# SCOTUS will end 2nd Amendment debate today



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

In about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours, the S.Ct. will rule on whether the 2nd Amendment is a right of the people, or a right of a militia.  

Any bets?

I wish Decker was still around.  I'd bet $100 that they are going to rule in gun owner's favor, and I'd love to rub it in his face.


Decker said:


> #21. Does the average american citizen have a constitutional right to own a firearm?
> 
> A. No. There is no constitutional right to own a gun.
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 26, 2008)

So, Clemson,

You think they'll vote in favor of the individual.

I think you've researched this topic a lot.

I am a gun owner and former member of the NRA.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

Yeah, from earlier quotes, I think it is a safe bet they will rule in favor of the gun owner also. If so, I want to hear all the liberal antigun politicians cry!


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> So, Clemson,
> 
> You think they'll vote in favor of the individual.
> 
> ...


 
I am fairly certain that they will be on our side.

The effect however is marginal.  It depends on what level of scrutiny is assigned.  If lower scrutiny is assigned, jurisdictions could still get away with trampling people's right.  DC for instance could still make it virtually impossible to own a gun, so long as it was possible; i.e. registration, 6 month waiting period, approval of a sheriff required, $1000 application fee, etc.

Its really a sad state for the Country to be in.  It is laughable that gun control advocates can argue that a gun ban promotes safety when the jurisdictions in the country with the most gun control have the highest crime.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

Just in........Court rules in favor of gun owners!!!!!!! Will get the story shortly.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.


A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.

 The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority. 

At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.

District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.

In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.

Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood. 

Don't Miss
Child rapists can't be executed, court rules 
Court rules in favor of Muslim at Gitmo 
High court to decide whether Navy saving whales 
Gun laws in high court's sights 
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.

"What more am I supposed to do?" Parker recalled asking authorities. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' "  See how proponents, opponents argued »

Elilta "Lily" Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she told the court. "And we're just not doing it; we're sitting around; we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."

In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes. 

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. 

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.

The Second Amendment says, "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 wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation. 

The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.

Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.

The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.

In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance.


"Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.

Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or dissembled.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

I think this is the only constitutional right I've ever seen a conservative support.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I think this is the only constitutional right I've ever seen a conservative support.


 
Actually, conservatives are more likely to support constitutional rights.  They supported the first amendment recently in rejecting the "Fairness Doctrine," a significant limitation on free speech, supported by liberals.  

Liberals are more likely to discard the rights that we have and fabricate new ones out of thin air.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Actually, conservatives are more likely to support constitutional rights.  They supported the first amendment recently in rejecting the "Fairness Doctrine," a significant limitation on free speech, supported by liberals.
> 
> Liberals are more likely to discard the rights that we have and fabricate new ones out of thin air.





nice to see the court rule this way


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Actually, conservatives are more likely to support constitutional rights.  They supported the first amendment recently in rejecting the "Fairness Doctrine," a significant limitation on free speech, supported by liberals.
> 
> Liberals are more likely to discard the rights that we have and fabricate new ones out of thin air.



How, exactly, was the Fairness Doctrine a "significant" limitation of "free speech?"


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> How, exactly, was the Fairness Doctrine a "significant" limitation of "free speech?"


 
I don't know, maybe because it puts limitations on the content of private radio broadcasts.  


This is what is so laughable about liberals.  They portray themselves as so progressive, always on the side of the downtrodden individual.  Yet when it comes right down to it, they are opposed to the rights of the individual in many situations, yet they always try to come up with some dishonest way of clouding the issue.

Let take a guess at what comes next: kbm argues that legislation which restricts the content of what can be broadcast over the radio is not a limitation on free speech, under some strained and disingenious theory.

Not coincidentally, the doctrine applies primarily to radio, which is conservative biased, and exempts television and other types of media which are extremely liberal biased.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> In about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours, the S.Ct. will rule on whether the 2nd Amendment is a right of the people, or a right of a militia.
> 
> Any bets?
> 
> I wish Decker was still around.  I'd bet $100 that they are going to rule in gun owner's favor, and I'd love to rub it in his face.



Cliff notes:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont.../06/07-290.pdf

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause.s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

- --henry schaffer

We win, they lose. The anti self defense anti Const. types will do their best to spin it, but they lost. What's scary is, 4 judges didn't agree, which means they don't think the 2A is an individual right.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 26, 2008)

Woot woot! This is very good news.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 26, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> . What's scary is, 4 judges didn't agree, which means they don't think the 2A is an individual right.



meaning this right is hanging by a thread. combine that with yesterdays language of "a maturing society" and you can see how the liberals are just waiting for that vote to go 5-4 the opposite way. my vote for president will be based on the type of supremem court justice they will nominate


----------



## KelJu (Jun 26, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> meaning this right is hanging by a thread. combine that with yesterdays language of "a maturing society" and you can see how the liberals are just waiting for that vote to go 5-4 the opposite way. my vote for president will be based on the type of supremem court justice they will nominate



We are maturing if maturity means senile.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 26, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> meaning this right is hanging by a thread. combine that with yesterdays language of "a maturing society" and you can see how the liberals are just waiting for that vote to go 5-4 the opposite way. my vote for president will be based on the type of supremem court justice they will nominate



Well, it's not easy to over turn such a decision, but I agree, it's scary what a thin line it is.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Held:
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


 
Couldn't have asked for more.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

I think by all accounts, Stevens is hanging on at least until the next president.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I don't know, maybe because it puts limitations on the content of private radio broadcasts.
> 
> 
> This is what is so laughable about liberals.  They portray themselves as so progressive, always on the side of the downtrodden individual.  Yet when it comes right down to it, they are opposed to the rights of the individual in many situations, yet they always try to come up with some dishonest way of clouding the issue.
> ...



Actually, what is laughable is the myth conservatives put forward that the "fairness doctrine" significantly limited free speech. Particularly when the conservative philosophy is that the only people entitled to use the public airwaves for "free speech" are those wealthy enough to own the operating systems. Moreover, the doctrine applied to use of the public airwaves, period - not right-wing talk radio. There wasn't much right-wing talk radio back then, mostly because the very idea of allowing opposing viewpoints was outrageous to conservatives, who contended that use of the airwaves should be "market driven," or in the possession of the ownership. 

Now, exactly how did the fairness doctrine limit the content of on-air broadcasts to merely the "liberal" point of view?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Let take a guess at what comes next: kbm argues that legislation which restricts the content of what can be broadcast over the radio is not a limitation on free speech, under some strained and disingenious theory.





kbm8795 said:


> Actually, what is laughable is the myth conservatives put forward that the "fairness doctrine" significantly limited free speech. Particularly when the conservative philosophy is that the only people entitled to use the public airwaves for "free speech" are those wealthy enough to own the operating systems. Moreover, the doctrine applied to use of the public airwaves, period - not right-wing talk radio. There wasn't much right-wing talk radio back then, mostly because the very idea of allowing opposing viewpoints was outrageous to conservatives, who contended that use of the airwaves should be "market driven," or in the possession of the ownership.
> 
> Now, exactly how did the fairness doctrine limit the content of on-air broadcasts to merely the "liberal" point of view?


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


>


 
Surprisingly, it might be his first post ever without playing the race-card. He opted for the closely related wealth-card. I guess NPR stands for "Non Public Radio-for-the-wealthy."


It is unbelievable to me that someone can argue that legislation which specifically limits the content of radio broadcasts doesn't infringe on free speech.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Surprisingly, it might be his first post ever without playing the race-card. He opted for the closely related wealth-card. I guess NPR stands for "Non Public Radio-for-the-wealthy."
> 
> 
> It is unbelievable to me that someone can argue that legislation which specifically limits the content of radio broadcasts doesn't infringe on free speech.




You keep repeating this mantra, but provide no evidence that content of radio broadcasts were specifically limited. However, there is plenty of evidence of the lack of varied viewpoints presented on broadcasts today - which once again points to the conservative philosophy that free speech in the use of the publicly owned airwaves is limited to those who can afford to own the operating stations.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


>



I think we are already quite aware of your inability to detect bias in the media.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2008)

*Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right*

BY ADAM LISBERG 
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF 
Thursday, June 26th 2008, 11:13 AM 
New York's tough handgun laws may come under fire from gun groups after the Supreme Court threw out Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban today.

The court ruled 5-4 that Washington's outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms - a provision that had never been conclusively interpreted.

New York's gun laws, while not as strict as Washington's, require residents to keep rifles and shotguns locked up and put strict licensing requirements on people who want to own a handgun.
Mayor Bloomberg, who has set up a national coalition of mayors opposed to illegal guns, said the court's ruling doesn't affect New York's laws.
"Reasonable regulations are permitted" under the ruling, the mayor said at an East River event. "We will continue to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The Bloomberg administration had filed a Supreme Court brief backing Washington, as did Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Legal experts said it will take time for lower courts to interpret the Supreme Court's decision, then apply it to new cases to determine what gun regulations are reasonable.

Other fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or speak freely, are also subject to reasonable restrictions.
"We'll be examining it and thinking about what issues it presents," said Patrick Brophy, lawyer for the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. "As long as a licensing system is not administered in an arbitrary and capricious way, that may be entirely permissible."

New York's licensing may be vulnerable on two fronts, he said - the $340 fee every three years may be too high to be reasonable, and the minimum six-month wait for a license to be approved may be too long.

"The NRA has its precedent, and now it's going to use it to try to strike down various restrictions around the country," said Columbia Law School professor Nathaniel Persily. "We don't know what the next shoe to drop will be."


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> You keep repeating this mantra, but provide no evidence that content of radio broadcasts were specifically limited. However, there is plenty of evidence of the lack of varied viewpoints presented on broadcasts today - which once again points to the conservative philosophy that free speech in the use of the publicly owned airwaves is limited to those who can afford to own the operating stations.


 
You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"

Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is *FREEDOM OF SPEECH*.  

It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you have "varied viewpoints."  It isn't about freedom of speech so long as you say something we want to hear.  It isn't about freedom of speech so long as we like what you have to say.  It is about the freedom to say what I want to say without your bullshit restrictions.


Is this really a point that you want to argue?!?  That legislating as to the content of certain speech has nothing to do with free speech?  Why don't we just say that the freedom from unreasonable searches in seizures in the fourth amendment applies only so long as you haven't comitted a crime, and to insure that you haven't comitted a crime of course we have to search you without probable cause?  Why don't we just say that freedom from self-incrimination under the fifth amendment only applies so long as you haven't been charged with a crime?  Its facially fucking ridiculous.




Your typical liberal-whining bullshit about wealth or race or some other idealized victim status is completely meritless.  The television media is extremely liberally biased, yet excluded from the fairness doctrine.  I wonder why.  I guess "varied viewpoints" are only a worthy endeavor if the bias swings against the cry babies.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2008)

I would pay to sit down and eat with you 2 guys, oh the fun.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"_Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."_


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

"_Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except when it doesn't like the content of what you have to say."_


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 26, 2008)

My money's on Tigger.



I'll bring the booze.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 26, 2008)

These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway.

You're familiar with S.C., no? The land of repressed and victimized.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway.
> 
> You're familiar with S.C., no? *The land of repressed and victimized*.


 
Why do you say that?

I'd say claiming to be/wanting to be labeled repressed and victimized has more to do with political persuasion than anything else.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.



Who else will they balme their own problems on?


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

God I wish Charleton Heston had lived to see this day!! He would had been one very happy guy.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 26, 2008)

Very scary that the four liberls voted against it. They should be impeached immediately.


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.



I was responding to this statement. 



> I'd say claiming to be/wanting to be labeled repressed and victimized has more to do with political persuasion than anything else.



Yes.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Yes.


 
Word.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Very scary that the four liberls voted against it. They should be impeached immediately.


 
Its scary to know that SCOTUS, who is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority, is essentially completely in line with the partisan-political bullshit that is going on today.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.



Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.



It's always the right time to shit on morons.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Kind of like someone who whines about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth.


 

What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?



Oh stop whining.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?



Hahaha, I was going to post that next, but got held up with a customer.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 26, 2008)

So does this mean that there is no more grey area about home defense?  If someone breaks in, is shooting their ass now Constitutionally protected?


----------



## KelJu (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> What about someone who whines about people who whine about people who whine about inequalities of race and wealth?



Also, anybody who whines about racial inequality in this country is a fucking loser that will never be successful in the first place. Let them whine. Don't join them.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 26, 2008)

Good ruling.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"
> 
> Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is *FREEDOM OF SPEECH*.
> 
> ...



fucking crushed.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Also, anybody who whines about racial inequality in this country is a fucking loser that will never be successful in the first place. Let them whine. Don't join them.



We can agree on that.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

FishOrCutBait said:


> fucking crushed.




I was hoping someone would appreciate that.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I was hoping someone would appreciate that.



What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.

He is _the_ _most_ close-minded person that I've encountered.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.



Not just any censorship, but racist oppressive censorship by the wealthy benefiting from corporate welfare and inventing the AIDS virus to increase global warming.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

_Damn... _


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You ask me to provide "evidence" that it is limiting in the same post as acknowledging that it requires "varied viewpoints?"
> 
> Stick with me here because this is a difficult concept: the whole point of the first amendment is *FREEDOM OF SPEECH*.
> 
> ...



You know, your first problem is an amazing inability to be confident enough in your beliefs that you can engage in a discussion without resorting to third grade level namecalling or bullshit. It isn't about freedom of speech when conservatives claim that the only parties allowed access to the PUBLIC airwaves are those who OWN the stations. 

You still have failed to provide the evidence that the Fairness Doctrine significantly restricted freedom of speech on the airwaves. You only claim there were restrictions on such speech, and yet provide nothing other than use your tired old "the liberals, the liberals" bullshit to repeat a memorized mantra. You haven't given me any more indication that you understand bias in the media than DOMS had, and he failed a very simple test in which he provided the example. 

"Varied viewpoints" is the idea that there are 300 million Americans who all have different experiences and different stories - and they are not represented significantly at all by a cabal of right wing ideologues monopolizing the media. Perhaps you should review the initial reasons Reagan wanted the Fairness Doctrine removed, and then compare those to the media we have today, explaining along the way how the conservative approach has managed to raise the public's confidence in the press.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What's really funny is that bit of legal muzzling was put forth by Republicans, he's have denounced it as censorship.
> 
> He is _the_ _most_ close-minded person that I've encountered.



And you are one of the most least informed people on your country, its history, its media, and its culture that I've ever encountered. Of course, I seem to remember a few stiff fines levied against the media by the conservative-controlled FCC in the  name of right-wing censorship. . .and plenty of demands for censorship pushed by right-wing groups against any viewpoint they deem indecent - which would be any viewpoint other than their own.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> We can agree on that.




Yeah..so when are the "angry white males" going to stop whining?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

FishOrCutBait said:


> fucking crushed.




He still hasn't shown us any instances in which content of speech was restricted.


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 26, 2008)

I think kbm is putting up a fair fight. 

Haven't read anything from him in other threads though.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And you are one of the most least informed people on your country, its history, its media, and its culture that I've ever encountered. Of course, I seem to remember a few stiff fines levied against the media by the conservative-controlled FCC in the  name of right-wing censorship. . .and plenty of demands for censorship pushed by right-wing groups against any viewpoint they deem indecent - which would be any viewpoint other than their own.



Least?  Hahahahaha  You don't like anybody's ideas other that your own warped imaginings, so you have to declare that I know less about anything than anyone else.  Truly pathetic.

Even better, you claim, rightfully so, that the right does its bit to censor, so that you think that makes it okay for your side to do the same.  Hell, you don't just think that it's "okay", you think it's a blessing for society.

I take it back, pathetic doesn't begin to describe you.


----------



## cadnkides (Jun 26, 2008)

if Obama gets into office you can kiss this ruling goodby


----------



## DOMS (Jun 26, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> I think kbm is putting up a fair fight.
> 
> Haven't read anything from him in other threads though.



Go back and read his stuff, it's amusing.

The US government is trying to tell people what they can, and cannot, say.  It's not about decency either.  Having laws that prevent someone from saying fuck, inciting a riot, or defamation is one thing.  Anything beyond that is censorship.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> "_Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except when it doesn't like the content of what you have to say."_




Yes...that does seem to be the conservative interpretation of the First Amendment. They don't allow access to the public airwaves of any content they find "offensive."


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Go back and read his stuff, it's amusing.
> 
> The US government is trying to tell people what they can, and cannot, say.  It's not about decency either.  Having laws that prevent someone from saying fuck, inciting a riot, or defamation is one thing.  Anything beyond that is censorship.




Conservatives have no problem using the government to tell people what they can, and cannot, say. They just like to mask it under the term "moral". . ."decent"...meaning any speech that isn't conservative is indecent and immoral. 

We are still waiting for the long list of incidents of speech which were significantly restricted by the Fairness Doctrine or even an explanation of how the Fairness Doctrine signficantly restricted freedom of speech.  Surely this should be a no-brainer, even for someone poorly schooled in media analysis.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 26, 2008)

cadnkides said:


> if Obama gets into office you can kiss this ruling goodby



this one is not going to be easily overturned. if obama is elected im more worried about the type of justice he will appoint and what will happen in future rulings on social issues


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2008)

*Bob Barr*

The Libertarian presidential candidate weighs in: 
The ruling â?????will go down as one of the Supreme Courtâ??????s most important rulings on behalf of liberty,â??? says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.

Until today, the Court had never held that the Second Amendment directly applied to individuals. â?????Todayâ??????s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America,â??? explains Barr, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. Barr also drafted the Libertarian Partyâ??????s amicus curiae brief in Heller. â?????By protecting an individualâ??????s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families,â??? he explains.

The right to self-defense is particularly important for women and minorities in a city like Washington, D.C. â?????Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families,â??? Barr notes. â?????Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.â???

But the Courtâ??????s ruling, though welcome, is not enough. â?????It is important to have a president who also supports the right of Americans to own firearms,â??? says Barr. â?????Sen. Barack Obama says that he believes in such a constitutional right, but he supports the District of Columbiaâ??????s ban, which gives criminals an advantage over law-abiding citizens,â??? notes Barr. 

Sen. McCain has not advocated an absolute prohibition, â?????but he cosponsored legislation which could require registration of attendees at gun shows and even ban such shows,â??? Barr warns. And Sen. McCainâ??????s campaign legislation â?????curtailed the First Amendment right of gun owners to protect their rights by participating in election campaigns.â???

As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment undergirds American liberty. â?????The individualâ??????s right to keep and bear arms helps ensure all of our freedoms,â??? says Barr. â?????The Supreme Courtâ??????s recognition of the constitutional right to gun ownership is a recognition of the right to life, liberty, and property for all Americans.â???​The speed with which that went out reveals the confidence a lot of people had that it would go this way. Nothing yet from those other presidential candidates. Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year's unambiguous statement that "the gun ban is constitutional." 
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.​


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2008)

John McCain weighs in: 
Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.​


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 26, 2008)

From Barack Obama: 
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.​


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 26, 2008)

i do not like obamas views on guns one bit


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> These types are a dime a dozen. Its easier to use a crutch as opposed to presenting a solid argument.....seems to be the trend these days, anyway.
> 
> You're familiar with S.C., no? The land of repressed and victimized.



Most of South Carolina's history is made up of tales of southern repression and victimization. That was the state where I learned it wasn't the Civil War, or the War Between The States, but the War of Northern Aggression.

Too bad they didn't figure out that if they had shot cannons full of those nasty boiled peanuts at the Yankee troops, the war would have soon been over.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> From Barack Obama:
> â?????I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Todayâ??????s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
> 
> â?????As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.​



It makes me think of that quaint little gun shop in Virginia which gladly furnished firearms for the two university shooting sprees in the last year.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 26, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> John McCain weighs in:
> Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
> 
> Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
> ...




I always love it when the McCain campaign uses the word "elitist" to demonize Obama. Only John McSame, whose fortune stems from a second marriage after cheating on his first wife - past the age of 40. . .and a man who owns nine...or...ten...or..eleven homes around the country and conducts most of his fundraisers of $2300 a plate dinners at secluded, gated mansions, would know what an elitist is. . .


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.


 


bio-chem said:


> i do not like obamas views on guns one bit


 

He is not really saying much, he is not saying he wants a total ban nor does he say he wants one in every home.

He does not want to see guns going into the wrong hands, I think we all agree on that.

I do agree that owning a gun in South Carolina is not the same as owning a gun in New York City.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > A Somewhat Skeptical Take on Heller


Radley Balko[/url] | June 26, 2008, 4:37pm
I hate to pee in the pool, here, but I'm having a hard time getting too excited about today's decision.

Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion avoids any decision on incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, and his history suggests a strong reluctance to incorporate individual rights. Scalia's opinion does interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, but only for self-protection, and only in the home. The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead. 

In the past, when Scalia's limited government principles have conflicted with his law-and-order instincts, law and order has won handily. He's been a happy federalist when it comes to allowing states to infringe on individual rights, but will bring down the hammer of the federal government on states that defy the feds by giving their citizens a bit more freedom. 

As Jacob Sullum noted earlier, Scalia also goes out of his way to note that the "individual right" the Court found today doesn't undo onerous regulations on the sale of guns, leaves untouched bans on "unusual or dangerous" weapons, and doesn't overturn existing bans on concealed carry.

So what's the real practical effect of today's ruling? Seems to me, it's limited to the following:

â???¢ A future Congress is barred from passing a uniform federal ban on handguns or rifles in the home. Just about any other federal regulation would probably still be okay, provided it meets the minimal Commerce Clause test in _U.S. v. Lopez_. 

â???¢ The 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. and residents of other federal protectorates now have the constitutional right to own a handgun, provided they meet a set of conditions put forth by the city councilâ??????the limits of which will be litigated at a future date. Also, even this right for this small group of people extends only to handguns or rifles kept in the home. 
Any other city, state, or locality may still pass a gun law just as restrictive as the one struck down in D.C. And even the D.C. city council can still make its citizens jump through a number of hoops before allowing them to own a handgun.

Today's ruling gave the right a rhetorical victory (remember, elections are "all about the judges!"), but I'm not sure what it accomplished in actually protecting Second Amendment rights. To be fair, Scalia explains that _Heller_ was basically a case of first impression, and there's much to still work out through litigation. But given the narrow reach of his opinion, I guess I'd just caution against too much optimism that any new litigation will come out the right way


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

I see nothing wrong with this, so what you have to wait a few days, if your clean you have nothing to worry about.



> Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly predicted the city would win any challenge to its gun regulations, which require lengthy background checks, fingerprints and a $340 fee.


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Too bad they didn't figure out that if they had shot cannons full of those nasty boiled peanuts at the Yankee troops, the war would have soon been over.



What's wrong with boiled peanuts?
*shchk shchk..locks and loads*


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> He is not really saying much, he is not saying he wants a total ban nor does he say he wants one in every home.
> *He never says much.*
> 
> He does not want to see guns going into the wrong hands, I think we all agree on that.
> ...





I can agree that there are differences between the states, but I'm torn on the need for/the degree of variation in regulation there should be in each.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Seriously, there is something seriously wrong with a person who cannot form a single thought without whining about inequalities of race or wealth.



What, you never been to San Fran?


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

dg806 said:


> God I wish Charleton Heston had lived to see this day!! He would had been one very happy guy.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> So does this mean that there is no more grey area about home defense?  If someone breaks in, is shooting their ass now Constitutionally protected?



No. Nothing is EVER that simple. Your state laws are what matter and still apply.


----------



## TexanTA1996 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I do agree that owning a gun in South Carolina is not the same as owning a gun in New York City.



*Wrong.  *

He's basically saying he's against gun owner's rights.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> From Barack Obama:
> â?????I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Todayâ??????s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
> 
> â?????*As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen*. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.​


 

Typical fucking liberal.  He cannot take a single breath without lying.  Also, he has a fundamental inability to address things for what they are, like all other liberals he must constantly bring in emotion based arguments like "save the children," "its about racial equality," and so on.

As an Illinois politican, he was one of the most anti-gun politicians in the country.  He is opposed to all concealed carry.  He favors licensing and registration of all guns.  Most importanlty, he has said he would support a complete nationwide ban on handguns.  A handgun ban was specifically the issue addressed in Heller, the highest court in the land came out directly and explicitly saying *Obama's prior position is unconstitutional*.  Like most liberals who get to the Presidential stage, he has spent a great deal of time trying to backtrack on his previous positions, mainly because middle class America doesn't support liberal ideals.



Finally, with respect to the bolded quote, have you ever heard someone say "You can always tell a racist because they keep talking about how many Black or Hispanic friends they have?"  Well, analogously, you can always tell someone who is anti-second amendment because *they insist of talking about hunting every time the issue comes up*.  The reason being that if you can assert that the second amendment is linked to hunting, then you can ban all guns that aren't necessary for hunting.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with self-defense, both from criminals and from a tyranical government.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> He is not really saying much, he is not saying he wants a total ban nor does he say he wants one in every home.
> 
> He does not want to see guns going into the wrong hands, I think we all agree on that.
> 
> I do agree that owning a gun in South Carolina is not the same as owning a gun in New York City.



It's something about the form and function of how he says it. I can't really put my finger on it, but it kind of seems to be against what i've read of his previous statements. 

and i disagree. chicago, washington, new york. they all have severe gun crime. but it doesnt mean lawful citizens should loose the right to gun ownership because they live there. an effort to take away my guns in my home bothers me. I am a good citizen who votes, i do not have a criminal record, or any mental issues that require treatment or medication. from my point of view no matter where i live in the united states I should be allowed to have a loaded hand gun in my home for self defence. this law assures that.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

TexanTA1996 said:


> *Wrong. *
> 
> He's basically saying he's against gun owner's rights.


 
Can you imagine an argument that First Amendment rights are stronger in certain geographical locations?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Can you imagine an argument that First Amendment rights are stronger in certain geographical locations?



WOW nice point.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> He is not really saying much, he is not saying he wants a total ban nor does he say he wants one in every home.
> 
> He does not want to see guns going into the wrong hands, I think we all agree on that.
> 
> I do agree that owning a gun in South Carolina is not the same as owning a gun in New York City.



Don't be fooled. Someone that is not totally in support of gun owners and who dodges the question like he does and is in favor of "SOME" gun support, is in favor of "Total" gun banning. Read between the lines.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

TexanTA1996 said:


> *Wrong. *
> 
> He's basically saying he's against gun owner's rights.





> As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> You still have failed to provide the evidence that the Fairness Doctrine significantly restricted freedom of speech on the airwaves.


 
Its clear that your mentality is that so long as you get in the last post on an issue, you have won.  You just keep repeating the same garbage.  It is akin to someone getting on the stand and confessing to murder, and then in closing arguments asserting "they still haven't proven that I committed murder."

If you cannot understand how legislation restricting the content of speech limits free speech, you are beyond help.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Don't be fooled. Someone that is not totally in support of gun owners and who dodges the question like he does and is in favor of "SOME" gun support, is in favor of "Total" gun banning. Read between the lines.


These politicians will say anything for votes.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Don't be fooled. Someone that is not totally in support of gun owners and who dodges the question like he does and is in favor of "SOME" gun support, is in favor of "Total" gun banning. Read between the lines.



You don't have to read between the lines here, he stated he was for a TOTAL BAN on CCW nation wide and a total ban on semi auto handguns. No between the lines needed here. He's just talking out of all holes in his body as politicians often do. He knows few people will look into his prior statements (most people being only slightly smarter then a house plant) and making general "I support the Const. Rights of gun owners" to garner votes regardless of whether it's actually true or not.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


>


 

Seriously, thats political double-talk.  Its just lip service; something he has to say to avoid a media frenzy.  You can't take everything politicians say at face value.

Really, how seriously would have take McCain if he said "I support the constitutional right to have an abortion," yet it was clear from his past voting that he wants a complete ban on abortion?  What if he goes on to say "I will protect the right of all Americans to have an abortion, thats why I think women should be able to have an abortion within the first 6 hours of finding out they are pregnant, so long as they can conclusively prove that they were raped by someone in their own family."  How convinced would you be that he supports abortion rights?

It is just bullshit.  Saying you support something, and then casting every vote in favor of limiting and restricting it is simply dishonest and unconvincing.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and i disagree. chicago, washington, new york. they all have severe gun crime. but it doesnt mean lawful


When I say a difference I am talking about carrying a gun in a crowded subway with hudreds of passengers...when I visit my sisters  upstate Rochester I can see being able to carry a concealed gun but here in the crowded city....I don't know.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

This houseplant did a search with the help of a wandering Jew.

*



			FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
		
Click to expand...

*


> Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
> 
> Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
> 35. Do you support state legislation to:
> ...


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> When I say a difference I am talking about carrying a gun in a crowded subway with hudreds of passengers...when I visit my sisters  upstate Rochester I can see being able to carry a concealed gun but here in the crowded city....I don't know.



Yes, as the criminals of course are thinking the same thing "I best not bring a gun into the crowded subway car"  

You would prefer a criminal or crazy person in that subway with a gun and everyone else with zero means of self defense? 

Give me a fighting chance over zero chance any day. Logic, stats, and history, are you friend Min0


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> When I say a difference I am talking about carrying a gun in a crowded subway with hudreds of passengers...when I visit my sisters upstate Rochester I can see being able to carry a concealed gun but here in the crowded city....I don't know.


 
Min0, this is a fear-based, irrational argument.  Crime has dropped nationwide, including in big cities, since concealed carry has swept the nation.

Violent crime is primarily a cultural thing.  A person who can legally own a gun, and thus has never had a felony conviction, and goes to the trouble of getting licensed by the state, which includes fees, waiting periods, and training classes, is about the last person in the country who is going to commit any type of crime.  As far as accidents go, you are infinitely more likely to burn to death, be accidently poisoned, or die from a fall than you are from an accidental gun shot.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

*Barack Obama on Gun Control *

*Democratic Jr Senator (IL)*




*Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws *

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms? 

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. 
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns? 
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008 
*FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban *

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." 

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. 
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008 
*Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok *

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? 

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008 
*Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing *

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? 

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008 
*2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month *

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. 
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007 
*Concealed carry OK for retired police officers *

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent. 

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms." 
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007 
*Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities *

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men? 

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now. Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007 
*Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality *

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. 
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006 
*Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions *



Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 
*Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. *


A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would: 
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> This houseplant did a search with the help of a wandering Jew.



"Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did"

If you find that a satisfactory answer and excuse, you're hopeless. His voting record on gun control is easy to find, and he's never seen a gun control law he didn't like no matter what BS he spews to the press. BTW, McCain is no great friend to gun owners and the 2A either, as his voting record shows, but he's far better in that area than Obama. No one should mistake McCain as being clearly pro gun owner/pro 2A.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> When I say a difference I am talking about carrying a gun in a crowded subway with hudreds of passengers...when I visit my sisters  upstate Rochester I can see being able to carry a concealed gun but here in the crowded city....I don't know.



concealed carry is a different issue than what i thought we were discussing.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> *Barack Obama on Gun Control *
> 
> *Democratic Jr Senator (IL)*
> 
> ...



He can't, nor did he, nor did the Supreme Court agree, which shows you he talks from all holes in his body. The rest of this supports that fact he will state he supports the 2A then goes onto show he clearly has no clue what that actually means.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Yes, as the criminals of course are thinking the same thing "I best not bring a gun into the crowded subway car"
> 
> You would prefer a criminal or crazy person in that subway with a gun and everyone else with zero means of self defense?
> 
> Give me a fighting chance over zero chance any day. Logic, stats, and history, are you friend Min0


There was an incident a few years ago when 2 guys were fighting on the Flushing line. 
The fight spilled over to these 2 guys at the end of the train.
One guy pulls out his gun and starts to wave it at everyone, including me. This was at about 4:30 during rush hour.

The train was full of innocent bystanders and for all I know the guy is a law abiding citizen....how do we know.
Another thing I doubt if he was to use his gun he will definitly have injured a few people in the process.

Not a good feeling seeing a gun waved at your face.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Min0, this is a fear-based, irrational argument. Crime has dropped nationwide, including in big cities, since concealed carry has swept the nation.
> 
> Violent crime is primarily a cultural thing. A person who can legally own a gun, and thus has never had a felony conviction, and goes to the trouble of getting licensed by the state, which includes fees, waiting periods, and training classes, is about the last person in the country who is going to commit any type of crime. As far as accidents go, you are infinitely more likely to burn to death, be accidently poisoned, or die from a fall than you are from an accidental gun shot.


I am actually for gun ownership, my other half is dead against it.
I see your point.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did"
> 
> If you find that a satisfactory answer and excuse, you're hopeless. His voting record on gun control is easy to find, and he's never seen a gun control law he didn't like no matter what BS he spews to the press. BTW, McCain is no great friend to gun owners and the 2A either, as his voting record shows, but he's far better in that area than Obama. No one should mistake McCain as being clearly pro gun owner/pro 2A.


The qoute is in your favor, it states that he is against guns....




> Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, *"No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."*
> 
> *Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate.* A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> There was an incident a few years ago when 2 guys were fighting on the Flushing line.
> The fight spilled over to these 2 guys at the end of the train.
> One guy *pulls out his gun and starts to wave it at everyone,* including me. This was at about 4:30 during rush hour.
> 
> The train was full of innocent bystanders and for all I know the guy is a law abiding citizen....how do we know.



Because law abiding gun owners DON'T PULL OUT GUNS AND WAVE THEM AROUND if they wish to remain law abiding gun owners. Christ almighty...



min0 lee said:


> Another thing I doubt




Your "doubts" never seem to be based on facts, data, and logic.



min0 lee said:


> if he was to use his gun he will definitly have injured a few people in the process.



Gee, you think?



min0 lee said:


> Not a good feeling seeing a gun waved at your face.



Especially when you have no means of defending yourself. It really can't be this tough for you to follow is it?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 27, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Don't be fooled. Someone that is not totally in support of gun owners and who dodges the question like he does and is in favor of "SOME" gun support, is in favor of "Total" gun banning. Read between the lines.



That's not true, I am for people having guns, even on their person.  I do believe that there should be no issue with a waiting period/application.  I don't believe it is that big of a deal to wait a few days.  I fail to see any logical reason why a person would need a gun at that absolute moment that wouldn't involve some sort of crime. I also fail to see the need for a person in the general population to possess a fully automatic weapon, but am on the fence on that one.  I bet it would be fun to rattle off a couple hundred shots, though.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I am actually for gun ownership, .



I have yet to see any proof of that, but I am glad to hear it!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> The qoute is in your favor, it states that he is against guns....



I already knew that. It was you who seemed to doubt it, not I.


----------



## brogers (Jun 27, 2008)

Why is it so hard to understand that "gun control" only applies to citizens who are already willing to obey the law?  Disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens does nothing but create a pool of easy victims for criminals.  The person who seeks to use a gun to commit a robbery, assault, or any other crime does not obey the law, making an additional law is not going to change that.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Because law abiding gun owners DON'T PULL OUT GUNS AND WAVE THEM AROUND if they wish to remain law abiding gun owners. Christ almighty...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



bring it back a notch. doubts sometimes are not based on facts, data, or logic. but doubts are doubts. you know how to discuss these doubts to ease them, and being a sarcastic dick isn't the way to go about it. especially when you have an audience intelligent enough to listen. save your sarcastic jack ass remarks for kbm. that guy doesnt listen anyway


----------



## brogers (Jun 27, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> That's not true, I am for people having guns, even on their person.  I do believe that there should be no issue with a waiting period/application.  I don't believe it is that big of a deal to wait a few days.  I fail to see any logical reason why a person would need a gun at that absolute moment that wouldn't involve some sort of crime. I also fail to see the need for a person in the general population to possess a fully automatic weapon, but am on the fence on that one.  I bet it would be fun to rattle off a couple hundred shots, though.



I think a legally owned automatic weapon has only been used for criminal purposes once since the 1940's.  I am not 100% sure though.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> I have yet to see any proof of that, but I am glad to hear it!


I'll become a member of the NRA if that would be proof enough...of course I will have to get a new place to live in.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> I already knew that. It was you who seemed to doubt it, not I.


I found it, you were right  I quoted it but yet.........


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> bring it back a notch. doubts sometimes are not based on facts, data, or logic.




Mine are. If I have doubts on a topic, I will then take the time to research the topic a bit before expressing that doubt, and or will preface the doubt with "I have not looked into this topic but..."



bio-chem said:


> but doubts are doubts.



irrlevent. A doubt should be based on something above emotional knee jerk responses and ignorance of a topic. 



bio-chem said:


> you know how to discuss these doubts to ease them, and being a sarcastic dick isn't the way to go about it. especially when you have an audience intelligent enough to listen.



I assure you, Min0 has never listened before on this topic.



bio-chem said:


> save your sarcastic jack ass remarks for kbm. that guy doesnt listen anyway



And insulting me is not the way to bring that about. I have much history on this topic with Min0, which you can find long ass threads on. There was no intention of being a jack ass, but plenty intended sarcasm, and Min0 deserved every bit of it.

Min0 seems like a nice person, and we get along fine in other threads and other topics, but his position on this topic, and the way he goes about it, is mind boggling. Do I potentially lose a convert by being sarcastic? Sure, but I tried the using facts, data, and history with him before, and I can see, it failed to have any effects, so sarcasm it is!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I found it, you were right  I quoted it but yet.........



Yet? You're still not convinced, or something else?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 27, 2008)

brogers said:


> I think a legally owned automatic weapon has only been used for criminal purposes once since the 1940's.  I am not 100% sure though.



Probably right, which is why I am on the fence.  Although I don't see any reason for people to have them, I don't see what a ban would really effect.  We already have too many needless laws as is.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> bring it back a notch. doubts sometimes are not based on facts, data, or logic. but doubts are doubts. you know how to discuss these doubts to ease them, and being a sarcastic dick isn't the way to go about it. especially when you have an audience intelligent enough to listen. save your sarcastic jack ass remarks for kbm. that guy doesnt listen anyway


Thanks Bio.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Mine are. If I have doubts on a topic, I will then take the time to research the topic a bit before expressing that doubt, and or will preface the doubt with "I have not looked into this topic but..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



never mind that mino is 2 people.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I'll become a member of the NRA if that would be proof enough...of course I will have to get a new place to live in.



NY is overrated anyway.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> never mind that mino is 2 people.



Multiple personality syndrome, cool. 

Which Mino are we talking to today?


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

Paul, Lee hates guns.
As I said before I can't even have a BB gun.

Hopefully she won't see this.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Multiple personality syndrome, cool.
> 
> Which Mino are we talking to today?



The guy is humorous and cool.  The chick just bitches a lot.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Multiple personality syndrome, cool.
> 
> Which Mino are we talking to today?



I'm guessing Paul


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

And Mino, I can see your situation. Have either of you owned a gun or had experience carrying or shooting one? I would guess not. And those types of people in general are the ones against guns. I would wager if you spent time getting comfortable with a gun and shooting it, you would feel much better in carrying one. It's the unknown that scares people.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

Here's an invite Paul. If you or Lee are ever in NC, I will take you out and let you shoot to your heart's content.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not against gun ownership. 
The only thing we can agree on is that there should be a finger print check and a waiting period.
That should be fair.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Here's an invite Paul. If you or Lee are ever in NC, I will take you out and let you shoot to your heart's content.


Thank you, I really doubt Lee would accept it though.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Paul, Lee hates guns.
> As I said before I can't even have a BB gun.
> 
> Hopefully she won't see this.


 
Sounds like she owns a whip...


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Sounds like she owns a whip...


Ha! She does.

She also has one with your name on it.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Ha! She does.
> 
> She also has one with your name on it.



this thread just got interesting


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> this thread just got interesting


No, not that way, I hate to say it but she doesn't like him too much.
I think he's alright.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> She also has one with your name on it.


 
No, that is a dagger.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > A Somewhat Skeptical Take on Heller
> 
> 
> Radley Balko[/url] | June 26, 2008, 4:37pm
> ...




That is exactly why conservatives love Scalia so much.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> bring it back a notch. doubts sometimes are not based on facts, data, or logic. but doubts are doubts. you know how to discuss these doubts to ease them, and being a sarcastic dick isn't the way to go about it. especially when you have an audience intelligent enough to listen. save your sarcastic jack ass remarks for kbm. that guy doesnt listen anyway



Why would any real American pay attention to jack ass remarks?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

Everyone is a "law-abiding citizen" until they choose not to be one.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Everyone is a "law-abiding citizen" until they choose not to be one.


 
Whats your point?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Why would any real American pay attention to jack ass remarks?



my point was you don't pay attention regardless if jack ass comments are included or not.

how come you're the only one unable to understand this? i guess it goes back to the not listening part.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

KBM, with all your persistant whining about race and victimization, I really thought you'd be against gun control.  Its roots are very closesly linked to racism, in fact the very first gun control law in this country was interpreted to mean that blacks couldn't own guns, thus making them easier to enslave.

Gays are also frequent targets of hate crime, and thus have a heightened interest in self-defense.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Thank you, I really doubt Lee would accept it though.



Tell her not to knock it until she at least tries it.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> KBM, with all your persistant whining about race and victimization, I really thought you'd be against gun control.  Its roots are very closesly linked to racism, in fact the very first gun control law in this country was interpreted to mean that blacks couldn't own guns, thus making them easier to enslave.



That is a fact. The must read paper on the topic:

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

Anyone who supports gun control, supports laws created by racists. 



clemson357 said:


> Gays are also frequent targets of hate crime, and thus have a heightened interest in self-defense.



Motto of the Pink Pistols is "armed gays don't get bashed" 

Pink Pistols Splash Page

Any gay person who does not support the right of self defense, considering how often they are made a target due to their sexual orientation, is not using their brains.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Anyone who supports gun control, supports laws created by racists.



Damn you, WillBrink.  Now I'm torn...


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Damn you, WillBrink.  Now I'm torn...



It's a start. 

Early gun control laws were never intended to reduce crime, they were intended to prevent free blacks from owning guns. And guess what, they have exactly that effect today. They are as racist and elitist as ever, which is why no wealthy connected white man has ever had a problem getting a license for a gun or pay people to protect him with guns, but the old black man who runs a small store in any major inner city who tries to get a license to protect himself, his business, and his family, will not get one....

Can you live with that? I can't. One more time, from the man who wrote most of the 2A who recognized this fact even then:

"Gun-control laws have always been *elitist* and *racist.* Elitists have always wanted to disarm the common folks while, of course, retaining the privileges of arms for themselves. And the right to keep and bear arms has always been a populist cause." - James Madison (boasting to a European critic that the new country of America did not fear its own people and allowed them to own arms).


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 27, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Damn you, WillBrink.  Now I'm torn...



Noted and Documented.




> It's the unknown that scares people.



Valid point.


----------



## sony-cui (Jun 27, 2008)

I agree with u idea!!Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> It's a start.
> 
> Early gun control laws were never intended to reduce crime, they were intended to prevent free blacks from owning guns. And guess what, they have exactly that effect today. They are as racist and elitist as ever, which is why no wealthy connected white man has ever had a problem getting a license for a gun or pay people to protect him with guns, but the old black man who runs a small store in any major inner city who tries to get a license to protect himself, his business, and his family, will not get one....
> 
> ...


You really do know your guns.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

sony-cui said:


> I agree with u idea!!Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."


Who do you agree with MR Sony?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

sony-cui said:


> I agree with u idea!!Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."



can i get an ID check from a moderator.....ID check from a moderator here.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Motto of the Pink Pistols is "armed gays don't get bashed"
> 
> Pink Pistols Splash Page
> 
> Any gay person who does not support the right of self defense, considering how often they are made a target due to their sexual orientation, is not using their brains.


 
I really think KBM is too partisan to think for himself.  He is going to subscribe to the militant-liberal ideology, no matter how clearly adverse it is to him.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> You really do know your guns.



I do my best. Remember, it's not really about guns in the end, but power. I am passionate about the topic for the same reasons the Founders were who wrote the document, and well before them, this was recognized before there were guns:

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." - St. Augustine A.D. 354-430


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I really think KBM is too partisan to think for himself.  He is going to subscribe to the militant-liberal ideology, no matter how clearly adverse it is to him.



there comes a point where politics is no longer controlled by logical parts of the brain and becomes solely the responsibility of emotions. he is well beyond that point


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I really think KBM is too partisan to think for himself.  He is going to subscribe to the militant-liberal ideology, no matter how clearly adverse it is to him.



A shame, but very common.

Denial: *"Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence..."*


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> It's a start.



Can't I have both?  Hell, can't I combine them?


----------



## DOMS (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I really think KBM is too partisan to think for himself.  He is going to subscribe to the militant-liberal ideology, no matter how clearly adverse it is to him.



He's white, yet he hates on white people.  He's gay, but he'd support a legal ruling that would make gays more vulnerable.

Hamster on a wheel...


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2008)

I like Kbm, he is one persistant mofo.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 27, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I like Kbm, he is one persistant mofo.



Yeah, got to give him that.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> my point was you don't pay attention regardless if jack ass comments are included or not.
> 
> how come you're the only one unable to understand this? i guess it goes back to the not listening part.




Well, it's kinda hard to listen to a typed message.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Whats your point?



The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens." 

Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? Or how many times someone might "snap" with a rifle in a tower, or shotgun on a campus, and the only recourse is to encourage everyone to be armed so we can have random gun battles all over town, or when someone gets road rage, or throws some public tantrum?

And then there are the cold, calculated "law-abiding citizens" who carefully plan murders. While they could certainly choose lots of other available weapons, how do you screen good citizens-on-paper out from purchasing a gun when they may be purchasing it with a motive to commit a crime? 

Weren't there reasons in the 19th century why some frontier towns used to make visitors check their weapons when they came into town? And what about the people who are so casual about saying someone "should be shot" or someone "should be killed" easily online or in conversations in the general public. How far is the distance from saying those things to doing them? 

As for the victims of any crime, whether they were killed with a legally owned weapon or an illegal one doesn't really matter. And now there is that case in Texas, where a man called 911 after seeing two people burglarizing his neighbor's house. The police told him they'd be right out there, but he insisted on taking his shotgun outside and apprehending them. The police told him to stay put and NOT go outside. He went anyway. He killed one of them and says he felt it was self-defense. But he wasn't defending his home - he was defending his neighbor's property from his home.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens."
> 
> Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? Or how many times someone might "snap" with a rifle in a tower, or shotgun on a campus, and the only recourse is to encourage everyone to be armed so we can have random gun battles all over town, or when someone gets road rage, or throws some public tantrum?
> 
> ...



that is really the worst argument for gun control i have ever seen.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

sony-cui said:


> I agree with u idea!!Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except that they may dictate that radio broadcasts must have "varied opinions," and specifically exempt all other forms of news."




The airwaves belong to the public, not the corporations.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> that is really the worst argument for gun control i have ever seen.




Except it wasn't an argument for gun control.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> KBM, with all your persistant whining about race and victimization, I really thought you'd be against gun control.  Its roots are very closesly linked to racism, in fact the very first gun control law in this country was interpreted to mean that blacks couldn't own guns, thus making them easier to enslave.
> 
> Gays are also frequent targets of hate crime, and thus have a heightened interest in self-defense.



Seems like you've decided what my position is on this issue for me. 

The blacks weren't considered full citizens then, even when "free" - nor were women. So I'm sure the second amendment was construed to apply only to the white male right to bear arms as "gun control." After all, the rest of the Constitution was construed, by literal interpretation, to apply only to the minority represented in writing it. That's why so many conservatives complain that they want a "literal" interpretation - not the way it is worded, of course, but how those who wrote it viewed society at the time. Well, except for the Second Amendment, in which a literal interpretation could be almost considered to be the freedom to carry muskets or Revolutionary War-era weapons...since that is how the authors viewed society at the time it was written. 


Never mind that I have some degree of association to a group that had a primary plaintiff in this case.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> A shame, but very common.
> 
> Denial: *"Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence..."*


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 27, 2008)

DOMS said:


> He's white, yet he hates on white people.  He's gay, but he'd support a legal ruling that would make gays more vulnerable.
> 
> Hamster on a wheel...



Now, now. . .just because I'm trying to help you discover your "whiteness" doesn't make it "hatin' on the whites." 

I'm still trying to find the part where I said I didn't support the ruling. . .


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 27, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Except it wasn't an argument for gun control.



well, you have completely lost your mind. good luck with that.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens."
> 
> Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? .




And did you ever bother to research the % of CCW holders who have broken the law? More importantly, have you looked at the % of CCW holders who prevented a crime vs. caused one? Of course not, you prefer conjecture (read pulling things from your you know what) vs hard data.

We know the % of CCW holders involved in crime is tiny and we know the number who prevent a crime, so the net effect is very much in favor of law abiding gun owners carrying that gun. And we know those states that pass "shall issue" CCW laws see a reduction in crime. The net effect is what actually matters, not some stupid jilted lover example. Here is a good primer article that addressed the major myths, some of which you probably hold:

*The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns*
by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

*Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach. *

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
*
    Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.*

The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.

With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

*  Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.*

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

*Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.* 

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

*Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.*

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.

Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens."
> 
> Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? Or how many times someone might "snap" with a rifle in a tower, or shotgun on a campus, and the only recourse is to encourage everyone to be armed so we can have random gun battles all over town, or when someone gets road rage, or throws some public tantrum?
> 
> ...






So what. What if I decide to stop being a law abiding citizen and strangle your ass. I guess cut off people's hands. What about bad food. Obesity is becoming one of the country'ss biggest killers passing guns by a long ways. So I guess saturated fats and HFCS should be made illegal. While we are at it, lets ban cars. We can go back to living like cavemen because we banned anything that might be used to hurt someone. 

That means no wheels either, because you are dumb enough, and I am crazy enough for me to figure out a way to kill you with a wheel.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 28, 2008)




----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens."
> 
> Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? Or how many times someone might "snap" with a rifle in a tower, or shotgun on a campus, and the only recourse is to encourage everyone to be armed so we can have random gun battles all over town, or when someone gets road rage, or throws some public tantrum?
> 
> ...




Summation = we should deny constitutional rights to people who have never committed a crime because they might commit a crime.  Wonderful.


Why don't we take away drivers licenses from those who have never been convicted of DUI?  That'll surely reduce DUI.

Why don't we take away kids from people who have never been accused of child abuse.  That'll surely reduce child abuse.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> The point is rather obvious. A "law-abiding citizen" can purchase a weapon and choose the moment when they stop being a "law-abiding citizen." Surely you realize that not every mentally unstable American is documented or denied access to firearms, so one of the chances we take with the Second Amendment is the probability that there will be innocent victims of "law-abiding citizens" who suddenly decide not to be "law-abiding citizens."
> 
> Crimes of passion, for one thing. Do we even know how many murders are committed by jilted lovers in this country who were otherwise model good citizens until their hearts were broken? Or how many times someone might "snap" with a rifle in a tower, or shotgun on a campus, and the only recourse is to encourage everyone to be armed so we can have random gun battles all over town, or when someone gets road rage, or throws some public tantrum?
> 
> ...



Now you are playing the what if game and the same "Scare tactics" that liberals use all the time to justify gun control. You see where that got them? A vote in favor of no gun control. Keep on with these thoughts. We will eventually get other gun control issues overturned. GOA, NRA, and others are already filing suits and I bet we when most of them. This has got to be the most backwards thinking I have ever seen.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

The plain fact of the matter is that murders and accidental deaths involving guns are less that 15,000 per year.  DUI kills about 19,000.  Total alcohol deaths are estimated around 75,000.

If you are honestly trying to make people safe, you'd be talking about banning alcohol before restricting guns.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Now you are playing the what if game and the same "Scare tactics" that liberals use all the time to justify gun control. You see where that got them? A vote in favor of no gun control. Keep on with these thoughts. We will eventually get other gun control issues overturned. GOA, NRA, and others are already filing suits and I bet we when most of them. This has got to be the most backwards thinking I have ever seen.



Backward thinking is all they have....One thing to note. Have you ever noticed they NEVER quote the founders in any of these op eds/articles? It's not like one can't find stacks of documents and quotes from the Founders regarding EXACTLY what they meant to achieve with the 2A, and their feelings on personal ownership, the nature of guns, etc etc. is very easy to find. As I always say, when in doubt about the Second. Amend, ask the Founders!!! It's not rocket science folks.

Of course the reason the anti 2A writer does not quote any Founders as to their supposed poor writing of the document, is they can't find a single quote that says anything but how strongly the Founders felt on the issue and how important access to arms by "the people" was to a Democracy. Translated, there was, and is, no ambiguity what so ever as to their intent of the 2A.

Now they can use their other worthless arguments such as "they didn't know there would be such guns in the future" and other nonsense, but the "it's unclear what the Founders intended by the 2A" just demonstrates the total intellectual dishonesty of the writer and how low they are willing to go. So what did the writer of the 2A have to say in his own words?

"Gun-control laws have always been elitist and racist. Elitists have always wanted to disarm the common folks while, of course, retaining the privileges of arms for themselves. And the right to keep and bear arms has always been a populist cause." - James Madison (boasting to a European critic that the new country of America did not fear its own people and allowed them to own arms).

When in doubt, ask the Founders!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> The plain fact of the matter is that murders and accidental deaths involving guns are less that 15,000 per year.  DUI kills about 19,000.  Total alcohol deaths are estimated around 75,000.
> 
> If you are honestly trying to make people safe, you'd be talking about banning alcohol before restricting guns.



The problem is that he hasn't been told to hate alcohol by his leaders.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> Summation = we should deny constitutional rights to people who have never committed a crime because they might commit a crime.  Wonderful.
> 
> 
> Why don't we take away drivers licenses from those who have never been convicted of DUI?  That'll surely reduce DUI.
> ...



I hope you go back to school for some better summary education.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> The problem is that he hasn't been told to hate alcohol by his leaders.



Conservatives tried one of those constitutional amendments to ban alcohol once.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I hope you go back to school for some better summary education.



Not that I'll defend Clemson, but you are one to talk. The sad thing here is you are a total moron living in a world of academia with no grasp on reality. You have no business teaching kids. You are the prime example of why I hated college. 


Your facts are in order, but your arguments are some of the worst I have ever seen. Obviously you stayed in academia because you don't have the mental tools to make it in the real world.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Conservatives tried one of those constitutional amendments to ban alcohol once.



Excellent point. Now, think what would happen if you tried to do with guns, what was tried with alcohol.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Now you are playing the what if game and the same "Scare tactics" that liberals use all the time to justify gun control. You see where that got them? A vote in favor of no gun control. Keep on with these thoughts. We will eventually get other gun control issues overturned. GOA, NRA, and others are already filing suits and I bet we when most of them. This has got to be the most backwards thinking I have ever seen.



Bringing up facts isn't a "scare" tactic. And this vote was not in favor of "no gun control." It specifically said "absolute." Now it might be glamorous for you to picture an America where everyone has public shootouts in the middle of the street like the Wild West movies after throwing down a few shots at the bar, but I doubt that is going to play well with the American people.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Excellent point. Now, think what would happen if you tried to do with guns, what was tried with alcohol.




Has someone proposed a constitutional amendment to ban guns?  But we could look at the results of that alcohol amendment. Why, "law-abiding citizens" suddenly openly became criminals in this country. That just makes me wonder, once again, how easy it is for a "law-abiding citizen" to decide not to be one.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> "Gun-control laws have always been elitist and racist. Elitists have always wanted to disarm the common folks while, of course, retaining the privileges of arms for themselves. And the right to keep and bear arms has always been a populist cause." - James Madison (boasting to a European critic that the new country of America did not fear its own people and allowed them to own arms).



This is still the case.  Perhaps not the racist part, but certainly the elitist part.  If a gun ban was ever passed, I guarantee you that bodyguards would still be allowed to use them.  

I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a proviso that allowed for people of "public note" (i.e., the rich and famous) to still own guns.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Bringing up facts isn't a "scare" tactic. And this vote was not in favor of "no gun control." It specifically said "absolute." Now it might be glamorous for you to picture an America where everyone has public shootouts in the middle of the street like the Wild West movies after throwing down a few shots at the bar, but I doubt that is going to play well with the American people.



Again, facts were supplied to you, but it appears you prefer the "don't confuse me with the facts" approach to the topic. So far, you offer conjecture and WAGs, and zero hard data, facts, or historical context. More reality for you to ignore:

Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):

"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that

"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

The Abstract:

Abstract

The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the worldâ??????s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant. 

Full paper downloaded here:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Has someone proposed a constitutional amendment to ban guns?



Yes, many times. Try some research if you plan to debate a topic.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Not that I'll defend Clemson, but you are one to talk. The sad thing here is you are a total moron living in a world of academia with no grasp on reality. You have no business teaching kids. You are the prime example of why I hated college.
> 
> 
> Your facts are in order, but your arguments are some of the worst I have ever seen. Obviously you stayed in academia because you don't have the mental tools to make it in the real world.



Well, the real fact is that I was a working stiff for a dozen years at a utility, and then a working stiff at several newspapers and magazines for more than another dozen years.  So much for your grasp on that reality.

And for your snide attempt about telling me my business.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Has someone proposed a constitutional amendment to ban guns?



We were talking about how the second amendment should be interpreted. Nevermind. You are too stupid to breath air sometimes.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> This is still the case.  Perhaps not the racist part, but certainly the elitist part.  If a gun ban was ever passed, I guarantee you that bodyguards would still be allowed to use them.
> 
> I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a proviso that allowed for people of "public note" (i.e., the rich and famous) to still own guns.



There already is in places like DC, NY, and others. Those who ban guns ALWAYS make sure to preserve the right for themselves. It just depends how far up the food chain you are.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Yes, many times. Try some research if you plan to debate a topic.



Is that your only means of answering a question? By attempting to be sarcastic? 
Well, obviously, there never was a constitutional amendment passed. Now how much additional research on constitutional amendments to ban guns should I be doing, and how much should I compare it to the conservative ban on alcohol which fed the crime rate among so many "law-abiding citizens?"

Isn't the point still that "law-abiding citizens" become criminals whenever they choose to become one?  That case in Texas is about a man who shot someone in the back and killed him - and he claims it was self-defense defending his neighbor's property, not his own.  What, exactly, is defined as "defending personal property?" If there is a burglary three blocks over, am I entitled to circumvent the police and head over there with a shotgun in "self-defense?"


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Well, the real fact is that I was a working stiff for a dozen years at a utility, and then a working stiff at several newspapers and magazines for more than another dozen years.  So much for your grasp on that reality.
> 
> And for your snide attempt about telling me my business.





Bla bla bla. Basically not one fucking person here, liberal, constrictive, democrat,  republican, or radical agrees with anything you have said.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> We were talking about how the second amendment should be interpreted. Nevermind. You are too stupid to breath air sometimes.



And you've been reduced to grade school playground bullying rhetoric. No wonder you hated college.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Again, facts were supplied to you, but it appears you prefer the "don't confuse me with the facts" approach to the topic. So far, you offer conjecture and WAGs, and zero hard data, facts, or historical context. More reality for you to ignore:
> 
> Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was just published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):
> 
> ...



That's interesting. I never knew Canada had a higher murder rate than the United States. Though I have read that Canadian law enforcement officials believe one of their biggest problems is that criminals can so easily obtain guns from. . .the United States.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> That's interesting. I never knew Canada had a higher murder rate than the United States. Though I have read that Canadian law enforcement officials believe one of their biggest problems is that criminals can so easily obtain guns from. . .the United States.



I guess Australia must be getting their guns from the US too, since their crime rate skyrocketed after disarming their law abiding citizens.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> And did you ever bother to research the % of CCW holders who have broken the law? More importantly, have you looked at the % of CCW holders who prevented a crime vs. caused one? Of course not, you prefer conjecture (read pulling things from your you know what) vs hard data.
> 
> We know the % of CCW holders involved in crime is tiny and we know the number who prevent a crime, so the net effect is very much in favor of law abiding gun owners carrying that gun. And we know those states that pass "shall issue" CCW laws see a reduction in crime. The net effect is what actually matters, not some stupid jilted lover example. Here is a good primer article that addressed the major myths, some of which you probably hold:
> 
> ...



And my question to that is. . .if you claim self-defense, you aren't breaking the law. . .yet someone is still murdered. We all know it is also possible that criminals are "law-abiding citizens" until the commit an actual crime. So if a group of thugs jumps you from behind and discovers your gun, can they steal it from you?

And that would raise another question. How often are guns stolen from homes? 

Now don't get your panties all in a wad just because someone asks a few questions.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I guess Australia must be getting their guns from the US too, since their crime rate skyrocketed after disarming their law abiding citizens.




It's amazing what people can order on the Internet. Weren't there quite a few students recently murdered at two universities that way?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Bla bla bla. Basically not one fucking person here, liberal, constrictive, democrat,  republican, or radical agrees with anything you have said.



Well now...as an American...I should always be most concerned about automatic agreement with a mob rather than considering individual thought.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Has someone proposed a constitutional amendment to ban guns?  But we could look at the results of that alcohol amendment. Why, "law-abiding citizens" suddenly openly became criminals in this country. That just makes me wonder, once again, how easy it is for a "law-abiding citizen" to decide not to be one.



Wow.  Just wow.  Stupidest fucking statement of the year.

This has everything to do with restricting the freedoms of the people and nothing to do with "breaking the law".  In a non-totalitarian/police state society, citizens will not put up with the kind of bullshit that is an "alcohol ban".

There are hundreds of retarded laws in every single state.  That 55 mile an hour sign on the road?  It's mandated by law.  Have you ever gone 65?  I guess the "law-abiding citizen" decided not to be one anymore.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> It's amazing what people can order on the Internet. Weren't there quite a few students recently murdered at two universities that way?



Sure.  And if the other 54 students (made up number) had been armed, those two psychopaths wouldn't have gotten off more than 1 shot without taking 20 bullets to the face.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  Stupidest fucking statement of the year.
> 
> This has everything to do with restricting the freedoms of the people and nothing to do with "breaking the law".  In a non-totalitarian/police state society, citizens will not put up with the kind of bullshit that is an "alcohol ban".
> 
> There are hundreds of retarded laws in every single state.  That 55 mile an hour sign on the road?  It's mandated by law.  Have you ever gone 65?  I guess the "law-abiding citizen" decided not to be one anymore.



I just realized why his "reasoning" sounded so familiar: warrantless wiretaps.  

The government has been trying to pass legislation to make them easier to obtain.  The logic that proponents of that use is "If you have nothing to hide, why do you have a problem with it?"

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

I was just considering this, and the only logical outcome from many liberal policies is a totalitarian police state, so now my previous post makes a little more sense (even to me).  I'm curious kbm, do you support a totalitarian police-state?

So let's say you take away people's legally owned guns.  Criminals will still obtain and use guns in crime. The next step  I can see is "Ok, let's put more police on the ground.  Surely more police will be able to prevent these crimes".  When that fails since it is impossible to be eveywhere at the same time, the next logical step seems to be "Ok, let's put cameras everywhere.  Surely if people think they're going to be recorded, they won't commit these crimes!"  And it just keeps going downhill.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> We all know it is also possible that criminals are "law-abiding citizens" until the commit an actual crime.


 
I am really honestly trying to understand what kind of point you are trying to make here, by continually talking about "law-abiding citizens" deciding to become criminals.



When people talk about "law-abiding citizens" in the context of gun control, what they are getting at is that there is already a federal, nationwide law that bans convicted felons from owning guns.  This also applies to domestic violence misdemeanors.  

It logically follows that any gun law on top of that can only restrict the law-abiding.

In other words, if it is already a rule that law-breakers can't own guns, rules beyond that point only affect law-abiding people.  A waiting period doesn't apply to a criminal because he can't own a gun at all.  A 10 round magazine limitation doesn't apply to a criminal because he can't own a gun at all, etc.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I just realized why his "reasoning" sounded so familiar: warrantless wiretaps.
> 
> The government has been trying to pass legislation to make them easier to obtain. The logic that proponents of that use is "If you have nothing to hide, why do you have a problem with it?"
> 
> Why am I not surprised?


 
This is one of the biggest reasons I have strayed from the Republicans. They aren't really small-government, limited-intrusion any more.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Is that your only means of answering a question? By attempting to be sarcastic?



(1) ask any easy to confirm question, get a sarcastic answer

(2) I have added more actual hard data and facts in a single post then you have in the entire thread.



kbm8795 said:


> Well, obviously, there never was a constitutional amendment passed.



Obviously (more sarcasm! )



kbm8795 said:


> Now how much additional research on constitutional amendments to ban guns should I be doing, and how much should I compare it to the conservative ban on alcohol which fed the crime rate among so many "law-abiding citizens?"



Well so far, you have been making everyone else do your research for you, so how about you give it a try eh?




kbm8795 said:


> Isn't the point still that "law-abiding citizens" become criminals whenever they choose to become one?



Errr, exactly what part/area of academia do you come from? The above does not bode well. The question has no application to the topic at hand and is either an active misdirection on your part, or you are simply unable to think rationally. 



kbm8795 said:


> That case in Texas is about a man who shot someone in the back and killed him - and he claims it was self-defense defending his neighbor's property, not his own.



Again, you ignore the data supplied which covers net effects. Read Dr Lotts article for starters. I guess simple data analysis is not an area you have any training in. Once again, n =1 examples of a negative (or positive) use of a gun does not have any bearing to what was already supplied to you. If I supply 3 stories of women using a gun to stop a killer or a rapist, does that trump your one poor example? If so, I can supply those all day long.



kbm8795 said:


> What, exactly, is defined as "defending personal property?"



That is defined by the state. If you are really this clueless on such simple issues, you really have no business debating the topic at hand and should just ask questions and learn.



kbm8795 said:


> If there is a burglary three blocks over, am I entitled to circumvent the police and head over there with a shotgun in "self-defense?"



Depends on the state laws. Really, try a thread with a topic you actually know something about. The above comments are pitiful.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I was just considering this, and the only logical outcome from many liberal policies is a totalitarian police state, so now my previous post makes a little more sense (even to me).  I'm curious kbm, do you support a totalitarian police-state?
> 
> So let's say you take away people's legally owned guns.  Criminals will still obtain and use guns in crime. The next step  I can see is "Ok, let's put more police on the ground.  Surely more police will be able to prevent these crimes".  When that fails since it is impossible to be eveywhere at the same time, the next logical step seems to be "Ok, let's put cameras everywhere.  Surely if people think they're going to be recorded, they won't commit these crimes!"  And it just keeps going downhill.



In London, there is 1 camera for every 14 people.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> This is one of the biggest reasons I have strayed from the Republicans. They aren't really small-government, limited-intrusion any more.



I'm still a Republican, but only because the Democrats are a step down.

I'd consider voting for Ron Paul, but I'd rather use my vote to keep the Dems out of the White House this time around.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Now don't get your panties all in a wad just because someone asks a few questions.



What part of "how about you do some of your own research eh?" didn't you follow? Ignoring the actual facts from Dr Lott (one of the top researchers in the field) to ask such questions like that, plus pantie comment, does not get me to answer them. I'm all for people asking questions that really want answered, vs just trying to be a dick head.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> The question has no application to the topic at hand and is either an active misdirection on your part, *or you are simply unable to think rationally.*



Hamster on a wheel.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> That's interesting. I never knew Canada had a higher murder rate than the United States. Though I have read that Canadian law enforcement officials believe one of their biggest problems is that criminals can so easily obtain guns from. . .the United States.



And they are wrong. Read the entire paper if the topic is of interest to you. Link is for full PDF download.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm still a Republican, but only because the Democrats is a step down.
> 
> I'd consider voting for Ron Paul, but I'd rather use my vote to keep the Dems out of the White House this time around.


 
This is the main reason we are stuck with a two party system.  Everyone is playing defensive rather than voting for who they think should be President.  

I think our two party system is broken.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to tax me 45% and someone who wants to wiretap my phone without a warrant.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to limit the first amendment and someone who wants to ban abortion, I have to choose between someone who believes whole-heartedly in the ban on personal use of marijuana and someone who wants to hault all military development, etc., etc.


----------



## KelJu (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> This is the main reason we are stuck with a two party system.  Everyone is playing defensive rather than voting for who they think should be President.
> 
> I think our two party system is broken.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to tax me 45% and someone who wants to wiretap my phone without a warrant.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to limit the first amendment and someone who wants to ban abortion, I have to choose between someone who believes whole-heartedly in the ban on personal use of marijuana and someone who wants to hault all military development, etc., etc.



I didn't know you were a supporter of marijuana? There may be hope of us getting along after all.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> This is the main reason we are stuck with a two party system.  Everyone is playing defensive rather than voting for who they think should be President.
> 
> I think our two party system is broken.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to tax me 45% and someone who wants to wiretap my phone without a warrant.  It is ridiculous that I have to choose between someone who wants to limit the first amendment and someone who wants to ban abortion, I have to choose between someone who believes whole-heartedly in the ban on personal use of marijuana and someone who wants to hault all military development, etc., etc.



I feel your pain there brother. I have voted third party in the last two elections myself, and agree with all your breakdown of why it's hard to vote for either of them. The two party system is broken, and has been for a long time. This time, I will vote for McCain, but not easily I assure you. He's not a Bible thumping buffoon at least....


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> What part of "how about you do some of your own research eh?" didn't you follow? Ignoring the actual facts from Dr Lott (one of the top researchers in the field) to ask such questions like that, plus pantie comment, does not get me to answer them. I'm all for people asking questions that really want answered, vs just trying to be a dick head.




What part of tell me what research you think I should follow, and which research I should ignore - did you not understand and why? Obviously, this hasn't been a debate in this country for decades because one side was completely, totally, without-any-possibility-of-error right. 

I get the feeling you think anyone who doesn't absolutely agree with every word you type is a "dickhead." Why, exactly, should you be annoyed that anyone brings up any point or question?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm still a Republican, but only because the Democrats are a step down.
> 
> I'd consider voting for Ron Paul, but I'd rather use my vote to keep the Dems out of the White House this time around.



You mean, only because you are a white supremacist.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> What part of tell me what research you think I should follow, and which research I should ignore - did you not understand and why?



Is English a second language for you, 'cause the above does not make much sense... Refine the comment/question for an answer. 




kbm8795 said:


> Obviously, this hasn't been a debate in this country for decades because one side was completely, totally, without-any-possibility-of-error right.



You would be surprised my friend. Debates often have very little with one party actually bothering to follow the facts, data, and history. There is no lack of examples where debate has been taking place, where the answers were right under your nose, sex ed for teens, legalization of drugs, etc, etc. Ergo, such topics are argued with emotions vs facts most of the time, and no place better than  guns show that fact. 

BTW, it's actually quite recent that much of the really indepth research regarding guns has taken place, perhaps the last 10 years or so. Up 'till that time, all "research" was junk science done to simply show guns = bad. That research was also debunked (see comments in Lott's article for example) as having huge methodology flaws and was essentially worthless. 

No attempt was made to look at positive uses, etc. Again, if it's a topic of interest, books and articles can be suggested. It's not something you can cover in a thread on a forum. That you didn't know the lawful application of "self defense" is a state to state issue, tells me you have a lot of research to do...If you want a site that does supply a ton of good data, etc, done by topic, see:

GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues



kbm8795 said:


> I get the feeling you think anyone who doesn't absolutely agree with every word you type is a "dickhead." Why, exactly, should you be annoyed that anyone brings up any point or question?



I welcome all questions and debate on the issue from well informed people. Random nonsense, and or clear statements the person is way out of their lane, and should not be in the debate, is another issue. You chose which of the two groups you wish to be in, but patient I am not. Sorry, it's a flaw of mine, no doubt about that.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Obviously, this hasn't been a debate in this country for decades because one side was completely, totally, without-any-possibility-of-error right.


 
I couldn't disagree more.  I honestly think gun control is the only cut and dry, 100% completely right and wrong issue in politics today.

People can disagree on what our foriegn policy for invading another country should be, how progressive taxes should be, etc.  But there is no question that gun control doesn't reduce crime.  None whatsoever.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I couldn't disagree more.  I honestly think gun control is the only cut and dry, 100% completely right and wrong issue in politics today.
> 
> People can disagree on what our foriegn policy for invading another country should be, how progressive taxes should be, etc.  But there is no question that gun control doesn't reduce crime.  None whatsoever.



I disagree with you.....disagreeing.  But it's more semantics than anything since you seem to agree with my position already.  I advocate gun control when dealing with violent felons and criminals, but for the average citizen you are correct.  It's just not 100% 

It's just an important distinction since a murderer can still be considered a US citizen.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> You mean, only because you are a white supremacist.



Again, this shows how little you're in touch with reality.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I advocate gun control when dealing with violent felons and criminals, .



Everyone agrees with that. The issue is, enforcing laws and or passing laws that actually impact criminals vs. law abiding gun owners. What passes for "gun control" has been shown in study after study after study to (1) have no impact on crime or (2) increase crime. None have shown a reduction in crime. 

However, allowing more law abiding types to carry guns has shown to (1) lower crime or (2) have no effects in crime, but none have been shown to increase it.

Again, do we go by objective measures, the Const., and history, or do we use emotions, ignorance, and wishful thinking to make our decisions about guns? Slowly, but surely, we seem to be doing the former vs. the latter, and the SCOTUS ruling goes a long way to supporting that, but the "don't confuse me with the facts" crew at places like the Brady Bunch, ACLU and ilk, will fight on. But, mark that 1 for the good guys, big fat 0 for them...


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Everyone agrees with that. The issue is, enforcing laws and or passing laws that actually impact criminals vs. law abiding gun owners. What passes for "gun control" has been shown in study after study after study to (1) have no impact on crime or (2) increase crime. None have shown a reduction in crime.
> 
> However, allowing more law abiding types to carry guns has shown to (1) lower crime or (2) have no effects in crime, but none have been shown to increase it.
> 
> Again, do we go by objective measures, the Const., and history, or do we use emotions, ignorance, and wishful thinking to make our decisions about guns? Slowly, but surely, we seem to be doing the former vs. the latter, and the SCOTUS ruling goes a long way to supporting that, but the "don't confuse me with the facts" crew at places like the Brady Bunch, ACLU and ilk, will fight on. But, mark that 1 for the good guys, big fat 0 for them...



Well the issue isn't really that everyone agrees with it, it's that since people believe that everyone implicitly agrees, it is often not explicitly stated.  That leaves room for scumbag lawyers and the like to interpret laws in ways that they were never meant to be interpreted.

The second amendment is actually a perfect example.  If you read the history of it and the founders' opinions on the matter, its intent is fairly obvious.  The wording of it however was poorly done in my opinion precisely because it left room for questioning what it meant.  Although it sounds less elegant, something like "the rights of the individual and of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would have been more precise.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 28, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I couldn't disagree more.  I honestly think gun control is the only cut and dry, 100% completely right and wrong issue in politics today.
> 
> People can disagree on what our foriegn policy for invading another country should be, how progressive taxes should be, etc.  But there is no question that gun control doesn't reduce crime.  None whatsoever.


I think almost all of the issues are simple to decide on.  Everyone should have the freedom to choose what is right for themselves.  If certain people want gun control then they can choose not to have guns in their home.  If people don't want gay marriage then they don't have to marry a person of the same sex.  If someone want's an abortion then thats their right.  If people want to smoke weed until they suffer from CRS that's their perogative.  Making things illegal doesn't stop them it just makes more problems in fact.  Weed being illegal brings forth a criminal element, if abortion were outlawed you would have criminal doctors performing coat hanger hack jobs.  I think that these issues should be left to the individual to decide what is right and wrong.....


----------



## maniclion (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Well the issue isn't really that everyone agrees with it, it's that since people believe that everyone implicitly agrees, it is often not explicitly stated.  That leaves room for scumbag lawyers and the like to interpret laws in ways that they were never meant to be interpreted.
> 
> The second amendment is actually a perfect example.  If you read the history of it and the founders' opinions on the matter, its intent is fairly obvious.  The wording of it however was poorly done in my opinion precisely because it left room for questioning what it meant.  Although it sounds less elegant, something like "the rights of the individual and of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would have been more precise.


They should have said" All of ya'll can have guns and other weapons for self preservation and for preservation of the state.  But if you be a fool you get no guns just maybe a knife, lest ye be a fool again then you get a pair of leather gloves, lest ye be a fool again then it will be the right of the people to run you down in the forest for sport.....amen"


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Again, this shows how little you're in touch with reality.



"Again" huh?


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Wow.  Just wow.  Stupidest fucking statement of the year.
> 
> This has everything to do with restricting the freedoms of the people and nothing to do with "breaking the law".  In a non-totalitarian/police state society, citizens will not put up with the kind of bullshit that is an "alcohol ban".
> 
> ...




And doesn't that also include the "freedom" of "law-abiding citizens" to become criminals? After all, if gunowners decided to band together in an illegal militia to combat a government they've decided is a tyranny, don't they become criminals?

As for the speed limit, you are right - the "law-abiding citizen" chose to drive 65, thus choosing to become a criminal.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I think almost all of the issues are simple to decide on.  Everyone should have the freedom to choose what is right for themselves.  If certain people want gun control then they can choose not to have guns in their home.  If people don't want gay marriage then they don't have to marry a person of the same sex.  If someone want's an abortion then thats their right.  If people want to smoke weed until they suffer from CRS that's their perogative.  Making things illegal doesn't stop them it just makes more problems in fact.  Weed being illegal brings forth a criminal element, if abortion were outlawed you would have criminal doctors performing coat hanger hack jobs.  I think that these issues should be left to the individual to decide what is right and wrong.....




Good post.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Sure.  And if the other 54 students (made up number) had been armed, those two psychopaths wouldn't have gotten off more than 1 shot without taking 20 bullets to the face.



Or, they could have missed and killed another 20 students, claimed it was because they were "threatened" and the murders won't be considered a crime. That is, after they were diving for cover, screaming in panic, or running for the doors. If every student had a gun tucked in their coat or purse, armed without the safety lock on, why, they'd naturally whip right into a Rambo stance. 

Maybe they should have all had tasors.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And doesn't that also include the "freedom" of "law-abiding citizens" to become criminals? After all, if gunowners decided to band together in an illegal militia to combat a government they've decided is a tyranny, don't they become criminals?
> 
> As for the speed limit, you are right - the "law-abiding citizen" chose to drive 65, thus choosing to become a criminal.



they are criminals if they loose. otherwise they are patriots


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> armed without the safety lock on, why, they'd naturally whip right into a Rambo stance.
> 
> Maybe they should have all had tasors.



more of the BS? this is absolutely not a correct description of concealed carry individuals. enough evidence has already been posted on this thread to support that. stop with all of the ridiculous rhetoric already


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I think almost all of the issues are simple to decide on.  Everyone should have the freedom to choose what is right for themselves.  If certain people want gun control then they can choose not to have guns in their home.  If people don't want gay marriage then they don't have to marry a person of the same sex.  If someone want's an abortion then thats their right.  If people want to smoke weed until they suffer from CRS that's their perogative.  Making things illegal doesn't stop them it just makes more problems in fact.  Weed being illegal brings forth a criminal element, if abortion were outlawed you would have criminal doctors performing coat hanger hack jobs.  I think that these issues should be left to the individual to decide what is right and wrong.....



You're right, nothing should be illegal.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> (1) ask any easy to confirm question, get a sarcastic answer
> 
> *I'll remember that.*
> 
> ...



Well, for someone who is trying to come off as such an expert, you sure seem to get irritated just because someone asks any questions. Now is it really so difficult to answer a question without being a smartass? 

Most of the people I know have firearms. But then, I trust them. Of course, they don't interact with others as if they are still on the grade school playground looking for the biggest rock to throw at someone they want to bully. 

But thanks for attempting to answer some of the questions. People ask questions because they want to know something.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I just realized why his "reasoning" sounded so familiar: warrantless wiretaps.
> 
> The government has been trying to pass legislation to make them easier to obtain.  The logic that proponents of that use is "If you have nothing to hide, why do you have a problem with it?"
> 
> Why am I not surprised?




Yes. . .that is the conservative mantra on that subject.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> In London, there is 1 camera for every 14 people.



Yes...and that is slowly happening in America, too.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Yes...and that is slowly happening in America, too.



but we still have our guns


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> So what. What if I decide to stop being a law abiding citizen and strangle your ass. I guess cut off people's hands. What about bad food. Obesity is becoming one of the country'ss biggest killers passing guns by a long ways. So I guess saturated fats and HFCS should be made illegal. While we are at it, lets ban cars. We can go back to living like cavemen because we banned anything that might be used to hurt someone.
> 
> That means no wheels either, because you are dumb enough, and I am crazy enough for me to figure out a way to kill you with a wheel.




And you just pointed out a very compelling reason why gun ownership would be questioned - you think too much about killing anything you find annoying or bothersome - not things that are threatening.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> but we still have our guns



But we don't use them on the cameras, because that would make you a criminal. You get around being a criminal only if you kill someone else and claim it's self-defense or that you "felt" threatened.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> But we don't use them on the cameras, because that would make you a criminal. You get around being a criminal only if you kill someone else and claim it's self-defense or that you "felt" threatened.



if you're threatened or are forced to defend yourself then it is not criminal. end of story. it's not that you are "getting around anything" 

if someone breaks into my home with evil intentions upon myself and my family and i shoot him that does not make me a murderer.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I was just considering this, and the only logical outcome from many liberal policies is a totalitarian police state, so now my previous post makes a little more sense (even to me).  I'm curious kbm, do you support a totalitarian police-state?
> 
> So let's say you take away people's legally owned guns.  Criminals will still obtain and use guns in crime. The next step  I can see is "Ok, let's put more police on the ground.  Surely more police will be able to prevent these crimes".  When that fails since it is impossible to be eveywhere at the same time, the next logical step seems to be "Ok, let's put cameras everywhere.  Surely if people think they're going to be recorded, they won't commit these crimes!"  And it just keeps going downhill.




Except the only outcome from the conservative viewpoint is a totalitarian state as well. The issue is power and control over others. Note that conservatives would refuse individual rights in other areas involving other groups of Americans, yet are adamant about an individual right for themselves that involves possessing the ability to effectively kill others. I haven't looked at the demographics of who legally owns firearms - maybe Will can talk about that or break it down - but my guess is that it is overwhelmingly white and male. And yes - it is just a guess, not a declaration.

It would be interesting to find out if these supporters are the same people who believe a woman has no right to control her own body, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to make contracts with their own government or serve in their own country's military. Or if they, like some of the posters at right-wing web site FreeRepublic.com, believe they should take up arms against the government if the gays are allowed to marry. Tyranny, ya know.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> if you're threatened or are forced to defend yourself then it is not criminal. end of story. it's not that you are "getting around anything"
> 
> if someone breaks into my home with evil intentions upon myself and my family and i shoot him that does not make me a murderer.




Agreed. Now what if you see someone breaking into the neighbor's house and kill him? Or if some tranny makes the mistake of hitting on you at a bar and it makes you feel so upset that you put her into the car and, after discovering it's really a him, later claim self-defense and get the charges reduced because you were "defending" yourself or felt threatened. Or maybe some group of dudes cruise down the street and scream "faggot" at you, and then slam on the brakes, get out, and start approaching? 

My suspicion here is that, since we have a history in our judiciary of treating one group's insecurities as more significant for protection than others, one group may be more likely to get away with a "self-defense" or "threatened" claim than another. The legal system has a lot of work to do in that area.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Except the only outcome from the conservative viewpoint is a totalitarian state as well. The issue is power and control over others. Note that conservatives would refuse individual rights in other areas involving other groups of Americans, yet are adamant about an individual right for themselves that involves possessing the ability to effectively kill others. I haven't looked at the demographics of who legally owns firearms - maybe Will can talk about that or break it down - but my guess is that it is overwhelmingly white and male. And yes - it is just a guess, not a declaration.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if these supporters are the same people who believe a woman has no right to control her own body, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to make contracts with their own government or serve in their own country's military. Or if they, like some of the posters at right-wing web site FreeRepublic.com, believe they should take up arms against the government if the gays are allowed to marry. Tyranny, ya know.



Do you know what conservatism is?  Seriously, give me a definition.  Not neo-conservatism, but true conservatism.  *Hint* It is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Yes. . .that is the conservative mantra on that subject.



I hope that you don't have any children.  You are truly one mentally fucked up individual, and I'd like to think that your special close-mindedness and detachment from reality comes to an end.

Oh, it'll gone with others, but it's nice to think that your bit will end with you.

Hamster on a wheel...


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Do you know what conservatism is?  Seriously, give me a definition.  Not neo-conservatism, but true conservatism.  *Hint* It is the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.




I think the conservatism you are referring to died out when the neo-con/"religious" Right coalition took over and called themselves "conservatives." They specialize in double-speak. They talk about "small government" but really campaign for big government, especially as a tool to control and limit the rights of Americans other than themselves.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I hope that you don't have any children.  You are truly one mentally fucked up individual, and I'd like to think that your special close-mindedness and detachment from reality comes to an end.
> 
> Oh, it'll gone with others, but it's nice to think that your bit will end with you.
> 
> Hamster on a wheel...





I just really enjoy it when you stretch your critical thinking skills.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I think the conservatism you are referring to died out when the neo-con/"religious" Right coalition took over and called themselves "conservatives." They specialize in double-speak. They talk about "small government" but really campaign for big government, especially as a tool to control and limit the rights of Americans other than themselves.



Then you should refer to them as neo-conservatives, which they are.  If you begin to call them conservatives, then the average person who doesn't actively follow politics will link them to those ideals and associate all conservatives with them, even the true conservatives such as Ron Paul for example.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Agreed. Now what if you see someone breaking into the neighbor's house and kill him? Or if some tranny makes the mistake of hitting on you at a bar and it makes you feel so upset that you put her into the car and, after discovering it's really a him, later claim self-defense and get the charges reduced because you were "defending" yourself or felt threatened. Or maybe some group of dudes cruise down the street and scream "faggot" at you, and then slam on the brakes, get out, and start approaching?
> 
> My suspicion here is that, since we have a history in our judiciary of treating one group's insecurities as more significant for protection than others, one group may be more likely to get away with a "self-defense" or "threatened" claim than another. The legal system has a lot of work to do in that area.



the legal system has a lot of work to do? be that as it may it is still better than anything else out there. The system itself is pretty damn amazing considering the frailties of man.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 28, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I hope that you don't have any children.  You are truly one mentally fucked up individual, and I'd like to think that your special close-mindedness and detachment from reality comes to an end.
> 
> Oh, it'll gone with others, but it's nice to think that your bit will end with you.
> 
> Hamster on a wheel...



social darwinism at it's best. the guy is gay. he has self selected himself to not pass on these genes. the one positive I can come up with for gay marriage


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> But thanks for attempting to answer some of the questions. People ask questions because they want to know something.



You were given all the info you need to get you started on doing some research into the topic. The rest of it was simple trolling, so no need for me to respond. If you have an actual question that can be answered, feel free to ask it. I suspect you have no real interest in the answers, you just like to hear yourself talk, or troll on news groups.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Then you should refer to them as neo-conservatives, which they are.  If you begin to call them conservatives, then the average person who doesn't actively follow politics will link them to those ideals and associate all conservatives with them, even the true conservatives such as Ron Paul for example.



They call themselves "conservatives" and the "mainstream" media uses the same term regularly.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> You were given all the info you need to get you started on doing some research into the topic. The rest of it was simple trolling, so no need for me to respond. If you have an actual question that can be answered, feel free to ask it. I suspect you have no real interest in the answers, you just like to hear yourself talk, or troll on news groups.




Well, it's a not an oral discussion forum, Will, so I'm not really hearing myself "talk." Apparently you don't realize that there are a larger number of people who read these threads than who post on them, so perhaps what you consider "trolling" might reflect some of the more common questions or concerns people have on the topic at hand. After all, that's why a discussion thread is posted - to discuss.


----------



## tallcall (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> social darwinism at it's best. the guy is gay. he has self selected himself to not pass on these genes. the one positive I can come up with for gay marriage



Gee, thanks....


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> social darwinism at it's best. the guy is gay. he has self selected himself to not pass on these genes. the one positive I can come up with for gay marriage



Well, aren't you just the little prissy, self-aggrandizing, gossipy little bitch. I'd imagine most gay guys wouldn't waste much time if you opened your mouth around them. They'd know right away what it was best is suited for. . .

As for gay marriage. . .I don't think they'd be any more interested in your genes than the women. That would open up another theory about white men who view firearms as an extension of their golden peepee, but we'll save that for a day when you can put your two fingers back on the keyboard.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

tallcall said:


> Gee, thanks....



yea, i must admit i kinda felt cheap posting that one. the truth is i've come to realize that the issue is not as cut and dry as i once thought. between posts from you and crazy enough i'll admit i've learned alot.

but when it comes to kbm, the guy is worthless


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> yea, i must admit i kinda felt cheap posting that one. the truth is i've come to realize that the issue is not as cut and dry as i once thought. between posts from you and crazy enough i'll admit i've learned alot.
> 
> but when it comes to kbm, the guy is worthless



It ain't as if I was asking you to propose, baby.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Well, aren't you just the little prissy, self-aggrandizing, gossipy little bitch. I'd imagine most gay guys wouldn't waste much time if you opened your mouth around them. They'd know right away what it was best is suited for. . .
> 
> As for gay marriage. . .I don't think they'd be any more interested in your genes than the women. That would open up another theory about white men who view firearms as an extension of their golden peepee, but we'll save that for a day when you can put your two fingers back on the keyboard.



 oh my. did I just out you?  

why is everything about racism with you? is your 'partner' a different race than you? are you constantly having to battle the gay jungle fever stereotype? just remember your cause what ever it may be will be much better served with you not opening your mouth. stick to sucking dick. persuasion of argument is not a talent of yours.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> but when it comes to kbm, the guy is worthless


 
I think he is actually conservative who is playing a liberal, trying to make liberals appear as irrational and moronic as possible.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

QUOTE=bio-chem;1800272] oh my. did I just out you?  

why is everything about racism with you? is your 'partner' a different race than you? are you constantly having to battle the gay jungle fever stereotype? just remember your cause what ever it may be will be much better served with you not opening your mouth. stick to sucking dick. persuasion of argument is not a talent of yours.[/QUOTE]

No. But you might have outed yourself. Seems like you keep trying to wave your magic wand around everyone's mouth.  Maybe someone will finally....uh....bite.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I think he is actually conservative who is playing a liberal, trying to make liberals appear as irrational and moronic as possible.




That kind of analysis would require you to show some capability of thinking outside the box.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> That kind of analysis would require you to show some capability of thinking outside the box.


 
What the hell are you talking about?  Seriously, you can't even articulate a coherent thought anymore.  I mean really, what is this quote supposed to mean?  It would require me to think outside the box?  Well, I just said it, so apparently I am thinking outside the box.  Congrats, you just gave me a compliment for insulting you.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> What the hell are you talking about?  Seriously, you can't even articulate a coherent thought anymore.  I mean really, what is this quote supposed to mean?  It would require me to think outside the box?  Well, I just said it, so apparently I am thinking outside the box.  Congrats, you just gave me a compliment for insulting you.



Like I said before, I think he's broken.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> What the hell are you talking about?  Seriously, you can't even articulate a coherent thought anymore.  I mean really, what is this quote supposed to mean?  It would require me to think outside the box?  Well, I just said it, so apparently I am thinking outside the box.  Congrats, you just gave me a compliment for insulting you.



It means you appear to have too much difficulty connecting the dots to credibly come up with that kind of complex analysis.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Like I said before, I think he's broken.


\


Naw. . .. But it really is fun watching how fast the same group rushes to the playground to pick up rocks.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> \
> 
> 
> Naw. . .. But it really is fun watching how fast the same group rushes to the playground to pick up rocks.



You think you're playing the role of martyr here.

trust me your not jackie robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball. your the reason gay marriage isn't allowed yet.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> You think you're playing the role of martyr here.
> 
> trust me your not jackie robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball. your the reason gay marriage isn't allowed yet.



Wrong again. 


But then, this isn't the right thread to discuss the rest of your posted matter...this is the thread where you want "activist" judges making decisions protecting the minority rather than ask all the people to vote on the issue.


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> ...this is the thread where you want "activist" judges making decisions protecting the minority rather than ask all the people to vote on the issue.


 
You have to be really activist to interpret something that is directly written into the bill of rights.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> stick to sucking dick. persuasion of argument is not a talent of yours.



I'm not a big fan of gay bashing, but fu*&, that was funny!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You have to be really activist to interpret something that is directly written into the bill of rights.



Going back to topic: what you hear right now is that this SCOTUS decision "reversed 70 years of case law that accepted it as a collective right" as if SCOTUS made some 180 degree turn on accepted law. That is completely false, and a total fabrication by the ACLU, Brady Bunch, etc, and was specifically addressed in the SCOTUS decision. Amazing how even as they lost, there is an attempt to pretend (via Miller, et al) that it's been accepted as a collective right when nothing of the sort existed.


----------



## brogers (Jun 29, 2008)

I suggest others adopt my policy of not responding to anything kbm says.  It just encourages him to continue posting garbage about how the normal, I mean straight, white-man is oppressing everyone.

I'll sum up every single one of his posts:  "John McSame, Con-Servative, heterosexual white-male supremacist, racist"


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> You think you're playing the role of martyr here.
> 
> trust me your not jackie robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball. your the reason gay marriage isn't allowed yet.




That is the world that he lives in (with a bit of clarification):



kbm8795 said:


> Agreed. Now what if you see someone breaking into the neighbor's house and kill him? Or if [I make] the mistake of hitting on you at a bar and it makes you feel so upset that you put [me] into the car and, after discovering [I'm] really a him, later claim self-defense and get the charges reduced because you were "defending" yourself or felt threatened. Or maybe some group of dudes cruise down the street and scream "faggot" at [me], and then slam on the brakes, get out, and start approaching?



He most certainly see himself as a martyr.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> I'll sum up every single one of his posts:  "John McSame, Con-Servative, heterosexual white-male supremacist, racist"


----------



## clemson357 (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Going back to topic: what you hear right now is that this SCOTUS decision "reversed 70 years of case law that accepted it as a collective right" as if SCOTUS made some 180 degree turn on accepted law. That is completely false, and a total fabrication by the ACLU, Brady Bunch, etc, and was specifically addressed in the SCOTUS decision. Amazing how even as they lost, there is an attempt to pretend (via Miller, et al) that it's been accepted as a collective right when nothing of the sort existed.


 
I really don't even give the Brady Campaign enough credit to think they could understand a piece of case law.  The fact that the majority opinion in Heller spends pages discussing how it is consistent with the Miller decision could honestly be lost on them.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> I suggest others adopt my policy of not responding to anything kbm says.  It just encourages him to continue posting garbage about how the normal, I mean straight, white-man is oppressing everyone.
> 
> I'll sum up every single one of his posts:  "John McSame, Con-Servative, heterosexual white-male supremacist, racist"






At least this one admits he can't handle any other viewpoint.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> You have to be really activist to interpret something that is directly written into the bill of rights.




Or the preamble. . .

Hey...I never said you couldn't have a musket.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> That is the world that he lives in (with a bit of clarification):
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly see himself as a martyr.



And you furnish the cross for the front yard.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I really don't even give the Brady Campaign enough credit to think they could understand a piece of case law.  The fact that the majority opinion in Heller spends pages discussing how it is consistent with the Miller decision could honestly be lost on them.



Like all anti gun/anti 2A types or groups, no matter what's shown to them for facts, they see what they want to see, and no where does their latest comments on the SCOTUS ruling show that. I'm glad the majority opinion addressed that fantasy of theirs specifically at least. They may be able to fool the media with that BS (not that it takes much to fool them) but it will not fly in future cases, so that's the plus there.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> I'm not a big fan of gay bashing, but fu*&, that was funny!




Well, being only a little fan of it makes you seem much more reasonable around here.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> And you furnish the cross for the front yard.



are you kidding me? you placed yourself upon a cross in some one else's front yard, and doused yourself in kerosene after handing out matches all while taunting those around you. 

when you get your ass kicked at a bar you may tell yourself that it is because you're gay, and you are suffering for the cause. but in reality you're getting your ass kicked because you deserve it.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> this is the thread where you want "activist" judges making decisions protecting the minority rather than ask all the people to vote on the issue.



if all people voted on the matter? the majority of americans believe it to be a natural right to own guns. 

come to think of it the majority of americans also consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. so which point are you currently arguing?


----------



## brogers (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> if all people voted on the matter? the majority of americans believe it to be a natural right to own guns.
> 
> come to think of it the majority of americans also consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. so which point are you currently arguing?



Courts overturning the people's will is OK as long as it advances the gay agenda.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> are you kidding me? you placed yourself upon a cross in some one else's front yard, and doused yourself in kerosene after handing out matches all while taunting those around you.
> 
> when you get your ass kicked at a bar you may tell yourself that it is because you're gay, and you are suffering for the cause. but in reality you're getting your ass kicked because you deserve it.



I asked a few questions and brought up a few points on several other sides of the issue. That is, apparently, considered criminal around here in "discussion" threads. 

Sorry, but I don't feel like my ass was kicked... It was pretty hilarious watching the usual little cabal of names rush to grab their rocks and start throwing at the least little sign that every comment wasn't going to be from a automatic cheerleader. And when y'all start throwing, any rock will do...especially the "gay" one, and even better if it has nothing to do with anything beyond reminding everyone why y'all think that must be some kind of insult, too. 

The best thing is that I never really stated much about my position on the issue. I just brought up different points and asked questions about the ruling. Sometimes I offered what someone might consider a reaction if they are afraid of firearms. Y'all did a real good job of reinforcing any fear people would have out there - except dg806 with Min0. Even better was just wondering how big the steps were from saying someone should be killed to actually doing it, or wondering how the process of going from "law-abiding citizen" to criminal plays out. The reactions were priceless. 

People get beat up in a bar all of the time by others who think they can decide for everyone else who "deserves" to be assaulted. Of course, if they are wrong, they become criminals for the act. 

These are the kind of threads which should just be marked "cheerleader thread-only"- so people outside the discussion forum understand more clearly why posting on this site on certain issues is only acceptable for a narrowly constructed group of approved beliefs. Unless, of course, they want to risk being martyred for daring to post.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

its interesting you feel this way considering others who "just asked questions" did not receive the same response. look to how mino and others were treated. you may want to reread this thread and figure out why you received such a unique response.

or you can just go with the "everybody hates me" mentality that is working out for you so well.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I asked a few questions and brought up a few points on several other sides of the issue. That is, apparently, considered criminal around here in "discussion" threads.



You asked no relevant questions, you made no relevant points, and much of what you wrote was difficult to read as English, hence why I asked to clarify/write it in English several times. You will babble on about how you were "just asking question and making points" and were attacked, which only you see it that way. The only thing you did in this thread was perpetuate the usual myths about guns, ignore the actual data and facts given, and invent scenarios easy to counter and or have been debunked by the data that exists.

Had you bothered to ask an even remotely relevant question, or make any relevant points, and or attempt to write than in English - EVEN if to play devils advocate - they would have been answered/responded to in kind. 

Now, you can ask a question relevant to the OP*, post some more on how you are being ganged up on, or you can go away. 

* = "what people citizens criminal start guns go bad" and such is not a relevant question, so try English and perhaps a little logical thought based on the SCOTUS ruling, the data, facts, or history supplied or other. Any of those will suffice...


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> In London, there is 1 camera for every 14 people.


I am for that.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

Whether you guys agree with KBM or not his personal life is not the issue here.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I am for that.



How sad for you.

BTW, it's had no lasting affect on crime.  But if you feel better with Big Brother, knock yourself out.  Just don't bring that crap on everyone else.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> How sad for you.


I'm not sad at all, I have nothing to hide.
I obey all laws, so far they have arrested a few people commiting crimes with the cameras.

The other day they had this POS punching the crap out of this 60 year old lady in front of a catholic school.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> How sad for you.
> 
> BTW, it's had no lasting affect on crime. But if you feel better with Big Brother, knock yourself out. Just don't bring that crap on everyone else.


While it may not stop crime at least you can have a face to go by.

It doesn't stop bank robbers that's for sure. Cameras do not bother me the least.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I am for that.



Perhaps you might want to actually think that one through a little more...two, wouldn't you actually want to look to see what effects it's actually had on crime in the places it's been done before being all "for it"? Personally, I don't care what effects it has on crime (see below), my Liberty and privacy means more to me. From the BBC:

"The average citizen in the UK is caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day."

yet

"A report by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro) which was based on Home Office research, revealed that of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed. Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities."

In limited cases it has solved a crime.

Cont:

BBC NEWS | UK | CCTV: Does it work?


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

Maybe it's because we have a decent Police Department but I've seen them catch a few criminals with it already.

It doesn't bother me at all, the only people arresting me are the fashion police.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> While it may not stop crime



Bingo.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Cont:
> 
> BBC NEWS | UK | CCTV: Does it work?



"It depends on what cameras are being used for and if they are maintained properly," said Professor Laycock. 
"For example, they can be used very effectively on motorways to control traffic flow. 
"And when they are used overtly, they work well as a deterrent to public order offences. 
 "But if they are placed high on a pole so they only capture the tops of people's heads or are out of focus, they are less than useless."


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> While it may not stop crime at least you can have a face to go by.
> 
> It doesn't stop bank robbers that's for sure. Cameras do not bother me the least.



I take it that you're for warrantless wiretaps, too?  How about being searched without probable cause?  After, you have nothing to hide.  Right?

Apparently, not only are you okay with cameras, you're also okay with losing your freedom.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Bingo.


It may not stop a crime in most cases but at least it gives the police something to go by.

Now if I was a criminal I sure as hell would not do anything with a camera on me.

That's a lot like the traffic cameras, if I know there's one around I won't eat the light.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> "And when they are used overtly, they work well as a deterrent to public order offences.
> "But if they are placed high on a pole so they only capture the tops of people's heads or are out of focus, they are less than useless."



Every person in London knows they're there.  Not all cameras are mounted high on a poll.  Yet crimes is basically unaffected.  

What he's saying has little connection with reality.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I take it that you're for warrantless wiretaps, too? How about being searched without probable cause? After, you have nothing to hide. Right?
> 
> Apparently, not only are you okay with cameras, you're also okay with losing your freedom.


 
Those are two different things, you are now entering my home.
I can walk around naked in my house but I would get in trouble if I did that on Main street....totally different.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> "It depends on what cameras are being used for and if they are maintained properly," said Professor Laycock.
> "For example, they can be used very effectively on motorways to control traffic flow.
> "And when they are used overtly, they work well as a deterrent to public order offences.
> "But if they are placed high on a pole so they only capture the tops of people's heads or are out of focus, they are less than useless."



I made sure to send you to an article with both views covered. The overall view, as well as th studies, found it does nadda for crime, as you can see from the article. There are much more damning articles and studies on the topic. Regardless, I'm glad we have Const. protections from such things (although they are being eroded in large part to the apathy via people such as yourself who really have no clue the significance such things have on the larger picture of Freedom and Liberty) and the normally worthless groups such as the ACLU will fight it tooth and nail. Being the ACLU is interested only in the 1st Amend, and clueless idiots about the Second, at least I know they will be fighting the worthless cameras.

I feel bad for the Brits, who are filmed 300 times per day, and have seen nothing but an increase in their crime rates since banning law abiding people from owning handguns and adding the Big Brother cameras.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Those are two different things, .



No they are not, that's the problem.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What he's saying has little connection with reality.


That's fine, it just doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> I feel bad for the Brits, who are filmed 300 times per day, and have seen nothing but an increase in their crime rates since banning law abiding people from owning handguns and adding the Big Brother cameras.


I just did a search and in Scotland it's the same story as in Britian. 

You should see Manhatten now, there are cameras all over the place.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Every person in London knows they're there.  Not all cameras are mounted high on a poll.  Yet crimes is basically unaffected.
> 
> What he's saying has little connection with reality.



He's pulling selected sections from the article. If you read it, you will see it' overall tone is that they are worthless, and that's from the BBC, not some anti government group. Here's another good article from the UK:

Half CCTV schemes do not reduce crime rates - Crime, UK - The Independent


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I just did a search and in Scotland it's the same story as in Britian.



And it didn't reduce crime. Not real big on objective thinking are you? I have never seen anyone so driven by their emotions, and so uninterested in actual objective thought. 



min0 lee said:


> You should see Manhatten now, there are cameras all over the place.



Another reason to be glad I don't live in NY any more.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> He's pulling selected sections from the article. If you read it, you will see it' overall tone is that they are worthless, and that's from the BBC, not some anti government group. Here's another good article from the UK:
> 
> Half CCTV schemes do not reduce crime rates - Crime, UK - The Independent


It was the first thing I saw, I'm not hard headed.

Here's another one to prove your point.


*CChttp://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2008/05/08/cctv-does-work-to-cut-crime-on-teesside-insist-chiefs-84229-20879179/*

*TV does work to cut crime on Teesside, insist chiefs*

May 8 2008 by Simon Walton, Evening Gazette 
COMMUNITY leaders on Teesside have hit back at high-profile claims that CCTV cameras do not cut crime.
Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, head of visual images for the Metropolitan Police, sparked controversy when he slammed the huge investment in safety cameras over recent years.
He claimed criminals did not fear CCTV cameras because they think they are not working.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> It was the first thing I saw, I'm not hard headed.
> 
> 
> "He claimed criminals did not fear CCTV cameras because they think they are not working.



Again, OBJECTIVE data vs what some chief claims to protect his job and his budget. The studies done by the Home Office in the UK  show....why bother, you wont get it anyway.


----------



## tallcall (Jun 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Courts overturning the people's will is OK as long as it advances the gay agenda.



I trust courts 100%. I would never trust mob rule to protect anybody's rights. That's what I think the legislature is, mob rule. So for my rights to be protected I always look to the courts, they're the ones that are supposed to be balanced, the legislature is usually controlled by lobbists and other special intrests, so they lose all credibility, and as much as I hate the new chief justice, at least he doesn't appear to be someone else's puppet.

To get Gay marriage, we will never win it in the legislature, the legislature has never taken the first steps to protect the right of minorities (Civil Rights legislation began way back around the time of Brown V The Board of Education - a case heard by the supreme court). We will also never see the president lending support until the movement has picked up so much steam that he thinks it'll plow him over if he doesn't get onboard. And as I stated earlier, I never trust large groups of people. Being in a large group does something to a person's mind (the spiral of silence theory comes to mind - no one wants to say anything until someone else does because they are afraid they will not appear to be part of the group if their opinions are heard). I trust courts to make decisions like these, they are sworn to uphold the law and interpret it as the situation dictates (there is no way all of this could have been on the minds of the founding fathers 232 years ago, so of course they have to intrepret the laws and see how they might be applicable within the context specified).

I am pro gay marriage, and I appreciate judges ruling against bad laws and forcing them to be re-written or completely erased from the constitution (I do think the bill of rights should NEVER be touched, and that does go for the 2nd ammendment - keep it exactly as is, if you can change one, it is only a matter of time before others begin to change and I love my 1st ammendment rights too much).

By the way, there is no gay agenda, never has been. We've had to fight for absolutely everything we have, including the right to exist in public without fear of being persecuted, and now we only want things that are taken for granted by a large portion of the population (and half the people out there throw it away thinking it's nothing - so if marriage isn't worth anything to so many, why do they feel the need to make it a straight person only club, it doesn't mean anything to them?!?!)

I think it's my nap time because I'm getting too grumpy.

God I hope this all made some kind of sense


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> And it didn't reduce crime. Not real big on objective thinking are you? I have never seen anyone so driven by their emotions, and so uninterested in actual objective thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason to be glad I don't live in NY any more.


Emotions? 
I  just don't live a paranoid life. 

I say this without emotion, I don't care about cameras on me on Public streets.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I don't care about cameras on me on Public streets.



That's just it, once you say that you've nothing to hide, eventually...you'll have nothing to hide.  Period.

I find that your inability to see this is disturbing.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Again, OBJECTIVE data vs what some chief claims to protect his job and his budget. The studies done by the Home Office in the UK show....why bother, you wont get it anyway.


Dude, this is the second time I wasn't disagreeing with you and yet you keep on trying to hammer it in.

Your a bit like those religious fanatics who shove their beliefs on others.

I now demand we put cameras all over the place.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> That's just it, once you say that you've nothing to hide, eventually...you'll have nothing to hide. Period.
> 
> I find that your inability to see this is disturbing.


I don't even jay walk.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

so we have seen that it does nothing to deter crime. neither does the death penalty and i still support that. does it make it easier for authorities to make arrests and convictions? and im not talking about the eye in the sky cameras. that has also been shown to not be effective, i accept that.

would someone mind explaining to me how a camera in a public place violates my privacy?


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> would someone mind explaining to me how a camera in a *public* place violates my privacy?


Public, that's the operative word here, now if it was in my own home then it would be different.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I don't even jay walk.



You missed the point.  Cameras in public are only the first step.

In the UK, they're now trying to move on to having a GPS device in all of the cars, so that they can be monitored.  They're also want to be able to intercept all photos and videos taken from cell phones.

I'm sure you're okay with this.  After all, you having nothing to hide.



min0 lee said:


> Those are two different things, you are now



What's the matter?  Are you trying to hide something?


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 29, 2008)

What about phone calls in a public place Mino, not in the privacy of your home.  Since it was made in public, should the government be allowed to listen in?


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

tallcall said:


> I trust courts 100%. I would never trust mob rule to protect anybody's rights. That's what I think the legislature is, mob rule. So for my rights to be protected I always look to the courts, they're the ones that are supposed to be balanced, the legislature is usually controlled by lobbists and other special intrests, so they lose all credibility, and as much as I hate the new chief justice, at least he doesn't appear to be someone else's puppet.
> 
> To get Gay marriage, we will never win it in the legislature, the legislature has never taken the first steps to protect the right of minorities (Civil Rights legislation began way back around the time of Brown V The Board of Education - a case heard by the supreme court). We will also never see the president lending support until the movement has picked up so much steam that he thinks it'll plow him over if he doesn't get onboard. And as I stated earlier, I never trust large groups of people. Being in a large group does something to a person's mind (the spiral of silence theory comes to mind - no one wants to say anything until someone else does because they are afraid they will not appear to be part of the group if their opinions are heard). I trust courts to make decisions like these, they are sworn to uphold the law and interpret it as the situation dictates (there is no way all of this could have been on the minds of the founding fathers 232 years ago, so of course they have to intrepret the laws and see how they might be applicable within the context specified).
> 
> ...


while i dont agree with all of it, it does make for a sane argument. one that is difficult to go against. I on the other hand do not trust courts 100%. they are to be a portion of the process, not the end all. I support judicial review, but judicial legislation is overstepping judicial authority in my opinion. when a group of individuals bans together to form a government they get to choose by what laws they deem best for the society they choose. I think Jefferson did an excellent job explaining this in the Declaration of Independence. our constitution is a living one, one in which we must every generation decide how it is to be interpreted. America is as yet not ready for gay marriage. it is true that change happens slowly. i personally think that this is a good thing. if the pendulum swings too quickly one way negative results will happen on the back swing.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> What about phone calls in a public place Mino, not in the privacy of your home. Since it was made in public, should the government be allowed to listen in?


Cameras...cameras.
That's all I am talking about, no domino effect.

If you guys want to bring in the phones lets say I bring patrol officers staring at me. 

I don't want patrol officers in my sight, they are human cameras.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> What about phone calls in a public place Mino, not in the privacy of your home.  Since it was made in public, should the government be allowed to listen in?



we already have laws governing the privacy of phone calls. i dont really find this to be a valid argument


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> we already have laws governing the privacy of phone calls. i dont really find this to be a valid argument



Yes we do.  We also have laws against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial in court, the right not to be tortured.  We don't seem to be following any of these laws, do we?

The fundamental idea behind the law is more important than the law itself.  If everyone just keeps saying "I have nothing to hide", then one day you will wake up and you won't have freedoms anymore.  In almost all past and present dictatorial/police state nations, civil rights weren't taken away in one fell swoop, they were taken away piece by piece until nothing was left and it was too late for the people to act to prevent it.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Yes we do.  We also have laws against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial in court, the right not to be tortured.  We don't seem to be following any of these laws, do we?
> 
> The fundamental idea behind the law is more important than the law itself.  If everyone just keeps saying "I have nothing to hide", then one day you will wake up and you won't have freedoms anymore.  In almost all past and present dictatorial/police state nations, civil rights weren't taken away in one fell swoop, they were taken away piece by piece until nothing was left and it was too late for the people to act to prevent it.



I'm sorry is there a rash of bill of rights violations against US citizens that i'm not aware of? and if my understanding is correct didn't the US supreme court also rule on the prisoners at gitmo followed by the president accepting the ruling and stating it will be followed. sounds like a victory for the system to me. I personally don't think that the bill of rights applies to everyone outside of the US but that is just me


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Yes we do. We also have laws against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial in court, the right not to be tortured. We don't seem to be following any of these laws, do we?
> 
> The fundamental idea behind the law is more important than the law itself. If everyone just keeps saying "I have nothing to hide", then one day you will wake up and you won't have freedoms anymore. In almost all past and present dictatorial/police state nations, civil rights weren't taken away in one fell swoop, they were taken away piece by piece until nothing was left and it was too late for the people to act to prevent it.


Well said, it still won't change my mind.

Doing more searches and there are pages and pages of cameras not working.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry is there a rash of bill of rights violations against US citizens that i'm not aware of? and if my understanding is correct didn't the US supreme court also rule on the prisoners at gitmo followed by the president accepting the ruling and stating it will be followed. sounds like a victory for the system to me. I personally don't think that the bill of rights applies to everyone outside of the US but that is just me


It doesn't, trust me.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry is there a rash of bill of rights violations against US citizens that i'm not aware of? and if my understanding is correct didn't the US supreme court also rule on the prisoners at gitmo followed by the president accepting the ruling and stating it will be followed. sounds like a victory for the system to me. I personally don't think that the bill of rights applies to everyone outside of the US but that is just me



After all this time do you actually believe anything that this administration says they will or will not do?

I wouldn't put it past them to simply ship the prisoners to Egypt or something and continue on with their activities.

Although torture is explicitly banned in our Bill of Rights, it is also banned under sections of the Geneva Convention which the US had pledged to follow.  That applies to everyone, not only US citizens.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> After all this time do you actually believe anything that this administration says they will or will not do?
> 
> I wouldn't put it past them to simply ship the prisoners to Egypt or something and continue on with their activities.
> 
> Although torture is explicitly banned in our Bill of Rights, it is also banned under sections of the Geneva Convention which the US had pledged to follow. That applies to everyone, not only US citizens.


We are being monitored on the net as we speak.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS, Wilbrinks..sorry if I pissed you guys off.
Nothing personal.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> It doesn't, trust me.



i'm ok with that. if they want a bill of rights protection then they should get their own


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> We are being monitored on the net as we speak.



I don't doubt it.  If Prince really wanted to, he could set up some 128-bit SSL encryption for the entire website, but that is overkill from a performance standpoint.

I never ever assume that I'm anonymous enough to get away with saying certain things.  That and a healthy knowledge of encryption and tunneling helps with other activities.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> After all this time do you actually believe anything that this administration says they will or will not do?
> 
> I wouldn't put it past them to simply ship the prisoners to Egypt or something and continue on with their activities.
> 
> Although torture is explicitly banned in our Bill of Rights, it is also banned under sections of the Geneva Convention which the US had pledged to follow.  That applies to everyone, not only US citizens.



I don't like all of the things that have happened at gitmo, nor do i support them. i do not feel however that those prisoners deserve the same protections that I do.


----------



## brogers (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I don't like all of the things that have happened at gitmo, nor do i support them. i do not feel however that those prisoners deserve the same protections that I do.



What, you don't want US Marines having to read the prisoners they pick up on the battlefield Miranda Rights?  Or our boys having to fly back half-way across the world to appear in court as a witness?  You're so unreasonable!

Most of the people claiming the torture thing or w/e usually cite as evidence "I don't trust the government to tell the truth."  Well that's good and I don't trust them to do much either, but it isn't evidence.  The official word is that 3 people were waterboarded and the tactic is now prohibited. Some people considered it to be torture (keep in mind, our own US Special Forces undergo this during SERE).  If someone has evidence that we're doing something wrong, bring it forward, if not, I think it's pointless to make accusations based on nothing besides saying "I wouldn't put it past them!".  Al-Qaeda manuals we've picked up instructed their operatives to claim they are being tortured and mistreated to manipulate the media (mission accomplished).  Transparency is good, but in a situation like this, you don't want to disclose exactly what your interrogation tactics are in public, otherwise the enemy can prepare for it.  It's utter foolishness in a time of war.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You missed the point.  Cameras in public are only the first step.



Absolutely. They get you use to cameras then they will hit you with something else. Just like with gun control. Thye start out with little things. Next thing you know, you don't have any rights.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> we already have laws governing the privacy of phone calls. i dont really find this to be a valid argument



Yeah, and they're trying to change them.  Because you, and minO, have nothing to hide.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> DOMS, Wilbrinks..sorry if I pissed you guys off.
> Nothing personal.



Hell no, minO, I'm not mad at you!  What I am mad at is the continuing erosion of my privacy and rights.  Quite often at the behest of corporations.

The "I have nothing to hide" mentality isn't helping, either.


----------



## DOMS (Jun 29, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Absolutely. They get you use to cameras then they will hit you with something else. Just like with gun control. Thye start out with little things. Next thing you know, you don't have any rights.



You've just described the UK.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, and they're trying to change them.  Because you, and minO, have nothing to hide.



where have they tried to change those laws? and i have not used the i have nothing to hide argument. so far all im saying is without further evidence i do not believe that cameras in public places destroy my right to privacy. we are not currently talking about audio/visual recording devices, just visual. 

the paparazzi can take pictures all they want as long as they are in a public place and they have done nothing wrong is my understanding. 

my concern with the government putting up cameras everywhere is where is the money coming from? if they are raising the taxes for this, and they cannot show a decrease in crime or increase in prosecution rates then i would prefer the money in my pocket. same if they are using existing taxes to pay for it. i would rather the money go into my pocket from lowered taxes or put the tax money to better use.


----------



## danzik17 (Jun 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> where have they tried to change those laws? and i have not used the i have nothing to hide argument. so far all im saying is without further evidence i do not believe that cameras in public places destroy my right to privacy. we are not currently talking about audio/visual recording devices, just visual.
> 
> the paparazzi can take pictures all they want as long as they are in a public place and they have done nothing wrong is my understanding.
> 
> my concern with the government putting up cameras everywhere is where is the money coming from? if they are raising the taxes for this, and they cannot show a decrease in crime or increase in prosecution rates then i would prefer the money in my pocket. same if they are using existing taxes to pay for it. i would rather the money go into my pocket from lowered taxes or put the tax money to better use.



The only better use of that money is to be in your pocket.  That or paying off some of the national debt.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jun 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> You asked no relevant questions, you made no relevant points, and much of what you wrote was difficult to read as English, hence why I asked to clarify/write it in English several times.
> 
> *I'm working with a new keyboard here which isn't conforming as naturally to my large fingers as I'd like - so it's likely going back next week.  That wouldn't indicate a lack of command of the English language, Will - certainly not for someone formally trained with advanced practical and research degrees in both journalism and communication and hundreds of publication credits and media interviews of my own.
> 
> ...




Thanks. I'm certainly experienced enough at research methods, interviewing and discerning facts to secure any resources I need in the future on this topic. That kind of discussion doesn't occur in this forum.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 30, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Hell no, minO, I'm not mad at you! What I am mad at is the continuing erosion of my privacy and rights. Quite often at the behest of corporations.
> 
> The "I have nothing to hide" mentality isn't helping, either.


I am also guilty of having set up cameras in and out of the house.

Although it would have been more useful when I was living in my old apartment with my nephews.
When they moved out that's people started telling me about the hooky booze parties they had.

I also had stuff stolen, broken....wish I had the cameras back then.

I have the cameras set up but not with the special monitor where it records, I think I'll set it up to the computer.

Great thing about is these kids used to leave a mountain of dishes for us to clean...not anymore.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 30, 2008)

Just because!


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 30, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Simply being able to read selective literature doesn't mean anyone is getting all of the facts. . . which is why I asked about the literature you offered.




You asked no relevant questions about the lit that was offered, and made no attempt to offer any of your own and or do the research to answer the questions. Many of your questions were at the level of a 6th grader like "Lott can't be the only researcher right?' and other gems. No one said he was, there are plenty of others. Duh...and no one is hinging an entire position on a single researcher. I know most of the primary researchers in the field and have read their work. Sent you the URL for a full down load, and best you could do was make more 6th grader level remarks on it, because you clearly have no interest in actually researching the topic. 

Read the full SCOTUS ruling yet? Of course not. 





kbm8795 said:


> I brought up the roots of your primary source for a reason. My college freshmen know to research the writer, the grants used to produce the research, and any associations of the author, because they all indicate level of credibility and motive for the work. While obviously the publication is reputable and peer-reviewed, even academic publications make mistakes in selecting material, and material isn't always selected based on merit. It doesn't mean I thought the source was junk - but I sure didn't have the time to go over the footnotes, his primary sources, the ones used most often for the literature review, and look over his study. Nor did I expect you to know everything - but I thought you might know more about the researcher.



I know plenty about the researcher and you are attempting semantic games to make yourself sound smart. All the your points above are 100% legit, but first one needs to actually read the papers, the lit, etc before attempting to then look into the finer issues. No sh*& Sherlock, journals are not perfect, etc, etc. I'm not one of your college freshmen, I have been publshed in per reviewed journals, published op eds n places like the Boston Globe on this very topic,  etc, so your little dissertation above about how knowledgeable you are about the inner workings of the journals was just more hot air vs an attempt at relevant discussion. Now, Lott's background and CV if interested:

"Previously I held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984."

Blogger: User Profile: John Lott

Now, if you do some searching, you can also find plenty of criticisms of Lott and his research, because, as you would expect, it's a highly contentious topic. 




kbm8795 said:


> One thing that increases credibility with me isâ€



Clearly, you overrate your importance, and perhaps the students you deal with look up to you, giving you a highly inflated sense of your importance and how much I, or anyone else, cares what increases credibility with you.  Again, credible info was supplied. You generally ignored it in favor of making statements that were often difficult to read as English, and or simply made no sense. 

We can (1) start over again with some on topic question (in English!) or thought from you regarding the actual topic, or (2) stop wasting each others time.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> You asked no relevant questions about the lit that was offered, and made no attempt to offer any of your own and or do the research to answer the questions. Many of your questions were at the level of a 6th grader like "Lott can't be the only researcher right?'? and other gems. No one said he was, there are plenty of others. Duh...and no one is hinging an entire position on a single researcher. I know most of the primary researchers in the field and have read their work. Sent you the URL for a full down load, and best you could do was make more 6th grader level remarks on it, because you clearly have no interest in actually researching the topic.
> 
> Read the full SCOTUS ruling yet? Of course not.
> 
> ...


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Going back to topic: what you hear right now is that this SCOTUS decision "reversed 70 years of case law that accepted it as a collective right" as if SCOTUS made some 180 degree turn on accepted law. That is completely false, and a total fabrication by the ACLU, Brady Bunch, etc, and was specifically addressed in the SCOTUS decision. Amazing how even as they lost, there is an attempt to pretend (via Miller, et al) that it's been accepted as a collective right when nothing of the sort existed.



I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread because it's the same lame arguments from the anti-gunners over and over again.  But this is just too damn funny to ignore.  I was listening to Dianne FeinSTAIN's response to the ruling and she harped on that same thing, "They ignored 70 years of prescedent by making this ruling..........."  Hello you stupid bitch, all that means is that a court 70 years ago ignored 130 years of prescedent.  These people are just too stupid for words.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 30, 2008)

ALBOB said:


> I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread because it's the same lame arguments from the anti-gunners over and over again.  But this is just too damn funny to ignore.  I was listening to Dianne FeinSTAIN's response to the ruling and she harped on that same thing, "They ignored 70 years of prescedent by making this ruling..........."  Hello you stupid bitch, all that means is that a court 70 years ago ignored 130 years of prescedent.  These people are just too stupid for words.



But it's worse then that, there was never a prescedent in the first place! Miller never established a collective right,and they made sure to address that in the SCOTUS ruling, so the anti types -Brady Bunch et al - could not pretend some big change had taken place, although as you can see, they are doing what they do best: lying.


----------



## ALBOB (Jun 30, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> But it's worse then that, there was never a prescedent in the first place! Miller never established a collective right,and they made sure to address that in the SCOTUS ruling, so the anti types -Brady Bunch et al - could not pretend some big change had taken place, although as you can see, they are doing what they do best: lying.



Exactamundo.  I realized I'd neglected to mention that in my post after I hit "Submit" but was too lazy to go back and edit it.  Thanks for picking up my slack.


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 1, 2008)

ALBOB said:


> Exactamundo.  I realized I'd neglected to mention that in my post after I hit "Submit" but was too lazy to go back and edit it.  Thanks for picking up my slack.



Carry on!


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 4, 2008)

dg806 said:


>



Check this out.  San Antonio: "Man Recounts Shooting of Home Intruder"
From WOAI NBC 4 San Antonio:


Man Recounts Shooting of Home Intruder : ClipSyndicate Video

What I found interesting about this clip is, the intruder didn't have a weapon. Anti gun types like to say ignorant things like "if no one had guns" and other fantasy talk due to watching too much TV and failing to use their brains. Rock, stick, knife, or nothing at all, bad guy can harm you. In magic TV land of anti gun types, he should have given the guy a karate chop and called the police....

PS: There's a lesson in the vid about safety on guns anyone who owns guns should take heed...


----------



## bio-chem (Jul 4, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Check this out.  San Antonio: "Man Recounts Shooting of Home Intruder"
> From WOAI NBC 4 San Antonio:
> 
> 
> ...



very nice post. that is important to remember. when in a tense situation little things like a safety on a gun become a huge issue. holy crap. that is a scary situation.


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 4, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> very nice post. that is important to remember. when in a tense situation little things like a safety on a gun become a huge issue. holy crap. that is a scary situation.



If disengaging the safety under pressure is not completely instinctual (due to regular practice) don't own a gun with a safety. Had the bad guy had a weapon and or decided to charge him at that moment (and a home owner who can't seem to figure out how to work his own gun is a good time to charge...), he and his family could be dead. By the grace of God and shear luck go he.


----------



## bio-chem (Jul 4, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> If disengaging the safety under pressure is not completely instinctual (due to extensive training) don't own a gun with a safety. Had the bad guy had a weapon and or decided to charge him at that moment, he and his family could be dead.



i dont care how much training you have had. the first time you have to point a gun at a man and pull the trigger to kill it is impossible to know what your personal reaction will be. I've spoken to plenty of marines, and cops who have had to use their weapons and all of them are full of stories like that. im really glad that the guy kept his head about him and was able to handle the situation so well. I only hope if im placed in that situation things will turn out so well.


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 4, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i dont care how much training you have had. the first time you have to point a gun at a man and pull the trigger to kill it is impossible to know what your personal reaction will be.



True, but the amount of practice and or training absolutely influences how you do react. People would not train as they do if that were not the case.



bio-chem said:


> I've spoken to plenty of marines, and cops who have had to use their weapons and all of them are full of stories like that.



Then they were not adequately trained and or didn't practice. I work with and or know many an LEO, and you would be amazed how little they actually work on such things. You will also note most big PD's don't give their "regular" officers guns with safety, and that's for a reason. My best bud however has ben in 8 gun fights, survived them all, and always relied on his training to win the fight. Practice, practice, practice...



bio-chem said:


> im really glad that the guy kept his head about him and was able to handle the situation so well. I only hope if im placed in that situation things will turn out so well.



Agreed! Home owner 1, bad guy 0.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 4, 2008)

Unless your bud is a cop or marine or something, I think he is doin something wrong


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 4, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> Unless your bud is a cop or marine or something, I think he is doin something wrong



Winning = doing something right, but yes, he's an LEO who has been on the gang units, SWAT, and other high risk teams in a major city PD for over a decade.


----------



## kbm8795 (Jul 4, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> You asked no relevant questions about the lit that was offered, and made no attempt to offer any of your own and or do the research to answer the questions. Many of your questions were at the level of a 6th grader like "Lott can't be the only researcher right?'ï¿½ and other gems. No one said he was, there are plenty of others. Duh...and no one is hinging an entire position on a single researcher. I know most of the primary researchers in the field and have read their work. Sent you the URL for a full down load, and best you could do was make more 6th grader level remarks on it, because you clearly have no interest in actually researching the topic.
> 
> Read the full SCOTUS ruling yet? Of course not.
> 
> ...



Ah...a second attempt to proclaim yourself the official arbiter of the English language, even if you have difficulty distinguishing between words used to describe oral communication versus written usage. 

I already indicated that I wasn't interested - and that I can, using my obviously "overrated importance," read on my own. That was my signal that I was finished wasting my time. So enjoy singing to the choir. 

The most interesting part is that I never had to express my own opinion on the subject to discover it had best be the same opinion as yours.


----------



## Will Brink (Jul 4, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> I already indicated that I wasn't interested



Then STFU already. 

Oh, and happy 4th.


----------



## bio-chem (Jul 4, 2008)

kbm8795 said:


> Ah...a second attempt to proclaim yourself the official arbiter of the English language, even if you have difficulty distinguishing between words used to describe oral communication versus written usage.
> 
> I already indicated that I wasn't interested - and that I can, using my obviously "overrated importance," read on my own. That was my signal that I was finished wasting my time. So enjoy singing to the choir.
> 
> The most interesting part is that I never had to express my own opinion on the subject to discover it had best be the same opinion as yours.



how are you really this delusional? people disagree all the time on this forum without any problems. insults are traded without any lasting issues, yet you have convinced yourself that because you're the odd man out on this discussion that somehow you have been unduly picked on. grow up. come up with a point that is legit and maybe someone will listen to you. if you think something in the minority opinion is worthwhile post it and we will discuss it.

I have read both opinions and i feel that the majority opinion addressed the points brought up in the minority one.


----------



## ZECH (Jul 21, 2008)

News 14 | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | Teenager fends off would-be robbers

CHARLOTTE – Two suspects are on the run after a teenager in the house they were robbing turned one of the criminals' guns against them.



At about 8:30 a.m. Saturday, police said two robbers broke into Danielle Gardin's home in north Charlotte.

"One guy opened up the garage, let the van in and then they started going upstairs," Gardin said.



Gardin wasn't home, but her 14-year-old son Dante was. He had locked the door to his room at the top of the stairs, called 911 and hid in the closet.




 Self defense 
At about 8:30 a.m. Saturday, police said two robbers broke into Danielle Gardin's home in north Charlotte -- that's when her teenage son fought back.

"One of the guys kicked the door in, and then he started going through Dante's stuff," Gardin said.



The teenager had armed himself with a pocket knife. And with the stranger in his room distracted, Dante attacked.



"That's when he came out of the closet and that's when he stabbed the guy in the stomach," Gardin said.



While the two struggled in the room, the robber's gun fell to the floor. Dante picked it up and aimed it at the would-be criminal.



The man then took off down the stairs then sped away with his accomplice in the getaway van, damaging part of Gardin's garage in the process.



"I watch the news all the time and see this on the news all the time," Gardin said. "You just never think that it's going to happen to you, but, hey, you can't ever rule yourself out."



Hours after the ordeal, the damage to the home was already being repaired. And Gardin said she knows it could have been much worse.



"I was scared not knowing if he was OK," she said. "Just to know that he is OK, mentally and physically, was just the most important part for me."



Police said both suspects are black males with dreadlocks. One of the suspects was wearing a long-sleeved black T-shirt and jeans. The other was wearing a blue polo shirt with white stripes.


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 21, 2008)

Not that I see what it has to do with the 2nd amendment.  But that is one ballsy kid


----------

