D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

dunkman wrote:

never once said or alluded to Americans being barbaric... perhaps the act of letting children die unnecessarily, but not Americans as a nation. still not answering the original question but never mind, i had no high hopes that it would be answered

Is this as opposed to the necessary child deaths that happen by knife or extreme shaking from British nannies?

The original point of this thread was about a ban of handguns in Washington, DC. I live in this crime ridden city and know that the gun ban did not work. It took a Constitutionally guaranteed right away from law abiding Americans, punishing all of us for living in this place, and left that right only to those who wish to take part in the crime. Finally, a Federal Court decided to uphold the Constitution which it seems the courts have been allergic to doing in many high profile cases lately.

dunkman wrote:

knife:- designed to be used for culinary purposes not stabbing into the heart of someone who wont hand over their Nikes

british nannies:- designed to be harsh but fair, not trained or designed to shake babies to death unless they are mentally unstable or are suffering an epileptic fit whilst standing on a tray of marbles

guns:- designed to shoot someone in the face and give their wallpaper a new makeover with an interesting new colour called "hint of brain"

The first two were right. The third was way off.

guns:-designed to shoot game for the purposes of human consumption or to shoot targets for human sport.

zstillings wrote:

The first two were right. The third was way off.

guns:-designed to shoot game for the purposes of human consumption or to shoot targets for human sport.

i think you'll find my answer was both funnier and correct

handguns were not designed for sport or human sport... i.e. "The earliest handguns were single-shot, muzzle-loading guns with ignition provided by inserting a smoldering match cord into a touch hole. As such, they were essentially nothing more than miniature cannons, small enough to be handheld."

now if a deer was standing in front of me and all i had was the worlds first portable cannon, it would have died of old age before i shot the fucker... so you're wrong about the conception of guns... even a gamekeepers son such as myself will tell you that much

zstillings wrote:

You don't shoot deer with handguns. People shoot wild boars with handguns. Mine was much more correct since you don't say handguns. There are many other kinds of guns as well. I grew up hunting and shooting targets for sport. Many people have died by being hit in the head with a golf ball but I'm not asking Scotland to ban golf.

i've been saying handguns all through this thread and please ask Scotland to ban golf... i implore you

dunkman wrote:

knife:- designed to be used stabbing into the heart of someone who wont hand over their Nikes

british nannies:- designed to be harsh but fair, not trained or designed to shake babies to death unless they are mentally unstable or are suffering an epileptic fit whilst standing on a tray of marbles

guns:- designed to shoot someone in the face and give their wallpaper a new makeover with an interesting new colour called "hint of brain"

http://www.bobrussell.org.uk/news/000016.html

*#1 was Edited, #2 is funny

Both Knives and Handguns are used as weapons, and are EQUALLY as lethal. No question

down_ski wrote:

http://www.bobrussell.org.uk/news/000016.html

*#1 was Edited, #2 is funny

Both Knives and Handguns are used as weapons, and are EQUALLY as lethal. No question

1. dont edit peoples quotes... its not good
2. they are not EQUALLY as lethal as stats show that more people die as a result of a handgun incident... being stabbed is pretty bad but your chances of dying from it are about half compared if you were shot.. so they are not EQUALLy as lethal, you're quite wrong on that

dunkman wrote:

the conception of ALL guns was originally for warfare purposes

i.e. RIFLES:-
Originally, rifles were sharpshooter weapons, while the regular infantry made use of the greater firepower of massed muskets, which fired round musket balls of calibers up to 0.75 inch (19 mm)

Due to the high cost and great difficulty of precision manufacturing, and the need to load readily from the muzzle, the musket ball was a loose fit in the barrel. Consequently on firing the ball bounced off the sides of the barrel when fired and the final direction on leaving the muzzle was unpredictable.

as hunting is about pure accuracy then it would be fair to assume that the original rifle was designed to be able to shoot into a group of oncoming soldiers in the hope that it hit someone rather than specifically aiming for game, grouse, rabbits, etc!!!

Wow. That has absolutely nothing to do with a gun in today's world.

I once hurt my ankle pretty bad with a bowling ball because some idiot rolled it at me. Work on banning that. Then I may take your posts about guns somewhat seriously.

Derrick wrote:

Neither does the Second Amendment. I'm sure the government has much better means of providing security for a free state than letting commoners keep and bear arms.

It's always a good idea to look to the government to take care of you. I plan on letting them wipe my ass for me before 2010 also.

Derrick wrote:

The absurdity of this comparison is astounding. Lobbyists and other idiots often use this tactic to deflect the true issue, which is real. Bowling balls and guns are like apples and oranges when it comes to personal injury. If you are so concerned about bowling ball injuries, start your own thread, or hell, start your own campaign, complete with a website and a lawyer. I really couldn't give a rat's hairy ass about your misadventures at the bowling lane, but if you truely believe this to be a social issue, please take up the torch. You have a voice. Use it.

In the meantime please collect the intelligence and maturity to realize this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gun control in the United States of Fear.

Who has the fear here? What I see are a group of people who seem to enjoy government control fearing a tool that has many uses. When used irresponsibly and illegally, it causes personal injury or death. Knives do this. Golf balls do this. Bowling balls do this. Televisions do this. Computers do this. You get the point. All of these things, when used improperly, can cause injury or death. I don't want to ban any of them. I actually would rather enforce the laws against using them improperly rather than allowing the government to take away yet another one of the Bill of Rights. As I said, they already seem to have forgotten about the Tenth Amendment as well.

dunkman wrote:

see jeffbr's post about gun stats in America that he surprisingly posted, in it you will read that around 50% of gunkeepers dont keep them locked... not even locked!!!!



of course its greater but if you take the fucking time to read what i post or the links i post you'll see its PER CAPITA... as is the norm with stats... jesus fucking christ sake cunt fuck fuck... not aimed at you but you have no idea how many times i've had to explain its PER CAPITA!!!! and are you seriously claiming you keep better records than the UK (who invented bureaucracy) or the Germans who actually kept records of all their Jewish killings, the hair the scraped from the Jewish heads, etc etc...

just another example of the overblown inflated egotism that americans have of their own country... practically everything you think, use or do these days was invented, thought of or designed by someone from the Old World... you are a nation of buyers

There is still no evidence that banning guns from legal abiding citizens would deter that rate. In fact, many of the statistics from places like Washington DC, which enforced a strict gun ban, showed that the opposite was happening. "jesus fucking christ sake cunt fuck fuck" In fact, most of the gun deaths in that age group are contributed to the illegal possession of the hanguns (either by the parents or by some other means). It's not the people that are obeying the law that are contributing to the problem. What makes you think that taking the guns out of law abiding citizens hands will make the gun-death rate "per-capita" fall when they are not the ones causing the problem? And how is another law going to keep people that disobey the law from obtaining handguns and using them in the same illegal ways that they are right now? If nothing else, they would be the only ones with them if there was a law banning them........How does that make any sense? I think it is more of a parenting problem than a gun problem.

"A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT study, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," which was conducted from 1993-1995 tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY. According to the study:

- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).

- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).

- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).

- "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than boys who get illegal guns] and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported.

FORTY-SIX PERCENT of all those dying of gunshots in 1997 were between the ages of 15 and 34. Presumably guns work mechanically the same way for this age group as they do for others, thus something other that safety would appear to be involved. Clue: these are also the major crime years.

THE COLUMBINE MURDERERS violated at least 17 state and federal weapons control laws, and none of the proposals for trigger locks, waiting periods or gun show restrictions would have stopped Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from obtaining either their guns or bomb-making materials.

ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATHS among children are much rarer than most people believe. Consider New York, with more than 2.6 million children under the age of 10. From 1993 to 1997, the Centers for Disease Control report that there were only six accidental gun deaths in that age range an annual rate of 1.2 deaths. Yet, with over 3.3 million adult New Yorkers owning at least one gun in 1996, the overwhelming majority of gun owners must be extremely careful or such gun accidents would be much more frequent.

GUNS CLEARLY DETER criminals: Americans use guns defensively around 2 million times each year five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes in 1997. And 98 percent of the time, simply brandishing the weapon is sufficient to stop an attack."
http://prorev.com/guns.htm

Derrick wrote:

Looking at the geriatics of the situation, yes, statistics show that many Americans spend the latest years of their life living in homes or group homes that are at least partially funded by the government. So yes, technically one day it is likely someone paid by the government will be responsible for wiping your ass.
More seriously, yes, it is a good idea to llot the government to take care of you. You did elect them, after all. Your tax dollars DO go to them. So yes, you should expect them to take care of your needs.

I do not expect everybody else to pave my way for me. This mentality is the cause of so much of the problem being discussed in this thread that it's kind of funny that the argument as even come to this.

Derrick wrote:

How about we hand every person in America a huge bomb. Make it a nuclear bomb, with nerve gas to boot. I mean, I don't really want to ban anyone's right to this means of personal defence. I mean seriously...what if Indonesia started attacking America, we could send any good patriot American into Jakarta and they would plant their personal bomb there...and they could be a hero. We better get every American a bomb. Or, what if aliens were attacking...consider that! I would like to enforce laws against using guns improperly and irrisponsibly too. I will fight to the death to provide you a world where you don't need a gun to feel secure. That is my pledge. The tenth amendment, no matter how holy, can be rewritten.

Who asked about bombs. I haven't seen one person say all Americans should have access to deadly gases. I also would never support the government giving every American even a gun. I, once again, am more for freedom than most of the people on this thread it seems. I don't understand why everyone has to have handouts from the government in the minds of those who would like to repeal the Constitution.

I do not own a gun. I do not need one to feel secure. Some people do. The person who helped get the ball rolling on this decision needed a gun to feel secure. He had always shown responsibility much like the vast majority of law abiding gun owners in this country. In fact, the vast majority of law abiding drivers in this country are not responsible for the vehicular manslaughter on our roads. This is why we still allow people to drive.

Oh, and as far as rewriting the Tenth Amendment, they have not done that. I would like to see the Federal Government try to get 3/5 of the states to give up their power though. That would be entertaining.