tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post7445620452828925853..comments2023-09-25T09:26:32.591-04:00Comments on The Loop and The Lou: D.C. v Heller: SCOTUS scoresRollerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-4327859183360918912008-07-02T22:35:00.000-04:002008-07-02T22:35:00.000-04:00Rye, you're correct on the Columbine purchase - my...Rye, you're correct on the Columbine purchase - my mistake. I had seen it was a straw purchase, but I thought that was a reference to the two purchasing it through the girl.<BR/><BR/>My stance on the right to carry concealed weapons isn't firmly in one camp or another, but I don't subscribe to the logic that it deters crime. I just don't see how more guns means less crime. If someone is desperate enough to rob at gunpoint, I don't think the "what if that person has a gun" possibility is big enough to deter the crime. And the victim having and possibly using a gun probably increases the chances that one or both of them will use it. I don't have any data to support that, it's just my hunch.<BR/><BR/>I'll echo Coov's sentiments on the Constitution with respect to the context in which it was written vs. today's context. And of course this is why we have a process for amendment.<BR/><BR/>I think we can all agree that SCOTUS did its job in its ruling, but we disagree regarding the some of the laws that are in place today as allowed by the 2nd Amendment. Not trying to end this discussion, just trying to sum up where we are right now.<BR/><BR/>Now if you guys will excuse me, I gotta go polish my GAT.Rollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-89627079899336231452008-07-02T13:51:00.000-04:002008-07-02T13:51:00.000-04:00i obviously mean your right to not be illegally se...i obviously mean your right to not be illegally searched, not to conduct illegal searches.Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-12210913655293195132008-07-02T13:50:00.000-04:002008-07-02T13:50:00.000-04:00Ryan, you make some excellent points with solid re...Ryan, you make some excellent points with solid reasons is to why the second amendment is the way it is. <BR/><BR/>I think it is interesting that there may be some priority to the bill of rights as if to say you right to bear arms is more important than your right to privacy or illegal searches. A right I consider more important and more pertinent in today's world than the 2nd.<BR/><BR/>What we need to get are some of those guns from TV which always kill the bad guys, but miss every vital organ in the good guys. Smart guns I think they are calledCoovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-52631980727617312942008-07-02T12:14:00.000-04:002008-07-02T12:14:00.000-04:00Glad some discussion came out of this, even if it'...Glad some discussion came out of this, even if it's just us. Fine, this is our country club then.<BR/><BR/>Rollz, I agree with you in terms of finding a livable middle ground with guns. I think legally though, we have gotten so extreme in our interpretation of the 2nd that it is time to swing back the other way. Although the "right" to keep and bear belongs to the People, clearly it notes that a Militia should be regulated. So this forms some sort of constraint. Personally, I feel that any weapon a cop can have, no law should take away from us. At the very least.<BR/><BR/>I have changed my personal opinion of this over the years given new experiences. I think assault weapons, in spite of their scary names, should be legal to highly regulated citizens. Assault weapons are basically automatic deer rifles with long clips. I think conceal and carry laws that used to scare me (I thought "more guns, more violence") have proven to be no problem. Frankly, even though I don't carry, I like the idea that a criminal might think I am.<BR/><BR/>Our next door neighbor has a concealed weapon license. How do I know? Because the sheriff's office came and interviewed us about him to see if we ever heard him arguing or saw any violent streaks in him, etc. I call that extensive.<BR/><BR/>As for the chick purchasing those Columbine weapons, she actually didn't. It's like when you get some guy walking in the liquor store to buy you a case when you're 17. She, as is consistent with criminals, broke the law to get those guns.<BR/><BR/>The big question I have is what to do about schools? Certainly, I don't want armed guards in high schools, etc, or metal detectors, but does something need to be done? Colleges are a different story though. Almost all the violent shooting sprees happen on U campuses, where intelligent and pedantic professors want to make a safe haven. But these too often just turn into killing grounds.<BR/><BR/>Think of how many responsible professors there are (actually...) or ex-military or national guard who are enrolled who could carry.<BR/><BR/>If even 1 out of 100 people had such responsibility, I think these massacres would be limited in scope rather than enabled by law.<BR/><BR/>Coov, I'll have to do some thinking on it, but I am confident enough to say I think the Founders made that the 2nd amendment on purpose. I think in their minds, it was like the second most basic thing they could agree on.<BR/><BR/>Remember, in spite of the faults of the time that were only later corrected (women's suffrage, ending slavery), the Stamp act and other situations of the time had the Founders own government as the biggest threat to their lives. Soldiers could just enter your house at will. Second amendment stops that.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-37467271588851314552008-07-02T08:48:00.000-04:002008-07-02T08:48:00.000-04:00I do have one question though. Upon re-redaing yo...I do have one question though. Upon re-redaing your post, you say "If the supreme court would fail to protect this second most important amendment . . ." <BR/><BR/>Do you believe that th 2nd amendment is our "most important?"Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-35241230946153290282008-07-02T08:44:00.000-04:002008-07-02T08:44:00.000-04:00If we ever get back to Law & order we may have to ...If we ever get back to Law & order we may have to do one on the shrinks SCOTUS v. Olivette. Bald v. beautiful (sorta). Brains v. Brains.<BR/><BR/>Now that I have gotten over my initial rage over seeing a newsworthy post on my blog, I feel I can comment a little better.<BR/><BR/>I generally believe your own house should be your refuge and you can whatever you want with you in there. I'm still not sure why Tank Johnson would need guns and ammo for a special task forces unit living in Gurnee but that's just me. Still he was in his house. Allowing people to carry concealed weapons makes me nervous.<BR/><BR/>I know your point Ryan is about the law, the constitution and the bill of rights and SCOTUS's ability to interpret it correctly. I certainly think that nothing is as sacred as our first amendment, but a part of me also knows that when these all of this was written slavery was legal and women couldn't vote.<BR/><BR/>I have about as much credentials to speak on the Constitution as I have to talk about Zimbabwe or NASCAR, but I think the balance between interpreting law and doing what is best for this country our PResident calls 'Merica, is a line finer than the angel hair pasta I consumed last night.Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-68910199334039641542008-07-01T23:43:00.000-04:002008-07-01T23:43:00.000-04:00Excellent post, Rye. I think I fall somewhere in t...Excellent post, Rye. I think I fall somewhere in the middle of the Extremes. Somewhere after "More Than Words", and somewhere before their other song.<BR/><BR/>I think I have a knee-jerk reaction of "the less guns, the better", but I don't believe in comprehensive bans on guns. I do believe in thorough background checks, though. Critics may argue that it's a slow and possibly costly process that bogs down people who have better things to do, to which I would respond "then fix the process".<BR/><BR/>There is no way <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Acquiring_arms" REL="nofollow">an 18-year old girl</A> should be able to purchase 2 shotguns and a TEC-DC9 without drawing some suspicion. I am in no way suggesting that a ban on guns or stricter background checks would have stopped this massacre. But I don't see how it would have hurt, and I don't see how making someone wait a little longer before they can purchase the weapon is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Rye, I thought your point on the Supreme Court's role in the issue was spot on. Again, excellent post. This is the kind of stuff that Coovo is paying you for.<BR/><BR/>La-da-di-da da-di-da da da da daaa.... more than words...Rollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-71369867613379686182008-07-01T14:11:00.000-04:002008-07-01T14:11:00.000-04:00Coov, thanks for the comments.SCOTUS is the suprem...Coov, thanks for the comments.<BR/><BR/>SCOTUS is the supreme court of the united states.<BR/><BR/>I think your actual comment is one of the main things being debated now. Some members of the supreme court try to interpret the constitution based on some personal or social feelings they have. I'm with you, I will probably never own a gun in my life.<BR/><BR/>But as a legal question, it is important for us (when it is rarely possible) to call a spade a spade and make the supreme court do its job. If the supreme court would fail to protect this second most important amendment in a very slanted, obvious case, then it becomes scary to think how weak they might be about the first amendment.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I remember one of my good buddies who lives in D.C. showing me some news footage on Youtube about a grocery store on his block that got robbed a few times in a row. The owner pleaded with the neighbors to catch the criminals and then put bars on his windows. Bars? The crooks never once broke a window and snuck in, they walked in broad daylight and held a gun on the guy and stole all his money. He needed a gun under the counter, not bars on his windows.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm not sure how the ban affected businesses, but imagine if you lived in a neighborhood where people would just walk up to you or into your store and hold a gun to you, threaten your life and have their way with you. I probably would own a gun if I lived in that neighborhood.<BR/><BR/>But that's debatable.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-35630294659919648272008-06-28T13:16:00.000-04:002008-06-28T13:16:00.000-04:00I cannot write a serious comment on this very seri...I cannot write a serious comment on this very serious issue because I have no idea what SCOTUS is and I'm to lazy to find out. <BR/><BR/>Actually, I'm sure you wrote a fine analysis about this landmark ruling. For me, it matters not what you wrote because I cannot come down on the side of guns. Doesn't mean I'm right or they're wrong. I just don't like, and won't ever own one.<BR/><BR/>Wait, is SCOTUS that shrink from Law & Order?Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.com