Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

reply to post by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
And I dont really concider such an argument to be founed in Liberalism. Totalitarianism with a smile maybe, but not liberalism.

Could just be me though.

I personally do not consider this a liberal or conservative issue, even thought I don't know any conservatives who agree with banning handguns, and all the people I know who want to ban them happen to be liberals.

I just think that my sampling number is too small.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
I see no harm in owning a gun for personal protection and therefore see no reason why a responsible person should not be able to own one.

The harm is that they cannot enforce the "responsible person" part. Gun control is a joke, it's out of hand.

They found seven dead victims on main floor, three of which were children aged 11 and under. The victims were shot with a military-style weapon, police charged.

~source~

Last week a 19-month-old was fatally shot, and at the time a man living at her house claimed she was playing with the gun and it accidentally went off.

~source~

The two adults, 24-year-old Gina Hunt and 24-year-old Andrea Yarrell, and Charlii Yarrell, the infant daughter of Andrea, were all pronounced dead on the scene. A four-month-old girl was taken to Methodist Hospital in critical condition with several gun shot wounds. She died a few hours later.

~source~

And that's all the reason I need to support a ban on personal firearms.

Oh, and I am not a liberal.




[edit on 18-3-2008 by hsur2112]

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
It has always been this way.

Way back when slavery was legal, it was the republican party which put an end to slavery. The liberal dems fought tooth & nail to prevent this. Anyway, my point is that liberals were always for restriction and control for the greater good.

Er, we're talking about liberal vs. conservative, not political parties. Back in the early 1860's, the Dems were the conservatives and the Repubs were the liberals, i.e. it was the liberals who were for abolition mostly.

I think that there are plenty of gun supporters who are liberals - I'm one, anyway.

reply to post by jsobecky


I do agree, it is not necessarily a Liberal V Conservative issue, but as you mentioned, most people on the side of pro-gun are conservative, and most on the side of harsh regulation are liberal. It seems to me, that people get caught up in the ferver of their parties rhetoric and tow the party line. Something that would easily be fixed if only more people made an educated and well researched decision.

On a side note, its interesting that most of the action in this thread comes from a Conservative standpoint (im assuming most of you are Conservatives). I think its interesting because I believe this decision to be very important for everyone, on all sides of the fence

Furthermore, I think its great that although we find ourselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum (generally speaking) we are able to find common ground, and hell, be friendly about it for a change.

reply to post by hsur2112


Absolutly gun control is a joke, but a total firearm ban will do little to curb gun violence.

In Ontario, Canada, hand guns are classified as "restricted firearms" and require a seperate training and licence. Also, to even purchase and possess one, you must belong to a gun club, otherwise, your SOL.

Has this heavily restrictive system worked? No, it hasn't Gun crime is on the rise in Toronto and other major cities across Canada.

Unless the US, and the world, decide to destroy all handguns and stop producing them, gun violence will continue regardless of its legal status.

reply to post by InSpiteOf


A star for your post.

reply to post by hsur2112


Agreed that the incidents you cite are tragic. But as you said, how to enforce "responsible ownership"?

More importantly, how would a ban on handguns have prevented those tragic incidents?

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Unless the US, and the world, decide to destroy all handguns and stop producing them, gun violence will continue regardless of its legal status.

They'd have to go a bit further than that. All lengths of pipe would have to be destroyed, all milling machines and drill presses and lathes would have to be confiscated, any person with knowledge of combustion and mechanical engineering would have to be killed or imprisoned....

Back in the 70's with those old cars we had people snapping off antenna's and making .22 cal zip guns out of them.

You could get rid of all ammunition but what about muzzle loaders? We'd have to get rid of anything that burns and could act as a propellant.

reply to post by jsobecky


Thanks

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Agreed.

I just dont see modern gun laws as actually curbing gun violence or solving the issues with the system. If they do nothing, why have them? It seems to me, serious and harsh punishment for gun violence would be more of a deterrant than a ban on handguns. Would it solve the problem? Probably not, but it might change the minds of a few people when the stop and think, I could spend the rest of my life (and I really mean life with no parole) in prison (with no perks) if I pull this trigger. Is that delusional of me to think so? Maybe, but its no more delusional than to believe banning guns will stop gun violence.

.02

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Absolutly gun control is a joke, but a total firearm ban will do little to curb gun violence.

In Ontario, Canada, hand guns are classified as "restricted firearms" and require a seperate training and licence. Also, to even purchase and possess one, you must belong to a gun club, otherwise, your SOL.

I know that I am probably being unrealistic, and that even stricter laws regarding the purchase of firearems may not be the answer, but it may be a start. It is just a very personal issue to me right now. For the first time, a student at my daughter's school was found to have a handgun last week. But I think that the laws that Canada has is a good start. I know of some (unstable) people that I wouldn't even trust with my cat, but after filling out a form for 10 minutes, walk out with a gun and that is disturbing.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
[ It seems to me, serious and harsh punishment for gun violence would be more of a deterrant than a ban on handguns. Would it solve the problem? Probably not, but it might change the minds of a few people when the stop and think, I could spend the rest of my life (and I really mean life with no parole) in prison (with no perks) if I pull this trigger. Is that delusional of me to think so? Maybe, but its no more delusional than to believe banning guns will stop gun violence.

Well said. That was going to be my next point. If you get caught with an illegal firearm here, you are more than likely to be released two hours later, what lesson is that?

Originally posted by hsur2112
And that's all the reason I need to support a ban on personal firearms.

How would banning guns from law abiding citizens have changed the outcome of the incidents you sited? The criminals would have the guns regardless of the laws, hence why we call them criminals.

On the other hand, if these people that were killed had protected themselves by having a gun then perhaps they would still be alive because they would have been able to defend themselves.

reply to post by hsur2112

A grocery store customer in Indianapolis is being credited with halting an armed robbery by pulling his own weapon and pointing it at the assailant until police arrived.

~Source~

An armed student at Jerusalem's Mercaz Haray seminary played a crucial role in stopping a gun-wielding terrorist Thursday

~Source~

Appalachain Law School Shotting of 2202?

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

~Source~

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said.

~Source~



And that is why I support the right to bear arms

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

Edit: Fixed links

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

Even if the Court finds there is no right for a private-citizen to bear arms under the Second Amendment, it does not mean there is no "Right to Bear Arms." Remember the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it is not listed as a right in the Constitution, does not mean you don't have the right.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
If the Court by some ludicrous ruling states that a individual does NOT have the right to have a firearm, the crap will hit the fan! I just cannot imagine that people will sit around and let this happen.

Yeah, I agree. To prove that point, remember that Montana, South Carolina, and at least one other state (not sure which at the moment) have sent warning letters to the SCOTUS regarding the upcoming decision of this case. Montana's was definetly the most "hardline" invoking the possibility of succession because the ruling would violate the terms and agreements they decided agreed upon when the joined the United States. This is how the Civil War started, with the succession of states over the ruling on the issue of slavery! This could have profound effects! Crap hitting the fan, maybe, we will see who has judgement.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Many such arguments will be proposed; I wonder how many will be presented in the relatively short 90 minutes scheduled.

Keep in mind this is not going to be a one-day or one-week trial leading to a final ruling. While, you are correct in saying that 90 minutes have been scheduled for today, but consider that those taking the stand to argue their points is actually scheduled for at least 68 participants....going to take more than 90 minutes....and no, you will not hear live video or audio. The SCOTUS have promissed to provide audio of the day after the fact, maybe, later on the same evening as the days' proceedings. Keep watch folks!

Originally posted by hsur2112
I know that I am probably being unrealistic, and that even stricter laws regarding the purchase of firearems may not be the answer, but it may be a start.

Its possible, but you also have to consider the society we live in. Our minds are inundated with images of guns and weapons both in good light and in bad pretty much from the get go. Just because you cannot purchase guns legally, does not mean they wont be around.

It is just a very personal issue to me right now. For the first time, a student at my daughter's school was found to have a handgun last week.

I understand and agree, that is a terrifying thought. I couldnt imagine what I would have done if it were my school, or my (currently non-existant) kids school.

But I think that the laws that Canada has is a good start.

See, this is where I disagree. I dont see the restrictive laws as helping the situation at all. If anything, it is just generating revenue for our government, which seems to refuse to anything substantial about the problem in the first place.

I know of some (unstable) people that I wouldn't even trust with my cat, but after filling out a form for 10 minutes, walk out with a gun and that is disturbing.

In a perfect system, such people would no be allowed to purchase a firearm. I am not completely educated on how the system works in the states, but I believe, ideally, your supposed to go through a screening system. Again, this system is not perfect, but it was initially designed to weed out such situations.

Well said. That was going to be my next point. If you get caught with an illegal firearm here, you are more than likely to be released two hours later, what lesson is that?

Exactly. For now, I believe the first step is to re-vamp the prison system and change the laws in respect to violent crime Vs petty crime.

Thank you for your candor

reply to post by InSpiteOf


It depends on what you're trying to deter. Robbery? Rape? Muggings and assault?

The problem with murder is that deterrents don't apply. You either kill somebody out of rage or passion which means you weren't expecting to do it, kill somebody intentionally with planning expecting to evade the consequences, or you're just crazy and don't care one way or the other if you live or die.

None of those can be deterred. Now that I think about it all of these cases apply to virtually every crime. Which would mean to me that there is no way to deter criminal action.

The thought process of a man about to pull that trigger maliciously simply doesn't take into account consequences.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Another con argument is based upon the theory that, if the purpose of the "well-armed militia" is to be the final line of defense for the people against gov't tyranny, then the people must be allowed to match the gov't in firepower. IOW, they must be allowed to possess every weapon, including nukes.

Many such arguments will be proposed; I wonder how many will be presented in the relatively short 90 minutes scheduled.

Tench Coxe, Though nuclear weapons did not obviously exist in his time explained the extent of this right,

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

The limitation on the arms any individual posses are that of the common foot soldier.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That is a very good point, and one I must concede to you.

There are no easy answers to this equation it seems. Unless somehow, all humans magically turn non-violent...

Originally posted by CX
Going by this, am i right in saying that unless you are National Guard, Naval Militia and the likes, you are not classed as an organised militia.....therefore this ruling will be unlikely to pass today?

Yes, that is what US Code says now, but what US code and what the definition at the time of the drafting of the Constitution are two different things. You have to examine history to find the original intention of the framers, particularly Madison.

Madison, nor any of the other framers, invented the right to own firearms. Remember that at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the Patriots were subjects of the British crown. As the Revolution began, the Patriots were concerned about defending their rights as British citizens; Independence would come later. One of those rights, enshrined for nearly 90 years before the Revolution began in the English Bill of Rights, was the right to bear arms for personal defense.

At the time of the Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, the militia was considered to be any white freeman who owned a firearm, and who could be called upon in an emergency. Before there was a standing, permanent Continental Army, these men served as the defense of the Colonies (and as support for British regulars before the Revolution). They would leave their day-to-day jobs for the duration of the emergency, and at the end of their commission, would return to those day-to-day jobs (almost like the National Guard or Reserves today, but not quite).

As tensions in the Colonies grew, British regulars attempted to disarm the populace in order to prevent a popular uprising, and organizing of a militia, against outrages against the Colonies. Years later, when drafting the Constitution, the Framers remembered this. They enshrined within the Bill of Rights a personal right to keep and bear arms, in order that the populace never be forcibly disarmed to prevent either a militia being raised or that the populace be left defenseless.

Why do these guys keep bringing up "plastic guns" that evade metal detectors?

I can't believe they're arguing in front of the SCOTUS about something that doesn't exist. They may as well be arguing about unicorns and trolls.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Could they mean the porcelain, Glock 7, as made famous by Die Hard 2?

From my understanding, they dont exist.