Federal court rules that 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home

[soundforbjt]

Umm, and your point of contention is?

Let us see. Where there hand guns available at the time of the writing of the Constitution? Yes.

Where those handguns capable of killing a person? Yes.

Where those handguns capable of being concealed? Yes.


I fail to see your point of contention. Handguns where around at that time. They were deadly back then. They were concealable back then. Did our fore fathers realize that technology changes over time? Where they not in an industrial age during a bunch of mass changes to various industries? Could they not foresee changes to gun technology to allow them to being better as if that wasn't already done in their lifetime?

Your point is stupid.

My point was to correct Fern who stated that multiple shot handguns were available at that time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You should see the looks I get walking around with my P89 in one holster, XD-40 in another, Remington 870 tactical across one shoulder and a katana across the other. People still tend to worry about Gerber LMF 2 and an XD-40 subcompact that I am carrying concealed. :whiste:

Yeah, I'm not surprised you get looks. It's one thing to carry a sidearm; that's sensible. If you strap on every weapon you own and walk down the street like Rambo, people are probably going to assume that you're a violent lunatic about to go on a rampage. You generally don't need two pistols, a shotgun and a sword for "self defense."

 

[monovillage]

Prior to the 19th century, all handguns were single-shot muzzleloaders.

bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
just for starters. If you need lots more references, let us know. All available or known before the Constitution was signed

multi barreled flintlock pistols were available at the time. Fern is right.

 

[HumblePie]

My point was to correct Fern who stated that multiple shot handguns were available at that time.

read my edit above.

Still multiple shot handguns WERE around then. They just required multiple barrels. They were still concealable.

As for percussion caps invented in the 19th century. Yah for 24 years later. Like that was a massive wait in time for that to happen. We've had 200 years of multi shot, concealable handguns on the market for the consumer. Many of the fore fathers or those who intimately knew them were still around. I think if they had a problem with their original drafting of the 2nd amendment based upon changing handgun technology it would have been pretty easy to do so back then.

 

[Nebor]

bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
just for starters. If you need lots more references, let us know. All available or known before the Constitution was signed

Frankly I'm shocked than an anti-gunner doesn't have accurate, complete knowledge of the history of firearms.

 

[Yreka]

You should see the looks I get walking around with my P89 in one holster, XD-40 in another, Remington 870 tactical across one shoulder and a katana across the other. People still tend to worry about Gerber LMF 2 and an XD-40 subcompact that I am carrying concealed. :whiste:

Damn Dude ~!

 

[HumblePie]

Frankly I'm shocked than an anti-gunner doesn't have accurate, complete knowledge of the history of firearms.

I know right. Even in the wiki linked with the flint locks, they show pictures of multiple barrel hand guns around AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Such as the Pepperbox handgun which had 4 barrels. Even a picture there showing it. But most people just carried multiple single shot pistols for reliability instead although double barrles weren't that bad in reliability.

 

[gingermeggs]

Why should gun ownership be held to a different standard then other rights?

Could you imagine the outcry if people were only allowed to take their bible from home directly to church? If the person decided to go to a grocery store and left their bible in the car, they could be arrested.

Yes, the bible is as deadly as a gun!

 

[monovillage]

Frankly I'm shocked than an anti-gunner doesn't have accurate, complete knowledge of the history of firearms.

He also posted about ball pouches, at least he's consistent.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes, the bible is as deadly as a gun!

It can be. Wars have been fought over it without the use of any guns involved in the killings.

But the point is that there were granted certain unalienable rights to American citizens. One is the right to own a bible and carry it around with them where ever. One is for guns. The one for guns is EXPRESSLY written in the Constitution. Factors concerning the attributes of each item do not matter in the argument for rights of ownership of either item. Or the abridgement of those rights.

 

[Fern]

Prior to the 19th century, all handguns were single-shot muzzleloaders.

Google it. 'Pepperbox' handguns originated in the 1500's. They had multiple barrels; after firing you rotated the barrels to fire again. You could shoot multiple times before reloading it.

Fern

 

[schneiderguy]

I didn't realize Schnedierguy was a bear. I always imagined him as a muscle twink.

 

[HumblePie]

Google it. 'Pepperbox' handguns originated in the 1500's. They had multiple barrels; after firing you rotated the barrels to fire again. You could shoot multiple times before reloading it.

Fern

I said that already.

 

[soundforbjt]

I own a shotgun, never felt the need for a handgun. Multiple shot handguns were the exception, not the rule. Most people wouldn't think of using them due to their reliability.

 

[HAL9000]

We need guns in case you guys decide to try to collect the taxes we haven't been paying you for the last 236 years :whiste:

If we promise not to will you ban them?

Moved on? I guess that is why England still has a monarchy?

It's exactly why, because you guys love history so you pay crazy amounts of money as tourists to see all that shit, we don't give them power obviously.

P.S. This is the last I will discuss the monarchy as RabidMongoose and CanOfWorms will derail this thread otherwise.

 

[HAL9000]

Given the amount of guns in the US, and ease of access to them, aren't you surprised by how relatively little gun violence there is?

Relative to WW2?

Show me a nation without gun violence.

If 0.9999 = 1 then my answer is England, 99.9% no gun violence

 

[Texashiker]

It's exactly why, because you guys love history

Yep, and we love our firearms as well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Federal court rules that 2nd Amendment applies outside of the home

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=395


The 2008 Heller v. DC decision only ruled on the 2nd Amendment inside the home so this is the natural extension of that case.

Hopefully this will lead to nationwide "shall issue" concealed carry permits. A good day for freedom :thumbsup:

What?

Supreme Court will strike this court down.

Americans don't own homes, they are leased from the Government.

 

[HumblePie]

I own a shotgun, never felt the need for a handgun. Multiple shot handguns were the exception, not the rule. Most people wouldn't think of using them due to their reliability.

That does not change the fact that you were WRONG in what you stated before. They were available and on the market. They could be used. While they had a tendency to fire ALL shots at once, instead of one at a time per trigger action, that was for poorer designed ones. Other versions were much better, but also more costly.

Also those changes to the flintlock were very recent changes made during the industrial age which was around the that time frame as well. Which meant emerging technology and technological advancements to older inventions were being developed rapidly. Our fore fathers SAW all this and still wrote the Constitution in favor of the protected right to own and bear arms. Not just shotguns. Not just rifles. Not just single shot pistols, but all arms. Your personal opinion on what you "think" people should be satisfied with is moot, and as smelly as your anus. When it comes to the facts of what the intentions of our fore fathers were doing when they wrote the Constitution it is pretty clear as it is all written down rather well.

 

[Fern]

I own a shotgun, never felt the need for a handgun. Multiple shot handguns were the exception, not the rule. Most people wouldn't think of using them due to their reliability.

The fact is they existed. The FF were a wealthy bunch, no doubt they were aware of them. Likely some owned them.

Fern

 

[HAL9000]

Yep, and we love our firearms as well.

Some people love rape doesn't mean it's OK.

 

[soundforbjt]

That does not change the fact that you were WRONG in what you stated before. They were available and on the market. They could be used. While they had a tendency to fire ALL shots at once, instead of one at a time per trigger action, that was for poorer designed ones. Other versions were much better, but also more costly.

Also those changes to the flintlock were very recent changes made during the industrial age which was around the that time frame as well. Which meant emerging technology and technological advancements to older inventions were being developed rapidly. Our fore fathers SAW all this and still wrote the Constitution in favor of the protected right to own and bear arms. Not just shotguns. Not just rifles. Not just single shot pistols, but all arms. Your personal opinion on what you "think" people should be satisfied with is moot, and as smelly as your anus. When it comes to the facts of what the intentions of our fore fathers were doing when they wrote the Constitution it is pretty clear as it is all written down rather well.

What do you think the founders meant by a well regulated militia? Was that just any person carrying for any reason or was it to defend their property or colony or state against enemies.

 

[HumblePie]

What purpose do you even serve in these "gun" threads Hal? I'm serious. You aren't even talking about the topic or even related outliers. You just keep presenting your moral stance that you, and most of your country, views gun ownership at all as immoral. Great. We get it. Britain is stupid as fuck in our opinion on many things. Some things they get right, and some things they don't. So why do you have to keep asserting your moral code in our face in every thread like this? It is a bit of that annoying kid that wants to join the conversation the grown ups are having about news, politics, relationships or whatever by trying to get the adults to laugh at his fart jokes. That's what you remind me of. That annoying kid I want to bitchslap for being.. annoying.

 

[Blackjack200]

Keep and bear arms. Courts and the supreme court have ruled that is an individual incorporated right.

I don't see anything in there about guns either. Is the saf doing anything to secure my right to keep and bear rockets and bombs as well?

Given the amount of guns in the US, and ease of access to them, aren't you surprised by how relatively little gun violence there is?

http://www.phillypolice.com/assets/PPD.Homicide.Analysis.2011.pdf

674 shooting victims in Philadelphia in 2011, 768 in 2011. Philadelphia was the 22nd most dangerous city in the US in 2008.

I'm in favor of concealed carry being allowed, because I believe that responsible gun owners who are actually getting permits to allow them to carry in public are also responsible enough to handle a firearm in an appropriate and reasonable manner. The argument that "a sharpened pencil is as dangerous as a gun"? That's absurd and it makes proponents of concealed carry look like whack-a-doodles. Tell you what, let's have a duel tomorrow. 10 paces, turn, attack. I have a handgun and a pencil. Which would you rather take?

In my experience, most proponents of concealed carry are whack-a-doodles. There are some that really do just want to carry a gun and not much else, but they do not really define the group.

 

[HAL9000]

What purpose do you even serve in these "gun" threads Hal? I'm serious. You aren't even talking about the topic or even related outliers. You just keep presenting your moral stance that you, and most of your country, views gun ownership at all as immoral. Great. We get it. Britain is stupid as fuck in our opinion on many things. Some things they get right, and some things they don't. So why do you have to keep asserting your moral code in our face in every thread like this? It is a bit of that annoying kid that wants to join the conversation the grown ups are having about news, politics, relationships or whatever by trying to get the adults to laugh at his fart jokes. That's what you remind me of. That annoying kid I want to bitchslap for being.. annoying.

It's not morality it's logical.

I just don't understand other peoples perspective on this and I'm trying to get it, but I always end up with gun nuts like Spidey07 or I end up talking to Schneiderguy, in which case I just drift off staring into his beautiful eyes.