Happy!

[jimboecv]

Today is a happy day, America! 

[johnc]

perchè?  prego dicaci.

Today is a happy day, America! 

[707soldier]

   

[cloudseeker]

The guns thing? 

(I'm guessing not the stock market decline, the state burning up, or...).   Or maybe you're just drunk at zeitgeist?   

[707soldier]

The guns thing? 

(I'm guessing not the stock market decline, the state burning up, or...).   Or maybe you're just drunk at zeitgeist?   

Yes, we have a winner! Gun rights, Heller affirmed! 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[jimboecv]

ding!  I'm drunk at home, Dan.

[sally101]

Yes, we have a winner! Gun rights, Heller affirmed! 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2 of my favorite D-bag interpretations of this:

"The People" refers to the collective people, and the cops and military protect "The People" therefore this does not apply to individuals..

and

"bear Arms" is a military term. It's only used in a military context. Therefore this is really talking about state police and the National Guard.

 

[707soldier]

2 of my favorite D-bag interpretations of this:

"The People" refers to the collective people, and the cops and military protect "The People" therefore this does not apply to individuals..

and

"bear Arms" is a military term. It's only used in a military context. Therefore this is really talking about state police and the National Guard.

 

finally after 200 years, the 2nd Amendment is more clear.
DC vs Heller Supreme Court ruling 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[mostrobelle]

Although I don't really like guns I don't have a problem with a decision to support the right of people to have them.
I'm neutral on this decision...I think the bad guys who shouldn't have guns will still get them, but this just makes it easier for regular folks to have them if they want them.  Don't really see how much will change.   

[duckwrench13]

Just remember, if you have to shoot someone in your home, make sure you put the body in the bedroom. If you shoot someone, in self defense of course, in your home, it's only considered "self defense" if the intruder is in your bedroom. If you shoot them anywhere else in the house, it can be considered murder.
I have a very close friend in the D.A.'s office, and they confirmed this. They stated a case where the victim was tried for murder because she shot an intruder in her home, in the living room. The courts said if the intruder was in her room, then it was obvious he was there intentionally to harm her, and self defense was justified.

Hmmm.... last time I checked, anyone who was wrongfully entering my home, anywhere in the home, was there for less than friendly intent, and therefore I would be using self defense.

Personally, I'd rather run a knife through 'em, from gut to gullet, so I could watch the look of "Oh sh*t, I shouldn't have come here!" in their eyes. Is that wrong?

[desmoquattro]

Although I don't really like guns I don't have a problem with a decision to support the right of people to have them.
I'm neutral on this decision...I think the bad guys who shouldn't have guns will still get them, but this just makes it easier for regular folks to have them if they want them.  Don't really see how much will change.   

I wish things were this clear-cut, 'Belle. There's still a huge debate about interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and I'll diplomatically try to steer clear of those arguments on this forum.

I'm a gun owner, but I wouldn't dream of keeping it in the home for the purpose of self-defense. You're much better off calling the police and getting the hell out of the area. Even cops and others with extensive firearms and self-defense training sometimes (more frequently than you might expect) have their guns taken away from them by the very people the firearms are supposed to protect against. That's one of the reasons my shotgun stays locked up...only to come out for the occasional round of skeet shooting.

There's also the factor that a lot of people who keep guns around for self-defense end up shooting someone they know, or end up not handling the firearm properly and put a bullet into the wall. My dad (who was a cop for 30+ years) did this on more than one occasion, as did many of his coworkers. That's why I believe in keeping guns locked up, and have no problem with laws mandating gun safes and other effective safety measures. Keep the damn thing in a safe, not loaded and under your bed.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on whether an outright ban is effective. I generally have no issue with responsible gun ownership. But to me, responsible gun ownership does not include keeping a gun out and ready to shoot someone creeping down your hallway at night. There are far more effective ways to deal with that (a stout door and a snarling pit bull come to mind) 

[mostrobelle]

I wish things were this clear-cut, 'Belle. There's still a huge debate about interpretations of the 2nd amendment, and I'll diplomatically try to steer clear of those arguments on this forum.

I'm a gun owner, but I wouldn't dream of keeping it in the home for the purpose of self-defense. You're much better off calling the police and getting the hell out of the area. Even cops and others with extensive firearms and self-defense training sometimes (more frequently than you might expect) have their guns taken away from them by the very people the firearms are supposed to protect against. That's one of the reasons my shotgun stays locked up...only to come out for the occasional round of skeet shooting.

There's also the factor that a lot of people who keep guns around for self-defense end up shooting someone they know, or end up not handling the firearm properly and put a bullet into the wall. My dad (who was a cop for 30+ years) did this on more than one occasion, as did many of his coworkers. That's why I believe in keeping guns locked up, and have no problem with laws mandating gun safes and other effective safety measures. Keep the damn thing in a safe, not loaded and under your bed.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on whether an outright ban is effective. I generally have no issue with responsible gun ownership. But to me, responsible gun ownership does not include keeping a gun out and ready to shoot someone creeping down your hallway at night. There are far more effective ways to deal with that (a stout door and a snarling pit bull come to mind) 

I whole heartedly agree with everything you've posted here.  I just don't see how being responsible with a gun has anything to do with the right to own one.  It's apples and oranges. 

[desmoquattro]

I whole heartedly agree with everything you've posted here.  I just don't see how being responsible with a gun has anything to do with the right to own one.  It's apples and oranges. 

There's certainly a constitutional (e.g. rights) issue at hand here, one which I mentioned I was avoiding The DMF is no place to start a holy war. But the court's ruling speaks explicitly about self-defense, which for me touches on responsible gun ownership which in turn inevitably leads to the rights discussion. Just as a car is a dangerous item that's even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands, a gun is a dangerous item (probably less so than a car, from our experience ) and is even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands. But any attempts to to mandate training or licensing are construed by some as an infringements on rights. There's your slippery slope right there 

I've also found it a bit odd that there aren't many folks out there who are consistent in their beliefs in other aspects of the Bill of Rights. A lot of First Amendment absolutists are definitely not absolutists in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. And I'd venture that the vast majority of Second Amendment absolutists (Libertarian-leaning folks excepted) don't believe at all in the First Amendment. Ditto that for the Fourth Amendment protections against search & seizure and the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. And our American form of politics-as-bloodsport doesn't help matters. Instead of sitting down as reasonable people trying to solve our common problems, things like this turn into a shouting match.

[desmoquattro]

Oh, and let me add to my comments above the following:

Thanks goodness this isn't BARF...because this thread over there would have turned into a flame war.

[Desmostro]

I've always held a view from an historic stand point. One of human antiquity rather than politic.

It used to be that the biggest man would take whatEVER he wanted from everyone else.
Now any armed grandma can stay her ground against anyone else without having to train like a martial artist.  The need for finesse/skill has been replaced by technology.

On a basic individual level arms are the great equalizers. On a societal scale with large % of populous owning arms in the US, has afforded a comfort that is expressed quite clearly in even our architecture having vast frontal sections made of thin glass. Do you know how bizarre this is to people from other places?

What’s to keep anyone – even a child from walking right in with a simple stone in hand? “Reassured-destruction.”  Reganomics aside , its clearly worked for generations.

Socially things have changed dramatically. Which leads to the problem DQ mentioned about being trained AT ALL! The technology needs to change again and so does the training. Common sense just isn’t common anymore.

+1

There's certainly a constitutional (e.g. rights) issue at hand here, one which I mentioned I was avoiding The DMF is no place to start a holy war. But the court's ruling speaks explicitly about self-defense, which for me touches on responsible gun ownership which in turn inevitably leads to the rights discussion. Just as a car is a dangerous item that's even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands, a gun is a dangerous item (probably less so than a car, from our experience ) and is even more dangerous in untrained or irresponsible hands. But any attempts to to mandate training or licensing are construed by some as an infringements on rights. There's your slippery slope right there 

I've also found it a bit odd that there aren't many folks out there who are consistent in their beliefs in other aspects of the Bill of Rights. A lot of First Amendment absolutists are definitely not absolutists in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. And I'd venture that the vast majority of Second Amendment absolutists (Libertarian-leaning folks excepted) don't believe at all in the First Amendment. Ditto that for the Fourth Amendment protections against search & seizure and the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. And our American form of politics-as-bloodsport doesn't help matters. Instead of sitting down as reasonable people trying to solve our common problems, things like this turn into a shouting match.