• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court rules for Gun Ownership

fullflavormenthol said:
Actually given the murder rate that we know about during the time referred to as the Wild West, I would prefer it to what is in my midwestern city of Wichita.

Unfortunately most people's opinion and knowledge of the old west seems to come from dime store novels and penny dreadfuls of the time, not anything approaching actual facts or research.

I am glad to see this decision, and no I don't own a gun, because I hate when states try to legislate away Constitutionally protected rights like the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

People don't think of Witchita as "The Wild West" yet it pretty damn rowdy in it's career as a Cowtown.
Agreed that there are a lot of misconceptions about the American West. It was a pretty violent place, but not nearly as violent as the Movies and TV would have you believe.
BTW, the Kevin Costner "Wyatt Earp" is one of the few Westerns that gets high marks for accuracy..including such things as a Western Lawman could not just gun down outlaws;he had to justify use of deadly force in front of a panal just like a modern lawman does.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The Supreme Court just ruled that States and Local governments cannot infringe upon the 2nd ammendment. So go out and buy your guns! Whoo hoo!! Let's relive the wild west!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you come off as someone who mindlessly accepts every part of the "Progressive" Political dogma without even thinking about it, a lot like the Tea Baggers mindlessly accept Right wing dogma.
 
So we have some here saying "it won't become the wild west" and others saying "the wild west wasn't so bad." Interesting.
 
thaiboxerken said:
So we have some here saying "it won't become the wild west" and others saying "the wild west wasn't so bad." Interesting.
Click to expand...

So I take you you have no rebuttal to any facts presented so you're just quibbling over semantics. What do you have to say to the fact that the murder rate in Washington, DC was ~25% lower in in 2009 than it was in 2008?
 
thaiboxerken said:
So we have some here saying "it won't become the wild west" and others saying "the wild west wasn't so bad." Interesting.
Click to expand...
Um, not particularly interesting. The first group are suggesting that there won't be an increase in violence, and the second are making the point that the wild west was not in fact as violent as generally portrayed (thus taking issue with the underlying assumption of using that phrase). Seems pretty straightforward, really.

Given the number and availability of guns in Chicago already I doubt the ruling will have a major impact one way or the other.
 
dtugg said:
Yeah, because that is what happened in DC after the SCOTUS ended their ban. No, wait. In 2009 there was a significant drop in the murder rate. In fact, it is was the lowest it has been in decades.
Click to expand...

:dl:

That's some nice magical thinking you've got there, using correlation as causation. In DC it's still just as difficult as ever to get a handgun OKed by the city (outside of pretty specific and exceptional circumstances). The fact is that DC got around the lifting of the ban by increasing the requirements for getting a license. Chicago could do the same to a similar effect.

But none of that has any bearing on the 2nd Amendment portion of this debate. It's just another useless statistic that one side or the other likes to strut about as if it has some significance, sort of like bringing up Kennesaw without actually looking at the crime data that shows it going right back up a few years later anyway. The reality is that the 2nd Amendment argument isn't going to be won by either side using crime as the crux of their case. Get over it. This is a rights issue and not a criminal law enforcement issue. Stick to the rights arguments or risk digging yourself into a hole of hyperbole that will just embarrass you in the long run.

That said, I'm okay with lifting the handgun ban. I have no desire to ever own a handgun myself, but I don't see a prevailing reason for the cities or states to use as justification for cutting off a legal route to own a handgun. I think that there should be rules for eligibility (which there are) and that those rules should be followed consistently (which they're not, and that tends to be the problem).

ETA:
dtugg said:
So I take you you have no rebuttal to any facts presented so you're just quibbling over semantics. What do you have to say to the fact that the murder rate in Washington, DC was ~25% lower in in 2009 than it was in 2008?
Click to expand...

The election of a black president. It's just as valid a correlation as what you're implying.
 
Last edited:
Juniversal said:
So much for "they're gonna take are guns!!".
Click to expand...
They ceratinly tried, and did for over 27 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Daley will tryi to get some other unconstitutional law passed, like requiring handgun owners to buy insurance. And I bet his brother, by sheer coincidence, will be selling it...
 
Cleon said:
The tenth amendment does not give the states the right to overrule or ignore the rest of the Constitution.

This decision wasn't a surprise; this court has been fairly consistent about their support for gun rights. Glad to see SCOTUS finally taking this up, though; the question of what the second amendment "really means" needed to be settled.
Click to expand...

I just wish that the SC (more than just Thomas) had used the priveleges or immunities clause as opposed to the due process clause to invalidate the law.
 
Beerina said:
How was the non-Wild West doin' for Chicago there, buddy?
Click to expand...
Hey, we only had 29 shootings over the weekend!

Actually the best thing for keeping shootings down in Chicago is called "winter". Our murder rate would be twice as high if we had the climate of LA or New Orleans.

Instead of spending gobs of money defending unconstitutional laws, Daley should consider hiring more police instead. By all accounts we're about 2,000 cops short of what we need.
 
This is the worst thing ever! :mad: How dare they put arms into the hands of law abiding citizens?!?!?! Oh how I long for the days that only criminals possessed handguns and victims had no reasonable way to defend themselves.
 
WildCat said:
Daley will tryi to get some other unconstitutional law passed, like requiring handgun owners to buy insurance. And I bet his brother, by sheer coincidence, will be selling it...
Click to expand...

Oh baloney. They'll do exactly what DC has been doing, which is requiring more and more qualifications be met to own one, effectively getting a similar result without the ban that was ruled unconstitutional.

Why the hyperbole?
 
GreNME said:
:dl:

That's some nice magical thinking you've got there, using correlation as causation.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that that the end of the ban necessarily caused a decrease in crime. But it demonstrably didn't cause more....

In DC it's still just as difficult as ever to get a handgun OKed by the city (outside of pretty specific and exceptional circumstances). The fact is that DC got around the lifting of the ban by increasing the requirements for getting a license. Chicago could do the same to a similar effect.
Click to expand...

This is untrue. Residents were entirely prohibited from possessing handguns before the ban. Afterward there are not. The District is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions. Why don't you enumerate what reasonable restrictions allow it so it is just as hard to own handguns as before they were entirely banned.

But none of that has any bearing on the 2nd Amendment portion of this debate. It's just another useless statistic that one side or the other likes to strut about as if it has some significance, sort of like bringing up Kennesaw without actually looking at the crime data that shows it going right back up a few years later anyway. The reality is that the 2nd Amendment argument isn't going to be won by either side using crime as the crux of their case. Get over it. This is a rights issue and not a criminal law enforcement issue. Stick to the rights arguments or risk digging yourself into a hole of hyperbole that will just embarrass you in the long run.

That said, I'm okay with lifting the handgun ban. I have no desire to ever own a handgun myself, but I don't see a prevailing reason for the cities or states to use as justification for cutting off a legal route to own a handgun. I think that there should be rules for eligibility (which there are) and that those rules should be followed consistently (which they're not, and that tends to be the problem).
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who brought up the wild wild west.
 
Last edited:
GreNME said:
Oh baloney. They'll do exactly what DC has been doing, which is requiring more and more qualifications be met to own one, effectively getting a similar result without the ban that was ruled unconstitutional.

Why the hyperbole?
Click to expand...
It's not hyperbole, it's straight from Daley.
In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.

Chicago could require firearm owners to purchase insurance and receive training or maintain a registry of how many guns are in particular homes so that police responding to an address will know what they're up against.
Click to expand...
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...r-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

And when the city required $1 million insurance for putting a roll-off dumpster on the street guess who was the only show in town selling such insurance?
 
dtugg said:
Yeah, because the President being black can some how magically prevent murders.
Click to expand...

You're the one who started with the magical correlation as causation fantasy. Just because you're avoiding admitting as much outright doesn't mean you weren't the one who started it.

Now, care to move on to a more rational criticism of his Wild West comment?
 
GreNME said:
You're the one who started with the magical correlation as causation fantasy. Just because you're avoiding admitting as much outright doesn't mean you weren't the one who started it.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out the fact the end of the ban didn't lead to more murders.

In any case a gun can prevent a murder, the skin color of the president cannot.

Now, care to move on to a more rational criticism of his Wild West comment?
Click to expand...

What more rational criticism is there than it didn't happen in another city?

Anyway, when are you going to tell us what regulations in DC makes it just as hard to own a handgun as before they were entirely banned?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
It's not hyperbole, it's straight from Daley.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/...r-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

And when the city required $1 million insurance for putting a roll-off dumpster on the street guess who was the only show in town selling such insurance?
Click to expand...

No, that quote is directly from chicagobreakingnews.com and not Daley. I'm not doubting that imposing insurance is on their short list of responses. However, what I'm calling hyperbole on is your assertion that another unconstitutional law is going to come up to ban handguns and using insurance as the vehicle. Like I already said, DC has pretty much already done the same thing regarding requirements for ownership and there's not a peep about the constitutionality over it. In fact, your own quote in the article cuts out right where the author clarifies this fact that shows why such measures are acceptable:
n an interview with the Tribune said:
"Despite doomsday proclamations," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, extending the reach of the 2nd Amendment "does not imperil every law regulating firearms."[/B]
Click to expand...

Being that I grew up in NJ (where Alito is from), I know exactly why he said what he did: it's already not easy to have a handgun in NJ due to requirements (meaning regulations on eligibility), and for CCW licensing it's even more restrictive (on purpose), yet you're not going to see any cases on the constitutionality of handgun ownership in NJ make it to SCOTUS. Alito is basically being clear that regulatory laws have to remain regulatory and not try to outright ban things that are protected by the Constitution.

So, again, there's no need for hyperbole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom