Law School Discussion

"Right To Bear Arms"

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #140 on: May 08, 2008, 12:09:59 PM »

I'd be interested to read more on...

Sarcasm aside, it's indeed an interesting discussion alma!

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #141 on: May 08, 2008, 10:27:00 PM »
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws.

In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "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." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

Less guns, more safety.

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2008, 11:03:49 PM »
We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.

What about protecting ourselves from governmental tyranny? Guns are not dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens but in the hands of criminals. 

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #143 on: May 11, 2008, 11:43:20 AM »

No need to get overexcited about the "right to bear arms." You have to remember that in Western democracies (especially America) the police maintains the public order with an iron hand. Just beacause you have a gun it does not mean that you will use it -- in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," as an insurance that were they attacked they'd be able to get back to the attacker. However, the possibility of being attacked in middle class neighborhoods is minimal and these people almost never put their guns to use. [...]

You are overlooking school shootings... what about high school kids shooting their classmates and teachers?


Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #144 on: May 15, 2008, 11:11:04 AM »

[...] For instance, it is well-known that in ex-communist countries journalists are beaten randomly when they publish discrediting articles about a political figure of their country. Not to mention that even politicians themselves have been treated like * & ^ % in these countries (Russia, for instance). Intelligence services' agents have beaten political adversaries of their superiors so bad that they have nearly died; or their houses have come under heavy gun fire. Assassination attemps towards high level government figures are random even after so many years of trying to establish democratic societies.

Don't get me started with ex-communist countries and their a s s h o l e politicians that you'd not even consider to wipe your d i c k with! When I was in the Czech Republic last year several politicians were caught in a scheme with them booking into hotels using faxes with Blue Chip company letterheads, such as British Airways or the BBC, and then request that the account be sent to the corporate head office for payment.

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #145 on: May 19, 2008, 10:36:21 AM »

[...] in fact, the majority of people get a gun "for the fun of it," [...]

Are you kidding us when saying this, or is it that you are kidding yourself?

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #146 on: May 20, 2008, 05:46:45 AM »

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #147 on: May 22, 2008, 12:41:23 PM »

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."

Well, at least in Illinois, banning guns purchases is just a matter of time! And sicerely I don't get it what are they waiting for!

Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #148 on: May 22, 2008, 05:10:08 PM »
Yeah, the ban on firearms in Chicago has worked extremely well.
In Chicago, you are not allowed to legally own or posess a handgun.  It works great!  Law abiding citizens turned in their pistols and are now unarmed.
What is (not) surprising is that the criminals didn't turn in their guns and continue to own, posess, and use them.
Something like 36 shootings in APRIL ALONE!
Let's put on our lawyer hats for a moment and do the right thing by ignoring emotion and politics, you know - for a change.
36 people shot in April of 2008 alone in a City that has long forbidden handgun ownership.  Statistically, gun crimes are UP, not down.  Logically, it is fair to say that the bans don't work and haven't worked.
Why not?  Because criminals, safe in the knowledge that law abiding citizens can't fight back once they pull their 'gat', don't care about the law or the effect of their armed violence.
Now I don't think EVERYONE should own a firearm.  But I find it  rather silly to continue to punish those who abide by the law and give the clear advantage to those who don't.
The evidence is rather overwhelming unfortunately.  Restricting gun ownership by banning them only affects those who care enough to follow the law.  When an armed invader breaks into their home, instead of having the ability to defend themselves, they get shot.
If, and I know this must sound crazy to you anti-gun nuts, they lifted the handgun ban, criminals might think twice before brandishing their own weapon.  While you might see a spike in gun ownership in the short term, you'd also see a reduction in gun crimes with a slight uptick in fatal and not so fatal shootings in attempted rape, robbery or murder cases.  And quite frankly, I don't really care if a few gangsta's catch a bullet while trying to rob someone.
Look at the facts folks - cities with handgun bans have higher murder rates and higher gun violence rates than cities that have no such ban.  Criminals don't care about the laws.  Law abiding citizens do.  The reason I don't own a pistol is because it is illegal.  I've taken gun courses and been to the shooting range, but if a criminal breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I have to pray that I can whap him on the head with my driving iron while hoping he doesn't have a gun.  So who are we protecting with handgun bans?  The criminals or the citizens?  Clearly it is the criminals, who have no fear that the home they enter might have a gun-toting occupant who isn't about to let him get away, quite literally, with murder.
So while I have to deal with the fact that if someone breaks and enters my home, he may be armed and I cannot be, that pesky criminal can rest easy in the knowledge that I am not.
Gun bans aren't the answer.  They never have been and have always been the first step in overcoming the will of the people.  Hitler did it in Germany.  Others did it as well.
Let's try to think logically.  The tragedy at WV could have been completely avoided if those student with legal concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry.  Instead, as a result of silly politics, so many had to die and too few understand why.
The attacker in that case didn't care that the campus had been declared gun free.  As a matter of fact, it just might have been integral to the reason he chose to attack that campus.
Flame away, folks.  The dozens of dead kids in Chicago that will lose their lives this summer will really be happy that folks like you are the very reason they don't stand a chance.


Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #149 on: May 24, 2008, 01:09:08 PM »

Dodi's father Mohamed Al-Fayed, owner of the Harrods luxury store in London, says Diana and his son were killed by British security services on the orders of Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband and father of Diana's ex-husband, Prince Charles. Al-Fayed alleges the killing was ordered because the couple were about to announce their engagement and Diana was pregnant. The royal family did not want the mother of the future king to have a child with his son.

Oh please, sheraton, why would it be so terrible for the two princes to have a half-brother with a slightly-darker face? I mean, come on!