Heller vs. DC Decision

On June 27 2008 00:40 KOFgokuon wrote:
Murder rights are tough
Even if you outlaw murder for law abiding citizens, there will be plenty of people who will murder illegally without that much problem, and i think that is the major issue, and laws don't stop that.

On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.

On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.

On June 26 2008 23:58 Mindcrime wrote:
Good.

On June 27 2008 00:19 Sfydjklm wrote:
Bad.

On June 27 2008 00:21 Naib wrote:
Don't care.

On June 27 2008 00:22 JudgeMathis wrote:
When I hit 21, I'm going to get a gun. Just so I can be safe vs the dudes with guns. >=/

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
We need tighter gun restrictions, but I don't think a flat out ban is the answer.

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Guns are too ingrained in our society to ban them outright.

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Machine guns should remain illegal to own.

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Make the waiting peroid and background checks tighter, and don't give to felons, those with a history of mental illnesss, etc.

On June 27 2008 00:24 Hawk wrote:
Carrying weapons—other than for hunting purposes—should be only for police and etc. But other than that, I'm fine with someone wanting to defend their home or work place.

On June 27 2008 00:28 HeadBangaa wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised to see the court's decision.

On June 27 2008 00:38 Quesadilla wrote:
I actually have to write a paper about this, THIS weekend. Hahaha, keep commenting people.

On June 27 2008 00:40 KOFgokuon wrote:
Guns rights are tough
Even if you make them difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens, there will be plenty of people who can get them illegally without that much problem, and i think that is the major issue, and gun control doesn't stop that.

On June 27 2008 01:04 nemY wrote:
lol at first 3 comments

Recently I've started shooting guns at a range for fun. Definitely interested now in purchasing a few handguns. Nice to know that I'll be able to

On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.

On June 27 2008 01:35 decafchicken wrote:
ban knives plz

but really, im appalled that the decision was 5-4 and not 9-0

On June 27 2008 01:53 HolyToss1911 wrote:


is not that simple, if they ban guns criminal will find a way to get them and they wont give a fuck about a new law, but what about us? how do we defend?

On June 27 2008 03:41 Hippopotamus wrote:
So... stabbing is just as easy and destructive as shooting someone?

On June 27 2008 04:00 CDRdude wrote:
Hell with guns, I want a sword.

On June 27 2008 03:24 rpf wrote:

Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't make you safe; it simply gives you the option to defend yourself (as opposed to being defenseless [i.e. the perfect victim] against an armed aggressor). I'd much rather go down trying than not trying at all. :/

On June 27 2008 04:18 Bill307 wrote:

So what you're saying is, the fucker's gonna end up with deep wounds if he tries to mug you?

On June 27 2008 04:18 zobz wrote:
It's a safety/freedom balance issue.

Why shouldn't it be harder to get to own a gun/sword/knife/baseball bat/hockey stick/golf club/tire iron/gasoline/kerosene/fertilizer/wrench/screwdriver/automobile/blender/pillow/rope? It's a potential danger to society if in the hands of the wrong person, so people should be deemed minimally responsible in order to get to own one. That's fairly standard logic in american traditional law isn't it?

Depends on what you mean by "easy" and "destructive."

On June 27 2008 04:29 rpf wrote:

Fixed.

On June 27 2008 03:24 rpf wrote:

Reasoning? How does the legal sale and use of firearms have anything to do with crime? (I assume you're saying we need tighter gun restrictions with regards to an effect on crime. If your statement wasn't about crime, ignore this part of my post.)


Is that necessarily a bad thing?


Why? Since when have the law-abiding been the problem?


Waiting periods do nothing. They were designed to prevent people from going out and buying a gun while angry to kill their neighbor, wife, etc.; If someone intends to kill another person, is the method in which they do so really the important part? They could just as easily do it with a knife from the drawer, or the phone cord. Waiting periods are a sham; they are nothing more than an illusion designed to make the general population think that public officials have done something.

Background checks don't need to be tighter; I already was forced to waive civil liberties to exercise another so-called "liberty."

And, of course, I agree with restricting the criminals and crazies; too bad they don't see it my way. Make it illegal for the principle; but intend on enforcing the law, not expecting the law to prevent criminal behavior the way many people do.


So you recognize the purpose of a firearm in society, but would restrict it to only the military and the police; Does that not contradict the Second Amendment? "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed. Does "the people" mean something different in the Second Amendment than it does in the First, Fourth, etc.?

On June 27 2008 04:29 rpf wrote:

Fixed.

On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4

Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

On June 27 2008 04:53 Hawk wrote:


...because outside of swords, everything on their has a purpose besides killing shit?

On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4

Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

On June 27 2008 05:28 Dknight wrote:
Thank god the current DC law was shot down. I had done an op ed that got published in a few local newspapers (Lowell Sun, Salem News) and got criticized by my view.

On June 27 2008 05:28 L wrote:
Gun culture loves guns? No shit.

On June 27 2008 04:51 Hawk wrote:


Restrictions: The ones buying them legally aren't necessarily the ones using them criminally always, but there's no nation-wide regulation of it. Some states are tight as hell on who can own, and others, more or less any assclown can own one. People with any prior mental health issues, etc etc.

And if you don't think that having guns ingrained into our society is a bad thing, maybe you should double check the amount of deaths by guns here.

Machine guns: At what point in time are you going to need an uzi or an AK to defend your home? Are you fighting the Taliban?

Waiting periods: Those are so that you don't give a guy a gun, and then later realize that the people who compile the info didn't give you John A. Doe's info instead of John D. Doe's info. And yes, if someone wants to go kill their neighbor, waiting periods are effective. Yes, you could devise 101 ways to kill someone, but which is more efficient, a semi automatic hand gun, or having to get close enough to someone to choke em out with a phone cord?

concealing: When the US starts dropping paratroopers out of the sky to round us up into camps to interrogate us, then you might have a point about the purpose of a firearm.

And the argument about IT'S AN AMMENDMENT!! is so old. There's tons of shit that was written into the BOR and Declaration thatt have been amended. Its a 200+ year old living document that is tailored from time to time to keep with the modern world.

On June 27 2008 00:22 JudgeMathis wrote:
When I hit 21, I'm going to get a gun. Just so I can be safe vs the dudes with guns. >=/

On June 27 2008 05:27 Hippopotamus wrote:


Lol... if it's like that then you better also be ready to say good-bye to abortion rights.

On June 27 2008 06:16 Mindcrime wrote:


I disagree. A correct reading of the ninth and fourteenth amendments protects those rights.

On June 27 2008 06:54 Hippopotamus wrote:


Do you see an obvious right to abortion in:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Cause I sure don't.

On June 27 2008 07:11 Hippopotamus wrote:
Yet at the same time you would say that there is only one way to read the 2nd amendment?

On June 27 2008 07:32 DrainX wrote:
I don't understand the American obsession with the founding fathers and the bill of rights etc. Some of you are sounding like fundamentalists waving their bible or w/e. What makes the founding fathers living in 1700s any better than you or me at deciding what is good legislation in our time? It like some of you think its more important what they were thinking when the wrote the 2nd amendment hundreds of years ago than what the actual pros and cons of legislation in either direction is today.

On June 27 2008 06:43 Cobalt wrote:
The Second Amendment is very tricky, in my opinion.

Let me quote some things...

+ Show Spoiler [First Amendment] +

+ Show Spoiler [Third Amendment] +

+ Show Spoiler [Fourth Amendment] +

That should be enough. Notice how in these amendments, no reason is cited as to why the amendment is in place. The Second Amendment, however, does have a reason. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

To me, the Amendment means "Because militias are important for states to remain free, people can have guns." If the purpose of the amendment was not to provide for a militia, why add the first part? Why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? There must be some reasoning as to why the explanation was part of the amendment, and only for that amendment.

Now, I'm not arguing for or against current gun laws; circumstances change, maybe guns are needed outside of militias now, who knows? That's not what I'm saying. It just seems to me like the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore, simply because it refers to gun use in state militias.

People are saying they're angry the government can't read because of the word "people," well, how about the word "militia"?

EDIT: Also, what does the word "arms" refer to? Just firearms? Or are other, older weapons such as swords, crossbows, maces, morningstars part of it?

On June 27 2008 07:11 AdamBanks wrote:
rpf is kwazy.

Guns are created to cause harm. Not to prevent it. If you think other wise then you could prolly talk urself into believing anything thats clearly not correct.


edit: that last bit was in general and not directed towards any specific tl people

On June 27 2008 07:30 HeavenS wrote:
I'm glad we're allowed to own guns. I don't know what relation owning guns legally has to crimes committed. I'm pretty sure most guns used in crimes are unlawfully owned (ie. stolen). Furthermore, the way I interpret "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is that the people need to have a means by which to defend their rights from or in the case of oppression. In other words, the people must have a way in which they can revolt against an oppressive body (ie. gov't). That's the way I understand the second amendment, and it makes perfect sense.

On June 27 2008 07:35 GeneralStan wrote:
It's clear that there is a limit to how the Second Amendment is interpreted. Idealogically, it is the individual right vs collective good argument. Your freedom of speech doesn't give the right to harass somebody, for instance.

In this case, machine guns are already illegal in this country. The reason for this is that Machine guns don't have a legitimate use outside of killing fellow human beings, that they are dangerous, bring no collective good, etc.

I think we can agree that it is a good thing that machine guns are illegal.

This specific law didn't ban firearms, just handguns. For handguns, like machine guns, it can be argued that their sole intent is to kill humans, that they are dangerous, difficult to use safely, and impossible to use for any good purpose (and sorry, pleasure shooting is not a purpose).

I don't think that the ban on machine guns is against the aim or word of the Second Amendment, and I don't think DC's handgun ban was either. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to bear whatever sort of arm you want, and municipalities / states have the right to restrict weaponry within reasonable limits.

This decision seems to pave the way for legal flamethrowers next.

On June 27 2008 08:01 rpf wrote:
Sigh.

Handguns are just as useful for self-defense. Removing the ability for a law-abiding citizen to effectively defend himself isn't "reasonable." That's tyrannical.

On June 27 2008 07:24 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well what do you mean the correct reading of the 9th amendment to be and how do you think I am reading it?

On June 27 2008 08:24 GeneralStan wrote:


Handguns are only self-defense from other people with handguns. Using a handgun as defense against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable.

The point is though that there is no real legal backing for the decision, not while machine guns are illegal anyway

On June 27 2008 01:21 Jonoman92 wrote:
Well I agree that the current constitution states that people should be able to bear arms but I think that the constitution has been amended before and maybe it should be again. If no one had guns, no one would get shot. It's very simple.

On June 27 2008 09:10 Mindcrime wrote:


I think that the 9th amendment means what it says.

To quote Randy Barnett:
The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all [enumerated and unenumerated] individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before; and its existence argued against a latitudinarian interpretation of federal powers.

You adhere to the Borkian inkblot interpretation of the Ninth or something functionally similar.

On June 27 2008 09:55 5HITCOMBO wrote:
It's funny how everyone nowadays tries to interpret the amendments based solely on the wording of the snippet they look up on the internet rather than the history of the amendment and its writers.

On June 27 2008 10:06 5HITCOMBO wrote:
You know, they might be right; the amendment was clearly written so that we wouldn't lose our personal freedoms or ability to protect ourselves independent of a military, like the one we fought to free ourselves from in the American Revolution, but we have one to do that for us! And they keep our personal freedoms safe by controlling them all so we don't lose them!

Yaaaaaaay!

On June 27 2008 09:59 Hippopotamus wrote:


No I read it just the same. But what does that prove? Abortion, in the U.S. is kept in law based on a right to privacy. The right to abortion is not protected in the United States because of the 9th amendment, it is protected because apparently the right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion. I don't think it's very obvious that privacy includes the right to discharge a fetus from one's body. My point isn't against abortion (I'm pro-choice)... it's that if "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." is to be read in a simplistic way then the supreme court justices may as well read privacy in a simplistic way and claim that abortion has nothing to do with privacy (I think you'd agree that the commonsensical notion of privacy doesn't really go with abortions).

On June 27 2008 08:24 GeneralStan wrote:
Handguns are only self-defense from other people with handguns. Using a handgun as defense against somebody armed with a knife is unreasonable.

On June 27 2008 10:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
We should obfuscate this discussion with more abortion talk.

On June 27 2008 04:23 UmmTheHobo wrote:
Banning guns would NEVER work in the US of A. The only reason no gun laws work in japan is because why would japanese use guns when they have ninja skills. Seriously though, no gun laws only work in japan because the US military owned japan for a while, and we were like, "DROP GUN OR DIE!!!!" Then once they had no guns we were like " Now make a constitution, IF YOU DON'T PUT NO GUN LAW IN IT YOU DIE!!" Then japanese criminals were like "Hey let's just ship guns from china!" Then they got to china, got guns, started going back to japan, and then the US navy noticed they had guns and sunk them to the bottom of the sea.

On June 27 2008 05:11 Romance_us wrote:
LOL @ 5-4

Our country is so fucked up. The people with the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE OUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

On June 27 2008 10:44 Jibba wrote:
I'm too tired to get into this. I'll just say that Funchucks is the only person that puts forth a comprehensive and respectable argument. rpf is a nut.

I was also surprised that it was 5-4 and not 9-0, but I do think Congress needs to step up restrictions and enforcement of handgun and rifle laws. Defending yourself from an attack is such an overused example based purely on rationalization. Academic research is not on the NRA's side.

On June 27 2008 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.

the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.

taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way.

On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
A militia isn't just some random guy worried about thieves- they're a group of people, at least somewhat organized, trying to protect the state. One could argue that the national guard/national reserve is the militia. In that case, only they could own guns, and regular people wouldn't even be able to own a hunting rifle.

On June 27 2008 10:45 Luddite wrote:
I really think we need to amend this amendment, first because it makes no sense, and second because even if it did make sense, weapons have changed so much in the last 250 years that it's rediculously out of date. For those guys "military grade weapons" meant like, a musket. There's a bit of a dfference between owning a musket and an Uzi. I'm not saying ban all weapons, but clearly we have to ban SOME weapons, right?

On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote:


Except that the courts have continuously ruled that this ISN'T the case. Even in this decision it was reiterated that the militia is defined as all males of a fighting age. It is the FAILURE of Congress for not doing its duty to create the standards of readiness.

However, that isn't an issue. The first clause was a 'reminder' of sorts to us as to WHY the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is the right that ultimately ensures all the rights. If government becomes tyrannical, a well armed and drilled population could take up arms just as we did when we got rid of the British Crown. It is not something that any of us would LIKE to happen, but it is also not something we should ever WISH we could do. Google "Appleseed Rifle Training" for an idea of a grass roots effort to train the population to become good shooters in the spirit of the forefathers that took up arms in 1775.



Uh-huh... And what churches shall we ban? What books? What other category of rights are you so ready to just throw away?

The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. You can be sure that the draftees of the Constitution knew that technology would improve.

In the Miller decision back in the 1930's (and the decision that most anti groups point to for their "collective" argument) the court stated that arms "useful to the Militia" would be protected. Well, in 2008, the US military use select fire assault rifles. Civilians can not buy new guns of this type. Instead we have semi-auto versions.

People who obey laws do not cause problems. People who commit crimes do not obey laws.

Did all the drug laws and the BILLIONS of dollars spent on the "War on Drugs" stop anything? If criminals can import illegal drugs by the ton, do you really think for a moment that it would be at all hard for them to traffic in guns too?

So, if the laws will not keep the guns from the people we don't want to have them, why punish the people who don't commit crimes?

Look at ANY prohibition. They have not only FAILED, but always INCREASE crime. Every city in the US that had a gun ban has a HIGHER crime rate than cities that do not.

But don't take my word for it. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don't just read statistics, look up the sources. Read how 20 year old gang bangers are included to get the "9 kids a day are killed". How so called "studies" are found to be bogus science. How one researcher is fired because he made up data to 'prove' his point. How the media bias is so against legitimate firearm use that MILLIONS of prevented crimes every year are never reported. Learn that violent criminals are released back on the street. Find out that in some 80% of the cases, a violent criminal not only has a prior record that prohibits gun ownership, but would have still been in jail if the CURRENT laws were enforced.

The problem isn't firearms. It's a complete reluctance of government to keep the 1% of society that can not be trusted in a prison where they belong.

Oh, and when the Justice Department polled thousands of criminals and asked "What is your biggest fear when committing a crime?" The most common reply at almost 70% was "encountering an armed victim".

Isn't it about time we put FEAR into the criminals instead of the victims?

On June 27 2008 12:07 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I'm happy 5 of the 9 justices know how to read.

The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit.

On June 27 2008 11:46 rpf wrote:

Sorry, all I hear is "lalala I can't read."

"The right of the people shall not be infringed."

Let's change a law every time it's over 25 yrs. old!

On June 27 2008 10:54 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious here. the attachment to guns there is quite arbitrary and historically contingent. there is no serious reason to protect gun rights with a standalone amendment if the thing was written today. most of the force of 'gun rights' stuff is wrapped up in constitutional worship. taking a dispassionate policy view, it is bad form to specify historically contingent things like guns and such. do make basic warrants of say privacy or even liberty.

the straightforward problem with the 2nd is this. the agent with rights is not individuals, nor govt, but spontaneously organized groups. these groups existed as concrete political forms way back in the day. but, that kind of armed mob thing is long dead. there are no people nor societal elements to receive the rights specifically. it is a vestigial piece of bad law writing.

taking the 'lawl can't you read position' qualifies you as a nut, so see ya. the rest can discuss the substance of things. i dont really care about gun rights so i'll just abstain from that. as for the present case, an outright ban on the gunz was perhaps too smug for the scotus to bear. gotta do your regulations the soft way.

On June 27 2008 12:42 skindzer wrote:
I agree with the decision. First of all you all should remove the idea from your minds that the supreme court should decide what is right or wrong,

On June 27 2008 13:16 Haemonculus wrote:


Yeah totally. The Judicial branch of the government deciding what is and what isn't constitutional? Who the hell came up with that stupid idea?

On June 27 2008 13:13 NovaTheFeared wrote:


If the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, our Constitution does include a method for revision and it's not judicial fiat.

On June 27 2008 11:15 Jibba wrote:
It's sad that we divide it between left and right, when being a justice should have nothing to do with political leanings.

On June 27 2008 13:52 Funchucks wrote:

Yes. Judicial activism undermines the rule of law. This amendment should have been revised by the proper methods as the technology developed.

By my reading, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to arm themselves as they please, up to and including nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction. For it to get to this point, clearly somebody hasn't been taking care of business.

On the other hand, I can't imagine why anybody would support a handgun ban in DC. The crime rate is terrible. Criminals have guns, and you're clearly not going to keep them out of their hands.

So you've got the good guys, and the bad guys. The bad guys have guns, which they intend to use against the good guys. You want to take the guns away from the good guys?

Yes, it is that simple.

On June 27 2008 13:26 Mindcrime wrote:


You're an idiot.

On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.

On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote:


Except that the courts have continuously ruled that this ISN'T the case. Even in this decision it was reiterated that the militia is defined as all males of a fighting age. It is the FAILURE of Congress for not doing its duty to create the standards of readiness.

However, that isn't an issue. The first clause was a 'reminder' of sorts to us as to WHY the right to keep and bear arms is important. It is the right that ultimately ensures all the rights. If government becomes tyrannical, a well armed and drilled population could take up arms just as we did when we got rid of the British Crown. It is not something that any of us would LIKE to happen, but it is also not something we should ever WISH we could do. Google "Appleseed Rifle Training" for an idea of a grass roots effort to train the population to become good shooters in the spirit of the forefathers that took up arms in 1775.

On June 27 2008 12:03 Gun Dude wrote:


Uh-huh... And what churches shall we ban? What books? What other category of rights are you so ready to just throw away?

The founding fathers may not know what an Uzi is, but they did see one of the greatest invention in firearms during their lifetime. The British army and other armies fought at that time with unrifled guns. Because of this, they fired as a group at close range just to be sure to get some kind of hit. The colonists had newer rifled guns that were very accurate at range and they could be assured of each shot being a hit. You can be sure that the draftees of the Constitution knew that technology would improve.

On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind.

On June 27 2008 15:07 Eskii wrote:
I Disagree with the decision, typical non american eh?

"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."

People, not person. Not to mention the first part of the sentence has not applied for the last 60 years.

On June 27 2008 16:40 Luddite wrote:
I dunno how I feel about responding to someone named "Gun Dude" with 1 post, but I'll give it a shot.

So you're saying that the reason for having guns is that, just in case our government becomes tyrannical, every single male of fighting age should be all set to instantly overthrow it? Not just willing, but ready, armed, and trained? That's a terrible idea. There's a lot of countries like that, and most of them in Africa... they suffer from constant civil war.


You really don't see a difference between banning a particular type of weapon and banning a book? You don't have a right to "own whatever the hell you want to own no matter how dangerous"!

Rifling came after constitution, but regardless, I don't see why you should be allowed to own whatever the military uses. I mean the military uses nuclear missiles and stealth bombers. Should we be allowed to own them too?

I don't know why this is such an inflammatory issue. I think guns are cool, but I don't have this NEED to arm myself for apocalypse, like some people do. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans never need to use a gun in their whole lives.

On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote:
"Gun Control: It worked for Hitler and the KKK!"
This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think.

I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning:

If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive.
Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead.

Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point.

On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:


If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols

If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.

On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote:

What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue."

On June 27 2008 13:13 NovaTheFeared wrote:


If the 2nd Amendment is antiquated, our Constitution does include a method for revision and it's not judicial fiat.

On June 27 2008 22:24 Romance_us wrote:


Can't say it any better than this.

At least maybe we could have more than a two party system, where there would be more perspective put onto the situation by these judges, instead of just,

"OH NOEZ THATZ LEFT WINGZ, I MUST VOTE CUZ I ARE DEMOKRAT!"

Too bad they have to conform though.

On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:
Sounds good to me.

That too.

On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote:

I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument.

On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote:
"Gun Control: It worked for Hitler and the KKK!"
This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote:
I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning:

If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive.
Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead.

Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point.

On June 27 2008 21:29 AdamBanks wrote:
@ rpf

I didnt say if you don't think like me your wrong. I said if you think/believe something incorrectly you are wrong.
As for defending youself, we don't need guns to do that. Thats been proven numerous times.

Who's protecting criminals and how are they doing it ? you think stricter gun laws protect criminals ? hardly....usually stricter laws make it more difficult to be a criminal; speaking from personal experience.

You love guns, its cool and im alright with that. But honestly do you really believe that without guns you would be worse off? I doubt it, having a gun doesnt make it less likely your gonna get robbed or shot, it just means you have the option to get in a gunfight, or to kill some tweeked out crack head. Your no safer, its all in your head.

On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote:

Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem.

On June 28 2008 00:12 Kwark wrote:
Shit. With all those criminals out there armed with handguns I'm going to need an automatic rifle to defend myself. But what if they get one too.... Maybe a rocket launcher would do the trick. There again, if I can get one of those legally so can criminals. There is only one solution, plant a nuke under every city and give each citizen remote access to the nuke beneath their city. Nobody would dare touch you because with your dying breath you'd take them (and everyone else in the city) with you. This therefore solves the problem of murder.
Unless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves.

On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote:

First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument.

Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous.

On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?

On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

On June 28 2008 01:31 oneofthem wrote:
lol

rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter

On June 28 2008 01:39 Kwark wrote:

The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.

On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

On June 28 2008 01:39 Ghin wrote:


you are probably the biggest troll on this forum and i have no idea why you arent banned.

everything you post is total nonsense

On June 28 2008 01:51 Mindcrime wrote:


And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high.

On June 28 2008 02:00 Kwark wrote:


In what? They could bomb every town to rubble without losing a single man to handguns. They could drive their tanks over everyone. Or they could just utilise a few nukes. The cost certainly would not have been too high in Soviet dead. The problem was that committing genocide was not in the interests of the Soviets, just as it is not in the interests of the Americans in Iraq. But don't confuse unwillingness to win with inability. And don't for one minute think that fear of a man wielding a shotgun is what stopped them from genocide.

On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote:
It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict.

On June 28 2008 02:07 Kwark wrote:
Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one.

In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia.

On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive (i'm not suggesting the alive scenario is better) and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

On June 28 2008 02:07 Kwark wrote:
Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one.

In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia.

On June 28 2008 02:16 Funchucks wrote:

I don't think it was that simple.

There were four great profits in the American Revolution:
1) no more drain of taxation to be spent outside of America
2) repudiation of debts (esp. to the Crown)
3) "manifest destiny" - the freedom of powerful Americans to slice up the rest of the continent for themselves
4) security of human property

As I understand it, the British government was in a state of financial trouble and moral upheaval. Taxes were likely to rise, slaves were in danger of being freed, debts were being called in, and a moratorium was placed on expansion into indian territory (less out of moral concerns or respect for treaties, and more out of fear of the cost of a frontier war).

People whose families had gone to America full of ambition and dreams of unlimited scope were being reigned in and harnessed up to help solve the problems of the Motherland, and to respect its changing moral standards (which were gradually shifting against colonialism and slavery).

They weren't willing to accept that. They tried to solve it by gaining more government influence, and were stubbornly treated as mere subordinates. Since neither side would give way, rebellion followed.

On June 28 2008 01:10 rpf wrote:


Wrong. Oh, how I love ignorance.

Private sales are LEGAL.

/palmface

On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote:

First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument.

Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous.

On June 28 2008 07:46 Jibba wrote:

Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.

Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that.

My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.

On June 28 2008 07:46 Jibba wrote:

Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.

Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that.

My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.

Frankly, I'm glad that the Justices can read. It's quite hard, in my opinion, to misunderstand "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed."

On June 28 2008 09:00 talismania wrote:
eh. don't think the founders really foresaw the issues with this amendment. seems to me that it's meant to protect militias, hence the part about, you know, the militias. They didn't word it well enough though, and now it can be interpreted as giving everyone the right to own a gun, whether they're part of a state militia or not.

George Mason during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 said:
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

On June 28 2008 09:22 EnergyTraction wrote:
The people who wrote the Constitution held obviously different viewpoints and that's why it's in contention...just because you can quote Mason saying that doesn't mean anything, really.

The Federalists and the Republicans would have disagreed strongly over arming the "whole people,"

On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote:It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict.

On June 28 2008 08:07 Jibba wrote:
It's safer in handling and maintenance. The alternatives are less deadly weapons, however.

I'm also well aware that hunting rifles are rarely used in serious crimes, which is why Canada can have a large quantity of guns with low crime rates. I just don't think people should have high calibre, laser sighted rifles.

On June 28 2008 09:55 Funchucks wrote:
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just look cool and sound cool, and make you look cool when you hold one.

I have a dream. A dream that one day, children will be able to point at each other with awesome, real guns, in total safety, their parents relaxed in the knowledge that ammunition could not possibly be available.

Support ammunition control legislation, and my proposed "Bullets for Guns" trade-in program.

Together we can put an end to bullet violence!

On June 27 2008 11:39 TrainRape wrote:
I believe guns are unnecessary. I’ve lived in the District for over 5 years and have successfully defended my home from armed intruders with a Samurai sword on two separate occasions. Throwing stars and nun-chucks are also very effective against guns. If you practice two to three hours a day and are fearless, you will not fail.

On June 28 2008 10:46 TrainRape wrote:
I wish we could all just put aside the violence of guns and crime, it is simple enough to protect oneself.

On June 28 2008 11:13 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:


you're either a funny guy or really really really really really really dumb

On June 28 2008 11:13 Haemonculus wrote:
-The woman's boyfriend shoots her 6 times in the back while she is asleep. (He later claims it was self defense)

On June 28 2008 07:46 Jibba wrote:

Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.

Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that.

My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.

On June 28 2008 08:59 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:


raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaped

On June 28 2008 11:48 rpf wrote:

Not really--he didn't make any points.

1. He doesn't like private sales and thinks they should be banned; no reason given
2. He thinks I'm unintelligent; no real reasons given
3. He thinks I'm a moron and a nuisance because I don't agree with his opinion

Sounds to me like he's just another typical gun-grabbing liberal who can't take it when someone doesn't agree with them. Then, they start throwing around insults, and start crying about it.

OH NOES WATEVER WILL ID O JIBBA THINKS IM A MORON O FUCK I NEED THERAPY NOW.

On June 28 2008 10:37 micronesia wrote:

Haha cute perhaps, but if we interpret this at face value (for some reason I can't even think of) then the bolded statement is misleading since guns are generally necessary for bullets to kill people. Neither plays a more important role than the other, and a gun can still kill someone even unloaded... good luck doing that with a bullet :p

On June 28 2008 11:55 rpf wrote:
Well, shit, I can't argue with yubee, now can I?

On June 28 2008 11:46 rpf wrote:


Oh, and the ATF heavily regulates private sales, trades, etc.

"This is a very dangerous weapon. No ID, no background check or anything that went along with the purchase of a gun," Duluth Police Chief Gordon Ramsey said as he displayed a gun that was purchased through the loophole

When a transaction takes place between
private (unlicensed) persons
who reside in the same State, the
Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require
any record keeping. A private
person may sell a firearm to another
private individual in his or her State of
residence and, similarly, a private
individual may buy a firearm from
another private person who resides in
the same State. It is not necessary
under Federal law for a Federal firearms
licensee (FFL) to assist in the
sale or transfer when the buyer and
seller are "same-State" residents. Of
course, the transferor/seller may not
knowingly transfer a firearm to someone
who falls within any of the categories
of prohibited persons
contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C.
§§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated
above, there are no GCA-required
records to be completed

On June 28 2008 09:21 Mindcrime wrote:


You do not know what you're talking about.

I'll let a co-author of the amendment speak for himself:

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:
I just look at it logically... if George Mason felt that way, he should have written it so that it said "so that the people are not enslaved, they have a right to arms." or something like that. There's no point in using "militia" as a proxy for "the people" when you could just say "the people". There had to be SOME reason they invoked the concept of a militia (perhaps you, as an apparent historian of these matters, know what it is). The point is that the militia line is there, and it can't be ignored and somehow semantically wished away.

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:
I mean, it's true that I know nothing of the historical circumstances of the penning of the amendment or what the co-authors thought of it.

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:
I just look at it logically... if George Mason felt that way, he should have written it so that it said "so that the people are not enslaved, they have a right to arms." or something like that. There's no point in using "militia" as a proxy for "the people" when you could just say "the people". There had to be SOME reason they invoked the concept of a militia (perhaps you, as an apparent historian of these matters, know what it is). The point is that the militia line is there, and it can't be ignored and somehow semantically wished away.

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:
either way, I don't see why people can't defend their homes with rifles or shotguns instead of handguns... at the range that they would be facing an intruder it wouldn't really matter.

On June 28 2008 13:24 HeadBangaa wrote:
Kwark's (mis)understanding of the AMerican Revolution has always amused me.

Mindcrime, Funchucks, and RPF raped this thread.

Good read.

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:



I mean, it's true that I know nothing of the historical circumstances of the penning of the amendment or what the co-authors thought of it.

I just look at it logically... if George Mason felt that way, he should have written it so that it said "so that the people are not enslaved, they have a right to arms." or something like that. There's no point in using "militia" as a proxy for "the people" when you could just say "the people". There had to be SOME reason they invoked the concept of a militia (perhaps you, as an apparent historian of these matters, know what it is). The point is that the militia line is there, and it can't be ignored and somehow semantically wished away.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

On June 28 2008 13:18 talismania wrote:



I mean, it's true that I know nothing of the historical circumstances of the penning of the amendment or what the co-authors thought of it.

I just look at it logically... if George Mason felt that way, he should have written it so that it said "so that the people are not enslaved, they have a right to arms." or something like that. There's no point in using "militia" as a proxy for "the people" when you could just say "the people". There had to be SOME reason they invoked the concept of a militia (perhaps you, as an apparent historian of these matters, know what it is). The point is that the militia line is there, and it can't be ignored and somehow semantically wished away.

either way, I don't see why people can't defend their homes with rifles or shotguns instead of handguns... at the range that they would be facing an intruder it wouldn't really matter.

Jibba: I'm sorry you don't understand that there are more applicable laws than just those imposed by the ATF. There are still federal, state, and local laws that must be taken into account. There's still paperwork that's supposed to be filled out during private transactions.

And whether you or I like it, there's illegal sales of firearms all the time. How you think the problem only exists at gun shows is beyond me. But hey, keep listening to the horseshit the talking heads from the Brady Campaign keep feeding you.

On June 28 2008 16:36 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Do you realize how much more effective and non-lethal you can be with a pistol than a shotgun or rifle?

On June 28 2008 09:50 Funchucks wrote:

This is silly. The point of a sidearm is to be a deadly weapon.

Revolvers are lower-priced and more reliable at lower price points. There are models that take larger and more powerful rounds than any semi-automatic pistol.

The only thing that would make semi-automatic pistols "more deadly" is the larger ammunition capacity. By the same token, this makes the semi-automatic a more effective defense, especially against criminals who attack in gangs.

Limited ammunition could discourage the citizen from firing warning shots, making his behavior more deadly.

Revolvers and semi-automatic pistols each have their advantages and disadvantages. If there is going to be a concealed carry law, then the armed citizen should choose his preferred weapon. Restricting him to one or the other is not logically consistent.

This has nothing at all to do with "semi-automatic".

I do think anyone who wants to purchase a high caliber, laser-sighted rifle shouldn't be allowed to have any guns or breed and pass on his defective genes.

On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
Fuck the Brady Campaign. Maybe you missed the first two major parts of my post that detailed how state and local laws are not keeping up with enforcement and that it is still fairly easy to obtain a firearm without any real regulation. You also must've missed my post where I said private transactions happen at all different levels, and then the little idiot chose to say something about ATF gunshow regulation which turns out to be absolutely false.

On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
Say what you want about my moral view on guns, but don't confuse me for an idiot that listens to Michael Moore or looks at lobbyist fact sheets. I specifically look at newspaper articles, research papers and official documents.

On June 28 2008 22:35 Jibba wrote:
You're the one who refuses to give credence to any decision made by the Supreme Court or Congress between 1800 and 1990.
"Oh, that silly Militia Act that federalizes state militia means nothing. Thomas Jefferson said the definiton of a militia is "blah blah blah blah" and it doesn't matter what anyone in power said after him."

On June 29 2008 01:05 micronesia wrote:

I'm only idly reading this thread, but could you please elaborate on what you mean. I'd definitely agree with non-lethal if you consider the logic behind the advice that you bring a rifle to a gun fight, not a handgun, but I'm not yet understanding why you label the handgun as more effective. I'll gladly read your explanation or link to information, but in case you were going to suggest it is common sense, please do not (hopefully I'm wrong about this).

On June 29 2008 05:54 5HITCOMBO wrote:

It takes one hand to hold a pistol, leaving you free to call the cops with the other.

It takes two hands to steady a rifle or hold a shotgun so it doesn't blow your arm off when you fire it.

You can gesture with a pistol.

You can shoot someone in the leg and not have to reload with a pistol.

You can shoot someone and not blow half of their body to shreds with a pistol.

You can use a flashlight with a pistol.

You can holster a pistol.

You can shove it in your belt.

It's smaller.

It fires faster.

It's a lot less lethal than a rifle or a shotgun.

If your aim is self-defense, not murder, you want a pistol, not a rifle or shotgun.

I mean, think about why the police force carries handguns instead of rifles and shotguns as they go about. It's because they're generally not in situations where a rifle or shotgun would be appropriate. A handgun allows them a very effective method of protection and stopping power while still being able to put people in handcuffs, hold flashlights, radio for backup, and open doors.

This is not to say that the other two are not viable alternatives when you're being robbed. It's just a lot easier to call the cops when you have a handgun trained on someone rather than a shotgun or rifle.

Without guns, we'd just be another disarmed society. Right now, the UK, a couple of other countries in Europe and N. Korea, if I remember correctly, are the only societies that have been disarmed. The others are long gone, since they were massacred. No thanks.

Private sales are LEGAL.

/palmface

Well, Jibba doesn't understand any of what you said. He thinks any firearm is a threat to society purely for existing. He makes no distinction between the law-abiding and the criminals.

I'm sorry, but who in the SCOTUS between 1800 and 1990 fought to make this country what it is today? None of them signed the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any other important document that marks the beginning of a new nation.

On June 29 2008 14:26 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Okay, you're right; pistols are useless.

On June 29 2008 22:49 micronesia wrote:

Haha. This doesn't have to be all or nothing, all out debate. I think that's a problem with gun arguments. It turns into 'one side is wrong and the other is 100% correct' and everyone lobbies to stand on the superior side.

It seems like you are trying to avoid having to take an all-or-nothing stance, which is fine since the purpose of this discussion (simply the part with collectively partook in) was not to prove anybody wrong, but rather just to discuss what makes the most sense / is the most right.

On June 30 2008 03:02 5HITCOMBO wrote:
I just don't want to get into a big argument over this. Who cares if you can get the job done better with a different type of gun? You can still get the job done.

On June 30 2008 10:19 micronesia wrote:
RPF: I agree except I think you are generalizing a bit too much. There are actually some reasonable things to say about gun control, and there are certain pro-gun advocates who should shut up.

On June 30 2008 11:14 MarklarMarklar wrote:
american constitution is a pile of shite nowdays n needs a fat update