Rick Reuben wrote:This strikes down the DC handgun ban. I don't know what this means for Chicago's gun laws.

I believe I read that this ruling may not apply to other gun laws, but I'll be damned if I can find where I read that. I imagine that the rulings themselves provide some sort of guidelines.

Ah, here it is, from Salon:

War Room wrote:However, Scalia was careful not to strike down all gun laws. "The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns," Scalia wrote. Additionally, he said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Licensing requirements were also held to be constitutional.

I'm not familiar enough with Chicago's law to determine whether/how much today's ruling will affect it.

Rotten Tanx wrote:To Americans it might seem just a normal part of life but if you could view it as an outsider. Imagine if I told you everyone in England were allowed to have their own working tank. It's pretty insane that a regular person can have a device designed to end peoples lives.

It's also, supposedly, unconstitutional. I dont remember it exactly but it's something along the lines of "A well-regulated militia being neccesary to the freedom of the people, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Right? But few people are in a militia and no one's being physically oppressed. Well, not many.

Ok, that's not gonna make anyone put down their guns, but it's worth noting.

Anywayz, crap or not crap?

Scared of guns, scared of dogs...

You seem like a good enough guy, despite these weird phobias.

I've never owned a gun. Shot a couple small rifles at camp as a kid.

If someone is in their own home and being attacked, I can't blame them for shooting someone. I would certainly shoot and even kill someone before letting them kill me, as unlikely as that is to happen. If someone's business is being looted and burned, I can't blame them for using a gun either. I would hope that they would be smart and fire warning shots and then maybe aim for the lower legs but in all reality...

You can't pass laws that force people to use common sense or good judgment let alone eliminate related illegal activity. (smuggling weapons, etc.)

I certainly would not outlaw guns if police could still use them.

All I know is that I don't want to get shot. Or stabbed. Or even punched. Or even reprimanded by a woman and hear the word 'inappropriate'.

Mark wrote:There's no way a Citizens Militia could go up against the US army and win.

Not without a Citizens Airforce to back them up

I don't know I think Iraq seems to contradict your point.

I'm glad to see that this thread has come up again after all these years. I missed it the first time around. As an anti-Republic gun enthusiast who has parted ways with his gun collection, it's a matter I've given a lot of though to.

Incidentally, I just saw a news flash during the halftime of the European Championship last night announcing that a strict ban on firearms has now been implement in Washington DC.

Any corroboration on this?

I find it fucked up that in the 21st century people keep looking back to the founding fathers for guidance.

There were about two to three million people in the US at that time.

There were no large cities in the 1790's.

There were no automatic weapons in the 18th century.

Society was completely different. The world was completely different. Weapons were completely different.

If you all want to have guns thats your decision but why not have a discussion with today's facts and experiences instead of referring back to a 200 year old opinion?

Guns freed your country from British tyranny? Mine too. I can see why protecting the right to gun ownership seemed so important to the founding fathers but situations change and so must ideas and laws.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Guns freed your country from British tyranny? Mine too.

Wow, I need to read the paper more often.

vockins wrote:

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Guns freed your country from British tyranny? Mine too.

Wow, I need to read the paper more often.

My point was that guns played a valuable role in the freeing of both countries but the approach taken by both countries after the fact differs greatly. It's a valid point to make, your pointless selective quotation notwithstanding.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Guns freed your country from British tyranny? Mine too. I can see why protecting the right to gun ownership seemed so important to the founding fathers but situations change and so must ideas and laws.

I think the point is that tyranny is still around after 200 years. The right was defended (it seems to me) not so that folks can get rid of home burglars but so that the people can get rid of tyrants.

Not that Americans used theirs to get rid of the thief this time around but there you go.

Question: do you think that (violently) oppressed people should be armed?

Take Zimbabwe as an interesting current case in point.

The people don't want Mugabe.
The international community does fuck all.
Should 'the people' be given guns?


Note: I am only using Zimbabwe as an example because it is a current pertinent example in the press a lot at the moment.