Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
I've been silent for ten pages.

I disagree with most of the comments here. To be sarcastic, and attempt to return to the initial subject of this thread: once again "truth" is a five to four Supreme Court decision. Obviously the four desenting justices are foolish, ignorant morons. The first fourteen words of the second amendment are nothing more than a single example, no longer in force, but to be ignored for the larger more important ideal of giving us all weapons to fend off the hordes of unemployed minorities who are awaiting outside our home to invade, rob, torture and murder us in our sleep. And, of course, a Republican-dominated court would never legislate from the bench, only Democrat ones would.


My point:
There are other points of view, and those of us who have them are not all unpatriotic Communists.

Enjoy your moment of glory, I expect this SOTUS decision will eventually go the way of "... with all deliberate speed."

Thank you for your support, buy bonds.

Actually Vibro now the the court has heard on the second amendment it will NOT go away, and THAT is the point

I do not want the second amendment to go away. I want it to be honored. Every word of it.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which, according to English majors, means something entirely else than what the current SCOTUS decision has proscribed. Now the "well regulated militia" is merely one example of how the specific right is to be defended. This is an arguable point -- and it has been argued (very well by both sides) for more than a century. Even defining the words "arms" is difficult. Sidearms? All forms of arms, or any weapon? Weapons available when the Bill of Rights was proposed and ratified?

All reasonable questions.

And... many SCOTUS decisions have been overturned. Never swiftly; never without long processes and cautious deliberations... but there are many decisions which, when other cases were presented to SCOTUS, that it ruled in a way to negate previous rulings. I know segregation in schools is one area, and to define that which is obscene is another.

For now, there is a specific ruling, overturning (specifically) the gun ban in Washington, D.C. It will be easy to argue and win cases to overturn similar bans in San Francisco and elsewhere.

But, as we all know, living in this wonderful democratic republic, every law, every rule is subject to revision and reinterpretation.



And... I really do find the belief of absolute truths in 5-4 decisions amazing.



(This is the exact same court who ruled -- one week ago -- 5 to 4 against the death penalty for child rape.)

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Burglars and intruders want an easy score.  If they know you have a gun, a burglar alarm or even just a dog, they are more likely to go on to the next house

Then I'd prefer the burglar alarm or the dog, since there is very little chance that they'll be turned against me or my family.

Btw, how do the burglars know you have a gun...?

HOW TO INSTALL A  HOME SECURITY SYSTEM FOR NON GUN OWNERS.

1) Go to a second-hand store, buy a pair of men's used size 14-16work boots.

2) Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo Magazine.

3) Put a few giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazine.

4) Leave a note on your door that reads: Hey Bubba, Big Jim, Duke and Slim: I went for more ammunition. Back in an hour. Don't mess with the pit bulls - they attacked the mailman this morning and messed him up real bad. I don't think Killer took part in it, but it was hard to tell from all the blood. Anyway, I locked all 4 of 'em in the house.

Better wait outside.

Cooter.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:

Quote:

Quoting Unicus69:
Accidents happen, but you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than you are in a gun related accident.

That might have something to do with the actual usage time of both items (cars & firearms) in everyday life. If people were shooting their guns while commuting to work on a regular basis, I'm quite sure you'd see a significant increase in accidental shootings.

That's kinda the point of the comparison.  People are so worried about something that doesn't happen very often simply because people don't play around with their guns on a regular basis.

Quote:
The - often quoted - comparison of firearm related accidental killings to accidental deaths of civilians occuring in other dangerous situations of everyday life are, IMO, inconclusive anrd wrong regarding the danger and killing potential, since the benchmark values are offset.

I simply don't agree.  People claim we should get rid of guns because they are dangerous and someone could die.  In addition to motor vehicle accidents...

More people die from tobacco use than die from incidents involving firearms.
More people die from alcohol consumption than die from incidents involving firearms.

Why aren't people outraged about that?  Why aren't people trying to pass laws to outlaw smoking and drinking?  Why is it that guns are the target when they cause fewer deaths, intentional as well as accidental, than drinking or smoking?

The answer is simple, misinformation and false perception.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Darxon:

Quote:

Quote:

Quoting Unicus69:
Accidents happen, but you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than you are in a gun related accident.

That might have something to do with the actual usage time of both items (cars & firearms) in everyday life. If people were shooting their guns while commuting to work on a regular basis, I'm quite sure you'd see a significant increase in accidental shootings.

That's kinda the point of the comparison.  People are so worried about something that doesn't happen very often simply because people don't play around with their guns on a regular basis.

Quote:
The - often quoted - comparison of firearm related accidental killings to accidental deaths of civilians occuring in other dangerous situations of everyday life are, IMO, inconclusive anrd wrong regarding the danger and killing potential, since the benchmark values are offset.

I simply don't agree.  People claim we should get rid of guns because they are dangerous and someone could die.  In addition to motor vehicle accidents...

More people die from tobacco use than die from incidents involving firearms.
More people die from alcohol consumption than die from incidents involving firearms.

Why aren't people outraged about that?  Why aren't people trying to pass laws to outlaw smoking and drinking?  Why is it that guns are the target when they cause fewer deaths, intentional as well as accidental, than drinking or smoking?

The answer is simple, misinformation and false perception.

What are the percentages?
I.e what percentage of people who smoke, die from tobacco use?
What percentage of people who drink, die from alcohol consumption?
What percentage of Americans, who play with guns, die from accidental shooting?

You can't compare absolute numbers - you have to use the percentage.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Why aren't people outraged about that?  Why aren't people trying to pass laws to outlaw smoking and drinking?  [...] The answer is simple, misinformation and false perception.

Actually, that's exactly what's happening in Europe at the moment (and for the past years as well): numerous laws have been passed that disallow advertising for tobacco and alcohol, the legal drinking age has been kept high (not as high as in the US though), intoxication levels for operating vehicles have been lowered, in parts down to zero (makes enjoying a bottle of wine at an expensive dinner restaurant kinda hard...), new alcoholic beverages (alcopops, i.e. beverages mixing hard liquor and soda, Smirnoff Ice and the like) have been taxed higher than usual to make them too expensive for youths, smoking isn't allowed in buildings open to the public without protection for the non smoking populace, and so on and son on. But that's a bit off topic.

Actually, the list is endless, and firearms are treated in pretty much the same scrutinious way than are alcohol and tobacco. But the efforts regarding firearms are a lot more opinonated in the US than in the rest of the world, whereas the attacks on alcohol and tobacco are carried with more force over here than in the US. The reason? Probably the difference in total numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens in the US compared to, for example, Europe. Gun control isn't that much of an issue over here as we actually don't have that theme on our everyday federal political agenda. It's different in the US though, due to your historic relationship with privately owned guns. The US people should try to address the the subject in a level headed way and take into account the arguments of both sides with equal respect. A lot of the countering arguments can be found in this here thread, and I don't believe it's too hard to find an acceptable middle ground.

As has been said here by avid users of guns: you usually don't need more than one bullet to put an adversary (or big game for that matter) down for good, and in most cases of self defense you don't even need to clip the other but just render him unthreatening. You probably don't need a full blown assault rifle to do that, or a submachine gun. Why waste a dozen bullets on an individual if one can already do the job? I don't think it's too hard to figure out which firearms are actually obtained for hunting or self defense purposes, and which are obtained for a different purpose not covered by the amandment or an exaggeration of the constitutional purposes. Anything that's powerful enough to mow down an elephant, a platoon or stop armored vehicles is, IMO, not a necessary tool for self defense of your person or your loved ones or your property. It's rather an exaggerated show of force, a concept not unknown to world politics as well ("Cold War" anybody?) and if it isn't needed on a global scale anymore (or at least only in a turned down variant) why keep it up and even increase it at home?

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
UK - Study: Much gun crime is unreported


Gun crimes in UK list of articles -- http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/gun-crime-law.html


Analysis: UK gun crime figures



Gun Crime (Coverage: UK Wide)

In the year ending June 2005, there were 10,979 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales (excluding offences involving air guns). 
This is a 6% increase from 2003/04 and continues the pattern of annual increases every year since 1997/98. 
In fact, the current number of firearms offences is almost twice that of 1997/98.
Firearms were involved in 1,206 more serious incidents of violence against the person (other than homicide) in 2004/05 than in 2003/04. 
In less serious incidents of violence against the person, firearms were involved in 4,568 offences – a 31% increase from 2003/04.
Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year.
There were 2,659 firearm robberies in 2004/05 (4% of all robbery offences) – down 9% from 2003/04.
412 firearm offences resulted in serious injury in 2004/05 – down 6% from 2003/04.

If you want to read a scholarly article on the subject, one has been published in Australia by a highly respected institution.

A bit of background about the Australian experience:

"After the 1996 mass killing of 35 people at the Port Arthur historical site, Australia enacted gun controls that are considered among the most stringent in the developed world. Briefly, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which was ratified by Federal Parliament in 1996 and implemented across all States and Territories by the end of 1997, prohibited certain types of firearms, in particular semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump action shotguns. To facilitate the removal of these firearms, a government-funded ‘buy-back’ scheme was designed, whereby owners were compensated
for handing in their firearms.

The NFA also introduced strict requirements governing the possession of firearms, such as the necessity to have a proven or ‘genuine reason’ for firearm ownership (self defence was explicitly excluded), compulsory written safety tests and the stipulation that all privately owned firearms must be registered through a State-controlled firearms licensing body. Additional components such as safe storage of firearms when not in use and 28-day waiting periods for acquisitions of firearms were included in the reforms."

This is a lengthy document and makes an interesting read. See here.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
No, it's because motor verhicles, tobacco and alcohol are used far more frequently and thus the chances of getting hurt are higher or do you think everyone fires his gun once a day.

Did you bother to read my entire post or did you just pull out the part that allowed you to make this post?

If you had bothered to read my entire post, you would have seen that I said:

That's kinda the point of the comparison.  People are so worried about something that doesn't happen very often simply because people don't play around with their guns on a regular basis.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.