Supreme Court Gun Case

[FR7 Baptist]

Not bad at all. While the third and seventh have federal levels there is no where to go with the first and second amendments but to the states. Little common sense here.

Can you believe we actually agree on something?

 

[Crucified in Christ]

I never noticed that the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment was specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated state militia.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm not sure if firearms for personal safety and recreation falls under that description. Interesting.

Research would have answered this question for you. The founders were very concerned with tyranny. They looked for the possibility that it could arise out of any Government; they were extremely concerned that it would arise out of the one they were creating. They believed that one of the first things a tyrannical government would do was disarm its populace. The Second Amendment was simply recognizing a God-given right for the people to defend themselves. Again, they knew that any such government would have "good" reasons for its actions- always have...always will. The point that they were making was that any such infringement was both unethical and illegitimate.

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you believe we actually agree on something?

It was bound to happen. One thing is for sure it is hypocritical to argue for freedom in any other area while sacrificing safety but be for banning guns from citizens (which does nothing to make the streets safer) in the name of safety.

 

[Crucified in Christ]

It has been debated for a long time whether they meant bear arms within the militia only or anytime, anywhere.

Whether or not you prescribe to this nonsense, I cannot know. Still, I know this line of argumentation well. It is morally bankrupt, because it is patently dishonest- attempting to hide a modern liberal argument in the skin of an original intent argument. Context and research answers this question very well.

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals try to argue what the founders meant to say. I have noticed how quickly they abandon such arguments when they realize that it is not a winning hand. Pure and simple- liberals care about what the Founders meant when they see it as a road to victory.

How I wish more Americans truly cared what "they meant".

 

[Crucified in Christ]

It was bound to happen. One thing is for sure it is hypocritical to argue for freedom in any other area while sacrificing safety but be for banning guns from citizens (which does nothing to make the streets safer) in the name of safety.

Revmitchell,

You are correct sir.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin (1775)

 

[Crabtownboy]

Whether or not you prescribe to this nonsense, I cannot know. Still, I know this line of argumentation well. It is morally bankrupt, because it is patently dishonest- attempting to hide a modern liberal argument in the skin of an original intent argument. Context and research answers this question very well.

It was simply a point to the discussion. The subject has been debated for a long time. In fact, the founding fathers assumed we would have a militia which would be called when necessary and that we would not have a standing army.


[/quote]I never cease to be amazed at how liberals try to argue what the founders meant to say.[/QUOTE]

The same could be said about conservatives, socialists, libertarians, free masons, etc. In some areas their words are vague enough that arguments can be made from many philosophies.

It seems to me the courts have settled enough cases that precedent has been set and the I believe the Supreme Court will rule against Chicago's law.

Would you be willing to follow the Swiss model on guns and gun control? Read below:

Almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control.

Yet Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), in its brochure "Handgun Facts," points to Switzerland as one of the advanced nations with strict handgun laws." The brochure states that all guns are registered, and handgun purchases require a background check and a permit. Gun crime in Switzerland is virtually non-existent. Therefore, concludes Handgun Control, America needs strict gun control.

http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/the_swiss_and_their_guns.htm

Buying a gun in Switzerland:

Buying guns
[edit] Conditions under the 1999 Gun Act

* To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.

* To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.

* After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called "free arms"). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.

* Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.

* Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns

 

[Jon-Marc]

And there in lies the rub. They do not want you to defend yourself. They want you on equal footing with the criminals. They think they have just as much right to live as you even if they break into your house. How dare you take their life in protection of your own and your family. Shame on you.

I understanding you were being facetious; I love facetious humor and use it myself. However, if we have no firearms and a man (or men) breaking into our home does, where are we on "equal footing?"

Burglars used to break in only when no one was home (as they did with me), and they probably didn't carry guns. Now they come in when you and your family are all there, and they too often kill everyone--including the children. No feeling, no remorse, no sense of right and wrong--just a desire to kill for the thrill of killing.

 

[rbell]

By good willed people who love freedom on each side. With freedom comes responsibility.

So, your answer to "responsibility" is to prohibit the private ownership of guns?

No thanks.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So, your answer to "responsibility" is to prohibit the private ownership of guns?

No thanks.

Hmmm, you jump to conclusions. I haven't said that.

 

[rbell]

Then, do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then, do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

Did you see my post that gave information on the Swiss system of guns and gun control?

 

[rbell]

Then, do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

Did you see my post that gave information on the Swiss system of guns and gun control?

I didn't ask you about Swiss policy. I asked a simple question:

Do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

In our guns we trust. :laugh:

Actually you have no need for a rifle or shotgun unless you hunt......But if you have no need for one ........ After all how many kids have been killed when they found an "empty" gun at home. And how many murders have been committed because a gun was handy ... no time to cool down and be rational.

You have your answer.

 

[rbell]

Curtis...I'm sure you're right...but I'm trying to make Crabby do something unprecedented: answer a question directly.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. I'd also like to see him answer his own questions. I have no idea how many kids have been killed by "empty" guns, nor can I find stats on "handy" gun crimes. Speculation & conjecture have no place in a discussion about facts.

 

[Revmitchell]

People who want to ban guns do not really believe in freedom.

 

[billwald]

I prefer to take my chances with my neighbors than with the government. Freedom is dangerous. The USSR didn't have this problem.