the states there is 230 million guns and 500000 of those every year are stolen and go into the underworld. We have little gun crime in Canada due in part to two reason's 1) our population is a whole lot less than the US and the second and most important thing is our GUN CONTROL LAWS. If there were more gun control laws in the US than maybe so many people wouldnt be murdered per year.

[[503] Cynical2U]

forgot the link hehe http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/gunban.html

[Squid]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 (not a rick roll)

[[503] Cynical2U]

SQUlD ]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 (not a rick roll)

 

You cant really compare such a small town to big cities sure that may work when almost everybody knows everybody but when you have more than 50000 people you cant really use this as an example. as the population grows violent crime is more evident. I remember 10 years ago in Calgary, Alberta when our population was maybe 800000 people most of the time you didn't have to worry about walking downtown by yourself at night but now if you do that by yourself you are taking a very unnecessary risk and even if you had a gun and you are jumped by 5 people that may not have a gun first you are out numbered so you better hope you are Chuck Norris or something and two if they get your gun you are simply FUCKED.. so not having people carry guns is fine with me the more gun laws against just any old Joe walking down the street with a loaded gun the better.

[COWonCRACK]

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€

 

 

what that says is two things, one that as a citizen we have the right to create a militia, and secondly to bear arms. nowhere in that sentance does it say only police officers, or government agencies. any one who says we should not be able to carry a gun needs to go re-live the columbine shootings, and any other school shootings, where helpless people where shot, without the chance to defend themselves. i have carried a knife around since i was 14 years old. and i own more weapons than i can count, but being 19 i cant legally carry them. which means any man coming at me with a gun, will probably have an advantage. criminals prefer an unarmed public because it just makes it harder for law abiding americans to get guns, but it wont change anything for wannabe american gangster scum.

 

i wrote a nice little paper mimicing thomas paines book common sense, except it was about the second ammendment. if i get a chance to dig it up i will repost it.

[[503] Cynical2U]

COWonCRACK ]

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€

 

 

what that says is two things, one that as a citizen we have the right to create a militia, and secondly to bear arms. nowhere in that sentence does it say only police officers, or government agencies. any one who says we should not be able to carry a gun needs to go relive the columbine shootings, and any other school shootings, where helpless people where shot, without the chance to defend themselves. i have carried a knife around since i was 14 years old. and i own more weapons than i can count, but being 19 i cant legally carry them. which means any man coming at me with a gun, will probably have an advantage. criminals prefer an unarmed public because it just makes it harder for law abiding americans to get guns, but it wont change anything for wannabe american gangster scum.

 

i wrote a nice little paper mimicing thomas paines book common sense, except it was about the second ammendment. if i get a chance to dig it up i will repost it.

 

 

Ok if you want everyone to relive that Columbine shooting think of the fact that a what 14-15year old got a hold of multiple guns that were bought for presents from a gun store and given to children by their parents. First of all if these were responsible parents then they wouldn't have gotten a gun to begin with (or there would have been a less likely chance of them getting a gun) and second they wouldn't have been able to be bought for a present to begin with. I do understand that your constitution says that you are able to bear arms but you have to know when enough is enough. if you have almost as many guns in your country as people then you must have a problem that needs to be looked at. Myself I am happy here in Canada where it is hard for people to get guns because they have to be registered at the point of purchase (and you cant take the gun home that day). I don't think that anyone without a license in how to properly use a gun should be able to just go ahead and buy one at a guns shop. but hey if you guys are comfortable with untrained people walking around with guns to "protect" themselves than all the power to you. but when you hear about kids accidental shooting themselves or other kids then you should think twice about just letting anyone have a gun. Also when you have only people with a gun license able to buy guns things like that wouldn't happen because those people that are responsible enough to get a license are most likely responsible enough to teach there children about gun safety.

[BIGDANIEL]

Cynical2U ]

Myself I am happy here in Canada where it is hard for people to get guns because they have to be registered at the point of purchase (and you cant take the gun home that day).

 

So do we. All purchases made at a business are documented and registered with the ATF. There are waiting periods for these purchases as well. This allows a background check to be performed.

 

 

 

Cynical2U ]I don't think that anyone without a license in how to properly use a gun should be able to just go ahead and buy one at a guns shop. but hey if you guys are comfortable with untrained people walking around with guns to "protect" themselves than all the power to you.

 

As mentioned by pretty much every Pro 2nd Amendment post in here, we agree with you. There are some people out there that should not have guns simply because they don't possess the aptitude for properly handling a gun. But, they meet the current requirements for owning a gun legally and therefore are allowed to do so.

 

 

Cynical2U ]but when you hear about kids accidental shooting themselves or other kids then you should think twice about just letting anyone have a gun.

 

Its an accident. If your stance is to remove an item from society because an accident occurred then lets start with drugs and alcohol. They are responsible for the happenings of more accidents than guns. I don't see anyone on here debating the systematic removal of either of them from our society.

 

Next we should remove vehicles. More people are killed annually in car accidents that by guns. Lets get rid of them too.

 

Most importantly we should get rid of people. People are the cause of the majority of all accidents. People who are high on drugs cause accidents. People who are drunk cause accidents. People who are driving cars cause accidents. And people who are carrying guns when they shouldn't be cause accidents.

 

Why only get rid of the guns? They kill less people and are involved in less accidents annually than cars.

 

 

Cynical2U ]Also when you have only people with a gun license able to buy guns things like that wouldn't happen because those people that are responsible enough to get a license are most likely responsible enough to teach there children about gun safety.

 

So you're saying that every gun accident out there only happens to those without a gun license. You're wrong.

 

Do you know what it takes to pass a background check for buying a gun? Here's a small list of criteria you must meet in the majority of states:

 

1.) Must not be a convicted Felon

2.) Must not have been convicted of Domestic Battery

3.) Must not have been treated for Mental Illness

 

This criteria differs from state to state (obvious problem right there) but as long as you can say no to those questions you'll be approved for a gun license. How many people do you think may meet those requirements? Quite a few. But until the requirements are changed and made uniformed throughout the United States situations like this will continue to happen.

 

There is no simple answer. But removing guns from our society will not solve anything.

[COWonCRACK]

i can totally see where your commin from cynical, i would agree with mandatory lessons if you purchase a gun or maybe stricter screening, cause i know not everyone is like me and grew up around them and knows how to use them. but the point i am tryin to argue is the fact that our government doesnt have the right to say that the ammendment was souly for police men and men of the forces, and that i do have a right to own one and carry one.

[Squid]

Cynical2U ]

SQUlD ]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 (not a rick roll)

 

You cant really compare such a small town to big cities sure that may work when almost everybody knows everybody but when you have more than 50000 people you cant really use this as an example. as the population grows violent crime is more evident. I remember 10 years ago in Calgary, Alberta when our population was maybe 800000 people most of the time you didn't have to worry about walking downtown by yourself at night but now if you do that by yourself you are taking a very unnecessary risk and even if you had a gun and you are jumped by 5 people that may not have a gun first you are out numbered so you better hope you are Chuck Norris or something and two if they get your gun you are simply FUCKED.. so not having people carry guns is fine with me the more gun laws against just any old Joe walking down the street with a loaded gun the better.

 

You're right, but Kennesaw is right outside of Atlanta and the population has grown a great deal and they continue the low crime trend. What it shows is that when there's a greater chance that when the owner of the house you're about to break into is probably armed, you'll think twice about breaking into it. You can't arm every house in the country, but what you can take away from this is that the crime rate would probably be the same or worse if Kennesaw didn't pass their law, so private gun ownership does serve to dissuade some violent crime.

[[503] Cynical2U]

SQUlD ]

Cynical2U ]

SQUlD ]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 (not a rick roll)

 

You cant really compare such a small town to big cities sure that may work when almost everybody knows everybody but when you have more than 50000 people you cant really use this as an example. as the population grows violent crime is more evident. I remember 10 years ago in Calgary, Alberta when our population was maybe 800000 people most of the time you didn't have to worry about walking downtown by yourself at night but now if you do that by yourself you are taking a very unnecessary risk and even if you had a gun and you are jumped by 5 people that may not have a gun first you are out numbered so you better hope you are Chuck Norris or something and two if they get your gun you are simply FUCKED.. so not having people carry guns is fine with me the more gun laws against just any old Joe walking down the street with a loaded gun the better.

 

You're right, but Kennesaw is right outside of Atlanta and the population has grown a great deal and they continue the low crime trend. What it shows is that when there's a greater chance that when the owner of the house you're about to break into is probably armed, you'll think twice about breaking into it. You can't arm every house in the country, but what you can take away from this is that the crime rate would probably be the same or worse if Kennesaw didn't pass their law, so private gun ownership does serve to dissuade some violent crime.

 

that is a good point Squid.