|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:14:53
|
I'm a fence sitter when it comes to guns. On the one hand I think the ease of aquiring guns has resulted in many an untimely demise. But on the other hand an armed public is in some ways comforting, especially with 'leadership' like we've had these last 8 years. Of course the compromise position is to allow gun ownership but to have a rigorous licensing process....but I digress.
The fence aside, I've never given credence to the plainly false idea that the 2nd Amendment was anything but a protection of the ability the states to maintain armed militia should it find itself oppressed by the Federal govt. And yet smarter men than I have just decided that the Framers intended for citizens to have hand guns to protect their homes from crime; specificially hand guns so they could dial the phone while holding the weapon on their burgler.
Yes, that's what Scalia wrote for the majority:
| Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_15
But the Constitution doesn't mention burglars or self defense from crime of any sort. I thought conservatives were literalists, believing that the constitution should be interpreted as written and in context. There is no way anyone could come to this court's conclusion without having a specific agenda outside the business of interpreting the Constitution; that is what we have here is an activist conservative court.
Interesting stuff.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:29:48 [Permalink]
|
Damn activist judges...
/sarcasm |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 06/26/2008 13:29:38 |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 10:37:05 [Permalink]
|
I see no major issues here, really there are no "state" militias anymore, its all part of the US Military. That said, in a sane world we might limit such things, but alas we don't live in a sane world.
I don't own a gun or plan to. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 11:50:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I see no major issues here, really there are no "state" militias anymore, its all part of the US Military. That said, in a sane world we might limit such things, but alas we don't live in a sane world.
I don't own a gun or plan to.
|
The only issue I have is with drawing the conclusion that the 2nd Ammendment was somehow intended to apply to me pointing a handgun at a burglar's chest while dialing the police. It clearly was not. That aside, I'm pretty much with you on the gun thing, though I'd like to see comprehensive background checks and a reasonable wait period (call it a 'cooling off' period) for those seeking guns. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 13:07:43 [Permalink]
|
A: You do not point the pistol at anything that you do not intend to shoot, period! After getting the job done, then you call the cops. That way, you don't lose concentration whilst farting around with a dangerous prisoner and get killed yourself. "Ok Louie, drop dat gat!" only works in the movie house.
B: As a life-long adherent to the shooting sports (including a couple of minor championships), all with the short gun, including hunting, I'm delighted to see this ruling.
C: Crazy people, drug addicts and emotional blowouts, among others, have no business with any firearm. Screening needs to be a lot more rigorus, perhaps not so much as I went through to get my concealed carry license, but there are gaps in the system that need closing. I remind of the VA Tech shooting. That kid should never have been let anywhere near a firearm, as his disorder was pretty well documented. It goes without saying that felons fall into the same catagory -- HA-HA, you hear that, Tommy DeLay, you fucking thief? I a flaming liberal, still have my ticket; where's yours? (For those who haven't kept track: TX yanked DeLay's concealed carry as soon as his long overdue, felony charges came down. Sweet!)
In short, the ruling is a good one. We have the right to protect ourselves and our families in the best way we can. However, having the piece and using it are not one and the same thing. Too many people simple buy the pistol and drop it in a drawer. If called upon to actually use it, too many would be at a loss and end up shooting everyone but the subject in a tight situation. If you must have a pistol, learn to shoot it. Because, to repeat myself, "OK Louie," ain't hittin' on shit. And you just might find shooting the handgun to be a lot of fun out on the range.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 15:51:47 [Permalink]
|
| Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." |
I'm not a big fan of that statement. A hand gun may be the preferred weapon for most people. If you are not trained in the use of a hand gun you are more then likely to have the weapon taken away and used against you. Once a person points a gun at another person they are committed. You have two choices, shoot or don't shoot. Police and soldiers are trained to take a persons life. The average home owner is not.
May purchase a gun to protect his family and may never think about actually using it for that purpose. No one can accurately predict what they will do under extreme stressful situations. Expert shooters who bulls eye the target ten out of ten times may never hit the mark under stress.
| You do not point the pistol at anything that you do not intend to shoot, period! After getting the job done, then you call the cops. That way, you don't lose concentration whilst farting around with a dangerous prisoner and get killed yourself. "Ok Louie, drop dat gat!" only works in the movie house |
Filthy makes an excellent point. But only under certain conditions. Under the Castle law I believe all states agree their must be a life threatening situation. You can't shoot someone who breaks into your home if their is no threat.
The occupant/home owner must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home.
Let's look at the Scalia quote. You're on the phone calling the police, the gun pointed at the bad guy's chest. The bad guy decides to run, can you shoot him in the back. Absolutely not. Why not, because their is no threat of danger. Shooting the suspect would be manslaughter.
My advice is every homeowner should have the best security system they can afford. If you insist on a weapon think about a non lethal one. I strongly suggest MACE, you will not think twice about using it. It costs less then a gun and you can empty the can on an intruder. Mace can be described as having saw dust thrown in your eyes. With in seconds it causes a person to drop to their knees. Boogers run from their nose, gaging and coughing and a burning sensation occur, screams of pain can be heard for blocks.
|
Paul C. |
| Edited by - Coat Of Arms on 06/26/2008 15:53:08 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 16:09:05 [Permalink]
|
| you said boogers |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 16:26:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coat Of Arms
My advice is every homeowner should have the best security system they can afford. If you insist on a weapon think about a non lethal one. I strongly suggest MACE, you will not think twice about using it. It costs less then a gun and you can empty the can on an intruder. Mace can be described as having saw dust thrown in your eyes. With in seconds it causes a person to drop to their knees. Boogers run from their nose, gaging and coughing and a burning sensation occur, screams of pain can be heard for blocks.
|
Some people may have a problem with bringing mace to a gun fight. Can mace disable from 30 feet? I do not own a gun because I have 2 young children and I do not feel comfortable having one around with them in the house. However I think it is the best way to protect youself and family if you are responsible with it. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 17:06:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coat Of Arms
| Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." |
I'm not a big fan of that statement. A hand gun may be the preferred weapon for most people. If you are not trained in the use of a hand gun you are more then likely to have the weapon taken away and used against you. Once a person points a gun at another person they are committed. You have two choices, shoot or don't shoot. Police and soldiers are trained to take a persons life. The average home owner is not.
May purchase a gun to protect his family and may never think about actually using it for that purpose. No one can accurately predict what they will do under extreme stressful situations. Expert shooters who bulls eye the target ten out of ten times may never hit the mark under stress.
| You do not point the pistol at anything that you do not intend to shoot, period! After getting the job done, then you call the cops. That way, you don't lose concentration whilst farting around with a dangerous prisoner and get killed yourself. "Ok Louie, drop dat gat!" only works in the movie house |
Filthy makes an excellent point. But only under certain conditions. Under the Castle law I believe all states agree their must be a life threatening situation. You can't shoot someone who breaks into your home if their is no threat.
The occupant/home owner must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home.
Let's look at the Scalia quote. You're on the phone calling the police, the gun pointed at the bad guy's chest. The bad guy decides to run, can you shoot him in the back. Absolutely not. Why not, because their is no threat of danger. Shooting the suspect would be manslaughter.
My advice is every homeowner should have the best security system they can afford. If you insist on a weapon think about a non lethal one. I strongly suggest MACE, you will not think twice about using it. It costs less then a gun and you can empty the can on an intruder. Mace can be described as having saw dust thrown in your eyes. With in seconds it causes a person to drop to their knees. Boogers run from their nose, gaging and coughing and a burning sensation occur, screams of pain can be heard for blocks.
|
You are correct; you can't legally shoot someone stealing your TV. But you certainly can climb his frame. Also, if, as you start at him, he should throw the set at you, you can pull the trigger. Another thing, if he is trying to kick down your door, you can shoot through that door.
Another interesting aspect: if you are a witness to a fight there are situations where you can shoot even though you are not directly involved. You were passing a bar's parking lot and see this big guy drag someone else out of the bar, and proceed to beat him into insensibility, you can "put yourself in the victim's place" and in fear of his injury or death, you can shoot to put a stop to it.
Howsomever, in the scenero above, the big guy suddenly finds out that he's picked on the wrong man. He's getting a worse beating that what he wanted to give his victim and he's about to pass out, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it so leave the shoot in your pocket. Because, you see, even though winning the fight, the law sees him as still the victim.
Howsomever again, if, before he gets his windpipe crushed, the big guy says: "Ok, I quit! You're the man; let me up and you'll never see me again," and if |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 18:25:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
In short, the ruling is a good one. |
I agree with everything you said except this. Just because it affirms a right you and I think everyone should have doesn't mean it's a good ruling. The ruling declares the 2nd Amendment preserves everyone's right to defend their homes with a hand gun and that is clearly not the intent of the 2nd Ammendment. Period. It's improper to take a kinda-sorta gun-related Amendment and intentionally take it far out of context to invent a right the framers never intended for us to have. If Americans really want the right to own a hand gun codified in the Constitution, there needs to be an new Amendment. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 20:08:13 [Permalink]
|
Can we get some data on this, please? I'm hearing a lot of assertions without anything behind them on this matter (not necessarily here).
Can we quantify the number of civilians "helped" via firearms, and compare it to the number of civilians "harmed" by firearms (per year, per 100,000)?
By "helped" I mean, of course, the number of innocent people who repelled home invasions, shot thieves, avoided getting carjacked, etc...
By "harmed" I mean, of course, the number of innocent people who were shot or suffered property damage, even by their own hand.
By "firearms" I mean any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, etc.
By "civilians" I would include off-duty law enforcement and military, so long as the events don't have them jumping into duty (for example, a cop showing a friend his gun collection when some accident occurs).
I don't know anyone who has successfully defended themselves with a firearm. I do know a guy who almost shot his mother-in-law with a shotgun. And I know a guy who was trying to make sure that a rifle was unloaded when it went off and shot his buddy in the foot. And I know a guy who was cleaning an old rifle, decided to put a cartridge in it to check the bolt action, and shot the end of his thumb off (the doctors actually transplanted one of his big toes onto the stump).
So my personal experience says that firearms are all risk and no benefit (sports shooting aside for the moment). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
just_some_guy
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 20:38:32 [Permalink]
|
| The occupant/home owner must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home. |
IN-FUCKING-TRUDER..as in , broke the fuck in to my home, I do not know about you mister former law-dawg; but that raises my eyebrows at least enough to sound off some warning bells as to this dude is not about selling bibles( then again ?)
Coat says:| My advice is every homeowner should have the best security system they can afford. If you insist on a weapon think about a non lethal one. I strongly suggest MACE, you will not think twice about using it. It costs less then a gun and you can empty the can on an intruder. Mace can be described as having saw dust thrown in your eyes. With in seconds it causes a person to drop to their knees. Boogers run from their nose, gaging and coughing and a burning sensation occur, screams of pain can be heard for blocks. |
Mace huh? No thanks I will put my trust in my Glock m21 w/ 185grain golden sabres. Mace is for postal workers dealing with dogs; not for home intrusions where my family might be at risk.
I should also mention that if one wants a good home security 'system', but wants to advoid the right of owning a firearm, try a dog( maybe even one of those 'nasty/mean" rottweilers or german shepards)
To me, telling lawful citizens to shy away from firearms is on par as saying that "a person should not vote cause some one else is watching out for them.."."don't vote.. but feel free to express your displeasure; maybe even sign this form."
I do not mean to be hostile towards CoA, as I've been reading these forums for a bit of time and rarely find a need to respond, but when I see a man that claims to be a former law enforcement officer basicaly say "do not own gun" my alarm bells ring loud enough to wake the dead.
We need more people to exercise the rights of gun ownership and self defense, not less.
If one wants to discuss the needed basic traing behind gun ownership, and the reprecussions of using lethal force in order to defend one's self, I am all ears( maybe less mace talks and more police volunteer training to gun buyers),but to suggest mace as a deterrent for home invasion in my opinion is dangerous.
edited for /quote error
|
| Edited by - just_some_guy on 06/26/2008 20:46:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 20:51:08 [Permalink]
|
1st... Scalia is a piece of crap. In a rational world the right-wing-nutz would also be calling him an activist judge for looking to a "historical narrative" to inform his decision on this case.
But really...
The second ammendment has been interpreted as granting the right of personal gun ownership for what, 200+ years? I'm with the right-wing-nutz on this topic. I have a right to own a gun.
Also, the "historical narrative" of which Scalia speaks does support his decision. One of the responsibilities of citizenship, or so many of the framers thought, was to check the power of government. Historically, in the European monarchies, only royalty or peers had the right to carry arms.
Dave_W asked:
| Can we get some data on this, please? |
I have only correlation: The crime rates in FL have decreased every year (except the last one or two where data is available) since the implementation of concealed carry legislation. Certain crimes locally to me (carjacking mainly) have become almost unheard of in local news.
There just isn't any data out there (that I am aware of) that can settle this particular aspect of the gun vs no-gun argument in a way that will satisfy a skeptic audience.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 20:53:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Can we get some data on this, please? I'm hearing a lot of assertions without anything behind them on this matter (not necessarily here).
Can we quantify the number of civilians "helped" via firearms, and compare it to the number of civilians "harmed" by firearms (per year, per 100,000)?
By "helped" I mean, of course, the number of innocent people who repelled home invasions, shot thieves, avoided getting carjacked, etc...
By "harmed" I mean, of course, the number of innocent people who were shot or suffered property damage, even by their own hand.
By "firearms" I mean any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, etc.
By "civilians" I would include off-duty law enforcement and military, so long as the events don't have them jumping into duty (for example, a cop showing a friend his gun collection when some accident occurs).
I don't know anyone who has successfully defended themselves with a firearm. I do know a guy who almost shot his mother-in-law with a shotgun. And I know a guy who was trying to make sure that a rifle was unloaded when it went off and shot his buddy in the foot. And I know a guy who was cleaning an old rifle, decided to put a cartridge in it to check the bolt action, and shot the end of his thumb off (the doctors actually transplanted one of his big toes onto the stump).
So my personal experience says that firearms are all risk and no benefit (sports shooting aside for the moment). |
Dave W., you should also include an estimate of the number of crimes that have been averted because the potential victim might have a weapon. The idea of a "hard target" may work. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 21:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I see no major issues here, really there are no "state" militias anymore, its all part of the US Military. That said, in a sane world we might limit such things, but alas we don't live in a sane world.
I don't own a gun or plan to. |
The National Guard Unit for each state is its militia, as defined in the Constitution. They can be called by the president, but they work for the governors of their respective states.
I don't see a question here. If you're in the National Guard, you can own a firearm. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2008 : 21:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by just_some_guy
| The occupant/home owner must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home. |
IN-FUCKING-TRUDER..as in , broke the fuck in to my home, I do not know about you mister former law-dawg; but that raises my eyebrows at least enough to sound off some warning bells as to this dude is not about selling bibles( then again ?) |
To an extent it doesn't matter. There are very specific laws regarding the use of deadly force (such as pointing and firing a gun at somebody).
If my 9-year-old cousin breaks into your house, it is unlikely that your life is threatened...unless, of course, if he's carrying a loaded weapon, eh? Thus, there is no reason for you to shoot him unless there is a credible risk to you or your family. Not only that, it's very illegal for you to do so.Coat says:| My advice is every homeowner should have the best security system they can afford. If you insist on a weapon think about a non lethal one. I strongly suggest MACE, you will not think twice about using it. It costs less then a gun and you can empty the can on an intruder. Mace can be described as having saw dust thrown in your eyes. With in seconds it causes a person to drop to their knees. Boogers run from their nose, gaging and coughing and a burning sensation occur, screams of pain can be heard for blocks. |
Mace huh? No thanks I will put my trust in my Glock m21 w/ 185grain golden sabres. Mace is for postal workers dealing with dogs; not for home intrusions where my family might be at risk. |
Have you ever been MACEd? Can you vouch for its lack of efficacy?
Have you ever looked into the statistics of childhood deaths for gun owners vice those for non-gun owners? Are you really ensuring the safety of your family?| I should also mention that if one wants a good home security 'system', but wants to advoid the right of owning a firearm, try a dog( maybe even one of those 'nasty/mean" rottweilers or german shepards) |
Yes, dogs are very effective deterrents.| To me, telling lawful citizens to shy away from firearms is on par as saying that "a person should not vote cause some one else is watching out for them.."."don't vote.. but feel free to express your displeasure; maybe even sign this form." |
Perhaps it's more like saying, "you are far more likely to be endangering yourself and your family by owning a gun than you are likely to be protecting anyone."| I do not mean to be hostile towards CoA, as I've been reading these forums for a bit of time and rarely find a need to respond, but when I see a man that claims to be a former law enforcement officer basicaly say "do not own gun" my alarm bells ring loud enough to wake the dead. |
Why? What about Coat of Arms's post causes you to doubt his former profession as a policeman? What about his post rings alarm bells "loud enough to wake the dead?"| We need more people to exercise the rights of gun ownership and self defense, not less. |
Care to back that up with some evidence that owning a gun enables self defense?| If one wants to discuss the needed basic traing behind gun ownership, and the reprecussions of using lethal force in order to defend one's self, I am all ears( maybe less mace talks and more police volunteer training to gun buyers),but to suggest mace as a deterrent for home invasion in my opinion is dangerous. |
Emphasis mine
People should definitely be educated on firearm safety, just as teenagers should be taught how to use a condom. I don't particularly want them to use them, but I absolutely want them to do it safely.
I will turn around your last statement and instead say that to suggest keeping a firearm as protection from home invasion is dangerous. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
SCOTUS Hand Gun Decision
