Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/...ex.html?hpt=T1

Most of you can probably guess where I land on this issue, but I'll let Penn and Teller sum it up for me:

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

I'm a liberal, but I agree with Penn and Teller. The 2nd Amendment says there's a right to bear arms. It's really ungrammatical, but the meaning is clear. I think the 2nd Amendment seriously needs updating because the Founding Fathers never contemplated fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers. However, the way to deal with this is a constitutional amendment, not piecemeal legislation by individual states and cities. That's going to be a hell of a fight, but I'm convinced that it's a conversation we as a country are going to be forced to have within a few decades.

Meanwhile, though, the practical effect of this ruling is that the Supreme Court is now going to have to figure out where to draw the line on gun control. Mandatory background checks? Gun safes? Mandatory training? Stamping every bullet with identifying marks? The Supreme Court has now made this a Constitutional (read: Federal) issue, so the bag is in their hands.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

I think considering the US has the biggest and most powerful professional military in the world the right to bear arms becomes void considering the need for a peoples militia is 100% unnecessary.

It only says that because the British were coming.
The British already came. Then they left.
I don't think they're coming back.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Well not exactly. When you look through historical documents, what you see is at least some of the Founding Fathers considered the Second Amendment to be a stopguard against tyranny. At the time, it was the British. But later on, it could be anybody including the US government itself. The people were supposed to have a right to defend themselves against tyrannical rule (and home invasion).

The problem is these days there's no way anybody with a bunch of rifles could possibly overthrow our government, so that whole justification no longer works. Nonetheless, it is clear that the people were meant to have guns so that they could protect their homes and their property. What that means today has yet to be decided.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

When the 2nd amendment refers to a militia, they are referring to the state run military, not a bunch of civs carrying muskets. To clarify, read the 2nd amendment as follows: "Because the government must maintain a military to protect itself and its people, the people should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves against that military if it is ever used to infringe the rights of the people."

The American Revolution ended in 1783, well before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. I'd say something about how Canadians are taught American history, but we Americans are fed the same junk history in the states as well.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Thats works for that time period, but now?

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Well, if you want to know if a bunch of untrained, but armed people, can legitimately fight an organized and professionally trained and armed military... just watch the news. No army on the planet can subdue the will of an armed populace without consent of those people. Only by getting the civilian authorities on the side of US military did we succeed in Iraq.

If your comment is about whether or not its necessary to arm a populace to defend against a tyrannical government in today's day and age: Well, if you could fit all of civilized history into an hour, true democratic governments would take up about 5 seconds. Democracy as we know it (and its various iterations) is a relatively new idea and is still the minority in the world.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Those types of arms are not that comparable. You should also know that those people are fighting with surplus soviet arms including 107 mm rockets, 82 mm mortars, C4, RPGs, (any of those can be made into IEDs) recoil-less rifles, etc. All of those arms are illegal (at least i would hope) in the US. Those are the real killers, I think it takes around an average 2,500 rounds fired to account for 1 kill.


EDIT, my bad, it wasnt that many.......... it takes 250,000 for each kill. as an underestimate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ed-508299.html

You also seem to forget that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of those people in order to establish a self supporting entity, and that often gets in the way of firefights, operations, even scouting of enemy positions.

Insurgents in iraq and Afghanistan have been fighting for years and years and years, that hardly qualifies them as inexperienced. A lot of the fighters have military training and knowledge.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Get 350 million people fired up and they would overthrow any army with .22s. They likely could overthrown the government with pitchforks.

And why do you think we're trying to win the hearts and minds of those people? Its our best chance of winning and the only reason why we won in Iraq.

And so would we if we fought for years and years against what we thought was a tyrannical government. They had success before they ever had that experience. If they didn't have an success... they never would have gotten any experience... they'd be dead.

Lets say you're right, though, and it still changes nothing. The 2nd amendment still grants the right to keep and bear arms. Until that is changed, all our modern wrangling over the necessity of bearing arms is useless.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

1. Then why not limit the 2nd amendment to .22's and pitchforks if that's all it takes?

Also you magically made up about 50 million people....

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...can+population

2. if the US populace had to rise up and fight the government in this age that would be a fictional "apocalyptic" situation. Part of my reasoning about the "that works for that time period, but now?" comment is that you are the friggin USA, The government and military would never turn against the populace at all. That is the whole point of democracy, and if you think its going to crumble and some crazy regime is going to sprout up, then you may be reading too many right wing news letters or attending too many conspiracy meetings. Also i think you should use the term "won" loosely, as you are still fighting, and only time will tell if the desired outcome happens when western forces leave the middle east.

3. Now you're just throwing "ifs" around and dabbling in hypothetical situations to aid your point. AMERICANS haven't had to fight a tyrannical governments have you? so again, you cant compare fighting insurgents to the American populace and call them both untrained combatants.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

We learn Canadian history in Canada.


Anyways, all I'll say about the gun laws is this:

They're out-dated, and un-needed. People need guns for one thing, hunting.

I stand by my statement of guns beget more guns.

If you have a knife to defend against a guy with fists, he'll get a knife. If you have a gun to defend your home against a guy with a knife, the next guy will have a pistol. If you get a shotgun to defend that pistol, the next guy will have two shotguns. If you get a mounted turret to protect against a guy with two shotguns, he'll get explosives.

The system never ends, and it is that 'constitutional law' to have guns that not only started the chain of events you have in your country, but keeps it progressing.

And I honestly think all of the United States' violence and gang problems stem from that one single 'right'.

It started as a way to backhandedly cut down on policing and government armament. If people police themselves, all is well. It was a few hundred years ago after all. But as time went on and civilization evolved and advances into a technological age, the right to have a deadly weapon remains, and is backed up with "our forefathers said yadda yadda."

To which I say "Big fucking whoop." It's 2010. 2000 years after Jesus, and more than 200 years after some guy said "Sure, have a gun. Write that down there, too."

"Freedom to own a gun" is a joke. There is no such thing as freedom. If you want to talk about freedom run down the street naked and brandish your gun. Then say you have the right to have a gun, and be naked if you so choose. You're only as free as the rules allow you to be. And this is one specific case where nobody anywhere in the world should be free to have a gun.

Guns beget guns, which beget bigger guns, which beget bigger guns.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Because the intent of the 2nd amendment wasn't to arm civilians "just enough". If you disagree with it, ok, work towards an amendment.

Ok. I was mistaken. Doesn't change my opinion on the result of a mass uprising.

I don't think we're anywhere close to having a situation where the people would be forced to rise up against their government. As you said, we are a democracy. But all that needs to happen for violence to become necessary is for the democratic process to end. I don't see that happening any time soon, but that doesn't mean that it will never happen.

Point taken. I only use "win" only in Iraq, BTW, because it looks like we have won in general terms. That can change, but I don't think I'm being overly optimistic.

Do you have any numbers or proof that these people were trained combatants? To my knowledge, most were simply loosely trained armed populace. Keep in mind, RPGs and Aks are loved by resistance fighters BECAUSE they are easy to come by and require almost no training.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Obviously.

Well your argument is age-old, but it really has nothing to do with guns. Its about freedom vs. safety, and that debate has been going on since civilization began. You don't believe in freedom, but you believe in safety. That's certainly one way to look at it.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

As I said "Freedom" is a concept. You're not free. And I'm not free. At least not in the definition of the meaning "free", which is "To do whatever one pleases." Considering there are people in jail, I'd assume they broke a law, which means they went against a rule. Which means they weren't free to do as they pleased.

We are, however "free" compared to less developed nations, or developing nations. Does this make us have "freedom"? No. Freedom is a concept. "Freedom" is another term for democracy, essentially - Which I highly disagree with [using].

If anything I've said [Such as "Don't own a gun", or "Guns are bad"] makes me hate freedom, then I suppose disliking the ownership of guns makes me hate freedom. Good thing for me I live in a country that has freedom defined as "Not being able to own a gun."

The problem, Strangler - is that it has to do with guns. Without the law for ownership of guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself. It all stems from that one law you have. It's turned into a myriad of issues that all starts with "We're free to own guns."

I've posted the violent crimes numbers [which was per capita] for Canada [where we don't have guns] in comparison with the US numbers [where you have guns] and your violent crime numbers are well above the ones here.

As I said before, I don't 'believe' in guns for anything other than hunting. Will someone somewhere use a hunting gun to commit a crime? You bet they will. But that doesn't mean I'd jump on the "Holy fuck, we all need guns to protect ourselves" bandwagon. Guns aren't the answer, solution or question. Guns are the entire problem.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

That was one of the first asked questions when the insurgents started fighting back...........

Investigations have shown that the ideal insurgent candidate are those with military training.

This is recent stuff, but you dont go through 60+ years of conflict and not have experience with weapons and guerrilla fighting. Of course this stuff was happening against the Soviets, and Israel.

I don't get how you can't concede the fact that militant insurgent groups are at a higher level of conflict experience than the American public. That is a positive for the American public! You just chose a bad example saying that insurgent groups are a model for how Americans would use their guns to fight their own military.

Most of the casualties are caused by IED's which take military level training and more importantly MILITARY MUNITIONS (c4, rockets, large caliber shells, mortars, etc) to make effectively. I think around 75% in Afghanistan casualties and around 60-65% in iraq are caused by IEDs, not small arms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64T0U920100530

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11941340/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...istan_060209w/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...s_ieds_040309/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Ok, I concede that middle eastern insurgents had far more fighting experience than American civilians from the very beginning of the conflict. I was not a aware of a lot of those stats you posted, thanks.

It still does not change my opinion on a mass uprising in the US, experienced combatants or not. We've veered waaaayyyy off topic anyway. This thread really isn't about the pros and cons of gun ownership, its about what rights our governing documents guarantee.

I am not a gun nut by any means, nor am I against gun controls (I'm not necessarily for them either as the data is conflicted at best as to whether or not gun control reduces gun related crime in countries with a history of gun ownership). What I am against are laws, like the one that was rightfully overturned, that violate the constitution.

You want to revise/repeal the 2nd Amendment? Ok. It will take another amendment. That's the entire point of the protections given by the constitution. Certain individual rights are not to be repealed unless their is a massive movement in public opinion, and even then, some general rights are inalienable, meaning people cannot even amend them away.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

I didn't say that you didn't believe in freedom because you're against gun ownership. I said you didn't believe in freedom because you said you didn't believe in freedom.

I'm sorry if you made yourself misunderstood, but that is hardly my fault.

Freedom comes with inherent dangers and vast helpings of personal responsibility. As you mentioned, you can't run down the street brandishing a gun (but you can have one holstered or even concealed if licensed). That is a trade in of freedom to gain safety, and I think a reasonable one, but still a trade all the same.

The balance between freedom and safety is where the argument will always lie.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

I don't believe "Freedom" exists. And it doesn't. Freedom is anarchy.
Do I enjoy the North American meaning of Freedom which is substituted for Democracy? Yes. I quite enjoy Democracy. But I would not call Democracy freedom.

"Freedom" is one of those bullshit words thrown around now to try make a point more valid when you don't have anything to back it up with other than "freedom".



Yes, but as I've been stating - and you've been avoiding - the reason in your country that the argument is between "freedom" and safety is because of the 'right to own a gun'. Without that 'right', you wouldn't need one to defend yourself with a gun.

If you remove the right to own a gun for purposes other than hunting, in a few generations, things will change.

Like I said:

"The problem, Strangler - is that it has to do with guns. Without the law for ownership of guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself. It all stems from that one law you have. It's turned into a myriad of issues that all starts with "We're free to own guns."

I've posted the violent crimes numbers [which was per capita] for Canada [where we don't have guns] in comparison with the US numbers [where you have guns] and your violent crime numbers are well above the ones here.

As I said before, I don't 'believe' in guns for anything other than hunting. Will someone somewhere use a hunting gun to commit a crime? You bet they will. But that doesn't mean I'd jump on the "Holy fuck, we all need guns to protect ourselves" bandwagon. Guns aren't the answer, solution or question. Guns are the entire problem."

Semi-off topic edit:

I also stand firm in the belief that every countries "Rights" should be updated every so often to fit the current social and economical structure that the world is in. I don't think we [general 'we'] should be following rules made by people 200+ years in the past. That seems ridiculous. I'm not saying a complete overhaul is constantly needed - just a keen eye for revision.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the chicken and egg theory around guns and violence (and my disagreement is in regards to your certainty, not with your belief), but there is ample research and evidence that supports both of our points of view.

I agree they should be updated as well, and we have a process for it. That process was put in place over 200 years ago.

That is what you seem to misunderstand about the constitution. The constitution isn't really a list of laws, but instead is a framework where people, through democratic action, can evolve their own government and society without having to worry about a temporary political windfall or a one vote majority in the Senate removing their individual rights forever.

To amend the constitution and change people's rights (quotations unnecessary), there must be an overwhelming societal shift in that direction. It is not the federal government that is given the power to change it, but the combination of the federal government and the states.

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

Are you guys sure they weren't referring to this:

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

I think it is laughable to suggest that guns inherently necessitate the use of more guns to insure one's personal safety.
Typhoid, in your argument you are avoiding some serious realities concerning the abilities of individuals to protect themselves.
In a country which inhibits 'freedom' to do whatever one wants, there is a social consensus that dictates a type of 'framework' as Prof said. This framework, based on western philosophical thought, decries a movement towards completely limiting the possibilities of individuals in favour of a wrapped up notion of utilitarian safety.
In my opinion, it is incredibly naive to assume that a civilian insurrection would be ineffective regardless of their weaponry capabilities. The path that 'complete gun control' offers is one of totalitarian servitude which allows those whose personal interests have established an intimidating, nearly impregnable establishment of control. By arguing that civilians arleady pose too little a threat to even bother exercising a right to 'bear arms' the subsequent result is that an already powerful organization is less hindered in its movement towards even more technologically endowed control.

This source of fear based on the fact that an individual really can't do anything to initiate a change of what he or she considers to be an infringement on inalienable rights has to be the number one concern of any individual who has witnessed the unfolding of congressional votes which allow a seemingly instoppable military institution from warrantless wiretaps and indefinite detainment of any and all civilians despite any formal charges being laid.

We haven't even touched on the forms of non-lethal weaponry that exists, and the laws passed which would occasian the governments of any NATO nation to use against its own citizens in case of 'national security'.

To argue that 200 years of technological advancements has extinguished the need for an individual to exercise his right to defend his person, family and property, is to suggest that the inequal distribution of 'firepower' has evolved modern societies into a type of living which should relinquish one's own ability to initiate a more immediate type of defense. I suppose crossbows should follow the path of gun laws since the silent, efficient killing ability is far to 'dangerous' to allow.

You forget that half of the population are gentically designed in a way that makes them susceptible to the use of force by the opposite gender which generally overpowers in all manners of combat. If a woman and man are both taught a lethal martial art, by the same teacher and for the same duration, with the same mindset towards refining their defensive and offensive capabilities, the man is considered to have the obvious advantage in a match simply due to a longer arm reach and more body weight, since his ability to match her speed is not inhibited simply due to his size. Do you know about human hormone influence in an individual's ability to perform physical and cognitive functions?

How is it, in a 'democratic' society, where individuals should have the right to self sabotage their thought processes as well as physical abilities through what is considered to be basic, daily lifestyle choices, can one say that all forms of 'advanced weaponry' be completely prohibited on the grounds that these weapons will then be used to infringe on the personal safety of others?
Typhoid, i know in past discussions you have stated that you feel absolutely no fear towards the possibility of guns being used against your person. That's fine and cool. For the most part I feel the same unless I walk down the wrong street where an abundance of liquor and testosterone has shaped a group of young men into a mob mentality that hardly needs projectile violence to pose a threat. My main concern at this point, being situated in a dark street with 10 violent prone individuals, is that my gun clip only holds 8 bullets.
We live in a world(lets call it Canada) where gun laws have limited our ability to legally purchase handguns with the same ease in which we can purchase liquor. Our neighbors to the south are running their economy on a long established military industry which inherently requires situations in which their product is to be used. It's like growing food. If there's no one to buy and use the food, then industry suffers. So, we live in a world where the reality is that social expenditures are slashed in favour of military spending, which, given the type of combat that we currently participate in, leaves quite a few 'veterans' left with military experience and little job opportunity when set against the reality of military mens' vast pattern of low socio economic status. Their PTSD tendencies instill an indirect threat to the public as their chemical imbalance issues collaborate with their 'weaponry' induced poverty. Its the reality of a nation state which has favoured to pour tax money into foreign military involvements instead of subsidizing alternative energy technologies.

But, with all this aside, and a possible future where international military conflicts have been reigned in due to a sense of 'greater safety' or 'human dignity', the possibility will always be there. We've seen it in probition era US. They figured out how to consume alcohol despite 'liquor laws'. The black market of gunsmithing would be another "war on _____" which would undoubtedly fail. The argument then moves to a possible reality which, given a altruistic distribution of social funding intended to DRASTICALLY reduce the possibility that an individual would turn to violent crime in order to alleviate his personal suffering (identified partially through comparisons of social inequallity markers), there would be, and always be the possibility that YOUR self, or YOUR wife, or YOUR children, all while in YOUR own home(built with a sense of protective measures...against weather, wild beasts, or western gunslingers... and an inalienable notion that the right to own property is something realized through the reality of living as a human being on a planet with plenty of square-inhabitable-footage) can have someone infringe upon the possibility that YOU or YOUR LOVED ONES can wake up the next morning without the nightmare of having experienced a rape, blade rip, or being chained up in some psycho's basement. I suppose we should outlaw private basements and chains. I mean, with the advancements of technology, we could easily put central observation stations to the task of monitoring the millions of basements and kitchens(full of knives and hotstoves) and garages and anything else that constitutes an individuals ability to practive """LAWFUL""" behaviour privately without the scrutiny of a tyrannical government....or let's put it succinctly, any organization that could theoretically infringe on what I know you consider to be a reasonable degree of 'freedom'. Just because you have no intent on causing harm to others, does not automatically distribute the same intent on outside institutions or individuals. We live in a western society that has literally privatized military holding camps which can serve as civilian encampments in case of emergency. Their is a real possibility that these same 'camps' could be used to restrict the inalienable rights of law abiding civilians if what was once considered lawful is turned unlawful by interests wholly disconcerned with your rights as a breathing individual. Now, is that being too 'right wing newsletter, guntoutingly delusional' ? Possibily. But what you fail to recognize is that right now, at this very moment, the United States of America has overextended itself through military missions, much in the same way that Britain of the late 1700's had encountered economic 'dilemmas' which pushed them to initiate unfair taxation on its colonial holdings. Now, if America, believing itself to be too 'green' to stand a chance against redcoat military dominance, would have set a precedent of acceptance towards home invasions and property seizures, the rights that you have tertiarily been born into would only be the realities of some far off country who had the balls to stand up for their human dignity.

You cite that the seizure of 'hunting apparatus' which could be used as a form of self defense against the 'same apparatus' being used in an organized military fashion is no longer valid since weaponry has no ceiling of advancement.
What I say to that argument is this, we live in the present, a reality which houses advanced weaponry far beyond the fantastical depictions found in hollywood, futuristic spectaculars. The fact that a .306 hardly stands a chance against a 24 round repeater shotgun with explosive and armour piercing ammuntion doesn't decry the owner from exercising his right to die, rather quickly. Who are you to say that his death is any less better than living out a life fully subjective to the whims of individuals who don't give a crap whether or not you starve or grow obese, as long as you don't interfere with their agenda. Remember that remote controlled technology, chemical intrusion weaponry, and atmospheric manipulation weaponry is something not only real, but implementable in a manner that leaves little evidence of its mark. Not to mention non-lethal weaponry that can subject the mind of an individual into experiencing a schizophrenic nightmare that indoubtedly could lead to a medicated complacency or institutionalization. A gun can kill in moments. So can medication, the definition of individuals' living being snuffed out in a different manner.

It really sounds delusional to voice an argument that covers all of society based on the fact that you pose no threat to others' safety or the safety of their possessions.

What if I like to grow my own, organic food in my backyard which is free of genetically modification and the successor to agent orange which is roundup which is used on all GMO crops, which is proven to be a huge contributor to birth defects and the longterm developmental safety of those in society who don't have a voice to raise in a democratic process. Now, if big business is soooo large and sooo devoid of scruples regarding the environmental and social repercussions of their market monopoly maneuvring, and government passes laws which enable government-run institutions to perform raids on my property, without warrant, simply on the pretense that I pose a threat to my neighbors in case I give them a basket of non-irradiated cucumbers and subject them to the uncomfortable 6 hour episode of diarrhea because the immigrant I hired to pick my crop didn't wash his hands after shitting, I should just sit back and accept this as a legislated reality. Now, is my food choice independance really a threat to others? No, it isn't. The e.coli transmission is in fact quite unlikely and even if I had the notion to hire farm workers, the process of hand washing isn't something that an FDA raid will rectify. Preventative measures such as posting a "wash your fucking hands after a crap" sign in the bathroom is more reasonable given the cost efficiency of hiring SWAT members to shake down small farms.
In fact, by exercising what I believe to be an inalienable right(freedom to choose what I put in my mouth as a nutrient source) it would indirectly influence a possibly large number of individuals to enact their own food safety measures and help themselves raise children with less chance of developing ADD or parkinsons.
Now, since this result strips large agricultural monopolies from strangle-holding consumers into shopping at bigchain, tax loopholing, local business destroying franchises, and helps reduce the amount of people who would otherwise turn to a pharmaceutical treatment to help them manage the symptoms of a pesticide cellular load, I am now a target of state sponsored control which hardly has an individuals' inalienable rights at the top of their agenda.
Since the above is actually a reality in many parts of America, and is resulting in local municipalities passing Food Freedom laws which limit the FDA's right to raid farms and regulate natural food companies into bankruptcy, I believe that I have the right to at least deter a government official from coming onto my property and telling me that I am a threat. (the determent realized in the possibility that a gun is located on said property and that the owner could very well be 'nut' who has 'idiotically' devoted hundreds of hours towards the proficient elimination of armed individuals whose goal is to limit the gun-nut's ability to provide, protect, and secure the lives of his family)

A threat, and unfit to parent my children. Did you know people have lost their children to the social services debacle simply because they were too foolish to lie about raising their children on a vegetarian diet. My parent is a social worker so I have no right-wing delusions about the necessity to protect children from inadequate parenting.

It is INSANITY and your sense of reduction as an answer to gun crime is too tunnel-visioned to fully appreciate just exactly what is at stake.
I mean, in Canada and many seaboard cities, we have an urban garden renaissance occurring in response to the private interests of organizations which have systematically "poisoned" the food supply, which have tertiary access to forms of public control. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she will choose a healthful alternative to what is argueably a food production system which has lied continuously through respectable medical institutions by means of bribery and coersion(loss of research funding?). This food production system supports a fossil fuel industry which is also supported by the military endeavors of our western nations. It means trillions of dollars in the short term. Incalcuable gains in the long term. And in the meantime, there is a continuous drain of responsible government as the taxpaying middle class bears the brunt of all the taxcuts and systematic slow deaths of people in our society who think they need rBGH hormone saturated meat in order to meet their daily protein requirements.
There's a genocide going on against the citizens of our countries and you want people to have no access to a form of what can be quite an effective deterrent against armed invasion by 'thugs'.
I respect law enforcement to a point, but unless you haven't noticed, there's a reason why the public supports an independant civilian oversight board to keep RCMP crimes against defenseless civilians to a minimum.
The variables are infinite.
Let's outlaw pressurized oxygen tanks since a 10$ adapter can be fitted to some hardware store internals and a rifled barrle, and produce accurate projectile velocities of over 2000fps.

Let's outlaw building your house on anything over 15% grade hilltops since the stragic sitting of the house would enable a resident to initiate projectile defenses against 'your utopian gun-less officials who are only keeping their job'. Defense of oneself and one's property is so ridicuously necessary that lumpsummarizing handguns as an inherently evil and corrosive technology is completely devoid of logic.

one last rant. How would you feel if you were an Iraqi boy of 14. Your father and older brother died two years ago because their van was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a NATO airstrike happened to land. Now, it is only you and your mom and your older sister Nadala who is ready to get married but unfortunately the amount of dusted depleated uranium is so concentrated in her organs that, even if she were to remove herself from the environment and initiate a lifestyle that aids in removing such insiduous radioactive elements, her future infant would experience so much pre-natal toxic exposure that when its born, his limbs are so warped in a thalidomide contrusion that he dies by the age of one since his internal excretory organs are unable to deal with the daily exposures that a healthy, western born child can chalk up as a slight case of the flu and recover in just a few days. They won't miss the big soccer game.
Now, the Iraqi 14 year old was lucky, or unlucky in your mind(since information is power), to have access to the internet where he reads up on all sorts of atrocities that are being inflicted on his civilian population in the name of spreading democracy. He gets to experience the berrading of his local elders against the imperial forces, and gets to listen to the government empoloyees who value their slave wages since it feeds them. Information that isn't constrained to local subjection and bias, is what informs the young man that he does in fact have a choice. I can join up with a local militia or decide that it is best to work for pittance and support my mother whose life expectancy has been cut short by western-backed economic sanctions and military agression.
His inherited land is poisoned for centuries, unable to produce edible food items or raise a brood of happy, peace-loving islamic offspring. So when Marines on routine-mission-orders enter his house to 'clear' the area, and mother and son are accidentally killed in the confusion of a poorly lit house full of quick movements and unintelligble shouts for mercy, wouldn't you, if you were that boy, wish for the power to proficiently defend what has been left to you?

My point being, how much abuse and intrusion is acceptable. Who gets to determine how much inequality is distributed over the populations whose inabililty to defend their rights directly results in furthering their helpless state. Who helps the Iraqi boy whos country was inarguably invaded under false pretenses in order to profit the wealthy 'gun makers' who have their hands in energy pockets, political pockets, etc.
meh

My grandfather and his family, living in the middle of butt-no-where saskatchewan, had their guns confiscated, as did all the other german families, because of the delusional apprehensions of ignorant elected officials. You place a lot of faith on the consistency of logic and good intentions that our governing agencies have.
I suppose it was proper to imprison all the Japanese-Canadians right. Because you know, they could have possibly poisoned all of our recruits who decided on sashimi instead of steak. Speculative safety infringement is a scary thing and your stance towards a gun-free society sounds good in its idealism but the reality is found in what history teaches us. Even history that is over 200 years past. Maybe history from earlier 20th century Canada is now irrelevant as well? Doesn't IMMEDIATE history teach us that a form of lethal protection is actually necessary if an individual feels that freedom should be something to defend, something to face impossible odds for?
My optimistic self sees a future where citizens of a capable sort are allowed the freedom to fly their transport vehicle wherever they want, as long as the energy requirements and flight paths don't interfere with the safety of others and the environment. A type of cowboy bebop solar system where, believe it or not, owning a gun doesn't automatically allocate an invidual into a popularized stereotype. I like freedom. I believe I have it as long as I have a choice. I choose a limit on the amount of control that insidious organizations have over myself and the people I love. biiiig threat

oh, and despite advanced weaponry that would make you shit your pants, Castro and Che managed to get back Cuba in 1953. If you haven't read, they accomplished their revolution with only folk songs and an unrelenting love of cigarsmoked evenings playing poker and talking about that new knockout babe in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"

Re: Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban
 

for the TL;DR crowd....

It's crazy to give up freedoms and place trust in a government or system that historically needs revolution, guns are a good basic right and form of protection.

I'm pretty pro-gun with a recent amendment being that I'm not a huge fan of conceal-and-carry...

See...I thought about this, and I disagree. All you would need is a sudden attack where important central figures are in public. It wouldn't take much for a large group of protestors to create a lot of turbulence. Just look at previous assassinations or riots.

The thing about a revolution is that you don't need to win or kill everyone, you just need to create a lot of inner turbulence.





Also, we could devote a whole thread to what it means to be "free" because it hinges on a bunch of moral precedents. But I would say the Bill of Rights did a pretty good job outlying some basic freedoms.