Supreme Court Finally Stands Up For Gun Owners Options

[DEATH]

There is no solution. One of these days people are going to realise that violence and crime are human behavior - You won't stop it. I wish I could say there is a better more peaceful solution but I can't. If I were you I would do whatever it takes to legally arm myself [Not sure what that means for you. Legal permits or move away - IDK]
Thanks for having the maturity to discuss this rationally tho. Too often I see anti-gun people get too worked up over the subject.

[DEATH]

He was being calm - as were we all. Please don't instigate a problem where there was none.

[Sh0gunkid8721]

He was being calm - as were we all. Please don't instigate a problem where there was none.

its called sarcasm. notice the wink. wow...but back on topic. guns are bad and i believe 2 wrongs never make a right. So you own a gun...ur going to kill somebody who's trying to steal ur car or break into a home?? Do you feel that unsafe that you need to be carrying a gun around?


.u people take these forums WAAY to seriously.

[DEATH]

So you own a gun...ur going to kill somebody who's trying to steal ur car or break into a home??

Yes

Do you feel that unsafe that you need to be carrying a gun around?

You obviously don't live in Houston Texas. And yes I value human life less than I do my car as well.

[GriffGirl]

Wow, I'm shocked that this thread has become a debate about whether people should own guns or not. We had that thread about Obama vs. McCain vs. Hillary et al, so I think those of you who followed that thread know my own political views and know that all in all, I'm pretty left-wing.

The issue at question here should NOT be a matter of whether or not people should or shouldn't have guns as a matter of moral or ethical values. The debate in the Supreme Court IMO should NEVER have even gotten that far, and should've been a slam-dunk. I was SHOCKED that the ruling was 5-4. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution, and it is our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I suppose the framer's intent could be debated, as the wording of the amendment specifically states "a well-regulated militia". For over 200 years that has included individual citizens of the United States. With the exception of committing a felony, that right should NOT be revoked. Period.

I am honestly and truly embarrassed by the level of sheer stupidity and senseless, deceitful and greed-driven crap that our country has attempted to subjugate the world with these last few years. But I still believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and I'll be damned if some jackass is going to infringe on those inalienable rights.

[DEATH]

Well said.
Damn no I find myself speechless

[D-Man]

Because this entire world is completely fcuked up and I'm not gonna be sitting there begging someone to stop when they are raping, torturing or killing my girl, my children or myself. I'm going to be blowing nicely grouped holes in his chest.

Can I get an AMEN Brother?

and x2

My family's life is worth more than the person's who'd take it; IMO. My Gal makes the world a better place to live, And so does my daughter, Some peice of it comes to satisfy his own greedy little ambitions, Will not live to regret it; should i have a say in the matter. Be at my house, the gas station, the restaurant or w/e.

Infact, I fully support Gun CONTROL. I made my gal go with me to a shooting range, (and various buoys, This is Texas, it's cool. ) To learn how to use the weapon properly. She will have no problem defending our daughter if for whatever reason i cannot.

Yes; I sleep better at night knowing this.

Yes; i feel safer.

Yes; My family has less to fear for.

And anti-gun laws are just going to give the criminals, the molesters, the rapists, the muggers and the murderers the ADVANTAGE. They'll get guns. Think about this, Drugs are illegal, but yet we're spending BILLIONS of dollars trying to get rid of the drugs You think guns will dissappear? no; they wont. And if you get rid of enough of them, they'll comeback in different ways. Bombs, dart-guns, fcuking bows&arrows. Now that's gunna be fcuked up when you get robbed with throwing knifes and chineese stars

The point is that weapons will always exist. Weapons are what made us the great people we are now. The ability to win a fight

This post has been edited by D-Man: Jun 27, 2008 - 4:39 PM

[Sh0gunkid8721]

So you own a gun...ur going to kill somebody who's trying to steal ur car or break into a home??

Yes

Do you feel that unsafe that you need to be carrying a gun around?

You obviously don't live in Houston Texas. And yes I value human life less than I do my car as well.

Yea cuz that's real rational. LOL.

Houston Texas? Try living in Camden, near Newark, going to college near Hartford, then transferring to college near Trenton, NJ and then we'll talk. Camden, Newark, Trenton and Hartford are all listed ahead of Houston as more dangerous cities to live in. Never once have i even thought about getting a gun. I dont live in Houston and i probably would have no problem living in Houston....Houston doesnt even break the top 25 most dangerous cities to live in (i'd actually feel more safe living in Houston in comparison to where ive been). Give me a break...ive lived near and in more dangerous cities than that. So you kill somebody thats trying to break into your house...you get life in prison...good job...but hey. At least you'll be safe in prison right?

[Havok1997GT]

Wow, I'm shocked that this thread has become a debate about whether people should own guns or not. We had that thread about Obama vs. McCain vs. Hillary et al, so I think those of you who followed that thread know my own political views and know that all in all, I'm pretty left-wing.

The issue at question here should NOT be a matter of whether or not people should or shouldn't have guns as a matter of moral or ethical values. The debate in the Supreme Court IMO should NEVER have even gotten that far, and should've been a slam-dunk. I was SHOCKED that the ruling was 5-4. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution, and it is our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I suppose the framer's intent could be debated, as the wording of the amendment specifically states "a well-regulated militia". For over 200 years that has included individual citizens of the United States. With the exception of committing a felony, that right should NOT be revoked. Period.

I am honestly and truly embarrassed by the level of sheer stupidity and senseless, deceitful and greed-driven crap that our country has attempted to subjugate the world with these last few years. But I still believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and I'll be damned if some jackass is going to infringe on those inalienable rights.

You madam are awesome.

Now, this is very simple. Guns do not kill people, bullets when shot out of that gun kill people, and bullets (normally) dont go off until the trigger is pulled, by (again, normally) a finger that is attached to a human hand. Thus, People kill people. IF not with a gun, then with a knife,bat,hammer,poison,rope,broken bottle,chainsaw, screw driver, bricks.......do i need to go on? It doesnt matter what you do with guns, people will kill people other ways. Atleast with guns the battle is even. and even if there are laws banning guns or making it harder to get them, well drugs are illegal arent they?

There is no solution, but being a good judge of what needs to be done. If i caught a person taking my car, i would not shot him, its a car, i love it, but its not worth a persons life. Now if you in my house, then your to close for comfort and your dead when you turn around. because im not going to give you the chance to think about hurting someone in that house. If you pull a knife on me, you intend to hurt me in a very bad way and maybe kill me, your dead. you want to get into a fist fight with me. we throw down, if i lose, i lose. i dont kill for out of pride. And with that is your solution.

People Have To Think.

[Sh0gunkid8721]

Wow, I'm shocked that this thread has become a debate about whether people should own guns or not. We had that thread about Obama vs. McCain vs. Hillary et al, so I think those of you who followed that thread know my own political views and know that all in all, I'm pretty left-wing.

The issue at question here should NOT be a matter of whether or not people should or shouldn't have guns as a matter of moral or ethical values. The debate in the Supreme Court IMO should NEVER have even gotten that far, and should've been a slam-dunk. I was SHOCKED that the ruling was 5-4. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution, and it is our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I suppose the framer's intent could be debated, as the wording of the amendment specifically states "a well-regulated militia". For over 200 years that has included individual citizens of the United States. With the exception of committing a felony, that right should NOT be revoked. Period.

I am honestly and truly embarrassed by the level of sheer stupidity and senseless, deceitful and greed-driven crap that our country has attempted to subjugate the world with these last few years. But I still believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and I'll be damned if some jackass is going to infringe on those inalienable rights.

You madam are awesome.

Now, this is very simple. Guns do not kill people, bullets when shot out of that gun kill people, and bullets (normally) dont go off until the trigger is pulled, by (again, normally) a finger that is attached to a human hand. Thus, People kill people. IF not with a gun, then with a knife,bat,hammer,poison,rope,broken bottle,chainsaw, screw driver, bricks.......do i need to go on? It doesnt matter what you do with guns, people will kill people other ways. Atleast with guns the battle is even. and even if there are laws banning guns or making it harder to get them, well drugs are illegal arent they?

There is no solution, but being a good judge of what needs to be done. If i caught a person taking my car, i would not shot him, its a car, i love it, but its not worth a persons life. Now if you in my house, then your to close for comfort and your dead when you turn around. because im not going to give you the chance to think about hurting someone in that house. If you pull a knife on me, you intend to hurt me in a very bad way and maybe kill me, your dead. you want to get into a fist fight with me. we throw down, if i lose, i lose. i dont kill for out of pride. And with that is your solution.

People Have To Think.

I agree with most of what you said...but i gotta ask you. If you can use all those things as weapons, why do you need to have full possession of a gun? People kill people like you said so whats the purpose of having a gun when in fact people are the only lethal weapons walking the streets. This is according to you.

Its amazing to see so many internet toughies in one place. But you actually were reasonable and rational unlike "death."

[laff09]

I'd like to chime in on this topic.

The reason this is so controversial.. isn't so much a second amendment fight. its a States rights issue. The Federal government is not supposed to interfere in States issues. period. It was a handgun ban in Wash DC, nothing concerning interstate commerce/trade or anything relating to cross state relations. I felt that it was a waste of federal tax dollars to even have this heard. Shouldn't the state courts be able to take care of this sufficiently?
However, I feel like handgun bans aren't really there to keep the streets gun free. Its just easier to lock a drugdealer up on gun charges for a couple years vs them getting out in 3-6 months on just drug charges, and thats why they made them illegal.

[Havok1997GT]

Wow, I'm shocked that this thread has become a debate about whether people should own guns or not. We had that thread about Obama vs. McCain vs. Hillary et al, so I think those of you who followed that thread know my own political views and know that all in all, I'm pretty left-wing.

The issue at question here should NOT be a matter of whether or not people should or shouldn't have guns as a matter of moral or ethical values. The debate in the Supreme Court IMO should NEVER have even gotten that far, and should've been a slam-dunk. I was SHOCKED that the ruling was 5-4. The job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution, and it is our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I suppose the framer's intent could be debated, as the wording of the amendment specifically states "a well-regulated militia". For over 200 years that has included individual citizens of the United States. With the exception of committing a felony, that right should NOT be revoked. Period.

I am honestly and truly embarrassed by the level of sheer stupidity and senseless, deceitful and greed-driven crap that our country has attempted to subjugate the world with these last few years. But I still believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and I'll be damned if some jackass is going to infringe on those inalienable rights.

You madam are awesome.

Now, this is very simple. Guns do not kill people, bullets when shot out of that gun kill people, and bullets (normally) dont go off until the trigger is pulled, by (again, normally) a finger that is attached to a human hand. Thus, People kill people. IF not with a gun, then with a knife,bat,hammer,poison,rope,broken bottle,chainsaw, screw driver, bricks.......do i need to go on? It doesnt matter what you do with guns, people will kill people other ways. Atleast with guns the battle is even. and even if there are laws banning guns or making it harder to get them, well drugs are illegal arent they?

There is no solution, but being a good judge of what needs to be done. If i caught a person taking my car, i would not shot him, its a car, i love it, but its not worth a persons life. Now if you in my house, then your to close for comfort and your dead when you turn around. because im not going to give you the chance to think about hurting someone in that house. If you pull a knife on me, you intend to hurt me in a very bad way and maybe kill me, your dead. you want to get into a fist fight with me. we throw down, if i lose, i lose. i dont kill for out of pride. And with that is your solution.

People Have To Think.

I agree with most of what you said...but i gotta ask you. If you can use all those things as weapons, why do you need to have full possession of a gun? People kill people like you said so whats the purpose of having a gun when in fact people are the only lethal weapons walking the streets. This is according to you.

Its amazing to see so many internet toughies in one place. But you actually were reasonable and rational unlike "death."

Question 1: Because everyone else is. In a lot of ways yes its adding fuel to the fire, yes its one more gun on the street, yes it makes you just as dangerous as the guy robbing you. But here is the thing, as stated before, you will lose if you take a knife to a gun fight. Most will anyways. And id rather be on even playing ground when confronted with another person with a gun. A friend of mine had the best answer i have ever heard about carrying a gun with you at all times. He is a cop and when he is off duty he carrys his guns with him at all times. When asked "Why do you always carry your guns with you?" he replied," Id rather have it with me and never need it, then not have it and need it"
Question 2: Because although people are the only really weapon on the street, most feel they need help to kill some one. And again, i want the game to be an even match.

[GriffGirl]

I'd like to chime in on this topic.

The reason this is so controversial.. isn't so much a second amendment fight. its a States rights issue. The Federal government is not supposed to interfere in States issues. period. It was a handgun ban in Wash DC, nothing concerning interstate commerce/trade or anything relating to cross state relations. I felt that it was a waste of federal tax dollars to even have this heard. Shouldn't the state courts be able to take care of this sufficiently?
However, I feel like handgun bans aren't really there to keep the streets gun free. Its just easier to lock a drugdealer up on gun charges for a couple years vs them getting out in 3-6 months on just drug charges, and thats why they made them illegal.

I have to disagree with this. Each state is entitled to its own laws and constitution within the confines of the US Constitution. But federal law trumps state law, period. California's medicinal marijuana law is a perfect example of this, as is Oregon's assisted suicide law. There can be a federal raid on those doing something that is perfectly within the confines of the state law, but goes against federal law.

Further, by the argument that the Federal government is not supposed to interfere in State issues, this would mean that basically states could do whatever they wanted— segregation, polygamy, the list could go on and on. But they can't do this, because we have the Constitution to defend these rights.

Again— the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are inalienable. It is not the role or right of any state or local jurisdiction to take away those rights because they feel like they want to.

For whatever it's worth, I grew up outside of DC and I remember what it was like, especially in the early 80s when crack first came on the scene. I know all about Camden and Newark too, for that matter having left the DC area for NYC, I know all about Flatbush and BedStuy. I'm not arguing for or against guns, my argument is for upholding the Constitution.

[GriffGirl]

I just have to throw this in real quick and then I'm done:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the 10th Amendment. Basically it simply means that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution. So it's kind of a balance between where the line is that federal law trumps state law. I know it's still a gray area, really I do. But it's not a gray area where constitutional right comes in. The state does not have the power to violate our constitutional rights.

[Legit94GT]

Back to the main topic. The SC ruled in favor of gun owners, some will say they didn't do enough and others will argue the opposite.

At the end of the day everyone will have a different opinion, this argure ment could go one for days and days, but we dispite our logical thinking it wont be enough to shake someones core beliefs. That can only happen when something happens to them to make it personal. When someone breaks into their house, and does bad things(sums up alot of naaaasssttty things there) only because the are holding you at XXXXX point, it doesnt matter if it is a gun, a knife, dynamite, or a RPG, people have always killed, the only thing that has changed over the years is how we kill eachother...

I am not trying to end this discussion at all, so please keep going, but no one is going to change a core belief because of what someone said on the internet, when it becomes real to them.

When asked "Why do you always carry your guns with you?" he replied," Id rather have it with me and never need it, then not have it and need it"

Truer words have never been spoken

[Legit94GT]

You don't need a society that requires you to carry a gun to get the proof or stats that I'm asking.. tell me how high is the percentage of gun related crimes in the US than any other 1st world countries in the world? That should suffice it. Talking about breaking houses, do you think that these burglars and thugs don't carry guns as well? And why would you be in a gun fight when there's no need for it?

You dont need to look at other countries just try to comprehend this...

More people die every year from car accidents every year than from all the guns deaths,

More people die from doctor negligence than from guns (its like a 400% difference, this guy at my work brought in all this stuff about stuff like this last week, i will be trying see where he got it from, but that will have to wait untill monday:/)

Strict gun laws only affect the future victims, as crooks are crooks and wont care about the law, hence them being crooks...
No one wants to be in gun fight, but that doesnt mean it wont happen, and i would rather be prepared and overly cautious, than dead. Its not that we need to have gun fights, but they happen...

There is no need for car accidents... but by following your "logic" we should just get rid of seat belts and airbags cause we shouldnt need them???

[Havok1997GT]

I dont see an argument forming here, its just a educated debate. I assure you im not arguing with anyone. and i dont think anyone should let it get that far. we talk about being able to have adult conversations with out them turning into arguments then keep it a discussion and everything is kool. Dont call it arguing people tend to get pissed off when its called that and things start to go down hill and it becomes a fight.


Second. I dont agree with your statement. Words change minds on a daily basis. Its whether or not those words are well thought out, and if people are listening.

[Jeunesse]

clap clap clap I would like to commend everybody that replied to this thread for it was kept clean, rational and mature...

There is no need for car accidents... but by following your "logic" we should just get rid of seat belts and airbags cause we shouldnt need them???

This is not what I meant... Seatbelts and airbags are meant to prevent you from getting more injuries or be killed thus a positive thing, hand guns are not meant to prevent you from being killed. Seatbelts and airbags are solutions/preventions for accidents and hand guns are not solutions for accidents or crime. Got it? again, 2 wrongs don't make it right.

Havok and Griff: Very well said.

edit: speaking of prevention for getting killed by a gun, maybe somebody would just invent something like a kevlar that you could use everyday, like incorporate in our daily clothes. lol a bulletproof brief or thong hahahaha

This post has been edited by Jeunesse: Jun 28, 2008 - 8:27 AM

[Havok1997GT]

guns can keep you from getting killed if your a better shot then the guy shooting at you.

[Legit94GT]

clap clap clap I would like to commend everybody that replied to this thread for it was kept clean, rational and mature...

There is no need for car accidents... but by following your "logic" we should just get rid of seat belts and airbags cause we shouldnt need them???

Sorry dude but its true... we shouldnt need seat belts or airbags, if everyone drove slow and safe. But that isnt how it works, people speed drink and drive and drive poorly, hence the need to protect yourself with those precautions, seat belts and airbags. BUT people do dumb stuff, like rob you, rape you, assault you or anyone around you, you can have alot of precautions for that stuff, never travel alone, stay away from bad areas late at night, take a karate class, or carry/own a gun.

I am sorry if you cant see that as a rational thought.

This is not what I meant... Seatbelts and airbags are meant to prevent you from getting more injuries or be killed thus a positive thing, hand guns are not meant to prevent you from being killed. Seatbelts and airbags are solutions/preventions for accidents and hand guns are not solutions for accidents or crime. Got it? again, 2 wrongs don't make it right.

Airbags kill people. Seat belts kill people.

My friend died in highschool becuase he wore his seat belt when he was in a car accident... they are supposed to help you but sometimes that isnt how it works out. Same can go for a gun. When you used properly they can protect you, and put food on your table, but when used improperly or illegally they can kill you or someone else...

Guns are a tool. Used to hunt and to protect ourselves and our country. that is a pretty positive thing if you ask me...

You madam are awesome.

Now, this is very simple. Guns do not kill people, bullets when shot out of that gun kill people, and bullets (normally) dont go off until the trigger is pulled, by (again, normally) a finger that is attached to a human hand. Thus, People kill people. IF not with a gun, then with a knife,bat,hammer,poison,rope,broken bottle,chainsaw, screw driver, bricks.......do i need to go on? It doesnt matter what you do with guns, people will kill people other ways. Atleast with guns the battle is even. and even if there are laws banning guns or making it harder to get them, well drugs are illegal arent they?

There is no solution, but being a good judge of what needs to be done. If i caught a person taking my car, i would not shot him, its a car, i love it, but its not worth a persons life. Now if you in my house, then your to close for comfort and your dead when you turn around. because im not going to give you the chance to think about hurting someone in that house. If you pull a knife on me, you intend to hurt me in a very bad way and maybe kill me, your dead. you want to get into a fist fight with me. we throw down, if i lose, i lose. i dont kill for out of pride. And with that is your solution.

People Have To Think.

I agree with most of what you said...but i gotta ask you. If you can use all those things as weapons, why do you need to have full possession of a gun? People kill people like you said so whats the purpose of having a gun when in fact people are the only lethal weapons walking the streets. This is according to you.

IF i may chime in here... If you got into a situation where the the people/person you were fighting pulled out a knife on you, or a metal pipe, or a bat or....... i would rather pull out a gun. NOTE i did not say i would shoot them, but in most cases when someone pulls out a gun everyone kinda stops what they are doing, and then you can get out of a bad situation.

Watch the movie Pretty Women, there is a great scene where they are getting hassaled by like 3 or 4 people some wiht knives, his bodygaurd just flashes his gun and everyone kinda stops and goes away... granted its a movie, but i think that would be pretty true to forum...