Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → US Supreme Court: Do Not Restrict Guns
Well I have still never heard about it in Sweden, no guns needed here 
oh. uh...I thought you were Welsh...
damn another American intelligence failure
Yeah see why Micheal Moore's stunt about walking into a Canadian's home was really stupid? Some strange American walks into your home, odds are better than 50-50 that he'll try to pistol whip and sexually assault you. And in America odds are better than 50-50 you're not into that sort of thing.
Well here you don't lock you door unless you are going to sleep or you are leaving the house. Or ofc if you really don't wanna be disturbed.
So... guess he is right 
Two Danish soldiers killed in Afghanistan in September died from
this almost made my eyes bleed
March 22: A US soldier at a camp in Kuwait lobs grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers, killing two and wounding 11 others.
If "fully trained" soldiers cant handle guns, why are you handing them out to the general population?
____________________________
are you so daft that you don't see that his mental state was to blame, not training
if this is any indication of your level of perspicacity, i could care less how long you studied law. a blunt tool is a blunt tool.
as for friendly fire, that's totally unrelated, especially that part about the patriot missile. again, a little dense there.
I copied an entire article..... pick out the things you would like..... the point is there, you put dangerous things around to be meddled with, accidents happen(this is relevant even to patriot missiles, and no im not trying to suggest the average american sleeps with a patriot missile under his bed). This is shown in before mentioned statistics. You lack vision, and the analytical skills to argue apparently. These are precise reasons why people should not be allowed guns.
I wrote a huge arguement here, but then couldnt be arsed to post it, its 3:51 in the morning, my grammer sucks. And so far anyone ha actually done is pick a couple of wholes in a couple of things that im saying. Noone has actually made any valid points which are backed up by hard evidence. If you say that you have guns to protect those from other guns.... show me the evidence... show me how your countries crime victim levels are so much lower than countries without guns.............because all being "defended" by your right to bare arms..... you know what? you cant? Numbers speak more than words. The australians recently passed laws putting higher gun enforcement laws through and they saw an immediate drop in gun crime.
111
You can pull up any stats.
You can make any argument you want.
You can study any culture you want.
To be honest, I personally, give two [farts] less about what the crime rate is in Detroit, London, or in the Sudan.
I could care less if one is murdered by Hatchet, Gun or hanging.
I dont care if One shoots himself or Leaps off a building.
I DO care about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United State.
I am an American Citizen, and the Fathers of my country, knowing the corrupt and evil doings of Government, gave American Citizens the right to bear arms and with that, the right to have a Militia. Both to secure the Citizen of the United States.
That is the question here. All that work you did, proved nothing.
The US Supreme Court, in a HORRIBLE 5-4 ruling, that should have been 9-0, ruled that no Govt. can ban Gun Ownership.
PERIOD.
I support this ruling, I am shocked its a 5-4 ruling, but I support it.
I to feel safe in my home, would like to own a Gun if I want.
I dont feel its the place of GOVT. to tell me if I can, or can not own a gun.
Its my right, and my choice.
That is the Question/Argument, not your stats or stories.
You were off topic.
And BW we aren't talking abut banning guns, but mearly restricting ownership of guns. Which is very much different.
Althought I don't really see what your problem with this is. I doubt that the people that made this law had this in mind really. That their country uses their law to enable thousands of gun murders each year. Bet they are turning in their graves.
if accidents happen is an argument against guns, why don't you apply it to everything else in the world.
accidents are Nature's way of thinning the herd, survival of the fittest, and so forth.
your whole argument has holes. gun control applies to ppl who want to defend themselves.
it's pretty easy for criminals to get illegal weapons, so gun control doesn't affect the majority of violent crimes.
"if accidents happen is an argument against guns, why don't you apply it to everything else in the world."
but isn't there a control in everything else? does your country have laws that punish people who drove to fast? or who do not build a building according safety protocols?
@ Dragon
What part of "Guns dont kill, people do" is so hard to understand ?
Guns Enable murder ? Is that really your connection to guns ?? If there were no guns, there would be no murders? Yea, If there were no guns, there would be less murders ?? You believe that ?? I dont. A murderer, murders. Period.
@ Freelancer
Of course. They also have laws against killing people. EVEN if it is with a gun. Same as if it were w/a bat, or a sword
Its murder.
Gun safety (no one that owns a gun, is not aware of gun safety), or guns in the hands of Mentally ill, or prior violent felons.
Who does not believe in that.
But, a Govt. making a law to BAN gun ownership....period ?? Illegal. Yet, 4 Justices of the Supreme court backed that law.
Very, very scary.
"Guns Enable murder ? Is that really your connection to guns ?? If there were no guns, there would be no murders? Yea, If there were no guns, there would be less murders ?? You believe that ?? I dont. A murderer, murders. Period."
That's a rather stupid thing to say. Of course if you removed ALL guns (except the ones owned by police and the like ofc) you would have lesser murders. It is rather obvious. Guns makes it MUCH easier to kill people, thus it makes more people kill people. That logic is extremely easy. Enable something and it will happen. Silly BW.
Precisely, drivers have to take drivers tests, there are speed restrictions, etc etc
p.s. your constitution is essentially flawed to the core. laws will never remain relevant to the period that sorrounds them. You will get essential laws that will always be applicable, murder/theft/fraud/etc etc... but the ownership of an item... a dangerous items.... without any restrictions or sanctions? according to your blind sense of patriotism and logic you should be handing out guns in the streets, what happened if a nation was founded on the use of heroin? would centuries after the country still demanding that it is there civil right to use heroin as thats what there "founding fathers" believed. There are great men in history it cant be denied. But such elitist views that a few select individuals should dictate a country for centuries after is absaurd. And don't get me wrong, the advantages of a strongly codified constitution, so please dont think im completely slagging off your country, cos im not. I genuinely love america, and i have alot of good friends over there. But the idea that having guns... which even if you respect that right, excactly what makes you so adverse to gun control? better licensing laws more background checks, laws of how guns should be stored, a higher age limitation for guns etc etc... there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about losing your common sense
Good post 111, wonder what they gonna reply to it
@ Dragon
No, saying guns kill people is Stupid. I think you need someone to pull the trigger.
Stupid. Remove guns ? you mean make laws against gun ownership. There is no removing guns.
That is not logical. Its illogical.
How about you remove the MURDERERS....then you have less murders. NOW, that is logical......stupid.
@111
"My constitution" is the foundation of ALL modern Democratic republic Constitutions....yes, drawing from an array of flawed systems.
"My Constitution" is an ever changing document, that can be amended....just as the first 10 Amendments, were added to the Constitution.....One of them, the 2nd that guarantees my right to bear arms, and form a militia.
"My Constitution" is mine, and I can give a damn what you think of "MY CONSTITUTION."
Worry about you and yours.
Shall I make a list of "Dangerous Items?" besides guns ?? or can we both agree, there are a lot of "Dangerous Items" to include guns.
". . . .what happened if a nation was founded on the use of heroin?"
> > > Does this quote even need to be responded to ?? Is that really a point that needs addressing ?? My God.
Not Slagging my country, your friends here, and laws controls......ROFL.....
Did you miss the point of this thread ?? I think you did.
Your stance was ELIMINATION of guns.
Are you changing now ??
You wrote:
"excactly why do you need guns anyway?"
and this great line:
"move away from your perspectives that have been bred into you and really think, think for yourselves. . . ."
Yea, great....Tell you what.....You worry about your Country, and your law.
Leave your Elitist views on your side of the ocean.
You continue to THINK you know what is best for everyone.
Total gun bans in democracies start out with common sense licensing, and common sense regulation, and then common sense restriction, and then no guns at all.
We know what happened in Britain, and we know what happened in new orleans. The govt had a little list and they went around taking people's gins BECAUSE cops weren't going to patrol the streets and it was every man for himself. Very good argument for making a STEN gun and burying it without telling.
If old style rules have to bend to "common sense" and its all about what govt can get away with...I want a gun more than ever.
and we do have gun controls - assault/autos etc are illegal.
difference between controls and bans though
Good points Yell.
Didnt even tackle that side of it.
I wonder how law abiding Americans felt in LA when the Rodney King Riots broke out.
Where was "GOVT" to protect the law abiding that were banned from Gun ownership ??
Was it the law abiding that went on a looting rampage ??
You all have such faith in Govt. to take care of you. Who is it that really "Thinks ?"
"No, saying guns kill people is Stupid. I think you need someone to pull the trigger.
Stupid. Remove guns ? you mean make laws against gun ownership. There is no removing guns.
That is not logical. Its illogical. "
Ehh yea find all "murderers" and we should all be fine with having guns
But it's not possible. Soooo put restrictions on guns instead to lower the murder rate. I really can't see any reasons not to do this. Unless you want a shiney gun at home ofc or if you support murders for some weird reason.
"Total gun bans in democracies start out with common sense licensing, and common sense regulation, and then common sense restriction, and then no guns at all. "
WHAT? Really. What is you problem? Why do you LOVE guns? Just make sure it's not THAT EASY to get and it should get better.
"WHAT? Really. What is you problem? Why do you LOVE guns?"
Police response time to a violent 911 call in my town: 9-10 minutes.
And that's excellent in the USA.
This Supreme Court ruling actually means surprisingly little in the long run. The Supreme Court did /not/ rule that the right to bear arms was an unlimited one, and it has left many issues important to gun owners and their supporters unanswered or simply unfulfilled. For instance, owning handguns for self-defense is a "reasonable" use of one's Second Amendment rights, according to the SCROT--er, SCOTUS, but the ban on "assault" weapons is unaffected. Legislators can still require trigger locks, strict storage requirements, licensing, background checks, and registration, all of which one would prefer to /avoid/ especially if they intend on keeping their right now and forever. If the Supreme Court had put an end to all of that, once and for all, /then/ I would be jumping for joy and shooting my guns wildly into the atmosphere*.
* I would never fire any weapon randomly into the air.
> Black_Wing wrote:
The US Supreme Court, in a HORRIBLE 5-4 ruling, that should have been 9-0, ruled that no Govt. can ban Gun Ownership.
PERIOD.
I support this ruling, I am shocked its a 5-4 ruling, but I support it.
Though from a legal viewpoint I feel that the decision is a correct one, if you actually read the ratio and the obiter, you would understand why 4 justices did not want to follow that numbskull Scalia J. Im surprised at how easily he can bully 4 other justices to follow his bullshit. There could have easily been a different ratio but it seems they are all gutless.
Scalia J's "living constitution" is bullshit. He must think he is the supreme lord of law and has a right to set phony precedents. His use of 'originalism' is another way to force his own agenda down other people's throats. Intent is only looked at if there was any ambiguity. Its how he draws the far-fetched ideal that the right to have weapons to form a militia is the same as self defense.
Well that fails, Geese, because even the opposition admitted there was ambiguity. Kennedy was upset Scalia resolved that ambiguity by denying local governments the option of a handgun ban.
"Its how he draws the far-fetched ideal that the right to have weapons to form a militia is the same as self defense."
Which are you criticizing? The militia or self-defense? Self-defense is as old as the militia in English common law. It's an effective defense in civil law and for crimes of violence. And when you get down to what the militia has been in this country, it starts with the individual responding to a communal crisis.
A more daring legal question: if the militia is a guaranteed right of the People is it constitutional for the states to limit it to the National Guard?
"Police response time to a violent 911 call in my town: 9-10 minutes.
And that's excellent in the USA."
And... how would they be quicker? You want them there instantly? How would you manage that?
Or put more cash to the police and hire more of them to put it down to 4-5 minutes.
Still I didn't see any arguments agains 111's post. BWs post was just "SHUT UP, THIS ISN'T YOUR COUNTRY! which really gave nothing. Anyone else that can actually reply to it? It was a good post from 111 that deserves a reply.
@ Dragon
Seems you miss the entire point of the convo in this thread. If you think YELL is complaining about 911 response times, and I was telling 111 to "shutup", then I must make that conclusion.
@ Geese
So, I must assume you are a Bader-Ginsberg fan ? You believe the Oligarchy that is the Supreme Court can just at any whim make up the law as they see fit ??
You believe the Court is controlled by Scalia ? Because he wrote the majority opinion on this Gun Issue ruling ?
The Supreme Court is obviously Left of Center at the moment with Kennedy leaning left to the other bonehead socialists w/Ginsberg being the most outrageously Socialist.
They all have forgotten what their duty is, and on numerous occasions, hear cases that they have no reason hearing. Some should be left to the lower court ruling.
So, to clarify Geese; Is it the ruling you do not like, Scalia you dont like or is it the Court as a whole you do not like ??
Did you agree with the minority view ?
Imperial Forum → Politics → US Supreme Court: Do Not Restrict Guns
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.