PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     gun control clarifications
       just a couple questions and ideas to make you think

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
krenshaw04

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i really just have a couple questions that maybe somebody that knows more than me can answer..

with regards to the news regarding DC and gun control, how does the law currently state with gun carrying? does it mean that anybody can get a license to carry a concealed weapon in public, or is it just for ownership to keep at home for protection and to take to shooting ranges and such?

depending on the answer of that question, i want to post a couple to see what everyone thinks..

first i want to state that i think people should have the rights to own weapons, but i think those weapons should be greatly restricted.. nowhere in the constitution does it state what types of "arms" they mean, so all of what i say and what anybody else says is just their own interpretation of the law..

everybody that is qualified (background check mostly) should be able to own a weapon for defense or hunting, but my question is why does it need to be a handgun.. why have a weapon that is never used in hunting and easily concealed be something people are legally allowed to own.. why can't we only have the public own rifles and shotguns.. believe me, if you are protecting your home, a shotgun would be much more effective at stopping a predator than anything else, you barely need to aim correctly to stop them dead in their tracks..

just wondering what you all think.. just don't yell at me about me not following the 2nd amendment, by the rules it still does fit.. if you are one who thinks that "arms" shouldn't be restricted at all, then you would be all for anybody owning nuclear weapons for "protection" and that's just crazy talk
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:32 PM on June 28, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The decision on Heller was based in placing the formation of the amendment in its historic context. If you happen to read the ruling, it used several dictionaries of that time period, as well as state constitutional language as a guide to its interpretation. "Arms" was clearly meant to be guns, there is not a debate about that on any legal level. The purpose, in part, was to guarantee that government could not limit a citizen's ownership of a gun so that if the government grew too corrupt, it could be overthrown, even if that meant standing against the army to do so.

Your first question on the Concealed Carry is simply that this ruling was specific to the DC gun ban being unconstitutional and defining what the 2nd amendment intended. Gun control laws and restrictions, such as CA's refusal to issue CCWs on grounds of people not having "good cause" rather than having good cause to refuse them, will be challenged in court in the various states they are in effect and will, most likely, be overturned.

The question should never be "why does it need to be a handgun?" but rather "what reason does the government have for restricting a class of weapon?" Until there is evidence that any ban, at any time, has ever lowered crime rate there is simply no justification for not allowing law abiding citizens access to the best ways to protect themselves from criminals who refuse follow laws.

There will always be stupid people that hurt themselves and others through stupid actions. We let them drive. We let them drink. We let them smoke. We let them overeat and teach their children their bad habits. Guns are just another way that points these people out in our society. It is not the guns that cause this, it is the people. The government cannot stop stupid people from finding a way to kill themselves and others and for most things the government does not allow these people to effect policy as doing so would be pointless.

Or if you prefer to believe that banning guns will stop gun crime, here is some history on bans that will make you feel better. Prohibition stopped drinking, banning drugs has stopped drug trafficking and no one hires hookers because they are illegal.  
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 03:56 AM on June 30, 2008 | IP
Roxdog

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"just don't yell at me about me not following the 2nd amendment, by the rules it still does fit.. if you are one who thinks that "arms" shouldn't be restricted at all, then you would be all for anybody owning nuclear weapons for "protection" and that's just crazy talk."

Nope. Nuclear weapons cannot be kept or beared by individuals without affecting the life and property of those around them. Your extreme, tired hypothetical is of little consequence.

Gun control is moronic.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 2:03 PM on July 8, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.