http://gamingtrend.com
September 01, 2014, 08:42:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: District of Columbia v. Heller -- Decision tomorrow  (Read 7962 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
olaf
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2008, 01:14:52 PM »

Quote from: msteelers on June 26, 2008, 02:54:41 PM

I'm interested in seeing the dissenting opinion. I saw on CNN that it was a 5-4 decision. I'm surprised it was that close.

Yeah that was shocking to me.
Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2008, 01:21:32 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Fed on June 26, 2008, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 26, 2008, 08:39:27 PM

Quote from: Eightball on June 26, 2008, 06:43:30 PM

Quote from: McBa1n on June 26, 2008, 05:52:41 PM

Yeah, thanks Fed for the link. Interesting read (never read one of these before). I don't see much 'reaching' at all in the decision - it's all very logical and makes a lot of sense.

Scalia is a phenomenal legal writer.  Careful, though...his jedi mind tricks are strong.

Then again, even he can't always resist the urge to be a political hack.  His most recent admonishment that "...because of this, more Americans will die [OMFG 911 TERRISTS!!!]" springs to mind.



Not to mention his acceptance of the "30 released detainees have returned to the battlefield," which turns out to be bogus.

I guess that was too subtle.  He's such a phenomenal writer, that if you aren't forewarned sufficiently or you don't read carefully enough, you will fail to see how well he spins his particular bias into his opinions.

He's far better at it than any other on that bench.
Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2008, 02:41:03 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on June 27, 2008, 03:02:16 AM



Sure, but the Constitution is all about "Congress shall make no law" which is clearly about what the federal government can do.  As a federal district, DC is not Chicago or New York or LA.  While the 14th Amendment attempted to make the rights declared in the Constitution immune from state action, the Supreme Court has made it clear that states do have some overriding authority.



Well, it would be more accurate to say that under the incorporation doctrine the courts have found nearly each and every right from the bill of rights binding on the states.  The Second Amendment is one of, if memory serves, only two of the specifically enumerated rights not already incorporated.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2008, 11:33:27 PM »

Question - under what circumstances (if any) would a citizen forfeit this right? 

Change would to should, as you wish.  This is a part of the debate.  An example being, let's say current prison inmates - I'm pretty sure 100% of the board agrees they shouldn't have the right to bear arms while in prison.  So msd and other ardent 2nd amendment supporters, under what circumstances can a citizen forfeit this right?
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
papasmurff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2008, 11:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 27, 2008, 11:33:27 PM

Question - under what circumstances (if any) would a citizen forfeit this right? 

Change would to should, as you wish.  This is a part of the debate.  An example being, let's say current prison inmates - I'm pretty sure 100% of the board agrees they shouldn't have the right to bear arms while in prison.  So msd and other ardent 2nd amendment supporters, under what circumstances can a citizen forfeit this right?

Convicted felons.....anyone who is guilty of violent crimes...anyone who is unable to demonstrate responsible ownership.
Logged

Gaming Tag: papa smurff 4
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2008, 11:49:44 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 27, 2008, 11:33:27 PM

Question - under what circumstances (if any) would a citizen forfeit this right? 

Change would to should, as you wish.  This is a part of the debate.  An example being, let's say current prison inmates - I'm pretty sure 100% of the board agrees they shouldn't have the right to bear arms while in prison.  So msd and other ardent 2nd amendment supporters, under what circumstances can a citizen forfeit this right?


The decision explicitly says it should not be construed to cast into doubt felon-in-possession laws.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2008, 12:40:52 AM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 27, 2008, 11:33:27 PM

Question - under what circumstances (if any) would a citizen forfeit this right? 

Change would to should, as you wish.  This is a part of the debate.  An example being, let's say current prison inmates - I'm pretty sure 100% of the board agrees they shouldn't have the right to bear arms while in prison.  So msd and other ardent 2nd amendment supporters, under what circumstances can a citizen forfeit this right?

A citizen forfeits his right when he becomes a felon.    I'm pretty sure felons have traditionally (even centuries in the past) been deined some rights once they've broken society's rules.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM »

Age limits?
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
papasmurff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: June 28, 2008, 01:41:09 AM »

sure age limits are fine and should be in place.  I believe in MO you have to be 18 for rifles and shotguns and 21 for handguns.
Logged

Gaming Tag: papa smurff 4
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM

Age limits?

A voting age citizen, in my opinion.
Logged
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: June 28, 2008, 02:15:11 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM

Age limits?

A voting age citizen, in my opinion.

to own, not to use imo
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2008, 02:48:58 AM »

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 02:15:11 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM

Age limits?

A voting age citizen, in my opinion.

to own, not to use imo

Not sure I follow you?   You mean you think people should be able to own them but not shoot them?
Logged
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 718


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2008, 06:45:52 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 02:48:58 AM

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 02:15:11 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM

Age limits?

A voting age citizen, in my opinion.

to own, not to use imo

Not sure I follow you?   You mean you think people should be able to own them but not shoot them?
I think he's pointed in the direction that you'd have to be 18 to own a gun, but 14 year old Timmy can still go hunting with his dad and use dad's rifle.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2008, 12:42:47 PM »

Quote from: Biyobi on June 28, 2008, 06:45:52 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 02:48:58 AM

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 02:15:11 AM

Quote from: msduncan on June 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM

Quote from: Pyperkub on June 28, 2008, 12:49:27 AM

Age limits?

A voting age citizen, in my opinion.

to own, not to use imo

Not sure I follow you?   You mean you think people should be able to own them but not shoot them?
I think he's pointed in the direction that you'd have to be 18 to own a gun, but 14 year old Timmy can still go hunting with his dad and use dad's rifle.

Oh right right right.   Yes.   100% agree.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2008, 02:29:32 PM »

Me and my girlfriend (NSFW) approve of this Supreme Court ruling.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2008, 09:30:11 PM »

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. I are stoopit in writing. I was thinking 18 would be a good age at which to start owning firearms - but realistically, growing up where I did, having your first rifle was a right of passage as a teenager (I haven't ever owned a gun, however).
You know, I really don't even see an age requirement being all that big of an issue. I think if a father gave his kid a rifle, there's nothing wrong with that. Gun safety is very important to learn at a young age. I guess you can still do that if the father buys the gun and registers it and then gives it to his son.

Gun ownership shouldn't be so complicated, though. I can see a problem with kids showing up at the gun shop to buy guns when they are teenagers - but if a good parent gave their kid a firearm and showed them proper safety, I see no problem.
I just can't stress enough my belief in teaching kids proper gun safety at an early age.
I grew up in an area loaded with guns in Wisconsin - and there was never a problem and no crime to speak of, really. No one ever was killed and that was that. Why? There were gun clubs through the school that taught safety and fathers that taught safety. The irony of that is - of all the places I lived in, the areas with the most gun ownership had almost no crime versus areas with less gun ownership.


« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 09:50:56 PM by McBa1n » Logged
me
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 36


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2008, 12:00:58 AM »

An interesting article in the Washington Post yesterday about what the ruling will actually mean to D.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603988.html

Quote
...the District will continue to enforce a separate decades-old D.C. ban on the possession of most clip-loaded semiautomatic handguns, which are popular with gun enthusiasts.

Quote
That regulation, which outlaws machine guns and was not part of the Supreme Court case, defines a machine gun in broad terms, encompassing semiautomatic weapons that can shoot, or be converted to shoot, more than 12 rounds without reloading, officials said.

Quote
Nickles said the new rules for registering handguns will probably be similar to those in effect for rifles and shotguns, with additional restrictions. Residents generally will not be allowed to carry handguns outdoors, he said.

I'm happy that residents of D.C. will now be able to defend themselves in their homes. However, until some sort of conceal-carry law makes it on the books, those of us that live in Northern Virginia will still be in a bind. I live and work in Northern Virginia, but have to travel to D.C. for work at least 2-3 times a week, sometimes unexpectedly. DC's current gun laws are part of the reason I've never gotten a conceal-carry, because it would be more trouble than it worth to have to drop of my gun every time I left the Commonwealth. And under the current law if they did enact a conceal carry, I'd still be restricted to a six shooter. I'll be interested to see what future laws/court rulings will do.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2008, 12:01:57 AM »

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 09:30:11 PM

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. I are stoopit in writing. I was thinking 18 would be a good age at which to start owning firearms - but realistically, growing up where I did, having your first rifle was a right of passage as a teenager (I haven't ever owned a gun, however).
You know, I really don't even see an age requirement being all that big of an issue. I think if a father gave his kid a rifle, there's nothing wrong with that. Gun safety is very important to learn at a young age. I guess you can still do that if the father buys the gun and registers it and then gives it to his son.

Gun ownership shouldn't be so complicated, though. I can see a problem with kids showing up at the gun shop to buy guns when they are teenagers - but if a good parent gave their kid a firearm and showed them proper safety, I see no problem.
I just can't stress enough my belief in teaching kids proper gun safety at an early age.
I grew up in an area loaded with guns in Wisconsin - and there was never a problem and no crime to speak of, really. No one ever was killed and that was that. Why? There were gun clubs through the school that taught safety and fathers that taught safety. The irony of that is - of all the places I lived in, the areas with the most gun ownership had almost no crime versus areas with less gun ownership.




I completely agree with everything you said.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2008, 12:03:20 AM »

Quote from: me on June 29, 2008, 12:00:58 AM

An interesting article in the Washington Post yesterday about what the ruling will actually mean to D.C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603988.html

Quote
...the District will continue to enforce a separate decades-old D.C. ban on the possession of most clip-loaded semiautomatic handguns, which are popular with gun enthusiasts.

Quote
That regulation, which outlaws machine guns and was not part of the Supreme Court case, defines a machine gun in broad terms, encompassing semiautomatic weapons that can shoot, or be converted to shoot, more than 12 rounds without reloading, officials said.

Quote
Nickles said the new rules for registering handguns will probably be similar to those in effect for rifles and shotguns, with additional restrictions. Residents generally will not be allowed to carry handguns outdoors, he said.

I'm happy that residents of D.C. will now be able to defend themselves in their homes. However, until some sort of conceal-carry law makes it on the books, those of us that live in Northern Virginia will still be in a bind. I live and work in Northern Virginia, but have to travel to D.C. for work at least 2-3 times a week, sometimes unexpectedly. DC's current gun laws are part of the reason I've never gotten a conceal-carry, because it would be more trouble than it worth to have to drop of my gun every time I left the Commonwealth. And under the current law if they did enact a conceal carry, I'd still be restricted to a six shooter. I'll be interested to see what future laws/court rulings will do.

They will continue to enforce them, but we'll see how it stands up in court from here on.   Those laws will be challenged.
Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2008, 06:03:07 AM »

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 09:30:11 PM

I grew up in an area loaded with guns in Wisconsin - and there was never a problem and no crime to speak of, really.... The irony of that is - of all the places I lived in, the areas with the most gun ownership had almost no crime versus areas with less gun ownership.


I don't think you need a degree in psychology to know that two things which occur together aren't necessarily causal.  If that were true then would all agree that playing video games makes you want to kill people.  I have no doubt that backwater Wisconsin has a low crime rate but I'm not convinced that it's because everyone has a gun.  It could simply be because Wisconsin is a backwater state. smile
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: July 01, 2008, 02:06:43 AM »

Quote from: Canuck on June 30, 2008, 06:03:07 AM

Quote from: McBa1n on June 28, 2008, 09:30:11 PM

I grew up in an area loaded with guns in Wisconsin - and there was never a problem and no crime to speak of, really.... The irony of that is - of all the places I lived in, the areas with the most gun ownership had almost no crime versus areas with less gun ownership.


I don't think you need a degree in psychology to know that two things which occur together aren't necessarily causal.  If that were true then would all agree that playing video games makes you want to kill people.  I have no doubt that backwater Wisconsin has a low crime rate but I'm not convinced that it's because everyone has a gun.  It could simply be because Wisconsin is a backwater state. smile

And then there is Kennesaw Georgia which passed a law requiring ownership of a firearm in every home.   The law was passed in response to out of control poperty crime such as burglaries and such.      The following year the crime statistics were down approximately 80%.


Edit to add -- was a little off on the 80%, but here are the numbers:

Quote
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 02:10:29 AM by msduncan » Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM »

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: July 01, 2008, 05:01:22 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?

I don't think Kennesaw is too relevant to the opponents of this ruling.  The split here comes in areas with populations  more than 10 times that size.  Easy access to guns makes a much larger problem in densely populated areas with high crime rates. 

I happen to agree that there's an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, but there does need to be something done about the prevalence of guns and gun violence in places like Oakland.  Most solutions just don't fit into the realities of the situation and there likely isn't a one size fits all solution.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: July 01, 2008, 03:20:36 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 01, 2008, 05:01:22 AM

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?

I don't think Kennesaw is too relevant to the opponents of this ruling.  The split here comes in areas with populations  more than 10 times that size.  Easy access to guns makes a much larger problem in densely populated areas with high crime rates. 

I happen to agree that there's an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, but there does need to be something done about the prevalence of guns and gun violence in places like Oakland.  Most solutions just don't fit into the realities of the situation and there likely isn't a one size fits all solution.

Guns are not the problem.   Culture of these urban areas is the problem.   For some reason urban areas develop cutures of crime.   

There's also this problem:    you can pass all the laws in these urban areas you want.   The only people that are going to abide by them are lawful people.   The criminals are going to get their guns from unlawful places if nessessary, and the only thing the laws do is allow law enforcement to tack on additional punishment for getting caught with them.

Criminals are going to get guns unlawfully.    Gun control laws prevent only law abiding citizens from owning or carrying them.   
Logged
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: July 01, 2008, 04:31:37 PM »

The upside is that it will now be much, much easier to commit suicide in DC.
Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: July 01, 2008, 04:40:27 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on July 01, 2008, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 01, 2008, 05:01:22 AM

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?

I don't think Kennesaw is too relevant to the opponents of this ruling.  The split here comes in areas with populations  more than 10 times that size.  Easy access to guns makes a much larger problem in densely populated areas with high crime rates. 

I happen to agree that there's an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, but there does need to be something done about the prevalence of guns and gun violence in places like Oakland.  Most solutions just don't fit into the realities of the situation and there likely isn't a one size fits all solution.

Guns are not the problem.   Culture of these urban areas is the problem.   For some reason urban areas develop cutures of crime.   

There's also this problem:    you can pass all the laws in these urban areas you want.   The only people that are going to abide by them are lawful people.   The criminals are going to get their guns from unlawful places if nessessary, and the only thing the laws do is allow law enforcement to tack on additional punishment for getting caught with them.

Criminals are going to get guns unlawfully.    Gun control laws prevent only law abiding citizens from owning or carrying them.   

Theoretically, then, what's the point in outlawing ANY item that has the potential to harm society in the wrong hands?  That is, why are guns any different than drugs, and why are drugs any different than, say, cars that exceed 75MPH?
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: July 01, 2008, 05:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on July 01, 2008, 04:40:27 PM

Quote from: msduncan on July 01, 2008, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 01, 2008, 05:01:22 AM

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?

I don't think Kennesaw is too relevant to the opponents of this ruling.  The split here comes in areas with populations  more than 10 times that size.  Easy access to guns makes a much larger problem in densely populated areas with high crime rates. 

I happen to agree that there's an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, but there does need to be something done about the prevalence of guns and gun violence in places like Oakland.  Most solutions just don't fit into the realities of the situation and there likely isn't a one size fits all solution.

Guns are not the problem.   Culture of these urban areas is the problem.   For some reason urban areas develop cutures of crime.   

There's also this problem:    you can pass all the laws in these urban areas you want.   The only people that are going to abide by them are lawful people.   The criminals are going to get their guns from unlawful places if nessessary, and the only thing the laws do is allow law enforcement to tack on additional punishment for getting caught with them.

Criminals are going to get guns unlawfully.    Gun control laws prevent only law abiding citizens from owning or carrying them.   

Theoretically, then, what's the point in outlawing ANY item that has the potential to harm society in the wrong hands?  That is, why are guns any different than drugs, and why are drugs any different than, say, cars that exceed 75MPH?

Cars?   I wouldn't have a position on that.    Montana has areas with no speed limits during parts of the day.

Some drugs drastically alter the mind and thus make it difficult for people to make rational decisions.     Guns do not.   

The laws governing driving and drugs (going to lump alcohol in here) are centered around safe operations of each respective product.    I'm pretty sure the dangerous part of having a gun is pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.    This is illegal unless you are defending yourself.

Plus there is no Constitutional right to do drugs or operate or own a vehicle.
Logged
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: July 01, 2008, 08:54:50 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on July 01, 2008, 03:20:36 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 01, 2008, 05:01:22 AM

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 04:17:27 AM

What are the raw numbers for murders/etc from 1980-1985 in paradise Kennesaw, GA?

I don't think Kennesaw is too relevant to the opponents of this ruling.  The split here comes in areas with populations  more than 10 times that size.  Easy access to guns makes a much larger problem in densely populated areas with high crime rates. 

I happen to agree that there's an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment, but there does need to be something done about the prevalence of guns and gun violence in places like Oakland.  Most solutions just don't fit into the realities of the situation and there likely isn't a one size fits all solution.

Guns are not the problem.   Culture of these urban areas is the problem.   For some reason urban areas develop cutures of crime.   

There's also this problem:    you can pass all the laws in these urban areas you want.   The only people that are going to abide by them are lawful people.   The criminals are going to get their guns from unlawful places if nessessary, and the only thing the laws do is allow law enforcement to tack on additional punishment for getting caught with them.

Criminals are going to get guns unlawfully.    Gun control laws prevent only law abiding citizens from owning or carrying them.   

Not to drag other threads in here, but class warfare is a huge reason why urban areas have such a culture of crime. Lets see - work for minimum wage - maybe 2 jobs and live with 4-5 people in a small home or go rob people and sell drugs... Do the math.

To be honest, criminals with guns is not really a gun issue - it's an economic issue.. And one that is pretty much ignored and part of the reason why the  'left' is so so so wrong on this issue. People want money and will do what they have to to get it. Making guns illegal won't stop crime - desperate people are going to do what they have to. I am very certain the crime rate in DC will go down with the 2nd amendment being defended.

The "Right" is wrong on the issue because they think if people will defend themselves, people will stop committing crimes.
The system is broken at the bottom.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2008, 09:01:40 PM »

Quote from: McBa1n on July 01, 2008, 08:54:50 PM

I am very certain the crime rate in DC will go down with the 2nd amendment being defended.

Well, let's revisit this post in five years then.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: July 02, 2008, 12:21:09 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 01, 2008, 09:01:40 PM

Quote from: McBa1n on July 01, 2008, 08:54:50 PM

I am very certain the crime rate in DC will go down with the 2nd amendment being defended.

Well, let's revisit this post in five years then.

Gamingtrend won't be around in five years... sheesh....

JUST KIDDING!   I fully hope and expect it will be.
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5100



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: July 20, 2008, 01:10:08 PM »

Five days without a post in this forum? Time for a little P/RN humor:

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.146 seconds with 85 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.03s, 2q)