US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

ConservaBill said:

The "common sense" is if your aim is protect your family and property from those that would do you harm, you'd better damnwell be BETTER armed than them... Have you ever heard of a little thing called a home invasion?? ..maybe not..

Click to expand...

"Common sense" says that if you are using deadly force to protect you and your family, then you want a wapon that is "designed to kill people".

Seems to me that this is exactly the argument the anti-gun loons use against 'assault weapons' - like the AK47.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

I hope the SC goes the other way, we need a revolution....

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:

"Common sense" says that if you are using deadly force to protect you and your family, then you want a wapon that is "designed to kill people".

Seems to me that this is exactly the argument the anti-gun loons use against 'assault weapons' - like the AK47.

Click to expand...

If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

earthworm said:

If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

Click to expand...

Dude, that is so unrealistic and ivory-tower that I hardly know where to BEGIN with what all is wrong with it.

I can't imagine someone having the faintest smallest clue about anything to do with the reality of crime having such a naive opinion.

At any rate, until they invent the Star Trek Phaser with Stun Setting this wish is SOL.

BTW, tasers don't qualify, they are a somewhat-useful tool for LE use for taking people into custody, but they have a number of limitations that make them poorly suited for actual self-defense....you'll note that cops still carry real guns too ---- guess what there is a reason for that!

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

earthworm said:

If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death.

Click to expand...

When deadly forece is required, there is no substitute. You MIGHT be able to stop someone by 'stunning' them, but for that to be your primary intent, when deadly force is required, then you're unnecessarily putting your life, and the lives of the people you are protecting, at risk.

The use of of a gun, or any other deadly weapon, is, in and of itself, deadly force. If you are justified in using some such deadly weapon, then you are justified in killing the person(s) you are using it against.

Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.

Click to expand...

That happened w while ago
:mrgreen:

After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

Click to expand...

I'm FAR too good looking to ever consider that.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

earthworm said:

If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

Click to expand...

What happens when that doesn't work?

What happens when they actually die because of it?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

stevenb said:

What happens when that doesn't work?

What happens when they actually die because of it?

Click to expand...

That's a good point.

Pepperspray doesn't always work. OTOH, Sometimes people have violently allergic reactions and there have been deaths.

Tasers do not always work right. OTOH, there have been more than a few deaths occuring immediately after being Tasered, though Taser denies any link. :roll:

Bashing someone on the head is no guarantee of a knockout, and any blow to the head hard enough to KO is potentially hard enough to cause brain damage or fatality, especially if a blunt instrument is used.

The poster in question has no knowlege of what he is advocating, I'm afraid.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

danarhea said:

The US Supreme Court is taking up the question on whether the Second Amendment forbids gun control. This is going to be a very interesting case, and if the Supremes rule according to the Constitution, you are going to see the overturning of gun laws in many states.

Cross your fingers, folks. And as big of a Bush basher as I have been, I will grant him this - His choices for Supreme Court justices were excellent.

If the court rules favorably against gun control, it WILL be Bush's fault, and I will be more than proud to say "Well done, Mr. President", for a change.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?

Do people really believe that gun laws in rural areas would work in Los Angeles and New York?

In Los Angeles you have to give your fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Good!

"The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.

Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!

And the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.

There is a long history of local sheriff's determining what was safe and sane within city limits.

And the whole notion that if everyone were strapped we'd all be safer is so ****ing retarded its unbelievable. Cars weren't even designed as weapons and you still need a license to drive.

Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.

I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?

The NRA hated Micheal Moore's movie because it revealed some ugly truths about the backwards, paranoid, uneducated gun owner. I don't know if that represents the majority or minority of gun owners, but they do exist. And in their sick paranoid minds, gun control laws are somehow aimed at taking away their rights. No lame-brain, gun control laws are meant to stop flooding the streets with illegal unregistered weapons used by criminals.

We don't care about some toothless banjo player shooting at cans. Or deer. Or ducks. (cause it's such a fair fight and modern hunting is such real sport...:roll::roll We care about the handguns and weapons being used by felons. Are you a felon? Then chill the **** out and shut the **** up.

:rantoff::usflag2:

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:

Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?

Click to expand...

Since you support states infringing on or violating constitutional rights, then you support a state sponsored church or a city council using tax payer money to erected a big cross on city hall or states mandating the teaching of creation in schools instead of evolution or states enacting jim crow laws?

Do people really believe that gun laws in rural areas would work in Los Angeles and New York?

Click to expand...

Do you really believe a criminal is sitting there thinking "oh those damn anti-2nd amendment laws piss me off and I was gonna rob a liquore store today or I was going to go car jacking but I need a ****ing license or have to wait several days before buying a gun"?

In Los Angeles you have to give your fingerprint to purchase ammunition. Good!

Click to expand...

So you support submitting a finger print to buy paper,pencils computers and to make a phone call and anything that is basically support asking the government permission to exercise a right?

"The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.

Click to expand...

The second amendment states "arms", that means weapons in general nothing specific and the 2nd also says "shall not be infringed". So that means the government has no business banning weapons.

Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!

Click to expand...

The it wasn't invented argument can be used for the internet, modern printing presses, telephones, warrantless wire taps on citizens making calls to other citizens and so on.

And the 1st amendment doesn't mention child pornography.

Click to expand...

You still have to get the child to be doing something illegal in order to take those pictures or video.

There is a long history of local sheriff's determining what was safe and sane within city limits.

Click to expand...

There was a long history with slavery, racial discrimination and other things. It doesn't make them right.

And the whole notion that if everyone were strapped we'd all be safer is so ****ing retarded its unbelievable.

Click to expand...

No, what is ****en retard is the whole notion that somehow enacting anti-2nd amendment laws is somehow going to take away guns from people who in the first place do not already obey the law.

Cars weren't even designed as weapons and you still need a license to drive.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant argument. Driving is not a constitutional right and a license is permission from the state to drive cars on the road. No right should require permission from the government.

Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.

I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?

Click to expand...

Seeing how it is a constitutional right it is no one's business how many or what kind of firearms or weapons someone owns.

And in their sick paranoid minds, gun control laws are somehow aimed at taking away their rights.

Click to expand...

Gun control laws are aimed on taking away or severely restricting their rights.Obviously you failed to read the shall not infringe part and the whole concept of a right is that you do not need permission from the government to exercise that right.

No lame-brain, gun control laws are meant to stop flooding the streets with illegal unregistered weapons used by criminals.

Click to expand...

So you admit that anti-2nd amendment laws are pointless with this statement?

We care about the handguns and weapons being used by felons.

Click to expand...

So you are cool if the government said that since were a felon you do not have a right to free speech religion or any other constitutional rights?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

earthworm said:

If a man's goal is to protect his self and his family, then he either needs the ability and or a weapon to do this.
He does not need to kill anyone, only to stun them, to a point just short of death..
Mark me down as an anti-gun loon.
After you do this, remove all the mirrors from your house.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If someone comes into my home with intent to cause harm, he needs to leave my home graveyard dead. I have no qualms about killing someone on that basis. Better him than me or my family.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

So if a murder is committed with a gun, there should be no registration number on the weapon at the crime scene for police to trace to an owner?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Orius said:

So if a murder is committed with a gun, there should be no registration number on the weapon at the crime scene for police to trace to an owner?

Click to expand...

And this is going to help if, as is commonly the case with weapons used in crimes:

The gun was sold three times since the original owner bought it;

Then it was stolen from the last guy;

Then it was sold on the black market five different times...

(criminals don't register their guns)

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

C'mon, now. How many burglers do you know walk around breaking into houses carrying an assault riffle slung over their shoulder? Instead of replying with hyperbole, let's try staying in the reality of the real.

Again, I fully understand where the hardline viewpoint is on this matter, but let's use some common sense here, folks.

Click to expand...

If a cat burgler shows up with a .38 revolver; I want to meet him with an M-16. In the military, it's called, "fire superiority". There's some reality for you.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Orius said:

So if a murder is committed with a gun, there should be no registration number on the weapon at the crime scene for police to trace to an owner?

Click to expand...

No there should not be any registration numbers. its none of the government's damn business what fire arms I have or how many I have.


A.Why is it the government's business what weapons I own?
B.Why would a criminal in a anti-2nd amendment state register a firearm?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

jamesrage said:

No there should not be any registration numbers. its none of the government's damn business what fire arms I have or how many I have.


A.Why is it the government's business what weapons I own?
B.Why would a criminal in a anti-2nd amendment state register a firearm?

Click to expand...

The simple answer for numbskulls here...


criminals don't register guns, nor do they obey existing laws. Why would they start if we enacted more of the laws they already don't follow?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

apdst said:

If a cat burgler shows up with a .38 revolver; I want to meet him with an M-16. In the military, it's called, "fire superiority". There's some reality for you.

Click to expand...

May I suggest a 12 gauge? The auto weapon unnecessary in this event of a burglar coming in uninvited. I just replaced the firing pin on my Mossberg. A lightweight handy home device that scares most away by the sound of the slide. I used easy instrucs, the shotgun dismantles very easily, is super easy to clean...and buckshot using the 9 pellet Remington ammo...is all you need.

Wait till the dog gets out of the way though...unless yer in a hurry. I mean I cannot sit here and tell you it won't take the dog, a few kids, a wife(if need be), and the refrigerator.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

stevenb said:

The simple answer for numbskulls here...


criminals don't register guns, nor do they obey existing laws. Why would they start if we enacted more of the laws they already don't follow?

Click to expand...

Amazing how that little detail seems to eludes anti-2nd amendment nuts. The only reason for a firearm registration is so the government knows who has what so that one day day they can go knocking on doors to confiscate firearms.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Charles Martel said:

May I suggest a 12 gauge? The auto weapon unnecessary in this event of a burglar coming in uninvited. I just replaced the firing pin on my Mossberg. A lightweight handy home device that scares most away by the sound of the slide. I used easy instrucs, the shotgun dismantles very easily, is super easy to clean...and buckshot using the 9 pellet Remington ammo...is all you need.

Wait till the dog gets out of the way though...unless yer in a hurry. I mean I cannot sit here and tell you it won't take the dog, a few kids, a wife(if need be), and the refrigerator.

Click to expand...

The refrigerator? Whoa. That's my beer you are messing with. :mrgreen:

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

stevenb said:

The simple answer for numbskulls here...


criminals don't register guns, nor do they obey existing laws. Why would they start if we enacted more of the laws they already don't follow?

Click to expand...

Because.....because they just better....that's why. :doh

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

hazlnut said:

Don't states and local jurisdictions have the right to determine what is safe and reasonable for their area?

Click to expand...

Not if doing so violates the Constitution.

"The 2nd amendment doesn't mention assault weapons." -- is the most idiotic statement uttered by gun rights advocates.
Assault weapons weren't invented you nitwits!

Click to expand...

Neither was CNN or the internet, but the 1st amendment protects those.

There is NO sound argument that 'assult weapons' do not fall under the defintion of 'arms' as th eterm is used in the 2nd.

Goddamn people are thick and unreasonable on this issue.

Click to expand...

Especially on the anti-gun side.

I know more than a few gun owners that have their legal guns and then their secret stash of guns purchased under the table etc. You got two ****ing hands asshole! What do you need 15 ****ing guns for, you moron?

Click to expand...

See above, re: thick and unreasonable

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

May I make further suggetsions:

1st line of defense: flashlight and 44. spl.
2nd - Mossberg 12 gauge with buckshot.
3rd - BSR (Black Scary Rifle) in 7.62x39 or .223 cal

Bad guys die 1st in my house!

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Orius said:

So if a murder is committed with a gun, there should be no registration number on the weapon at the crime scene for police to trace to an owner?

Click to expand...

Who argued that?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:

Who argued that?

Click to expand...

Are they putting registration numbers on weapons now?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

American said:

Are they putting registration numbers on weapons now?

Click to expand...

All firearms are supposed to have a serial number.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:

All firearms are supposed to have a serial number.

Click to expand...

But that's different isn't it? That's a manufacturers number that I presume the govt already has through some law that requires the mfr to tell the govt what serial #'s go on what firearms?