| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Thank you Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 26 2008, 03:01 PM (380 Views) | |
| New Harumf | Jun 26 2008, 03:01 PM Post #1 |
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
5 to 4 - Banning handguns is struck down, period. Citizens in good standing with the law and not suffering from mental illness may own handguns for protection as per the 2nd amendment!! Whew! :wasclose: :wasclose: |
 |
 
|
| The CNNP | Jun 26 2008, 04:03 PM Post #2 |
Enforcer
|
I see only one problem...mental illness. Did the Court define mental illness. Trust me, the way things are now; everybody has a mental disorder with them. Being a school teacher, I am being exposed to it more and more. What you are now going to start seeing more of is mental screenings. Look at the Virginia Tech slayings, mental illness. That was the key component of the gun control argument then, and the Court (understanding I have not read the court transcript) has not defined mental illness. So when you get screened, you get a diagnosis of a mental illness of some sort and thus they can deny you handgun ownership and be in compliance with the Constitution as the Court has defined it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for handguns...but the loophole is mental illness. What is mental illness, severity, conditions. |
|
|
|
| Paradise | Jun 26 2008, 04:04 PM Post #3 |
Resident bureaucrat
|
Is it legal in the U.S. to own a tactical nuke? |
|
|
|
| The CNNP | Jun 26 2008, 04:05 PM Post #4 |
|
Enforcer
|
I would think not. A firearm and missile are just a bit different... :P |
|
|
|
| Paradise | Jun 26 2008, 04:13 PM Post #5 |
|
Resident bureaucrat
|
Missile is the natural evolution of the firearm. 2nd amendment apply. Every US citizen should own his own tactical nuke to protect himself from others and from the government. |
|
|
|
| The CNNP | Jun 26 2008, 04:14 PM Post #6 |
|
Enforcer
|
Then there is only one thing for me to do...go an acquire my first tactical nuke. :D |
|
|
|
| Paradise | Jun 26 2008, 04:18 PM Post #7 |
|
Resident bureaucrat
|
By all means, go for it. Your 18th century constitution allows it! |
|
|
|
| The CNNP | Jun 26 2008, 04:19 PM Post #8 |
|
Enforcer
|
That is true, but is has served us well for at least 221 years and represented the model for the English libertarian tradition that all Englishmen once enjoyed. |
|
|
|
| New Harumf | Jun 26 2008, 04:36 PM Post #9 |
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Just put in my order for my own customized tactical nuke. Used my Mastercard! The customization is that it can only be used above the 49th Parallel!! Mental illness means evidence obtained through a background check that you are under a doctor's care or being medicated for a legitimate mental condition. Courts already ruled on that one! |
|
|
|
| flumes | Jun 26 2008, 05:06 PM Post #10 |
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
Thank god. Hopefully I'm not mental... :unsure: |
|
|
|
| Eleytheria-Duo | Jun 26 2008, 05:55 PM Post #11 |
Resident Bystander
|
I've Russian ancestry, I think that defaults me to a mental condition, Da? I mean after all, its perfectly understandable that Niki would use his shoe as a gavel... Ahh... Nothing proves a point better than a odor-filled shoe and a few thousand Nuclear missiles pointed at your neighbors Rose garden... :gnarkgnark: |
|
|
|
| Ulgania | Jun 26 2008, 06:32 PM Post #12 |
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
:P Has anyone actually read the court's decision, or even looked into the real story behind all this? |
|
|
|
| Filo | Jun 26 2008, 06:39 PM Post #13 |
General
|
Mah... What kind of defence you belive to have if your governemt, truly, wishes to suprpes liberty? A dictatorship that wish to put down revolts has anyway good way(Black Panther Uprising should teach), and for personal defence is not a bit anachronistic? Where are indians? French Trappers? I belive that you americans, should ban firearms they are too dangerous to be used by common folk... |
|
|
|
| The CNNP | Jun 26 2008, 06:57 PM Post #14 |
|
Enforcer
|
Because in all those events, the governments had to disarm them and there wasn't an English libertarian tradition. |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jun 26 2008, 07:14 PM Post #15 |
Science and Industry
|
The US Constitution is not worth the paper it's written on. Americans continue to enjoy the right to own guns despite that inane document. |
|
|
|
| Assassin | Jun 26 2008, 07:20 PM Post #16 |
Field Marshal
|
Pssh. If they want my guns, they can come take them. I'll be in the bunker boys. Smoke em if you got em. Assassin locks and loads. |
|
|
|
| Ulgania | Jun 26 2008, 08:31 PM Post #17 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
There's way too many different voices shouting in American politics and culture for one concise law to mean anything. Where I live hunting is a popular pass time, and outlawing/severely restricting guns would take away the hunting culture. That goes for a lot of states. Sure, most gun laws are enacted to protect people from those who do harm, but personally I feel that people should have the right to bear arms. Put obstacles in place to prevent misuse and have people educated. Banning them completely is akin to only viewing abstinence as the only way teenagers should consider sex. If anything I think the SC's decision on not executing convicted child rapists is a good thing. If one committing such an act knew of the consequences it would put the victim in greater danger of being killed, and if a child was being forced to testify against a parent knowing that what they say could influence life and death is too burdensome. |
|
|
|
| New Harumf | Jun 27 2008, 08:10 AM Post #18 |
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Good points, both. I am against the death penalty in general, but I did think having a death penalty for child rape was a bit extreme, although I consider it no more cruel or unusual than life without parole. Yes, I read the decision and the decent. The decision makes good sense to me, and the decent is an attempt to re-write the second amendment. I just wish the decision had been 9-0 instead of 5-4, but since this is the first time the SC has ruled on the second amendment since it was written in 1791 then perhaps it will be another 209 years before it is revisited. Now, perhaps, they can go after Mayor Dailey in Chicago who forced me to live as a law-breaker by passing their stupid handgun ban. One minute I was a law-abiding citizen, the next I was committing a felony - at least Washington DC had the good sense to grandfather in the law, Oh, and hunting habits from one state to the next have nothing to do with this. This is a Federal right and states do not have the option to alter it! |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Jun 27 2008, 01:20 PM Post #19 |
Resident?
|
You European guys are right, guns can't and shouldn't be handled by the common American man. Leave that to the criminals, right? |
|
|
|
| Paradise | Jun 27 2008, 02:03 PM Post #20 |
|
Resident bureaucrat
|
Not to criminals, to policemen and the military. Criminals owning guns will face another criminal offence. |
|
|
|
| Ulgania | Jun 27 2008, 02:23 PM Post #21 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
I was referring to people saying guns should be banned outright :P I mean, personally, I own a gun. It's a rifle, a single-shot, and I have no intention of using it for ill. I prefer the fact I own it, for protection. I've taken an education course on it, and have no intentions of getting rid of it the same way I have no intention of limiting my free speech. Oh, and the SC did set a precedent ~70 years ago on the second amendment... I'm pretty sure that's when they made the language that puts the 2nd A. in the realm of militias. |
|
|
|
| flumes | Jun 27 2008, 03:09 PM Post #22 |
|
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
That is a joke, who cares about another charge after they have killed someone incapible of fighting back. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Queen | Jun 27 2008, 03:12 PM Post #23 |
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Yeah, this event had me worried for weeks 'till now, wondering what the ultimate decision would be. I know in my heart if it went the other way, we'd all be fucking screwed right now. I'm glad they made the decision that they did, even if it was just by a margin of one. |
|
|
|
| New Harumf | Jun 27 2008, 03:13 PM Post #24 |
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
....and what if your cop is a criminal - or your military? Also the police can only do something AFTER a crime has been committed - a bit too late to protect me from the bad guy with the gun, eh? And our military is discouraged from being used against citizens, be they bad guys or otherwise. Sets a dangerous precident, like Kent State in 1970!! Our military is trained to kill, not police. Also, I don't want to live in a country where only AA would have a gun! :lol: :lol: |
|
|
|
| Paradise | Jun 27 2008, 05:11 PM Post #25 |
|
Resident bureaucrat
|
Criminals killing for the sake of killing heh? That happens very rarely. Most of the time, criminals are simple robbers who will eventually get caught by the police. Basically, what US gun owners are asking is the right to kill robbers themselves, i.e., they do not want the police to arrest them. That's an insane mentality. If a robber was to come to my home with a gun to steal some of my stuff, I'd not oppose any resistance. It's not worth it to die over material possessions, even more when you're insured. In the US, if a robber was to come to a home with a gun to steal stuff, it would likely end up in a blood bath, i.e., the robber and/or homeowner would likely injure/kill themselves in the process. Great way of doing things... Note also that in a society where everyone can get a gun, it is also much more easier for a criminal to get a gun. That should be worrying... |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
7:31 PM Jul 13