BF2S Forums U.S. top court upholds gun rights

It has to be an individual right, otherwise it would only exist as another state power.

In order to have a militia you need to have people who have guns and other weapons in their homes so should the need arise they can grab their guns and spill out into the street to defend the nation.

It is phrased as an individual right and for the 2nd amendment to have any effectiveness it has to be an individual right.

Our forefathers knew first hand the dangers of permitting the government to have a monopoly on firearms. Just look to Europe where the people are defenseless sheep, or in more modern speak "human resources."

I think the court could have went further because a well equipped militia would require military grade hardware, not just firearms. But this is good middle ground position that should help a lot of people defend themselves in their own homes and given the economic collapse and the soon to be rampant crime rates, it comes at a perfect time.

Remember cops only show up after the crime has occurred to mop up the blood and file a report. It always has been and continues to be up the home owner to defend himself, if he wants to live and not become a mere statistic.

tbh the amendment blatantly suggests that anyone in a militia should have the right to bear arms, which tbh makes sense and would be a good law. That way you ensure only responsible people have legal access to guns.

HurricaИe wrote:

The gun ban certainly didn't help our crime rates in DC. Who would you rob, a guy in Texas who is legally allowed to shoot first and ask later? Or a guy in DC who has only his fists and a baseball bat?

The issue is how exactly they were proposing to stop criminals from just bringing guns from outside DC into DC. The DC laws did everything to stop legal gun owners and nothing to stop illegal gun owners and was therefore stupid.

National gun laws make sense, but drawing a line on the ground and saying you can have guns on one side but not the other is pointless unless you can realistically prevent people from getting a gun into the gun free zone. So for example, the White house is a sensible gun free zone. Few doors, plenty of security checks. DC however is a stupid gun free zone, bugger all way to stop guns from getting in.

The real problem with a ban is that you can't protect yourself with a gun at all. If you have one and use it on a criminal robbing your place, you've just committed a crime. And nothing will stop the criminal from having gun bought in a neighboring state. Bans are not a good idea.

And the right to bear arms is an individual right. Structurally the right to bear arms was placed with the Bill of Rights, that's the place we find individual rights. Therefore the 2nd amendment should share that characteristic. The Bill of Rights is not the place to look for new state powers therefore the 2nd amendment is not a state power to regulate a militia, for something like that you would need to find it in the Articles of the Constitution.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-06-26 16:35:09)

Marinejuana wrote:

the mere fact that we reduce our right to bear arms to a right to bear guns demonstrates how this right has been seriously handicapped to the effect of deterring tyranny. the world's tyrants control vast forces of tanks, jets, choppers, and all your favorites from bf2. it leaves us in a kind of potential rock paper scissors game where we always have to be paper, and they will always be scissors.

most of us look at this like a small victory, and i welcome the evident shred of sense left in our judicial and political system, but the sad truth is that we lost this right long ago. now you have the right to bear arms as a militia as long as you are less equipped than a Vietnamese farmer.

Vilham wrote:

tbh the amendment blatantly suggests that anyone in a militia should have the right to bear arms, which tbh makes sense and would be a good law. That way you ensure only responsible people have legal access to guns.

see ironchef's post for the correct definition of militia. militia =/= military

I know what a militia is...

ATG wrote:

Anybody else troubled by the fact that 4 of 9 do not think the SA applies to citizens?!?

Yes.  This is why I voted for Bush, conservative judges.

paul386 wrote:

Now we need to ban federal agents from carrying weapons and allow citizens to own any weapon that US Police forces are aloud to use. Furthermore no one should have to qualify themselves or tell the government they have the weapon.

wow

chittydog wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

There really is no argument.

I agree and wasn't trying to argue, just help you see why they might think that way. Personally, I always interpreted it the same way as you.

Still sort of interesting when people aren't sure of something but are still willing to axe it.

Home wrote:

Should our armories get to match those of the police? SWAT? Allowing people to own the same weapons as the military is a bad idea IMO.

Leaving me with what?  A slingshot and a compound bow?  Until the cops start patrolling with belt fed machine guns, I'll at least keep up with their firepower.  I'm not concerned with overpowering cops, and they aren't concerned with overpowering me.  I just don't rely on them for my protection.

Home wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Home wrote:

Should our armories get to match those of the police? SWAT? Allowing people to own the same weapons as the military is a bad idea IMO.

Leaving me with what?  A slingshot and a compound bow?  Until the cops start patrolling with belt fed machine guns, I'll at least keep up with their firepower.  I'm not concerned with overpowering cops, and they aren't concerned with overpowering me.  I just don't rely on them for my protection.

OK, maybe police wasn't a great one. But SWAT, at least, generally have more access to higher powered weapons than the average citizen does. And what do you mean they aren't concerned with overpowering you? Of course they are, if they can't overpower a normal citizen then what are they going to do when anyone commits a crime?

The founding fathers would agree that normal citizens SHOULD have the latest models of firearms of the period.  WHY?  This is the very reason at the heart of the inalienable right to bear arms (not the 2A..which is talking about that inalienable right to equip a well regulated militia) is important..to "throw off the government" should it become tyrranical.  The idea all our forefathers agreed on was that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.  In the 200+ years this nation has been around, the last century or so the ideals of foolish and unwise stewards (our government) has changed that policy to make us all think that we should be in fear and awe of our government (police, swat, black suits and hats).  You can't control a populace that isn't afraid of you.  And as any real American "should" testify to, the government should fear the people..not the other way around.  Laws in California leave the majority of us thinking we should rely on police to be there in minutes when seconds count.  When you're burglarized, assaulted, frauded, harassed, etc...what number should we dial?  Exactly...never mind taking up those balls you got and defending yourself in a timely manner according to the god given rights you are given.

On that note...is it truly better to be able to repel an intruder in your home with your own means, or is it better to rely on police who'll show up after you and your family are robbed, raped, and slaughtered?  That's what matters.  When our government resembles that of the English from the movie "V for Vendetta" should we submit or revolt?  American's have revolted long ago but we've forgotten that lesson and unlearned what that sacrifice has purchased for us with blood and more.

Anyway..preaching here.  If there's a problem with police and swat being equally armed with citizens who may commit crime, then there's only an issue of training..which they should excel at.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-06-29 19:58:06)

Reciprocity wrote:

Home wrote:

OK, maybe police wasn't a great one. But SWAT, at least, generally have more access to higher powered weapons than the average citizen does. And what do you mean they aren't concerned with overpowering you? Of course they are, if they can't overpower a normal citizen then what are they going to do when anyone commits a crime?

I'm a normal citizen, legally capable of owning nearly any firearm.  I interact with cops every day, they aren't worried about me and my guns, I don't commit crimes, armed or otherwise.

First off, it doesn't sound like you are a normal citizen because most citizens don't interact with cops every day. I know I don't.

Now, excuse me for not clarifying, but I did not mean "you" as in you, Reciprocity, specifically. I meant it generally as in you, the average citizen. In which case, yes, they are worried about "you." Any citizen is a potential criminal, and any one of them could be armed. If they weren't worried about it, then why would they carry weapons at all?