US Supreme Court may deny "right to keep and bear arms"

so wait, having the state kill innocent people is better then having some guy do it?

dude, mexico is 3rd world and partially ruled by drug gangs

there are many countries which don't have the death penalty and have lower murder rates then the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

 

The US is not a 3rd world country in part because the people keep and bear arms and the people can defend themselves against drug gangs.

 

If capital punishment was given out in this country fairly, I would support it for the worst offenders, like serial killers for example. The problem with Capital Punishment in America is that it isn't done fairly.

Let me give you an example. One of my favorite tv shows is Unsolved Mysteries. I watched it when I was a kid, and I'm in the process of collecting the entire DVD set. The first set I got was the Unsolved Murders segment.

In texas, a man by the name of Edward Harold Bell, who is White, Brutally murdered a young man right in front of his mother and sister, all because Bell showed his privates to a group of kids that were playing outside their home, and when the victim confronted him, he shot him five times with a revolver, and then finally shot him point blank with a rifle right in front of his family, who were helpless.

The man ran, and got away for a few years, was finally caught, and guess how much time they gave him: 70 years. I couldn't believe it. 70 years in the state of Texas for a cold blooded murder, a state that traditionally executes criminals. I firmly believe Bell should have been executed.

But guess what? More Black males are executed in Texas than almost any other state. I agree with Ron Paul: Because the death penalty in this country is not given fairly, it should not be given at all, until the governments can become more fair. The death penalty needs to be given fairly, and no exceptions should be made, regardless or your race, or how rich you are, or how rich your family is.

The rich get away with a lot in this country. I think a member of the Du Pont family shot and killed a guy in the 90s, and I don't think he faced a serious prison time. All the time you hear about these celebrities like Lindsay Lohan getting caught with cocaine, and they don't get any serious time. But if a poor inner city Black gets caught with crack, he is given probably 5 to 10 years.

The judicial system in this country is total BS...........don't even get me started talking about the plea bargain scam.

This is true. The citizens of third world countries almost always are restricted from carrying guns, and then the only people who have them are the corrupt criminals.

 

Lol, like for instance the biggest drug gang out there the CIA...

heh, has everyone forgetten... they brought ALL the coke over here... they've mastered the market they to our faces say they're stopping.

What filthy humans, how can you sleep at night?

maybe they're like those creatures from the movie in 1988 'they live'

it all seems way to inhuman to me... I mean serious, could any of us just KILL the other? I know I couldn't.... yet we're told to do this to other people so they can continue to police our world and thwart out all revolution.

 

Did someone post a live link to DP on the prison planet forums again?

 

Why couldn't Bogart sleep at night?

Maybe knowing he can own a gun if he chooses to helps him sleep like a baby

 

In this country, guns keep us safer

tell that to the 53,000 children killed by guns in the USA in the last 10 years

 

Tell that to the millions who could be killed if our government turned into a government similiar to Saddam, Hitler, etc.

Or the thousands who have been saved because gun ownership is legal.

BTW how many children have been killed in auto accidents? We better ban those damn cars!

 

If you were to ban abortion and cars you could save a lot more children's lives than banning guns.

The number 1 cause of death of children in the US is arbortion. There have been more than 40 million abortions in the past twenty six years.

Approx 50% of children killed by guns are suicides.

There are approx 42,000 deaths per year from auto accidents in the US

I wonder how many children's lives are saved per year because there are guns in the household to repell intruders.

 

No one would turn in their guns peacefully. I know my family wouldn't. If you take guns away from the law abiding citizens, the criminals can still easily get guns because of our unsealed borders. If the US can close the borders up and control the flow of illegal goods, then I can see this being possible.

 

In Switzerland and Israel everyone has a gun and there is a far lower murder rate.

Gun control in countries like Brazil and Mexico do not work. The only people that have guns in these countries are the crimminals.

Gun control does not stop Hamas and Hezbollah for getting guns.

 

I suppose, but then again in Switzerland, a neutral country, I think the population and overall societal climate is much different. I don't think they are a fair comparison over all..

I mean look at Japan.. No guns and less than 2% murder rate (read that somewhere years ago.. could be different now)

As for Israel, every citizen must serve in the military. I think service in the military, and infantry training tends to lend one to respecting firearms for what they are.

Mexico and Brazil have corrupt leaders, police, military, etc. Again, a much different societal climate.

As for Ham-Ass and He's-a-bully, these are terrorist organizations.. not the average public, or crime ring. They are getting their weapons from corrupt leaders.

It's kinda hard to enact gun control on a society who's leaders are supplying the guns to those that should not have them to begin with.

I still maintain, that more violent gun crimes occur in gun free zones than anywhere else. I would be willing to bet that most gun crimes are committed by people who should not, or do not legally posses a gun to begin with.

So gun law, or no gun law, those that are not supposed to have guns are getting them anyway, and will continue to do so anyway regardless of whether or not another new law is created.

 

Mia, I'm not 100% sure on the facts of your post, I however applaud you for posting things that do not support your agenda. It's refreshing

http://www.indexmundi.com/switzerland/military_profile.html

It is also mandatory for all Swiss males who can serve to serve.

You are correct though, there are far too many other factors such as society, culture, etc to determine anything really. I still maintain even if our firearm deaths were 1000% higher than average, it's a small price to pay for keeping the freedoms we were given.

 

Japan's murder rate: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
"0.00499933 per 1,000 people"

What makes you think I have an agenda?

Again, that military service probably lends some influence to the respect that must be paid to a firearm...

True... I would never suggest banning guns in the US.. It's would be completely counter to everything our nation has ever stood for... And again, even if they were banned, in the US, you'd find that the people who are not supposed to have them, would still have them.

 

I wasn't disputing what you posted, I guess my point was even if it was wrong 'which I don't think it was' it was refreshing to see someone realise and actually post things that don't support their goal/agenda/belief. However you want to put it.

Possibly the wrong word, agenda, belief, however you want to call it. I was complimenting you I'm the same as you on this btw, I'm 100% pro gun ownership.

I fully agree. Plus it can cut down on 'accidents' as well I'd imagine. Plus I'd imagine military service brings more than just respecting a firearm as well, possibly respecting life as well.

Exactly my point when I said 'agenda' didn't intend it to be a bad thing, I agree with you on this.

 

I know man.. Just giving you a hard time.. No Packers today.. argh..

Of course on the flip side there have been quite a few military trained killers, like Oswald, [SIZE=-1]Whitman, etc.. But in everything you'll have a few bad apples.

The first thing I learned about a gun was from my grandfather. He told me to never point a gun at someone unless I intended to kill them. Had a toy cap gun at the time.. To this day, I never point anything resembling a weapon towards a person. I'm not a hunter, and I don't really have any need for guns, but no one is going to take that right away from me, that is for sure.

It's because we have a right to bear arms, I feel I do not need to. If that makes sense...

I know.. But agenda makes it sound like I have some evil master plan.. I don't... I pick and choose what I agree and disagree with. There is no one all powerful force that controls my destiny..

 

Yeah no pack game sucked!

 

In light of the shootings by a disturbed person in Omaha, the killing of the Redskin football player by young gun carrying robbers in Miami, the killings at Virginia Tech by a disturbed person and other events I would like to see a review of these laws that take into balance 2nd amendment claims with the rights of communities and law enforcement to protect the citizenry.

Exactly how that takes place is complex. What are the statistics with regard to violent crime with regard to jurisdictions such as Washington DC vis a vis other areas with regard to killings. I'm not sure. I know over a long period gun deaths in DC are down from much larger numbers but are currently over 170 during 2007.

In some capacity the levels of gun deaths as a result of certain types of cases that are repeated endlessly are issues that should be dealt with.

How is it that disturbed people such as the shooter in Omaha and the killer at Virginia Tech able to easily access guns and go on rampages?

Similarly how is it that a huge swath of urban cities suffer from significant levels of gun deaths and have suffered from them for decades?

While one solution posed by urban communities is to be able to establish laws that restrict access to guns in the community the ability to enforce that is obviously weak, and the effectiveness is subject to analysis and debate.

Still, should the Supreme Court rule in such a way to eliminate the DC gun ban and do it in a way that takes that power away from local governments it seriously limits the ability of local police forces to reduce such violence.

I think the issue should be handled in a way that allows and enables local jurisdictions that face these problematic issues to deal with them in a wide way, which might include certain restrictions on the access to guns, hand guns, etc, the reporting of such access or any ways whatsoever that can assist in reducing such violence.

America has a long way to go in reducing gun violence which occurs at a far higher level here than in other comparable developed nations.

Why that occurs is beyond me, but the ability to tackle the issue is one which should not be restricted.

 

I understand your concerns but in order to be free people need the right to keep and bear arms.

Es mejor morir a pie que vivir arrodillado (Translation: It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.) Emiliano Zapata

 

Freedom means opportunities for defense, not guarantees of safety. You're never truly free if your safety is conditional upon someone else providing it.

I don't like how so much of the Constitution has been eroded, little by little with laws that create special exceptions to what were intended to be universal and absolute rights.

The nonsense we have today with rewriting the Constitution without an Amendment (specifically made a long process so it could not be rushed in haste) sickens me. It's anathema to everything that the Republic is supposed to be about.

There has been generations of people who look to the state for protection, subsidies, etc. A nanny state is socialism. The Founders never intended for us to lose our rugged independence, but with each passing generation, pass on the legacy of an eternal struggle for individual liberty.

A Republican government serves the people and provides only the most basic of services. National defense, coinage of the currency, foreign relations and maintenance of the rule of law.