Supreme Court fight looms over right to carry a gun from yahoo News!

[Cubelands]

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-fight-looms-over-carry-gun-100107234.html

The next big issue in the national debate over guns — whether people have a right to be armed in public — is moving closer to Supreme Court review.

If they passed permit, We have carry the guns or not. I not want people carry the guns around.

What if someone angry and shoot to a person, say self-defense?

[Ad Bot]

[DrenDran]

What if someone angry and shoot to a person, say self-defense?

They'd have a trial?
Like they always have had?


At this point we need people armed in public to stop those that actually DO kill others.


(also: oh look, another yahoo news topic from furling/cubelands)

[Mr.jacksaunt]

Having a visable gun on you is a great way to deter crime.

[Cubelands]

They'd have a trial?
Like they always have had?


At this point we need people armed in public to stop those that actually DO kill others.

We have feeling not trust, no one and family willing carry arms?

[Kimon]

I mean it would be more likely for shootings to happen, but then some people might also have guns that could be for safety and stuff...
Kinda doubt it's a good idea, but that's just me. I mean strict gun laws won't stop psychopaths from getting laws, so I guess it's not a bad idea? But 'gangster' kids with guns would suck, so I guess we should make sure no kids could get them?

[DrenDran]

We have feeling not trust, no one and family willing carry arms?

I literally have no loving idea what you're trying to say.
If people are going to shoot up our schools and malls and whatnot, we might as well have a few people there that could potentially stop them.

[Cubelands]

I literally have no loving idea what you're trying to say.

I talk about family have right carry arms against each other, important stay alive.

[DrenDran]

I talk about family have right carry arms against each other, important stay alive.

You don't want people to have guns?
But familes can carry guns to use against each other?

I don't... what...?

[Mr.jacksaunt]

If people are banned from having a concealed weapon, then the criminals will still have one.

[Kimon]

If people are banned from having a concealed weapon, then the criminals will still have one.

Either way It's kind of bad but it's better for people to protect themselves a lot more easily opposed to being an unarmed victim, I guess.

[Cubelands]

If people are banned from having a concealed weapon, then the criminals will still have one.

That true!

[IkeTheGeneric]

The point that everyone seems to go over is that you can make all kinds of laws towards gun control, but the criminals that wrongly kill people aren't going to follow gun laws simply because they are criminals.

Take away the citizen's right to bear arms, and you remove one of the few defenses they have against said criminals.

[Cubelands]

The point that everyone seems to go over is that you can make all kinds of laws towards gun control, but the criminals that wrongly kill people aren't going to follow gun laws simply because they are criminals.

Take away the citizen's right to bear arms, and you remove one of the few defenses they have against said criminals.

good point.

[comr4de]

The point that everyone seems to go over is that you can make all kinds of laws towards gun control, but the criminals that wrongly kill people aren't going to follow gun laws simply because they are criminals.

Take away the citizen's right to bear arms, and you remove one of the few defenses they have against said criminals.

This. Criminals already have the ability to acquire firearms illegally, adding legal firearms to that list will not change anything. It'll reduce the number of citizens who have weapons to potentially protect themselves.

[Ragequit]

Pretty sure the right to bear arms isn't just for protection. It's if some dictatorship happens we can revolt and kill said dictator.