SCOTUS to decide on handgun ban - Page 2

Bleeding Head Ken · 11-24-07, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

On a side note I've always wondered what type of limits we should place on weapon ownership. The main idea of the "right to bear arms" is protection from others which includes the government. However, in this day and age a single shot rifle will hardly protect you from the government. Does that mean I should be able to own an SRAW or a Stinger Missile Launcher or even nuclear weapons? Where is the line drawn?

In a free society the line is drawn at the point at which you become an imminent threat to any other individual. A stinger missile is not an imminent threat (unless someone can show otherwise?). A nuclear bomb, on the other hand, is absolutely guaranteed to kill everyone within a wide radius. If you were to have one of those in your house near me, I'd feel justified in going to whatever length was necessary to remove the threat.

TheHonestTruth · 11-24-07, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Shotguns or other large weapons aren't easily carried for self defense, handguns are.

The question is how much crime is prevented in these instances of concealed weaponry (handguns) used outside the home versus how much crime is facilitated by handguns. I think thats a very debatable point and probably goes in the direction of more crime than prevention. Drunk people pulling guns, etc.

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lachean

The government couldn't use weapons of those kinds against its people because it needs the infrastructure to exist. If you think occupying Iraq is hard, try occupying Baltimore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

Remember that thing called the civil war?

Yeah, what about it? Do not pose questions at me, if you have an argument to make speak directly.

I'll connect the dots for you. Our government is willing to use everything in its arsenal against its own people, if necessary, to ensure victory. We sure as hell did so during the civil war. Ever heard of scorched earth policy? We used it during the civil war to great effectiveness. March to the Sea

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

In a free society the line is drawn at the point at which you become an imminent threat to any other individual. A stinger missile is not an imminent threat (unless someone can show otherwise?). A nuclear bomb, on the other hand, is absolutely guaranteed to kill everyone within a wide radius. If you were to have one of those in your house near me, I'd feel justified in going to whatever length was necessary to remove the threat.

I don't think I understand. Can you define what you think an "imminent threat" is and who thinks this is important and why?

scourge99 · 11-24-07, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestTruth

The question is how much crime is prevented in these instances of concealed weaponry (handguns) used outside the home versus how much crime is facilitated by handguns. I think thats a very debatable point and probably goes in the direction of more crime than prevention. Drunk people pulling guns, etc.

All handgun-control laws will be trumped by the constitution if the constitution guarantees the right for all citizens to bear arms.

I see your point but I think it is a dangerous path that is far too subjective to be implemented fairly and effectively.

waugeyman · 11-24-07, 11:27 PM

I think its overdue that the Supreme Court look at this "Sacred" amendment and finally decide if the second amendment is an individual right or not, and if a partial band still garuntees rights. Its no coincidence that the gentleman who started this waited until now. His timing was perfect. The DC handgun ban has been in effect for 30 years, and only now they decide to challenge it. He waited for two specific reasons.
1. Till he got a supreme court that would be sympathetic to his plight, and therefore get a decision in his favor (Its no secret there are more conservative judges right now)
2. He wanted to make the 2nd Amendment a presidential election issue purely for partisan politics. (The case will be heard in March with a decisoin due in the summer - just a few months before the election) With so many things going against Republicans this election, I applaud his attempts to distract the public from the issues that will matter in the final stretch of the election.

The plantiff argues that the ban was put in place to lower crime and DC has the worst crime. His statistics compare 1970s DC to today. I would love to see any major metropolitan area that has less crime today than it did in the 70's, and then look at the population and compare it to gun ownership.

Personally, living in the DC metro area, I am fine with a ban on hand guns. The law still respects the heart of the 2nd amendment, because you are still allowed to own other guns.

Bleeding Head Ken · 11-25-07, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestTruth

Plenty of crimes are committed simply because people shove guns into their wasteband, if these guns were systematically eliminated over time crime would decrease.

Perhaps my wife should carry a shotgun or rifle in her purse? Ok, I know, that's not feasible. She'll just have to sling it over her back.

waugeyman · 11-25-07, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

Perhaps my wife should carry a shotgun or rifle in her purse? Ok, I know, that's not feasible. She'll just have to sling it over her back.

I certainly wouldn't want any of that. Infact it may actually work. She walks around with a 12 gauge strapped to her back and every mugger goes, "Ah hell no, that ones packing heat. I don't want none of that s^*t."

Bleeding Head Ken · 11-25-07, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

I don't think I understand. Can you define what you think an "imminent threat" is and who thinks this is important and why?

You were asking why individuals should be restricted from keeping certain types of weapons. My point was that a nuclear weapon cannot be effectively used against a target in self defense (defense of life, liberty or property) without also harming innocents. It cannot be "aimed" like a stinger missile.

If your neighbor were in possession of a nuclear weapon, you should consider that an imminent threat to yourself and your loved ones. There is no way that weapon could be used without destroying you in the process.

We have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether the BoR protects that right from Federal infringement. But that right does not extend to threatening your peaceful neighbors by keeping weapons that cannot be utilized without killing those peaceful neighbors in the process.

scourge99 · 11-25-07, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

You were asking why individuals should be restricted from keeping certain types of weapons. My point was that a nuclear weapon cannot be effectively used against a target in self defense (defense of life, liberty or property) without also harming innocents. It cannot be "aimed" like a stinger missile.

If your neighbor were in possession of a nuclear weapon, you should consider that an imminent threat to yourself and your loved ones. There is no way that weapon could be used without destroying you in the process.

We have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether the BoR protects that right from Federal infringement. But that right does not extend to threatening your peaceful neighbors by keeping weapons that cannot be utilized without killing those peaceful neighbors in the process.

Amendment II

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.

Its not just about defending yourself from a single person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Historical_interpretations

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Cannon, muskets, and men were all that was needed during the Founders days. How will you defend yourself from "unprincipled rulers" and "domestic usurpations of power by rulers" with your rifle when an APC or UAV comes knocking on your door? The right of an individual to bear arms is the peoples collective check and balance for the government.