Justices agree on right to own guns

[Halofan48]

Well, considering it'd be a 2 on 1 fight, even if the man was stronger, it'd be a difficult fight. Also, when threatened, humans can exhibit incredible strength due to adrenaline. Also, a knife wound is once again a lot less deadly than a gun wound. Also, during the struggle between them while he tries with the knife, time would pass, where he may calm down. A gun is simple. He picks it up, turns off safety, does whatever else needs to be done, point and pull the trigger. There, you have just killed the person in just a few seconds, so calming down in that time would be unlikely. Seriously, if we just invested what we do in guns and the like, i'm sure we could make a non-lethal weapon with the same stopping power. Maybe some people just like to be able to kill each other with very little effort I guess.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Halofan48 Let me ask you something milton. Lets say two men living in the same area with the same circumstances, the only difference between them being one has a gun the other does not. Both live in a two story home with the bedroom on the second floor. Both come home one day and find their wives sleeping with another man. Now, both are greatly enraged. The man with the gun, in this state, reaches for the weapon, picks it up and shoots them both, taking only a few seconds to murder them in this period of great emotional stress. The other man, with no weapon, may head downstairs, finds a knife (since a car can't reach the second floor). This takes longer meaning there is more time for him to calm down and not commit the crime. If he still proceeds, the wife and other man will be able to fight back much more effectively as the man will be closer, and are more likely to survive an injury with that weapon. The man with the gun is much more dangerous. You cannot effectively fight back against it unless you are very quick, you are less likely to survive a wound from it then a knife as well. This is called a crime of passion. It is when, in the heat of intense emotional stress commit a crime in response to the emotion. Understand?

While I'm sympathetic to the victims, and crimes of passion are tragic, but they don't trump "my" rights.


Why do you attempt to bring other peoples behavior into the case of Volconvo vs Milton Bradley? Milton Bradley is not gunning down cheating spouses, or their lovers.


This is another glaring hole in Liberal philosophy, punishing everybody to save a few. In other words, political correctness in action. The majority being expected to saccrifice for the good of the minority.


Understand the fear that you have of guns, now imagine how I feel, as I fear a government that operates on Liberal philosophies, and all the youngsters they educate seem to come out of those institutions with the same message you have, saccrifice, saccrifice, saccrifice.


Sorry, but I'm not inclined to act the role of "saccrificial animal" to appease people whose logic is flawed, and their intent subversive to the nature of this country.


You want to talk about saccrifice, let's see you guys practice what you preach, and you saccrifice on this issue.


Prove to us you are capable of practicing what you preach.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If he carries around a gun, he may just carry around a knife anyway, and if both have guns, they are on equal ground, rather than the bigger, stronger or more combat competent one, having complete advantage.

Don't get sucked into his circular logic, make him meet you on a fair playing field.

[Halofan48]

lol, oh milton, i like how you call our logic flawed simply because it does not agree with your views. I guess if by having opposing views means its flawed, then therefore everyone's logic is flawed since there are many people we dis agree with. What i was trying to do with my argument Milton, was show that yes, there are times where someone is trying to kill you and is dead intent on it and doesn't need a gun. I showed there are cases where people who don't mean to kill a person do because in a fit of rage they use a gun and kill someone. Understand?

Also, i'm fine with just stricter gun control, I'm just expressing my opinion that guns should not be available to the public .

Also, for the "cars are weapons" argument, a car is really the only available personal transport that can take a person long distances. Try getting to from L.A. to San Fransisco on a bike, it'll take a real long time. In a car, you can do it a lot more easily. Really, with defensive items, there are alternatives. Plus, once again, if we spent more time on developing Non-lethal weapons we'd easily provide protection. Why do you still protest? I would think anyone would prefer detaining the person without killing them. Why do you appear so against NLWs ?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Halofan48 lol, oh milton, i like how you call our logic flawed

I'm offering you the chance to illustrate where I'm wrong, but here seventeen pages into this thread, nothing.

Quote by: Halofan48 I guess if by having opposing views means its flawed, then therefore everyone's logic is flawed since there are many people we dis agree with. What i was trying to do with my argument Milton, was show that yes, there are times where someone is trying to kill you and is dead intent on it and doesn't need a gun. I showed there are cases where people who don't mean to kill a person do because in a fit of rage they use a gun and kill someone. Understand?

I did, and I addressed it in the same way the government is authorized to address it. The punish the criminal, and leave the US vs. Everybody Else out of it.


You were trying, as others here have, to transfer the responsibility of the individual commiting the crime onto the tool you fear, the gun.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, i'm fine with just stricter gun control, I'm just expressing my opinion that guns should not be available to the public .

Obviously I am not.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, for the "cars are weapons" argument,... Really, with defensive items, there are alternatives.

Indeed, and every single one of them includes letting the constituency keep their cars.


Why must the answer to the gun problem be any different?

Quote by: Halofan48 Plus, once again, if we spent more time on developing Non-lethal weapons we'd easily provide protection. Why do you still protest? I would think anyone would prefer detaining the person without killing them. Why do you appear so against NLWs ?

I think they encourage law enforcement officers to use force, often imposing unconstitutional laws. Besides that, I think they are often cruel, and unusual punishments.


Do you sanction electric shock therapy in any other instances?


They are the perfect tool of the Police State, and I don't want to live in a Police State.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I'm offering you the chance to illustrate where I'm wrong, but here seventeen pages into this thread, nothing. I did, and I addressed it in the same way the government is authorized to address it. The punish the criminal, and leave the US vs. Everybody Else out of it. You were trying, as others here have, to transfer the responsibility of the individual commiting the crime onto the tool you fear, the gun. Obviously I am not. Indeed, and every single one of them includes letting the constituency keep their cars. Why must the answer to the gun problem be any different? I think they encourage law enforcement officers to use force, often imposing unconstitutional laws. Besides that, I think they are often cruel, and unusual punishments. Do you sanction electric shock therapy in any other instances? They are the perfect tool of the Police State, and I don't want to live in a Police State.

People have provided evidence milton, you just choose not to accept it. Milton, if people are being killed, shouldn't we try to prevent that? just maybe? If there are alternatives, why not use them? Why should we doom many people to die simply because you want to be able to kill someone with ease? Ya that makes loads of sense

Also, if not ban guns, why not just make stricter gun control? The only people who'd have anything to fear from this would be the people who would be denied a weapon because they would be found unfit to carry a gun.

Also, there are other NLWs other than just tazers milton. Beanbag guns, are one. Also, killing a criminal with a gun could be considered wrong since your denying them the right to a trial. Also, it wouldn't be under the amendment denying no cruel and unusual punishment since it would be to protect you from immediate harm and not sentenced by a court of law.

And really, in a police state, they'd probably want normal guns more, as to silence any insurrection easily and not spend more resources in trying to keep them quiet without killing them.

Yet, since you insist milton, i'll find some articles covering some stories of misuse of guns.

Girl shot over $35

Boy shoots sister over potato chips (there will be a 15 second film before the video)

5 year old shoots accidentally shoots himself in the head with family gun

5 year old boy kills sister with a gun

school shooting in cleveland

Another boy shoots himself while playing with a gun

Just a few quick stories i found in a few minutes showing that guns can be a dangerous item to be stored. You'll argue it's irresponsibility but since we can't do weekly checks with every gun owner, we'd need to have stricter control or no guns.

some statistics you might consider

Oh lets not forget the homicide rate image sonart has posted many many times now.

Now below are some sites that are likely to have a bias against guns, so i'm making sure u guys know ok.

Gun control network statistics

texans for gun safety


This is all i'll post for tonight, i need to go to bed soon, so there ya go milton.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Halofan48 People have provided evidence milton, you just choose not to accept it. Milton, if people are being killed, shouldn't we try to prevent that? just maybe? If there are alternatives, why not use them? Why should we doom many people to die simply because you want to be able to kill someone with ease? Ya that makes loads of sense

No, you have provided opinion. The only evidence you have can't be used against me, as I'm not a criminal.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, if not ban guns, why not just make stricter gun control?

Go ahead, use the legitimate lasw to see if your idea is democratic, and diplomatic. I mean, you have nothing to fear with that solid reasoning, right.

Quote by: Halofan48 The only people who'd have anything to fear from this would be the people who would be denied a weapon because they would be found unfit to carry a gun.

Well, and people who think the anti-gunners are just apologists for tyrants.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, there are other NLWs other than just tazers milton. Beanbag guns, are one.

Waltzing around the point again I see.


Answer the question... Do you sanction electric shock therepy in any other instances?

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, killing a criminal with a gun could be considered wrong since your denying them the right to a trial.

Gimme a break.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, it wouldn't be under the amendment denying no cruel and unusual punishment since it would be to protect you from immediate harm and not sentenced by a court of law.

Perhaps if the government were empowered to act in that manor, but as it is, they're not, and I don't intend to vote for that idea if it comes to that.

Quote by: Halofan48 And really, in a police state, they'd probably want normal guns more, as to silence any insurrection easily and not spend more resources in trying to keep them quiet without killing them.

Oh, they have them, or have you forgotten.

Quote by: Halofan48 Yet, since you insist milton, i'll find some articles covering some stories of misuse of guns.

I'm well aware of the misuse of guns. What I'm not aware of is how that validates punishing me, as I am not misusing guns.


Beyond that, I still don't sympathize with the bleeding heart Liberal answer that we must all saccrifice to appease your fears. This is a free society, if you can't handle it, try moving where that have laws that afford that protection. Perhaps move to a gated community where guns are illegal, and security is provided


Why must your Liberal solutions always include asking all to saccrifice?

Quote by: Halofan48 Just a few quick stories i found in a few minutes showing that guns can be a dangerous item to be stored. You'll argue it's irresponsibility but since we can't do weekly checks with every gun owner, we'd need to have stricter control or no guns.

You mean "you think" we need blah blah blah...

Quote by: Halofan48 Oh lets not forget the homicide rate image sonart has posted many many times now.

What we should address is how you are conveniently in denial that that is not a point of contention, and drop it already.

Quote by: Halofan48 Now below are some sites that are likely to have a bias against guns, so i'm making sure u guys know ok.

Why, why should I address any of your links if they just reiterate the same garbage I have debunked over, and over again?

Quote by: Halofan48 This is all i'll post for tonight, i need to go to bed soon, so there ya go milton.

Thanks for nothing. Thanks for missing the entire point of "justifying your beliefs", and wasting my time. Thanks again, really appreciate it.

[Halofan48]

This is what i'm talking about milton. We provide evidence and some logical thoughts, and you just dismiss it without a second thought. Ugh, look milton, if there are lots of gun related crimes in the U.S., shouldn't we try to make laws to control the flow of weapons as so they are less likely to end up in the wrong hands? Or are you completely ok with the fact convicted felons have been able to legally purchase weapons?

Also, i wasn't "Waltzing around the point" I simply stated that there are more than just tazers for NLWs. Then later on in my post, which you tore into pieces for reasons i can only guess, i stated that tazers were not a punishment dealt in a court of law but a defensive device for the people milton. You are allowed to own tazers. So ya, not just cops have them.

Why, why should I address any of your links if they just reiterate the same garbage I have debunked over, and over again?

Well, milton, i just said that these were two sources that may be biased. The other links were articles covering events that took place because of the availability of a gun.

Also milton, if you just want to totally disregard all opposing arguments, don't debate and leave the thread. People who only sit there and disagree no matter how much we present are contributing nothing to the debate.

[Milton Bradley]

OK, so in your eyes, the problem is 200,000,000 guns.


If we had, say that same number of people out climbing mountains, would there be any less accidents, and death?


How about two hundred million skydivers?


See, so unless you are prepared to banish all activities which could possibky harm people at a similar arbtrary number, than you just trying to get us all to saccrifice to appease your bias.


If you are prepared to banish all those activities, you're just another wanna be tyrant, so don't look for my support. As a matter of fact, count on my opposition.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Halofan48 This is what i'm talking about milton. We provide evidence and some logical thoughts, and you just dismiss it without a second thought.

Nonsense, I contemplated your logic long before I ever entered the thread. These are the same arguments we have heard time, and time again.


What justification do you have to use others peoples behavior against me?

Quote by: Halofan48 Ugh, look milton, if there are lots of gun related crimes in the U.S., shouldn't we try to make laws to control the flow of weapons as so they are less likely to end up in the wrong hands?

They already have, many many times.


Are they enforcing all of those laws?

Quote by: Halofan48 Or are you completely ok with the fact convicted felons have been able to legally purchase weapons?

Honestly, I'm less concerned with that, than saccrificing all peoples rights to prevent it on the few occasions it's actually happened.

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, i wasn't "Waltzing around the point"

Yet here you enter another post without answering the question.


Matter of fact, i don't see you attempting to answer many of the questions presented either.


What am I to think?

Quote by: Halofan48 I simply stated that there are more than just tazers for NLWs. Then later on in my post, which you tore into pieces for reasons i can only guess, i stated that tazers were not a punishment dealt in a court of law but a defensive device for the people milton. You are allowed to own tazers. So ya, not just cops have them.

And none of this opinion even attempt to address my already stated opinion on why I disapprove.

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, milton, i just said that these were two sources that may be biased. The other links were articles covering events that took place because of the availability of a gun.

And I have stated numerous times why I think that angle is invalid, as others peoples behavior cannot be used against me in a court of law?


Why do I stipulate a "court of law", well, I'm glad you asked.


I ask that, because since Liberals are content to rest on their hypocrisy, and not attempt to pass this legislation legally ( you know, those pesky Constutional Ammendment thingies that require consent ) , that this will just end up before a Judge who will rule that in the USA, in fact, you do not have the right to use others peoples bahavior against the person whom you legislation affects.


I want to know why you Liberals think using that evidence juistifies punishing law abiding citizens is a valid concept?

Quote by: Halofan48 Also milton, if you just want to totally disregard all opposing arguments, don't debate and leave the thread.

I am only disregarding the same old drivel that has already been presented, shown to be unreasonable, illegal, unworkable, or just plain stupid.


Had you kept up with the conversation, you would know this. Well, unless, like all the other Liberals here, you are in denial, or are doing just what you claim I am doing, and disreagarding all of my valid points.

Quote by: Halofan48 People who only sit there and disagree no matter how much we present are contributing nothing to the debate.

What's to debate, you just keep citing previously cited opinion, which, as I said, has been shown to be at odds with existing laws, popular opinion, and common sense.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Then I'd just have to wait for them to come outside, or perhaps opt to attempt to force my way in, and push them out of the window. If my goal is to kill, I'll kill, or try my very best. No, but like in any other example, the car, the gun, or the window all require the "criminal intent" of the user. Illustrating why it is silly to attempt to ban guns in an attempt to prevent criminal behavior. Those inclined towards criminal behavior will just find another way to achieve their ends. That's what humans do. This is only about "eficiency" to the anti-gun crowd. We don't even conceed that that is a valid argument. That's why the automobile analogy was supposed to illustrate the folly of demonizing inanimate objects. The true danger ( man ) will just find another "tool" to achieve his ends. Why don't you just admit that humans are the real problem, and that you're one of us. Then, I'd like to take a minute to ask you to ponder the vastness of the universe, and admit you are not at the center.

That is why the laws we wish to pass put the humans in jail who use the inanimate objects for their own nefarious ends. The laws regulate the humans access to the guns, they don't punish the guns. Really, the point of any legislation would be to take your selfish concerns and make them take a back seat to the concerns of the larger community. When you pass laws saying you can't opperate an automobile if you have been drinking, you aren't attempting to "demonize" either alcohol or cars, you are trying to limit the damage careless and self-centered humans can do to other humans who are harmed by their actions.

I think maybe you are a little confused as to who has the selfish motives in this situation. Humans have been passing laws that regulate access to and use of potentially harmful inanimate objects for a long time. A scapel, afterall, can't harm anyone on it's own but that does not mean that we do not limit who can opperate on other humans. Your reasoning is beyond me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 That is why the laws we wish to pass put the humans in jail who use the inanimate objects for their own nefarious ends.

But the underlying principle behind this legislation requires you to demonize the gun, affecting all citizens, not just criminals, or even "potential" criminals. You effectively end up punishing everybody to appease your fears.

Quote by: lsbskins1 The laws regulate the humans access to the guns, they don't punish the guns.

Well, they punish the innocent for the crimes, or the intent of the guilty.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Really, the point of any legislation would be to take your selfish concerns and make them take a back seat to the concerns of the larger community.

Wait, I'm not trying to push my "selfish concerns" on anybody, you are.

Quote by: lsbskins1 When you pass laws saying you can't opperate an automobile if you have been drinking, you aren't attempting to "demonize" either alcohol or cars, you are trying to limit the damage careless and self-centered humans can do to other humans who are harmed by their actions.

And yet you're content for that to be a State matter, and let the constituency keep their automobiles. All types, no stipulations except that they meet the EPA requirements for the year of manufacture.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I think maybe you are a little confused as to who has the selfish motives in this situation.

I don't deny my motives are selfish, but it seems you are in deep denial about your motives, as you are the one pushing for a change of rules.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Humans have been passing laws that regulate access to and use of potentially harmful inanimate objects for a long time. A scapel, afterall, can't harm anyone on it's own but that does not mean that we do not limit who can opperate on other humans. Your reasoning is beyond me.

Scalpels are not banned. I happen to have one in right here in my set of surgical tools. As a matter of fact, the kit contains several different types of cutting tools, all pefectly legal.


Try again.

[lsbskins1]

Milton -

I will return again to the idea of representative self government. It may be accurate to call both of our motives for voting or advocating as we do selfish, but I am the one suggesting that the voice of the people, and the concerns of the larger community deserve to be heard. I hardly think that qualifies as the "more selfish" approach. Unless, of course, you define selfish desires as any desire other than Milton's desires.

And again, I do not demonize inanimate objects. What I do is recognize each object's intended purpose and it's tendency to enhance the lives of humans versus it's potential for harm. Each object must be judged on it's individual potential in each area. I think my assesment is the more sound.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Milton - I will return again to the idea of representative self government. It may be accurate to call both of our motives for voting or advocating as we do selfish, but I am the one suggesting that the voice of the people, and the concerns of the larger community deserve to be heard. I hardly think that qualifies as the "more selfish" approach. Unless, of course, you define selfish desires as any desire other than Milton's desires. And again, I do not demonize inanimate objects. What I do is recognize each object's intended purpose and it's tendency to enhance the lives of humans versus it's potential for harm. Each object must be judged on it's individual potential in each area. I think my assesment is the more sound.

What can I tell you, I, and the Framers of the Constitution disagree. Not only that, but each State then ratified that same document, implying that they too agreed upon the conditions set therein.


Sorry, but many of us feel that the right to protect ourselves in absense of "officials" hired to protect us, is a right more precious than appeasing certain individuals who seem to suffer from some irrational fear complex.


I'm also sorry if you take that as an personal insult, because I just can't articulate it any other way. You seem to be scared of guns, or, like I contested before, you are engaging in some agenda driven behavior.

[Red]

Quote by: Article Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials. Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Interesting. It makes one think: does this contrast in violence has anything to do with the prohibition of handguns?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley What can I tell you, I, and the Framers of the Constitution disagree. Not only that, but each State then ratified that same document, implying that they too agreed upon the conditions set therein. Sorry, but many of us feel that the right to protect ourselves in absense of "officials" hired to protect us, is a right more precious than appeasing certain individuals who seem to suffer from some irrational fear complex. I'm also sorry if you take that as an personal insult, because I just can't articulate it any other way. You seem to be scared of guns, or, like I contested before, you are engaging in some agenda driven behavior.

When "certain individuals" become a majority of the voting public, they cease to be "certain individuals" and become "the voice of the people" and the issue then becomes one of you, the minority, having to establish that there is some sort of practical necessity and/or a real danger to your personal liberty involved. You seem to be making an unconvincing case. You can not establish that having access to assault rifles will protect you from a government that has assault rifles, tanks, riot gear, unmanned drones, and countless other weapons. The truth of the matter is that your real protection is not the guns, it is the vote and the courts and respect for the rights of individuals other than yourself. The very rhetoric you so love is more dangerous to your liberty than any law that would limit your access to any weapon. Every time you demonize your opposition, every time you put out the message that anyone who disagrees with you must have "irrational fears" or be a "nanny stater", you create more fertile soil for planting the seeds that allow a government that feels free to treat you the same way to grow and flourish. Just remember this, no matter what you may have heard, fascists always jail the "irrational political opposition" first. They already know they have bigger guns. In the modern world, they care more about the power of words than the power of guns. You seem to have little real knowledge of the real protections and freedoms you enjoy as an American citizen. You are more of a threat to your liberty than I could ever be.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 When "certain individuals" become a majority of the voting public, they cease to be "certain individuals" and become "the voice of the people" and the issue then becomes one of you, the minority, having to establish that there is some sort of practical necessity and/or a real danger to your personal liberty involved.

Still, I see the same hypocrisy present in your approach, and not an attempt to create the laws you desire by consent, but again, by using the bully pulpit, brow beating, and the use of force to forward your own agenda.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You seem to be making an unconvincing case.

So say the Liberals present, as yet, I haven't seen any solid reaoning on which to base that opinion.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You can not establish that having access to assault rifles will protect you from a government that has assault rifles, tanks, riot gear, unmanned drones, and countless other weapons.

Again, you conveniently forget the other aspects of the argument, that I need to protect myself from other citizens, or foreign aggressors.

Quote by: lsbskins1 The truth of the matter is that your real protection is not the guns, it is the vote and the courts and respect for the rights of individuals other than yourself. The very rhetoric you so love is more dangerous to your liberty than any law that would limit your access to any weapon. Every time you demonize your opposition, every time you put out the message that anyone who disagrees with you must have "irrational fears" or be a "nanny stater", you create more fertile soil for planting the seeds that allow a government that