| Court Records https://forums.court-records.net/ |
|
| supreme court challenges handgun ban https://forums.court-records.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=17119 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | L_J [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | supreme court challenges handgun ban |
the supreme court has decided to challenge chicago's ban on handguns and thus state/local law. article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... guns_N.htm your thoughts on rights to hold firearms and the second amendment? |
|
| Author: | GigaHand [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
...Why are they doing this again? |
|
| Author: | Zeronos [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Like so many other things in this world, it's something that was good to have at the time but in the present day has become unnecessary, and honestly...too much goddamn trouble. Also, like its siblings in this category, the only real argument for keeping it is "we like it". As for like, shotguns and rifles? Sure, why not. Owning them serves a purpose. Handguns...less so. |
|
| Author: | neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Personally I am for gun control. My evidence is the tragedy of VT could have been averted if there were stronger laws to prevent him from getting those weapons. I don't know the details of Columbine so I can't speak for that. While I do admit that there guns will be availible illegally in America, most of the fears that people have are unfounded. With modern alarm systems, it's rather foolish to attept to rob a house, and even then, the smart thief (or even the one with a lick of common sense), will try to rob it while it's empty. As far as mugging goes, it won't matter at that point. If someone has a gun on you, if you attempt to draw for yours, he'll fire on you at the first sign. But that's just my two cents. |
|
| Author: | GigaHand [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
The problem with gun control laws is, it doesn't solve the problem. May I quote Winston Payne: A person usually wouldn't kill someone without a motive! Something as small as not getting one's hands on a gun would do little to prevent the situation, they could use something legal Spoiler: examples And if they bludgeon their victim to death it actually makes the case harder to solve, as the murder weapon is harder to track down. The only argument against it I can think of is to prevent accidents. An argument for it would be self-defence. I see nothing tipping the scales either way, I say it's safe to ignore it. |
|
| Author: | jonathanrp [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
I support gun control, because of all that has happened in my state. The incident where 3 police officers were killed The guy who shot 12 people in the health club (I live in Pennsylvania. And I really don't feel comfortable walking around in pittsburgh with all of the gangs and such. Who knows who has guns or not?) |
|
| Author: | neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
GigaHand wrote: The problem with gun control laws is, it doesn't solve the problem. May I quote Winston Payne: A person usually wouldn't kill someone without a motive! Something as small as not getting one's hands on a gun would do little to prevent the situation, they could use something legal Spoiler: examples And if they bludgeon their victim to death it actually makes the case harder to solve, as the murder weapon is harder to track down. The only argument against it I can think of is to prevent accidents. An argument for it would be self-defence. I see nothing tipping the scales either way, I say it's safe to ignore it. Melee weapons are poor choices when one want's to commite violence on a massive scale. Plus, melee weapons give the victim a good chance to fight back. |
|
| Author: | jonathanrp [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Well... Serial Killers rarely use guns to kill their victims, however... |
|
| Author: | GigaHand [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
neoswordmaster wrote: GigaHand wrote: The problem with gun control laws is, it doesn't solve the problem. May I quote Winston Payne: A person usually wouldn't kill someone without a motive! Something as small as not getting one's hands on a gun would do little to prevent the situation, they could use something legal Spoiler: examples And if they bludgeon their victim to death it actually makes the case harder to solve, as the murder weapon is harder to track down. The only argument against it I can think of is to prevent accidents. An argument for it would be self-defence. I see nothing tipping the scales either way, I say it's safe to ignore it. Melee weapons are poor choices when one want's to commite violence on a massive scale. Plus, melee weapons give the victim a good chance to fight back. A good chance... no, I don't think so. As this is a clash of opinions, it seems proof will have to be presented to end it. Also, I heard (from an unreliable source) that only 2% of all murders that are performed with a firearm are done with a legally obtained weapon. If this is true, we don't need more laws, we need more law enforcement. My point being, stricter laws won't help. The tragedy at VT you mentioned earlier, could you provide me with more info? Like a link or a news article? Because otherwise all I have is this baseless assumption: that the weapon was already illegal, and therefore no law would prevent it. |
|
| Author: | neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
^ Cho's weapons were bought leggally from a gun store. http://web.archive.org/web/200709271953 ... 73020.html Give me some time, I think I might find a few more examples of gun violence. |
|
| Author: | GigaHand [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Heck, I'll just let these guys do my talking for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8bbO8oU9g |
|
| Author: | neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Sorry, let my position on the matter be made. I am for stronger laws, but no so much in taking away guns permanantly. I just think that we need some more working on who can and cannot buy guns in the first place. If a person has a mental disability or such, then they should be denied the ability to buy guns. |
|
| Author: | Mike Christiansen [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Well, being Texan and in the NRA, I must say I disagree with any gun ban. You see, rifles and shotguns have purpose in small and medium - even some large - game hunting. However, in this brutal day and age, having a legal, licensed handgun is a good thing to give you peace of mind. To know that if someone endangers your life, you may very well have on your person the tools to remove yourself from said danger. Virginia's laws were too loosely enforced, and that's why it happened. The Columbine Incident occurred when 2 teenagers got their hands on their fathers' legally-possessed TEC-DC9, Model 995, Springfield 67H, and Savage 311-D. Of course, they also carried several homemade bombs. IEDs, as the term would describe. Neither are fault of the law. They're fault of poor enforcement. VT by the State of Virginia and the owner of the firearms shop, although to a lesser degree. Columbine by the parents of the children. I find gun bans to be a direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and that they do the exact same thing as the 18th Amendment did for Alcohol. No one listens. Crimes are performed by those who own them illegally, and what's another law going to do to stop that? I'm Mike Christiansen, and I approve this message. |
|
| Author: | crouton [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
I really don't think there's a need for everyone to have access to handguns. Hunting rifles and such, fine. But handguns which are easily concealed? No. |
|
| Author: | neoswordmaster [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
crouton wrote: I really don't think there's a need for everyone to have access to handguns. Hunting rifles and such, fine. But handguns which are easily concealed? No. Really? You can't protect yourself as efficiently with a hunting rifle. (I'm for stricter enforcement laws, not banning). |
|
| Author: | justis76 [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Guns were made by foolishly foolish fools, for foolishly foolish fools, and violence begets violence, so I'm going to have to say that getting rid of handguns may be a good idea, depending on why it was banned. Don't know much about Chicago, so if it's got a high crime rate, then it'd make sense to ban guns, as people are less likely to kill people with hunting rifles, since there are fewer and are probably easier to track. Personally, if you're in a bad place and want to keep yourself safe, you might just want to get out of there. No amount of handguns is ever going to make anywhere a better place to live. |
|
| Author: | Ninja Steve [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Honestly speaking, I don't see the appeal in owning guns. That being said, I do believe that people have a right to do so. Since most crimes (repeat: CRIMES!) are probably committed with illegally-owned firearms, I don't see the point in taking away the guns of the people who aren't criminals. Which, in all honesty, is all that stricter laws is going to do. |
|
| Author: | Johnny Rotan [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
  Sums up my view nicely.  If you don't like it i could care less. On a related note; here's something congress is trying to sneak in below the radar: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp It's going to be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the case because they've been "leaning to the left" for quite awhile now. I'm suprised the ban has been in effect since 1982. I don't think it's worked 
|
|
| Author: | dullahan1 [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Meh. If we don't have guns, people are just going to find other ways to kill each other anyways. Guns are just faster. Honestly, I'm against gun bans myself. People need a way to protect themselves. No matter what kind of situation you have, there's always going to be positive and negative aspects to it. I'd risk the negative to keep myself protected if the need arises. |
|
| Author: | Mike Christiansen [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Well, mister foolish fool, I hate to break it to ya, but removing guns from people who abide by the law won't remove them from people who break the law. And most violent crimes related to firearms occur with illegally-owned weapons. If you're already breakin' the law, you're gonna keep goin'. And in that case, I want to be able to pull my own gun on the bastard to get him to put his down. If I said it should be illegal to have pornography on your computer, people would still do it. I mean, I'm a minor and... And so are most of the people I know. It hasn't stopped us, that law. Nor will it stop criminals to ban guns. And Crouton, you see, that is the purpose of the handgun. To have a small, close-quarters weapon that can be placed on one's person in such a way it is invisible. It is physically impossible to fire a bolt-action .22 caliber rifle at someone who illegally owns a handgun if you're right next to him. For starters, it's illegal to carry a rifle in public if it's loaded. Of course, there's the fact that the barrel is so damn long. Add to that priming time. I don't know about other states, but in Texas, there's this license you can get. A License to Carry a Concealed Firearm. It comes with many, many restrictions. However, it lets you carry a handgun for self-defense purposes. I believe the Constitution is still right, although its wording is not. There's no longer a need to own firearms to keep up a militia, but to keep up one's own self-defense, since it's a dog-eat-dog world out there. In some places, you're almost begging to be shot, just standing there. It's like I said in another thread. In Texas, the old Castle Law still stands in its original 1800s glory. If someone's on your property after dark, and they're not a law officer, you can shoot 'em, kill 'em, and you can't be charged with murder or sued by the survivors of the ones shot. Of course, a law officer must confirm that the person was there illegally. And, if they're in your house at any time, illegally, the rules apply. Tell me how I'm supposed to maneuver a 3 and a half foot-long rifle, bring it to bear, and even injure a robber, rapist, or murderer? |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
My opinion is that we need stricter gun laws....but only because I'm afraid of getting shot one day.... 
|
|
| Author: | GigaHand [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Yaragorm wrote: My opinion is that we need stricter gun laws....but only because I'm afraid of getting shot one day.... Please, could you elaborate? Is it that you're afraid of getting shot, or afraid of being assaulted? If it's being shot, then your opinion makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't much make sense that you have an opinion, as stricter gun control will do little to ease your fears. |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
GigaHand wrote: Yaragorm wrote: My opinion is that we need stricter gun laws....but only because I'm afraid of getting shot one day.... Please, could you elaborate? Is it that you're afraid of getting shot, or afraid of being assaulted? If it's being shot, then your opinion makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't much make sense that you have an opinion, as stricter gun control will do little to ease your fears. Yes, I'm afraid I could get shot....although I don't have much reason to get shot, I'm just afraid it could happen someday... |
|
| Author: | Mike Christiansen [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
The matter is not stricter laws at all, but stricter enforcement of the existing laws. If more effort was put into enforcing laws about gun possession already in place, there would be fewer violent crimes. The people who legally own guns own them for nonviolent purposes. They own them for hunting, for sport, for the sheer thrill of holding that kind of power in your hands. These people don't shoot people, but game animals and clay and paper. It is unlawful in most states to own an AK-47 assault rifle. Makes sense because assault weapons can't be used for many nonviolent purposes. You can't hunt with one. Also, the AK-47 is most attributed to violent crime, because it's cheap and easy. The best way to find the illegal owners is to make it illegal to own it at all. Then, the criminals who own them stick out while the law-abiding men and women fade into grey. It should not be unlawful to own any sort of handgun, however, because they're small personal defense weapons. The law enforcement authorities will not always be there, so it's a good thing to have your little contingency. Peace of Mind. |
|
| Author: | Tinker [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Johnny Rotan wrote: Uh, how is this a bad thing? Needing to make sure you're not insane, you're not illegally here or involved with crime, you're able to keep it away from kids and you're easily found if you have committed a crime? Seems reasonable to me. |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Mike Christiansen wrote: for the sheer thrill of holding that kind of power in your hands. Um, wrong choice of words there... 
|
|
| Author: | Mike Christiansen [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Tinker wrote: Johnny Rotan wrote: Uh, how is this a bad thing? Needing to make sure you're not insane, you're not illegally here or involved with crime, you're able to keep it away from kids and you're easily found if you have committed a crime? Seems reasonable to me. I said nothing about gun laws currently in place. Those are fine. Additive gun laws notsomuch. And there's something for some people about holding it. Not firing it or even priming it, but holding it. Knowing that at any moment, you can let off a round that can make the choice of life and death. It's like owning an Italian sports car. You own it for the thrill of owning it, not because you can actually take it up to 200 or ever will. |
|
| Author: | Johnny Rotan [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: supreme court challenges handgun ban |
Mike Christiansen wrote: Tinker wrote: Johnny Rotan wrote: Uh, how is this a bad thing? Needing to make sure you're not insane, you're not illegally here or involved with crime, you're able to keep it away from kids and you're easily found if you have committed a crime? Seems reasonable to me. I said nothing about gun laws currently in place. Those are fine. Additive gun laws notsomuch. And that's why i posted it. This is a piece of bullshit legislation that congress didn't even let gun stores know about. Because they don't want people to know until it's too late. It's the dreaded registration shit. If it goes through the government will know who owns guns or not. Making it that much easier to confiscate them later. Despite him saying otherwise obama is anti gun, and no doubt he'll sign it in, unless there's an uproar from the public. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|