Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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.

I remember seeing a news report not too long ago about plastic guns. I can't find anything about them now; I may have dreamed it up. Regardless, even if they do exist, one cannot remove the entire right to bear arms based simply on one type of weapon.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

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

Just what this country needs, legislation based on Hollywood scenarios.

I think Mythbusters covered the "plastic gun" myth in an episode last season. I guess these guys were all too busy to catch that episode.

I wonder if they still believe in the armor piercing teflon coated Black Talons of the 80's and early 90's.

reply to post by percievedreality

Originally posted by percievedreality

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!

The audio is presented right now on CSPAN, for those who are interested.

From the blog, it looks like DC Law is getting owned

Go get 'em!

reply to post by xxpigxx


Thanks for your reply and I appreciate your opinion. Two of those citizens in the incidents that you quoted were off duty police, so yes, they should have a gun. And who knows, maybe with MUCH stricter enforcement those criminals may not have even had a gun in the first place....I know....again, that maybe an unrealistic statement, but maybe not. We could probably counter back all day with incidents that contradict each other. In my personal opinion the number of thwarted robberies or lives saved because a well-meaning armed citizen does not even come close to the number of senseless murders or even the number of children killed everyday at the wrong end of a gun.

I would hope that you could appreciate my opinion as well.

reply to post by hsur2112


It's definately a tragedy to see such events, however the realities of this world are that people are going to kill people and people are going to encounter tragic life-ending accidents with or without handguns.

One could cite as many people being killed in car accidents as you can with handguns. Do we ban all cars? No.

Tragedies are just that.....tragadies. They can occur at the hands of another or via a series of circumstances that lead to one's one death. You can not effectively legislate the prevention of tragedy. If it isn't done by a gun, it'll happen via some other means.

btw, since it seems applicable to portions of this thread .. I am a liberal and I oppose gun control.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The problem with murder is that deterrents don't apply.

And that includes the fact that there is no way to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, even if laws are passed to disarm the entire populace.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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.

I think they are just setting up the parameters for the debate, whittling away the extraneous arguments to get them out of the way.

In the case of plastic weapons, it goes to the old defense of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen today's technology.

It's a variation of the "is it OK to ban certain types of firearms" question.

reply to post by hsur2112


I respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from.


I just do not agree with it

reply to post by hsur2112

Originally posted by hsur2112
In my personal opinion the number of thwarted robberies or lives saved because a well-meaning armed citizen does not even come close to the number of senseless murders or even the number of children killed everyday at the wrong end of a gun.

I would hope that you could appreciate my opinion as well.

Allow me to jump in and ask this question: how many crimes have been avoided because the criminal thought his victim (or some bystander) might be armed? (Rhetorical question - no response expected).

And I think I can say with a lot of confidence that most people here are very sensitive to your opinion, and all regret the tragedies you speak of. We all wish we had an answer to the problem.

Link

Breyer asks why cities should not be given leeway to construct firearms regulations to meet local problems.

They can have leeway . . . they can't ban guns

Gura says pistols were not considered "firearms" in revolutionary era Boston.

Too bad the amendment does not say firearms . . . it says arms.

Stevens asks how Gura can explain why neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution explicitly refers to self-defense

Good question . . . anyone care to tackle this one?

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by CX


I agree with others, this isn't an issue about what constitutes a militia. Some have tried to pare it down further and ask, what did the founding fathers mean by "arms" in an attempt to exclude handguns (silly). At it's root this is an issue about individual rights. The Bill of Rights is a document with the sole purpose of protecting the individuals rights from a (possibly) oppressive federal government. That alone ends any debate about the application of the ammendment only to "militias". The document in its entirety is a protection and definition of what rights an individual has that cannot be infringed on by the federal government.

More on point, the way I read the second ammendment, the latter statement affects the former, not the other way around. It's not that if you're a militiaman you have the right to bear arms, it's that every individual should have the right to bear arms so that if such a situation presents itself that requires the formation of a militia the citizens of American will have the means to form such a group in defense of their homes, families, freedoms, country, etc.

reply to post by xxpigxx


I guess because the right to defend yourself existed long before any arms did. If your right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed then why wouldn't you be able to use them to defend yourself?

Seems sort of stupid to explicitly mention every purpose for which "arms" may be used. I doubt the authors of those documents felt it necessary.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Eeesh

This whole argument is pointless, IMHO. I can read what it says very clearly

What about this?

Stevens asks whether a state university could bar students from possessing firearms in dormitories or on campus.

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by xxpigxx

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Stevens asks how Gura can explain why neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution explicitly refers to self-defense

Good question . . . anyone care to tackle this one?

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

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.

The Constitution does not specifically address the tyranny of governments, either, but the FF's were certainly aware that disarming the citizens was a common method of controlling them, and certainly that had some bearing on the wording of the text.

The intentional vagueness of the Constitution is both the beauty and the orneriness of it. Sort of like a wife or gf.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Personally I would prefer it if there were no "gun-free" zones at all but I would respect a homeowner if they asked me not to come onto their property armed so I suppose I would respect (by which I mean not attend) a university's policy of not allowing firearms on campus. A private one that is. A state school should respect the 2nd Amendment and permit firearms.

Main, I think I should send Scalia and Roberts some roses or something. These two are great!

I can't help it. This was funny.

The Chief asks whether the "carry" ban applies to transporting a weapon between rooms in a house.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

Personally I would prefer it if there were no "gun-free" zones at all but I would respect a homeowner if they asked me not to come onto their property armed so I suppose I would respect (by which I mean not attend) a university's policy of not allowing firearms on campus. A private one that is. A state school should respect the 2nd Amendment and permit firearms.

Good answer!

[edit on 18/3/2008 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

Personally I would prefer it if there were no "gun-free" zones at all but I would respect a homeowner if they asked me not to come onto their property armed so I suppose I would respect (by which I mean not attend) a university's policy of not allowing firearms on campus. A private one that is. A state school should respect the 2nd Amendment and permit firearms.

There has, in fact, been discussion of whether incidents such as Virginia Tech would have happened, or at least been so deadly, had firearms been permitted on campus.

EDIT: Arguments have been concluded, now the politicians and lawyers are addressing the public on CSPAN.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by xxpigxx

Stevens asks how Gura can explain why neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution explicitly refers to self-defense

Good question . . . anyone care to tackle this one?

That is a hard one.

It may be because the Framers did not believe self-defense was a right the government would be able to take away, like that of speech and press. After all, no one may have been able to concieve any government would not allow one to defend themselves from a wild animal (more of a concern then than now), for example. They may have believed the government could no more take away the right to self-defense as they could the right to breath. Though he was discussing something else, a similar attitude can be found in the words of Alexander Hamilton: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Or self-defense may have been a "victim" of the concern at the time that enumerating too many rights would disparage rights not listed and may expand the power of Congress. Such concern lead to the adoption of the Ninth Amendment.

I have no evidence for either, they are just theories.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]