• Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Gun Rights
    178 replies, posted
Whole article since its short [quote]WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has turned away another case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to be armed in public. The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling upholding a New Jersey requirement for gun owners to show an urgent need to carry a handgun outside their home for self-defense. Both a police official and a judge must approve the permits. The New Jersey law was challenged by four individuals and two gun groups, and had the backing of 19 states. The justices turned away similar questions on at least two earlier occasions. The court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home, but left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment may protect gun rights elsewhere.[/quote] [url]http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/7154217-Supreme-Court-rejects-appeal-on-gun-rights-in-public/[/url]
Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] what have you done
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] if you live out in the middle of nowhere, often times police response times are above 15 minutes. That's really not adequate or fixable by just "having more police". Geographically large countries will suffer from issues of proper policing. Allowing people some autonomy in that sense is useful.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] You dense motherfucker. Whole thread is gonna be about you now.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] young country, strong sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency in our culture, distrust of authority, inadequate services and long response times in isolated/high crime areas, etc
What the fuck, the entire point of getting a CCW is to be able to defend yourself at all times without attracting attention like open carry does. All that this fucked up law in NJ does is piss on people that want to carry a gun, but aren't unfortunate enough to have a hitman after them.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] Those services take minutes to arrive, when seconds count. If my life is being threatened by some asshole, the police will not be there in time to help save my life and limb. However, a bullet fired by my Sig P250 has a response time of 1200 feet per second. I would rather be able to defend myself than rely completely on a service to protect me instead. I know myself very well, and I am able to react to any hostile situation as it is unfolding rather than waiting on someone else to come later, after the situation has happened and I am either broken and bleeding or dead, missing my valuables.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police? I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE] [t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t] Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves. Relating back to the article though and Drake v. Jerejian... It's ridiculous that this type of thing is being dragged. It's a yes or no question, and as current stats have shown us, concealed carry and open carry do not show any meaningful decline or incline relating to crime, so why should it be outlawed in any area?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t] Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves.[/QUOTE] The vagueness of that flow chart could justify many things to be fair.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44732164]The vagueness of that flow chart could justify many things to be fair.[/QUOTE]True, but honestly it does bring a good point. If life is valuable and precious, why should we deny people the right to protect themselves?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732188]True, but honestly it does bring a good point. If life is valuable and precious, why should we deny people the right to protect themselves?[/QUOTE] You don't consider firearms to be the best method of self defense do you?
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44732328]You don't consider firearms to be the best method of self defense do you?[/QUOTE] Firearms are without a doubt one of the best methods of self defense.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][ Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves. Relating back to the article though and Drake v. Jerejian... It's ridiculous that this type of thing is being dragged. It's a yes or no question, and as current stats have shown us, concealed carry and open carry do not show any meaningful decline or incline relating to crime, so why should it be outlawed in any area?[/QUOTE] Boy, I sure do love flowcharts that force you to agree with them by using purposefully misleading questions. Forcing people to reply in yes/no only makes the issue seem really 2 dimensional when it isnt. Besides, who does this apply to? People who want to completely rid of guns? Because a reasonable portion of people are just in favor of reasonable restriction on the purchase of arms.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;44732399]Boy, I sure do love flowcharts that force you to agree with them by using purposefully misleading questions. Forcing people to reply in yes/no only makes the issue seem really 2 dimensional when it isnt. Besides, who does this apply to? People who want to completely rid of guns? Because a reasonable portion of people are just in favor of reasonable restriction on the purchase of arms.[/QUOTE] What is a reasonable restriction? Just curious.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732376]Firearms are without a doubt one of the best methods of self defense.[/QUOTE] They don't cover all the bases, so to call them the best would be stupid. You can't defend yourself with a firearm if your attacker has a firearm easily, or at all. You'll just end up dead when you spook them, especially if they get the drop on you which they are bound to outside of break-ins. I wouldn't call shooting people and/ or killing them the best form of defence, killing others is hardly good for your mental health after all, and killing people doesn't really get you anywhere. Having to strap a weapon designed to kill or at least maim others to yourself to feel safe isn't healthy.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732430]They don't cover all the bases, so to call them the best would be stupid. You can't defend yourself with a firearm if your attacker has a firearm easily, or at all. You'll just end up dead when you spook them, especially if they get the drop on you which they are bound to outside of break-ins. I wouldn't call shooting people and/ or killing them the best form of defence, killing others is hardly good for your mental health after all, and killing people doesn't really get you anywhere. Having to strap a weapon designed to kill or at least maim others to yourself to feel safe isn't healthy.[/QUOTE] Having a gun doesn't require you to use it.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732427]What is a reasonable restriction? Just curious.[/QUOTE] The background check proposal that shouldve passed wouldve been a start. As long as it's a thorough process, because really one should be required for something that requires the responsibility that a gun does.
[QUOTE=sgman91;44732444]Having a gun doesn't require you to use it.[/QUOTE] You're still having to carry a weapon around to feel safe. That's hardly a good sign of a healthy society. Or a healthy mind.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732430]They don't cover all the bases, so to call them the best would be stupid. You can't defend yourself with a firearm if your attacker has a firearm easily, or at all. You'll just end up dead when you spook them, especially if they get the drop on you which they are bound to outside of break-ins. I wouldn't call shooting people and/ or killing them the best form of defense, killing others is hardly good for your mental health after all, and killing people doesn't really get you anywhere. Having to strap a weapon designed to kill or at least maim others to yourself to feel safe isn't healthy.[/QUOTE] Of course a firearm doesn't cover all bases. Nothing does. As of the moment though, nothing is really as efficient as a firearm if something were to become a life and death situation. And I don't even carry a firearm personally, I just do not see any reason to have laws like New Jerseys "justifiable need" clause because it's pretty ridiculous. The guy who brought up the case actually has a perfectly good reason for wanting to have a weapon for self defense. He generally is carrying tons of money while loading vending machines, and has been robbed numerous times. The psychological damage of being robbed consistently and having no means to really defend yourself is easily on par with damage that could be caused by shooting someone. Both fall into psychological trauma, and both can lead a person to have harm after an incident. The issue here though is that a man is being constantly mugged, and he asks with a pretty good reason to have some form of defense for himself, he was denied because it was supposedly not enough of a reason. This man cannot simply carry a cop with him 24/7, so allowing him to carry at the very least something like a taser or .22 Revolver would be a massive benefit to his safety.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732473]You're still having to carry a weapon around to feel safe. That's hardly a good sign of a healthy society. Or a healthy mind.[/QUOTE] Have you ever walked through a bad part of town at night?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732376]Firearms are without a doubt one of the best methods of self defense.[/QUOTE] I don't know man, most self defense training out there tells you to trust your gut, de-escalate, avoid shady situations, not to defend your property, to flee, to call the authorities, and only when absolutely positively necessary to use violence as a last resort, and even its usually advised that you flee after. I haven't really seen laws preventing people from doing any of those really, which kind of points out some of the flaws in your flowchart. No one is blocking or attempting to block the primary means of self defense.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44732498]Have you ever walked through a bad part of town at night?[/QUOTE] Isn't that essentially confirming his point about the whole poor society part?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732473]You're still having to carry a weapon around to feel safe. That's hardly a good sign of a healthy society. Or a healthy mind.[/QUOTE] An unhealthy society sure - but an unhealthy mind? That sounds like you're just being unnecessarily spiteful.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732489]Of course a firearm doesn't cover all bases. Nothing does. As of the moment though, nothing is really as efficient as a firearm if something were to become a life and death situation. And I don't even carry a firearm personally, I just do not see any reason to have laws like New Jerseys "justifiable need" clause because it's pretty ridiculous. The guy who brought up the case actually has a perfectly good reason for wanting to have a weapon for self defense. He generally is carrying tons of money while loading vending machines, and has been robbed numerous times. The psychological damage of being robbed consistently and having no means to really defend yourself is easily on par with damage that could be caused by shooting someone. Both fall into psychological trauma, and both can lead a person to have harm after an incident. The issue here though is that a man is being constantly mugged, and he asks with a pretty good reason to have some form of defense for himself, he was denied because it was supposedly not enough of a reason. This man cannot simply carry a cop with him 24/7, so allowing him to carry at the very least something like a taser or .22 Revolver would be a massive benefit to his safety.[/QUOTE] It probably would be better for the company longterm to send someone else with him for those situations. You'd have at least one guy more able to spot trouble before it happened, deterrent through numbers, and the company wouldn't have to suffer any legal/PR backlash from any injuries or conflicts if they managed to avoid everything. If these are specific problem areas and the company is aware of that I don't see why they wouldn't bother to change their approach. It would be one thing if these were vending machines like you said, but all of the sources I'm finding said this guy restocks ATMS. His employers probably have the capital to hire someone to go along with him.
Here lemme lay this out real quick and real simple. Russia is an extremely large country, correct? Africa is an extremely large collection of countries, correct? America is an extremely large collection of almost nation states (but united by a single government), correct? Canada is an extremely large country, correct? All these things have 2 things in common, size, and guns. They have them because you can't possibly rely on institutionalized protection forces to guard every single fucking square inch of land. If you don't like that, all these places have very fucking scary animals that are very big and do big damage when they touch you.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732489]Of course a firearm doesn't cover all bases. Nothing does. As of the moment though, nothing is really as efficient as a firearm if something were to become a life and death situation. And I don't even carry a firearm personally, I just do not see any reason to have laws like New Jerseys "justifiable need" clause because it's pretty ridiculous. The guy who brought up the case actually has a perfectly good reason for wanting to have a weapon for self defense. He generally is carrying tons of money while loading vending machines, and has been robbed numerous times. The psychological damage of being robbed consistently and having no means to really defend yourself is easily on par with damage that could be caused by shooting someone. Both fall into psychological trauma, and both can lead a person to have harm after an incident. The issue here though is that a man is being constantly mugged, and he asks with a pretty good reason to have some form of defense for himself, he was denied because it was supposedly not enough of a reason. This man cannot simply carry a cop with him 24/7, so allowing him to carry at the very least something like a taser or .22 Revolver [B]would be a massive benefit to his safety[/B].[/QUOTE] But would it? As I've covered numerous times, armed citizens are likely to cause criminals to require firearms themselves to "one-up" their targets. After all, why would they risk going after someone who has a chance of being armed if they themselves don't have something to match or better them? When you're mugged over here you aren't mugged at gun point (outside of major cities with functional black markets, and even then it's rare), you're probably going to be mugged at knifepoint at most, which is pretty easy to escape from if your mugger hasn't cornered you or anything. Can't really run from a gun very easily, after all "a bullet fired by my Sig P250 has a response time of 1200 feet per second". Whilst being mugged repeatedly (what is this? Detroit?) is going to have some effect, killing others is quite more impactful for those unaccustomed to it, even if you think it's a justified killing it's probably going to fuck you up (discounting socio/psychopaths). The case you use here seems like it could be solved by not sending a guy who is known to carry money out by himself, like, just give him a buddy and some protective gear or something. Most petty thieves won't fuck as there's others around. It's worked for the guys who shuttle money around here relatively well. Firearms for personal defence just seems like a reckless thing societally to me (and many others), giving the average person the ability to take the lives of others away in the blink of an eye is a massive risk to take. Even with background checks galore you're going to get people who shouldn't own these weapons owning them, if they are restricted to a black market they tend to become less accessible, due to cost or function, so petty criminals are unlikely to splash the cash on a gun. Keeping them locked up in secure safes for sporting purposes and such is less of a problem, it's not like anyone but fucking morons carries a rifle or shotgun in the name of "self defence". [editline]6th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44732498]Have you ever walked through a bad part of town at night?[/QUOTE] Yeah. It's unsettling, but not enough for me to fear getting stabbed or mugged constantly. I know there's the risk, but I understand how small the risk is in reality.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;44732569]They have them because you can't possibly rely on institutionalized protection forces to guard every single fucking square inch of land.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why anyone would even want them to. Maybe I'm just too 'Murcan but I could never understand why you would want to put your safety entirely in the hands of a group of people who may not have your best interest in mind.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44732593]The case you use here seems like it could be solved by not sending a guy who is known to carry money out by himself, like, just give him a buddy and some protective gear or something. Most petty thieves won't fuck as there's others around. It's worked for the guys who shuttle money around here relatively well. [/QUOTE] Seriously this. It seems negligent on his employers part if they are aware of the situation and keep sending him out alone.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44732505]I don't know man, most self defense training out there tells you to trust your gut, de-escalate, avoid shady situations, not to defend your property, to flee, to call the authorities, and only when absolutely positively necessary to use violence as a last resort, and even its usually advised that you flee after. I haven't really seen laws preventing people from doing any of those really, which kind of points out some of the flaws in your flowchart. No one is blocking or attempting to block the primary means of self defense.[/QUOTE] Most CCW training warns you of the firearm safety rules, one of which is pretty straight forward: [B]Rule 2... Do not point a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy.[/B] If it ever comes to that point where I am pointing a firearm at someone, it is most likely because they have refused to acknowledge that it's my household and did not take my request to leave, that I do not want them stealing items in my household, and that I do not want them causing psychological damage to the children in my household. As far as I have been trained by family members and family friends, if I have already stressed all routes and alternatives to defuse the situation peacefully, and they still attempt to act violent to me and refuse to leave, my only option is to deal with it via force. I have family members that I have to protect, and running away is not an option.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.