Gun ban overturned.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by Jait

The Founders certainly thought it was important. Right after they outlined the Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, Religion, and Press. They knew it was important for the private citizen to feel secure.

That said, this was a time when your average gun took a minute to fire one shot. It was a DEFENSIVE weapon. You got one shot, and you're fucked in terms of home invasion. Do some of you "gun folk" actually believe they were trying to protect the right to fire semi-automatic weapons? To protect the right to kill Bear, Deer, and other animals? I have no problems with guns being legal, I do have a problem with people who think they have a right to semi and automatic weapons for "Home protection."

It's all about protection, not offense. But unfortunately we've come too far, and you can't put the guns back in the boxes. And as long as there are so many out there in the hands of bad people, good people are going to want to defend themselves. It's a vicious cycle.

I believe the second amendment had more to do with the public being able to protect themselves from possible government tyranny than from each other.

But you're right about technology and logistics changing the nature of the second amendment. Current weapons are much different from those then, and a government with a standing army isn't going to be too persuaded by a bunch of civilians with handguns.


The focus is always on the consumption side of the gun issue. What about the manufacturing/distribution side? Why are their virtually no gun crimes in Great Britain despite the fact that their police force doesn't carry? Because there isn't enough of a gun market for the black market to bother with. The risk is too high and the benefits too low, so even the criminals don't have guns.

Just like with drugs: Going after the possessors doesn't do the job. Laws must effect distribution and manufacturing as well as possession. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"

[Snugglebear]

Man, the French don't know shit about how to use guns.

BBC NEWS | Europe | French shooting show injures 16

[Ashes Emberblade]

Originally Posted by GrobbeeTrull2.0

Kolle - More wise and educated than a Supreme Court Justice, since June 28th, 2008.

This cracked me up so much I almost wished I could take back the negative internetz I gave you. Almost.

[Burf]

Originally Posted by hauwk

1. Stick a Kimber on the table next to a Glock (any cheap ass glock).
2. Realize what real quality looks, feels, and shoots like.
3. Load the Kimber and terminate your life for being a glock fanboi.


Understand you fucking dumbshit.. That government agencies purchase the CHEAPEST acceptable product they can possibly get their hands on. So your referencing "the Majority of police forces" makes you sound like the cum guzzler you really are. Tie 100 lb weights to your feet and jump off a bridge NOW.

Your seething hatred and anger about this subject leads me to believe that you should not own either a Kimber or a Glock.

[Nazbuk]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

What a fucking stupid idea.

Why is it a stupid idea? I'm not trolling I just want to hear why.

You ban guns and the worst you get is a slap on the wrist if you get caught with one. Make it a major crime you like like being caught with acid or something.

(shrug) just backup your thoughts instead of trolling.

[Bristlebane]

Originally Posted by Nazbuk

Why is it a stupid idea? I'm not trolling I just want to hear why.

You ban guns and the worst you get is a slap on the wrist if you get caught with one. Make it a major crime you like like being caught with acid or something.

(shrug) just backup your thoughts instead of trolling.

Banning handguns is a moronic idea that won't solve anything. Is that simple enough for you?

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Banning handguns is a moronic idea that won't solve anything. Is that simple enough for you?

does this mean guns shouldn't be banned anywhere? since if they are banned it doesn't solve anything.

[Aetos]

Originally Posted by Kolle

does this mean guns shouldn't be banned anywhere? since if they are banned it doesn't solve anything.

Sure why not? Banning guns on school campus' really works well!

[Zeste]

Originally Posted by Jait

The Founders certainly thought it was important. Right after they outlined the Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, Religion, and Press. They knew it was important for the private citizen to feel secure.

That said, this was a time when your average gun took a minute to fire one shot. It was a DEFENSIVE weapon. You got one shot, and you're fucked in terms of home invasion. Do some of you "gun folk" actually believe they were trying to protect the right to fire semi-automatic weapons? To protect the right to kill Bear, Deer, and other animals? I have no problems with guns being legal, I do have a problem with people who think they have a right to semi and automatic weapons for "Home protection."

I am not really trying to debate here, I just want to raise a few ideas:

The Colt revolver was invented in 1835 and used widely through the Civil War and WW1 So that's some 60 years since the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

The "semi-automatic" was basically invented in 1911 by Colt, and functions almost the exact same way that we know it today. So it's been around nearly 100 years.

So, I get that automatic weapons might be overkill for a home, but revolvers that can rattle off 6 shots as fast as you can pull the trigger have been around for 180 years.

So, since the guns as we know them have existed for around 100 years (the 1911 model handgun is probably the most popular there is), why is this suddenly such an epidemic, at a time when gun laws are the most plentiful and far more restrictive than they were during the 20th century? Every WW1, WW2 vet came home with a Colt .45 1911 more or less, and we never really bothered to care.

I can't answer that, but I am guessing it has to do with culture and the drug trade.


Right now, I have in my home 3 revolvers and 1 pump action shotgun.

[Nazbuk]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Banning handguns is a moronic idea that won't solve anything. Is that simple enough for you?

I agree with the way things are now. What if you made it to where there were stiffer penatilies for having a hand gun? Example: Cop pulls you over and find a hand gun in your car that you don't have a permit for. You most likely will not go to jail for that. Why not? You own the gun illeagly so you didn't go through the channels why not go to jail?

My point is that right now owning a hand gun illegaly won't land you in any serious trouble. Yes, I know it won't stop the mentally fucked up from going on a killing spree, but fuck it, that's life for you.

[Zeste]

Originally Posted by Nazbuk

I agree with the way things are now. What if you made it to where there were stiffer penatilies for having a hand gun? Example: Cop pulls you over and find a hand gun in your car that you don't have a permit for. You most likely will not go to jail for that. Why not? You own the gun illeagly so you didn't go through the channels why not go to jail?

My point is that right now owning a hand gun illegaly won't land you in any serious trouble. Yes, I know it won't stop the mentally fucked up from going on a killing spree, but fuck it, that's life for you.

err, do you mean carried illegally, not owned?

Unless it is a stolen gun, or a fully-automatic, how is it owned illegally? Carried illegally, sure, but owned? If you meant to say carried, then I get it.

In utah, you can have handguns in your vehicle but they must have 2 actions to fire, which means for revolvers, 2 empty chambers, or for semis, an ejected magazine and empty chamber. Thats without a permit. With a CHL, you can carry fully loaded anywhere besides the restricted areas.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

I'm coming in here late obviously but to chime in on the checking ID aspect of it - A few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer asking you for your ID for whatever reason they want constituted only a minimal invasion of privacy and was thus ok.

So you, walking down the street on a sunny Tuesday afternoon to go by a soda, depending on your state, a cop can stop you and ask to see your ID.

Given that has been ruled as acceptable, asking to see someone's ID to purchase a firearm is probably going to be upheld under similar grounds (i.e. minimal invasion with positives that outweigh the extremely small negatives).

sunder...somewhere...there is a palm without its face.


for all the bitching and moaning i hear constantly from people "we dont need lawyers"...."people should be able to follow the laws on their own because laws should be clear"....

how...HOW do you escape reality? do you ever bother reading the cases? ever?

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

"In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in criminal activity. See id., at 51—52. Absent that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices” was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52."

TLDR version: you are completely wrong, stop and identify's need reasonable suspicion.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by LiquidDeath

I'm still very interested to hear the anti-gun lobby explain why they think the Bill of Rights was written as 9 amendments that protect the rights of citizens and 1 amendment that protects a state's right to raise a militia as opposed to all 10 amendments protecting the rights of citizens.

You should probably double check the 10th Amendment. I don't think it's addressing an individual's right to govern himself.

[Etoille]

wow. i completely missed that paragraph full of win.

[jayrebb]

Originally Posted by Nazbuk

I agree with the way things are now. What if you made it to where there were stiffer penatilies for having a hand gun? Example: Cop pulls you over and find a hand gun in your car that you don't have a permit for. You most likely will not go to jail for that. Why not? You own the gun illeagly so you didn't go through the channels why not go to jail?

My point is that right now owning a hand gun illegaly won't land you in any serious trouble. Yes, I know it won't stop the mentally fucked up from going on a killing spree, but fuck it, that's life for you.

Huh where do you live?? The back woods?

In New York if you get caught with illegal possession of a firearm you get 5 years probation, automatic. If you have a record, you are jailed for 6 months to 5 years depending. But you are guaranteed prison time. Thats the point, hard prison time for possession.

They give years for guns in New York. Now with that said, you think thats a real crime worthy of doing hard time?? I think this is the guy that needs to tie the weights to his feet and jump off a bridge.