SCOTUS Makes the right move!

[RSVX]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Love it!!

[svxfiles]

CONSIDER THIS...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.



It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.



In Australias state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%! Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."



It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

[lhopp77]

Yep, a big blow to the core Obama supporters.

Like the CEO, NRA said about the DC situation. Their problem is the "swinging door" legal system, not guns. Everyone caught using a gun during the conduct of a violent felony should be put behind bars for a LONG time and not let back out on the street as is the case now. As the informed know---it is the criminals that are the problem--not the guns. Some liberals don't have that message yet.

Lee

[TomsSVX]

Scalia is the man... Did a lot of research on many of his decisions in college and he always seemed to be the most level headed of any justice I have researched.

Tom

[sicksubie]

/\/\ Yep../\/\

And John Roberts is a very very good Chief Justice as well....

[Stilor]

While I also tend to lean on the side of guns rights, the facts you quoted are, at the very best, distorted. Just taking on some of them (I admit, I am not that familiar with Guatemala's history )

Originally Posted by svxfiles

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Even if you have a gun, you don't use it to fight the police, do you? The people you refer to were actually "rounded up and exterminated" by the police forces. Moreover, the so called "repressions" began much later, in 1937. So, gun control was not an issue there.

Originally Posted by svxfiles

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Do you really advocate allowing mentally ill persons to have a firearm???

Originally Posted by svxfiles

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Did you notice that it was 19 years between the gun control and the Khmer Rouge regime? The reason that about million people were "rounded up and exterminated" was civil war, not gun control. Moreover, some historians blame the US for the fact that Khmer Rouge prevailed, naming carpet bombings of Cambodia as one of the reasons significant portion of the populace supported Khmer Rouge.

Originally Posted by svxfiles

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

But I do agree with that.

[svxfiles]

Originally Posted by Stilor

Even if you have a gun, you don't use it to fight the police, do you? The people you refer to were actually "rounded up and exterminated" by the police forces.

I have the highest respect for Law Enforcers,
until you pin a gold star to my chest, and cook my neighbors!
Or hang my brother because of his color,
or take my cows and starve them to death, so that I and my family will starve to death.

History tells us of mans inhumanity to man.

Before someone makes a lamp out of my skin I WILL empty the clip.


OK, clips!

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by svxfiles

I have the highest respect for Law Enforcers,
until you pin a gold star to my chest, and cook my neighbors!
Or hang my brother because of his color,
or take my cows and starve them to death, so that I and my family will starve to death.

History tells us of mans inhumanity to man.

Before someone makes a lamp out of my skin I WILL empty the clip.


OK, clips!

You mean magazines of course

I am in full agreement with OT here... With just cause, the use of violence can great a favorable outcome... That is a JUST cause, not to be confused with just because.

Tom

[NikFu S.]

Cool but 5-4 is a little too close for comfort.

Ugh.

Originally Posted by Stilor

Even if you have a gun, you don't use it to fight the police, do you? The people you refer to were actually "rounded up and exterminated" by the police forces. Moreover, the so called "repressions" began much later, in 1937. So, gun control was not an issue there.

It obviously was, for if they had guns they might not have been "rounded up."
If the "police" were going around here rounding up and exterminating me and my kind you can bet your ass I'll try to kill them first.

Do you really advocate allowing mentally ill persons to have a firearm???

Do you really advocate concentration camps?

Did you notice that it was 19 years between the gun control and the Khmer Rouge regime? The reason that about million people were "rounded up and exterminated" was civil war, not gun control.

Again, access to firearms would be MIGHTY HELPFUL during a civil war, don't you think?
By your logic these people were killed because of "a war", not because they couldn't defend themselves.

I think before you go around fact-checking people you should try to make sense.

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by sicksubie

/\/\ Yep../\/\

And John Roberts is a very very good Chief Justice as well....

I certainly hope you're kidding. He's one of the most politicized justices on the court.

[sicksubie]

I am not getting into this debate here... John Roberts is a A+ material guy, who interprets the Constitution as it was meant to be.

NikFu... badda bing, hit the nail on the head...

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

I certainly hope you're kidding. He's one of the most politicized justices on the court.

You don't even know what you mean when you say "politicized" and try to tie it to Roberts. It is the justices that DO NOT interpret the constitution, but try to legislate by decision that are the true politicized justices.

Oh, and by the way--I don't think you need to worry about certain groups being allowed to own guns. This is a fairly narrow decision and actually means that the law abiding citizen owning a gun to protect his family and home is perfectly legal and intended by the constitution. It does not mean that certain groups cannot be precluded from owning guns with appropriately written laws and for valid reasons not fully protected by the constitution. There will continue to be gun control laws and groups such as mentally incompetent and felons will still be precluded from owning guns.

Overall it was a very realistic decision in keeping with the constitution and reality. It should have be a 9-0 vote except for the "politicized" dissenters.

(Guess I better go inventory my guns before I go to bed)

Lee

[Stilor]

Thanks to everybody who responded. Again, I am not against the gun rights - I think it does help dealing with the crime, as the criminal has to assume its victim might fight off (well, unless the criminal is an empty-headed drug addict incapable of thinking).

This changes when the government is the criminal. First of all, it knows for sure whether you have a firearm. Needless to say, they have much bigger firepower and they have access to the means that could prevent you from using your firearm to defend yourself and your family. What would you do if they throw mustard/tear gas grenade in your house? And the last, but not the least scary tactic would be to hold your family members hostages - the government would not hesitate to use it.

About Soviet Union:

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

It obviously was, for if they had guns they might not have been "rounded up." If the "police" were going around here rounding up and exterminating me and my kind you can bet your ass I'll try to kill them first.

The problem with your argument is that in this case, no formal "kind" was rounded up. It often happened that the persons conducting the arrest on one day would be arrested themselves the next day. In most cases, a person did not anticipate his/her arrest until the day it happened - so organizing a resistance movement would be very difficult.

About Germany:

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Do you really advocate concentration camps?

Where did I say that? I said that I am against allowing guns to mentally ill, and I guess nobody wants to see a drooling imbecile emptying the clip in the crowd.

As to whether guns would have saved the jews, the gypsies, etc... I doubt that. Remember that the fascism started when Nazi party won elections; they had secured ~45% and after siding with another party, they had the majority in the German parliament. That is, they were supported by a considerable portion of population - and that portion is likely to have guns, too. Would the guns have helped the Jews during the Kristallnacht? I doubt so.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Again, access to firearms would be MIGHTY HELPFUL during a civil war, don't you think? By your logic these people were killed because of "a war", not because they couldn't defend themselves.

Do you understand what a CIVIL war is? If there have been guns allowed at the time it broke out, BOTH sides will have more firepower. So what?

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I think before you go around fact-checking people you should try to make sense.

I think you should check your logic before trying to make arguments. From a wrong assumption, any conclusion can be drawn. And fact-checking is exactly what prevents the use of wrong assumptions.

You sound as if you're saying "the Earth is flat, so 2x2=4". It's hard to argue that 2x2=4, but that doesn't ascertain that the Earth is flat.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by Stilor

The problem with your argument is that in this case, no formal "kind" was rounded up. It often happened that the persons conducting the arrest on one day would be arrested themselves the next day. In most cases, a person did not anticipate his/her arrest until the day it happened - so organizing a resistance movement would be very difficult.

"Kind" or not, I would think in such a time, everyone would have their guard up.

Where did I say that? I said that I am against allowing guns to mentally ill, and I guess nobody wants to see a drooling imbecile emptying the clip in the crowd.

You inferred that simply because svxfiles included mentally ill people in the roster of those killed by Nazis that he advocated equal gun rights for people whom might not have the capacity to use the weapon with discretion and care. Nowhere did he say anything of the sort. I merely gave you the same argument you gave him. That's a Fox News spin tactic.

As to whether guns would have saved the jews, the gypsies, etc... I doubt that.

It's OK to doubt this, being that no one made the claim, but why not give them a fighting chance. How would you have it, kill or be killed, or just be killed?

Do you understand what a CIVIL war is? If there have been guns allowed at the time it broke out, BOTH sides will have more firepower. So what?

I agree, so what? Why not? Who cares. Guns certainly do make war more efficient.

I think you should check your logic before trying to make arguments. From a wrong assumption, any conclusion can be drawn. And fact-checking is exactly what prevents the use of wrong assumptions.

Did you post sources to legitimize your checked "facts"? No.

You sound as if you're saying "the Earth is flat, so 2x2=4". It's hard to argue that 2x2=4, but that doesn't ascertain that the Earth is flat.

What?

[Stilor]

I think we should end this argument, mostly because we agree in the final outcome

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

"Kind" or not, I would think in such a time, everyone would have their guard up.

Probably. Then again, arrests were often made in the streets, or at work, wherever. You can't spend your whole life aiming at the front door.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

You inferred that simply because svxfiles included mentally ill people in the roster of those killed by Nazis that he advocated equal gun rights for people whom might not have the capacity to use the weapon with discretion and care. Nowhere did he say anything of the sort. I merely gave you the same argument you gave him. That's a Fox News spin tactic.

Okay, I might have misunderstood his phrase then. I understood that phrase as "if mentally incompetent people were given guns, they would not end up in Nazi furnaces". Excuse me, English is not my native language.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

It's OK to doubt this, being that no one made the claim, but why not give them a fighting chance. How would you have it, kill or be killed, or just be killed?

Perhaps. And I even admit that some of the victims may even have taken some of their attackers with them. But the end result would be exactly the same; a single handgun doesn't do well against an enraged crowd.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I agree, so what? Why not? Who cares. Guns certainly do make war more efficient.

Yep, that's nice. "If Cambodians hadn't outlawed the guns, there would have been even more people rounded up and exterminated".

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Did you post sources to legitimize your checked "facts"? No.

Neither did svxfiles. For example, where did he take the number of 20 millions "exterminated" citizens of the Soviet Union? Wikipedia quotes the estimates range from 681,692 to nearly 2 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) in the Great Purge of '37-'38. After that and till Stalin's death, the number of victims decreased dramatically: in '39-'53, there were ~54,000 death sentences carried out (http://stalin.edusite.ru/p17aa1.html, sorry, it's in Russian - but you could see the numbers). A detailed breakdown by years, based the declassified documents (not on the "sensational reports" by some sleazy journalists) is, for example, here: http://trst.narod.ru/rogovin/t5/pii.htm.

Not that these digits aren't scary, though. But then again, gun rights would not have helped prevent that - since a considerable part of the convicted/executed people actually had guns - they served in the military, or in the "internal affairs" (police), or other armed forces.

And the main point of my post was not a denial of these atrocities, but rather pointing out a failure to establish a logical link between the gun control and these events.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

What?

That's exactly the same knee-jerk reaction I had with the svxfiles' post. Even though conclusion is right, the starting point bases on distorted/unconnected/wrong facts.