Gun Ban Get's The Hose

[TheScotsman]

The Supreme court washed D.C.'s gun ban overboard.

Ruling that 2nd amendment was an individual, not collective right, and not connected with service in any national guard, police, or military service. That the individual has the right to possess, and use a firearm, including handguns, in defense of self and home.


Guess that puts an end to the debate weather 2nd amendment was a right only for the state, and national guard.

[skaplayer89]

oh great.......Not. Nothing better than a bunch of thugs in Anacostia with .45´s. Our city already has enough crime problems.

[Chadkciw]

hey man, if every1 has a gun nobody would fuck with each other. give the guns to people who will use them the right way

EDIT

I thought it was funny that i posted that, and then i saw my sig lol Edited June 26, 2008 by Chadkciw

[judgeposer]

oh great.......Not. Nothing better than a bunch of thugs in Anacostia with .45´s. Our city already has enough crime problems.

My bet is that part of being a thug was having a gun in the first place. Despite the total gun ban, DC has had its share of gun violence.

[SuburbanSmoker]

I would think the "thugs" wouldnt legally have their guns in the first place.....

[Scheetz]

oh great.......Not. Nothing better than a bunch of thugs in Anacostia with .45´s. Our city already has enough crime problems.

You must have missed the day in school when they covered general concepts and conceptual common sense.



Every person you mark as a thug is most likely already carrying illegally. Now, they are still carrying illegally. The law just allows legal citizens to have their firearms back in their own homes again. DC has no legal carry law.

But what do I know, DC and MD people think they can ride the high and mighty donkey that Cali does.

[ryno]

I would think the "thugs" wouldnt legally have their guns in the first place.....

Exactly. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean people aren't going to be able to get their hands on it. Look at nht is everyform. Yes illegal, but almost as easy to get as a coffee?

[skaplayer89]

Yes I know that must thugs will be carrying an illegal piece in the first place, but this doesn´t make it any harder from them, does it?

No one can argue that this is going to help DC crime, whether it be domestic incidents or not.

[oolatec]

oh great.......Not. Nothing better than a bunch of thugs in Anacostia with .45´s. Our city already has enough crime problems.

Right... and a gun ban would get guns out of the hands of criminals who obtained them illegally!

[BrotherBuford]

Crime is a bit of a red herring in the whole issue. Regardless if crime was zero or if it was sky-high, it has no bearing on gun rights as specifically stated in the Constutution of the US. The ban was flat out unconstitutional, PERIOD.

If you're going to do a ban, do it the correct legal way. There exists a mechanism to do it - it's called amending the constitution. As that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening on this issue, gun banners have been piecemealing laws over the past century to gnaw away at it - and have been getting away with it - but finally there was a clear action to flat out say YOU CAN NOT DO THAT.

It's about damn time. Regardless of your stance on the issue, the only correct way to appoach it is via constitutional amendment. The COTUS isn't just some archaic piece of paper - it is the basis of the whole legal system of the US. If it is ignored that's effectively saying that the rule of law means jack s#it and we'll make it up as we go. Not that that hasn't happened with other pieces of the COTUS as well throughout the 19th, 20th, and now 21st centuries that were inconvenient obstacles to those in power, but every now and then there is a glimmer of hope when someone pays attention and reverses infringements.

If you stand for what the Constitution says and believe the government is running roughshod over it in the 1st, 5th, etc. amendments, that goes for the 2nd as well. You either believe it's a document that says what it means to say or you don't. You can't take the parts you like and ignore the rest.

[Big Boss]

Crime is a bit of a red herring in the whole issue. Regardless if crime was zero or if it was sky-high, it has no bearing on gun rights as specifically stated in the Constutution of the US. The ban was flat out unconstitutional, PERIOD.

Couldn't have said it better myself. +1

[skaplayer89]

You know it´s a law in Virginia that oral sex is prohited?


My point is, just because it´s written in the book, doesn´t mean it should be followed strictly. The amendment was written in a different time period when the USA was a lot less civilized and urbanized than it is today. It also did not have the strong army, or law enforcement that we have in today´s society either.

That admendment should have been taken out of the books a long time ago, but we let it keep going and now the problem´s too big to stop...Yes, I called it a problem.

There is no way that the protection of a gun compensates for the amount of domestic murders caused by them.

[Scheetz]

There is no way that the protection of a gun compensates for the amount of domestic murders caused by them.

Go look up the crime statistics for the UK and Australia. They banned guns. Just go take a gander.


You know there is a law stating having toilets in your house is unsanitary and illegal as well. Just like most states it is illegal to do any sexual acts besides missionary. Your argument is just as worthless as every other pro gun ban person. All that is used is pointless other laws that relate in no way. Honestly, there is no way to prove a point about banning guns. Every country that has done it, had no change in crime. Their gun crimes drop, their knife crimes climb. Its a circle, just because you remove guns doesn't mean someone wont kill another person. Look at the ancient times, they did not have guns. But shit, they sure found ways of killing a hell of a lot of people.

Maybe we should just trash technology. Go back to everyone carrying swords around.

[judgeposer]

Crime is a bit of a red herring in the whole issue. Regardless if crime was zero or if it was sky-high, it has no bearing on gun rights as specifically stated in the Constutution of the US. The ban was flat out unconstitutional, PERIOD.

If you're going to do a ban, do it the correct legal way. There exists a mechanism to do it - it's called amending the constitution.

Nicely put! One of my professors once said, The Constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't- -seems an uninsightful expression, but really. . . if we're asking about fundamental rights, such as those codified by the Constitution, then we need to consult it. SCOTUS did that in this case and, for everyone's benefit, decided rightly. The opinion reads beautifully!

You know it´s a law in Virginia that oral sex is prohited?


My point is, just because it´s written in the book, doesn´t mean it should be followed strictly. The amendment was written in a different time period when the USA was a lot less civilized and urbanized than it is today. It also did not have the strong army, or law enforcement that we have in today´s society either.

That admendment should have been taken out of the books a long time ago, but we let it keep going and now the problem´s too big to stop...Yes, I called it a problem.

There is no way that the protection of a gun compensates for the amount of domestic murders caused by them.

There's a way to change a law if you, or any number of citizens don't like it: amend the Constitution. The Second Amendment sits firmly within our Constitution, unammended...so we have to deal with it. There's no purpose to written law if we're not going to apply it, no matter the supposed change in times.

[r1v3th3ad]

If only everyone owned a gun...

just think...you know if you went to rob a bank, you'd think twice because you know everyone there is packing heat...

I think everyone should own a gun except the mentally insane and the repetative criminals( I believe in second chances, so the reformed people get one too)...I learned to shoot at three yrs old, new where the guns were in the house and everything about them. The same will happen for my children.

+1 to the courts

[Brownman18]

oh great.......Not. Nothing better than a bunch of thugs in Anacostia with .45´s. Our city already has enough crime problems.

You must have missed the day in school when they covered general concepts and conceptual common sense.



Every person you mark as a thug is most likely already carrying illegally. Now, they are still carrying illegally. The law just allows legal citizens to have their firearms back in their own homes again. DC has no legal carry law.

But what do I know, DC and MD people think they can ride the high and mighty donkey that Cali does.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/.../index.html?ere

Divide and conquer is a bitch isnt it.

You hate DC people because they think they can ride and roll with guns because they are thugs.

You are very susceptible to divide and conquer.


But it doesn't matter anyway

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The government obviously knows better then the intelligence agencies of your own country. After all they are elected and know everything?

[Big Boss]

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The government obviously knows better then the intelligence agencies of your own country. After all they are elected and know everything?

What does that have to do with the gun ban? Enlighten me if you will.

[cemab4y]

I live in Northern VA. (I work overseas a lot). The crime level in DC is due to several causative factors: Drugs, poverty, large number of unsupervised youth, gangs, etc. The DC gun ban was thoroughly unconstitutional, and had little impact on crimes committed by individuals using firearms.

Guns do not kill, any more than ball-point pens misspell words.

[Scheetz]

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The government obviously knows better then the intelligence agencies of your own country. After all they are elected and know everything?

What does that have to do with the gun ban? Enlighten me if you will.

Thank you. I read that last night at 3am and figured my IQ must be so damn high that I was thoroughly incapable of making his connection to our 2nd amendment.

[Ron Perlman]

Maybe we should just trash technology. Go back to everyone carrying swords around.

Yeah, I'm really pissed that I couldn't buy that bunch of grenades, the tank, the B52, that nuclear sub and that rocket launcher I had my eye on. Not to mention those weapons of mass destruction; Damn hippy commies and their damn nanny-stateism.

I'm off to score some Anthrax before they ban that too! /jk

[Chadkciw]

Maybe we should just trash technology. Go back to everyone carrying swords around.

Yeah, I'm really pissed that I couldn't buy that bunch of grenades, the tank, the B52, that nuclear sub and that rocket launcher I had my eye on. Not to mention those weapons of mass destruction; Damn hippy commies and their damn nanny-stateism.

I'm off to score some Anthrax before they ban that too! /jk

you all would be screwed if i could carry a sword around, id be all like "ma'am let me slice your pizza for you!" *slice* and her head falls clean off. it would be awesome Edited July 2, 2008 by Chadkciw

[BrotherBuford]

Really, the use/ownership of standard personal weapons of war that the US military can use should apply to citizens as well. It WAS that way once, with private citizens able to own ships with cannon, on par with the Navy at the time. The Constitution explicitly permits Congress to issue Letters of Marque, which could be issued to civilians with their own personally-owned armament to act in a government-sanctioned military capacity, which is not really useful if civilians don't have the ability to own arms on par with a modern military.

People sometimes say that the founders never imagined things like AK-47s, M16s, etc, but the first machinegun was invented in 1718 (the Puckle Repeater). I think they knew of the concept of repeating arms and could see the progression of technology. Firearm tech advanced quite rapidly even in their lifetimes.

[azcoyote]

Crazy people are known to run amok - whether it's the Virginia Tech shooter or the Palestinian construction worker who drove a front end loader into a crowd today in Jerusalem. Technology is not an issue. Murderous intent is the issue. The mayhem stopped when an off duty Israeli soldier climbed onto the still-moving loader and dispatched the malcontent at close range. Well done! The loader was headed toward a large outdoor market. An even greater tragedy was averted by a good citizen with a good gun.

Survivors of the VT shooting would have preferred a similar outcome, imho.

[Scheetz]

Survivors of the VT shooting would have preferred a similar outcome, imho.

Too bad the parents have joined forces with the Brady Campaign. They want all guns removed from the country.

[Ron Perlman]

Crazy people are known to run amok [...] Technology is not an issue. Murderous intent is the issue.

Surely, that's why it's better that we all don't have our own personal stash of H-bombs sitting at home "just in case". It prevents the crazies that would actually set them off from using them.

Technology is not an issue, but the wrong technology in the wrong hands is.