Finally!
A just decision by the Supreme Court.
The right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right, without regard to any type of membership in any militia.
What say you gun grabbers now?
|
Finally!
A just decision by the Supreme Court.
The right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right, without regard to any type of membership in any militia.
What say you gun grabbers now?
Amen :)
Now if they would just loosen the concealed carry laws things would be better yet ;)
No response from anyone opposed to this decision huh?
Your silence is deafening, I guess everyone agrees that this was a monumental decision, and that it was decided correctly.
It was about time this issue was finally settled.
I only did start reading the decision (it is 150+pages so it will take time . I did read all of the capital punishment case yesterday so my mind is kind of SCOTUSed out ). On the surface it appears that Scalia did leave wiggle room for the regulation of guns so the 2nd Amendment is not quite absolute. DC can't ban guns in the home . But they can make licensing them a nightmare.
However this is victory . The good people of Washington DC do not have to be compelled into victim status. Rick is right that conceal and carry laws need to be loosened .
Obviously, the folks who want our entire society disarmed, will never stop trying to find a way to do so.
Just the fact that they decided that this was an individual right, has put a huge wrench in the gun grabbers fan.
You are right, they will continue, in fact, they are already trying to work on specific attacks on ammunition, I'm sure that these type back door efforts will increase now that this decision has been made.
Yes, I am only saddened they did not get more specific at what limits can be put.
What this ruling finally did was put to rest this phony argument that the 2nd is not for individuals but to arm "well regulated militias".
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. " James Madison
Progun
I think your name scared the gun grabbers away. I totally agree with the decision that we have the right to have our guns to defend our homes... now we need the right to defend ourselves when we are not home..
Work on that with them will you? I spend a lot of time in remote mountain ranges... would like to have my weapon in my ATV (without being arrested for doing so if caught).
Shirley
I am fairly active in the support of our second amendment rights.
As to concealed carry, there is much to be done in that regard as well.
I don't understand the mentality that can't comprehend that it is a good thing, for the criminal to have to worry about his victim being armed, and not just the other way around.
Wouldn't you be allowed to have your firearm with you in those mountain regions just as long as you don't have it concealed?
Unless it is designated as a State or Federal Park that is.
You know, were it not for the two Justices appointed by George Bush, we would no longer have any second amendment rights?
"Wiping the sweat off my forehead" That was a very close call, was it not?
Gee, I wonder what type of Justices Obama might appoint should he be elected?
I don't know about Obama, I really don't like anyone running for president at all. Can I vote none of the above on my vote?
I am in National Forest land and no I cannot carry a gun there , I might be mistaken for Claude Dallas (who by the way got a bad deal in my books).
I do, however, carry a small hand axe with a bungie within hand reach. I carry it in case I need to clear limbs out of the way of my ATV as a safety measure and I have a tire Iron in case I need to change my tire if it goes flat, also a safety measure and a small fire extinguisher in case I spot a fire.
Shirley
Yeah, National Forest, no guns there, for the law abiding that is.
I'm sure that any criminal, or, anyone with criminal intent, checks their firearms with the Park Ranger just as they arrive there, right?
Be Safe!
You don't see how this effected you?Quote:
Originally Posted by westnlas
My friend, this effected every citizen in this Great Nation!
Had this decision gone the other way, as it would have, without the Justices appointed by Bush, we would no longer have a second amendment right to possess firearms at all.
How could this decision NOT effect you, and everyone else in America?
Perhaps you were not aware that the Libs/Dems wanted to eliminate the Second Amendment from our Constitution COMPLETELY?
And if that failed, wanted at the very least, to get a ruling that it only applied to members of a militia, and not to every individual law abiding citizen in the USA.
This was a HUGE decision, with long term benefits to EVERY citizen.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_Xn_O-mM2sFk/...olddead-fp.jpg
Page 61 of the decision :
Quote:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
It's sad that it had to be fought out in court in the first place. It's sad that there are pricks on this planet that want to control other people lives and limit their rights. I don't celebrate the outcome of the case. Either way, I'm keeping my guns whether they like it or not.
Hello again, Prog:
OMG, THAT'S what Progunr means?? If'in I knew that, I'd be calling you gundude. Now, we're going to have to get reintroduced.
Progundude, I'm excon, a supporter of our great Constitution. That includes ALL the Amendments - even the ones you don't like. Yes, they finally DID get it right.
I really never could figure out what prog meant anyway. I'm not good at scrabble.
excon
I really don't have any issues with any of the amendments, so we are on the same page in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yeah, it is the spelling error that throws folks off, it is left over from an old personal license plate, that was limited to only 7 letters.
Have to admit, I was holding my breath as the decision was being read.
You know if everyone hada gun, criminals would know that if they tried to shoot they'd get shot, thus lowering crime! No duh. Now I do think we should have background checks, so we make sure we don't hand out a gun to someone criminally insane, or someone who has a record. But yeah we should be allowed to have guns, I mean our police force isn't always going to be there before some lunitic kills someone, I mean if we had guns we could stop him. All right all right there, finally I have told the world how I feel about guns. Whew I feel better.
oh wow I just thought progunr was some random letters strung together, I had noideait meant pro gun,OK now I feel silly.
While I do not deny that there are extreme elements in our society that want everyone "disarmed", they are no worse or prevalent then the opposite extreme that wants a wild west scenario with everyone totin' iron.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
I believe that most people fall into the middle. I am not a gun owner, nor would I ever consider owning one. But I do believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to own firearms for protection or sport if they choose to. Without reading the full decision, my belief is that the intent of the court was to affirm an individual's right own a weapon for protection of their property. But that doesn't mean that such possession can't be subject to licensing and registration. Nor does the decision allow people to walk around armed.
The real importance of the decision was that it affirmed the individual right and removed qualification of a militia.
There appears to be a paranoia on the part of many gun enthusiasts that the gun control advocates want to take their guns away completely. This paranoia causes them to fight any reasonable attempts to regulate gun ownership. The result is incidents like Va Tech.
It is my belief that if the gun lobby got behind REASONABLE attempts to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people like the Va Tech shooter, then they would be helping people who want guns get them and they would be forestalling more onerous attempts at gun control.
Sorry but the argument that a gun totin populace would put the fear into criminals is totally ridiculous. Carrying a gun gives the carrier a false sense of security and bravado be they law abiding citizen or criminal. The real result of the wild west syndrome would be the death or injury of loads of innocent people who would get caught in the crossfire.
The criminals and the bad people that want to hurt other people will get guns even if they are regulated, controlled, taken away, what ever is done.:(
Not getting my guns period! :mad:
I believe it is my right to have it and I believe that those that shouldn't have a gun will have them anyway.:rolleyes:
I do think those that have guns should take the time to learn how to use them.. take a course on gun safety, go out and practice. I spent a lot of time practicing before my late husband let me have a gun of my own. Now I have mine and his and I am keeping them all.
Shirley
Most of what you say, I agree with.
Are you aware that the left has actually tried to get legislation passed that would have
Completely eliminated the Second Amendment?
There are fanatics on both sides, and both sides tend to get carried away at times.
The real truth here is yes, it is an individual right, decided correctly.
Just one more bad Justice appointment could have changed the entire story, so I feel the people in favor of the second amendment can never just sit back, we must remain constantly vigilant to the threat the left has on this right.
They will never stop trying to take it away from us. Ever.
Fear the government, that fears your guns.
Edited for additional comment: This was for ScottGem, got a lot of busy posts while I was typing this one.
One only has to look at the drop in violent crime, in areas that have adopted a more liberal concealed carry policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
While in some areas, the drop seems insignificant, there is a drop, and the thing they never include in the statistics is how many crimes were thwarted by just the fact that the intended victim had a firearm, and was able to diffuse the situation without anyone being shot, and that crime having never been reported.
Let the criminals worry about weather I have a gun or not, for a change!
The more honest, law abiding citizens, that carry a concealed weapon, the better off our country will be.
I carry one every day.
And where is that? And how many people have been killed or injured in the crossfilre? Sorry, but I don't think there is any convincing statistical correlation. If you want statistics, I believe you will find that countries with more stringent gun control laws then the US has enjoy a much lower crime rate. I believe that more people have been killed or hurt by the criminal side of a gun battle than vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
I know I personally would feel a lot less safe and a lot less comfortable, knowing that more and more citiznes were carrying concealed firearms.
We certainly hold an opposing view on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
If I were in a shopping mall, and some idiot decided that he was going to go out in a blaze of glory, shooting random victims, just so he can have is photo in the news the next day, I would PRAY TO GOD, that if I was not armed, someone there would be, and that the situation would be ended in 2 minutes, rather than the 20 to 30 it would take for the police to even enter the crime scene to start removing the dead.
As to the counties that have lower crime, they also have real justice, kill someone, you get killed, tomorrow, not 30 years from now. Not to mention, they have in most cases had anti gun laws long enough that the entire criminal element there is not armed to the hilt, while the law abiding public has nothing to defend themselves with.
If you are sane, and have not broken any serious laws, I WANT you to be armed!
Progun... well said.. I totally agree with your last post.
I would feel much safer if I knew the criminals though more people were carrying guns they would think twice about assulting someone as they would not know who had guns and since they are all cowards anyway they would not want to take the chance.
If I were a criminal and everyone was carrying a gun I would think twice.
At least if I have a gun I have a 50/50 chance against a criminal with one, if I don't and he does.. I am toast.
Shirley
yes! Because people won't be like the mall shooter shooting randomly they'll be shooting at ONE person, and maybe you could hurt someone in cross fire, but in the end less people will die.
and criminals don't careif its illegal to buy a gun (that why they are called criminals) they'll get in anyway, and the black market will make a killing selling illegal guns. Thus more criminals have guns, less civillians can defend themselves, ultimatly MORE DEATHS.
That would be great if it really happened. The fact is it don't happen. You obvious don't have much experience with the criminal mentality. Sure YOU would think twice, but most criminals wouldn't. If they did they wouldn't become criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildsporty
There was a case on LI yesterday of a bunch of teens who decided to emulate the GTA game and went on a rampage. They beat up one man, attempted to car jack a woman and caused other damage. Do you really think they would have been deterred by the thought that they might attack someone carrying a gun? If they weren't deterred by winding up in jail for several years, why would they even think about encountering someone with a gun?
No, there is just no credible or convincing evidence that a gun toting populace would serve as a deterrant.
Exactly, criminals don't care about the law and they don't think they will get caught. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
Sorry but your logic is faulty. Gun battles result in more deaths, not less. And more innocent deaths. I remember seeing a study that showed more homeowners were killed when they tried using a gun to defend themseleves than in homes where they didn't have a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
It's a pipe dream to think that criminals would be deterred by an armed populace.
Look scottgem,
OK maybe they wouldn't care if people had a gun, BUT they would be stopped before ethey got away. Plus most of them will think twice cause they just want to have fun, but its not fun if you get caught.
Yes admittedly the crazy ones will still do it and won't care but like I said before we civillians can stop them, and I do believe that those car jackers would stop if a gun was ponited at there head. Thus it would deteer the outcome.
OK say you were a ciminal, if you knew no one had anyguns and you want to like I don't know, preform armed robbery, you'd do it cause you knew youi wouldn't get caught, and no one could hurt you.
IF you knew there was a high probablility that they were armed would you stll do it? Because you could probably get killed, or hurt, and thrown jail.
For ScottGem,
I didn't have any statistics immediately available, I was not ignoring that request.
Here is some stuff for you to look at, if you want. Given enough time, I could produce more information on this topic, than most of us could read in one day.
Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime
Fact: Forty states1, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry"
States. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell
(or did not rise) after the right-to carry
Law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02%
Of all carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
National average to 4% below, and remains it below the national average (as of the last reporting
Period, 2005).
Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after Texas
Passed a concealed carry law in 1995.
Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
• Murder rates drop 8%
• Rape rates fall 5%
• Aggravated assaults drop 7%
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national
Averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass
Public shootings fall dramatically after
Right-to-carry concealed handgun laws
Are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the
Average death rate from mass shootings
Plummeted by up to 91% after such laws
Went into effect, and injuries dropped by
Over 80%.
Myth: People with concealed weapons permits will commit
Crimes
Fact: The results for the first
30 states that passed “shallissue”
Laws for concealed carry
Permits are similar. Here are
Some specific cases:
Fact: People with concealed
Carry permits are:
• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime.
They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.
Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there
Haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.
Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not
Necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely
To be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.
Myth: CCWs will lead to mass public shootings
Fact: Multiple victim public
Shootings drop in states that
Pass shall-issue CCW
Legislation.
Myth: People do
Not need
Concealable
Weapons
Fact: In 80% of gun
Defenses, the defender used a
Concealable handgun. A
Quarter of the gun defenses
Occurred in places away from
The defender's home.18
Fact: 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places.19 This makes concealed carry necessary
For almost all self-defense needs. But due to onerous laws forbidding concealed carry, only
26.8% of defensive gun uses occurred away from home.20
Fact: Often, small weapons that are capable of being concealed are the only ones usable by
People of small stature or with physical disabilities.
Fact: The average citizen doesn't need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer
Than driving other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner – and his or
Her community – safer by providing protection not otherwise available.
Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens
Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of
violent crime.
Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen... I think it's worked
Out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.”
Fact: “I... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding
Citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris
County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.
Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police
Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom
Support shall-issue concealed carry laws.
* 4 months ago
Source(s):
http://www.gunfacts.info/pd...
Hello Scott:
I actually think criminals DO care if they get shot.
Let's say there was a block of houses that had no signs in their yards. In the next block over, they had signs saying they have burglar alarms installed. The next block has signs saying they have firearms in their homes.
Which ones do you think will get broken into more often?
excon
First to Progunr,
I couldn't get to that link, but it appears to be a pro-gun site so I suspect their viewpoint and statisitics are slightly skewed. I find the "myths" it cites show this since I never even considered most them.
I notice no statisitcs about how many innocents are hurt in these situations.
To sonador (and excon)
People commit crimes for three reasons:
1) Desperation
2) The rush (high) of committing a crime
3) Opportunity/temptation
A person who is desperate is really not going to consider the dangers of what they are doing. If they did they wouldn't be that desperate.
Someone committing a crime because of the rush or high it gives them is also not going to worry about the dangers. Just the opposite, the danger is part of what makes them commit crimes.
And the person who commits a crime of opportunity just doesn't think, they act on impulse.
So it just not logical to think the possibility of getting into a gun battle is going deter a real criminal.
The fact is that there is high probability that, if you commit a crime you will be caught, whether because of a gun toting civilan or police action. Yet that doesn't seem to deter people bent on committing crimes. You are thinking like an honest person and criminals don't think that way.
most people are not trained to deal with a gun battle. In fact the criminal is often more trained then the civilian. So the greater likelihood is that the civilian or an innocent bystander gets hurt.
I get a big laugh out of gun owners who suddenly feel they are protected by having guns in their home. Very few actually have ever used a gun to kill someone with and very few even use guns for hunting. It's kind of like owning a pit bull as a means to tell everyone how macho they are. Certainly we do not need guns to protect us from invasion or social unrest. I mean how many in this country are actually affected by the riots in LA or Chicago. Oh the gang bangers have guns but should they ? Heck, even gun enthusiasts such as Cheney can't handle them safely. I don't keep any registered firearms, and am quite comfortable with the weapons I have to defend me from any outside threat. The scariest person I have ever encountered here, was a frightened young pint sized cop making his very first traffic stop. I was afraid I might need to disarm him to keep him from hurting someone by accident.
I don't believe that the military could ever get a consensus of troops that would take over this country by force. For every radical group, there is one just as radical that opposes their views. In order to combat crime, we must either require EVERY person to be armed at all times, or take guns away from people who have no business with them. It's coming time to grow up in this country and start acting like the civilized nation we purport ourselves to be.
OK scott,
Look yeah SOME criminals won't care. But they'll hurt people, and the fact that they don't care makes them that more dangerous. And wheather or not they care doesn't matter, when a crazy person is trying to kill you or someone else I want to be able to defend myself, and when I get a gun I will learn how to use it responibly, and I will get training in it. In my opinion when there's someone shooting I don't want to wait for the police to come, while he kills more innocent people. We want to stop them BEFORE they hurt ANYONE, but calling the police takes time, and it takes time for them to come. The time the criminal needs to get away. And most most criminals care, some do it for a high, but seriouly who cares? I want to stop them, to keep them from hurting people. I want to defend myself, go look up the statistics, go do whatever. But the fact is we have the right. The right our forefathers gave us, and it would be disrespectful to take it away,that's telling them they made a mistake, when in truth they put it there so it couldn't be taken away, and it shouldn't.
Well I will say that it has been showned time and time again those with carrry permits do not do crimes with their guns and have not had any problems with their proper use. And the issue about young police officer I would say is sort of hard to believe since first a police officer goes though months of training, a lot of it with their weapon and a lot of practice in when and how to use it. Also they will spend several months with a training officer in the field before they are ever on their own.
And as a former police officer the most dangerous thing most police officers do is a traffic stop, Most officers who are hurt in the line of duty are done so doing a traffic stop. Two of my best friends who I went though the GA state academy with have been killed in the past 7 years doing traffic stops and I have already been to two other funerals from officers doing traffic stops. During one traffic stop I had my car rammed by the other car and 4 men with guns decide they did not agree with the traffic stop.
I have shot at a person before, and have pulled my weapon numerous times and have to point it in making several felony arrests.
I want to live here.
YouTube - WESTWORLD TRAILER YUL BRYNNER
I carried, slept with, cleaned, ate with, bathed with, and yes used many weapons for a period. I was fortunate in acquiring insight that I cannot explain that told me when danger was near. Unfortunately, small people tend to have less mettle than large ones. Nervous people with weapons make me very agitated. Police do shoot people here in Las Vegas and many police officers do become involved in confrontations. Recently a woman was killed by a Henderson Officer under questionable circumstances. He was the only one of several officers present that did fire. As I stated before, even those who are supposedly expert mishandle weapons routinely. I am much more comfortable when the guns are on the ground, and I've personally cleared them. In training we were told that it's not the bullet that has your name on it that you worry about. It's the one marked "To whom it may concern".
Last year, a rookie officer of Las Vegas Metro, went wiggy and started shooting at passing people, he was killed by other police officers. All the training in the world doesn't mean the guy with the gun is sane or normal. In fact, I believe people that want to carry a gun are a bit "off" in the first place.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:39 AM. |