Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Supreme Court to determine D.C. gun rights (Update: DC gun ban struck down)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Supreme Court to determine D.C. gun rights (Update: DC gun ban struck down)

Old 03-09-07, 05:13 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I never said the Constitution is clear on the Second Amendment.

I know what was meant by it in 1789. A cursory reading of the notes on the Constitutional Convention will tell you what was meant.

Sex toys: I'm now aware where you find that in the Constitution or the amendments.

The same applies to beer and wine.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:17 PM
  #27  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by classicman2
I never said the Constitution is clear on the Second Amendment.

I know what was meant by it in 1789. A cursory reading of the notes on the Constitutional Convention will tell you what was meant.

Sex toys: I'm now aware where you find that in the Constitution or the amendments.

The same applies to beer and wine.
Thats why the Aussies got smart and put beer making in their constitution.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:17 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
beer and wine are in the amendments (18 and 21)
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:19 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,008
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
That's how I feel when people tell me that flag-burning is free speech.
It really shouldn't even matter whether it's free speech or not. If someone burns a flag he or she owns (or, with permission, someone else's flag) on property he or she owns (or, with permission, on someone else's) it should be allowed. That is, if someone believes in basic property rights.
movielib is online now  
Old 03-09-07, 05:23 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
What if there's a burn ban?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:28 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,008
Originally Posted by classicman2
What if there's a burn ban?
I could see that because a neighborhood could have a private property organization where the people contracted together and had a rule to ban burning.

Then you can just tear it to shreds.

The neighborhood association could also ban destroying an American flag in any way as long as it were done within the provisions of the association contract. I have no problem with that. It's consistent with private property rights.

Last edited by movielib; 03-09-07 at 05:35 PM.
movielib is online now  
Old 03-09-07, 05:35 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,006
Originally Posted by movielib
It really shouldn't even matter whether it's free speech or not. If someone burns a flag he or she owns (or, with permission, someone else's flag) on property he or she owns (or, with permission, on someone else's) it should be allowed. That is, if someone believes in basic property rights.
I agree if under those stipulations.
Rockmjd23 is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 05:48 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,382
Originally Posted by al_bundy
you will never get rid of illegal guns
Exactly.

Then why have gun control? If it doesn't get rid of illegal guns, then it is ineffective, isn't it?

Is gun control about getting rid of legal guns? I don't call that gun control. I call that victim disarmament.

Gun control doesn't work. Criminals don't obey gun laws, so gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens, turning them into potential victims.

And your arguments against tons of guns in NYC is total bs. Why should the criminals be the only ones armed? Disarming law abiding citizens makes the job of a criminal safer and easier for them.

I'm happy to see this ruling, but what I really wanna see is a lot of the shit on the books in California related to guns ruled unconstitutional.

Last edited by ukywyldcat; 03-09-07 at 06:04 PM.
ukywyldcat is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 06:35 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
Originally Posted by al_bundy
besides, SCOTUS says what the Constitution means. The lower courts are lower than dirt and SCOTUS will have the final say.
Yep. That's why their decisions are overturned whether or not the Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal. Oh, wait.
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:56 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by al_bundy
you will never get rid of illegal guns,
Perhaps you have conveniently forgotten a little something we call THE BRADY BILL!!!

What? Nothing to say? THOUGHT SO!!!!
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 08:04 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,819
Originally Posted by movielib
That is, if someone believes in basic property rights.
Sadly, SCOTUS does not currently believe in basic property rights.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 08:39 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,703
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Are you under the impression that the DC gun ban has resulted in the disappearance of guns in the District?
or violent crime

this case could turn out to be huge
I loved this part:
and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
mikehunt is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 08:42 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Duran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by al_bundy
i don't care if people own guns or not. i just think in NYC or other places with a large population density having a lot of people armed is a bad idea because the smallest things may flip a switch and too many people will get hurt. there are apartment buildings here with more people than a lot of towns in other parts of the US
Exactly. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at DC's homicide rate before and after the handgun ban!
Duran is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 10:06 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by ukywyldcat
Exactly.

Then why have gun control? If it doesn't get rid of illegal guns, then it is ineffective, isn't it?

Is gun control about getting rid of legal guns? I don't call that gun control. I call that victim disarmament.

Gun control doesn't work. Criminals don't obey gun laws, so gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens, turning them into potential victims.

And your arguments against tons of guns in NYC is total bs. Why should the criminals be the only ones armed? Disarming law abiding citizens makes the job of a criminal safer and easier for them.

I'm happy to see this ruling, but what I really wanna see is a lot of the shit on the books in California related to guns ruled unconstitutional.
it's not a self defense issue. the higher your population density the more pissed off people get at each other and the more stupid things they do. in the case of NYC you might have people shoot others because they took their laundry out of the dryer or something stupid like that. a million armed people in a 10 or 20 mile diameter will probably mean people shooting each other over dumb shit just because they had a bad day and a gun is there.

crime wise NYC has the lowest murder rate of big cities so it's not an issue
al_bundy is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 10:44 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,382
Originally Posted by al_bundy
it's not a self defense issue. the higher your population density the more pissed off people get at each other and the more stupid things they do. in the case of NYC you might have people shoot others because they took their laundry out of the dryer or something stupid like that. a million armed people in a 10 or 20 mile diameter will probably mean people shooting each other over dumb shit just because they had a bad day and a gun is there.

crime wise NYC has the lowest murder rate of big cities so it's not an issue

Thats total bullshit, again. Whats to stop people from using a knife, a sword, a sharp pen, a glass bottle? If your mad enough to attack someone, your going to find a way. And how many other defenseless people are going to be victimized simply because they can't have a gun if they were banned under your logic? Makes no sense.

Also, if people know there are more guns out there, that is a deterrent to the type of crime you talk about preventing.

Last edited by ukywyldcat; 03-09-07 at 10:47 PM.
ukywyldcat is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 11:26 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by al_bundy
it's not a self defense issue. the higher your population density the more pissed off people get at each other and the more stupid things they do. in the case of NYC you might have people shoot others because they took their laundry out of the dryer or something stupid like that. a million armed people in a 10 or 20 mile diameter will probably mean people shooting each other over dumb shit just because they had a bad day and a gun is there.

crime wise NYC has the lowest murder rate of big cities so it's not an issue

There is nothing in the Constitution (that I know of) that keeps a government from imposing population limits on cities. Why not do that (and help the people's stress and mental health) instead of infringing on a constitutional right?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 11:26 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by Duran
Exactly. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at DC's homicide rate before and after the handgun ban!
What is the difference?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 12:13 AM
  #43  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,086
Originally Posted by ukywyldcat
Thats total bullshit, again. Whats to stop people from using a knife, a sword, a sharp pen, a glass bottle? If your mad enough to attack someone, your going to find a way. And how many other defenseless people are going to be victimized simply because they can't have a gun if they were banned under your logic? Makes no sense.

Also, if people know there are more guns out there, that is a deterrent to the type of crime you talk about preventing.
Silly argument. Guns are unique and to argue they are like a "sharp pen" is silly. How many drive by "pennings" have there been? The same argument that you make about "defenseless victims" can be made about criminals. Meaning even a small, punk kid that normally any reasonable person could overpower now as the advantage as they have a gun.

Personally, I have nothing against responsible people owning guns. It is just few folks want to be truly responsible. I have maintained that a person to who wants to own a gun, must be tested, background checked and licensed. Then once they own it must be presented for check up my local authorities every couple of years (just like your car). Lastly, the individual is 100% responsible for the gun. Meaning if it is stolen or lost and then used in any crime the owner 1) may never own a gun again. 2) have to pay a penalty.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 12:31 AM
  #44  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,726
Lastly, the individual is 100% responsible for the gun. Meaning if it is stolen or lost and then used in any crime the owner 1) may never own a gun again. 2) have to pay a penalty.
That is interesting. I remember you saying that you often leave your house door unlocked, you probably do the same for your car - say that gets stolen (God forbid) and used in a crime. Still have that same position?
Ranger is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 12:44 AM
  #45  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,382
Originally Posted by Sdallnct
Silly argument. Guns are unique and to argue they are like a "sharp pen" is silly. How many drive by "pennings" have there been? The same argument that you make about "defenseless victims" can be made about criminals. Meaning even a small, punk kid that normally any reasonable person could overpower now as the advantage as they have a gun.
While guns are unique, it is the individual that kills, not the gun. If the person is going to kill, they will find a way. Granted, in the heat of the moment one can kill much quicker and easier with a gun than a pen, or a knife, or a broken bottle. But if the person is determined, they are going to succeed. And the defenseless victim argument holds water. In fact, the more legal guns are in the hands of responsible owners, the less crime, as criminals know that their odds of encountering a "victim" with a gun is much greater and their odds of success are diminished.

If the days of open carry could come back across the entire US, you'd see guns on the hips of millions, and crime would fall dramatically.

Originally Posted by Sdallnct
Personally, I have nothing against responsible people owning guns. It is just few folks want to be truly responsible. I have maintained that a person to who wants to own a gun, must be tested, background checked and licensed. Then once they own it must be presented for check up my local authorities every couple of years (just like your car). Lastly, the individual is 100% responsible for the gun. Meaning if it is stolen or lost and then used in any crime the owner 1) may never own a gun again. 2) have to pay a penalty.
I agree with a lot of this. I have no problem with testing, very extensive background checks, and even a waiting period, for someone wanting a gun, for the FIRST purchase. Here in California, there is a 10 day wait on all guns. If they want to make it a six month wait, I don't care. The problem with our wait period is that you have to wait for each new gun, even though you have already been found capable of owning the first.

For example, I own a GLOCK 23. What if it breaks, I accidentlly drop it in the ocean, or some other event occurs that makes the gun worthless or unusuable? If I want to replace the gun with the exact same gun, I have to wait another 10 days. This is nothing more than a fuck you from the anti-gun crowd. I realize the waiting period is more about a "cooling off" period than a background check. So, if you already own a gun, why do you have to "cool off" or a new gun purchase? Surely if you want to kill, you'd just use the gun you already own.

I don't, however, agree with the 1) never own a gun again 2) have to pay a penalty part of your argument. Too severe, and too many issues involved with that.

In any event, I'm trying to determine if this ruling makes it safe to attempt to hold my breath about California laws getting overturned. I've been contemplating the ifs regarding a residence change to Nevada for about a year now.

But today is a major victory for the Second Amendment. And we should all be pleased.

Last edited by ukywyldcat; 03-10-07 at 12:50 AM.
ukywyldcat is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 03:04 AM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Originally Posted by Sdallnct
Personally, I have nothing against responsible people owning guns. It is just few folks want to be truly responsible. I have maintained that a person to who wants to own a gun, must be tested, background checked and licensed. Then once they own it must be presented for check up my local authorities every couple of years (just like your car). Lastly, the individual is 100% responsible for the gun. Meaning if it is stolen or lost and then used in any crime the owner 1) may never own a gun again. 2) have to pay a penalty.
[sarcasm]I agree completely with this. I also have nothing against responsible people practicing free political speech. It's just that some people have shown themselves to be politically irresponsible. As long as people are willing to commit their thoughts to writing, submit that writing to a goverment advisory board for review, and then pay for a permit, they should be able to say whatever they want.[/sarcasm]

Having to ask the government for a permit to exercise a right designed in part to protect you should the government ever become tyrannical seems a little silly to me.
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 08:33 AM
  #47  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Duran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,177
Originally Posted by kvrdave
What is the difference?
Originally Posted by http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
I can't vouch for the veracity of the website, and I'm sure there are year-to-year nuances, but Washington DC is more violent now than it was before the ban.
Duran is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 08:51 AM
  #48  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,819
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel
[sarcasm]I agree completely with this. I also have nothing against responsible people practicing free political speech. It's just that some people have shown themselves to be politically irresponsible. As long as people are willing to commit their thoughts to writing, submit that writing to a goverment advisory board for review, and then pay for a permit, they should be able to say whatever they want.[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Well, many jurisdictions require a demonstration permit to exercise their freedom of speech in a large public area. Gun use should be the same way. If you are only going to murder a 1-3 people, you should not need a permit. However, if you are going to murder 100 people or more in a public place, you should have to apply for and receive a permit.[/sarcasm]

That aside, here are my thoughts on the subject, most of which I have posted before but not in quite some time:

From a crime perspective, the issue is handguns, not long guns, not "assault weapons." Their use constitutes the vast majority of violent crimes with firearms that occurs within the United States. They are easily carried and concealable and perfectly adapted for use at the ranges in which most violent acts with a firearm occur (that being less than 10 feet).

From a Constitutional interpretation standpoint, the government can heavily restrict the use of or prohibit the ownership of handguns and not substantially affect the Second Amendment's safeguard against tyrrany (as impractical as that safeguard probably is in our current society).

Looking at it in a practical sense, should U.S. citizens be able to own handguns? I think yes, due to the fact that they are a solid choice for home defense (although I prefer a 12ga shotgun) combined with the fact that they are so prevalent among violent criminals.

Americans are supposed to be gifted at compromise, so here is the compromise that I would suggest:

To purchase a handgun, one needs a handgun permit, which would be acquired the first time that citizen purchases a handgun in that state. To get a permit, the citizen would have to do two things:

1. Pass a reasonable background check (with codification of the maximum amount of time that check can take) to prevent abuse by the State.
2. Attend and pass a State-run handgun permit course and examination.

The course would be offered (again, codified into the law to prevent abuse) in all areas of the state on a regular basis and on both weekends and evening hours to accomodate the varying schedules of registrants. The course would include instruction on and subsequent examination on the following elements:

* Proper handgun use, to include live fire tests to ensure that the applicant can operate the handgun with a reasonable amount of accuracy.
* Proper handgun maintenance. Applicants must demonstrate that they can disassemble and clean the firearm.
* Legal use of a handgun. It is my experience that many current handgun owners are blissfully unaware of when it is legal or not legal to actually use or carry a handgun. Topics would include whatever that state's interpretation of the "reasonable man" test is, "no carry" zones that may be applicable, applicable laws related to firearms and alchohol consumption, etc.
* Practical/legal issues related to the safe storage of a handgun, culpability issues related to leaving an unsecured handgun in your home, etc.

Once an applicant has passed the course, they would receive a permit. Here is the important part:

The permit would entitle the holder to carry the handgun concealed as well.

In other words, do away with the distinction between handgun ownership and concealed carry. You can either do both or neither, by law.

There are a lot of other wrinkles/considerations to my proposal but that is it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, the fact that it is a compromise means that most of both the staunch pro-gun and anti-gun crowds will hate it and it stands no chance whatsoever of ever being implemented.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 08:59 AM
  #49  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If you're using the 'tyranny argument,' is there any real difference between a restrictions between a hand gun and a long gun?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 09:10 AM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 331
Damn those activist judges.
Palpadious is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.