Gun ownership poll

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You just posted a list of states with loose gun laws, with the exception of Maryland and Illinois. And this was to prove your point? Quite the opposite effect.

Where there are mosquitoes, more people will be using bug spray.

Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Where there are mosquitoes, more people will be using bug spray.

Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves.

So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.

Most restrictive gun laws in the country are in Chicago and Washington D.C. Both have ridiculously high gun murder rates.

But keep believing strict gun laws work.

[G1911]

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.

Nah, easier for them to get guns. They’ll be ok. Good luck against them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Nah, easier for them to get guns. They’ll be ok. Good luck against them.

This ruling does not, in any way, make it easier or harder to get a gun. That is a fact.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

Not to steer this political, but if they greatly strengthen states' rights on abortion, many in the pro gun control crowd will be quite upset. Some people want the Court to guarantee rights not specified in the Constitution, but not guarantee rights (the 2nd Amendment) that clearly are.

This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose.

[Pat R]

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Pat R

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and don’t accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.