Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

Some background on this case:

The guy who brought the original suit to overturn this ban lived across from a public housing complex where there were lots of drug deals, etc.

Each morning at 2AM, the local gang leader would signal the end of their "business day" by emptying his firearm into the air.:shk:

And they have the gall to say that they are preventing crime by banning guns?

This has been a good discussion, btw. Civil and reasoned on both sides. Thanks.

Originally posted by xxpigxx

Stevens asks how Gura can explain why neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution explicitly refers to self-defense

Good question . . . anyone care to tackle this one?

Its an indirect answer to his question but in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84, essentially it explains that some of the Founders didn't want to include the Bill of rights as a whole because in listing them to protect them from Government, It in a way would suggest that Government had/has the power to take away rights, When this power was never given to Government.

So basically they weren't originally listed because they shouldn't need to be as the power to take away rights isn't a power Government has.

Its powers are listed in the Constitution, It is very clear on what Government can and cannot do, Now they can amend the Constitution, And since those rights are listed in the Constitution, It would suggest that they can be taken away...

This is the reason the founders said on many occasions that certain rights are unalienable.

Its sort of like the atheist argument, Some atheists don't claim the title atheist as doing so would indirectly acknowledge god.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by C0le]

I dont' actually like the guy, but for those with a poor understanding of the English language here it is. You have to hear the whole thing.

www.youtube.com...

These arguments occur time and time again. People should be able to own handguns to defend their homes... if you ban guns, they still will find their ways into the wrong hands... it's not guns that kill people, but people... etc etc.

I strongly believe you should be able to own them - the country just needs to do a better job (I'm not sure how) of seeing to it that guns don't find their way into the wrong hands. I walked into a store in Daytona just two days ago, and they were running a special on a semi-auto FN P-90 with a 50 shot magazine, scope, extended barrel and laser sight for 1,900 dollars. They also were running a deal on a Barret 5 round bolt action 50 caliber sniper for 2000 dollars. I have no idea what the background checks and policies are on purchasing something like that, but weapons like these surely should be difficult to purchase. Maybe 50 cal snipers make for good hunting - I don't know, but a weapon like that would certainly be wicked if it got into someone's hands it shouldn't. Then again, a Barret isn't exactly easy to conceal. The Glock 17s they had there for 700 dollars with 33 round magazines, however, could be. I enjoy shooting every now and then, and people will have their fun with guns - but some of these things just seem a bit excessive. You do hear in the news, however, of people successfully defending their homes. You typically don't hear of too many home break ins in more rural America where it may be slightly more expected that the family may own guns.

If the Dems take control, I wonder how much they will want to exert gun control. I myself plan on purchasing a USP or Glock at some point in the near future. Between my frequent trips through the Ocala National forest (heard many, many stories about the place - they find bodies out there every other month, it seems) and various trips through the likes of Ybor City in Tampa, there are certainly times where I'd feel safer packing heat. Because regardless of where you stand on the issue, people who really want to get a piece who shouldn't have them - will find a way to acquire one.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Too bad the amendment does not say firearms . . . it says arms.

Actually, it says "bear arms", but I don't see many people poaching grizzlies and making off with their appendages.

I think that most people can agree that "bear" isn't referring to the large quadruped mammal, and "arms" includes firearms. The questionable interpretations are those that would like to include small explosives (mines, grenades, etc.) as well.

The problem with gun restrictions have been shown time and time again; restrictions don't stop criminals from getting guns, and they only punish/restrict law abiding citizens.

Gun control is a false security blanket, and it's quite ironic that many feel safer with a notion that would only take guns away from our law abiding citizens.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Its hard to really say. There are so many shades of grey in both parties, so many different leanings on policy, i find it hard to really classify myself as liberal or conservative.

Further, I believe the definitions of both ideologies has undergone an evolution over the years. What I see in the media (Mainstream or alternative) is almost a fanatical representation of both sides; turning Conservatives into reactionaries; Liberals into Centerists or Marxists.

Where I live, I would say almost everyone has a gun and most have concealed weapons permits. They were trying to pass legislation for the School Teachers to be able to have them but it didn't pass through.

I used to be Republican and their was a time when that meant less Government intrusion and more military power so they were always seen as hawks and liberals were doves. Now however the have turned from hawks to vultures wanting the Government looking right into the very capillaries flowing through my veins. They have over worked the military to the point where many are on their second even third extended enlistements.

They are getting to the point where they don't even know why they are really there. We have a higher number of soldiers and veterans from IRAQ who have committed suicide then those who have died in active duty. Many coming home killing their wives or friends etc,. Then we have those still there killing puppies and little girls etc. I think the signs they have shown the Government is abusing these guys to the point it should be criminal.

Things seem to be coming to one hell of a boiling point these days. With all that’s going on and the timing of the northern union all set to go with a the dollar dropping everywhere, the Amero already to go, families losing there homes and jobs all at once.

We got plenty of detainment camps for them though

Then we have McCain saying and doing things that are so obviously NOT Conducive to his being elected, from his photo ops with Bush and the Religious Revalationist for Zionists John Hagee to some of the bold statements about a war Americans are not interested in.

Yet,, he goes right on acting as if he is either really stupid, or knows he is going to get elected for some reason regardless.

How convenient it seems to have this gun issue before us in the midst of all this turmoil.

I think this could be seen as more then just a coincidence if the Court votes the wrong way on this one. Their is the right way the wrong way of doing things but this country has been running on a "My way or the Highway" philosophy for far too long.


I just hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and Votes

The Americans way



- Con











[edit on 18-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Sorry to burst the OP's bubble but...

Thread already started here awhile back. And it should have been posted in Political breaking News.

www.abovepolitics.com...


U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Gun-Rights Case

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Realtruth]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Realtruth]

reply to post by jsobecky


That is pretty ironic actually.

Hell if I was that guy and had that going on across the street from me, Id try for a permit for a mounted machine gun

reply to post by hsur2112

And that's all the reason I need to support a ban on personal firearms.

Would you support a ban on personal gasoline? Personal butcher knives? Personal farming equipment? Personal baseball bats? Personal brains? Personal hand built weaponry, untraceable? Personal cars? Personal fists? Personal poison? and on and on....

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Too bad the amendment does not say firearms . . . it says arms.

Actually, it says "bear arms", but I don't see many people poaching grizzlies and making off with their appendages.

I think that most people can agree that "bear" isn't referring to the large quadruped mammal, and "arms" includes firearms. The questionable interpretations are those that would like to include small explosives (mines, grenades, etc.) as well.

Actually, this might help you get a better perspective on the term "bear" when it is used in this context. Whenever you have heard the word "bear" to mean anything other then the four legged animal, it was in phrases like "That was more then I could bear" or "I couldn't bear another day"

In both examples if you replace the word "bear" with "Handle" you will see that it is what it means "That was more then I could handle" or "I couldn't handle another day" see?

So I think it is more then safe to assume that the vernacular of the amendment is saying "The right to keep and handle arms"

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Actually, this might help you get a better perspective on the term "bear" when it is used in this context.

Actually, I'm quite well read, and fully aware of the context.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Whenever you have heard the word "bear" to mean anything other then the four legged animal, it was in phrases like "That was more then I could bear" or "I couldn't bear another day"

This part puzzles me; however, you start out with a false presumption of my experience with bear's various contexts, "Whenever you have heard the word "bear"...."; so all I can really say is that your presumption is mistaken.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
So I think it is more then safe to assume that the vernacular of the amendment is saying "The right to keep and handle arms"

I agree, and did so earlier as well. Likewise I think it is more then safe to assume that the vernacular of the amendment, in saying "arms", meant "firearms".

Did you not understand that my earlier post was against these gun ban measures?

[edit on 3/18/08 by redmage]

What part of shall not infringe do some of you people not get. The 1st amendment protects everyones right to speak their opinion on the matter. The second amendment protects my right to own guns despite your opinion.

Originally posted by redmage


Actually, I am quite well read, and fully aware of the context.

Oh well,, I am sorry for appearing presumptuous, I assure you it was not my intention to insult your intelligence so your need to be "right" was never in jeopardy. I was merely offering a simple analogy in addition to and support of your postition on gun ban measures as I DID see we are both in agreement.


- Con

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Actually, this might help you get a better perspective on the term "bear" when it is used in this context. Whenever you have heard the word "bear" to mean anything other then the four legged animal, it was in phrases like "That was more then I could bear" or "I couldn't bear another day"

In both examples if you replace the word "bear" with "Handle" you will see that it is what it means "That was more then I could handle" or "I couldn't handle another day" see?

So I think it is more then safe to assume that the vernacular of the amendment is saying "The right to keep and handle arms"

- Con

As long as you don't try to include the definition of "bear" to mean "give birth to", as in "She was of child-bearing age", I'm alright with that.

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: bear
Part of Speech: verb 4
Definition: breed
Synonyms: beget, breed, bring forth, create, develop, engender, form, fructify, generate, invent, make, produce, propagate, provide, reproduce, yield

thesaurus.reference.com...

Number 4 of 212 definitions for the word "bear".

"Gura says the Second Amendment would be an odd "right" if Congress could define people as not deserving of that right."

Ok, could some one explain this one? It seems to me the Second Amendment is a right reserved for the people before congress or the federal government even gets involved. How can congress define people as not having that right if they have no power to do so?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh well,, I am sorry for appearing presumptuous, I assure you it was not my intention to insult your intelligence so your need to be "right" was never in jeopardy.

My "need to be right"? Are you serious?

Why even bother "apologizing" if you're just using it as a means to toss in a jab at the end? You're killin' me here.

I assure you this has nothing to do with any supposed "need to be right". Furthermore, I fail to see how personal jabs advance the discussion, especially when they're between those who are in agreeance regarding an issue.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I DID see we are both in agreement.

Good to hear, and I agree that there are people unfamiliar with bear's various contexts. I was merely puzzled as to why your statements were directed towards me. There are generally more productive efforts than "preaching to the choir".

Now if we can just stick to discussing the issue at hand, instead of our fellow members, we'll be set.

reply to post by redmage


I'm with ya Mage. If anyone else missed it, the right to "bear-arms" was a joke. I for one got a chuckle. There's a t-shirt like that of a guy with the arms of a bear (the animal, to avoid confusion, not arms he gave birth to, HA!) and underneath the picture it says, "the right to bear arms". That's just funny right there.

On topic, agreed on the whole if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns idea.

If you're against gun ownership, thtat's fine, you don't HAVE to own a gun. What makes America what it is (or is supposed to be) is the choice. You don't have to have a gun, but if I would like to I can. That's a little thing I like to call freedom.

I apologize for the lack of citing a source but I recall reading somewhere that one of the first things Hitler did on his rise to power was revoke the individual right of gun ownership in the name of public safety. After the Reichstag fire maybe? Don't remember off the top of my head.

Don't be fooled. When a government desires to disarm it's citizens it's not to protect the citizens from the criminal element, it's to protect the Government from the citizens. Don't think for a second the government isn't deathly afraid of this part of the Declaration:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Of interest to me is the capitilization of the word Guards. I would assume they are not talking about instituting new "laws" (as guards) to safeguard us, but in fact individuals that will stand guard. Perhaps not, just always struck me as interesting that that particular word starts with a capital letter.

Oh yeah, and someone posed the idea that none of our founding documents say anything about personal defense...ummm...what do you call this:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

IMO the fact that I have a right to these things implies that I have the right to defend them if they are under duress. Mostly because of the definition of unalienable - Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; - (from dictionary.com)

I looks like the SCJ agrees with the right to own a gun. The thing I am worried about is what they will say about the bearing of the guns if anything at all. It looks like this is being steered into a in home restriction?

I know my liberal Governor 2 Penny Jenny here in Michigan would love to revoke our right to carry and keep hunters home. I know that's an extreme but if they come out with a narrow decision like "the people have a right to gun ownership but the government can restrict the where, how and when. Doesn't that basically nullify the right?

Is that the whole mission here? To say we have a right while at the same time taking it away?

Originally posted by Perplexed
I know that's an extreme but if they come out with a narrow decision like "the people have a right to gun ownership but the government can restrict the where, how and when. Doesn't that basically nullify the right?

Is that the whole mission here? To say we have a right while at the same time taking it away?

They can't get away with that...

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee

"A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison

Just to quote a couple...


You can't train or learn to use firearms in your house.

And regardless of any of this BS, This case if it usurps our rights and does not protect them it will be the time to act, the signal we have all been waiting for, up until this point it has been a slow boil and degradation of our rights, no ones quite sure when to do anything as the changes are so small, this case will decide rather or not we act, those who don't never will.

If the SCOTUS does its job, The People will prevail as it will be limiting Government, If it limits The People however all bets are off it will be the time to act no excuses from any one capable of bearing arms to not stand.


NONE

Any citizen who caves and obeys the usurpations which could follow this case is a coward not worthy of the liberty and freedom the founders of this country fought so hard to protect, hang your stupid flags outside your house, and feel all warm inside because you are a Patriot, The test that determines rather or not you are a Patriot will come when you get a knock on your door with a man thats gives you two options, Give up your guns, or go to jail, And in return you comply, Or give him two options, Leave, or fight.

If every American does this, those who come knocking will ask themselves rather doing their job is worth losing there life over,
Because at this point they will realize the spirit of resistance and love of liberty still lives, And know that we are willing to die for it, because without it, life isn't worth living.

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


While I agree with you in spirit, it is prudent to realize that "a man" will not be knocking at your door. Rather, if it happens, it will be a dozen Kevlar-clad men, well armed, with weapons already drawn.

It's romantic to consider oneself a patriot by imagining that you would resist at that very point in time. It is pragmatic to prepare beforehand and outwit your opponent.