Supreme Court upholds right to own guns

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
That's what journalists|reporters have said in the news around here.

Not according to interviewed police officers, only the higher ups in the mob have security and prosperity, at least for a slightly longer period of time than the small fries.

The highered guns go after drug lords and their spots and are always in risk of betrayal or death due to vengeance|retribution. They do take cash for other unrelated jobs though, you just need the cash and a target.

It's easier to hire a mole than do it that way.

Originally posted by Strangelove
3 times, actually.

Places with loose gun control laws make me feel less safe, not more safe.

Then you know that DC is a pretty hard place. I wouldn't feel safe in certain areas if I wasn't strapped.

Anti-gun people seem to think that making them illegal will also make them magically disappear. But the only thing it will accomplish will be making them illegal. Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was.

Which is why I'm wondering why people use the "I feel less safe" argument. Assassins are not the only ones who can get guns. It will be smuggled regardless and just make them more of a hot commodity.

If you are worried about the sucidial gunman then we need to discuss society and what makes an individual get to that point. Anyone with decent self-esteem, decent home, and concerned community is very unlikely to reach that point. It's not music or videogames that start those thoughts nor can you blame porn for rapists. It is way deeper than that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then you know that DC is a pretty hard place. I wouldn't feel safe in certain areas if I wasn't strapped.

Anti-gun people seem to think that making them illegal will also make them magically disappear. But the only thing it will accomplish will be making them illegal. Banning guns in this country will be about as effective as Prohibition was.

As of October 1, 2005, Florida became a "Stand-your-ground" state. The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

1) It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

2) In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

3) In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

4) If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'd be scared to death walking down a street in Florida.

So get a gun yourself.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Being a pacifist, I don't anticipate using a gun in the near future.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So get a gun yourself.

I don't have a gun. I don't see a need for one yet. I'm still on the fence with the whole gun possession.

"My grandfather had calluses on his hands a quarter of an inch thick from holding the guns in Vietnam."

-My little sister

The US is such a quirky country.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So get a gun yourself.

Get body guards and bullet proof vehicle. It's best when you can shoot and be untouched. I don't like the mutually assured destruction possibility. It is best that I can kill with impunity, especially if one day I get presidential aid and thus have the luxury of presidential pardons.

The ability to kill for whatever reason with no possibility of retribution legal or otherwise, now that tastes good.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The US is such a quirky country.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
I don't like the mutually assured destruction possibility.

Fred Thompson said that the VA. Tech massacre wouldn't have happened if every student had been allowed to have a gun. How does that logic not apply to the notion that every country has it's own nuclear weapons? Which he and his party were against. It really comes down to bargaining chips. Don't f*** with me and I won't f*** with you. This logic has little substantive basis when confronted by the idea that one of the two is willing to "pull the trigger". But it certainly has a place in the idea that substantive dialouge can be acheived. And I certainly believe it can be acheived.

As I have long said, the cold war was marketed as a war of words with no groud conflict; but it absolutely had a ground conflict, and it took place in the middle east. For almost 70 years it has been the battle ground for the world powers, and it seems to me they are tired of it and a little bit pissed off over that fact. As unAmerican as it might sound, I think they're justified in being tired that they're pawns of the rest of the world. And why shouldn't they be the pawns when the world powers think they're more evolved and that those nations are the 3rd world? Look at Egypt, as an example. They're fast developing a modern nation with all the trappings of a 1st world infrastructure and media, but they are no less an islamic nation. And the reality of "western" morals and ideas are pervasive there. Their on-camera women are not covered by barbaric garb and their male hosts are open to speak about sexuality. I think the modern American christian right needs to come to grips with the fact that they have way more in common with the supposed "enemy", the islamo-fascists, than they do with the majority of their own country.

The idea that we are righteous and moral because many in this country believe in their religion to the utmost and others who feel the same some how divides us is ricockuous! It's the average person, who sees past the JesusIsAlive level of hypocrisy, that defines us. It's not the fantatics in both camps. But they're certainly marketed as such, and it's the people who fall for it that are plastered all over the media. Well, as supposedly-christian as this nation is advertised, not many people fall in -line with the christian agenda. This is why the democrats could have chosen a plumber from Iowa to be their candidate and will win. Because this country is tired of being told what it believes. As it is, we have a well-read, capable and modern candidate that fulfills all the ideas of what a modern leader should be. and if anyone is wondering, its not John McCain.

It's pride weekend; so slap on your leather pants and inject saline into your nutsack, it's time for a change.

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
Get body guards and bullet proof vehicle.

You have to pay body guards, and they're expensive. Bullet proof cars are ridiculously expensive, and require the same upkeep and have all the same problems as other cars. Not to mention, the insurance on those things is unreal.

You can get a good handgun at any gun-store for about 700 bucks, and even cheaper if you have connections. They're also concealable, where as a team of bodyguards and armored car are like wearing neon signs.

Originally posted by Devil King
Fred Thompson said that the VA. Tech massacre wouldn't have happened if every student had been allowed to have a gun. How does that logic not apply to the notion that every country has it's own nuclear weapons?

I'll tell you: shooting some whacko with a gun who's shooting at you to save your own skin isn't going to wipe out 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. Allowing an elderly man to carry a concealed handgun for his own protection isn't the same as allowing nutcase world-leaders to have nukes. Not even close.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'll tell you: shooting some whacko with a gun who's shooting at you to save your own skin isn't going to wipe out 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. Allowing an elderly man to carry a concealed handgun for his own protection isn't the same as allowing nutcase world-leaders to have nukes. Not even close.

But the difference is in the logic. Not only would a huge majority of those kids not carry guns, but he was illustrating that he had no place on the world scene. I can totally see the elderly man with a concealed gun, pulling out his weapon as fast as a nutcase world leader. I've passed old men on the street that would gun me down for holding my boyfriend's hand as fast as I'm sure he would have you for being a job-stealing mexican, no matter what actual hispanic nationality you are.

either everyone has the bomb and are willing to use it, o no one is. There's always the very real notion of mutually assured destruction. Well, if the psycho has the bomb, as does the do-gooders, then the idea that we all need the bomb becomes the danger. But, what if no one has the bomb? And how unrealistic is that? So there's really only one option to be considered.

I actually own 9 guns. I still don't think I'm comparable to Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

Originally posted by Devil King
But the difference is in the logic. Not only would a huge majority of those kids not carry guns, but he was illustrating that he had no place on the world scene. I can totally see the elderly man with a concealed gun, pulling out his weapon as fast as a nutcase world leader. I've passed old men on the street that would gun me down for holding my boyfriend's hand as fast as I'm sure he would have you for being a job-stealing mexican, no matter what actual hispanic nationality you are.

either everyone has the bomb and are willing to use it, o no one is. There's always the very real notion of mutually assured destruction. Well, if the psycho has the bomb, as does the do-gooders, then the idea that we all need the bomb becomes the danger. But, what if no one has the bomb? And how unrealistic is that? So there's really only one option to be considered.

That sums it up pretty well. Obviously everyone should not have a gun (and the ruling certainly supports this).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What exactly is the rationale behind owning 9 guns?

Also, it is fun for some to got target shooting. Some people (just about everyone) tell me that it is a nice stress reliever to go target shooting. Each type of gun brings a different feel and element to the shooting range. It is quite reasonable to go a couple of rounds with one hand gun and then switch to another and get a very different experience. (Aiming, kickback, weight of the pistol loaded/unloaded, etc.)

I like medium range target shooting. Something that's far out but not too far that it requires a scope. I could see myself, if I owned any guns, using several rifles and then just for fun, trying hand guns at that range.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I actually own 9 guns. I still don't think I'm comparable to Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmedinijad.

Well, I'm not comparing you to those men; I'm comparing the logic displayed in everyone owning a gun to the logic of one nation deserves to have nukes while most others don't.