• Welcome to the Zelda Sages Forums!

    The Zelda Sages Community Forums are a fun and easy way to interact with Zelda fans from around the globe. Our members also have access to exclusive members' only content. Register and/or log in now! Please note that user registration is currently disabled. If you would like to register please contact us.

Gun Control

webmasterbob

webmasterbob

The Webmaster
Associated Press said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Click to expand...

The decision has been made, the Supreme Court essentially shot down 95% of all current gun control laws; discuss :).

Edit: I just took a portion of the article to save space. If you're interested in the full article it can be read here.
 
Quite a few possibilities here...

  1. Murder will increase
  2. Murder will decrease
  3. Vigilantes increase
  4. Rise in gangs
What will happen exactly? Only time will tell I suppose..
 
No matter what, the "bad guys" will still get the guns. They will be smuggled in one way or another. There really is no point to it.
 
Today is a victory for the constitution.

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."
Click to expand...
 
Ugh. The Second Amendment is an antiquated holdover from the time when the occasional coup was a good, even necessary, thing to prevent the government from growing too powerful. The appositive clarifying the rights of a militia to its regulated armory cannot be applied to ordinary citizens in this day and age. More than two hundred years later, I think that we can be pretty sure the government's stable - and that bull**** from Scalia? Don't make me laugh. You can defend yourself without a handgun, but it's pretty hard to rob a house with a rifle.
 
Let me translate the English language so everyone can understand.

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.
Click to expand...

A militia that will keep the security of the country and the right of people to bare arms, shall not be infringed.
 
animaldude said:
Let me translate the English language so everyone can understand.
Second Amendment said:
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.
Click to expand...
A militia that will keep the security of the country and the right of people to bare arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
Hyperbaton - a figure of speech in which words that naturally belong together are separated from each other for emphasis or effect

The use of commas brackets off the majority of the Amendment as clarification text. With the removal of the hyperbatons, the remaining words need no clarification - A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Nothing there about the rights of the individual citizens. Keep in mind that the Constitution was a Federal document, and the original intent of the Bill of Rights was to secure, in addition to individual rights, states rights. The Second Amendment ensured the continued existence of distinct state militias, seperate from the Federal army. With the advent of rapid troop transport, standing localized armies are unnecessary, and the Second Amendment is irrelevant. The issue of personal rights to bear arms was never addressed by the Bill of Rights, and so the modern twisting of the Second Amendment is doubly dishonest.
 
Versac said:
The issue of personal rights to bear arms was never addressed by the Bill of Rights, and so the modern twisting of the Second Amendment is doubly dishonest.
Click to expand...
Modern twisting?

The right to bear arms has been practiced since the birth of our country. There is no modern twisting and that sentence is not a hyperbaton. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" are two completely different things being addressed in the same sentence. This is regarding the defense of the country, and the defense of oneself.

Well now that times have changed we need to "interpret" the constitution differently!

That is absolute bull ****.
 
Constitutional language aside I believe if you are a law abiding citizen there is no reason you should not be allowed to have a gun for protection. Honestly, think about it this way...

The law abiding citizens won't have guns. Criminals, really dirty criminals, will always find ways to get guns (like people always find ways to get illegal drugs, etc). All the bad criminals who illegally obtain guns will attack the law abiding citizens who does not have a guns....and there's nothing that any law abiding citizen can do to stop the criminal (or prevent themselves from getting hurt)
 
Linkman said:
Constitutional language aside I believe if you are a law abiding citizen there is no reason you should not be allowed to have a gun for protection. Honestly, think about it this way...

The law abiding citizens won't have guns. Criminals, really dirty criminals, will always find ways to get guns (like people always find ways to get illegal drugs, etc). All the bad criminals who illegally obtain guns will attack the law abiding citizens who does not have a guns....and there's nothing that any law abiding citizen can do to stop the criminal (or prevent themselves from getting hurt)
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic?

In this day and age, I think people should have a gun/handgun as long as they are properly trained in the usage of such weapons, mental health tests, stuff like that. Guns save lives as easily as they take lives. I have lived around guns all my life, with both my dad and my gradnfather as cops and gun instructors. They've taught me gun safety, so I know how to safely handle, clean, and use a gun.

On that note, I went to the Police Range the other day and outshot most of the force with my dad's pistol ;)
14/15 w00t!
 
I think that every person with a gun license (who is mentally sane) should be able to have a gun on their person at all times that do not directly interact with important political figures. This would greatly increase the self defense of the average American citizen. Anyways I'd love to be able to carry a gun in my purse in case I had to shoot any rapists! :)
 
Gunslinger Girl said:
I think that every person with a gun license (who is mentally sane) should be able to have a gun on their person at all times that do not directly interact with important political figures. This would greatly increase the self defense of the average American citizen. Anyways I'd love to be able to carry a gun in my purse in case I had to shoot any rapists! :)
Click to expand...

In there lies a problem. Mentally stable or not, if everybody had a gun, either crime will go up, murder go up, or both will go down. But who is to say, that if a women shot a man, she couldn't just use the excuse, "He tried to rape me!"
 
Gun Control only strips the lawful citizens of their defence the crimainals will still get guns the same way as they do drugs in order to combat them the lawful citizen should have the right to own and the knowlege to use a fire arm wheter a hunting shot gun or a privitly purcashed pistol or a relic from an old war left to him by his grand daddy

and ahmen to what gunslinger girl said when I grow up i should have the right to have a .45 ACP on my hip at most times
 
People should go through more tests to make sure they are mentally fit to have one. No they shouldn't be outlawed entirely, but it is way to easy to get one and some people have guns that really shouldn't, cops included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top