Gun Control, who's for it?

The bug-eyed lobby is too strong and too politically sensitive for that. It's because the ownership and use of firearms is potentially so all-or-nothing, life-and-death in its results that the laws regulating it can't afford to be. See how it plays out. I bet it will still come to states' or regional preferences -- we'll still have the same struggle for more restriction in New York, and the guys in Alaska will still be able to hunt freely to fill their larders and fend off the grizzly bears that come in the yard to raid their trash cans, without looking over their shoulders.

The Supreme Court ruling makes the Second amendment every bit as important as the rest. As an example of bad law, I wanted a particular style of English Double Barrel Shot gun. I found an outlet in my State Capitol that would order one. However their local law stated that to purchase a firearm, you first had to under go the Cities own background check (duplicating one the Federal Government required.) You further had to have the serial number of the firearm you were going to purchase. (an impossibility when "ordering" a quality firearm.) The permit was good for 10 days. If the purchase was not made in 10 days the purchase permit expired and one had to start over. (similar to the DC law) I had to hire an attorney to get the permit with no listed serial number for the firearm. That law made it easier to purchase a used junk firearm than a quality collection grade firearm. Guess which one will be used in a crime. Those harassing laws are the ones I want to see struck down.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

I already know the answer to this question, and it is. Why should I follow the law? When those who make the laws, seem to brake them, and get away with it!

That being said, I’m in the market, besides, I’m not going to be the one who decides when to protect myself, and or my loved ones. That decision will be made by someone else.

JC

Unless one can afford bodyguards 24/7 one either provides ones own defense or becomes a "chalk outline" in the crime scene exhibits! Personally, I can not afford the body guards but have been able to invest in firearms, ammunition and training (I teach a personal safety/defense class from time to time). I question the common sense of our laws as they exist today. We have laws that the criminals will not obey. (that was a no-brainer!) Firearms laws are the criminal's on the job "safety program!"

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The bottom line of the decision is that the 2nd amendment was interpreted as an individual right. I wish I had an article I read about Noah Webster and the 2nd amendment. It spelled out how it's an individual right. However I still hear those who try to say it isn't. I knew it wouldn't clear the way for the unrestricted purchase of guns and other weapons. Like I said before. The ones in DC who are more likely to be exposed to violent crime are the ones who'll either get turned down or won't be able to afford the price in getting a permit. What ticks me off is that those who can afford it or will be able to be approved for a permit are the ones least likly to be a victim of violent crime. I call that elitism .

Virtually all of the liberal big cities will price the permits out of the reach of many who need them the most. My State has an emergency provision for concealed carry permits. I think my last permit cost $90.00. For a single mother who had to take her children and run from an abusive relationship, that could be prohibitive. Locally there are people who will cover that cost for the individual. A full background check is about $30.00. At any given time there are enough law enforcement personnel in coffee/donut shops to cover the man power.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

According to Justice Breyer if you don't live on the right side of the tracks you don't have a right to self defence. This is from his dissenting opinion:

"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Translation: So you don't live in a big house on the hill with paid armed security..... TOUGH LUCK!!

He was one vote from having the majority of the court agreeing with him!


Oops.... I almost forgot.

".....from my cold dead fingers!"

This post has been edited by MacEoghainn on 29-Jun-2008, 12:42 PM

He and the other dissenters should live a couple of months in the "crime ridden urban environment!" I live in a small rural community where crime is only a moderate problem. Two blocks from my house an armed robbery occurred at a bank ATM and the perp was caught 4 blocks from my house. The criminal had a firearm illegally (previously convicted felon) The law didn't stop him. He will not have the ability to do it again for the better part of 8 years.

When the honest citizens are disarmed, violent crime rises. Everyone wants to insist gun shootings go down. They do, as honest people can not defend themselves! To me, it does not matter that someone kills me with a knife, baseball bat, piece of log chain or a car. I am still just as dead!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

To quote Justice Breyer , "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." If the 2nd amendment is not an untouchable right guaranteed, then the rest of the bill of rights arn't gauranteed either. That is what he's saying in a nut shell.

To quote Justice Breyer , "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." If the 2nd amendment is not an untouchable right guaranteed, then the rest of the bill of rights arn't gauranteed either. That is what he's saying in a nut shell.

You can not say it in any manner more understandable than that! It is amazing the people who have decided now that they have to work harder to do away with firearms. They do not understand that the question. After self defense is curtailed, "did murder, violent assault, rape and serious crimes against property go up or down?" It matters not at all what tool was used to commit the crime! Fact is, violent crime goes up. Given a choice, I would rather be shot than beat to death with a ball bat! It is interesting that as Concealed Carry laws are enacted, crime decreases in the carry states and "moves" to those that restrict firearms. To a criminal, it has to be comforting to feel sure, that as he carry's out an armed robbery or assult, the honest person behind him not is armed. The most notorious "honest" person I know who shot someone was Dick Cheney!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

True, but the guy he shot was a lawyer, so does it REALLY count?

It must not cause cheney got nothing out of it. When cheney shot his hunting buddy we had a trial in progress here for the same thing. He got a 1 year sentence out of it. He permanently lost his right to hunt and is under federal disability to own firearms.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

It must not cause cheney got nothing out of it. When cheney shot his hunting buddy we had a trial in progress here for the same thing. He got a 1 year sentence out of it. He permanently lost his right to hunt and is under federal disability to own firearms.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I have no doubt that Chaney was “impaired” when he shot that guy, and left the seen of the accident. Stop the double standard, and well be ok.

The one thing that most elected officials quickly develop is the strong belief that they are above the law! A state senator here got caught with his boat crossways in a channel on a nearby lake. DNR offered assistance and the senator asked if they knew who he was. The answer was "yes but would you still please put your hands behind your back. To give him credit he got treatment and quit drinking. I have worked for this one and keep tabs on him. We lost a house member who got drunk and fell down the stairs and we didn't replace him with anyone better.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

I have to say this forum is always interesting as to where the conversation goes. I learn a lot about people in posts.

The posts about Politicians is accurate. Dianne Feinstein is one who is a stunch anti-gunner however, she's a concelled weapons permit holder. Now does that make sense?

It sure does make sense. They feel that they are better than the rest of us. Rosie O'Donnel is of a similar mind set. She has armed body guards but feels we should not have firearms. My life is as important or more so than theirs.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

It seems I am in good company here, which is a good thing.

First it amazes me that well educated people can have so much trouble with plain English and critical thinking. The Bill of Rights contains other references to "the people" (Articles1, 2, 9 and 10) which are never in danger of being misconstrued to mean anything other than belonging to the individual people.

Second,most people would probably get a big surprise if they looked at current US and state laws about who the militia actually is. (not the National Guard).

Till the day I die,I will hold the Second Amendment as an individual right, and as the guarantee of the balance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Last if Rosie ODonnel or Diane Feinstein ever start to make sense with anything they say or do, I hope a meteor lands on my head!

Slainte!