Well tomorrows the day! Gotta love living in Montana

[C5 Golfer]

Scary part about this whole thing is 4 Judges voted against our RIGHT, it was a very narrow margin. 5:4 -- so close that a presidential appointment could have this going in reverse in the near future.

[FTA2R]

disclaimer: i haven't read most of this thread.

i can tell you that DC does NOT need more handguns. You stand a pretty good chance of encountering violence (of all types) in at least 2/4 city districts (SE and NE), depending on where and when you're there. There are a lot of murders here and a while back it was dubbed "murder capital." As usual, 3/4 of the guns are in the wrong hands to begin with. I'm unable to recollect any cases of DC area residents successfully protecting themselves b/c they were armed...anyone with half a brain knows it's much more like the residents are killing each other!

G*d forbid you don't have a handgun - may have to actually exercise common sense and not go into the gheTTo - or be forced to protect yourself using other methods! (sling shot, water gun, butter knife =) )

even if i had a gun in Anacostia, I"d still be nervous just walking around there..random shootings, car jackings.....the new Ball Stadium (headed to the Nats game tonight) is right down there and is actually helping to clean out the human and non-human trash. We need development - it creates jobs ,shops, brings life back to previously "untouchable" areas.

ps aside from the violence (which can be much less probable by simply exercising good judgement), DC is a great city!

[bobdea]

I'd like to see how many guns are actually legal that are used for crimes in DC. I've seen numbers that indicate that the majority of guns used for street crimes like robberies and gang related killings were either stolen or bought on the black market. People who are not criminals should be able to have hand guns and rifles.

I'm sorry but trigger locks don't prevent violent crime because the people who steal guns also are fully aware of what a drill and a hacksaw is. trigger locks might prevent deaths that would earn a darwin award but that's about it. The other option is keeping them in a safe but that makes the smith and wesson security system just about useless unless the burgerlars call you and let you know they're stopping by for a quick home invasion.

[Dr D]

very reasoned response BOb:biggthump

As for the rest of you antigunners, read "More Guns Less Crime" by jon Lott and then we can have a really good discussion. John Lott originally researched the book with the intent of proving that guns caused crime. He was surprised to find the opposite to be true.

Its one thing to feel passionately about something based solely on hearsay and/or a negative experience. Its quite another thing to research and view all the facts and then make a reasoned decision about something.

When those decisions affect the liberty of others you owe it to them to find the facts and view both sides objectively.

Bob is right. the crimes committed using guns are nearly always with an already illegal gun.

the statistics on concealed carry permits committing crimes show it to be statistically insignificant or nearly unheard of.

Skatha, they would just hurt each other with something else if there were no more guns and you would be bitter about whatever that weapon happened to be. I don't envy your job it must be difficult to see people dieing especially innocents. It just doesn't follow that an inanimate object is the true cause.

[C5 Golfer]

I think it is odd -- well in my opinion - ODD -- that so many people I have had discussion on the 2nd Amendment - that some of these are anti- gun ownership and they have the opinion that it is a state right to have a militia. I ask them what other amendment in the original Bill of Rights covers or protects a State right.. all the ones I can think of are individual rights -- so when the Original Bill was penned -- why would the founders throw in a state right in the middle of all those individual rights? They have no answer to that question. :smashfrea

[Dr D]

This was never questioned until recently. The concept of it being only for the national guard is silly since the guard wasn't federalized until WWI. If it was intended for a militia then that would mean any male between 18 and 8o according to my state constitution. ITs clearly an individual right if you have read any of the history behind it. It helps to pull out a law dictionary from the same time period sometimes just to clarify that the modern "educated" Liberal viewpoint did not exist when the document was penned. Most western state constitutions state that any person not found incompetant by a judge (mental patients etc) has the right to keep and bear arms. Historically that would mean whatever the norm for an infantry soldier to carry. No one is saying we have the right to bear nukes for instance or even small field cannon (those were kept at the armory historically). Normal infantry arms today would include handguns, rifles (M16) and even 40 mm grenade launchers and SAW machineguns. If you pull out the militia argument you get into the whole automatic weapon can of worms. A hearing before the supreme court touching on the definition of arms would be interesting indeed. the only other gun case that went before the supreme court was over a sawed off shotgun during the prohibition era. The defendant was a moonshiner. Unable to prove the moonshine charges the gov went after his shotgun. His case was defended probono and the lawyer did not prepare a brief when it went before the supreme court nor did he appear. It is widely believed that had he appeared that case would have overturned the newly formed gun laws and firmly established the second amendment case law.

[C5 Golfer]

This was never questioned until recently. The concept of it being only for the national guard is silly since the guard wasn't federalized until WWI. If it was intended for a militia then that would mean any male between 18 and 8o according to my state constitution. ITs clearly an individual right if you have read any of the history behind it. It helps to pull out a law dictionary from the same time period sometimes just to clarify that the modern "educated" Liberal viewpoint did not exist when the document was penned. Most western state constitutions state that any person not found incompetant by a judge (mental patients etc) has the right to keep and bear arms. Historically that would mean whatever the norm for an infantry soldier to carry. No one is saying we have the right to bear nukes for instance or even small field cannon (those were kept at the armory historically). Normal infantry arms today would include handguns, rifles (M16) and even 40 mm grenade launchers and SAW machineguns. If you pull out the militia argument you get into the whole automatic weapon can of worms. A hearing before the supreme court touching on the definition of arms would be interesting indeed. the only other gun case that went before the supreme court was over a sawed off shotgun during the prohibition era. The defendant was a moonshiner. Unable to prove the moonshine charges the gov went after his shotgun. His case was defended probono and the lawyer did not prepare a brief when it went before the supreme court nor did he appear. It is widely believed that had he appeared that case would have overturned the newly formed gun laws and firmly established the second amendment case law.

I have often wondered about the " Machine Gun Transfer Tax" -- lets just for arguments sake say the tax is ok, The Feds allow private ownership of a true machine gun -- but here in WA State they are outright illegal... I wonder if this was pushed to the Supreme Court if it could be inforced? Not that I want or need a true Machine gun. Hmmm. I can see the headlines now -- State of WA v. C5 Golfer

[dingbat]

This was never questioned until recently. The concept of it being only for the national guard is silly since the guard wasn't federalized until WWI.

I believe this way of interpreting the second amendment was first made popular in the wake of our civil war by southern democrats in an effort to disarm freed slaves so as to make it easier for the democratic paramilitary groups (K.K.K., Red Shirts, White League, etc.) to wipe them out.

It is an individual right. Gun violence sucks and is a problem, but striking down the second amendment is not the way to deal with it. At the root of gun violence is violence, the gun is only a modifier. Anyone seen what the Salvadoran gangs have been doing with machetes lately? Some comunities are considering making this yard care tool illegal now.

[Dr D]

yes do a search on jim crow laws. The first inroads to personal freedom began with bigotry. We are free but they shouldn't be. concealed carry laws were all jim crow laws in the beginning. same thing in texas and California only mexicans were the target.

[Jack M]

Even Michael Mooreon knows that lawful gun ownership is not a problem. He concludes this at the end of Bowling for Columbine.

Canada has higher gun ownership per capita than the US.

[FTA2R]

i love the semantics here.

yeah, maybe it's not the root problem - i'll give you that...but that FACT that it is an enabler- yeah, then it can logically be thought of as a PART of the problem.

"Its one thing to feel passionately about something based solely on hearsay and/or a negative experience. Its quite another thing to research and view all the facts and then make a reasoned decision about something.

I don't buy a lot of these arguments. Of course my argument cannot be logically proved (guessed at, yes) but if you had 0 guns in the world, i think it's Generally agreed upon common sense that there would be fewer muders. Yes, sure, there would be still homocides...but just look at European countries - they don't have 20K homocides, not even close.

but i digress, wouldn't want Big John to have only 20 pieces instead of 30.....

[skategoat]

Even Michael Mooreon knows that lawful gun ownership is not a problem. He concludes this at the end of Bowling for Columbine.

Canada has higher gun ownership per capita than the US.

Totally untrue.

Per 100 civilians, according to 2007 Small Arms Survey.

US: 90

Yemen: 61

Finland: 56

Switzerland: 46

Iraq: 39

Serbia: 38

France: 32

Canada: 31

Austria: 31

Germany: 30

Firearms - absolute figures:

US: 270 million

India: 46 million

China: 40 million

Germany: 25 million

France: 19 million

Pakistan: 18 million

Mexico: 15.5 million

Brazil: 15.3 million

Russia: 12.7 million

Source:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_rapped_over_poor_data_on_gun_ownership.html?siteSect=105&sid=8148895&cKey=1188328994000&ty=st

I'll believe the Swiss before I believe Michael Moore.

[dingbat]

I'll believe the Swiss before I believe Michael Moore.

Headline of the article you linked to:

"Swiss rapped over poor data on gun ownership"

Quote from article:

"Estimates on gun ownership in Switzerland vary between 1.2 to 12 million"

In my opinion, gun ownership, gun regulation, and homicide rates do not necessarily corrolate, or in cases where they do, provide sufficient evedence that one causes the other. Look at Brazil, Jamaica, and Mexico on one side of the coin, and Switzerland, Isriel, and Norway on the other. I think that we see both sides of the argument able to manipulate figures to support their case so easily because gun laws make no diference one way or the other.

I would encourage anyone who cares about this issue to read the SCotUS's entire opinion on the D.C. vs Heller decision.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Also check these out:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Jacobs2.html

[skategoat]

Headline of the article you linked to:

"Swiss rapped over poor data on gun ownership"

Quote from article:

"Estimates on gun ownership in Switzerland vary between 1.2 to 12 million"

In my opinion, gun ownership, gun regulation, and homicide rates do not necessarily corrolate, or in cases where they do, provide sufficient evedence that one causes the other. Look at Brazil, Jamaica, and Mexico on one side of the coin, and Switzerland, Isriel, and Norway on the other. I think that we see both sides of the argument able to manipulate figures to support their case so easily because gun laws make no diference one way or the other.

I would encourage anyone who cares about this issue to read the SCotUS's entire opinion on the D.C. vs Heller decision.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Also check these out:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Jacobs2.html

Swiss data may be poor but Michael Moore's "data" is just made up.

[dingbat]

Swiss data may be poor but Michael Moore's "data" is just made up.

You'll get no argument from me there.:D

I just laughed when that headline poped up.:D

[Dr D]

I have yet to hear a review of "more guns less crime" from any new readers. check it out people. especially those of you spouting statistics that may or may not be divinely inspired. Its an eye opener and very well cited.

[Dr D]

Montana rejected the patriot act and all its provisions. ITs hard to find but its on the ACLU website. I saw the hardcopy yesterday but haven't looked it up online yet. the whole history of the bill is there. I guess Habeus Corpus is still alive and well in at least one state provided you know how to handle a dumb cop.