Rest In Peace Mr. Heston.

[Breaker_Morant]

Yeah, I knew about that stuff from History classes I've taken, the WWI example was just the first that popped into my mind.

Unfortunately US history is repeat with incidents like that - fortunately those incidents were limited in there size and scope.

Didn't know that the Smith Act is still on the books, though! Glad its not enforced.

Such a pity.

 

[WriterDom]

If you live in Kennesaw Georgia you are required to have a gun and ammunition in the home. And there is no safer community in the Atlanta area.

 

[00Syd]

If you live in Kennesaw Georgia you are required to have a gun and ammunition in the home. And there is no safer community in the Atlanta area.

yeah, and Kenesaw also has a population of 21,675, which is a little less than the population of most housing projects in NYC. Also, no one has ever been reprimanded for not owning a gun, and there are restrictions on who can own a gun. If you are a convicted felon, mentally impaired, or cannot afford a gun, you can't have one. So they have restrictions on who can own a gun, you know, gun control. No wonder its so safe.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php

 

[WriterDom]

They aren't that expensive. You can get a 22 rifle for what the average NYC smoker spends in a week on cigarettes.

Convicted felons shouldn't own guns or vote. Period.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

They aren't that expensive. You can get a 22 rifle for what the average NYC smoker spends in a week on cigarettes.

Convicted felons shouldn't own guns or vote. Period.

Amen brother, Amen.

 

[SirQittus]

No, the community is not a single individual. However, in this democratic republic we agree to live by the vote of the majority in most cases. When we disagree, we work to make change through the same mechanism of public and transparent representative legislation. The problem, of course, is that it's perfectly constitutional for a state or city to enact laws that place restrictions on gun ownership and use.

I think the question here is whether it is perfectly constitutional for a state or city to enact laws that place restrictions on gun ownership and use. One very quickly gets into questions of "strict scrutiny vs reasonable restrictions". Hopefully the upcoming Heller vs DC case will clarify the answer somewhat. I think that a complete ban on ownership of handguns is unconstitutional. There are other lesser restrictions that I don't like and think are stupid or useless, but do not necessarily violate anyone's second amendment rights.

The problem you cite here - that there is a minority that deserves to maintain its own rights - is a thorny one. In fact, I suggest that that is the very heart of the gun control issue. There's a minority of Americans (albeit a sizable one) who will fight tooth and nail to maintain a right that, when it is exercised in poor judgment, infringes on another essential right: the pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, where in the constitution is the government required to refrain from infringing on a citizen's pursuit of happiness?

Freedom of speech, when exercised in poor judgement, is slander, or perhaps disturbing the peace. Freedom of the press, when exercised in poor judgement, is libel. Freedom of religion, when exercised in poor judgement, is apparently child abuse*. We don't set mandatory decibel limits for talking in public, or require newspapers to submit articles to government fact-checkers, or post sentries in churches, we punish people who exercise poor judgement resulting in harm to other people. So it should be with the freedom to bear arms: just prosecute the people that exercise the poor judgement that results in harm to other people. I won't object, I promise.

*I'm referring to Warren Jeff and his followers here, but if you want to interpret it some other way, feel free.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think the question here is whether it is perfectly constitutional for a state or city to enact laws that place restrictions on gun ownership and use. One very quickly gets into questions of "strict scrutiny vs reasonable restrictions". Hopefully the upcoming Heller vs DC case will clarify the answer somewhat. I think that a complete ban on ownership of handguns is unconstitutional. There are other lesser restrictions that I don't like and think are stupid or useless, but do not necessarily violate anyone's second amendment rights.

It will indeed be interesting to see what comes of this case, but it's also a rather limited corner of the question of gun control.

Sorry, where in the constitution is the government required to refrain from infringing on a citizen's pursuit of happiness?

Forgive me, for I had another document in mind: the Declaration of Independence. But of course, that surely has nothing to do with the idea that is America, does it? Just for old time's sake: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Freedom of speech, when exercised in poor judgement, is slander, or perhaps disturbing the peace. Freedom of the press, when exercised in poor judgement, is libel. Freedom of religion, when exercised in poor judgement, is apparently child abuse*. We don't set mandatory decibel limits for talking in public, or require newspapers to submit articles to government fact-checkers, or post sentries in churches, we punish people who exercise poor judgement resulting in harm to other people. So it should be with the freedom to bear arms: just prosecute the people that exercise the poor judgement that results in harm to other people. I won't object, I promise.

*I'm referring to Warren Jeff and his followers here, but if you want to interpret it some other way, feel free.

Show me a man, woman, or child who was killed by slander, libel, or noisy speech. There is a distinct difference between the victim of a firearm and the victim of slander or libel: life. If you slander me, I at least have recourse in the courts. If you murder me, you take away all my rights. That is the difference and on that difference your analogy falls short.

 

[cherokee_dove]

Wonders how this thread got so far off OP's title.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Wonders how this thread got so far off OP's title.

Good debate often evolves.

 

[midwestyankee]

Good debate often evolves.

I prefer to think of this as a good discussion without the dead weight of podiums.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Wonders how this thread got so far off OP's title.

"You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

 

[Breaker_Morant]

I prefer to think of this as a good discussion without the dead weight of podiums.

And everyone has a chance to be heard.