McDonald v. Chicago decision

[FBM]

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

It shouldn't be hard if you're competent with a firearm. If you can't handle basic firearm safety and can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside, it should be impossible.

I think that you should Prove you have a legitimate use ,reason and safe place to fire a firearm .Not up to the police to prove you should not be allowed one .

I should be able to join a gun club and fire almost any fire arm I want as long as they are kept securely at the club .....I should not be allowed a hand gun in my bedside table or a .338 on my wall without having legitimate access to deer stalking .

Statistically, I think people kill more people with careless, unskilled use of their cars more than with guns, wars excluded. In any event, the difficulty in acquiring both licenses are roughly equivalent in Tennessee. A training course, a written test, followed by a performance test, all in one day. The state evaluates your targets to make sure you got enough holes in it, then your license arrives in the mail if you did. In Mississippi, you just pay your money and get your license. No test.

Since I got the carry permit, I've been stopped by police for routine stuff like a burnt out tail light, etc. As instructed in the course, I give them my carry permit along with my license. As soon as they see the carry permit, they relax. One of them explained that the carry permit was basically a 'good guy' card. People with intent don't bother to get the license, just the weapon. They're the ones to look out for. The anti-gun propaganda ignores the fact that 200 million (I'm pulling that number out of my ass) gun owners a day fail to kill anybody with their weapons. If you're competent, you should be allowed to have a weapon in your home. If you have children or children frequently visit you, you should be required to keep your weapons in a safe.

[Feck]

The police had a firearms amnesty in the Uk some one handed in an UZI to the Aberdeen police ...I KNOW that it was done as a joke They soiled their pants thinking the criminals in had those things lying around .

[FBM]

The police had a firearms amnesty in the Uk some one handed in an UZI to the Aberdeen police ...I KNOW that it was done as a joke They soiled their pants thinking the criminals in had those things lying around .

I've fired UZIs that were owned by people who had taken the extra training and paid the extra money (USD1,000 IIRC) for a fully-auto license. They're fun, but otherwise useless, IMO, unless you're in an urban combat or in a drug cartel. UZIs sell on hype, mostly.

[Feck]

The police had a firearms amnesty in the Uk some one handed in an UZI to the Aberdeen police ...I KNOW that it was done as a joke They soiled their pants thinking the criminals in had those things lying around .

I've fired UZIs that were owned by people who had taken the extra training and paid the extra money (USD1,000 IIRC) for a fully-auto license. They're fun, but otherwise useless, IMO, unless you're in an urban combat or in a drug cartel. UZIs sell on hype, mostly.

Crowd control .

[FBM]

The police had a firearms amnesty in the Uk some one handed in an UZI to the Aberdeen police ...I KNOW that it was done as a joke They soiled their pants thinking the criminals in had those things lying around .

I've fired UZIs that were owned by people who had taken the extra training and paid the extra money (USD1,000 IIRC) for a fully-auto license. They're fun, but otherwise useless, IMO, unless you're in an urban combat or in a drug cartel. UZIs sell on hype, mostly.

Crowd control .

And that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You all can come for my guns, not not all of you will leave with them.

[Wumbologist]

You all can come for my guns, not not all of you will leave with them.

Unless I bring my own guns when I come for yours.



...You know, to trade 'n stuff.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You all can come for my guns, not not all of you will leave with them.

Unless I bring my own guns when I come for yours.



...You know, to trade 'n stuff.

Nothing over 1" bore, please. I already have enough of that.

[Feck]

Do you have a position on gun rights, 2nd Amendment interpretation, etc?

I believe that reasonable regulations on the 2nd Amendment are OK, so long as they don't in any way infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately, the way most gun control laws are written, they are designed to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding while having just about no effect on criminal activity. In short, I think that this decision, coupled with the Heller decision two years ago, is great news.

Agreed. A person should have to demonstrate competence with a life-threatening weapon, whether it's a motor vehicle or a 9mm. I've got a carry permit that's valid for a dozen states or so, due to reciprocity agreements.

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

Who hunts ducks with a 30.06?

OR ... read my post !

[Gallstones]

You all can come for my guns, not not all of you will leave with them.

Unless I bring my own guns when I come for yours.



...You know, to trade 'n stuff.

Nothing over 1" bore, please. I already have enough of that.

Got anything cute? I'd like to get something cute like the Beretta 3032.

[Martok]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

What's funny about that statement is that most second amendment freaks are pro states rights, and yet, they want to deny a states right to regulate or ban weapons.

[FBM]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

What's funny about that statement is that most second amendment freaks are pro states rights, and yet, they want to deny a states right to regulate or ban weapons.

If they advocate giving states the power to violate the constitution, they really are freaks. Only the feds can get away with that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

What's funny about that statement is that most second amendment freaks are pro states rights, and yet, they want to deny a states right to regulate or ban weapons.

That wasn't a statement, it was a question, and I'm not a second amendment freak. I was just wondering why you would think that the 2nd Amendment would not apply to the states, just like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, etc.?

You used the phrase, "terrible news," and "activist conservative judges" and "idiocy."

The ruling basically was that the 2d Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment, just like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, etc. I can't see, on the surface, what is idiotic about that, or the product of "activist" judges. It seems very much in line with the Court's now longstanding practice of applying the fundamental rights embodied by the bill of rights as substantive limitations on state power via the 14th Amendment due process/liberty clause.

It's the same rationale used by SCOTUS to find that a State government had to respect the liberties of speech, assembly, press, religion, search and seizure, warrants, etc.

So, rather than an oblique answer, can you simply explain what's idiotic about the opinion? What is activist about it? What's wrong with it? Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the states via the 14th, just like the 1st?

[Martok]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

What's funny about that statement is that most second amendment freaks are pro states rights, and yet, they want to deny a states right to regulate or ban weapons.

If they advocate giving states the power to violate the constitution, they really are freaks. Only the feds can get away with that.

No, the true freaks in this case are the ones who advocate unrestricted gun ownership.