archenemy

I think it's pretty clear that the Iraqis in Basra find themselves to be under the control of tyrannical government. That is why they are fighting and shooting and stuff. Yes. And this has to do with our gun ownership rights how?

To me this question asks how the Supreme Court would rule. That is usually what I think of when someone asks if the Supreme court considers something legal. This is entirely different. This is whether one agrees with a possible Supreme Court ruling, as opposed to what the Supreme Court ruling was. Again, this is not the job of the SC. The US SC is an appellate court (primarily) and does not hold original jurisdiction over cases like this. Learn your legal system people, you are responsible for knowing it.

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that. Here is my question: Ya non-sense...... To restate the answer: If there were war here and we were under martial law (which undoubtedly happen" then the SC would not have a say in the matter. Does that make sense to you?

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that. Well, the SC does rule on the constitutionality of imposing martial law. Well, not to be contrary, but it was actually the SEnate and the House of Reps that came up with this so technically the SC is not able to overthrow this process.

emphasis mine What would be "the reason" for the existence of our gun-rights statutes. (If you reply with "because it's in the constitution", I will cry ) And I promise no more questions. I thought this was something everyone learned in high school history. It was originally allowed in our country so that if we ever found ourselves under another tyrannical government, we could raise up our arms and overthrow them. I think this is as valid today as the day it was written. So I guess my answer is "because it is in the Constitution"

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that.

Semi-autos rule though.

only congress can proclaim a war. supreme court has nothing to do with war proclamation. I just said that.

As would I; except for collectors (who have them disabled)

That's clear.

I strongly disagree with this. Pain is an important emotion and a powerful teacher. I read a study once that said most people will put more effort into avoiding pain than in persuing pleasure. It is an evolutionary thing and makes sense from that standpoint. However, in a day where we can make choices, I choose not to avoid things, people, situations in order to protect myself from pain. When I go through painful moments I take care to pay attention to them. I guess I put emphasis on the "inordinate" part...when pain is no longer a good teacher. I like your "Jagged Little Pill" theory tho'...painful things usually are AWESOME growth experiences. I try to always go full boar into the thing or experience that I'm afraid of...but there is a line where it crosses over into self-destruction, and that's what I would suggest protecting oneself from. It seems to me that we all think our pain is "inordinate" when we are in the middle of it. But who are we to decide this? You have survived all the pain you have ever been through, as have I. But I am sure both of us have, at one time or another, felt that what we were going through at some painful time in the past was exceeding any reasonable limits. And in that time of pain, are you not more apt to show poor judgment? So how can we really, honestly judge what amount of pain is the "correct" amount?

Oh, and I am NOT DENYING gun ownership to anyone. Please reread my posts. I said clearly that I don't think we should step in on this process in other countries.

Those don't tell my why you think so, but just what you think. I'm most interested in what reasons there are that should give us these rights while denying them to others. Is anyone else finding it difficult to gleen my opinion from what I have posted on this thread? I just can't believe that I haven't made it clear what I believe and why both in relationship to gun ownership and to our legal system.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to declare martial law. The Congress does that, just as they are the ones to officially declare war.

as per your last example, aren't guns already illegal in D.C.? as to your general question, I might, in the case of civil unrest/mass rioting, support draconian measures like shooting on sight anyone with a firearm in public (as opposed to in the comfort of your home). Remember that not allowing guns into a specific area is different than not allowing people to own guns. I don't know of states that don't allow people to own their weapons. Washington DC, of course, is not a state so it gets to play by a couple of different rules. Martial law is, of course, necessary on occasion. The conditions under martial law temporarily replaces regular justice process but is not intended to have any lasting effect on the actual legal system.

Why do you keep acting as if I am not answering your questions when that is exactly what I am doing. I have posted a reply to every single point and question you have raised. I feel confident that I can express myself, but I am not so confident of your ability to listen. Please disabuse me of this notion.

No, guns were not made illegal after the war. The Supreme Court must go through the ratification process to amend the constitution, which would include suspension as far as I can see. Remember that state rights to change laws are what are protected in the Constitution; so their laws, as long as they are not in direct conflict with the Constitution, are acceptable. Suspensions may be included in this.

What are you talking about? I am hardly being guarded in my opinion. To recap: 1. I do not think law is mere words. I think it is a reflection of what we as a society have decided appropriate for us. So gun ownership is legal and I agree that it should remain so. 2. Because of reason 1, I do not have to justify my right to own a gun to you or to anyone else; however 3. I told you I enjoy shooting and hunting. I don't need to justify these persuits any more than I have to justify the fact that I climb.

i am sure the same due process exists in a country called Iraq. I've never been there and I know nothing about thier system. I do know something about our system and I do know where I stand on how much influence we should have on another government. I made no mention of the legal process in Iraq so please don't link what I am saying about our system to thiers.

So the ganster down the street who shot the little girl and owns a gun is a "law-abiding citizen? so is the guy who goes on a shooting spree in your local mall or a post office...... Let it go--he was being facetious.

Oh, and to your statement that it sucks for them if their government doesn't want the gun law then we should back them up to change that law. I disagree. If their government isn't doing what they want, they need to change their government. That is their responsibility, not ours. And although I heartily agree with stepping into a country to help stop ruthless slaughter of people, I do not agree with influencing their gov't beyond that. They must do that for themselves.

Apparently, your experience with and knowledge of our legal system is distinctly different from mine. In order to become law, that item goes through a great deal of process and challenge. In order to remain a law, it goes through many, many challenges and is refined as we go. Our laws exist for a reason, not for the mere practise of the language. I don't "enjoy our law" as you say. As a matter of fact, I don't even notice a law until I come up against it. And that is as it should be. So the significance I see in our law is great. Not only those which I live under today, but the whole history of it (which I have studied for years and am greatly interested in learning the evolving system and codes by which we live). So rather than some blind allegiance to law which you imply that I have, I take great interest in what our society has deemed legal and why. And although I accept your simplistic reasoning for why a person should be able to own a gun, I personally believe that there is a lot to it and that one should have a full understanding not only of their own beliefs but of their society's beliefs for it is these by which we must abide.

Pun intended? Absolutely. and Chuck--my answer was not flip and w/o content. It was my opinion, pure and clear.

That's not what I think at all. But you didn't ask my about my own gun ownership rights, you asked me if we were responsible for backing Iraqi gun ownership. I answered your question. If you want to drag this out into another gun ownership discussion, I'd be happy to go the rounds with you. But you at least need to make it clear that you'd like that rather than ask one question, get my answer to that question, then make a ridiculous assumption that I have not thought through my own stance on my right to own a gun.