My dad thinks it's ridiculous to own a gun...

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
And that was not even a federal court just a district court ruling. I guess you left that part out?

If you had done your reserach as I have you would know...

1. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

2. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller

"In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia."

3. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.


If any of you gun people think the 2nd protects your individual right to own a gun. Sue the government over any gun law saying it breaks your right as a individual to own a gun that is protected by the 2nd. Tell me how that works out.

Theres a reason the NRA has not sued saying any gun law is wrong as it breaks the 2nd. They know they would lose and not be able to get their dues from all the gun people and lose their "we stand for the 2nd..." BS slogan.

Wow, look at the little boy pretending to be a constitutional law expert. :roll:

US v Miller only referred to sawed off shotguns.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

It says nothing about the 2nd Amendment in general you tool. You should learn to read before you pretend to know what you're talking about. If US v Miller is your basis for argument, you've just lost. And I sure would like it you provide cites for those cases where the Supreme Court clearly laid out the meaning of "well regulated militia", because I'd love to see it.


Besides, the text states clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" not "the right of military to keep and bear arms". If you want to say "the people" only refers to military personnel, are you also willing to give up the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Because if "the people" doesn't refer to citizens but only to the military, then there is no right for anybody but the military to protest and nobody but current military personnel can expect protection from government searches.

Illiterate and ignorant. You've really got your bases covered there, don't ya Marlin?

How about reading what you did not highlight. It states it as a "military equipment". As the 2nd is a rule for a militia or as we know it a National Guard.

Also "Bear arms" is used to represent military terms from the past.
Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated

A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

But as I said. You think I am wrong, prove it. File a case saying a gun law violates your 2nd right. Or maybe I will save you the time and remind you.

"No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds"

Funny how you resort to name calling but have nothing to backup your statements. Like most gun nuts you have no real fact on your side so you resort to childishness.

 

[BoberFett]

I repeat. They stated that a sawed off shotgun is not in line with military arms, and therefore STATE laws prohibiting it are not protected by the second.

And I notice you ignored most of my post, probably because you have no answer and are too embarrassed to say you're wrong. It's OK, I understand that you can't provide cites to the USSC caselaw which specifically define "well regulated militia" and conveniently ignore the unambiguous use of "the people" to refer to all citizens. It's common for scared children to avoid that which they don't understand.

As for name calling, I didn't call you any names. I stated that you're ignorant, which you are. If I called you an ignoramus, that would be name calling. Simply pointing out a fact using an adjective is not name calling and only cements my assertion that you're illiterate.

 

[IMaN00BieGF]

I believe if you have a gun in your car the bullets have to be in the opposite side of the vehicle in most states by law.

 

[BabaBooey]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Sqube
Paranoia and a desire to waste money are clearly the only reasons to own a gun. Seriously. There could never, ever be a reason when you might want to have a gun. Ever in life. Ever.

Do I detect extreme sarcasm?

No that is most defenitly ignorance ...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I think it's funny how so many anti-gun Americans are willing to do away with the second amendment. What kind of precedent does that set for the rest of the Bill of Rights?

So many liberal Americans whine about things like the Patriot Act trampling their constitutional rights, but as soon as getting rid of the second amendment comes up in conversation then that's fine.

Exactly. If you want to get rid of the 2nd, then you should have to deal with getting rid of every other right you have as well. The 2nd is every bit as important as all the other amendments.

Geez you gun nuts are the same. The 2nd does NOT protect an individual right to own a gun. The Supreme Court has ruled plenty of times that it is ok for the government to restrict gun ownership on those that have never been felons or any other legal way to strip rights away.
Go read some court papers and you could see that. But this is Off Topic. Take it to P&N with the rest of the whack jobs.


And if you need a gun for protection, I guess that says more about you and the place you live. As I live somewhere where I don?t need a gun and sleep just fine.

While it didn't make it to SCOTUS, US v Emerson is a pretty telling case on where things are. It more or less irrefutably establishes it as an individual right. There is almost no logical argument that it isn't an individual right, though there are plenty of political ones out there to take reasons place.

I guess you left that part out?

Nope, I say in the first sentence that it wasn't a SCOTUS decision. The beauty of that decision isn't in its level of appeal, it's in the strength of the research and arguments used. Of course, SCOTUS isn't well known for intelligence or rational arguments grounded in actual facts (unless it's to find a way to avoid ruling on a case). I'm not saying it would win in court, only that the arguments are superior. Since courts are political bodies more than courts of justice I have little hope that they would favor us in a decision.

However that is really moot, since we already have the guns. Any impacting decision against us would result in such death and chaos as to effectively end the nation. In that respect I'd say our 2nd amendment rights are individual ones. We are all, each of us, capable of effectively resisting the removal of further rights. It makes the court interpretation of our rights almost meaningless.

 

[tcsenter]

Do you think it's unreasonable to keep a pistol in your glove compartment?

I've worked and drove through some areas where it isn't unreasonable to keep a gun in the car for someone who lives there or has to drive through every day. I've heard that some cops who patrol one such area have been known in the past to let people off for having a gun in their car, provided the individual doesn't have a criminal record or outstanding warrant, doesn't hide the fact there is a gun in the car when asked about weapons, is being stopped for something minor, and the gun is properly registered.

You know you're in a bad neighborhood when the cops feel that people are more likely than not to be a crime victim sooner or later and will need something more than a cell phone for protection.

Then again, there are many high-crime areas throughout the country where the cops won't tolerate people carrying guns for protection because headlines like 'man shoots robber' or 'woman shoots rapist' makes the police look bad and sends the 'wrong' message (i.e. the police are ineffective and can't protect you). Job security.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Wouldn't quite fit in the glovebox as-is, I would have to remove the magazine and the shroud.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Wouldn't quite fit in the glovebox as-is, I would have to remove the magazine and the shroud.

:Q



:heart:

- M4H

 

[Vic]

There is a world of difference between thinking that it's ridiculous for you personally to own a gun and thinking that there should be a law that no one should be allowed to own a gun.

 

[LanceM]

In my house, yes. In my glove compartment? Haha, no.

 

[Unheard]

Quit guessing on the laws and know for sure if it is legal to carry in your glove box.

http://www.packing.org/state/

Click your state, then look @ the section titled "Peaceable Journey"

For example, in TN (where I live) I have to carry my weapon separate from my ammo. But when driving through GA, FL, or SC, I am allowed to keep my firearm loaded in the glove box.

Most of the AT community has some sense to them. There are a few idiots on these forums who believe just because they think something is bad, no one should have things. I think women voting is bad (I'm lying), free speech is bad (I'm lying again), and we shouldn't have the right to peaceably assemble (one more lie). I guess we should take all these away from people, because IMHO they are bad (not really, I'm making a point).

In closing I would like to say, if you want my guns, you're more than welcome to come to my house and "try" to take them from me. But don't come armed ok? I wouldn't want you to hurt one of your family members in the process.

 

[3NF]

My 2 cents.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill, and I'm not into killing things, so I will never own one personally.

As for the 2nd amendment thing, I really don't understand what it is - in fact, I don't really understand many of our laws. All I know is that it was written back in the 1700s and the last I checked, things are much different now than they were then. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to hold onto things from so long ago. Times change, people change, and therefore rules/laws should change.

As for guns being used in "sport" to hunt, well, it's a pussy sport in my opinion. I don't see how one can call driving a bullet into the skull of an animal, sport. Now, if they animal could shoot back at you - well, then I would paid to see that

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: 3NF
My 2 cents.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill, and I'm not into killing things, so I will never own one personally.

As for the 2nd amendment thing, I really don't understand what it is - in fact, I don't really understand many of our laws. All I know is that it was written back in the 1700s and the last I checked, things are much different now than they were then. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to hold onto things from so long ago. Times change, people change, and therefore rules/laws should change.

As for guns being used in "sport" to hunt, well, it's a pussy sport in my opinion. I don't see how one can call driving a bullet into the skull of an animal, sport. Now, if they animal could shoot back at you - well, then I would paid to see that

where are you getting the idea that a gun's only purpose is to kill?

i own several guns and shoot metal or paper targets. no killing of anything involved.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: 3NF
My 2 cents.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill, and I'm not into killing things, so I will never own one personally.

That's like saying the only purpose for a computer is to surf the web and check your e-mail. It might be the primary purpose for most people, but it certainly isn't the only thing that guns are used for.

Most people who think like you were raised in the city, and only saw guns on TV when they were used to shoot folks in war movies and police dramas. You never got exposed to things like target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting growing up, and I kinda feel sorry for you for missing out on that.

 

[GRIFFIN1]

I've owned guns for close to a decade, and I have found that they are mostly just a waste of money. Sort of like the fire extinguisher I own that I have never used.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Poulsonator

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Your dad was talking about nutjobs who keep the gun in the glove box for the sake of shooting at other people.

What other reason is there to own a handgun?

hunting? target shooting? nostalgia? collecting? repairing?

Yea? Do a lot of hunting with a handgun do ya?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
I've owned guns for close to a decade, and I have found that they are mostly just a waste of money. Sort of like the fire extinguisher I own that I have never used.

Hah, that's brilliant man, brilliant.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Poulsonator

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Poulsonator

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Your dad was talking about nutjobs who keep the gun in the glove box for the sake of shooting at other people.

What other reason is there to own a handgun?

hunting? target shooting? nostalgia? collecting? repairing?

Yea? Do a lot of hunting with a handgun do ya?

i don't but plenty of other people do. another idiot with no clue. Handgun Hunting

 

[brandonb]

My roommate had a permit to carry.

Never thought he'd need it. Until one day at a gas station he was jumped by 2 drunk dudes...

He pulled it out, after a second they realized my roommate was packing heat and ran away. My roommate called police with his cell phone and followed the guys in his car. One of them was arrested, the other one had to apologize to my roommate and was let go.

Did packing heat save my roommate from any harm? Likely... Did he shoot anybody because it was "fun"... Nope... If he just had a cell phone and no gun, would he been able to call the cops and things would have ended up the same? Probably not, as they were ontop of him before he had a chance to think, but it took a second to pull the gun out of the holster and scare them away.

Guns have a reason.

Thats why I've decided to get my own permit to carry. Sure, its likely I won't ever need to use a gun on anybody, but its nice to know that I have the option if it arises. I have my permit 2 months and I still haven't even bought my gun yet... I should get on that.

 

[amddude]

What cracks me up is that people don't find paying money for car, home, or health insurance; keeping extra groceries; flashlights and batteries; etc around just for emergencies, but somehow a gun and keeping it handy (or concealed) is just SO RADICAL AND OVER THE LINE. (Having said that, I keep a glock in my car, but not in the glovebox, and I only do so because my concealed permit has not come back from the state yet)

And for the replies about to come about how none of those tools can kill, I invite you to look at crime statistics, particularly for the UK, Australia, and Ireland. Violent crime, including ***gun*** crime is up quite a bit since they passed blanket gun bans.

If you are terrified of a gun and think you can't handle one, then you have absolutely no business owning and driving car, IMO. Car deaths result in about 115 deaths each day. There are less than half that many gun deaths a day and those include gang-on-gang/criminal-on-criminal violence, police shootings, and much more.

 

[bluemax]

If you crazy Americans weren't so gung-ho in love with guns to begin with, you wouldn't need one for "protection".

Whoops.... time to go watch "Red Dawn" again!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bluemax
If you crazy Americans weren't so gung-ho in love with guns to begin with, you wouldn't need one for "protection".

Whoops.... time to go watch "Red Dawn" again!

Perhaps then you can explain why Canada has a higher rate of private gun ownership than does this US. Oh... you crazy Canucks!!

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: tranceport

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
personally, I'd rather an m4a1 racked behind my seat.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bluemax
If you crazy Americans weren't so gung-ho in love with guns to begin with, you wouldn't need one for "protection".

Whoops.... time to go watch "Red Dawn" again!

Perhaps then you can explain why Canada has a higher rate of private gun ownership than does this US. Oh... you crazy Canucks!!

You've GOT to be kidding me! With about +15x the death rate due to handguns, you accuse Canada of owning more????

Gotta' have data: LINK

 

[Zepper]

There are three natural rights: Life, liberty and property (without the right to own and/or dispose of the fruits of your labors as you see fit, there is no happiness). You are the first line of defense of all three. Thus I believe it is worse than stupid NOT to own a gun a learn how to use it.

.bh.