High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Remove all ads!

Actually, some feel it is. And if you read the piece I posted, it would explain why some feel that way. But feel free to disagree. The more YOU disagree the more I'm inclined to believe it.

Oh, I don't have any "objections." But the Constitution might.

Is my post giving you trouble? The one where I commented that the Supreme Court made the RIGHT decision, but that some of the remarks by Justice Breyer were interesting? Forgive me for trying to look at both sides of the issue, even though I did not necessarily agree. Try, you can do it.

What's with all the dramatics? I was speaking of here, in the US, not Germany in 1935.

That's the way our process works. Some feel the SC has too much power in making these decisions. But that's the breaks, as they are now.

Hey, what's with all the hositlity, Homes? Or was it the Michael Moore link that's setting you off? Take a "breath."

I've been to Virginia Beach. Sorry, but "smalltown life" just ain't for me. I know it's "safer" in the sticks and all, or so some claim, but I'm a city boy at heart.

 

I need to peek inside the Alleys more often!

First off, as of right now, I own two pistols. I have a Walther P22 (.22cal), and a Sig P229 Elite (9mm).
There are about 5-6 other guns I want: a custom Armalite AR10-T in .308, with a hot swappable .223 action and barrel (because .223 is cheaper to shoot, and .308 makes bunnies explode ), for a shotgun I want a Remington 870 (pump action 12 gauge) with the serrated muzzle break, I also want either a premium Beretta or Sigarms 12 gauge over-under shotgun...but they're $5,000 to $25,000! I also want another Sig handgun...nothing fancy like my Sig Elite...maybe a P228 or a P226. I want an old .22 cal rifle made and distributed by Sears Roebuck & Co. That was the first gun I ever shot, and it was the rifle that I learned how to shoot with. I also want a unique black-powder revolver that has the stock and barrel of a short rifle...I saw it a long time ago in a Cabella's catalog.

That's about it.


Anyway, with that out of the way, I like guns (if you haven't noticed). I believe in the 2nd amendment, and I like to exercise my right as a US citizen. I feel that a simple background check is not enough for some idiot to buy a gun...I think that everyone MUST take and pass a weapon safety class before buying their first gun. I feel that the previous US president (as retarded as he may be) made the right decision to let the "Assault" Weapons Ban expire. I think the decision by the Supreme Court was a major step in the right direction, but I know that the liberals and lobbyists will fight it at any turn.

When you wipe away all the political BS, and Barmy Army's panty-wetting fear of guns...shooting is just fun! You don't have to go hunting either...I have a great time when I go the range...hell, all I'm doing to shooting holes in a piece of paper with bullets that cost $0.25 each...but it's still fun!

Also.....Hey Barmy:

Spoiler

BOO!!!!!!!!

And.....

Spoiler

OMFG!!!!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!

 

It's not that difficult to get a gun in the UK legally. You have to get the papers from a police station, have at least two people as a reference, be over 17 years old, have secure storage for the weapon and ammunition and have a reason for owning the piece. A handgun ban was brought in in '97 where you can't privately own one unless it's interesting (Seriously) or it's specified and approved as a personal protection weapon for a specific duration.

It was hardly a massive thing either, less than one in a thousand people even had a handgun when the law was passed and even then you could put forward that your weapon was of special personal interest and not intended for use. The laws on collecting swords are probably more awkward (not a small part of that due to the fact they still keep making sodding changes to it)

 

It's nothing to do with a fear of guns, more a fear of giving loons easy access to them. Countries with lax gun laws never cease to get crazies getting them and going round shooting people. In the US, there are endless cases. In Finland they've had 2 -3 that I can think of just off the top of my head, and that is a very small country, about the same population as Scotland I think.

I don't understand connecting the idea of tighter gun laws to 'pant-wetting' at all. If you've got a good reason for owning a gun, then sure, like a farmer or something, but Average Joe from Average Joe Avenue having a handgun at his house? No, absolutely not. Nuts.

 

That we consider what other countries have done, and the results to those countries, when considering how to run our own? What constitution are you reading?

Oh, I wasn't accusing you of disagreeing. I was just saying that I don't see any of Justice Breyer's remarks as sufficient reason for him to disagree. And no, your post isn't giving me trouble, but I guess mine may be giving you some.

And this is a critical case of where we can learn from the mistakes of others. Looking through history, once you give a ruler a power, it's often very hard to take it away. And the more powers you give the ruler, the harder it is to get any of them back. I suppose I could have gone with McCarthy and his hearings, but it wasn't such a clear-cut case of him being given power.

True, but it is a situation that needs to be very carefully watched.

It's not hostility. More like surprise. For someone who's often convinced everything that can go wrong will go wrong, some of your comments here seem like you expect the US can't go wrong. I don't know if you intended them as such or if I just read them that way, but you have definitely sounded nieve at points in here.

Oh, I understand. I'm just the opposite. I consider VB too city-ish for me. We're one massive suburb and I don't think there's a single real forest in it, unless you count the couple of state parks. I'm more comfortable up in York County, myself.

This I like. Forget a gun registry. I want a gun-owner registry. Where you need to take and pass a gun-safety course to get on (something like the NRA offers), plus whatever background checks are appropriate, and take and pass it again every few years. And you need to show your registration before buying a gun. Any gun. Anywhere. From anyone. Or ammo. Of course, once your on the list, it should be relatively easy to get these things.

I mean, we require a license and registration just to drive a car, and those aren't even designed to kill people! Ok, they're good at doing it, but they weren't designed to.

PS. is the .22 you're talking about a single-round bolt-action? I think that's the same one I learned on. Not sure if it was Sears or not, though. I was only 5 at the time.

My only comment is that there's a huge difference between tight/lax gun laws and safe/unsafe gun laws. You can pass some pretty lax laws (comparatively), but if they're well-crafted, they'll be safe. At the same time you can outright ban everything but pea-shooters, and still have everyone and their mother toting around a pea-shooter.

 

I think this is exactly the type of mentality that Harbourboy is talking about. And I have to admit, I find it a bit curious myself.

I have no problem with you owning guns, and wanting to purchase more. What I don't understand is your apparent fascination with them, and your willingness to spend a lot of money acquiring them. Once the number of guns you own starts getting to 5, 6, 7, etc., you really aren't buying them for personal protection anymore. You're more like a gun collector, or at the very least a hobbyist.

You say these hand guns/rifles cost, in some cases, many thousands of dollars (up to $25,000 in your one example). I don't have that kind of cash lying around, but even if I did there's no way I would spend it on guns. Wouldn't you rather buy a car or something with that money?

I get that you enjoy owning guns, and I get that you like going to the range, but could you not still enjoy doing those things with the guns you currently own, or at the very least find a more cost effective means of enjoying this activity? It just seems like a lot of money to spend on a hobby. (Of course, a lot of times, money is relative. I have no idea about your financial situation, and if you're independently wealthy, maybe 25 large is no big deal.)

I guess what I'm asking (and Harbourboy is implying) is why? I understand that you like them, but is there any reason beyond liking them for having two and wanting 5-6 more?

 

You should take a gander at your own posts - Nazi Germany? Hilter?? (I supposed hysterical would be more closer to the mark). Whatever....

 

I don't quite see the difference. To me tight gun laws are laws where you are required to show some sort of qualifications to obtain a weapon which pretty much is the same as a safe gun law to me. An absolute ban on hand guns is quite rare anyhow.

I don't have anything against gun ownership as such but would like to have A) proper background checks when giving out gun permits B) possibly an examination with emphasis on gun safety and responsible gun ownership C) proper and harsh penalties for people who are irresponsible with their weapons, possibly even removing their permit for a lifetime. With freedom should come responsibility.

If there's one thing I learnt from military service it's that some people really should not be allowed to handle guns.

 

I noticed that too, and my take was that I was not agreeing ENOUGH. Nevertheless, you are right, DMC.

Yeah, sorry that you have to bear that kind of "rhetoric," Barmy. However, as I pointed out, America can be a violent place. In this instance, McDonald vs Chicago, the guy did not feel safe living in his own house because of violence in his neighborhood. He was only asking for a chance to be able to defend himself. Basically, law enforcement can't, or won't, do the job. The guys in MM link, "Bowling for Columbine" that I posted, have point about self-defense: In many cases you can't count on law enforcement to be there for you (at least not here). At least that's how I see it.

 

Yes. Sort of. I do agree that I don't understand why anyone would want a gun at all. It seems kind of pointless unless you want to kill something.

But my main point is around the obsession with gun laws and gun control in the USA. So much energy seems to go into tightening or loosening the laws around guns and the USA has this astonishingly powerful gun lobby sector that influences the outcomes of elections, in a way that is similar to the religious sector (let's not go further on that, but it's just a comparison).

So my question is still: why are Americans so obsessed with their RIGHT to have a gun? Why isn't there a big lobby group around your right to speed in your car? Or your right to fly your own plane wherever you want? Or your right to go to school naked? Or other potentially dangerous, but fun, things? Why GUNS? And why only Americans?

 

On the most basic level (but Chandos points below are noted): All of the other things you listed (speeding, flying planes wherever you want, and going to school naked) are illegal and not Constitutionally protected. Gun ownership (at least in a limited sense) is.

 

I understand you don't want to go further, but there is a major point that can answer that question: My dad is a former cop, card carrying member of the NRA (with 5-6 guns on display), and when I go over his house he leaves the literature around where I can easily see it (it's a game we play, since I love to display my Obama stickers, like on my fridge, where he can easily see them in return). I've read through their "monthly newsletters" and it's full of not just gun stuff, but tons of talking points from the conservative agenda and the "evil of liberals" everywhere. The NRA is a conservative grassroots group (much like MoveOn is a liberal group), with a full conservative agenda. It uses gun rights as just a point of departure. So you will find that it's not just about "guns" once you really start to look at what the gun lobby groups are all about.

 

Hmmmmmm. I see.

In New Zealand, some people have guns and some people have no guns, and they all lived happily ever after. There's no ongoing drama about it.

 

As is mine. But the US seems particularly reluctant to introduce changes. Gun ownership made sense at the time of the US's founding. I don't understand the tendency to debate modern gun ownership in relation to conventions decided by the circumstances 200 years ago. If a different approach is deemed better the constitution should be changed. I get the cultural aspect to gun ownership and respect the US citizen's right to decide they are in favour of liberal gun ownership but I think they should make their decision on today's world. I suppose it's a question of whether gun ownership is considered a universal human right on a par with the freedom of speech or the like. I'm not aware of any non-American who think that.

The UK doesn't have a single document. It's an 'unwriten constitution' which is a hodge podge of various treaties, court judgements, conventions and so forth. It's very weak though and parliament can generally pass laws to change it rather than being bound by it though.

I'd stop you at 3. Outside major drug gangs and IRA type organizations I would not expect a criminal in Ireland to have a gun. These would be imported from laxer countries rather than legal Irish weapons and both of the above would be quite careful about using them to avoid excessive attention. It is possible for gun laws to severely limit criminal's access to guns and I very much doubt I'll ever be in a situation where I'm faced with one.

Not that I mightn't be confronted by a violent criminal one day. But if I'm assaulted I'm pretty sure my attacker would be 'going first' so to speak. So I'm much happier knowing the weapons available to both of us are as limited as possible. Improves my chances of running away.

 

Oh boy! Let's break this down, so I can comment on each part....

BINGO! I also like collecting swords, daggers, and general medieval-ish type weapons. Let's take a closer look at that $25,000 shotgun. The action is completely covered in hand engraved artwork. The barrel is precisely hand matched to the action. The wood stock is hand carved too. At this level, it's not just a weapon, it's art. Can the art on your wall look great behind glass *and* be able to go skeet shooting with? No, I thought not. We all have our interpretations of art...I personally think that Picasso's cubism is retarded looking.

I currently don't have an extra $25,000 just lying around...hence the word "want". I want them...even though I can't afford them.

And yes, there are a lot of things I'd rather spend $25,000 on. I never said I *must* have them a.s.a.p.

Well...think about it this way... People who are crazy-good in fencing, say, at the Olympic level...do you think that have only 1, or 2, or 20 foils? No, they probably have a butt-load of those dull pointy things.

The reason I want a 2nd Sig P299 (or one of its close siblings), is because I spent $1000 for my P229 Elite. I enjoy shooting it, but I'd rather only put a box of ammo thru it once every month or so. I also don't want to muck up the finish she has. A standard flat black P229 is cheaper and I wouldn't have to worry about damaging the carved Rosewood grips or tarnishing the upper receiver.

Because I can. Because the law allows me to. Because I'm a full-blooded American who likes guns...now, don't mistake that last one for an inbred redneck who's a gun fanatic.

Also each gun shoots a very different way. I can aim quite accurately while shooting my .22 pistol with one hand. My 9mm requires 2 hands, and a .50 cal Desert Eagle knocked me on my arse. (yes, I've shot the famous Desert Eagle, it was $5 a shot for the rental and ammo. I shot it twice...and that was enough. ) Hell, a short barreled - pump action shotgun is going to shoot very differently than a handmade over-under shotgun with a nice choke.

What's you hobby Harbs? For this example, let’s imagine that you're a billionaire...and you have 5 different personal jet planes because you're allowed to.

That said.... I don't understand why anyone would a jet at all. It seems kind of pointless unless you want to crash it into a building or something.

You see what I did there? I used your exact logic in regards to owning a bunch of expensive jet aircraft.

But Kitrax!!! You don't buy planes to crash into building or kill things! Ummmm....yeah, some people so, whether intentionally or completely accidentally. The point is, a plane can be used for transportation, and yet, a single plane can kill thousands. Therefore, should we ban all airplanes?

This is why you can't use "Monty-Python" logic. You have to remove yourself from your own shoes, and stand in mine for a second. I know exactly why you feel the way you do. You were raised differently, and in a very different country with very different customs and social taboos. I don't expect you to ever *fully* understand why a simple middle-class, law abiding, citizen like myself would want a (or several) guns.
(I also don't expect Barmy to ever stop wetting his panties when he sees a (picture of a) gun....but that's not going to stop me from jabbing him in the ribs about it after his comment on a picture of one of my guns. I mean, what kind of smart-ass would I be if I didn't? )

Firstly, you CAN go to school naked...it's called a nudist colony.

Secondly, you're using ignorant logic again. (A witch burns because she's made out of wood, and wood floats...so does a duck, so if a woman weighs as much as a duck, then she's made out of wood, and is therefore a witch in need of burning.... )

And lastly...'why Americans?' Because we're awesome like that! Every country has its own little quarks that makes it unique. Also, why does it matter to you? Unless you secretly want a gun.

 

The difficulty here is actually not coming to that conclusion...

 

You are now. I am a non-American who thinks that the right to gun ownership is actually *more* important than one's right to free speech. After all, an armed citizenry is the last safeguard for defending against impingements on all other rights.

 

Probably not. You would end up with a pile of dead citizens (or several piles) and that would be the end of it. I think it really comes down to who controls the wealth. There was a saying in the Middle Ages: "Kingdoms are held by men and men are held by gold."

Any fool can stand there with a gun and get shot, or have a bomb dropped on him. But it's quite another matter to build an army and keep it in the field - and pay for it.

I tend to think your imagination is running a bit wild, but who can say for sure? There are so many factors that would enter into such an event. Maybe a few "soccer dads" standing on their rooftops could save the day (and I believe dads have "special" powers). I suppose stranger things have happened.

Yes, that would probably be the "last" reason.

 

On the olympic fencer thing, probably only about half a dozen foils and a supply of spare blades and parts that are matched to the weapons