Supreme Court upholds individual gun rights

[NeonLightChild]

SOURCE (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0627/p01s05-usju.html)

Supreme Court asserts broad gun rights
The historic 5 to 4 ruling says the right to bear arms applies to individuals.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington - Americans have an individual right to possess and use firearms, even when the guns are not related to service in a government militia.

In a historic ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday declared 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" means that the government cannot enact an outright ban on certain commonly held weapons or otherwise prevent citizens from having a gun at home for personal protection or other lawful uses.

The landmark constitutional pronouncement came as the nation's highest court struck down a 32-year ban on private possession of handguns in Washington, D.C. The court also invalidated two other strict gun-control measures in the district that required that rifles and shotguns at all times be kept disassembled or secured with a trigger lock. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller.

"We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

The majority justices said the District’s strict gun regulations violated “the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the case would spawn unfortunate consequences. “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States,” Justice Breyer wrote. “I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission.”

Scalia and the majority justices declined to spell out precisely the legal standard future courts should use in weighing whether someone’s Second Amendment right had been infringed. But they left no doubt that it is a robust one.

“Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and family, would fail constitutional muster,” Scalia wrote.

While the high court struck down the Washington, D.C., regulations, it remains unclear how many other gun-control measures may now be on shaky constitutional ground. Some analysts suggest that a handgun ban in Chicago, similar to the ban in Washington, may emerge as the next constitutional battleground over gun rights.

Scalia sought to address concerns by many critics – and the dissenting justices – that such a ruling might lead to an arms race among American homeowners stocking up with machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.

“The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” he said. The opinion did not undermine laws “forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” he said.

He added that the opinion did not undercut laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Article continues at source linky, it's too long to post here.
-----------------
Let's just say that I'm a happy person right now.

[chriz]

I'd be happier if it was more than 5-4.

[Gilenea]

Ditto, Chriz. That's too close for comfort.

Gil

[Kaden]

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the case would spawn unfortunate consequences. “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States,” Justice Breyer wrote. “I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission.”

This man needs to reread the Constitution. The reason we have the Right to Bare Arms is not only so we can protect our homes and our families from intruders but we can protect our rights as citizens should the government ever go under marshall law. Of course unfortunate things happen with guns. Of course people misuse them. People misuse all sorts of things with the intent to hurt and/or kill. We can't ban everything.

The vote was too close to make me happy. Its unnerving that so many people in our Supreme Court do not understand the basis of our Constitution.

[Ender]

Of course unfortunate things happen with guns. Of course people misuse them. People misuse all sorts of things with the intent to hurt and/or kill.

What the fuck does that even mean?

[Kaden]

I mean just what it says. It's stupid to outlaw the possession of guns because some people are idiots. Because really anything can become a weapon. Pretty simple really.

[NeonLightChild]

I'd be happier if it was more than 5-4.

Yeah, I thought about that when I first heard it, and I agree. It's disturbing to think that only one vote the other way, and we'd be right back to where we were when we signed the Declaration of Independence.

I also think it's ironic that this is just happening the year when a Democratic candidate is (most probably) going to be elected into office. I wonder if anything will change if this happens, and if so, how long it'll take for more gun laws to hit the books. (Because while an individual may have a right to own a gun, there are still going to be so many loopholes to jump through in order to obtain one!)

[Ender]

My apologizes. I was under the impression you were trying to say that guns (in any form of that broad word) owned by the general public with the intent of 'home defense' were ment for anything other than shooting someone.

Also, I've got a question for everyone, for or against the right to own firearms. What kind of firearms do we draw the line at? What do we allow law enforcement to carry on street or mobile patrols? What sort of permit or registration would be needed to own, say, a belt fed or openbolt weapon?

[Startraveler]

The vote was too close to make me happy. Its unnerving that so many people in our Supreme Court do not understand the basis of our Constitution.

Here's Justice Stevens's take on that:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

[LV426]

I think all handguns should be colored flourescent pink and then we will see how many people will have them.

[blueeyes]

Given that you can currently purchase or build from the ground up a gatling gun, no registration and no permit required, under federal law, I'm not exactly convinced that we need anything special for them. You don't exactly see a lot of gatling gun related murders.

There's eventually a point where the number of individuals using that type of weapon is minimal compared to the relative compelling government interest, but when we're talking about government interest that's either proven or directly resulting from the law in question, that's more on the level of ordnance than arms.

Of course, there's a rather obvious difference between what's logical and what Congress will try to push through.

Interesting opinion. Scalia's writing is... well, Scalia, although a little more subdued than normal. I assume he had to bend over backwards to keep Kennedy on his side, given how he talked during the oral argument phase. Stevens either needs to remember to take his meds, or get a clerk to factcheck his dissents, though; it's a mess, and he gets the facts of some earlier cases all wrong.

I'm not surprised that it was 5-4. It's an important decision, and most important decisions come through that way. What's depressing is how minimal the case had to stay to keep those five.

[NeonLightChild]

What kind of firearms do we draw the line at? What do we allow law enforcement to carry on street or mobile patrols? What sort of permit or registration would be needed to own, say, a belt fed or openbolt weapon?

While all civilian firearms have their place, I've never been too sure about anything meant to fire more than a quick 3-round burst. Sure, the military might find them useful, but I seriously doubt that the average citizen will need to mow down rows of people within a few seconds. Not to mention that it's tons more difficult than what you see in movies. So my vote, while not going for a total ban on automatics (though my state has that already anyway), we need to re-evaluate what it's good for and why we have a need for something like that. There are others, and I can't think of them right now because I'm running on not very much sleep.

Law enforcement should always be one step above everyone else (ego not included). Unfortunately, this isn't always possible and would probably have officers schlepping around .50-cal pistols, which is pure overkill. Anything with stopping power is generally a good thing, so I'm pretty much fine with that they're carrying now (standard issue 9mm). Then again, one can argue that a .22 can get the same stopping power with half the damage.

Third question, not that much of an expert to argue anything there.

I think all handguns should be colored fluorescent pink and then we will see how many people will have them.
Oooo, a pink gun! I'd SO get one of those! You think they'd make purple too so I could have one of each? Deep down, I really do like those colors!
/yay pinkie!
//obscure?

[Fenris_brood]

I think all handguns should be colored flourescent pink and then we will see how many people will have them.

You're right, if I touched one of those my skin would burn.

[chriz]

Also, I've got a question for everyone, for or against the right to own firearms. What kind of firearms do we draw the line at? What do we allow law enforcement to carry on street or mobile patrols? What sort of permit or registration would be needed to own, say, a belt fed or openbolt weapon?

I think the answer to that will depend on your feeling as to what the 2nd Amendment was put in place for. If it's for hunting and target practice, then all you need are simple bolt-action rifles. If it's for self-defense against criminals, then you need something quick and disabling, like perhaps a shotgun.

If it's to keep the balance of power against the sanctioned force represented by the government, then you need whatever it takes to keep the government scared.

Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Only a disingenuous person would try to claim the Founders didn't think there was a common-law right of self-defense. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are described in the DoI as inalienable rights all people ("men") possess. Right to life implies right to self-defense. It's asinine to suggest otherwise.

[Kaden]

My apologizes. I was under the impression you were trying to say that guns (in any form of that broad word) owned by the general public with the intent of 'home defense' were ment for anything other than shooting someone.

I can see where you were confused though. I was still kind of tired when I wrote that and reading it now it does read a little wonky.

[MorganaFang]

I think all handguns should be colored flourescent pink and then we will see how many people will have them.

Man if I could get any gun colored flourescent pink I would totally go get my permit and become a Barbie version of a Bail Bonds enforcer.

[blueeyes]

You can get any gun colored flourescent pink (http://olegvolk.livejournal .com/439107.html).

[Ender]

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/24995-2/heather6322.jpg

Sick...fuckers. WHY?!?! Ok, you paint a short mag like that and it'll stick in the mag-well if you try to do a combat reload, or it won't seat in the first goddamnplace and then what've you got? A dick in your mouth. Thats what. You have an A4 with no picatany rails on it? Because the screws on the upper receiver imply A4; the A2s had iron sights built on. So, she, or the walking-douchebag who put that weapon together took the time to switch the handguards from rails to the old A2 style so it'd be easier to keep the paint job on. AND that lower receiver looks fake, so they probably made the entire weapon useless.

Cleavage doesn't justify this. Or trying to bring back jean jackets.

Nice eye-protection. Pussy.

[Lysander]

I'd paint my M4 pink for her too..

[Sazabi]

I think all handguns should be colored flourescent pink and then we will see how many people will have them.

Beaten on the mandatory Kalashnikitties. You can duracoat pretty much any gun any color and it's still awesome. it's actually ironically hip or some shit these days.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4328/hk47vijj4.jpg

http://img198.exs.cx/img198/8061/021805dreammachinegu n7oo.jpg

http://www.petenelson.com/Photos/Misc/Guns/AR-15/Pete%20with%20Penelo pe%20%28pink%20AR-15%29.jpg

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg


Last but not least since it must be posted in every duracoat thread. THE PARTY CZ!!! DON'T LOOK AT IT, INDY! MERE MORTALS WERE NOT MEANT TO BEHOLD WHATS IN THE ARK

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/8392/czparty1rh4.jpg

[MorganaFang]

Beaten on the mandatory Kalashnikitties. You can duracoat pretty much any gun any color and it's still awesome. it's actually ironically hip or some shit these days.


The metalic finish is pretty wicked looking but I gravely disliked hello kitty.

This is more of what I think about when it comes to pink guns. Screw wubby men in camo.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51904N9RHML._SL500_A A240_.jpg

Hair use to be that color :/

[LV426]

But see if all handguns were pink by mandate then it would cut down on those idiot gangster/mobster fucks that think it's cool to carry a piece. They may have them but they wouldn't be carrying them around flashing them. In fact they would probably hope to god no one saw they were carrying a pink gun.

[Vendetta]

Only a disingenuous person would try to claim the Founders didn't think there was a common-law right of self-defense.
Holy shit yeah, people had the right to defend themselves in a newly established country where most of it was wildlands or inhabited by indiginous people who didn't like the "founders", over TWO fucking hundred years ago.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are described in the DoI as inalienable rights all people ("men") possess. Right to life implies right to self-defense. It's asinine to suggest otherwise.
No, what's assinine is to assume that a right to life means depriving someone else of theirs. Also, why does self-defense NEED to be implied? Also, oh shit I have a right to life! Why then did someone plant this expressway right in front of where I was walking?! Also the founding father's didn't include women, so I guess it's cool to kill them, right? C'mon Chris, you can do BETTER than that.

[blueeyes]

But see if all handguns were pink by mandate then it would cut down on those idiot gangster/mobster fucks that think it's cool to carry a piece. They may have them but they wouldn't be carrying them around flashing them. In fact they would probably hope to god no one saw they were carrying a pink gun.

We are talking about a group of individuals known for, alternatively, vandalism, murder, drug abuse, drug dealing, theft, and several dozen different forms of other crimes. One part of the culture seems to involves showing off underpants.

I assume you're trying to be funny, but just to cover all bases, it should be clear that these are not individuals inexperienced with the use of spraypaint, or for that adopting ridiculous practices as their own.

[NeonLightChild]

No, what's assinine is to assume that a right to life means depriving someone else of theirs. Also, why does self-defense NEED to be implied? Also, oh shit I have a right to life! Why then did someone plant this expressway right in front of where I was walking?! Also the founding father's didn't include women, so I guess it's cool to kill them, right? C'mon Chris, you can do BETTER than that.

Your right to life ends when you threaten me or someone else without provocation, such as what occurs in most crimes. A great many victims did not deserve what happened to them. However, we seem to think that their antagonists deserve life of some sort (most hopefully in PMITA prison, just to make things even), when they could not afford the victims the same rights.

And I don't care if you're a hermaphrodite, if you intrude first on my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, you better hope that I'm not packing. And even then, I might not even need to shoot...simply the presence of my gun might be more than enough, and if not, then there's always Plan B.

[chriz]

C'mon Chris, you can do BETTER than that.

I think you need a vacation, dude. You're usually way more coherent than this.

[GhostBat]

No, what's assinine is to assume that a right to life means depriving someone else of theirs.

You don't have to shoot to kill, and sometimes you don't even have to shoot. Just the sound from cocking a shotgun will scare a lot of people off. Otherwise, a bullet in the knee will pretty much stop anyone from threatening your life until the police get there (unless they happen to have a gun, too).

[Sazabi]

You don't have to shoot to kill,

There is NO police department, self defense training organization, CCW instructor or special forces group on earth that teaches "shoot to wound". This is commonly taught to be one of the worst ideas possible. know why? Because

1) Even at 7 yards, shooting at a stationary target at a range, making a "legshot" is very difficult. Now try that at night against an armed moving target with adrenaline pumping through your body, keeping in mind that even pulling the trigger too jerky can throw your aim off by several inches. I've been shooting for years and I couldn't for the life of me do that. I KNOW I can't do it, because i tried it alongside many senior professionals at post while the firearms instructor was trying to make a point. It's hard as hell to do.

2) "Shooting to wound" implies that you aren't in fear of your life, and you will get sued to fuck for it unless you're in your own house, and even there in some states.

You don't "shoot to kill", you shoot at center mass to "incapacitate", always. You will not find ANYONE who teaches otherwise. If the firearm comes out and shots are fired, you're firing at center mass, end of story, every major agency, licenser, and defense trainer agrees.

and sometimes you don't even have to shoot. Just the sound from cocking a shotgun will scare a lot of people off.

If it's well lit and you're SURE you have control of the situation, sure this works. Otherwise thats the worst idea ever. Give away your position to a potentially armed intruder, let them know you have a gun and are preparing to use it? Better hope he isnt armed and tries to spin around and magdump you while you grin smugly at your scary "cha-chick" noise.

Basically you've just given every horrible piece of advice imaginable. You use a gun in one of two situations and two situations ONLY.

1) Your life is in immediate danger of lethal harm

2) The life of another is in immediate danger of lethal harm

If you're racking a pistol and carefully lining up a kneeshot, you're not in any fucking danger: get ready for litigation hell.

[GhostBat]

Basically you've just given every horrible piece of advice imaginable.

Odd, I don't remember providing any advice at all. The point of my post was to refute the statement that the right to own a gun is equal to the right to deprive someone else of their life. I'm sorry you didn't feel as though my examples were adequate. Maybe you could come up with your own instead of giving a lecture on why mine weren't up to par.

[Sazabi]

I'm sorry you didn't feel as though my examples were adequate.

I won't go that far, they're adequate in the world of The Matrix, to be fair.

[GhostBat]

Don't be so hard on yourself, they're adequate in the world of The Matrix, to be fair.

I know it's hard for you to understand that not everyone shares the same interest in guns that you do, but maybe you could try to expand your world a bit. Nitpicking a post which uses some examples that may or may not happen with guns to someone who really doesn't care about and/or who has never shot a gun, when you could actually be discussing the argument at hand, is surely a waste of your time.

The point of my post, since you obviously didn't get it for yourself, is that having a gun does not mean death. My examples, although maybe not the most common of occurrences, are possible.

[Vendetta]

You use a gun in one of two situations and two situations ONLY.

1) Your life is in immediate danger of lethal harm

2) The life of another is in immediate danger of lethal harm
Just so the gun nuts don't think I'm anti-gun, I wholeheartedly support this. What I don't support are the some of the fucktards who own the guns and have no clue how to safely and properly operate them. "My pappy taught me how ta shoot 'coons on the farm" ISN'T what I'd call properly trained.

Look, we license cars. And I'm sure I'll get no argument that cars are a potentially lethal piece of equipment in untrained hands (which is WHY we license their use.) So why do we not license guns? I mean passing a written and practical test here. Honestly, I don't think gun bans are the way to go either. But, I just don't buy some of the excuses people are using in this thread for WHY they ought to have guns or why guns ought not to be regulated (heavily) by the government.

[chriz]

Just so the gun nuts don't think I'm anti-gun, I wholeheartedly support this. What I don't support are the some of the fucktards who own the guns and have no clue how to safely and properly operate them. "My pappy taught me how ta shoot 'coons on the farm" ISN'T what I'd call properly trained.

Anyone who seriously supports free (as in speech) ownership of guns also supports gun education. I know a lot of haplophiles. Without exception, they're very strict on gun safety and education.

Look, we license cars. And I'm sure I'll get no argument that cars are a potentially lethal piece of equipment in untrained hands (which is WHY we license their use.) So why do we not license guns? I mean passing a written and practical test here. Honestly, I don't think gun bans are the way to go either. But, I just don't buy some of the excuses people are using in this thread for WHY they ought to have guns or why guns ought not to be regulated (heavily) by the government.

I have no problem with gun licenses, as long as you understand that there's one crucial reason for the 2nd Amendment that will bypass it. The idea behind the citizenry being armed is that it makes it difficult for the Federal Government to go totalitarian. Not impossible, as the Civil War showed, but difficult. It's also less of a hindrance to the government nowadays, since they have access to much higher firepower than the average citizen can get his hands on (thanks largely to government laws that limit that power).

I'll support licensing guns. But I also want attainable licenses in place for private citizens to operate heavy weaponry -- full machine guns, tanks, and anything else they can afford. Otherwise the point of the 2A is defeated. Since one isn't going to happen, I oppose the other.

Although I suppose it doesn't matter. If another Civil War did happen, the guns would get distributed regardless of what the law (especially Federal law) says.

There are some facts that gun-banners don't seem to get. One, the majority of criminal gun violence in the US is between gangs in a half-dozen cities or so. NY, Chicago, DC, LA, etc. Two, the majority of gun deaths in the US are either suicides or cops shooting perps in the line of duty. Three, there's no evidence at all that strict gun-control laws lead to safer environments.

Over the past 20-ish years, 37 states have gone from "will not allow" to "shall allow" with regard to carrying a pistol. In that same time, violent crime in those states has dropped by over 30%. Not saying allowing more guns makes towns and cities safer, but it clearly doesn't make them more violent.

And to address the issue of self-defense... Yes, the right to life implies the right to kill someone who is threatening your life, if that's the only way out of the situation. It's not a paradox. It's about understanding the ethical and moral difference between the initiator of violence and the victim.

Look at it this way... Is a rape victim engaging in rape by being raped? Is there a difference, in your mind, between the rapist and the rape victim? Do you understand why we punish the rapist, but not the rape victim, even though they were both (simultaneously!) engaging in the activity, just with two different roles? Would you find ridiculous the notion that the victim contributed to the rape, since without the victim, the rapist wouldn't have anyone to rape and therefore wouldn't have been able to rape?

If so, then you understand the ethical and moral difference between someone choosing to kill a person even though that person wasn't threatening their life, and someone killing a person who was threatening their life. Two people -- one who's life isn't being threatened by the other, yet threatens the other's life. The other who either lets their life be threatened or acts to eliminate the threat. If you don't see the difference here, I'm not sure how to make it any more plain.

[blueeyes]

Look, we license cars. And I'm sure I'll get no argument that cars are a potentially lethal piece of equipment in untrained hands (which is WHY we license their use.) So why do we not license guns? I mean passing a written and practical test here.

We license cars.

We license cars in a way that ever single seventeen year-old can pass the license test -- and provide special dispensation for younger ones if they ask twice. We license cars with subsidized classes and tests and license fees. We license cars to older folk without even checking their legal understanding. We license people in Hicktown, Arkansas, or New York City, and the former can't refuse the latter. We license felons, we license the mentally ill, we license drug dealers and drug users. We license people without fingerprints, without knowing where they live, without a background check or stupidly high licensing fee. If you forget your license, or don't have one, it's a simple and inexpensive fine, if you don't get off with a warning.

We don't license cars for private usage; you can drive anywhere a person owns the land, no license required. We don't license the purchase of gasoline, or spark plugs, or motors. You can drive on your property, someone else's property, semi-public property like mall parking lots. You can drive to a police station, a court house, through a college campus, around Washington DC, or through California. You don't even need to get spare licenses for every state you're going through, or special licenses just to drive through one city or the next. You can drive a scary black Mercedes, or an old beater of a Ford with wood panels. You can build a car from the parts up, or bring one over from Iraq or Brazil or Germany or Japan. You can drive a car with four wheels, or slap a trailer on the back for another two or four. You can drive a car that's capable of going two hundred miles per hour, or one that'll only break forty going downhill.

Drop the act. You're not interested in anything near what we do to cars or automobile drivers.

Nor do we need such stupidity as a permit or registration to demonstrate competence. In most states, gun shops are <i>legally mandated</i> to provide basic instruction in a given firearm's usage; in the rest it's simply become part of the trade. The NRA advocates and teaches it. The only way people get to be ignorant is if they choose and work at it, and any schoolteacher will tell you such people can and do manage to pass tests and still stay ignorant.

Regardless of what your system of morality says, the law calls innocent a man or woman who kills someone that demonstrated ability, opportunity, and intent to kill or provide deadly injury to an innocent individual. That law's been the same since before the Constitution was a twinkle in anyone's eye, it's been in place in the United Kingdom since at least the writing of the Magna Carta, and it's the case in dozens of other human cultures. It's not even a human law. Any animal from a bear to a bunny can and will fight to stop their attacker when cornered, and even the rabbit can push a cat's fangs through the roof of his or her skull.

You can have a system of morality that says something else. You can advocate something else. I wouldn't consider it a good idea or evolutionarily advantageous, but you're entitled to your own opinions.

But you're not entitled to your own facts. The right to take a murderous life to save an innocent one exists and is older than humanity itself. It's real, and questioning its existence doesn't change that.

[UNODRAGONE]

There is NO police department, self defense training organization, CCW instructor or special forces group on earth that teaches "shoot to wound". This is commonly taught to be one of the worst ideas possible. know why? Because

1) Even at 7 yards, shooting at a stationary target at a range, making a "legshot" is very difficult. Now try that at night against an armed moving target with adrenaline pumping through your body, keeping in mind that even pulling the trigger too jerky can throw your aim off by several inches. I've been shooting for years and I couldn't for the life of me do that. I KNOW I can't do it, because i tried it alongside many senior professionals at post while the firearms instructor was trying to make a point. It's hard as hell to do.

2) "Shooting to wound" implies that you aren't in fear of your life, and you will get sued to fuck for it unless you're in your own house, and even there in some states.

You don't "shoot to kill", you shoot at center mass to "incapacitate", always. You will not find ANYONE who teaches otherwise. If the firearm comes out and shots are fired, you're firing at center mass, end of story, every major agency, licenser, and defense trainer agrees.



If it's well lit and you're SURE you have control of the situation, sure this works. Otherwise thats the worst idea ever. Give away your position to a potentially armed intruder, let them know you have a gun and are preparing to use it? Better hope he isnt armed and tries to spin around and magdump you while you grin smugly at your scary "cha-chick" noise.

Basically you've just given every horrible piece of advice imaginable. You use a gun in one of two situations and two situations ONLY.

1) Your life is in immediate danger of lethal harm

2) The life of another is in immediate danger of lethal harm

If you're racking a pistol and carefully lining up a kneeshot, you're not in any fucking danger: get ready for litigation hell.


whats sad is even if your life is in danger and you shot in self defense your still gonna get looked at, and sued I mean come on look at our military people being watched under a microscope to make sure that they don't hurt innocents in an intense situation were they are trained to act in an instance. I am all for narrowing down any goomba from owning a gun I mean come on I seriously doubt when our four fathers made up the right to bare arms even they would have to agree with certain people not owning a weapon, thats just common sense. Here's another reason to support applying for a license

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html

[Vendetta]

We license cars in a way that ever single seventeen year-old can pass the license test -- and provide special dispensation for younger ones if they ask twice. We license cars with subsidized classes and tests and license fees. We license cars to older folk without even checking their legal understanding. We license people in Hicktown, Arkansas, or New York City, and the former can't refuse the latter. We license felons, we license the mentally ill, we license drug dealers and drug users. We license people without fingerprints, without knowing where they live, without a background check or stupidly high licensing fee. If you forget your license, or don't have one, it's a simple and inexpensive fine, if you don't get off with a warning.
I'm sorry, could you please point to the part where I said the license process for guns should be EXACTLY the same for cars?

You can build a car from the parts up, or bring one over from Iraq or Brazil or Germany or Japan. You can drive a car with four wheels, or slap a trailer on the back for another two or four. You can drive a car that's capable of going two hundred miles per hour, or one that'll only break forty going downhill.
Actually all that may be vaguely true on the surface, but of course there are restrictions and laws that must be adhered to in all of those instances.

Drop the act. You're not interested in anything near what we do to cars or automobile drivers.
There's no act here. I'm interested in EXACTLY what I've said. I'm confused as to what exactly you think I'm "acting" about. Don't worry, I won't take your precious guns.

Nor do we need such stupidity as a permit or registration to demonstrate competence. In most states, gun shops are <i>legally mandated</i> to provide basic instruction in a given firearm's usage; in the rest it's simply become part of the trade.
Really? Because I can say in at least two states where I have personal experience gun shops do nothing of the sort. They might've asked if you knew what you're doing with said purchased firearm, but basic instruction? Ha. Also, can you please point to laws that mandate this?

The NRA advocates and teaches it.
Yes the NRA, great. A PRIVATE organization, not a government agency.

The only way people get to be ignorant is if they choose and work at it, and any schoolteacher will tell you such people can and do manage to pass tests and still stay ignorant.
Practical tests? Are you seriously arguing that people who have to take not only a written but a practical gun-safety and shooting test, can be ignorant of the functions of a gun. And if so, then why let them have them then? It's like you're arguing for the other side here.

Why don't YOU drop the act and just admit being worried that your goverment (whose job is I believe to protect its citizenry) is going to take your precious guns away from you. And this has never been what I was talking about in this thread.

Regardless of what your system of morality says, the law calls innocent a man or woman who kills someone that demonstrated ability, opportunity, and intent to kill or provide deadly injury to an innocent individual.
Where have I argued against this in this thread? Are we reading the same things here?

That law's been the same since before the Constitution was a twinkle in anyone's eye,
While I'm not going to argue the morality of a potential eye-for-an-eye, I'm pretty sure that something being around for a long time doesn't really make that a good justification. Or are you meaning to imply that the world is EXACTLY the same as it was over 200 years ago?

it's been in place in the United Kingdom since at least the writing of the Magna Carta
I find it ironic that you're using the example of a country that DOES outlaw the use and ownership of firearms by its citizens.

It's not even a human law. Any animal from a bear to a bunny can and will fight to stop their attacker when cornered, and even the rabbit can push a cat's fangs through the roof of his or her skull.
Riiiiight, because we're just unreasoning animals now?

You can have a system of morality that says something else. You can advocate something else. I wouldn't consider it a good idea or evolutionarily advantageous, but you're entitled to your own opinions.
Wow, I talk about licensing firearms and suddenly you're arguing about the morality of an eye-for-an-eye.

But you're not entitled to your own facts. The right to take a murderous life to save an innocent one exists and is older than humanity itself. It's real, and questioning its existence doesn't change that.
Uhh what? How is that a fact? The fact is ANYONE can kill ANYONE. That's the only fact here. I think you're confusing facts with something else, that is NOT fact.

[chriz]

Really? Because I can say in at least two states where I have personal experience gun shops do nothing of the sort. They might've asked if you knew what you're doing with said purchased firearm, but basic instruction? Ha. Also, can you please point to laws that mandate this?

Here in most cities in Massachusetts. Part of the process of getting a pistol permit is taking a course.

Oh, and in my home town of Malden, even if you pass the course and have no record, the Chief of Police can still deny you the permit and he doesn't even have to give a reason. His wife didn't blow him last night? No gun license.

Supposedly this is in the process of changing; I'm operating on 10-year-old info in that regard, but it shows the kind of arbitrary obstacles to gun-ownership that are way beyond anything a car-owner faces.

[blueeyes]

It wasn't different three years ago, but I haven't kept up on the matter since then.
Really? Because I can say in at least two states where I have personal experience gun shops do nothing of the sort.
Ohio law mandates that an individual sign and initial that they've been demonstrated how to correctly use and maintain the weapon. I'll have to check the actual statute next time I'm by a shop. Most places go beyond that -- one of the shops I've seen in Vandalia offers free range training with an experienced shooter with any gun purchase, while another's owner will actually go to a public range for anyone who's uncomfortable with a gun he sold. Cabela corporate policy seems to require offering training on operation of the firearm, as well.

I don't spend much time at the shops, but this seems to be the typical case rather than an outlier. It is, after all, a very service-oriented sector.
I'm sorry, could you please point to the part where I said the license process for guns should be EXACTLY the same for cars?
It's a reductio ad absurdum, in order to demonstrate the issues with your appeal to the fallacy of the general rule. If we can and should do X to subject A because we do X to subject B, it's just as logical to do Y to subject A because we do Y to subject B.

It's also to demonstrate, for clarity purposes, that we're not interested on licensing as defined for cars. Nor are we discussing a matter remote similar to that of cars, nor one you wish to have treated remote similar to cars.
Actually all that may be vaguely true on the surface, but of course there are restrictions and laws that must be adhered to in all of those instances.
Not as many as people expect. Importing cars basically requires a cleaning, a tax, and in newer cars that emissions and bumper standards be passed. You can get around the latter two by filling out a couple forms and not driving on public roads. Trailer regulations are pretty much minimal, only requiring lights and a license plate, and only if you drive on public roads. There are no minimum or maximum speed requirements to pass a registration inspection, and only (some) public roads mandate a maximum and/or minimum speed; driving off public roads finds speeds irrelevant.
Why don't YOU drop the act and just admit being worried that your goverment (whose job is I believe to protect its citizenry) is going to take your precious guns away from you.
I'm not overwhelmingly concerned by it, personally, but I can certainly understand the concerns on the matter. 'Just' licensing and registration has lead to law-abiding people having their "precious guns" (can I use this sorta viewpoint on ex post facto laws and unlawful seizures without just compensation, or is it only okay against gun owners?), in California, "SKS Sporter" rifles that were lawfully registered and owned by licensed individuals were confiscated soon after, and in New York City the registration scheme was used to hunt down shotgun owners. You don't need to want a gun ban; as long as groups like the Brady Bunch or the Joyce Foundation exist, a registration and licensing scheme is concerning.

But what actually does worry me, is that the burden on even law-abiding citizens from existing licensing and registration schemes can be vast. A Massachusetts license can easily cost over three hundred USD, months of time, and significant time investment at government services that only remain open during normal working hours for other people. An individual without such a license can not own a gun in his or her own home, and state law defines an empty brass cartridge as a "firearm" for the purposes of the ban. These features do nothing to insure that a gun owner knows what he or she is doing, only and intentionally working to discourage individuals from attempting to own guns.
I'm interested in EXACTLY what I've said. I'm confused as to what exactly you think I'm "acting" about
You've advocated licensing of guns after stating that cars are licensed. It's typical for human conversations in which A is stated as a fact, then B is stated as a conclusion, there is some logical connection between the former and the latter. That's not the case, here : you're not demonstratedly not interested in licensing guns in a similar manner as we license cars, you're not interested in treating guns in general with the similar restrictions as cars, and guns are self-evidently not similar to cars, as they are explicitly recognized as a human right where cars are not.

Practical tests? Are you seriously arguing that people who have to take not only a written but a practical gun-safety and shooting test, can be ignorant of the functions of a gun.
Don't try to kid yourself, Vendetta. You're old enough to make it through high school. Don't tell me you didn't encounter a stoner or two that's sure to miss out exactly what the practical demonstration with a set of drunk goggles in driver's ed meant, or the kid who's seen a match go out in a jar of CO2 yet still managed to nearly kill him- or herself doing something similarly stupid with poor ventilation and a cigarette.
And if so, then why let them have them then? It's like you're arguing for the other side here.
I don't think a lot of people use their right to free speech well -- and before you suggest otherwise, I and you know very well that some forms of speech can kill or endanger -- but that doesn't make me want to cut their tongues out. Such ignorant people don't, despite what it looks like from the net, make up a large portion of the populace, and it certainly doesn't make sense to dramatically burden the average individual over unrealistic hopes of educating the intentionally idiotic.
While I'm not going to argue the morality of a potential eye-for-an-eye, I'm pretty sure that something being around for a long time doesn't really make that a good justification. Or are you meaning to imply that the world is EXACTLY the same as it was over 200 years ago?

First, it's not "an eye-for-an-eye". "Eye-for-an-eye" was a code of punishment, while self-defense can only be legitimately performed in order to prevent action.

As for the timescale thing, that's precisely what the whole concept of what our basic legal system is -- once it's in place, it's rather hard to change it. There <i>is almost always</i> a method to do so, if need be, but it hasn't been used in this case.

The age of something makes it no less or more moral. But when something's been part of the current law despite several hundred uses per year over hundreds of years, it suggests both that it is the law, and that it has been an evolutionarily advantageous concept.
I find it ironic that you're using the example of a country that DOES outlaw the use and ownership of firearms by its citizens.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of a change in belief on a concept over the last sixty years, more than a hundred and fifty after the United States severed legal updates from them, to a concept nearly eight hundred years old, which the people building the United States specifically stated that they took inspiration from.
Riiiiight, because we're just unreasoning animals now?
Well, I am. Don't really see anything inherently wrong with such.

But that's not what I was getting at.

American Constitutional law assumes that, for all human rights, the essential right exists regardless of government interaction or existence. That the importance of self-defense is so written into the entire phyla, combined with the recognition of the right by dozens of governments and treaties, including those of which the United States is a member, provides evidence of a human right to self-defense seldom matched by other, well-accepted rights.

[Sazabi]

'Just' licensing and registration has lead to law-abiding people having their "precious guns" (can I use this sorta viewpoint on ex post facto laws and unlawful seizures without just compensation, or is it only okay against gun owners?), in California, "SKS Sporter" rifles that were lawfully registered and owned by licensed individuals were confiscated soon after, and in New York City the registration scheme was used to hunt down shotgun owners.

Lets not forget the most recent travesty, police going door to door and illegally confiscating all weapons during Hurricane Katrina while mass looting and crime was at its worst. That shit is unacceptable

[blueeyes]

A few updates on the matter.

Today is the first day for DC's permit process to open. Dick Heller was refused a permit (http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071700621.html ) because he did not bring the firearm with him, and is probably going to have to try again another day. Both ballistic testing, and making it difficult to own a gun legally -- it's unlawful to purchase most handguns in a state that you are not a resident of without an FFL 01.

Mayor Fenty (http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1441605&nid=695) and the associated politicos have gone out of their way to make the process unpleasant, and it looks like the one FFL currently willing and licensed to make lawful transfers of firearms is being put through the zoning commission grinder.

[Sazabi]

I expected this honestly. Congress seems to be on the ball and has enough sponsors to push this if they want.

Congressional Action: "Second Amendment Enforcement Act"

H.R. 1399 has 247 cosponsors. (H. Res. 1331) would force House consideration of H.R. 1399 if activated by a discharge petition, which will require 218 congressional signatures. It would provide for speedy consideration of legislation to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller by repealing the provisions of the D.C. Code that were at issue in that case, and by preventing the District from enacting new and burdensome restrictions on its residents' Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Among other things, H. Res. 1331 includes provisions that would repeal D.C.'s ban on many semi-automatic firearms, and repeal the District's firearm registration system, as in H.R. 1399. It would also reduce the District's burdensome restrictions on ammunition, and repeal the District's unique law that allows manufacturers of certain types of guns to "be held strictly liable in tort, without regard to fault or proof of defect," for injuries caused with those guns. D.C. has used this law to bring suits against the firearms industry, but those suits have now been blocked by the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act."