Stratovarius Community

Aftermath of U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Second Amendment
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... aftermath/

Freedom loving Americans can rest a bit more easy for the moment, but this battle is far from over yet. I have posted a poll asking about the current laws on private firearms ownership in your own country.

I couldn't say exactly but I think it is highly controlled.

I didn't know such a ruling was being debated by the Supreme Court. Seriously, I don't think the Supreme court would ever overturn the Second Amendment. I mean, if they did it would be such an uproar, it would be downright scarey. Even most of the Liberals I know own guns, and would fight tooth&nail to be able to own them.
I would.

Prohibited, as far as I know. You have to be either policeman, soldier, security worker or such in order to have a permit to hold a gun.

.

Permitted, but on conditions

In order to acquire and possess a firearm ... the applicant must have a justifiable purpose for its use. The applicant must also fulfil the application requirements for acquisition permits.

A firearm acquisition permit may be granted only if it is to be acquired for an approved purpose.

[The only seven] Approved purposes of use are:
1. shooting of animals as permitted by hunting legislation
2. shooting competitions and other target shooting
3. work in which a firearm is necessary
4. demonstration, filming or other similar presentation
5. keeping in a museum or collection
6. keeping as a memento
7. signalling.

A proof or indication of the chosen purpose must be presented with the application.

More information from the Finnish Police website in English:
How to apply apermit and what it takes to have licence(s).

So gun ownership is regulated.

How is that a bad thing? Car ownership is regulated (you need a license/insurance/etc.) so I don't see what everyone is complaining about.

Permited if you have a gun licence and only for some types of guns.

Anyway, over here firearms ownership is permitted for certain types of weapons, with applicants needing a clean criminal record and having to take a gun safety course in order to obtain a license.

I like to fire a gun at a piece of paper as much as the next person, but:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There you have it. Well regulated. Militia.

HvyMtlClickWitch wrote:I like to fire a gun at a piece of paper as much as the next person, but:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There you have it. Well regulated. Militia.

The army, in other words.

I think that at the time, the founding fathers' idea of a militia was a lot different than what the US is doing now. So many things have changed, it's no wonder that otherwise patriotic people find it easy to not be proud of the United States these days.

HvyMtlClickWitch wrote:I think that at the time, the founding fathers' idea of a militia was a lot different than what the US is doing now. So many things have changed, it's no wonder that otherwise patriotic people find it easy to not be proud of the United States these days.

I think that many people have forgotten why that there was a revolution against George III to begin with- and that was of course, governmental tyranny, courtesy of Parliament and the Crown.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Bill of Rights specified the right to firearms ownership as being second only to article I. So it's my interpretation that the Founding Fathers considered the people being able to defend themselves against governmental tyranny as being second only to that of freedom of speech, expression, and religion.

Too many lives were sacrificed during the revolution, and they were not about to permit a new, more insidious form of government to take root here. The Second Amendment does not guarantee rifles for hunting or for sport, as many latter day political interpretations would lead one to believe, but specifically for self-defense against the government, and it would not be a stretch to say that self-defense against criminal elements and savages is strongly implied there.

If common people cannot defend their families, their homes, and their possessions that they have acquired through honest and plain old fashioned hard work against criminal elements, be it governmental or simply plain common thugs, then we are no better off, in fact we would be worse off, than the original colonists were at that time. In fact, we would be little more than serfs or slaves.

The Militia means the people, private citizens, and does not specifically mention the army. In fact, it means paramilitary or irregulars, and not standard military (or regular) forces. The Constitution specifically empowered Congress to raise an army and a navy for the sole purpose of national defense.

A common sense interpretation of a well-regulated militia would mean that the militia and it's members would not be permitted to go around trampling the rights of other citizens. The militia initially meant "all able bodied men", and that they could be called up at any time in the event of an emergency.

Washington itself had had a gun ban in force for decades, and yet it consistently had one of the highest murder and armed robbery rates in the nation. You can check the crime statistics on the FBI's website if you'd like to confirm this. It is positively a national disgrace that the nation's capital remained one of the most dangerous cities in the nation- and a crack cocaine smoking D.C. mayor caught on videotape notwithstanding. Yes, that is an event that makes it difficult to be proud of the country.

Criminals never pay any attention to gun laws, and the net effect is that honest, law-abiding, and innocent citizens are the ones that are disarmed, and quite often with tragic consequences. There are over 70,000 armed felons in the gangs of Los Angeles, and does anyone think that THEY pay any attention whatsoever to gun laws?

There are many good stories though of intervention by armed citizens- thousands of them, in fact, where lives are saved and crimes are prevented, due to the quick thinking of a bystander that had a concealed weapons permit, unfortunately, the mainstream media (MSM) rarely- if ever reveals any of these remarkable stories. Here is only of of them, for demonstrative purposes, from the June Edition of the "The Goblin Hunt Chronicles"

Police: Former Marine Shoots 2 Subway Robbery Suspects
Customer Kills 1, Wounds Another, Police Say
http://www.local10.com/news/13585335/detail.html

This 71 year old former Marine shot two armed suspects at a local Subway sandwich shop in Plantation, Florida during a botched robbery attempt. The former Marine had a concealed weapons permit, and according to police, he will not be charged with any crime. Of course, the dead robber's family actually complained that they cannot understand why the man will not be charged, and why he had to "shoot someone down". I suppose that they forget that the potential for getting blasted, particularly in this case be getting shot in the head by a former Marine, is merely an occupational hazard of being a thug, and is the risk that they chose to take.

I suppose that the dead thug's family appears to be completely ignorant of Florida's Castle Doctrine Law,

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm


which originally was (Florida Code Annotated) SB-436 and passed in 2005 by a majority of both the senate and the house, and signed into law by (Republican) governor Jeb Bush. My home state of Tennessee passed a similar bill that was signed into law by (Democratic) governor Phil Bredesen back in 2007. This story is one of many and shows that the tide is beginning to turn against criminals.

Here is the verbiage of the recent Supreme Court descision:

District of Columbia v. Heller

Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The Court held that the amendment's prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but neither limits nor expands the scope of the operative clause.[75]

The four dissenting Justices called the majority reading "strained and unpersuasive."

(Miditek comment: Of course the four Marxist 'justices' on the Supreme Court will side with the 'government', that being the city council of Washington, District of Columbia, in attempting to use a city ordinace to trump the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment- as it is clearly apparent that there was very little 'security' to be had by law abiding citizens that are currently residing in the district.

I suppose that the four dissenters wouldn't want to walk about in certain neighborhoods of the district itself- and only several blocks from where the work, now would they? I seriously doubt if any of the four dissenters even live within the city limits, and as judges, I am certain that one or more of them, if the truth were to be known, actually have a Virginia or Maryland concealed weapons permit. This hypocrisy is similiar to that of Senator Diane Feinstein, D- CA, who consistently votes against gun rights, and yet, of course, has a California concealed weapons permit herself!)