Advertisement

Sup. Ct. finally decides the "right to bear arms"

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Zero
User avatar
Zombie Guard
 
Posts: 9252
Likes: 20 posts
Liked in: 65 posts
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The Frozen North
Title: Last Man on Earth
Formerly: Armin Tamzarian


Postby Zero » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:12 pm

MoneyMelon wrote:Somebody breaks in my house


Surely a shotgun would be better in your home?

Advertisement

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:15 pm

Zero wrote:Surely a shotgun would be better in your home?

No, shotguns spread a wider range of shot which will no doubt fuck up the intruder, but you're also likely to do a hell of a lot of unintentional damage to your home and bystanders.

Plus you usually have the reloading issue there too.
Last edited by MoneyMelon on Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

Zero
User avatar
Zombie Guard
 
Posts: 9252
Likes: 20 posts
Liked in: 65 posts
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The Frozen North
Title: Last Man on Earth
Formerly: Armin Tamzarian


Postby Zero » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:15 pm

I'd have thought one round one be enough there

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:18 pm

Zero wrote:I'd have thought one round one be enough there

Depends how many people you're trying to kill, really.
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

Frag
User avatar
REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse
 
Posts: 36321
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 68 posts
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:25 pm
Title: Mama don't like tattletales.
Formerly: Frag It, Rusty Kuntz


Online


Postby Frag » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:59 pm

I think the Constitution needs to be revisited. It's time to update it.

Nightfly
User avatar
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 8924
Likes: 16 posts
Liked in: 9 posts
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 1:23 am
Location: California


Postby Nightfly » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:20 am

MoneyMelon wrote:No, shotguns spread a wider range of shot which will no doubt fuck up the intruder, but you're also likely to do a hell of a lot of unintentional damage to your home and bystanders.

Plus you usually have the reloading issue there too.

Most shotguns can hold 5 rounds these days, and the nicer models carry anywhere from 6,8, to 20 & above shells.

Mossbergs hold 8 or 9 rounds, AA12's hold 20 rounds, and a Daewoo will hold 28 rounds for ya.

Also, if you use rifled slug rounds you avoid the spread problem you talked about.

Handguns and shotguns are both great but part of the equation depends on what kind of protection your target is wearing & where.
Small caliber handguns like .22s can sometimes just make someone mad and have been known to literally bounce off humans heads instead of penetrating them.
Image
Follow me on Twitter for Entertainment news updates!
You have all the weapons you need... Now Fight!

Spidey-Man
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 63 posts


Postby Spidey-Man » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:37 am

Reading the decision, Scalia seems to have gone out of his way, which they don't always do, to decide issues not in front of him.

It appears to me that a reasonable interpretation of this decisions leaves most gun regulation intact.

With the exception of places that outright banned handguns or other weapons considered normal by Americans for safety or hunting.

Perhaps NYC's high registration fee may be seen as in effect a ban.

But in general, I don't think it will change a lot. Except there will be dozens of lawsuits to test.

Which I guess will be decided by lower courts since the Supreme Court is not likely to revisit the issue so soon.

Spidey-Man
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 63 posts


Postby Spidey-Man » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:38 am

Frag It wrote:I think the Constitution needs to be revisited. It's time to update it.


Perhaps. Though you may find yourself getting things you don't want in any update.

Very possible the religion clause would be very different today, for example.

AaronW
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 25023
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:12 pm


Postby AaronW » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:26 am

Nightfly wrote:Most shotguns can hold 5 rounds these days, and the nicer models carry anywhere from 6,8, to 20 & above shells.

Mossbergs hold 8 or 9 rounds, AA12's hold 20 rounds, and a Daewoo will hold 28 rounds for ya.

Also, if you use rifled slug rounds you avoid the spread problem you talked about.

Handguns and shotguns are both great but part of the equation depends on what kind of protection your target is wearing & where.
Small caliber handguns like .22s can sometimes just make someone mad and have been known to literally bounce off humans heads instead of penetrating them.


I use a 9mm XD9 for home defense but the true best weapon is a shotgun, 12g 00 buckshot. Decent pattern, a ton of short range killing power too. I can fix any shit of mine I shoot up, but I want the badguy to hit the ground after I shoot him.

Muppetesque
User avatar
Cunning Linguist
 
Posts: 23066
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:10 am
Title: ^ My Beaver with a cock
Formerly: nerdygirl


Postby Muppetesque » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:32 am

Spiderrob wrote:Perhaps. Though you may find yourself getting things you don't want in any update.

Very possible the religion clause would be very different today, for example.


Great hypothetical Rob, how do you think the religion clause would read if done today?
eyp wrote:you should start following nerdygirl's advice.

CountD wrote:you were prettier in person, too.

Epidemic_Spider wrote:So you admit I'm more fun than Nieto :groucho:
GOSD wrote:I admit nothing!Yes.

Strict31 wrote:Huh. Nerdygirl's got some booty on her. Kind of a surprise there, Emma.

Muppetesque
User avatar
Cunning Linguist
 
Posts: 23066
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:10 am
Title: ^ My Beaver with a cock
Formerly: nerdygirl


Postby Muppetesque » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:33 am

Frag It wrote:I think the Constitution needs to be revisited. It's time to update it.


That's what Amendments should be for...
eyp wrote:you should start following nerdygirl's advice.

CountD wrote:you were prettier in person, too.

Epidemic_Spider wrote:So you admit I'm more fun than Nieto :groucho:
GOSD wrote:I admit nothing!Yes.

Strict31 wrote:Huh. Nerdygirl's got some booty on her. Kind of a surprise there, Emma.

Spidey-Man
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 63 posts


Postby Spidey-Man » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:45 am

emmabe wrote:Great hypothetical Rob, how do you think the religion clause would read if done today?


I think you'd have a lot of pressure to have it allow things like school prayer, creationism in schools, perhaps even public financing of religion.

A new constitutional convention would be crazy with all the groups vying to get clauses written into it that reflect what they want.

AaronW
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 25023
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:12 pm


Postby AaronW » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:12 am

Spiderrob wrote:I think you'd have a lot of pressure to have it allow things like school prayer, creationism in schools, perhaps even public financing of religion.



Probably, I know deep down most Christians and religious folks want to live in a theocracy where they can oppress those who think differently.


:wink:

Spidey-Man
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 63 posts


Postby Spidey-Man » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:16 am

Aaron_W wrote:Probably, I know deep down most Christians and religious folks want to live in a theocracy where they can oppress those who think differently.


:wink:


I think enough people would want those things and be passionate about them and have the clout to get them through, to counteract the apathy of the majority

Muppetesque
User avatar
Cunning Linguist
 
Posts: 23066
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:10 am
Title: ^ My Beaver with a cock
Formerly: nerdygirl


Postby Muppetesque » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:20 am

Spiderrob wrote:I think you'd have a lot of pressure to have it allow things like school prayer, creationism in schools, perhaps even public financing of religion.

A new constitutional convention would be crazy with all the groups vying to get clauses written into it that reflect what they want.


I agree the pressure would exist, but do you truly believe it would be ratified? While practice of religion has risen across all US demographics, But by the same token the political influence by religion is still fairly well contained. Of course it has strongholds, but truly enough support nationwide to radically alter a principle of our country?
eyp wrote:you should start following nerdygirl's advice.

CountD wrote:you were prettier in person, too.

Epidemic_Spider wrote:So you admit I'm more fun than Nieto :groucho:
GOSD wrote:I admit nothing!Yes.

Strict31 wrote:Huh. Nerdygirl's got some booty on her. Kind of a surprise there, Emma.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot] and 37 guests

Advertisement