Gun control questions (drug, regular, death, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The largest World Army is China with 1.5 million men, India at 1.1 million. And then there is the US and 80 million gun owners.
If 10% stand up and take a stand, how do you handle an armed 8 million man militia, that will stand for the constution.
How many times do I have to spell this out. Prior to the 14th amendment the bill of rights DID NOT PROTECT PEOPLE FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS it protected states rights and individuals from the federal government (and yes states do have rights that is why they are states and not provences...as an example states have the right to send representatives and senators to congress and hold powers not reserved for the federal government in the constitution) read Barron V Baltimore 1833 and educate yourself. As to Heller vs DC I think it was a wrong decision and I agree with the Stevens decent. I have read both Heller and Miller and disagreeing with a supreme court majority, especially when its 5-4 and you think the decent was right on does not make one ignorant especially when they ignored all precident on the issue since Cruishank v US 1873 which said specifically "[the second amendment] has no other effect then to restrict the powers of national government". Yes it is a matter of law but I do not have to agree with it...disagreeing with a law or SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with ignorance. Your the one that needs to educate yourself rather then pontificate on supreme court cases you probably have never even read.
You are wrong. States do not have rights period.
You have no idea if I have read them or not. I have read them. You are ignorant to rant on and on that you just want to dismiss Heller because you don't like it. Heller is the most recent decision on the 2nd Amendment. It voids those before it. A decision made in 1873 hardly means much today after Heller. Miller did not in any way uphold gun control Read: United States vs. Miller
A true hopolophobe. Heller is law...deal with it.
You have no idea if I have read them or not. I have read them. You are ignorant to rant on and on that you just want to dismiss Heller because you don't like it. Heller is the most recent decision on the 2nd Amendment. It voids those before it. A decision made in 1873 hardly means much today after Heller. Miller did not in any way uphold gun control Read: United States vs. Miller
A true hopolophobe. Heller is law...deal with it.
Read miller again and tell me what part of
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
You do not understand.
I am not saying Heller is irrelevant I am just saying I do not like or think it is a good reading of the constitution and think it should be overturned just as previous decisions have been such as Plessey v. Ferguson have been.
And to answer your questions I am not a hopolophobe, I like NC's gun laws just fine I just do not like it when the far right activists on the supreme court foist their agenda in the face of 150 years of precedent.
EDIT: I am actually quite amused as to how many people think that the pre-Heller interpretation promulgates gun control when, in fact, it had the potential to do quite the opposite. Heller upholds certain forms of gun control, which under the traditional interpretation could not be upheld if a state would choose to void them. Under the pre-Heller interpretation the second amendment states theoretically had the power to designate weapons "militia weapons" thus exempting them from federal bans, but that went the way of the Dodo with Heller. Now guns must be "'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense." In order to be protected from both state and federal law. So, places like Oklahoma can no long hypothetically say "we do not like the assault weapons ban we are designating assault weapons A, B, and C as militia weapons." Nope all Heller did was take power away from the states and shift some of it to the Feds.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-02-2009 at 11:02 PM..
I understand it just fine and it in no way denies The People the right to keep and bear arms. It merely restricts that particular shotgun.
The framers of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights had just fought a war against tyranny. Do you really think they wanted to give their new government any more control over their lives? Do you really think it was their intention to give the government control over their right to keep and bear arms? Have you read what the framers had to say about guns and how THE PEOPLE should be able to own, keep, bear and use them? Now do you really expect me to believe the 2nd Amendment is in any way shape or form designed to give the government the right to control guns and the peoples use of them? You will never convince me of this because it is in no way true.
All through The Bill of Rights, the words "The People" are used to mean just exactly that. All of a sudden in The 2nd Amendment, it means the governments right to form a militia and not the peoples right. Bull!
You did not say it was irrelevant, you said you ignore it. Ignore it all you want to, it's law.
There is no precedent for what you are trying to say. None at all.
We can dance round and round on this forever. You will never convince me that The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right of every law-abiding citizen to own, carry and use in a lawful manner, any firearm he or she sees fit to use.
I understand it just fine and it in no way denies The People the right to keep and bear arms. It merely restricts that particular shotgun.
The framers of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights had just fought a war against tyranny. Do you really think they wanted to give their new government any more control over their lives? Do you really think it was their intention to give the government control over their right to keep and bear arms? Have you read what the framers had to say about guns and how THE PEOPLE should be able to own, keep, bear and use them? Now do you really expect me to believe the 2nd Amendment is in any way shape or form designed to give the government the right to control guns and the peoples use of them? You will never convince me of this because it is in no way true.
All through The Bill of Rights, the words "The People" are used to mean just exactly that. All of a sudden in The 2nd Amendment, it means the governments right to form a militia and not the peoples right. Bull!
You did not say it was irrelevant, you said you ignore it. Ignore it all you want to, it's law.
There is no precedent for what you are trying to say. None at all.
We can dance round and round on this forever. You will never convince me that The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right of every law-abiding citizen to own, carry and use in a lawful manner, any firearm he or she sees fit to use.
It does allow for gun control, which was what you said it did not allow for correct. The case in point was not about the saw-off shotgun, but whether the 1934 National firearms act was constitutional. The court said if it did not apply to militia weapons it was.
As to the framers I do not think they wanted to give government more control over their lives. However, I do think, strangely enough that is what Heller ended up doing. It drastically limited the powers of states and justified certain forms of federal restriction, which were never justified prior to it.
If your final paragraph is true you have a completely unsupported view of the second amendment not even defended by Heller in which the majority opinion clearly spells out the case for quite a few forms of gun control.
Also read my edit I think you will find it interesting. As I said to me it is not an anti or pro gun issue it is a constitutional one.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-02-2009 at 11:24 PM..
The gun in your home- the one that makes you feel "safe"- is 22 times MORE likely to kill/injure a family member than it is to repel an intruder.
Really? I find it rather unlikely. While there are no definite numbers available for times a weapon is used to prevent a crime, there are numbers for folks hurt or killed by guns.
According to the Brady site, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/ - broken link) the number of people either hurt or killed by firearms in 2006 which includes all reasons not just accidents at home, is 100,759. And if you break it down even more, only 37,734 were hurt or killed either by suicide, accident, or undetermined.
So by your statement, I am to assume that out of the millions of guns in America today, only 1,715 of them were used to protect a home? I don't think so.
On the other hand I have found a site that shows that guns are used in self defense at least 700,000 times per year. Gun Control This was based off of several surveys done and taking the lowest reported number. So according to my research and calculations, the gun you have in your home is at least 18 times more likely to to protect you and your family than hurt you and your family.
Once again, Randomstudent, I think you are completely wrong. You say there is 150 years of precedent for your views. Please show me where The SCOTUS ever made a decision stating the 2nd Amendment does not support individual rights. Heller outright protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. No opposite decision has ever been declared by SCOTUS. Again, agree with it or not, too bad, as of now it stands.
You also say you are not a hopolophobe and you have no problem with NC gun laws. May I ask you who you voted for in the last presidential election? I do not intend to steal this thread debating presidents and their various politics but I'm very curious.
Once again, Randomstudent, I think you are completely wrong. You say there is 150 years of precedent for your views. Please show me where The SCOTUS ever made a decision stating the 2nd Amendment does not support individual rights. Heller outright protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. No opposite decision has ever been declared by SCOTUS. Again, agree with it or not, too bad, as of now it stands.
You also say you are not a hopolophobe and you have no problem with NC gun laws. May I ask you who you voted for in the last presidential election? I do not intend to steal this thread debating presidents and their various politics but I'm very curious.
As I said there is Cruishank and Miller another one is Presser v. Illinois which reaffirmed Cruishank: all these cases say the 2nd amendment exists to protect states rights to form a militia from the federal government and if the weapons in question do not have a relationship to a militia then the 2nd amendment does not apply. Also interstingly enough the only one that mentions forms of acceptable forms of national gun control is Heller.
In 2008 voted for Obama, but that had nothing to do with guns that had to do with the Iraq war, abortion rights, religion and government issues, and economic policy the last one I unfortunately do not think he did so well on. However, I did not support him in the primaries in the primaries I backed Hillary Clinton. Also in 2004 Democratic primaries I voted for Howard Dean the only Dem with an A rating from the NRA and who was endorsed 5 times for governor of Vermont by that organization, Vermont has some of the least strict gun laws in the country second only to Alaska.
I am a democrat, but that has nothing to do with guns and a lot to do with right to privacy issues, religion and government issues, environmental issues, and foreign policy.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 07-03-2009 at 12:10 PM..
Your interpretation of these decisions especially Heller are, to me, wrong. I asked you to show me where SCOTUS ever decided the 2nd Amendment specifically indicated that it does not grant an individual right. You cannot show that because it has never happened. However, Heller does specifically show the individual right exists. Case closed, you arguments are null and void.
Whatever your reasons for voting Obama, you voted for the most anti-gun senator there has ever been. He has consistently voted against gun owners, voted for every gun control bill put before him and even said the DC ban was Constitutional which it clearly was not. In doing so you have proved to me that you care not at all about The 2nd Amendment and private ownership of guns.
I'm done debating with you as you clearly are anti-gun no matter what your words may say. Your actions, as Obama's speak volumes. Good luck and have a good life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.