Super User roadwarrior Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 Some goods news for a change: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html 8-)
Super User Dan: Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 Hopefully we'll see DC's horrendous history of high amounts of gun crimes finally go down now that people can protect themselves.
Siebert Outdoors Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Hopefully we'll see DC's horrendous history of high amounts of gun crimes finally go down now that people can protect themselves. I hope it decreases drastically since 1972 or when it was they imposed that stupid law. Just took them 36 years to figure out it doesnt work. One thing I never understood is if those "handguns" were illegal how'd they keep doing bad. Thier illegal. :-? Maybe we should make criminals illegal. :
simplejoe Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Now you gotta hope that stupid people don't abuse that law. Just go out and carry pistols because they can and not take it series
slomoe Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Hopefully we'll see DC's horrendous history of high amounts of gun crimes finally go down now that people can protect themselves. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Zel Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Laws are for law-abiding people. Does anybody really believe criminals would not have guns just because it is illegal? Jail is not a deterrent for most career criminals. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington
fishbear Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I am just thankful that the Supreme Court has finally ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, for law abiding citizens.
Super User .dsaavedra. Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington that is one bad*** quote right there
Siebert Outdoors Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Laws are for law-abiding people. Does anybody really believe criminals would not have guns just because it is illegal? Jail is not a deterrent for most career criminals. I was being sarcastic. LOL Yes a great ruling for our country.
Zel Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Gman, My post had nothing to do with what you noted earlier. It was meant more for anyone who thinks more criminals will have guns because of the ruling. And of course you were being sarcastic... your tagline makes that quite clear.
Siebert Outdoors Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 It was meant more for anyone who thinks more criminals will have guns because of the ruling. And of course you were being sarcastic... your tagline makes that quite clear. True. Very very true. Yeah, I think my tagline explains my stance. ;D
whittler Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I copied this a few months ago, well worth the read. Taken from an anonymous poster on indystar.com: "Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger even an armed one can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of octogenarians it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as force equalizer if it weren't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I'm looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equationand that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
Super User roadwarrior Posted June 26, 2008 Author Super User Posted June 26, 2008 WOW! I have never seen that before. Thank you! 8-)
slomoe Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I don't think this will add more guns to the hands of criminals, but put more guns in the hands of uneducated people with clean records, thus adding to the amount of stray bullets. Thats just my .02
Super User Alpster Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 I copied this a few months ago, well worth the read. Taken from an anonymous poster on indystar.com: Since it was anonymous, I'm going to keep it in my archives and I will share it. The scary, underlying truth in this article is that our government, when it loses it's power of sound reason, resorts to force in the form of legislation or judicial edict to offset it's inability to make reasonable sense. This recent ruling by the Supreme Court is a breath of fresh air in hot box of progressive non-reasoning. JMHO Ronnie
Super User Raul Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 I live in Mexico, can we own guns ? in Mexico 's Constitution it 's contemplated the ownership of guns so yes we can own guns, can we own all types of guns ? some types of guns, yes we can ( like shotguns and hunting rifles up to the semi auto level ); others we can own with a special permit ( like handguns ), some guns, no we can 't ( like assault rifles ) guns of that type are limited to be carried and used by law enforcement and military personnel only, no they can 't own them either, they can only have them in possesion while they are on duty, the most they are allowed to is they can carry their sidearm while off duty because in theory a soldier or a policeman is always in service. Are there requirements for the citizen to own guns in Mexico ? yes there are, the first and most important one you need to register and own a gun is that you should have no criminal record, that is the first requirement, the other ones have more to do with the type of guns you want to own, the laws allow you to own 5 guns. Banning guns only keeps the law abiding citizen from owning them, it doesn 't stop criminals from having them, they get theirs through the black market; here guns are not banned, they are only regulated.
Super User Catt Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 What we all need to take from this was 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices basically voted to abolish the 2nd amendment.
Aaron Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 A normal citizen in Mexico is limited to owning five guns?
Super User flechero Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 Great point, Catt. I don't think this will add more guns to the hands of criminals, but put more guns in the hands of uneducated people with clean records, thus adding to the amount of stray bullets. Thats just my .02 :-? Wow! I'm not even sure where to go with it. Stray bullets don't typically come from law abiding citizens, whether educated or not. I guess they don't teach common sense with marksmanship and gun safety up there, huh? DC has been such a safe place without guns.... ;D Were you able to type that with a straight face?!?!? ;D
Super User .dsaavedra. Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 ok i know this is a serious matter but, who saw The Colbert Report last night? Stephens little segment on this supreme court ruling was hilarious!
Siebert Outdoors Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 What we all need to take from this was 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices basically voted to abolish the 2nd amendment. Exactly my thought too. Scary to be exact. You got 4 against the Bill of Rights.
Super User Alpster Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 What we all need to take from this was 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices basically voted to abolish the 2nd amendment. Exactly my thought too. Scary to be exact. You got 4 against the Bill of Rights. X2 - That's kind of what I was trying to say. Thanks Catt! Ronnie
bassdocktor Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I think it will be interesting to see if in Chicago we can finally legally own a hand gun. All the surrounding cites and suburbs you can but a regular citizen has been prevented since I believe the 70's. 15 minutes after the ruling the NRA already had a lawsuit filed agaisnt the city ban on hand guns. Here the article http://cbs2chicago.com/local/supreme.court.handguns.2.757471.html
Recommended Posts