UConn James Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Federal Court Throws Out 30-Year-Old Handgun Ban In Washington, D.C. Washington, DC (AHN) - A federal appeals court has overturned a Washington D.C. handgun ban. In the ruling, the court used the Second Amendment. The court rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied solely to militias. The court ruled that the activities mentioned in the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on being in a militia. Score one for reading the the Constitution as it is, not as how gun-banners want it to be! Nevermind that this ban did absolutely nothing to stop D.C. from being the homicide capital of the country for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Federal Court Throws Out 30-Year-Old Handgun Ban In Washington, D.C.Score one for reading the the Constitution as it is, not as how gun-banners want it to be! Nevermind that this ban did absolutely nothing to stop D.C. from being the homicide capital of the country for decades. Although I know nothing about this particular law, I do know a lot about gun legislation. Your post displays a massive amount of ignorance on your part. If you develop an open mind, which would of course first involve developing a mind of any variety, please check back and I can fill you in. Until then, stop commenting on this topic. In the long run you'll be ashamed of how dumb you look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Although I know nothing about this particular law, I do know a lot about gun legislation. Your post displays a massive amount of ignorance on your part. If you develop an open mind, which would of course first involve developing a mind of any variety, please check back and I can fill you in. Until then, stop commenting on this topic. In the long run you'll be ashamed of how dumb you look. Yours was a most annoying post. In what way was James supposedly ignorant about hand gun legislation? What information is he supposedly overlooking? Which parts of his post allegedly display ignorance? You don't answer any of these questions, yet you ask us to completely discount everything James has written on the subject. Others can do as they please, but I refuse to give serious consideration to any of your accusations until such time as you deign to make them more specific. Maybe you do know as much about gun control legislation as you say you do. Maybe you could be making a useful contribution to this thread. But so far, nothing you've written has been productive, or could possibly help anyone better understand gun control legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 Yours was a most annoying post. In what way was James supposedly ignorant about hand gun legislation? What information is he supposedly overlooking? Which parts of his post allegedly display ignorance? You don't answer any of these questions, yet you ask us to completely discount everything James has written on the subject. Others can do as they please, but I refuse to give serious consideration to any of your accusations until such time as you deign to make them more specific. Maybe you do know as much about gun control legislation as you say you do. Maybe you could be making a useful contribution to this thread. But so far, nothing you've written has been productive, or could possibly help anyone better understand gun control legislation. This is his schtick following many of my posts in the last 3-4 months. At first it was humorous, then it was annoying, now it's just pathetic that he actually spends time out of his life on this sh--. And if he weren't something of a joke and enigma here on the Wall, someone might actually enforce the Terms of Service agreement. He stalks a lot of people. But, whatever. Water off a duck's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Yours was a most annoying post. In what way was James supposedly ignorant about hand gun legislation? What information is he supposedly overlooking? Which parts of his post allegedly display ignorance? You don't answer any of these questions, yet you ask us to completely discount everything James has written on the subject. Others can do as they please, but I refuse to give serious consideration to any of your accusations until such time as you deign to make them more specific. Maybe you do know as much about gun control legislation as you say you do. Maybe you could be making a useful contribution to this thread. But so far, nothing you've written has been productive, or could possibly help anyone better understand gun control legislation. Why prod the bear? FWIW, this could be a pretty big thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 FWIW, this could be a pretty big thing. Refining the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by one of the higher courts in the land, thereby creating a precedent that, indeed, it does not apply to militias exclusively (which is stupid --- the National Guard, etc. get paid by the federal govt, whose orders you would be bound to follow) but to every qualified citizen. Yeah, that could be pretty big. Cold, hard liberty actually being delivered to the American people rather than taken from them, usually is. Watch as D.C.'s crime rate goes down over the next couple of decades. When handguns are outlawed only the outlaws have handguns. Now they'll have to worry whether the next person they rob/rape/murder might be shooting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Watch as D.C.'s crime rate goes down over the next couple of decades. When handguns are outlawed only the outlaws have handguns. Now they'll have to worry whether the next person they rob/rape/murder might be shooting back. I am in no way anti-gun, but I really do not think this will affect the crime rate in DC, or anywhere. Iraqis are allowed to own guns and crime is the way of life there. Other factors besides gun ownership are much more important in eliminating crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 I am in no way anti-gun, but I really do not think this will affect the crime rate in DC, or anywhere. Iraqis are allowed to own guns and crime is the way of life there. Other factors besides gun ownership are much more important in eliminating crime Didn't say it'd be Maybury, but I'd say the crime rate would go down. And, yes, it'd take a while, as I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Didn't say it'd be Maybury, but I'd say the crime rate would go down. And, yes, it'd take a while, as I said. And it might not go down. Or it might go up. I just don't think everyone is going to run out and buy a gun, and even if they did, it just as likely to make things worse if other factors are takien into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Why prod the bear? FWIW, this could be a pretty big thing. Why prod the bear? 1) the bear was being annoying, 2) UConn James is almost certainly right about this whole gun control thing. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Banning guns for non-militia members is like banning free speech for non-government members. Both bans would completely ignore our Constitutional rights. Moreover, while gun bans might deter law-abiding citizens from bearing arms, it's not clear they have the same effect on criminals. People should have the right to bear arms, and they should have the right to use those arms to defend themselves, their homes, their loved ones, and innocent third parties, from criminal attack. The right to self-defense should be interpreted very broadly. Especially given the current crime situation, anyone who would seek to undermine Second Amendment rights acts against the interests of the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I am in no way anti-gun, but I really do not think this will affect the crime rate in DC, or anywhere. Iraqis are allowed to own guns and crime is the way of life there. Other factors besides gun ownership are much more important in eliminating crime Crime "rates" are fallacies perpetuated by whomever has an agenda. Pick your poison. High crime? It's a funding issue or it's time to take some more liberties from the law abiding. Low crime? All of our programs are working and if we had even more money, we could do even more. For once, you are actually right. There are other factors that are important in minimizing crime (it'll never be eliminated, the thought of that is just ludicrous) but putting guns back in the hands of the law abiding makes criminals a hell of a lot more nervous than it's been given credit for, to say nothing of a U.S. Court actually correctly interpreting the Constitution for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Why prod the bear? 1) the bear was being annoying, The bear was not trying to be annoying, he was just engaging in the sincerest form of flattery. The bear also never made wild claims that people could grow antlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 This is his schtick following many of my posts in the last 3-4 months. At first it was humorous, then it was annoying, now it's just pathetic that he actually spends time out of his life on this sh--. And if he weren't something of a joke and enigma here on the Wall, someone might actually enforce the Terms of Service agreement. He stalks a lot of people. But, whatever. Water off a duck's back. You whine and cry about me bothering you and in the same post you call me a joke and enigma? I can take the joke part but do not enjoy being called an enigma. That is completely disgusting and uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 putting guns back in the hands of the law abiding makes criminals a hell of a lot more nervous than it's been given credit for You're right, and I'll go one step further. Say a woman shoots and kills a would-be rapist. Not only has she prevented her own rape, she's just stopped all the other rapes this man would have committed had he been left alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I wonder if they keep stats on the incidents where someone's firearms are actually used to carry out the crime against the one that was possessing the firearms for protection? Not that it matters... I am just curious... Also... I wonder.. Are crimes actually more likely to happen because the criminal thought that weapons and arms were going to be present? What I am saying is like this... If I live alone in a isolated area away from people the odds that I possessed some sort of firearms would be higher... Say I leave and go to work... The criminal knows that and decides to break into a residence fully knowing that arms may be present... Planning to steal those arms... Heck, even if the resident was there... See what I am saying... Not so sure it is a deterent more than, IMO, would be a better chance to carry out a crime and use said weapons present... Even if it was a deterent... Would the criminal care? Maybe casing out a place before actually attempting the crime so as to use the victim's arms against them? Sounds crazy doesn't it... But, I bet it happens all the time? Where is the deterent? Fire away... For the record... I am very against ALL sorts of gun laws... I am more or less inclined in this case to let things play out with as less control over this issue as possible... The DC decision, IMO, was the right decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I wonder if they keep stats on the incidents where someone's firearms are actually used to carry out the crime against the one that was possessing the firearms for protection? Not that it matters... I am just curious... Also... I wonder.. Are crimes actually more likely to happen because the criminal thought that weapons and arms were going to be present? What I am saying is like this... If I live alone in a isolated area away from people the odds that I possessed some sort of firearms would be higher... Say I leave and go to work... The criminal knows that and decides to break into a residence fully knowing that arms may be present... Planning to steal those arms... Heck, even if the resident was there... See what I am saying... Not so sure it is a deterent more than, IMO, would be a better chance to carry out a crime and use said weapons present... Even if it was a deterent... Would the criminal care? Maybe casing out a place before actually attempting the crime so as to use the victim's arms against them? Sounds crazy doesn't it... But, I bet it happens all the time? Where is the deterent? Fire away... For the record... I am very against ALL sorts of gun laws... I am more or less inclined in this case to let things play out with as less control over this issue as possible... The DC decision, IMO, was the right decision... My own thinking is that if a criminal wants to shoot you, he doesn't need to break into your house to steal a gun. He has numerous other ways to provide himself with a weapon anyway, so there's no need to go through the added trouble or risk of such a break-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 1) Crime "rates" are fallacies perpetuated by whomever has an agenda. Pick your poison. High crime? It's a funding issue or it's time to take some more liberties from the law abiding. Low crime? All of our programs are working and if we had even more money, we could do even more. 2) You are right again! There are other factors that are important in minimizing crime (it'll never be eliminated, the thought of that is just ludicrous) but putting guns back in the hands of the law abiding makes criminals a hell of a lot more nervous than it's been given credit for, to say nothing of a U.S. Court actually correctly interpreting the Constitution for a change. 1) And they are an honest attempt to understand a very serious social problem with the hope of finding solutions. Yes, they are used and manipulated for gain, but absent the stats others measures or lies would be used. 2) Thanks. But, putting more guns out there might increase the number of violent deaths, accidents from kids getting guns or just might make criminals look to heavier weapons. In the United States, IMO, local gun bans are useless as long as others places don't have them. Criminals of course will get them. So it only makes sense to let everyone have them, though it might make everything worse in the long run. If there were a whole bunch of Richard Getzs out there, crime might go down, but most people are not like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I wonder if they keep stats on the incidents where someone's firearms are actually used to carry out the crime against the one that was possessing the firearms for protection? Not that it matters... I am just curious... Also... I wonder.. Are crimes actually more likely to happen because the criminal thought that weapons and arms were going to be present? What I am saying is like this... If I live alone in a isolated area away from people the odds that I possessed some sort of firearms would be higher... Say I leave and go to work... The criminal knows that and decides to break into a residence fully knowing that arms may be present... Planning to steal those arms... Heck, even if the resident was there... See what I am saying... Not so sure it is a deterent more than, IMO, would be a better chance to carry out a crime and use said weapons present... Even if it was a deterent... Would the criminal care? Maybe casing out a place before actually attempting the crime so as to use the victim's arms against them? Sounds crazy doesn't it... But, I bet it happens all the time? Where is the deterent? Fire away... For the record... I am very against ALL sorts of gun laws... I am more or less inclined in this case to let things play out with as less control over this issue as possible... The DC decision, IMO, was the right decision... The statistics are all over the map. According to the pro-gun folks in Canada, England's "hot break-in" rate (burglar breaks in when occupant is home vs waiting for the occupant to leave) is 66%. Canada's is 50%. The U.S. is 13%. You can draw your own conclusion from it, though I don't believe the statistics. As far as "your gun being used on you", it's not very likely. Again, the statistics are all over the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 1) And they are an honest attempt to understand a very serious social problem with the hope of finding solutions. No, they aren't. They aren't honest in the least - from either side. Yes, they are used and manipulated for gain, but absent the stats others measures or lies would be used. There is zero difference. 2) Thanks. But, putting more guns out there might increase the number of violent deaths, accidents from kids getting guns or just might make criminals look to heavier weapons. Doubtful, since there are estimated to be between 200,000,000 and 500,000,000 guns in America already. You're significantly more likely to be injured/killed by medical malpractice than by guns. As far as the "more gets getting guns", I can't think of a more bankrupt argument. In the United States, IMO, local gun bans are useless as long as others places don't have them. Criminals of course will get them. So it only makes sense to let everyone have them, though it might make everything worse in the long run. If there were a whole bunch of Richard Getzs out there, crime might go down, but most people are not like him. Local gun bans are useless? How's that federal drug ban working out? Good thing kids aren't able to get heroin in their schools. Perhaps the "government" should instead view concealed weapons as what they are: cheap law enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 1) Local gun bans are useless? How's that federal drug ban working out? Good thing kids aren't able to get heroin in their schools. Perhaps the "government" should instead view concealed weapons as what they are: cheap law enforcement. 1) If Ohio made all drugs legal, for instance, drug use would go up in New York. Not that I in any way think Prohibition of drugs is "working" or that the side effects are not disasterous disasterous. 2) And the concealed weapons thing, you might be right, but again, the effect would probably be minimal. Probably save less lives than are lost through medical malpractice, lol. It might make the people carrying the guns feel safe, and that's probably what this is all about, not that there is anything wrong with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts