Thread: High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban

Also in Texas if you hunt, you are required to have a hunter education/safety course. I would not be opposed to a mandatory firearm safety course, giving you a card that must be presented in order to purchase a gun. We do the same for a cars, you have to have a drivers license(safety course) to own a car.

Growing up I learned never point a gun at a person, ever. Point your gun down. Make sure its unloaded when storing. All of that was taught to me at a very young age, perhaps thats why I dont see the concern. I have grown up knowing that guns were for hunting and protection. I keep two loaded guns, a .22 in case of a wild animal causing trouble, and a rifle for defense of my home. Personally I dont really care for handguns, I have carried for personal protection, but it was in while working by myself handling money.

I have been held up at gun point and I regret that he walked away, he later killed a man. That would be my reasoning for having a gun, I think all the time why did he leave me alive and go down the block and shoot another. I wasnt old enough at the time to carry a pistol but I think 'what if' all the time.

I also realize that it could get me killed because I dont want to pull the trigger and hesitation would give an attacker the advantage. Its not a situation you want to be in. I just feel people should be allowed to own and carry a gun if they choose.
Safety restrictions I can agree with, making it financially restrictive by creating huge taxes or fees I do not agree with.

I thought that Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion was fairly insightful on why this ruling might be a bad idea in terms of law, precedence, and the general silliness (with historical context) of the Supreme Court tromping over a State's right to limit use of a particular type of firearm in a particular area. I'd advise those looking to understand the nuances of the "this is a dumb idea" viewpoint to read it. It has some very interesting and solid points, as well as some subtle digs at other justices and rulings. Remember that Stevens is retiring... he's got to get it out of his system! http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

I don't really expect anyone to read it, though, and I want to give those of you who read this a little something to keep the dirty god-hating terrorist liberals in your neck of the woods sharp, so here's a little something for the other side. While most of his reasoning is solid and not really related to gun use at all (but rather the extent of the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds AND weakening both the constitution in general and the second amendment by doing so), this is the part that you should replay on conservative talk radio to get them all riled up.

Third, the experience of other advanced democracies, including those that share our British heritage, undercuts the notion that an expansive right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to ordered liberty. Many of these countries place restrictions on the possession, use, and carriage of firearms far more onerous than the restrictions found in this Nation. See Municipal Respondents’ Brief 21–23(discussing laws of England, Canada, Australia, Japan,Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and New Zealand). That the United States is an international outlier in the permissiveness of its approach to guns does not suggest thatour laws are bad laws. It does suggest that this Court may not need to assume responsibility for making our laws still more permissive.
Admittedly, these other countries differ from ours in many relevant respects, including their problems with violent crime and the traditional role that firearms have played in their societies. But they are not so different from the United States that we ought to dismiss their experience entirely.

Emulate the British, who tried to take our guns and our freedoms and got their butts kicked for the trouble? I take it that he's referring to their experience in trying to rule it over the colonies back before 1776... COME TRY THAT SHIT AGAIN BRITISH PUSSIES am I right my fellow Americans?! By traditional role I assume that he means getting a musket shoved up their ass by a true red blooded colonial militiamen who would then pull ye olde trigger until it hath gone "Click!"