It's puosu time with me. I looked for a couple of ours lat night and I can't find specific cases or arrests. Someone has been charged in DC or Chicago, I would believe, but until I find a case I'm going to shut up and not post in the thread.

At the end of this story the goal should be getting to the truth. Not proving a wrong or right or maybe just a misconception. I just spent my study hall researching, "people who have violated gun bans" "number of arrests by year of the 1975 DC statute". I'm getting all kinds of things. The most things I am finding are Breitbart articles on the futility of them. I'm finding arrests and confiscations for people with guns in 2010. One service member called a suicide hotline and police showed up at his door and he was arrested for having guns without locks in his house. He is suing on 4th amendment violations, but they still took his guns. Wouldn't that be the very definition of the 2nd amendment. They came into his house and found guns that violated the statute of the DC gun ban, but Heller overturned that? So, basically I'm just confused now. It's obvious to me these local controls can still regulate guns which calls into question Heller. Google those words I typed to see the cases. The majority of stuff I have found has been the futility of Heller. These places are still banning handguns. I'll sit back and read what others type.

(09-20-2013 07:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  At the end of this story the goal should be getting to the truth. Not proving a wrong or right or maybe just a misconception. I just spent my study hall researching, "people who have violated gun bans" "number of arrests by year of the 1975 DC statute". I'm getting all kinds of things. The most things I am finding are Breitbart articles on the futility of them. I'm finding arrests and confiscations for people with guns in 2010. One service member called a suicide hotline and police showed up at his door and he was arrested for having guns without locks in his house. He is suing on 4th amendment violations, but they still took his guns. Wouldn't that be the very definition of the 2nd amendment. They came into his house and found guns that violated the statute of the DC gun ban, but Heller overturned that? So, basically I'm just confused now. It's obvious to me these local controls can still regulate guns which calls into question Heller. Google those words I typed to see the cases. The majority of stuff I have found has been the futility of Heller. These places are still banning handguns. I'll sit back and read what others type.

The problem is that gun control advocates want to try to solve the problem every way but the way that we need to solve it. We kill roughly 30,000 people a year with guns--a little over 10,000 murders, a little less than 20,000 suicides. Fewer than 100 of those are with "assault weapons." On the other hand, 90% of the murders are by criminals, repeat offender felons. Put the gangs and the gun runners out of commission and you will make a huge dent in the problem. Do it with good, old-fashioned, hard-nosed law enforcement, the "broken windows" type of stuff.

Of course our modern sociology-driven rush to blame crimes on society and not criminals has a hard time grasping that concept. Make society as a whole pay by hassling innocent gun owners, rather than making criminals pay. As long as we remain on that trajectory, we will see ever-increasing restrictions on the right to bear arms, coupled little or no reduction in the rate of gun deaths.

That still leaves the suicides, and that is a tough nut to crack. It's not so much that we have an overall higher rate of suicide than other societies, but rather that guns are more often the means of choice here. It would appear that the focus needs to be on the root causes of suicide, rather than the guns themselves. Clearly, our mental health system is failing and something needs changing.

(09-20-2013 07:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  At the end of this story the goal should be getting to the truth.

Do you believe that it is the truth that the second amendment requires service in a militia? Not that this is your interpretation or preference, but that this is the current requirement of the way the law is enforced? If not, then the text book is a lie and you are not supporting getting to the truth.

Quote:They came into his house and found guns that violated the statute of the DC gun ban, but Heller overturned that? So, basically I'm just confused now.

No. You misunderstand Heller. Heller was about someone required to make guns which were legal and necessary for his job inoperable in his home, which is unreasonable... AND THAT BY DENYING HIM A LICENSE, without having some sort of failure of a background check, they were violating his rights.

Quote:It's obvious to me these local controls can still regulate guns which calls into question Heller. Google those words I typed to see the cases. The majority of stuff I have found has been the futility of Heller. These places are still banning handguns. I'll sit back and read what others type.

Heller didn't say that you can't regulate guns. In fact, the purpose of Heller's claim was to have the District issue him a license... That is what the dissent FEARS it may say in future cases... but that isn't what the CURRENT interpretation of it is.

Heller BASICALLY said that barring criminal history or mental defect, the district can't deny Heller a permit for his gun in his home.

Were the guns you mentioned registered and gun owners licensed? If not, then the fact that they had gun locks is immaterial... because Heller doesn't say you can't regulate them... in fact, it clearly states that the state can. The dissent just thinks they went too far in describing "lawful" circumstance... hence a simple difference of opinion of what constitutes "reasonable".

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[46]

Heller was entirely about self defense in the home and the fact that a trigger lock requirement defeats the purpose of using the weapon for "self defense".... Thus it has gone too far.

So no more thoughts on what the first two phrases - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" are trying to say? I still don't understand why they're there, because the rest stands on its own.