Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[BrentAllen 10]

Hunt,

I find it interesting that liberals can read the 2nd Amendment, and in their interpretation, they cannot find anything to establish an individual right.

"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."

Yet, they can read the 1st, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." and can jump to the conclusion that the amendment prohibits school prayer. How does having school prayer equate to having Congress make a law establishing a religion? Congress making a law is a pretty high bar to cross. Has any school asked Congress to pass a law establishing a religion? NO!! So yes, it is interesting to see how far liberals can jump when they want to, but yet how "conservative" they can be when it comes to guns.

Tell you what - if you and all your liberal buddies are so convinced the 2nd is only about militias, and since we don't need militias in this day and age, y'all just get your representatives to propose abolishing the 2nd. If everyone is as anti-gun as y'all think, it should be a piece of cake.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

I think the demographics on the desire for gun control are pretty clear. People living in urban areas are by and large in favor of gun control. People living in rural areas are by and large against gun control. And, that sort of makes sense. Guns in the cities are mostly used to harm other people, or cause people to be harmed accidentally. Guns in rural areas are mostly used for hunting, a perfectly fine use of a firearm if that's your interest.

 

The 2nd Amendment says, well, "something", and that debate will continue on here and elsewhere.

 

All I really care about is, if someone wants to own a gun, fine, I just want a requirement that they know how to use that firearm safely, and be able to prove it, or collect non-operational guns. That's my wish.

 

The rest of this is all conjecture and opinion. Based on everything I've read and found out on this, the idea that people can expect to protect themselves in a home invasion, with a gun, is pretty far fetched. I think that the statistics bear this out. A gun in a home is a lot more likely to end up accidentally harming someone than it is to be used to protect a family member. Something like 43 to 1 if I remember correctly. But, if you want to think that you're the "1", more power to you.

 

I just don't see much credibility in the argument that we need to be armed to defend ourselves on the off chance that the U.S. military turns around and invades Kentucky, or Michigan, or someplace. You might think that the citizenry could rise up and deflect such an invasion, ala "Wolverines"; I think reality says that that ain't gonna happen.

 

All in all, I'm of the opinion that the problems with violence in this country aren't going to be solved by having everyone run around with a gun.

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

P-S,

The 43-1 statistics were thoroughly disproven. The author, Arthur Kellerman, made unbelievable conclusions and even math mistakes to arrive at those results. As an example, (Wikipedia) "In 1986, he published the study for which he is best known. It examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an intruder." He excludes all self defense gun uses which do not involve the DEATH* of an assailant (elsewhere shown to be 99% of all self defense incidents). Similarly, he defines "member of the household" and "acquaintance" such that it would include rival gang members and other intruders who are known to the victim. Even if the only gun involved in a fatal shooting was a gun brought by an intruder, he admittedly includes this in his proof of the risks of gun ownership. Further examination of his work is impossible because he refuses to completely release his source data for review." *Can you believe that? He only counts a successful gun defense as one where the intruder dies!?!? Can you say "bias"??

Go to Wikipedia and check out John Lott, Jr. to get another side of the story. His studies showed that more guns equal less murder, and that guns are only fired in 8% of the cases where a gun is used to deter a crime. You rarely ever hear about the other 92% where crimes are stopped with a gun - because it isn't fired and no one is hurt.

P-S, you are welcome to your opinion; I just would like you to be informed before you make it.

[Kahuna 172]

I see no evidence to support the theory that people in urban areas desire gun control. While that may be true in some urban areas (San Francisco, for instance), people in big cities in the South don't feel that way at all.

 

The propaganda labelled statistics put out by the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups is what causes these perceptions, including that the accident statistics are 43-1. They also inflate the number of injuries involving "children" by including gang victims under 18 injured in gang violence.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Brent, Kahuna,

 

Thanks for correcting that information. I appreciate the info. Unfortunately, both sides label the other's information as "propaganda", so it's hard to know what's accurate.

 

I live in the North, so what I read is colored by that in regards to urban views of gun control. I thought the same was true in the Southern urban areas, but I guess not. Interesting.

 

It'd be interesting to have some valid data, because I'd bet that there are still 2 sides to the story. I did come across this very interesting site recently, http://www.guncite.com/index.html, and while it's views are decidedly biased, it offers a very good rational behind its views. You know, tho, one thing that stuck out in my mind as I read their statistics and their view of them was, "so many gun-related crimes. you have to wonder where we'd be if we just didn't have access to so many weapons."

 

Bottom line is, the studies really don't matter. Whether you think you'll be able to defend your family with a gun is largely a personal view, and whether a person could really use a gun effectively in that situation could be a reasonable assumption or wishful thinking.

 

And, I think that people who think that they could defend their families with a gun have that legal right to do so. As I said, what I'd like is some way of being reasonably sure that the community isn't being put at unnecessary risk at the same time. Some way of assuring that that weapon is being safely stored, that the owner is competent in its usage.

 

And, of course, none of this addresses the societal cost, in dollars, of a nation that is heavily armed. It would seem that there would be some cost associated with that, perhaps in increase health care, increased litigation, etc. Doesn't seem like it'd be "free". Maybe it's all offset by something else; I really don't know.

[Kahuna 172]

Strikes me that the biggest cost of a heavily armed nation is defending the right to own them against the Brady's and the ACLU. Just like in the case of the BSA, the cost of the legal assault on 2d Amendment rights is enormous. As is the cost of defeating anti-gun legislation.

 

The cost in terms of accident, injury, etc, (while I don't know the figure) is way less than the similar costs of automobiles. If you are looking for a dangerous instrumentality with crazed, improperly trained operators, many of whom are not currently licensed, take a look at that one. Worries me a lot more than the danger my neighbor may shoot me by accident.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Kahuna,

 

How many of your dollars has defending the right to own a gun cost you?

[Kahuna 172]

SRBeaver: I'm not sure I understand your question, but I am assuming you are implying it probably hasn't cost me anything. That would be incorrect. I don't know what it has cost me in terms of tax dollars expended in defense of state laws against those groups or how much more I paid for my gun because the manufacturer has had to defend against harrassing law suits because they made a gun that was later used by someone to harm someone else, although it had no defect and only did what it was legally built to do.

 

I do know (although I'm not going to share the figures) how much I have contributed to the NRA and to politicians who run against ones who support gun control.

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Aloha Kahuna,

 

Hmmm, come to think of it, I DO have a couple of neighbors who are probably better off walking the neighborhood with a gun than driving around in their cars.

[Kahuna 172]

P-S: Egggzackly!

[Zahnada 11]

Personally, I'm just for handgun control. In my opinion, you can defend your house/family perfectly fine with a rifle. And a rifle is certainly ideal for hunting. If there happens to be the need for a militia, well, I'd rather have a good rifle by my side than a pistol.

 

It's when guns can be neatly tucked into one's pants that they start to cause problems. Sure, I have absolutely no statistics, but I would guess that the vast majority of crime and gun-related deaths occur from handgun use. I'd also guess that handguns are the preferred weapon of gangs. It's kind of hard to walk down the street and hold someone up with a rifle tucked down your pants.

 

So, here's a question to the gun-control and anti-gun-control crowds. Would you be in favor of strict restrictions on handguns for ordinary citizens? Any weapon over a certain size would go relatively unchecked.

 

[Kahuna 172]

>>So, here's a question to the gun-control and anti-gun-control crowds. Would you be in favor of strict restrictions on handguns for ordinary citizens? Any weapon over a certain size would go relatively unchecked.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

There is somehting I have pondered. School shootings, and why it seems they seem to only happen in the suburbs or in rural communities. I don't think its because there are no guns in inner city Detroit or Chicago or in South Central LA or Harlem, NYC. I do think it's because any one drawing a gun in those urban environment can reasonably expect return fire.

[Zahnada 11]

"You are incorrect that rifles are as good as handguns in home defense. They are unwieldy and not designed to use at close range."

 

I disagree. No offense, but it seems like a very close-minded counter argument. The only time your close range argument would hold true is if the intruder is right on top of you. In which case, unless you sleep with a handgun under your pillow, you don't have much of a chance anyway. You can shoot a person with a rifle from a few feet away just as easily as you can with a handgun. Also, a rifle or shotgun is more intimidating. In any case, I don't feel this is a very strong argument in favor of handguns since a larger weapon will also do the job.

 

"You are also incorrect in your implied assumption that if handguns were controlled, gangs and other criminals wouldn't have them. Every gun control law ever passed has shown that the bad guys keep their guns and honest people give them up."

 

This is very true and is a valid point. Gangs wouldn't just give up their guns. But what we can do is limit the amount of new handguns entering the system. More importantly, we can limit handgun ammunition. It would take awhile, but the guns would eventually work their way out of the system much like they've done in England. Sure, there will always be criminals with handguns, but to a far less degree. Overall, as years pass, fewer and fewer criminals would have access to handguns and this would make society safer. But you're absolutely correct that it wouldn't be an immediate solution. But a lack of gun control isn't a solution either.

 

"It's also extremely difficult to hold up someone who has his own handgun in his pants or under his counter. That's why crime rates go down when states pass right-to-carry laws."

 

This is also true and is a very interesting point. But how many crimes have been prevented by the victim suddenly pulling a handgun from their pants? I really don't know. And how many people have been shot because they decided to pull a gun instead of just throwing down their wallet and immediately cancelling their credit cards? Once again, I don't really know.

 

The point I'm making is that handguns don't solve as many problems as they create. Handguns only have one real purpose - to shoot people. I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms. But that right needs to have some logic attached to it. Rifles allow for recreational shooting as well as home and community defense.

[BrentAllen 10]

Zahnada,

Your arguments show why it is so scary for people with a lack of knowledge of firearms and their use to be proposing gun restrictions.

First, handguns are not designed and manufactured solely to kill people. A firearm is designed to shoot a projectile down a barrel, nothing more. It is up to the user to decide where that firearm is pointed. Handguns are used in competitions all over this country, as well as in the Olympics. There are plenty of people who own pistols solely for recreational shooting, others who own them for self-defense, and others who just collect. Being that we live in the USA, I believe law-abiding citizens are allowed to own and use them, guaranteed by our 2nd Amendment. If they aren't breaking the law, why should they be forced to give them up? Check the crime rates in England, since they got rid of their pistols - it is not what we should strive for.

Second, some of us have carry permits, and carry in our vehicles. Imagine trying to stop a carjacker with a rifle or shotgun - not too easy, eh? Also, rifle ammunition is much more powerful than handgun ammo, and the chance of a round going through a wall and hitting a friendly is much higher. Ever wonder why the Police carry pistols, and rarely get the rifles out? Swinging a rifle around in a hallway is also pretty difficult, or around tight corners. Something that large is also hard to store safely but also kept handy. A pistol, on the other hand, is easy to secure in a way that the kids can't get to it, but I can retrieve it very quickly if needed.

Finally, when I'm walking down the street, it would be pretty hard for me to carry a rifle. Your proposal would disarm all pedestrians, making them easy targets for bad guys in vehicles (bad guy in the back seat with a rifle or shot gun).