RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

EStan -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 1:30:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

Mind you, I'm not against the Second Amendment or lawful gun ownership - I just don't like the suggestion by some that guns added on top of existing guns will lead to America being a crime-free utopia.

Call me crazy, but I'm uncomfortable the notion of using fear as a motivator for civil obedience (in a domestic scenario).


Occasionally, in these forums, we say things that others don't like. [8D] I know! I'm as surprised as you are. [;)]



HighPlainsDrifter -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 1:31:54 PM)

quote:



IMO, all this ruling will accomplish is to increase DC's annual body count and make no one more secure.


Perhaps DC residents who don't support this ruling ought to put a sign to that effect, and to their lack of willingness to defend their lives and property in their front yard, so passersby will know where they stand. I'd suggest something to the effect of: "Owner is unarmed, please don't rob or hurt me or I will call the police". I think that may go a long way in changing the hearts and minds of the gun-nuts. For that matter, anyone could take part, wherever they live.



stamper_ben -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 1:36:35 PM)

quote:

Yeah, but you typically get an appointment every few years.

Deficits create debt that lasts not only for a lifetime- but FOREVER- at least until it is paid off with a surplus.
Well, let's see... We've had a national debt since the country's inception, and have gone through several versions of the SCOTUS in that time.

I don't see how the two correlate, and especially how the debt ties in to the second amendment.



mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 2:31:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

BTW, What makes you think I'm a lib? Or is that the usual "label him a pinko, commie, socialist, liberal, etc." ad hominem attacks that conservatives are so famous for?


Probably the fact that, so far, you'cve defended every liberal position that's come along.

Isn't it odd that liberals don't like to be called liberals?


That blanket statement you made is thoroughly untrue!

Let's see...
I'm pro-life (before and after birth), pro-responsible gun ownership (registering them of course), pro-fiscal responsibility in government, for smaller government, I really like the Bill of Rights (all ten amendments of them), and I don't like frivolous lawsuits, so that's what I take from the conservative side,

Liberal in that I like diversity, immigrants (with or without papers), I think poor people need extra help, I'm tolerant of people whose views I don't agree with (but I reserve the right to disagree) and whatever .

So if you get your jollies calling me [:o] "a liberal" have at it. Knock yourself out. Paint it in ten foot high letters on the side of a building. Be my guest. I've been called much worse!

I'm sorry I don't clone your opinions. Maybe I should move to another country that tolerates differences in opinion! [;)]

Vaya con Dios, amigo!



uncabeeil -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 2:41:06 PM)

quote:

IMO, all this ruling will accomplish is to increase DC's annual body count and make no one more secure.
Amen! It just opens the way for shoot first and ask questions later. And vigilante justice. Why call a cop when you've got your trusty 38 special right there? Shoot 'em all and let god sort 'em out?



djv1255 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 2:42:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: djv1255

This is a good example why we should vote for McCain not a third party.


You know Obama's SCOTUS wouldn't have voted for this. [&o][:o][:'(][:@][:(][>:]

There's a lot of things to balance. I'm willing to put up with an anti-gun SC for a few years if it means cutting the deficit by raising taxes and ending the war.

A few years? These are LIFETIME appointments to the court. It's not like they leave with the administration that had them appointed.[8|]

Yeah, but you typically get an appointment every few years.

Not after next president if his appointees are young.
The next president could appoint a new majority that would last for thirty years.
Seven? out of the nine are over 65 years old.



freakofnature -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 2:49:25 PM)

quote:

I'm sorry I don't clone your opinions. Maybe I should move to another country that tolerates differences in opinion!


DLTDHYOTWO! (LOL...jus' kiddin')

Mapachito13, nothing against ya friend. You and I actually have agreed on several points, that being the "Music" folder:

quote:

mapachito13
quote:

ORIGINAL: redeemedsaint

I'm going to disagree with some of the posts on here. If you are glorifying God with your talents, why should you be paid? If you are expecting to be paid and are playing on a Praise Team, then what are your motives in doing it, to use your talents for God or to get paid for it? If you are using your talents for God, you shouldn't expect to be paid. What happened to volunteerism in the church? Why should you expect to be paid? Doesn't make sense to me. A church I know pays people to play on their Praise team and that is just plain wrong.


STOP PAYING YOUR PASTOR or anyone involved in running the church!

Jesus told him, "If you seek perfection, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor. You will then have treasure in heaven. Afterward come back and follow me." Matthew 19:21

I guess we are ALL content with being less than perfect!


Sorry that this has broken down into a name calling thread. As long as you aren't a brain dead lib, then you're okay. (Settle down there lib's it was a joke! Please no PM about how disgusting I am thank you)



stephanos -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 3:50:03 PM)

So lets see...

DC "HAD" a law BANNING the simple OWNERSHIP of handguns PERIOD in the city limits. A law abiding citizen was not allowed to OWN a handgun! And any other gun (rifle/shotgun) had to be completely dismantled (ie not just unloaded, DISMANTLED).

Now the ones braking the law, the murderes, rapists, robbers, ect; did not and do not care what the laws are. They are not going to say "Well it is against the law to own a firearm, so I will threaten/kill that poor Joe with a knife instead". NO! They are going to carry ANYWAY. The only thing this ban did was keep LAW ABIDING citzens from the ability to defend themselves.

Furthermore, EVERY where where Gun rights have been upheld and the citizen was allowed to own/carry a firearm, the crime rate has gone DOWN. That is a statistical FACT.

So now in DC, where it should be soon legal for a citizen to keep a handgun IN their home (not on them when they go to the market or anything). Crime will go DOWN! Criminals now know that Honest Joe MAY beable to defend themselves, where as before they KNEW that honest Joe would not beable to!

HOw anyone think the right to simply own a firearm will lead to higher crime is beyond me. And shows me how much this country NEEDED this rulling, because if people like Todd here continue to get power. We could ALL kiss our gun ownership rights bye bye. And then the criminals, who again DONT CARE what the Law says about gun ownership, would have a feild day with citizens who have no ability to protect themselves in their own home!



freakofnature -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 4:03:04 PM)

What the worst thing about this whole ordeal is that it even got to the SCOTUS in the 1st place. It is a fundamental right that is part of our constitution. To actually think that if there would have been one more liberal judge on that bench, we could be talking about a court decission REMOVING the 2nd amendment. Not just upholding the ban in D.C. but effectively over riding the actual document that supports our freedoms. IF they would have done so... it is scary to think that the SCOTUS could in the future strike out any... ANY.. amendment they disagree with... THAT IS THE SCARIEST THOUGHT possible.



deliveredarling -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 4:03:07 PM)

What do all of you who think that firearms should be banned say to the possibility of an attack on the US? Our armed foprces are over in another country fighting. We have some left here, not enough to protect every single citizen. How would we defend ourselves and our land with dismantled guns or no guns period? Very foolish indeed. This should have been a no brainer decision. The constitution is very clear about the right to bear arms. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves. This right is not solely for the criminals, yet that is exactly what DC and other cities were striving for. The stats are very telling!



mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 5:45:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature

quote:

I'm sorry I don't clone your opinions. Maybe I should move to another country that tolerates differences in opinion!


DLTDHYOTWO! (LOL...jus' kiddin')

Mapachito13, nothing against ya friend. You and I actually have agreed on several points, that being the "Music" folder:

quote:

mapachito13
quote:

ORIGINAL: redeemedsaint

I'm going to disagree with some of the posts on here. If you are glorifying God with your talents, why should you be paid? If you are expecting to be paid and are playing on a Praise Team, then what are your motives in doing it, to use your talents for God or to get paid for it? If you are using your talents for God, you shouldn't expect to be paid. What happened to volunteerism in the church? Why should you expect to be paid? Doesn't make sense to me. A church I know pays people to play on their Praise team and that is just plain wrong.


STOP PAYING YOUR PASTOR or anyone involved in running the church!

Jesus told him, "If you seek perfection, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor. You will then have treasure in heaven. Afterward come back and follow me." Matthew 19:21

I guess we are ALL content with being less than perfect!


Sorry that this has broken down into a name calling thread. As long as you aren't a brain dead lib, then you're okay. (Settle down there lib's it was a joke! Please no PM about how disgusting I am thank you)


Living in So Cal, I am proud to call many freaks my friend. I know I get excited typing responses but my bark is definitely worse than my bite. But don't let that get out, it'll ruin my rep! [;)][:D]

BTW, if lib mean Liberace then your are 100% correct. He is brain dead and body dead! [sm=icon_smile_faint.gif] I hope there's no nightmeres of piano players in sequins in my future. [:o]



earthless -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 8:37:23 PM)

This is great news. For too long in many areas of our nation - the only ones with guns (besides law enforcement) have been the gang bangers, the criminals... and the areas with the toughest gun control laws are ironically the areas with the most violent crimes.



stephanos -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 11:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
and the areas with the toughest gun control laws are ironically the areas with the most violent crimes.


Shhh....Earthless stop using facts and truth. Anti-Gun nuts hate it when you do that because they can only ignore the facts (or make up their own)



todd_t -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 11:14:44 PM)

quote:

That is a statistical FACT.


Show the data (nationwide).

quote:

So now in DC, where it should be soon legal for a citizen to keep a handgun IN their home (not on them when they go to the market or anything). Crime will go DOWN!


I doubt that. The morgues and emergency rooms in DC will just be just that more full.

quote:

For too long in many areas of our nation - the only ones with guns (besides law enforcement) have been the gang bangers, the criminals... and the areas with the toughest gun control laws are ironically the areas with the most violent crimes.


Gun control laws are enacted most fiercely in places (like DC) where gun crimes are most common, and as such, they are a desperate attempt to get things under control.

But to those who feel more people packing heat will reduce crime (because a thief, for example, may hesitate to mug a lady if he suspects she's armed), riddle me this: most all gang members are armed to the teeth, and regularly go after other gang members who are similarly armed. Yet none of them seem to be afraid to get killed. If anything, gang culture glorifies the notion of an early death, especially when performed in the name of one's crew.

Thus, if criminals are not afraid to get shot, why would they care if Joe Doe is packing a gun or not if that criminal wants to rob him or steal his car?

Sure, that criminal may get blown away. But on the whole, the vast majority will shoot and run to fight again another day.

I just don't see more guns in DC solving anything. The notion of everyone and his brother packing heat in the District will not solve anything. It will just increase the potential for further mindless bloodshed.



Sophie11 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/26/2008 11:38:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

That is a statistical FACT.


Show the data (nationwide).

quote:

So now in DC, where it should be soon legal for a citizen to keep a handgun IN their home (not on them when they go to the market or anything). Crime will go DOWN!


I doubt that. The morgues and emergency rooms in DC will just be just that more full.



Well I will keep looking for the "national" statistics, but I did find a few stories that seemed to be pretty interesting.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8717

http://www.newsmax.com/inside_cover/guns_england/2007/08/26/27556.html

http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-australian-gun-ban/



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 12:42:17 AM)

Generally speaking, it has never ceased to surprise me the way people respond to decisions made by the Supreme Court.

I may be wrong but the same people who seem certain that President Bush and the Republicans are out to take our rights away, have been quick to be critical of the Supreme Court's decision about the banning of handguns.

In our country copies of the Constitution are widely available. At one point in time or other knowledge and some degree of understanding about it was required of every grade school, or high school student. We even have "experts" and "scholars" on the Constitution who can argue the Constitution from every conceivable angle. Despite all this the Constitution is clearly simple and straight forward, much like the Bible, if one were to look at the entierty of the document instead of only a phrase here and a phrase there, or a phrase that is not part of the document but is still believed to be there.

The Supreme Court decision is clearly in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Constitution-every citizen has the right to own a fire arm to defend himself/herself whether it be from criminals, or the government. At the same time the government has a right to regulate-not ban-the ownership of handguns by the citizenry.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 12:43:02 AM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: todd_t

Gun control laws are enacted most fiercely in places (like DC) where gun crimes are most common, and as such, they are a desperate attempt to get things under control.


Control is the key word... The State doesn't like anyone other than itself armed, and that why the Founding Fathers made sure the populace was able to arm itself... As much for protection against thugs as an oppressive government…

quote:


But to those who feel more people packing heat will reduce crime (because a thief, for example, may hesitate to mug a lady if he suspects she's armed), riddle me this: most all gang members are armed to the teeth, and regularly go after other gang members who are similarly armed. Yet none of them seem to be afraid to get killed. If anything, gang culture glorifies the notion of an early death, especially when performed in the name of one's crew.

Thus, if criminals are not afraid to get shot, why would they care if Joe Doe is packing a gun or not if that criminal wants to rob him or steal his car?

Sure, that criminal may get blown away. But on the whole, the vast majority will shoot and run to fight again another day
.

There's always hope...

John



stephanos -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 12:52:26 AM)

Todd can you just tell me how gun control works at all? MOST crime and gun violence is committed by people who have NO respect for the laws and will carry firearms PERIOD! Regardless of the law. The ONLY people who follow the laws are the honest citizens, and if you prevent them from even OWNING a firearm, you are leading them to the slaughter.

Oh as for your proof

Try THIS out!!

Oh and to add fuel to the fire...This FBI Crime report shows that states with Right to Carry (meaning out side the home not just in it) the crime rate is LOWER than areas with out RtoC!!

So again Todd tell us...Do you think civilians should be banned from owning any firearm at all? Even IN the home for self defense only?



mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 4:29:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Todd can you just tell me how gun control works at all? MOST crime and gun violence is committed by people who have NO respect for the laws and will carry firearms PERIOD! Regardless of the law. The ONLY people who follow the laws are the honest citizens, and if you prevent them from even OWNING a firearm, you are leading them to the slaughter.

Oh as for your proof

Try THIS out!!

Oh and to add fuel to the fire...This FBI Crime report shows that states with Right to Carry (meaning out side the home not just in it) the crime rate is LOWER than areas with out RtoC!!

So again Todd tell us...Do you think civilians should be banned from owning any firearm at all? Even IN the home for self defense only?


I think if you want to make a more forceful argument concerning RTC vs. non-RTC states you need to show trends over a greater period of time than just one year. Especially a year that the CNN article stated there was the biggest jump in violent crime in 14 years!

Also, I noted that rape and assault are actually greater (2X greater for rape, 7X greater for assault) in RTC states as opposed to non-RTC states so guns cannot be viewed as the panacea for all crime.

What I really noticed was that irregardless of RTC vs. non-RTC was that population was the most important factor. Rural area crime stats show almost identical numbers with non-metro RTC areas with RTC areas showing higher rates (slightly) for murder and rape.

Murder rates do not decline below the national average (NA) until you’re in a city with less than 75K people. Rape does not decline below the national average (NA) until you’re in a city with less than 25K people. Robbery does not decline below the national average (NA) until you’re in a city with less than 100K people. Assault does not decline below the national average (NA) until you’re in a city with less than 75K people.

People have the legal right to own guns but what if we put more of our efforts in sharing Christ especially with those who are in prison? "While I was in prison you visited me." (Matthew 25:36) Maybe Jesus said this because He knew this was the true path to reduce crime. Maybe if the church made a more concerted effort to reach out to the lost sheep in prison there could be a fundamental paradigm shift in our society's crime rate.

Just MHO. I am NOT saying you are un-Christian if you choose to own a gun! So don't try to read that into my post! You have a right to own a gun as I have a right to choose not to! That's in the Bill of Rights and I am all for the Bill of Rights!



deliveredarling -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 6:13:03 AM)

quote:



Thus, if criminals are not afraid to get shot, why would they care if Joe Doe is packing a gun or not if that criminal wants to rob him or steal his car?



It's not about the criminals fear or boldness with being shot. It is all about the non criminals right to protect themselves and feel safe from the criminals.



earthless -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 8:21:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

Show the data (nationwide).


http://www.gunmap.org/



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 8:23:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Todd can you just tell me how gun control works at all? MOST crime and gun violence is committed by people who have NO respect for the laws and will carry firearms PERIOD! Regardless of the law. The ONLY people who follow the laws are the honest citizens, and if you prevent them from even OWNING a firearm, you are leading them to the slaughter.

Oh as for your proof

Try THIS out!!

Oh and to add fuel to the fire...This FBI Crime report shows that states with Right to Carry (meaning out side the home not just in it) the crime rate is LOWER than areas with out RtoC!!

So again Todd tell us...Do you think civilians should be banned from owning any firearm at all? Even IN the home for self defense only?


I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. OTOH, there have been several well-funded studies that have looked at gun control laws to find a connection between them and a reduction in crime. They were unable to do so and concluded that there is not any significant evidence that gun control reduces crime. If you are interested, I will try and dig them up, but I don't know where they are off the top of my head.

quote:

I just don't see more guns in DC solving anything. The notion of everyone and his brother packing heat in the District will not solve anything. It will just increase the potential for further mindless bloodshed.


Right to Carry is the law of the land in most of the country. I don't see how anyone that values reason, facts, and evidence can still claim that packing heat (does anyone except for gun banners ever use this word?) will lead to "mindless bloodshed". This just hasn't happened. My state (MI) has allowed carry for 7 years, IIRC. Former critics, including our current governor, have even gone on record saying that the dire predictions never came true and that they were wrong.



djv1255 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 8:37:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Right to Carry is the law of the land in most of the country. I don't see how anyone that values reason, facts, and evidence can still claim that packing heat (does anyone except for gun banners ever use this word?) will lead to "mindless bloodshed". This just hasn't happened. My state (MI) has allowed carry for 7 years, IIRC. Former critics, including our current governor, have even gone on record saying that the dire predictions never came true and that they were wrong.

Mindless bloodshed is exactly what Mayor Daley of Chicago thinks will happen.

He said "Why don't we just get rid of the courts and go back to a wild west style of justice where the quickest gun wins?"



freakofnature -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 9:20:17 AM)

quote:

He said "Why don't we just get rid of the courts and go back to a wild west style of justice where the quickest gun wins?"


These same liberal/democrats blame conserv./repubs with fear mongering in the WOT... LOL.... HAHAHAHAHA



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 10:09:05 AM)

Not that anyone here will care, but what a rotten decision. I might expect as much from the same five justices who also used their same partisan, party-line brand of judiciousness in this case.

Shame on The Five. They don't deserve their robes.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI