Justices agree on right to own guns

[Anmon]

Don't ban guns, just ban anyone with a criminal record or mental disorders from having them.
If a crim breaks into your house and threatens you or your family with a knife or something, you should be entitled to pull a pistol out and blow that scumbag away.

[brien]

you should be entitled to pull a pistol out and blow that scumbag away.

In some states you can do this, but you better damn well know the law that covers this type of situation because, if it is a thief in your home merely stealing the family silver, in some states you will be charged with felony murder if you "blow that scumbag away."

In other states, you may not be charged, pending the investigation. The most important idea to keep in mind is that, generally speaking, your life has to be threatened and in imminent danger, in order for the use of deadly force against another to be justified in a court of law. If you own a firearm, be careful out there.

[Anmon]

Quote by: brien In some states you can do this, but you better damn well know the law that covers this type of situation because, if it is a thief in your home merely stealing the family silver,

Lets see how far he can run away with my silver ware with one of his knee caps blown off.

[brien]

Quote by: Anmon Lets see how far he can run away with my silver ware with one of his knee caps blown off.

I don't disagree with you but that's some mighty good shootin there pardner..but be careful you don't miss and hit him in the back b/c in some states that's negligent homicide.

[Anmon]

lol its not that hard to blow someones knee cap off if your in the same room with them, hell just walk up and press it against their knee and pull the trigger.

[Halofan48]

...look, i'm going to point out somethings. One, people with mental illnesses and criminal records have been able to get guns. Either legally, or they steal it. Which brings up another issue. If guns are still sold, someone can steal them either from the store or from the person who purchased it. They might wait for you to leave home and then go in and take the gun. Also, you have to account for people who might be buying a gun to kill someone, or things called "crimes of passion". An example of one is this. A man comes home. He finds his wife sleeping with another man. In a fit of rage, he grabs his gun and shoots them both. Later, he realizes what he has done and feels terrible. Lets look at other countries that have banned guns, they have a homicide rate a lot lower than ours. If it were just a small difference, maybe it was another factor. Yet it appears that the difference between us is anything but small.

Here are some arguments.
1. It states in order to maintain a well regulated militia in the second amendment. If it meant for the people to have guns, why include the part about the militia?
2. Lets say they did mean anyone could keep a gun. Let's consider the weapons they had when the amendment was written. They didn't have pistols that can fire off 12 shots quickly. Their weapons were often 1 shot per minute or so.
3. If you want to defend yourself, there are other means. You could purchase a Non-Lethal Weapon, or learn somethings for self defense. If we spent the money we do on putting guns into development of more effective non-lethal weapons, they would likely become very effective in many situations.
4. To counter the black market argument. If we banned guns and increased security around our shores to prevent the smuggling of weapons, we'd see even fewer shootings done with smuggled guns. Also, if someone gets something like a long ranged rifle, you might be shot without even realizing it. I have yet to find any event where men armed with machine guns stormed a house to steal a few little things.

[Charlatan]

To own guns gives people the ability to use them. If using them is what is wanted, then they ought to be allowed to use them too. But what use does a gun have other than to be used on living things? Guns are used to hurt people and owning them encourages this possibility of them being used. So if the courts did not want them to be used, then they ban them, so it is logical to guess that they want them to be used, as a deterrant, or as a means of killing the wrong person for the right reasons. When you have a gun you are able to use it so the chances of you using it in a manner not lawful is greater. When you don't have a gun you cannot use it but you cannot defend yourself. How often do people have it around to defend themselves with when they need it? Not ever most of the time, so it cannot be for self defence. Seeing as how it is not for self defence, and it is used to hurt people at the very least, the only thing that can come of owning guns is a bad outcome, as if it is not protecting anybody, and it is used, must be used for the wrong reasons accomplishing a wonrg somewhere along the line. So it is logical that owning guns is wrong, as they only cause wrong - although intended for the right reasons - and they need to be banned from public use.

Owning a gun empowers people, people act a lot more confidently when they have a gun stashed at home, logically, with other people. So if you have a very confident person talking to someone without a gun, you would see them maybe get mad that they are not recognised as a gun owner, and that could lead to there being a rucus, or other people needing to molly coddle them because they have not been recognised as a gun owner. If you get two gun owners talking about something maybe they would start a fight, as they want to be recognised as gun owners.

It is logical to say that gun owners have a lot more zeal in a discussion than others because they feel themselves empowered. Why do people purchase guns? Often to protect themselves, but sometimes to go shoot on the range. When you have empowered individuals without their source of power they will get upset, if immature, and in this case they should have theirs guns taken away from them. Seeing as how nobody knows who is fit for a gun, there should be no guns allowed to people, as those most actively seeking them are likely to be braggers and the like, wanting to own a new toy, or worse, bargaining tool. I am not saying they want to flash them around, I am saying that in the back of their minds they have this image of themselves having a gun, and seeing others as people who do not have guns. That image sticks with them throught their lives or the ownership of the gun, and they will feel the feeling of power of their possesion overrule their other feelings, and then there could be much sillyness. It is the same as somebody dealing with others that is a celebrity, they will expect that their 'power' be recognised at all times, like a gun owner would. Knowing that you can reach back and impress people, to your assumption, or scare them' is a major personality drawback. So it is fair to say that gun owners would be uptight at times because of owning the gun, and much worse threaten to use it in a discussion that goes awry. Take road rage, when people are uptight they start pulling pieces on each other if they have them sometimes, because they want to be recognised as someone with 'power', so it is not a long shot to say that they will always feel a little empowered if they have a gun at home, or worse, carrying it!

I feel guns should be banned.

[Anmon]

=Charlatan;497599] How often do people have it around to defend themselves with when they need it? Not ever most of the time, so it cannot be for self defence.

Well its not like you know exactly when your home is going to get invaded do you?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Anmon you should be entitled to pull a pistol out and blow that scumbag away.

Except everyone has their own idea of who's a scumbag, don't they.


.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Sonart . Except everyone has their own idea of who's a scumbag, don't they.

Yep.

But as to blowing one away, I was more referring to one attacking you in your home or your family with the intent to cause either rape, molestation, assault or robbery, or maybe the whole lot with arson thrown in as well to hide the crime?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Anmon Yep. But as to blowing one away, I was more referring to one attacking you in your home or your family with the intent to cause either rape, molestation, assault or robbery, or maybe the whole lot with arson thrown in as well to hide the crime?

Yes, life is always perfect when you can pick and choose scenarios that affirm your beliefs. The unintended consequence, of course, is that the U.S. is the most violent nation in the civilized world.


gun-related deaths per 100,000 people


.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart Yes, life is always perfect when you can pick and choose scenarios that affirm your beliefs. The unintended consequence, of course, is that the U.S. is the most violent nation in the civilized world.

Perfect when those set-piece scenarios follow one's preconceived script.

But, of course, a hell of a lot of domestic Rambos in the US end up shooting someone near and dear by mistake. "I thought it was a scumbag burglar" is almost as frequent as "I thought it wasn't loaded".

[Anmon]

Of course certain large gangs in US citys constantly murdering each others members in and out of jail, escapes your logic.

[Halofan48]

ya because its not like the availability of fire arms help them in this. Oh, wait...

[Anmon]

Quote by: Halofan48 ya because its not like the availability of fire arms help them in this. Oh, wait...

I was responding to Sonarts pick and choose scenario scheme to affirm your beliefs, as the reason he thinks there is so much gun related deaths in the US.
I merely pointed out, that a large percentage of gun related deaths, are most likely from gangs of differing ethnic backgrounds taking each other out.
It had nothing to do with denying the problem of availability of fire arms.

The best solution would be to bring into law that being in a gang will no longer be tolerated, and jail anyone who forms or joins one.
Not let a gang begin and flourish, and wait for them to inevitably commit crime.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Anmon I merely pointed out, that a large percentage of gun related deaths, are most likely from gangs of differing ethnic backgrounds taking each other out.

Sorry... you'd be wrong. Again.

"The most commonly cited reason for homicide is argument (including arguments about money & property under the influence of alcohol or narcotics). One third of all homicides in 1997 were triggered by arguments. Felony (rape, theft, narcotics, etc. ) accounted for a fifth of homicides and gang killings accounted for one twentieth. About a third were of unknown motive and the other 10% were miscellaneous motives.

Quote by: Anmon I was responding to Sonarts pick and choose scenario scheme to affirm your beliefs, as the reason he thinks there is so much gun related deaths in the US.

Pick and choose??? As opposed to what, inventing them like you just did?

A) Sources show that gang violence itself has not made us such a violent, murderous nation and...

B) I couldn't have put it better than Halofan did.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do, but without the easy availability of deadly firearms, gang members, drunken husbands, postal workers, crazed students, road ragers and anyone with a Rambo complex wouldn't be blazing away at everyone.

Quote by: Anmon The best solution would be to bring into law that being in a gang will no longer be tolerated, and jail anyone who forms or joins one.

That would be an interesting law.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You gonna make it illegal simply to join a voluntary social club? Cuz that's what a street gang essentially is. Beyond that, there already are such laws, but dealing with crimes committed while in a street gang, since you can't make simply being in a gang illegal.

In my home state, California, it's this...

"California 186.22 Participation in a criminal street gang; punishment; felony conviction; sentence enhancement; commission on or near school grounds; pattern of criminal gang activity

(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) and (5), any person who is convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of two, three, or four years at the court's discretion, except that if the felony is a serious felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, the person shall be punished by an additional term of five years. If the felony is a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, the person shall be punished by an additional term of 10 years.

2) If the underlying felony described in paragraph (1) is committed on the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of, a public or private elementary, vocational, junior high, or high school, during hours in which the facility is open for classes or school-related programs or when minors are using the facility that fact shall be a circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term under paragraph (1).

(3) The court shall order the imposition of the middle term of the sentence enhancement, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its choice of sentencing enhancements on the record at the time of the sentencing.

(4) Any person who is convicted of a felony enumerated in this paragraph committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, be sentenced to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of: (A) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 3046, if the felony is any of the offenses enumerated in subparagraphs (B) or (C) of this paragraph. (B) Imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years, if the felony is a home invasion robbery, in violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 213; carjacking, as defined in Section 215; a felony violation of Section 246; or a violation of Section 12022.55. (C) Imprisonment in the state prison for seven years, if the felony is extortion, as defined in Section 519; or threats to victims and witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1."

It goes on and on.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Here is a little cut, and paste from the other forum I thought was worth sharing.


Police have NO duty to protect:
Supreme Court case, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the court ruled 7-2 that police departments have no DUTY to protect citizens, as police protection is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Simply put, citizens' first line of defense is themselves!

This should be a no-brainer to anyone who understands the meaning of self-responsibility.


Having had a taste of law enforcement I can tell you the police are good at writing reports after the crime and are seldom there to prevent the crime. I do agree with this message.


As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Washington DC Gun Ban, here is another stellar example of a letter that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter...

The Gun is Civilization by U. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

The only people wanting to take away our weapons are either criminals or politicians that want to rule us as they see fit without regard to rhyme or reason to the laws they make.


Of course there are the misguided DO-GOODERS who would rather die than defend themselves and who think they have no one to fear unless he has a gun. Apparently they have never been confronted with someone that wants to take what they have by force. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH POLICE IN THE WORLD TO PROTECT US UNLESS WE HAVE OUR GUNS TO HELP THEM DEFEND US.


Dial 911 is a glorified Government sponsored "Dial-a-Prayer" because a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone if your OBJECTIVE is to stay alive.

[Osborn F Enready]

I see Sonart is still in denial here.....

[Halofan48]

I want someone to please provide about 3 instances where a normal person used a gun to defend themselves that could not of done so with a Non-Lethal weapon or something like it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Halofan said: I want someone to please provide about 3 instances where a normal person used a gun to defend themselves that could not of done so with a Non-Lethal weapon or something like it.

Are you serious?!? Like you actually doubt it happens?

Here is a link where you can read to your hearts content.....

Here is a link to "the Armed Citizen" archives, which are ALL officially reported examples of armed self defense. Search yourself for cases that intrest you:
NRA-ILA :: Armed Citizen

How often are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Non-lethal weapons don't "equalize" all opponents, as does lethal force.