Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

The problem with banning anything seems that the demand and cost just gets higher, and as long as thre is a "demand" there will be a "supply." We learned that the hard way in the '20s with Prohibition.

I can remember going to an inner-city high school where zip-guns were made in the shop class (don't know if they got a grade for the manufacture or not). If people want them, especially the bad guys and gals, they will get them.

Many of the handguns in the US are not of US manufacture, and keeping them out would be as hard as keeping out the drugs. Mexico has already learned that, as the gun-smuggling (into MX) business is very active from every direction.

I guess I'd just like to have the same or better advantage as the low-life who thinks my property, llife, family, etc. is there for his/her amusement, profit or sadism. Having the training without the tools is not very helpful.

Gun control truly is about hitting the target, not demolishing the device.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

As an independent I have to agree with Steve. we could go a long way to resolve the problems with handguns but some very good friends that lean a little too far left would object. If caught with a hand gun while committing a felony get a fair trial then if found guilty ( execution) problem solved!

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

Really like this article about a potential handgun ban in Toronto which seems to also address problems in the United States which would crop up. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ndgun-ban.aspx

I think you are going to have to create better human beings before taking their clubs away from them. :joke:

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

I opened a political thread by mistake and wish I had not.

Junglejim, I do not even comprehend how it is possible for an informed person to repeat such garbage. If what you say was even minutely close this congress would have impeached him long long ago. But they don't because they know none of this is true.

Stevez Good insight and responses.

redwitch you complain that the legislature is taking away our rights but yet you want this right to own handguns and all guns taken away. How is that different?

Sorry all, I really do my best to AVOID any political discussion, but opened this one in error.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

From what i've read, most of what JungleJim said is true. And some members of Congress do want to impeach Bush. But in the interest of the country, and considering his days are numbered anyways, they've dropped the measure to concentrate on trying to get some legislation thru.

I'm as liberal as liberal can be, but I agreed in this case with the Supreme court. As a citizen I feel its my right to be able to defend myself with a handgun.

Speaking of guns, I'm curious about what you all think about something that was on the news the other night. A guy called 911 to report a burgler was breaking into his neighbor's house (he was watching from his own house). He then proceeded to give the burglers warning, and told them if they moved he would shoot, which he did. he killed them both, and the local court refused to indict him. So, essentially, he wasn't in any danger himself, he just killed to people who were burgluring the house next door, and he goes scot free. is this crazy or what???

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

I'm sure there's a lot more to this story. The local prosecutor would be the one to decide if the case goes to court or not. If the evidence indicated an unjustified killing, the homeowner would be in deep trouble. If he challenged the persons and they came after him - different story. Shot-in-the-front or shot-in-the-back, unarmed versus armed, threatening or passive - all those factors weigh into this.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

I read about this or a similar case in the paper today. This was set in Texas but it ended in a trial. The burglars were two illegals from Columbia. Prior to trial, the shooter claimed he warned them to stop or he would shoot. They didn't stop. He shot them both -- one in the back. At trial, he claimed that he shot them when he felt he was in danger as the burglars came onto his property. The defendant was found not guilty.

Sorry, but this case sickened me when I read it. I don't believe he even remotely felt himself to be in danger. His neighbors certainly weren't since they were out of town at the time of the incident and he knew it. He killed these men and got away with it. People were quoted as calling it "Texas justice." GAG!!!!

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

That was exactly the case, Red. The whole episode was caught on 911 tape. We listened to him as the operator cautioned him not to go after the guys,but the killer did just that . They were carting goods away from his neighbor's house. He could have done nothing, and they would have gotten away with the loot, but he insisted he wasn't going to let that happen, and he told the 911 person he'd kill them if he had to. And then he did it. It was vigilante justice at its worst. It was just sickening to me that he got away with it - that people thought that type of behavior was okay. It sets a bad precident, to be sure.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

Texas seemed like a different country from the US the times that I have been there. Cannot see a jury in many of the blue states going for this kind of thing even though I would see it in many parts of Florida.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

chachacha - Well said!!!

Re: U.S. Supreme Court got it right!
 

To me a worse precedent is if scum believe they can victimize people in their homes in every way possible, and know they can get away with it if they can beat the response times for law enforcement officers. Depending on where you live, the response time can be as short as 1 minute or as long as 20 minutes (or longer), and that depends on what else is going on that the LEO is tasked to take care of. That's why such crimes occur over and over again in certain areas.

If the house next-door is tagged by scum who get away with it because of long LEO response times, you can expect to be next - it's the scum business model and philosophy.

People say a lot of things when they are excited, so what was said to a 911 operator must be taken in context to the situation. Without reading a full transcript of the trial, I'm hard-pressed to judge a person based on how the Fourth Estate summarizes it and packages that summary for sale to media outlets. Too many times people are judged on sensatiionalized or biased reporting, and an examination of ALL the facts (even though it's time-consuming) portrays a different picture of the event.

Sorry, but burglars, home invaders, and muggers go looking for a soft touch and their actions impart great fear and terror into their victims. So, if that fear and terror morphs into a significant reaction against the burlars, home invaders and muggers, there's no sympathy from me. I have always found it strange when these "poor innocent mis-understood outcasts of society" get what they give, they are now defended as victims themselves. When they intiate an action, they had better prepared for an outcome not to their liking.

Personally, that's the kind of neighbor I like. Apparently, so do a dozen others within his community.