Supreme Court ruled today on the D.C. gun ban

[trish]

True freedom is about ascertaining what is in OUR best interests, since the best interests of one individual will always conflict with the best interests of another. I'm glad you agree with the current gun laws. I agree with you, that guns don't kill people, people do (typically with guns). That's why the N.J. law doesn't require guns to get permits, it requires people to get permits (for their guns). Ever ask yourself why cities and states with high crime rates implement gun regulation? I think you will find the high crime rate came first and then the gun regulation. Moreover the rate goes down after the regulation is in place. Ever ask yourself why most police are for regulation of firearms?

[zippylongorgan]

I have trish and the answer I come up with is that the police, for all their good points and bad points, are an 'arm' of the state. The state doesn't want anyone to have a gun. The police are under no obigation to protect us as individuals. They can only respond after a crime has been commited. If you were being threatened by a psycho and called the police they would tell you that they can do nothing unless the threat is carried out. Are you willing to stake your life on that? Sure they may talk to the psycho but that would only make it worse, ultimately our own safety is our own responsibility. Those people who commit heinous crimes(school shootings and the like) are sick and should have been stopped long before they could carry out their plan(you don't think the parents of those columbine kids didn't know that their kids were capable of such acts?) ultimately responsibility starts and stops with the individual. All the gun laws on earth could not have prevented that, but the parents could have, if they had taken the responsibility.

[zippylongorgan]

And to Tomfurbs, the firearms industry is well regulated if you want to blame someone blame the 'state'(ATF and local municipalities) for dropping the ball, the laws are there they're just not enforced.

[El Nino]

True freedom is about ascertaining what is in OUR best interests, since the best interests of one individual will always conflict with the best interests of another.

ehhhhhhhh, WRONG....

True freedom is the exact opposite, and has nothing to do with "OUR" as it does, to each individual having their own personal sets of freedom.

This is "True freedom" as you say. Not freedom of a socialized variety.

[Oli]

True freedom is the exact opposite, and has nothing to do with "OUR" as it does, to each individual having their own personal sets of freedom.

This is "True freedom" as you say. Not freedom of a socialized variety.

Your idea of freedom only works if there is no one else around.

You will note that the Preamble to the Constitution says We the People... not I, the individual.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident..., not I believe.

If you want all the freedoms you believe you are entitled to, buy an uninhabited island and move there. You live in a society with 300+ million other citizens. To maximize the freedoms everyone has, some of your's have to be curtailed. Don't like that, see my suggestion above.

[Paladin]

Paladin writes:

what are you smoking? "The People" ALWAYS refers to individuals. As I stated earlier, read the 10th ammendment.

Except when it doesn’t. The national parks belong to the people, but individuals can only visit them. The nation’s resources belong to the people, but only corporations reap them. The government is of the people, but only collectively, unless your personal friends with Dick Cheney. In the second amendment, “the people” refers to those who would serve in a State Militia…not to women…nor girls…nor to two slaves who as a sum were equal to more than one citizen. The second amendment only exists because some States were fearful that the Federal government would disband the State militias and replace them with a Federal army.

You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.

[trish]

Sorry, El Nino, about using the phrase “true freedom”. It would not have been my choice but I was referring to zippy’s use of it in his post above:

That is what true freedom is all about. Those are the principles that this nation was founded on.

Here I took it to be referring to the enlightenment notions of freedom upon which this nation was built. This notion is a far cry from the nineteenth century Nietzschean ideal of freedom and its watered down Nazi and Libertarian offshoots which you seem to be advocating.

[trish]

You need to read and UNDERSTAND the 10th ammendment. I'm sure you are capable of the former, but I seriously doubt the latter.

So in a court of law would you address the Judge saying, "There it is Judge. I can't help it if you're too stupid to understand it, but the 10th Amendment cinches my case"?

No, of course not. Of course when you're speaking with geniuses (or people who already see things the way you do), then you can get away with minimal explanations. But when you're talking to ignoramuses (as you claim you are) you must explain your case step by step, as if to a child, and show how each law applies toward your conclusion.

So enlighten us O' Great Paladin. Give us your own erudite spin on the meaning of 10th Amendment and how it applies to all the different States that have firearm registration laws and how it refutes (as you seem to indicate it does) something that I've said in my post.

[Oli]

Ask yourself this question(this is not directed at anyone in particular just people who think they have common sense) Why do the cities and states that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws?( example NEW YORK already has had 500+ murders this year.)

You should bring fact, not supposition to back up your argument. And the facts do not back you up.

Murders in NY (2007)-801 - 4.2/100,000 people

Murders in Texas (2006)-1384 - 5.9/100,000 people

Murders in Florida (2007)-1202 - 6.4/100,000 people

Murders in California (2005)-2503 - 6.8/100,000 people


Now, throwing numbers around is all fine and dandy, but what do they mean? If we are to believe you, that tough gun laws don't deter crime, than California, Texas and Florida MUST have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Oh wait, Florida has a 'Concealed Carry' law. Could it be that you have over simplified your argument to make your point? That you chose to leave out factors like population density, gang membership, drug trade, flow of illegal weapons (a major problem in NYC),economic and educational opportunities and general economic trends because bringing them in makes your argument less persuasive?


http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/p...007release.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimere...6/cit06ch2.pdf
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Cri...t/fa_index.asp
http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof05/00/1.htm

[Tomfurbs]

All I can say is, I live in a country with a gun-ban (with the exception of shotguns, which are very difficult to get a license for, and you must live in a rural area).

I have never had need of a handgun, neither has any of my family, friends, or friends' families.
That is not to say we have never been mugged/robbed, but being armed would not have helped in any way.

I cannot understand why someone would need 10.

The mere fact that my (law-abiding citizen) neighbour could legally own many firearms is more worrying to me than some drug dealer who bought his weapon on the black market.

What if he gets drunk, or snaps, or lets it off accidentally, or his children get a hold of it?

If you want to live in a country, you have to accept some responsibilty for your fellow citizens. It is not all about your individual rights.