Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

[MOBIUS]

Maybe it's to do with the US' 3rd World healthcare system?

[Japher]

Move to Arizona, they lead to take concealed weapons into bars

[KrazyHorse]

So do I.

[Blaupanzer]

In Virginia, like the Intermountain West, we have open carry. Don't have to hide it. However, Texas does it best. If it were a separate nation, it would be the fifth heaviest armed per capita in the world.

[Felch]

Handguns are crap. Shotguns give you the flexibility to use a variety of different types of ammunition, while rifles give you the range and power to take down today's modern Kevlar armored redcoats.

[Zkribbler]

Now that the Court has found an individual rather than a collective right in the Second Amendment, how is the Chicago ban substantively different from the DC one.

The argument Chicago will make is that the 2nd Amendment has never been applied to the States. This is true. But also, no case has yet said that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.

The 14th Amendment has been held to extend the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights to the states. The question is: Is possessing a handgun a fundamental right.

[For Dino's ability to stay on point and to ask an intelligent question, he is awarded one cookie. ]

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - what would be nessecary to take out the 2nd Amendment ?

[Zkribbler]

Just out of curiosity - what would be nessecary to take out the 2nd Amendment ?

...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Essentially, a two-thirds vote of the House, a two-thirds vote of the Senate and then ratification by three quarters of the state legislatures.

Or a tooth-pulling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court saying something like, the 2nd Amendment protects only the rights of States to form militias and to arm them.

Neither is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

[BlackCat]

Well, then, happy killing

[Asher]

Concealed weapons permits are fantastic. I know, some here will call it warped and fanatical. That's ok. I see the effect, and you don't.

We all see the effect of the US's astronomical gun crime rate compared to Canada. Correct.

[rah]

But if there were no guns, would it make a difference? We do have a higher percentage of poor minorities which may be the real difference.

[Asher]

But if there were no guns, would it make a difference?

I guarantee a lack of guns would reduce gun crime.

[rah]

DUH, but would it reduce crime? Obviously the kid killed in chicago by a railroad tie shows how creative people can be when guns are not available.

[Wezil]

That's a lot more "up close and personal" than many killers would get.

It's so much easier to kill someone with a gun than to beat or stab them to death.

[rah]

True, but if you're truly committed to killing, the lack of a gun won't make a difference.
I'm sure crime would go down a little, but I doubt as much as many would like to believe.