Gun ownership is a right

[~kev~]

Back around the last part of 2008, or early 2009 there was a thread about gun ownership, but it seems to have been removed, I think this is the link, but I'am not sure - http://forums.fortress-forever.com/s...ad.php?t=16338

It says that I do not have permission to access the thread. So I guess it was moved to a moderators section?

There were several statements about how gun ownership was not a right, and that the 2nd amendment did not apply to people. At the time the thread was going on, there were some legal challenges to the gun bans. I said that when the supreme court upholds the peoples right to own guns, I would come back here and post it.

Well, here ya go

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_...a/10438332.stm

The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The US's highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

So there it is, gun ownership is a right.

[Innoc]

I think that was before the forum structure was regroomed and the old stuff was made inaccessible kev. The thread was, in part, about the DC vs Heller case. I think the issue is more about emotion than anything else. For those opposing the 2nd ammendment claiming that the wording does not incorporate individuals I think their emotion overrides their ability to be reasonable. Their fear/opposition to private weapons ownership and use causes them to try to make the wording seem as if its ambiguous. I don't believe that this new decision will hold at bay those determined to block the exercise of this right. Those are commonly the same people who want a larger Fed. Risking invoking Godwin's Law...I would submit to you that a weak Fed with a protected right to keep and bear arms could never have snuffed out millions of lives in the concentration camps of ww2 Germany.

[Iggy]

Banning guns, or the ownership thereof, does one thing, and one thing only: Takes weapons out of the hands of law abiding people.

Anyone who really wants a gun, CAN and WILL get one. There are far too many in the hands of both criminals and private owners for the government to remove them, without using the military to do so. Even though the military has more and better weapons, as well as training to work as a group, the government can't possibly try to use it to go door to door looking for weapons. Several reasons for this:

1) Those who have guns can and probably will fight back.
2) Those who see it coming, will prepare for the attack, and fight back.
3) Criminals will fight back, thinking they are being raided.
4) Despite orders, not everyone in the military will attack civilian homes.

In other words, the end result will be civil war.

[stray kitten]

The supreme court decision is one of those where I think... DUH. We had to take this to the supreme court? Most of the rhetoric comes under what terms meant, or "could" have meant in 1790s and what they mean now. Regardless of "regulation" or "bear arms" an outright ban was/is and always has been unconstitutional. So again one has to read the courts decision and think... duh.

And even though I perceive this as a just decision, the fact that is was 5 to 4 is really fucking scary. Would the desire to strip the people of a right to own a gun within the context of the constitution be a liberal idea or a fascist idea?

Both.

[BinaryLife]

My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.

[stray kitten]

I disagree Binary. But then again that is the whole debate.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is ambiguous, to me it deosn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms it states the right of the people. Private peeple make up militias, it wasn't the intent of the government to make people keep their guns at an armory. It was their intent to come from their farms and homes armed and ready to fight to protect a young nation from corruption and defense of both an individual, his or her property and the nation.

That does not mean the government does not have the right to regulate arms. And the supreme court was pretty clear on this I believe That is where "well regulated militia" comes in perhaps? But to totally Ban ownership is definitely unconstitutional. And the supreme court LIMITS the states ability to do this.

This is a good desision weighing in the constituation, state rights, and individual rights. IMO anyway. And I do not own a gun. Don't even want one.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive.

LOL

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.

[WiFiDi]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

My opinions have changed a little bit. For the most part I still believe that if a private citizen wants a gun to protect his or her family they should be allowed. However, the wording in the constitution isn't ambiguous and does not grant the right to private citizens to carry weapons. It gives rights to a private militia to be formed, and its members carry weapons. However still, private militia's are a thing of the past and were they formed now they would likely be considered a gang by the police.


So, with the constitution needing some updating in this matter perhaps, I would venture to say that there should be some room for changes. The point of weapons and militia's in the past was to allow for the possibility of our people to revolt. That's not really the reason anymore. The reason now is to keep our loved ones safe as well as ourselves. Something that should be mentioned is location as well. For example, if I call the police, they will get to my house in about 2 minutes. That is faster than I could get a gun out of a safe and load it. Whether I'm slow or not is fair... but for my decision it helps. It doesn't make sense for me to own a gun. I could call 911 and hide out for long enough for the police to arrive. That is not the case everywhere in the country. Some people live very far away from their police, some people also do want to depend on their police for their survival.

I do think we should all be allowed to carry firearms with a permit. The purpose of this permit however, should be to verify that we know what we're doing. Those of you on this forum to do carry are more than likely confident your ability to use your guns. Are you, however, confident if everyone else? Mine perhaps? I can fire an air-soft gun pretty damn well but I've never fired even a hand gun. I want to though. But anyway, I've made all the points I can think of however I cannot think of a closing and this is already way too long. So I will abruptly stop.

ah but militias groups have been formed and were shot down. so basically they violated that amendments, they took out a group of militias not that long ago up in Michigan, while they were training.

and also the police getting there in 2 minutes really (thats bullshit) and why put it in a safe put it under your pillow. (most people do this or under your bed. maybe even have it loaded in the safe.)