Slashdot Mirror
Second Amendment Questioned
dheera writes "Attorneys in Washington, DC question the scope of the Second Amendment in the first case in nearly 70 years, citing that the right to bear arms only applies to 'a well regulated militia.' 'We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,' said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general."
I'm all for a "well-regulated militia" interpretation... one that includes the nutcase private militias out there that are standing by to overthrow the federal government. There may come a day when that kind of militia is necessary, and I'll want them fully armed for that contingency. In the meantime, they don't strike me as particularly threatening to public safety. Same for the licensed Bambi-killers: they're mostly harmless, perform an arguably useful service, and in the event that civilization collapses they'll be invaluable members of society.
But what I do consider a public threat - one that isn't counter-balanced by any kind of public good - are all the completely un-regulated firearms out there, not only those in the hands of bank robbers and gang-bangers, but those in the hands of paranoid homeowners and in the hands of kids who think they're toys. I'm not saying they should all be denied any kinds of weapons... just that they shouldn't have the same "right to bear arms" that the better-regulated folks do, and should have to put up with bans on assault weapons, registration, etc.
Anything can be used to kill people, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ok you want the government to have all the power, so they will never do anything wrong... Ah Tiananmen Square, governments in action with the people having no way to protect themselves. The founding fathers put it in there for a reason... God dammit they were a hell of a lot smarter than you , so just shut up!
Leave it to DC with NO gun rights and one of the highest crime rates in the nation to want to attempt to redefine the 2nd amendment. I wonder if these judges would turn over their sidearms which they carry for personal protection? Oh wait no they won't because they need them for safety. How dare the common folk want the same!
Pretty sure you're wrong.
Dark Reflection
When Second Amendment advocates talk about the right to bear arms, they exclude the materials mentioned above from the category of acceptable small weaponry.
Right. Far better to roll over and play dead. Pussy.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Well, if blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes, then clearly it makes sense to take away their guns, although I have no idea how this actually works.
But no.
These people cannot interpret the bill of rights any way they like. They can do it to the bible if they like, because thats a story book made for YOU to interpret. However, the bill of rights is solid, and it is made so that the PEOPLE are more powerful than the GOVERNMENT. This is the way it should be.
People need to stop making shit up to get their way, in this country. The bill of rights applies to the individual. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a bill of rights, now would it?
I dare you to ban the right to bear arms.
Why in the hell would the bill of rights say that the military can bear arms? Doesn't that go without saying?
Dumbasses.
Could you please name a single gun-rights association lobbying Congress for recognition of the right to mortars?
But unfortunately correcting our reading of the second amendment will only go part of the way towards solving the problems. America has a love aware with violence-as a society we simply cannot get enough of it. The only thing americans love more than violence is living in a perpetual state of fear-which feeds directly into the violence. American culture glorifies violence to the point of no return-being beaten and beating others is practically a coming of age ritual. Paradoxically it is not the same people who legally own guns who actively perpetuate this fear and who so greatly value violence. Most legal gun owners are good upstanding citizens. Yet their possession of guns leads directly to the atmosphere of fear and violence. There are probably as many guns in circulation in America now as there are phones. Guns form an ubiquitous presence in American society-they permeate the social fabric, which itself is constantly being torn at and ripped asunder by the unrelenting gun violence. America as a culture and as a nation are simply not mature enough to be entrusted with guns. The frequency of gun related violence in America shows this to be true time and time again.
I know plenty of people who own guns. Of those people I can neither ascribe violence nor violent acts of intimidation using those guns. Why this disjunction-this apparent contradiction-because these people belong to a minority of Americans for whom violence is not a common sense approach to solving problems and disagreements. As much as I long for gun free society however- the reality is - as long as violence belongs to our collective common sense -not only in the sense of using violence to achieve an end, but also expecting violence as a reaction to certain behaviors- we will remain a society which defines itself in terms of it's own self-violence.
Now I know that many, many Americans would feel that their god-given right to own guns would be violated if it were to come to pass that the legislation in place corresponded to a more correct reading of the second amendment. But I feel the violence involved in cleansing our nation of guns, however painful that may be for those whose sense of entitlement would be hurt, still remains a violence much more minor than the never ending wave of gun related violence in American society. Violence still defines the experience of a large part of our society. Gun violence, of which most is domestic, plays a crucial role in the culture of violence in our society-at the same time the cultural products of America worship this same violence- we pay homage to this culture when we purchase the films and music which glorify it. Our fathers teach the value of violence to our sons, as men do to their woman, as children do to each other in our public school system. Many Americans can probably rightfully not identify themselves with the picture I paint here-but I suspect that a larger group of Americans will be able to identify themselves with such a picture as those who identify themselves as living in a civilized society of non-violence.
Pretty sure the Department of Justice is condoning torture and crimes against humanity now. Not exactly the most credible source of opinion on such things.
WOW! You must be ecstatic that GWB overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq. While the US may water-board, the US also provides religious material and information (such as which direction is Mecca) and allows Muslim prisoners complete freedom to practice their religion. And while there have been exceptions such as Abu Ghraib (sp?), which the DOJ prosecuted those involved, those that were being "tortured" can rest assured that their families are safe and not being punished for their deeds. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, would torture entire families, murder entire villages, and even his kids practice rape and torture techniques. Talk about crimes against humanity! Why are you not posting anything about Darfur or Somalia where REAL crimes against humanity are still taking place? Or are those places not important because they do not forward you assertion that GWB is the biggest terrorist on earth?
Or is the enemy (Muslim tyrants and terrorists) of your enemy (GWB and conservatives in general) your friend, and you make up exaggerated bullshit to make it seem like your side is right, no matter who you have to ally up with and how many lies you have to tell?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You, sir, are an "[anti-]gun nut." And a troll... but why am I not surprised you got modded so high. Fucking slashdot.
Alright, what the fuck? Why is it that I can't even fart in Slashdot's general direction without some extremist leftist fuckwit modding me troll or flamebait in a kneejerk fit of PC hysteria?
What do you think of a government that collects taxes and uses the money to subsidize corporations that would otherwise go out of business or pass laws that enable existence of their unnatural business models (such as intellectual property laws that imply that you don't own your own head and thoughts within).