D.C. Case Could Shape Gun Laws - Supreme Court Is Asked to Uphold Ban (1 Viewer)

[new coup for you]

I've always wondered why it's apparently impossible to enforce a prohibition against guns, but reasonable to do so against drugs.

 

[rhinefire]

This is going to be one hot story. Can you imagine the uproar from the gun nuts if their precious handguns are taken away? WOW!


Source: washingtonpost.com

Insulting slang like the crap that you spew out only shows "gun nuts" there will always be targets for us to "practice" on.

 

[Gibberish]

We don't actually "need to know this". We can decide not to care, and live our lives ready to defend ourselves against these very rare things. If they are mentally unstable, why would they obey your gun law ? If they are mass murderers, why would they balk at violating your gun law ?

The gun laws wouldn't require these individuals to choose to obey or not. They would not legally receive the actual weapon until they were approved. The only way to violate such laws is to purchase a gun on the black market, which is a whole other matter.

Personally I would rather not have mentally unstable people to be able to freely purchase guns and walk into downtown opening fire because they think they are inside the game Doom and all the thousand or so people around them are zombies trying to kill them.

I would rather these rare threats you speak of were killed in the act by an armed citizen, than held in a dog and pony show trial, followed by years of detention at taxpayer expense.

So you would rather allow them the opportunity to kill massive amounts of people so that you can have the satisfaction of them dieing in the act rather then deny them the weapon so that they cannot freely commit murder?

 

[rhinefire]

How many liberal politicians that are protected by the secret service body guards insist their guards don't carry a weapon? How many lfety hollywood freaks hire unarmed bodyguards? Anyone know the answer or is the answer obvious to all; ZERO?

 

[Gibberish]

How many liberal politicians that are protected by the secret service body guards insist their guards don't carry a weapon? How many lfety hollywood freaks hire unarmed bodyguards? Anyone know the answer or is the answer obvious to all; ZERO?

How many liberal politicians are suggesting police, military, and any other security officials not be able to carry guns?

 

[Voidwar]

The only way to violate such laws is to purchase a gun on the black market, which is a whole other matter.

It is not a separate matter, it is the whole point.

Your bans on tools is silly, and does not prevent the human misbehavior which you decry.

The best defense against the threats you mention is an armed citizenry, and not some silly law the nuts won't obey in the first place.

So you would rather allow them the opportunity to kill massive amounts of people

I do not "allow" them this, they possess it at birth.

The only way to completely disarm any human is to make it a quadriplegic.

 

[Voidwar]

How many liberal politicians are suggesting police, military, and any other security officials not be able to carry guns?

I'm my own "security official", and I'm keeping it that way.

These people you mention do NOT outrank me, and they are no more "official" than I am.

Badge wearers are NOT royalty, they have no right to special priviledges above those of the citizen.

 

[Ikari]

I've always wondered why it's apparently impossible to enforce a prohibition against guns, but reasonable to do so against drugs.

There hasn't been successful enforcement of the drug prohibition in this country. You can still get drugs, pretty much whatever you want, in this country fairly easily. All prohibition of drugs has done is to fuel a black market and criminal sector.

 

[Gibberish]

It is not a separate matter, it is the whole point.

Your bans on tools are silly, and do not prevent the human misbehavior which you decry.

The best defense against the threats you mention is an armed citizenry, and not some silly law the nuts won't obey in the first place.

Being able to purchase weapons on the black market in no way warrants the extermination of gun laws. They are separate issues. Unless of course you believe all drugs should be legal because people can illegal purchase drugs?

Who is banning guns? I am saying all citizens have a right to own,operate, and carry a gun IF they do not fall under the criminal and mental restrictions. Unlike you I do not think when Serial killer get's out of prison he should be able to go down to WalMart and pick up a view 22's. The same as I do not think a convicted child molester should be able to open a day-care center.

So vigilantism is the way to stop unwarranted crime?

I do not "allow" them this, they possess it at birth.

No you're not "allowing" it. You are saying, "Hey you might be crazy and will more then likely kill a bunch of people, here's a gun".

The only way to completely disarm any human is to make it a quadriplegic.

Again, I'm not calling for disarming everyday citizens. I'm saying those that are not psychologically capable to manage the responsibility (not killing massive amount of people for not legitimate reason) of owning a gun should not be allowed to.

On a side note I like the play on words, you need to make someone a quadriplegic to "disarm (dis-arm)" them.

 

[Gibberish]

I'm my own "security official", and I'm keeping it that way.

These people you mention do NOT outrank me, and they are no more "official" than I am.

Badge wearers are NOT royalty, they have no right to special priviledges above those of the citizen.

Do you also have the same right to arrest people you feel have committed a crime and put them in a "jail" within your home? Can you also sentence these people within your living room and put them in your own personal prison for X amount of years?

I would love to see you go arrest and detain a few people (maybe a few people speeding on the highway) and take them to a police station to see how legally equal you are to a police officer.

 

[Voidwar]

Unlike you I do not think when Serial killer get's out of prison he should be able to go down to WalMart and pick up a view 22's.

Don't serial killers use blades and strangulation much more than firearms ?

Personally, if you are going to let him out at all, then he should have all his rights intact. 2nd Amendment rights also.

I do not support depriving citizens convicted of a felony of their 2nd amendment rights. If you ask me, the law that delineates that is purely unconstitutional. It conflicts with the Bill of Rights, and it is just legislation, so it should be stricken down. Constitution trumps legislation.

So vigilantism is the way to stop unwarranted crime?

Self Defense is NOT vigilanteism.

Not that I really have much problem with vigilanteism, just that defending oneself from assault or robbery does not meet the definition.

No you're not "allowing" it. You are saying, "Hey you might be crazy and will more then likely kill a bunch of people, here's a gun".

Where did I say that ? What makes you think I hang out with crazy people while they recive their tinfoil transmissions ? :2razz:

Crazy people can already decide to kill a few people by running them over at the bus stop. Have You written your Congressman to support loony checks on all driver's licenses ? If you have not, can I then accuse you of handing the crazy person the keys ? :2razz:

On a side note I like the play on words, you need to make someone a quadriplegic to "disarm (dis-arm)" them.

We might as well have fun while we fight in a pit for the amusement of others

 

[RightinNYC]

Odds that SCOTUS takes the case: probably 50-50
Odds that if they do, they overturn the DC Circuit's decision: Much lower

 

[Voidwar]

Do you also have the same right to arrest people you feel have committed a crime and put them in a "jail" within your home? Can you also sentence these people within your living room and put them in your own personal prison for X amount of years?

I would love to see you go arrest and detain a few people (maybe a few people speeding on the highway) and take them to a police station to see how legally equal you are to a police officer.

I think you may have misconstrued my point.

These men think they have a right to hold guns in my presence, but that I do not have the right to bear my ams in their presence. This goes back to the time of royalty, where no commoner was allowed to bear steel in the presence of the Nobility. Cops are not "Nobility". Their right to self defense, is NOT bigger than mine. They are not more important than I am. They are not royalty.

 

[SgtRock]

That's all fine and good but the true gun nuts don't want any restrictions at all and do not want to register their weapons.

Just read Sgt. Rock's sick post about naming his guns and sleeping with them! If that is not freaking weird to anyone then those people should be banned from owning a gun because it is very scary to have an obsession for guns IMHO.

Champs ask any of the current and former military on this forum if they slept with there weapons? The answer is yes. We are required to sleep with them to keep them close so they would not turn up missing and so we had easy access to them. You should not make assumptions. In effect you just called everyone of our fine soldiers freeking weird and sick. IMHO you have no freaking clue. Please censor your ignorant self. ~ Sgt Rock

 

[Gibberish]

These men think they have a right to hold guns in my presence, but that I do not have the right to bear my ams in their presence. This goes back to the time of royalty, where no commoner was allowed to bear steel in the presence of the Nobility. Cops are not "Nobility". Their right to self defense, is NOT bigger than mine. They are not more important than I am. They are not royalty.

You seem to be of the impression everyone but yourself is trying to eliminate guns altogether. Restricting gun ownership to legally abiding civilians that are mentally fit to own such weapons is not eliminating the right to own a gun to everyday citizens.

 

[Gibberish]

Don't serial killers use blades and strangulation much more than firearms ?

Personally, if you are going to let him out at all, then he should have all his rights intact. 2nd Amendment rights also.

I do not support depriving citizens convicted of a felony of their 2nd amendment rights. If you ask me, the law that delineates that is purely unconstitutional. It conflicts with the Bill of Rights, and it is just legislation, so it should be stricken down. Constitution trumps legislation.

It is much easier to kill someone by pulling a trigger from a distance then stabbing them multiple times in close combat. I would much rather fight someone with a knife then a gun.

I believe if you are convicted of any type of ill murder you should be restricted from gun ownership. That same as if you are convicted of child-molestation you should not be able to have unsupervised close contact with children.

Self Defense is NOT vigilanteism.

Not that I really have much problem with vigilanteism, just that defending oneself from assault or robbery does not meet the definition.

Perhaps you would have us go back to the laws of the old west. If two people are in a fight and both have guns each are legally able to kill the other.

Where did I say that ? What makes you think I hang out with crazy people while they recive their tinfoil transmissions ? :2razz:

Crazy people can already decide to kill a few people by running them over at the bus stop. Have You written your Congressman to support loony checks on all driver's licenses ? If you have not, can I then accuse you of handing the crazy person the keys ? :2razz:

You already have to be physically and mentally capable to receive a driver's license. The primary use of a vehicle is not for aggression, defense, or murder. A gun's primary use is.

 

[Voidwar]

I believe if you are convicted of any type of ill murder you should be restricted from gun ownership.

But would you be honest and do what is legally required to make that change ?

To do it legally, one would have to initiate a constitutional congress and Amend the Second.

Perhaps you would have us go back to the laws of the old west. If two people are in a fight and both have guns each are legally able to kill the other.

To my knowledge, this is still the current legal situtation.
If someone attacks me with a gun, I can kill them with mine.

You already have to be physically and mentally capable to receive a driver's license. The primary use of a vehicle is not for aggression, defense, or murder. A gun's primary use is.

To this I would say, crazies can get past the check, and I disagree about your take on the "primary" use of the aforementioned tools. From where do you get the authority to define "primary uses" ? Why would I let you define them for me ?

 

[Gibberish]

But would you be honest and do what is legally required to make that change ?

To do it legally, one would have to initiate a constitutional congress and Amend the Second.

Of course.

To my knowledge, this is still the current legal situtation.
If someone attacks me with a gun, I can kill them with mine.

If you shoot someone just because they have a gun you can be convicted of murder. In today's world they would need to provoke use of the gun. You cannot legally shoot someone merely because they push you and they have a gun in a holster that they are making no attempt to use.

To this I would say, crazies can get past the check, and I disagree about your take on the "primary" use of the aforementioned tools. From where do you get the authority to define "primary uses" ? Why would I let you define them for me ?

So because "crazies" can find ways to break laws said laws should not exist?

What would you define the primary use of your gun if not for possible use to physically harm or kill an individual in a fit of aggression or defense?

 

[Voidwar]

If you shoot someone just because they have a gun you can be convicted of murder. In today's world they would need to provoke use of the gun. You cannot legally shoot someone merely because they push you and they have a gun in a holster that they are making no attempt to use.

And why would I attack my fellow armed citizen who wasn't attacking me ???

No one said anyone could shoot someone just because they have a gun, so I think your hypothetical may have derailed.

What would you define the primary use of your gun

Accelerating metal pellets.

http://www.traphof.org/inductees/nattrass_susan.htm

When this gal buys a gun, there is no intent of violence, aggression or defense, she is a world champion trapshooter. She hits clay targets, in competition, with accelerated metal pellets.

 

[Gibberish]

And why would I attack my fellow armed citizen who wasn't attacking me ???

No one said anyone could shoot someone just because they have a gun, so I think your hypothetical may have derailed.

You may not use your gun but the guy next to you int he bar might have a history of mental disorders that leads him to believe that shooting you in the head is the best way to stop you from looking at his girlfriend.

Because of this mental disorder if he was denied a gun he would merely confront you with his fist and you keep on living.

Accelerating metal pellets.

http://www.traphof.org/inductees/nattrass_susan.htm

When this gal buys a gun, there is no intent of violence, aggression or defense, she is a world champion trapshooter. She hits clay targets, in competition, with accelerated metal pellets.

I think we are not on the same level. I am not talking about a sports person's right to own and operate the tool of their sport. Does that gal carry her gun to the grocery store and social bar on Friday nights, and if so does she have a history of criminal activity or mental disorders?

I am talking about mentally deranged Joe not being able to have the right to own and carry a gun into the middle of Times Square to take care of all the "monsters" that have been following him and are now gathering there.

 

[RightinNYC]

What would you define the primary use of your gun if not for possible use to physically harm or kill an individual in a fit of aggression or defense?

The primary use of my rifle is to kill coyotes that threaten the horses, shoot targets, and protect my home in case someone tries to break into it.

The primary use of my handgun, if/when I get it, will be to shoot targets, deter would-be robbers, and protect myself in the event that it's necessary.

 

[Voidwar]

I am talking about mentally deranged Joe not being able to have the right to own and carry a gun into the middle of Times Square to take care of all the "monsters" that have been following him and are now gathering there.

Or Whut ?

You'll prevent Mentally deranged Joe ?
How ? Force ? Lethal maybe ?

So, in the end, we need to have a gunfight with this nut either way, but you'll feel better about it if we pass a meaningless law first ? It seems like you would want to initiate the gunfight before the man even misbehaves, and thus I find your law and your ATF agent the problem here. If I have to blow him away in the bar, after he begins misbehaving, so be it. Self defense was a necessary fact before that law was ever considered.

 

[Gibberish]

So, in the end, we need to have a gunfight with this nut either way, but you'll feel better about it if we pass a meaningless law first ? It seems like you would want to initiate the gunfight before the man even misbehaves, and thus I find your law and your ATF agent the problem here. If I have to blow him away in the bar, after he begins misbehaving, so be it. Self defense was a necessary fact before that law was ever considered.

How would you have a gunfight that is unable to purchase a gun? I said he has a mental disorder, he's not a criminal searching the black market to specifically hurt people.

Personally I don't believe we should rely on rules that remove guns from those people that are mentally incapable of using them in a responsible way. Your world of the strongest survive while killing of the rest is quite savage and unnecessary in most instances. Why leave Joe to die at your gun when he could have lived, gotten treatment, and possibly lived a normal life?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Insulting slang like the crap that you spew out only shows "gun nuts" there will always be targets for us to "practice" on.

How pathetic! Threatening to kill someone on an anonymous board! Is there a better definition of a *****?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Champs ask any of the current and former military on this forum if they slept with there weapons? The answer is yes. We are required to sleep with them to keep them close so they would not turn up missing and so we had easy access to them. You should not make assumptions. In effect you just called everyone of our fine soldiers freeking weird and sick. IMHO you have no freaking clue. Please censor your ignorant self. ~ Sgt Rock

I'm not talking about soldiers still in the military and you know it! I'm talking about unstable people who are so paranoid and/or so turned on by guns that they would actually sleep with "them."

Sorry pal you'll never convince me that someone who sleeps with guns (and I am excluding people in the military in a war zone) does not have severe, extremely severe psychological and emotional issues that make them a threat to the general population.

Out of curiosity Sgt. would you enjoy shooting someone who is not threatening your safety? Would you shoot an unarmed man?