Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 77

Thread: Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kutztown PA
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.
    I hope you don't own a swimming pool then Jack, or let your children play at a home which owns one. Many more children die in swimming pool accidents each year than in gun accidents. There are plenty of guns at my house, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never shot anyone or their child while they were here. You were here, and I didn't shoot you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.
    Guns are illegal in just about any way shape and form in places like Canada and England. So why is gun crime on the rise in these places? Why do they have any gun crime at all? DC is the perfect example. It has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet it has one of the highest rates of murder. In places where honest people are allowed to own and carry guns, the murder rate as well as the crime rate is significantly lower. If you really look at how many guns are out there and compare the number of people who own them legally to the number of crimes occurring with them, you will see that the use of a gun in a crime is statistically very small.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....
    You ought to try buying a gun in your own state Jack. You would find our very quickly how restrictive NJ is. Want to carry one? As they like to say in Joisey, "fuggedaboutit!" It doesn't seem to stop the bad guys in Camden, Trenton, Jersey City, etc though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.
    Read some history books Jack. People have been murdering one another since day one. Cain did not use a gun on Abel. Check out the crime statistics for a gun free society like New Zealand, and you will find a lot more in the way of stabbing and bludgeoning deaths, since they can't get their hands on guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.
    Do you really think that people are going to start shooting one another up more now that guns are legal to keep in DC? Criminals are just that, and have no regard for the law whatever that law might be. You are a lawyer Jack, you know that. It is already against the law to kill people, regardless of how one might do it, so I fail to see how you can possibly say that now that people can have a legal gun in their house for protection, more people are going to be killed in drive by shootings. If anything, a few more people might be killed breaking and entering, but now it will be more likely that the bad guy is going to get it rather than the innocent homeowner.


    None of this even begins to address the real reasons for the 2nd Amendment, but I will not go into those to avoid having this thread shut down.

    Bill

    Edited for spelling error.
    Last edited by Bill Grumbine; 03-10-2007 at 12:11 PM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Little Rock, AR.
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Grumbine
    Red some history books Jack.

    Bill
    Or possibly even quicker read the actual DC court decision. As they cover many of the major points behind it.
    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Plymouth County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hogoboom
    Wish I could agree with you guys, but I'm afraid my conscience won't let me. If you look at history, one of the things the British tried to do during their occupation of America was to strip firearms from the population, precisely for the purpose of disarming the "civilian militia." With all due respect, if you read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings of the time, it isn't at all clear that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to do anything other than to allow for the formation and arming of a local militia.

    I don't begrudge someone the right to own a gun if they have a rational reason for having it and have demonstrated their competence with it. Personally, I wouldn't want a gun anywhere in my house, nor would I let one of my children play in a house if I knew there was a gun there. It simply isn't worth the risk.

    It can't possibly be denied that America has the highest murder rate in the civilized world. It is no coincidence that our society makes guns more readily available than almost any other society on the planet. Just to the North of us, Canada has a murder rate that is a fraction of ours. In many other places, the police don't even carry firearms.

    As a parent of four small kids, I am all for reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms. Those who want them and can demonstrate responsibility in using them should be free to have them. However, it is very difficult for me to see why someone should be allowed to own a handgun without restriction. It is easier to get a gun in this country than a drivers' license. Yet no one doubts the wisdom of having people prove their basic competence before giving them the right to drive a car....

    The NRA and other gun proponents like to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is exactly the point. If you limit the right of someone to own an unlicensed handgun, you make it that much harder for someone to kill someone else in a fit of anger or passion. If it is harder to do or requires something other than the pulling of a trigger, maybe it wouldn't hapen as much.

    So for those of you cheering this decision, please continue to be safe with your firearms. For me, this is yet another sad example of how special interests triumph over common sense. Your joy will be more than offset by the anguish and grief of a parent in D.C. whose kid gets killed next week in a drive-by shooting.
    Let's not be naive...the guns (millions of them) are out there and no law is going to make them go away. Hundreds of thousands of people pack a gun "illegally", unfortunately alot of them are the criminal element. The law abiding people , on the whole, are responsible and abide by the law and do not carry without permit. Right now, the laws are so bent from our rights, that is is near impossible to get these permits.
    Alot of people probably don't know how many people were against going against King George and his England. Most of them were well "connected" and enjoyed the "government" in total control. I am no fanatic, but I can see our government getting out of control again. Some say it is already too late. Just remember, that no matter how many laws they make, the criminal element will always have their protection, and those at the Boston Tea Party were considered the "criminal element"

    Gary K.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lewiston, Idaho
    Posts
    28,504
    Jack......whether or not firearms are involved.....the reason for those driveby shootings is a failure of parents to responsibly raise their children and a failure of society to hold people responsible for their actions. Until I was say age 12, if ANY adult saw me doing something I should not be doing, if they'd smacked my bottom and my parents found out, my parents would have called them up and thanked them. More than once when I was introduced to a paddle in school because I needed disciplining. Parents not being heavily involved in raising their kids and teaching their kids morale values is the reason those driveby shootings occur. A lot of folks want to say that having both parents working is the reason there isn't more parental involvement in raising their kids. Both my parents worked. As the oldest of 6 kids I got to babysit the clan most the time.

    I was raised with guns. Started hunting with my father, carrying a 22 rifle at the age of 9. Bought my first shotgun at age 13. Still have that shotgun. I raised 3 kids. My oldest son is a local deputy sheriff. My daughter works for an airline in Customer Service though...she has a degree in automotive mechanics and she's been both a police officer and a deputy sheriff and she's quite pretty and petite I might add. She's not a gorilla like her Dad. My youngest son is in the Navy on a Navy scholarship at the dental school at the University of Texas Houston. None of my kids hunt but they all shoot. They didn't enjoy hunting and that's fine. They were raised around guns. Gun were kept out of their reach when they were young. They were taught that guns are not toys and they were taught to handle them responsibly when they became old enough to understand what they were. And they knew I'd grow them an inch if I or my wife caught them playing with a gun....they are not toys.

    I got drafted in 1968. I quickly enlisted in the Navy. I was the ultimate pacifist. 11 days before leaving for Navy bootcamp I met a young woman on a blind date. 3 days later I asked her to marry me. 8 days later after signing my checking account and savings account over to her I left for Navy bootcamp. She was a young blonde divorcee with 2 towheaded kids. We married two days after I came home from bootcamp. I nearly lost her to cancer in 1993. In 1970 while stationed in Brunswick GA I was at school and a man came into the house we were renting and tried to rape her. When I got home that evening I was and am NO LONGER a PACIFIST. Believe me it was a life altering experience....for me........A short time later I had a 16 gauge pump shotgun in the house for personal protection. I will defend my family. BTW...I adopted those 2 twoheaded kids ...they know it...and they call me Dad. We had our third child in 1972.

    Those criminals commiting the driveby shootings....most of them have the guns illegally already. At least now, DC residents have an option of arming themselves in self defense.
    Ken

    So much to learn, so little time.....

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Arena, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Outten
    …….Another point is that our ability to own firearms is the only protection we have from our own Government and our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.
    Keith,
    “…the only protection”? “…our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.”?

    I have long thought that the checks and balances of the three branches of the USA government, combined with the one person, one vote system is a most wonderful system. Is what you are proposing contained in the US Constitution? If so, I missed that part.

    Please supply a reference to the Article, Section and Clause.

    Thank You,
    Frank Chaffee

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Little Rock, AR.
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Chaffee
    Keith,
    “…the only protection”? “…our means of protecting our right to overthrow the Government if necessary.”?

    I have long thought that the checks and balances of the three branches of the USA government, combined with the one person, one vote system is a most wonderful system. Is what you are proposing contained in the US Constitution? If so, I missed that part.

    Please supply a reference to the Article, Section and Clause.

    Thank You,
    Frank Chaffee
    It's contained in the Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers that detail the debate leading up to the writing of the US Constitution. In fact it's contained in the very spirit of why this country was formed.
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
    The 2nd Amendment was a required addition to the Constitution, required by the Anti-Federalists component of those states that were represented during the writing and signing of the US Constitution, to insure that "we the people" always had the tools required should this action be needed again. Thomas Jefferson once stated that it was his expectation that it would be required most likely once per generation or about every 20 years or so. Luckily he managed to help forge a Republic that was a bit stronger than that.

  7. #22

    Read the Judge's opinion

    Get it here:
    http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

    It is easly the most accessable well documented analysis on Second Amendment history, law, and theory I have seen to date. The Judge does not swamp the reader with incomprehensible crap trying to get angels on the head of a pin to dance, he is rather straight up and to the point.

    It's a good read the dissent by Karen Lecraft is well written but not so well documted.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Plymouth County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,933
    Yes, there are three branches of government but unfortunately they are not working like our founding fathers envisioned. Judicial activism is run rampant here in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
    We have judges overturning the will of the people. In this state they (judges) are going against our constitutional right to vote. And even when we vote for something the jugdes have the gall to overturn the will of the voters. One particular case is where they had a partition signed by the required amount of voters to put the question of marriage by same sex people on the ballots. They are actually preventing the citizens from voting on it.
    Where does it end? I don't think our founding fathers envisioned people in black robes telling the masses what is good or not good for us.
    I know this is the good old USA but erosion of rights is sometimes so gradual that it is often times never seen till you are far down the road.
    Gary K.

    Gary K.
    Last edited by Gary Keedwell; 03-10-2007 at 4:32 PM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Little Rock, AR.
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Rohrabacher
    Get it here:
    http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf

    It is easly the most accessable well documented analysis on Second Amendment history, law, and theory I have seen to date. The Judge does not swamp the reader with incomprehensible crap trying to get angels on the head of a pin to dance, he is rather straight up and to the point.

    It's a good read the dissent by Karen Lecraft is well written but not so well documted.
    Only real problem I saw with Judge Lecrafts dissent was her inability to realise that "state" as used in the 2nd refered to a "state" of being as opposed to a State of the union.

    But another good read is the US V. Emerson decidion of the 5th Curcuit Court in TX.
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Virginia
    Posts
    14,760
    Frank,

    I had the Declaration of Independence in mind when I made the statement concerning the peoples right to overthrough the Government. The second paragraph mentions our rights and our responsibility to remove our Government and initiate a new Government in two separate places. These remarks were not specific to just the British Crown.

    I can provide the text if you don't have a copy of the document.

    Who can question our right to overthrow our Government when that is exactly what the our ancestors did in the late 1700's.

    The intent of Article II is very clear to me in that citizens may become a militia when necessary to provide for the security of the State, which is exactly what happened during the Revolutionary War. We cannot do that if we are not allowed to keep and bear arms. "The Militia" was comprised of citizen soldiers who were called to arms and represented the largest portion of our defense capability during the Revolutionary War, they were not professional soldiers.

    .

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Carlyle IL
    Posts
    2,183
    you know, the shooting sports are a wonderful family acitivity.

    I love shooting clay birds with the boys. Hopefully, the girls will take interest.

    I also love Quail hunting.

    I also enjoy owning well built firearms.

    Joe

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Imlay City, Mich
    Posts
    807
    The Lefts side veiw of the second amendment is twisted. Just think what would happen if they decided that the rights are founding fathers devised were only meant for a select few? They were written for everyone. If I could go back in time I would have it reworded to say "In order to ensure a free state, ALL citizens are required to buy, purchase,and own firearms and will be uncondtionally authorized to store, house, keep, carry, and conceal on their person such arms to protect self, family, hearth, home and country and to keep government fearful of the governed" something like that that would be so simple and plain that even Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady couldn't argue the point.
    Michael Gibbons

    I think I like opening day of deer season more than any udder day of the year. It's like Christmas wit guns. - Remnar Soady

    That bear is going to eat him alive. Go help him! That bear doesn't need any help! - The Three Stooges

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Arena, Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,272
    Thank you Keith, Dave, et al, but I cannot see the Second Amendment guarantee of the citizenry’s right to bear arms “As a well regulated Militia…” as an invitation to overthrow the US government by the use of firepower for any reason. Nor can I see the Declaration of Independence, which was specifically directed to the British colonizers of this land, as a textbook for how we should deal with societal problems in our future.

    Since that declaration we have created a revolutionary framework of governance by democracy. Citizens can vote! Also since that time Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience, the Mahatma Gandhi inspired the millions in the British colony of India to nonviolently repel their oppressors, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King led a nonviolent movement in the US.

    Especially in this age where unimaginable weaponry is at our disposal, I suggest that we use other, and perhaps higher human functions for resolving our disputes. Every place around the globe where I see guns being used as an attempt to settle problems, I see horrific pain and destruction of innocent lives. I hope that we will focus our innate intelligence on seeking better ways to ensure that every child born on this earth has the opportunity to live a full and prosperous life.

    Please note that I did not weigh in on the court decision that originated this thread, just Keith Outten’s post to this thread.

    Peace,
    Frank Chaffee

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kutztown PA
    Posts
    1,255
    Frank, if this were a perfect world, we would not need to resort to violence to protect ourselves or our way of life, or what we perceive to be our rights. When the Constitution was originally written, it was implied and understood by those writing it that the states would have the right to secede. Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, several New England states began the process, but did not get the support they needed, and it fizzled out. Later on, a number of southern states peacefully withdrew from the Union. We all know what came of that.

    The problem, and one that our founding fathers recognized, is that government is always going to grow itself and appropriate more power for itself. They put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution to give the people the wherewithal to protect themselves from overreaching intrusive government. They would be aghast to see what we live under today. They revolted for a lot less than we tolerate in this country now.

    If you look at recent world history, two of the biggest gun grabbers were Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Just look at the results of the rule of those two men alone. Between the two of them they managed to orchestrate the death of tens of millions of people, many of them their own citizens. It all started with confiscating the private arms owned by the citizenry. Once that was accomplished, the rest was easy. It could happen here too. I will not say Democrat or Republican, because I think there is not a dime's worth of difference between them anymore. They are all statists, increasing the size of the State at the expense of the citizenry.

    I could go on about what I think will be the perfect government, but that would inject religion into an already volatile political discussion.

    Bill

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Little Rock, AR.
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Chaffee
    Thank you Keith, Dave, et al, but I cannot see the Second Amendment guarantee of the citizenry’s right to bear arms “As a well regulated Militia…” as an invitation to overthrow the US government by the use of firepower for any reason. Nor can I see the Declaration of Independence, which was specifically directed to the British colonizers of this land, as a textbook for how we should deal with societal problems in our future.

    Peace,
    Frank Chaffee
    No one has ever suggested that it was there to imply that it was a first choice solution. And even Gandhi realized this.
    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), _Gandhi, An Autobiography_, page 446

    I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. T-2-4

    Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. T-2-131

Similar Threads

  1. Welcome to new member Jonathan Szczepanski (who is buiding a new workshop)
    By Frank Pellow in forum General Woodworking and Power Tools
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 06-06-2007, 10:42 PM
  2. No Justice for Imaginary Mystic Dwarves!
    By Damien Falgoust in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-04-2006, 9:34 AM
  3. Ipe Table is Center of Guest House Court
    By Mark Singer in forum General Woodworking and Power Tools
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-21-2004, 6:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •