this is an open discussion forum. keep it clean. personal attacks on private citizens will not be tolerated. you may discuss politics if you like but you may not rip or endorse specific local candidates.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
supreme court upholds right to bear arms...
but only by a 5-4 vote.
the ruling struck down the district of columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns.
in america we cant import cigars from Cuba......but we will buy oil from Hugo Chevez.........american people are trying to paddle upstream against republican tyranny and stupidity
DC should be able to have any law it wants to. After all they have no voting representation in Congress or the Senate. We went to war over taxation without representation and Yet the people of DC still have to pay taxes.
republicans say they are for states right and big government should leave decisions up to the states,,,,,,,but the 5-4 court decision showed the 5 republican judges ruled against local control.....gave decision to higher power.........same as they did in 2000 when they over ruled the florida supreme court and gave the election to Bush....so much for the republican smaller government, states rights, leave us alone
Chicago and DC both had similar gun laws. Chi for 25 years and DC for 32 years. Yet Katie Couric couldn't even resist commenting to the Mayor of DC that even with that law being in force for so long DC still had one of the highest crimerates in the nation. Chi also has a very high crime rate.
It reinforces what we in the south have known all along! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
The guns in DC and Chicago come from areas just like this all over the United States where any idiot can buy a handgun. A gun ban doesn't work because someone simply buys a handgun legally and sells it to a crook.
It is true in the USA that any crook can buy a gun. Even a freaking idiot would know they are going to buy a handgun even if the want one because we are a nation overloaded with handguns.
If you want to look at a system that works look at Australia or any other nation that controls guns uniformly across the entire nation. It works very well there because they can't just meet someone somewhere and buy 30 pistols to take home to the home boys.
Think about this. Why aren't the criminals or terrorists or nut cases commonly using grenades or bioweapons or nuclear weapons? Because we don't have millions of them floating around everywhere.
The handgun ban didn't stop the problem and it didn't encourage it either because anyone that wanted one could own one. The ONLY thing the law did was help law enforcement take guns away from the crooks when they were caught with one.
Just wait until any drunken idiot can go on campus with a gun.
4:30PM the reason we rednecks dont care if they have guns is because it saves us bullets-because the DAN's shoot each other we dont have to do anything but sit back and laugh
Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".
Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."
It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.
A gun ban has never worked anywhere. The problem with liberals is they want to enfoce laws that they believe will work while refusing to look at the facts.
1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1 2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2 * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3 * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4 * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5 3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States: * In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. * "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7 * The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8 4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics. * The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11 * British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data: a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12 b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13 c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14 * Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15 * Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16 5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:
High Gun Ownership Countries Low Gun Ownership Countries
Country Suicide Homicide Total* Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Switzerland 21.4 2.7 24.1 Denmark 22.3 4.9 27.2
U.S. 11.6 7.4 19.0 France 20.8 1.1 21.9
Israel 6.5 1.4 7.9 Japan** 16.7 0.6 17.3
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people. ** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides. Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.
6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. * Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18 * Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19
Anon 10:16 PM, I agree with 7:34: You need to go read the Constitution.
10:16 said: republicans say they are for states right and big government should leave decisions up to the states,,,,,,,but the 5-4 court decision showed the 5 republican judges ruled against local control BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Here's a civics lesson for you: Yes, we're for States rights, because the Constitution guarantees States rights of which the Federal Government continues to trample. Not only are we for states rights, we also defend Individual rights given to us by God, which are protected by the Constitution; among one of these being the right to bare arms.
The Constitution is a contract between 3 entities:
1. The Federal Government 2. The States 3. And the people
This is not a state's right issue. Its an individual's right issue.
Concerning your 5-4 court count, the justices are neither Republicans nor Democrats, they are Good or Evil. Good being ones like Roberts who interrupt the Constitution and Evil being the ones who just make stuff up and legislate from the bench.
Is Evil a strong word? In this case it is not. If you had a contract to buy a house, and a judge arbitrarily started reading things into that contract that effected you negatively just because he had an agenda, then that would be Evil. The same goes for those judges who read stuff that is not there in our contract between the States, the Federal Government and we the People.
Any drunken idiot CAN go on a campus with a gun. What's your point? Those poor souls on that hypothetical campus don't have a right to defend themselves?
Concerning terrorist, explosives are illegal on airliners but terrorist still manage to get on them and blow them up from time to time.
I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is: don't take away my God given right to defend my family, my community and my property.
33 comments:
i'm gonna bear em if they didnt uphold it.
Washington D.C. has one of highest crime rates in U.S. so I would say the ban on handguns didn't mean s@it!
That place D. C. makes you want to be loaded for bear. Good move by the court.
another day, another devalued dollar....
gs is going up and opening a glock shop
they are all armed illegally anyway.
in america we cant import cigars from Cuba......but we will buy oil from Hugo Chevez.........american people are trying to paddle upstream against republican tyranny and stupidity
umm..democrats control congress.
4:55 If I had a paddle I would shove it so far up your liberal a** that your throat would have splinters.
Good One Bruce.
4:30 PM, YOU'RE IGNORANT! I love black folks and I want them to be able to defend themselves (and me) if they have to!
DC should be able to have any law it wants to. After all they have no voting representation in Congress or the Senate. We went to war over taxation without representation and Yet the people of DC still have to pay taxes.
republicans say they are for states right and big government should leave decisions up to the states,,,,,,,but the 5-4 court decision showed the 5 republican judges ruled against local control.....gave decision to higher power.........same as they did in 2000 when they over ruled the florida supreme court and gave the election to Bush....so much for the republican smaller government, states rights, leave us alone
Chicago and DC both had similar gun laws. Chi for 25 years and DC for 32 years. Yet Katie Couric couldn't even resist commenting to the Mayor of DC that even with that law being in force for so long DC still had one of the highest crimerates in the nation. Chi also has a very high crime rate.
It reinforces what we in the south have known all along! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
You people are fools.
The guns in DC and Chicago come from areas just like this all over the United States where any idiot can buy a handgun. A gun ban doesn't work because someone simply buys a handgun legally and sells it to a crook.
It is true in the USA that any crook can buy a gun. Even a freaking idiot would know they are going to buy a handgun even if the want one because we are a nation overloaded with handguns.
If you want to look at a system that works look at Australia or any other nation that controls guns uniformly across the entire nation. It works very well there because they can't just meet someone somewhere and buy 30 pistols to take home to the home boys.
Think about this. Why aren't the criminals or terrorists or nut cases commonly using grenades or bioweapons or nuclear weapons? Because we don't have millions of them floating around everywhere.
The handgun ban didn't stop the problem and it didn't encourage it either because anyone that wanted one could own one. The ONLY thing the law did was help law enforcement take guns away from the crooks when they were caught with one.
Just wait until any drunken idiot can go on campus with a gun.
10:16 - instead of sounding stupid, why don't you read the constitution first.
4:30PM the reason we rednecks dont care if they have guns is because it saves us bullets-because the DAN's shoot each other we dont have to do anything but sit back and laugh
i like the right to to bare arms
i like the right to bare breasts even more.
its good for my constitution.
Australia Gun Control - Big Failure
Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).
Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).
In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".
Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."
It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.
A gun ban has never worked anywhere. The problem with liberals is they want to enfoce laws that they believe will work while refusing to look at the facts.
Simply put, the constitution gives you the right to own fire arms.
The States can not have a law that restricts an individual's Bill of Rights.
Like it or not, its the law.
Military, Federal, Law Enforcement, and Firefighters keep....
Military, Federal, Law Enforcement, and Firefighters keep....
Military, Federal, Law Enforcement, and Firefighters keep....
The Communist Manifesto -
- Take guns away from private citizens.
Im happy 5 of the justices were not communist. Now we need to get rid of the 4 who were.
If obammy gets elected he's gonna appoint another demo-idiot!
1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:
High Gun
Ownership Countries
Low Gun
Ownership Countries
Country
Suicide
Homicide
Total*
Country
Suicide
Homicide
Total*
Switzerland 21.4
2.7
24.1
Denmark 22.3
4.9
27.2
U.S. 11.6
7.4
19.0
France 20.8
1.1
21.9
Israel 6.5
1.4
7.9
Japan** 16.7
0.6
17.3
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.
6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19
People are getting smarter. They are starting to see that if you take away legally owned guns crime WILL go up.
Anon 10:16 PM, I agree with 7:34: You need to go read the Constitution.
10:16 said:
republicans say they are for states right and big government should leave decisions up to the states,,,,,,,but the 5-4 court decision showed the 5 republican judges ruled against local control BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Here's a civics lesson for you:
Yes, we're for States rights, because the Constitution guarantees States rights of which the Federal Government continues to trample. Not only are we for states rights, we also defend Individual rights given to us by God, which are protected by the Constitution; among one of these being the right to bare arms.
The Constitution is a contract between 3 entities:
1. The Federal Government
2. The States
3. And the people
This is not a state's right issue. Its an individual's right issue.
Concerning your 5-4 court count, the justices are neither Republicans nor Democrats, they are Good or Evil. Good being ones like Roberts who interrupt the Constitution and Evil being the ones who just make stuff up and legislate from the bench.
Is Evil a strong word? In this case it is not. If you had a contract to buy a house, and a judge arbitrarily started reading things into that contract that effected you negatively just because he had an agenda, then that would be Evil. The same goes for those judges who read stuff that is not there in our contract between the States, the Federal Government and we the People.
3:21 AM,
Any drunken idiot CAN go on a campus with a gun. What's your point? Those poor souls on that hypothetical campus don't have a right to defend themselves?
Concerning terrorist, explosives are illegal on airliners but terrorist still manage to get on them and blow them up from time to time.
I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is: don't take away my God given right to defend my family, my community and my property.
kevinc - you said that very well
good
Post a Comment