Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched

By the Supreme Court.

That is incorrect. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments.

The NRA will not allow the Second Amendment to be repealed.

We have the option of preventing the Second Amendment from being repealed in the first place.

The change in question will be that the Supreme Court will strike down unconstitutional gun laws.

The NRA likes the idea of striking down unconstitutional gun laws.

 

So you're okay with having a gun for home defense?

 

Yes, I am--assuming the owner is mentally stable, not a criminal, and knows how to use it properly.

 

I'm glad you have your saftey blanket.

For those preferring nuance.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

 

As far as that headline goes, no one ever said otherwise.

However, rights can be restricted only if there is a very good reason to justify that restriction.

There is no justification for banning assault weapons.

Most of what is written in the article is nonsense. It has been established law for centuries now that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to have guns for personal self defense.

 

In your case, as someone who has actually experienced the horror of home invasion, I'd say your desire to own a firearm for self-defense is understandable and rational.

 

If you quote who your post is directed towards, it makes it easier to figure out who you're talking to.

 

I would like to think that it's also understandable and rational to desire a firearm for home defense before the horror of home invasion, and not be judged as a coward simply because I didn't wait to be violated.

 

Already covered - doesn’t stand up to scrutiny - please address outstanding criticisms of this statement.

 

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 10.3

Canada : 2.22

England and Wales – 0.22

France - 3.00

Germany – 1.10

Luxembourg - 2.02

Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

Canada : 1.6

England and Wales – 0.93

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Luxembourg 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

Canada : 0.51

England and Wales 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Luxembourg 0.62

Switzerland 0.16

 

Police Recorded Rape Cases per 100,000 Population

US – 28.6

England and Wales -27.7

France 16.2

Germany 8.9

Cases of Robbery per 100,000 Population

US – 133

England and Wales -137

France – 181

Germany – 60

Police Recorded Cases burglary 100,000 population

US – 715

England and Wales - 986

France – 513

Germany - 456

Police Recorded Vehicle Theft Cases per 100,000

US – 258

England and Wales - 215

France – 333

Germany – 106

Number of prisoners per 100,000

US – 716

England and Wales – 148

France – 101

Germany – 80

 

As to ever harsher and more brutal punishments that is not tackling the problem just the symptom of the problem

The US has already tried that (in the disastrous ‘war on drugs’) and only ended up with the largest prison population in the world and some of the most brutal prisons and still having the largest homicide rate of comparable countries while having comparable general crime rates as countries with much lower prison populations and penal systems based on rehabilitation.

Basically this is a right wing con game based in flawed Social Darwinist thinking it’s about redirecting blame to the individual away from the problems within the society, because they are things many of them do not want to pay for through taxation to alleviate.

 

Message boards have been around since the 80's. If someone isn't quoted, it's towards OP.

 

I don't disagree. But I'm saying that likely shouldn't cover semi-automatic weapons, the way the second amendment doesn't extend to fully automatic weapons, both of which have no legitimate usage other that slaying large numbers of people.

Don't get me wrong, they're fun to shoot. I'm a Texan. I've shot a lot of semi-automatic and a fully auto rifle.

But no legitimate reason for civilans to own. Americans have a mass shooting problem which has trended way up while other violent crimes have trended down since the 90's.

Semi-automatic weapons are many degrees deadlier in these mass killings. They can also be fairly easily converted to weapons which approximate the rate of fire of automatic weapons, which have been banned under federal law.

If you've got other ideas to reduce these mass shootings, I'd be open to alternatives.

 

This only matters if it is somehow worse for someone to be killed with a gun than with a knife.

This shows that there is only a small correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

This only matters if it is somehow worse for someone to be killed with a gun than with a knife.

 

Without a justification for banning semi-automatic weapons, the Second Amendment does cover them.

That is incorrect. Semi-autos are legitimately used in both hunting and self defense.

The Constitution doesn't work that way. We don't have to give a reason for exercising our rights.

If a restriction on our rights can be justified with a very good reason, that restriction is OK. If a restriction cannot be justified, it is unconstitutional.

That is incorrect. Large magazines are what makes these shootings many degrees deadlier.

Without a large magazine, a semi-auto is not nearly as useful for committing massacres.

If you are referring to bump stocks, those are about to be outlawed.

Red flag legislation could help prevent some of these massacres from happening.

Restrictions on magazine sizes (within limits) could reduce the severity of massacres that still happen. However rural voters are unlikely to allow restrictions on magazine sizes to pass into law.

 

What some people refer to as mass shootings are actually multiple murders or murder suicides or revenge killings. Most people believe that the term "mass shooting" refers to a madman with a weapon shooting people at random. Why don't you post a list of mass shootings, and we'll look at each one and find out which ones qualify as one.

And rifles are not the weapon of choice of school shooters or mass shooters. A majority of what are referred to as mass shootings are done with handguns, not semiautomatic rifles. And many of those done with rifles result in less deaths than those done with pistols.

 

TA

These statements don’t seem to make much sense – are you please explain your thinking here?

 

You make a good case for owning a weapon for protection.

 

Please explain your thinking in the context of gun control?