Federal judge upholds gun owners rights

[~kev~]

Its been maybe 2 or 3 years ago there was a thread on gun rights. This was before the Washington DC case went to the supreme court. A member here kept saying the Second Amendment did not ensure the rights of citizens to own guns.

After the Washington DC case and the Illinois case where the supreme court upheld the rights of the citizens to own guns, we have yet a 3rd case. This time a federal court says,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ntcmp=trending

Maryland residents do not have to provide a "good and substantial reason" to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state's requirements for getting a permit.

[WiFiDi]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Its been maybe 2 or 3 years ago there was a thread on gun rights. This was before the Washington DC case went to the supreme court. A member here kept saying the Second Amendment did not ensure the rights of citizens to own guns.

After the Washington DC case and the Illinois case where the supreme court upheld the rights of the citizens to own guns, we have yet a 3rd case. This time a federal court says,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ntcmp=trending

there is a debates and arguments section for this for this.

but this isn't the first time and it for certain won't be the last time. judges are elected and its our job as the people to vote these particular ones out of office.

[Lost]

And today someone with a legally purchased handgun opened fire on a courthouse in Tulsa because he was upset about potentially going to jail over drug charges.

There is no perfect situation: stupid people will do stupid shit and no law will protect us from that.

[KubeDawg]

How'd he get in the courthouse with a gun? That's Tulsa crack team security for ya.

[AfterShock]

If you're going to allow everyday citizens to arm themselves (in case a corrupt government tries to take over the country like hitler or something - although remember, hitler had overwhelming support from the people so guns wouldnt have helped in this case), then you obviously need to deal with the fact that idiots will be using those arms.

I definitely see both sides of the argument, if a wacko manages to get in power then the people can more easily overthrow the government. But in todays global society i couldnt see how anyone could take over the USA in such a dramatic fashion that the residents would actually take up arms and march on the white house. I think that concept is absurd. There would be massive international intervention first anyway. Also the amount of steps involved to get to such a position is just too high.

I could understand it 100-200 years ago but I'm unsure I see the need any more.

[CatzEyes93]

Plaque in my home

"When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns"

I could say so much more than just that, but it kinda sums up many thoughts.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by AfterShock

If you're going to allow everyday citizens to arm themselves (in case a corrupt government tries to take over the country like hitler or something - although remember, hitler had overwhelming support from the people so guns wouldnt have helped in this case), then you obviously need to deal with the fact that idiots will be using those arms.

I definitely see both sides of the argument, if a wacko manages to get in power then the people can more easily overthrow the government. But in todays global society i couldnt see how anyone could take over the USA in such a dramatic fashion that the residents would actually take up arms and march on the white house. I think that concept is absurd. There would be massive international intervention first anyway. Also the amount of steps involved to get to such a position is just too high.

I could understand it 100-200 years ago but I'm unsure I see the need any more.

Sadly, many big cities leave the unarmed citizen as a probable victim. It's been demonstrated in states like Texas, that armed citizens mean a lower crime rate.

Will it stop all crime? Only the end of humanity will do that. You also can't stop lunatics from going off, nor can you stop illegal guns from getting into the wrong hands.

Don't mention the police... they react to crime, rather than prevent it. By the time they get to the scene, the perp is LONG gone. Prisons don't help much, because prisons are forced to release some prisoners to make room for more. The judicial part is corrupt as hell, but that's not the issue here.

Saying that arming the populous is to keep the government in check is just silly. Truth is, the government #1 knows where all the "legal" guns are, #2 has much better guns, #3 can disarm the populous whenever it wants.

Self protection is a valid reason. Valid enough, I think, to allow citizens that have no criminal record to carry them. Street thugs will think twice about mugging someone if they believe the "victim" may be armed.

Gangs(biker and otherwise), the Mob, and other organized criminals already have no regard for the law, nor do they have a problem getting weapons.

As an old friend once told me; "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."