Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals
Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.
Now we get to hear from a bunch of people who normally bitch about the government taking away individual freedoms try to justify their hypocrisy while they argue for gun control, and how the supreme court wasn't thinking of the children...
Flea markets are much, much better. No waiting while a background check is performed and absolutely no registration afterward!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I'm glad they made the right decision, but shocked that it was so close (5-4). I'd expect more intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges.
Isn't the crime rate in DC really high anyway? So it seems as if banning guns didn't work.
Thank goodness. Gun control laws only keep the honest person honest and defenseless.
Law abiding citizens will obey the law and revoke ownership of guns. Criminals on the other hand already have a mind to break the law, and having a law against guns won't stop them for a second.
Gun Control only serves to take guns out of the hands of people that give a shit about the law.
Lets have more law abiding citizens with guns with the ability to defend themselves against criminals.
Police aren't there to defend you, they are there to arrest people (generally after they commit a crime).
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The individuals who are going around killing people with hand guns can't get a permit for a gun in the first place. These individuals buy their hand guns on underground black markets; markets that will exist whether hand gun possession is legal or not.
What's the point?
The real intention of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to revolt (or at least threaten to). And that is a right that I savor.
What about the fact that it doesn't say "guns", just "arms"? I want my personal nuclear weapons!
E pluribus unum
Apparently Stevens needs to learn how to read. Of course the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
it's still funny how these handgun bans are supposed to work. Ok you can go buy an AK47 and a Mossberg 12ga shotgun but you can't buy a 2 shot Derringer because it's a pistol. next up, my hometown Chicago's pistol ban! down with daley!
Move to Ontario.
"you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle"
Thanks for spewing more stereotype nonsence and make what is a very serious statement about our freedom into some sort of joke.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Furthermore, "the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world" is comprised of U.S. citizens. So if there were ever an armed revolution, it's reasonable to assume that some of that military would defect to the side of the revolution. That, plus a bunch of pissed off citizens with guns pretty much gaurantees that we can take back our government should we ever need to. It's a hugely important right.
That should have read "conservative" justices in the Breyer case, but it's clear what you meant.
It's unbelievably sad that there's currently only one justice on the Supreme Court who supports our Constitution-guaranteed individual rights regardless of the swings of left/right politics.
Amendment 2.
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 term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several StatesAmendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 4.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment 9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLEAmendment 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLEAmendment 17.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Besides, everyone knows that if you make laws prohibiting gun ownership, that only affects law-abiding citizens. The criminals always manages to have guns anyway, thus leaving the law-abider at a severe disadvantage.
Responsible Gun Ownership is the way to go, and will result in less crime, lessen the need for police (which themselves figure into the crime component), and fix a host of other ills.
Many liberals will disagree with me, but I have yet to see a sound counter-argument. And no, I am NOT a conservative -- I am a Libertarian.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
"In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority ''would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.''
He said such evidence ''is nowhere to be found.''"
WHAT. A FUCKING. DIPSHIT. The WHOLE POINT of the constitution, is that the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian ANYTHING. The WHOLE FUCKING DOCUMENT is composed of limits on government.
John Paul Stevens: Eat a Dick.
Anthony Kennedy: A big thank you for apparently being the only judge who understands the constitution, the only judge to support both the rights of Habeas Corpus AND the inalienable rights expressed in the bill of rights.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
If Gore or Kerry beat Bush, no way Roberts or Alito are on the bench, and no way this law gets struck down. Whatever freedoms Bush might have curtailed, this forum gets awful silent when it's time to thank Republicans or blame Democrats. Just remember who is controlling Congress right now the next time some further criminalization of intellectual property law passes.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
As deplorable as their 2000 political intrusion was, Gore handed the case to them on a silver platter by only demanding a recount in the precincts where he was behind due to Florida stupidity. If he had thought about it for a few seconds, he would have realized he was opening himself up for an equal protection lawsuit.
Infuriate left and right
If you think this is a liberal/conservative issue, you are fucking retarded.
TY for your display of idiocy.
... or Rosie O'Donnell can blame her spoon for being fat.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What disturbs me, and deeply, is that "the right to keep and bear arms" was all but ignored by 4 out of 9 people on that bench. I mean they basically reasoned that "well, it says that, but that's not what it really means".
The 2nd Amendment is in two parts... the first part gives a justification for the right, the second part lays out the actual guarantee to the right itself.
Even if you think that changing times has voided the reasoning for the first part, that doesn't actually void the right guaranteed in the second part. The only way you're supposed to be able add or remove something from the Constitution, including rights themselves, is through the amendment process.
But in reality that's not how it works. In reality, a simple 5-4 majority can, with the stroke of a pen, completely null and void not just laws passed by Congress and local governments, but it seems that they can also void parts of the Constitution itself, simply by declaring, in legalese, "never mind what the text of the Amendment says, here's what it means".
This is, in practical terms, a kind of "tyranny of expertise"... the notion that only experts can understand the Constitution, no matter how plainly written its text is, and the rights of citizens are subordinate to these experts, as the flock was subordinate to the rulings of the Priesthood in the old days of the Catholic Church, dependent upon their interpretation of scripture. But I say that if common citizens cannot trust the Constitution to be understood in its plain text... if it doesn't "mean what it says" .... then it's worthless. It is, in that case, not worth the paper it's written on. If the Constitution says "up means up", and a judge can say "no, up really means down in the Constitution", then we don't live in a free country after all. We are in thrall to the priesthood of experts.
Think about that for a moment. 4 people in black robes today voted to essentially null and void a part of the bill of rights, the amendment process aside, by declaring that, despite what is written in it, the right guaranteed in it was never really a right at all. Just kidding, folks. Ignore that "shall not be infringed" stuff. Is this not the kind of thing George Orwell warned of? Is this not Newspeak?
The vehicle of the minority's dissent was the notion of "collective rights". John Paul Stevens' dissent was truly frightening to read, as he reasons that virtually everything in the bill of rights is a "collective right"... not an individual right, but dependent upon the collective as a whole. It was Soviet-lite in its reasoning. What are rights if not for individuals? Isn't the very notion of a right that one man's liberty is not limited to the collective?
Today, I became convinced that the three branches are in fact not equal. I think SCOTUS is more powerful by far than the President and the Congress combined. Neither of those branches have the power to void the Constitution with an opinion, with the stroke of a pen. SCOTUS can null an executive order, or a law passed by Congress. The President and Congress can do nothing to cancel out a ruling of the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS deems in a ruling that left really means right, then that's it. That's the law. And unless the President and Congress openly defy that ruling (and trigger a national crisis as a result), then "Stare Decisis" indeed makes left into right in the eyes of the law. The issue is settled.
I'm firmly convinced that if the United States ever has another Civil War, it will be the direct result of a Supreme Court decision.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
No you have it very, very wrong. We do and always will have to live with violent, mass murderous PEOPLE! But apologist always find ways to excuse people and blame objects.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Your equations aren't necessarily true. The VAST majority of guns in the US are NOT used in crimes, and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. States with conceal-carry laws have substantially reduced crime rates as well.
States can still regulate firearms, as long as they don't infringe upon the second amendment. Individual rights, in this case, trump state rights.
You're kidding, right? It's almost the exact opposite of the Habeus Corpus decision. The only justice to join with the majority in both cases is Kennedy. The other justices vote along strict idealogical lines when it comes to these kinds of decisions.
So the GP was right, it sounds like 8 of 9 justices need to be cleaned out.
Kennedy didn't join with the majority in both cases, Kennedy *DECIDED* both cases, as his vote decides which ideology gets the majority. We're lucky there is an apparent balance right now, but if we had just one more 'strict ideological justice' EVERY decision would fall according to that ideology, not the constitution.
I greatly admire the supreme courts role in checks and balances. I've never thought it should be done by presidential appointment though. A few justices retire in the wrong administration and that's the end of any balance for decades.
Actually, you can't "just as well argue" that. It would, in fact, be much harder to argue that proposition unless one were not particularly bright and speaking to an audience that was basically stupid.
Let's compare these arguments side by side:
1. SCOTUS lost all credibility after the 2000 election? OK, "all" is hyperbole. The court did not lose "all" credibility. However, the right wing of the court did manage to tarnish their reputation as being strict Constitutionalists by being so eager to jump into this issue.
2. Bush jammed the court with right-wing idealogues? Basically true if you define "right-wing" as equivalent to "Republican party line" as opposed to the traditional definition of Conservative. Neither Roberts nor Alito seem to have Scalia or Thomas's respect for the Constitution but seem to vote along party lines. Basically, both of them will vote according to what the Republican consensus (as reported on Fox News) tells them to vote.
Compare these arguments to your argument:
1. The SCOTUS was in the process of degenerating into a puddle of crypto-marxist Priests of the Temples of Syrinx? I just did a Google search and I was unable to even find a definition of "crypto-marxist". Is that something you just made up? But, if you mean that the pre-Bush appointments were closet Marxists, then it's pretty clear that you are wrong. At least since you can never know the inner thoughts of someone else, one must judge them on their actions. Justice Ginsberg -- referred to as the "most-liberal" of current justices -- is actually relatively moderate by the Segal-Cover ranking with a score of 0.6 on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale. Interestingly, Ginsberg is the richest member of the Supreme Court.
Secondly, it is also almost impossible to argue that any current or former member of the SCOTUS is or was a Priests (or Pristesss) of the Temples of Syrinx since: (a) it's a fictional group that doesn't enter (fictional) human history until at least 2060 according to the band Rush, and (b) go back and read (a) again.
Therefore, in summary, you are wrong and based on your knowledge of the SCOTUS I'm certainly not going to take your advice when it comes to presidential elections.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
This will comfort huge numbers of single issue voters that would normally vote simply to protect their gun rights from Democrats.
I very much disagree. While 2nd amendment activists are pleased with the ruling, they're also deeply disturbed by the fact that it was 5-4. This only highlights the fact that elections are important. They matter, especially since the President nominates SCOTUS candidates.Had Anthony Kennedy woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, the 2nd Amendement... a key part in the Bill of Rights... could have been voided with the stroke of a pen.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The 2nd Amendment is wrong.
Hey thank you random Slashdotter! It's good to hear from someone who has better insight on the Constitution than the founding fathers! And you make a great point, since everything over the last 200 years of 2nd amendment went fine, that means we don't need it! If you take some measure of precaution against something and that this something didn't happen, it doesn't mean your precaution worked, it means your precaution was useless! You don't believe me? So why didn't the Y2K bug catastrophe happen? Really it was quite stupid of the founding fathers to try to equip the civilians with firearms just to invade half an already-populated continent.
And I mean even if it was relevant back then it's not like it's still relevant now. All of our problems with rampant crime could be just solved by repealing the 2nd amendment. Repeal it today and tomorrow you'll see gang members from Detroit to South Los Angeles surrendering their AK-47s, Mac-10s and Tec-9s to the police, let alone the fact that a lot of these weapons came to them illegally from abroad anyways and have little to do with the 2nd amendment to begin with.
You just got troll'd!
There is a one-word response to anyone who thinks that guns are responsible for violence.
Africa.
You'd be amazed at the atrocities people can commit with nothing more advanced than machetes and bow/arrows.
OR maybe it means that criminals just get better guns. ... but i'm sure your hand gun will protect you.... definitly... right.
You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.
Or with more of them.
The transition from no-gun to nontrivial gun essentially levels the playing field, regardless of the relative size and capabilities of the guns on both sides. A bigger or faster gun is not a shield. It doesn't matter how big the gun is if the guy with the little (but big enough) gun fires his.
A bad-guy in a gun-on-gun confrontation is in a world of disadvantage: Fire (first) and he loses: He's now escalated from armed robbery (or whatever) to attempted murder, and called attention of bystanders and authorities to the confrontation. The ordinary citizen, on the other hand, is in reasonable fear for life and limb and may fire.
Usual result: The bad guy retreats to hunt for less-toothy prey, with no shots fired on either side.
Occasional result: Bad guy makes one more threatening move, good guy fires, police sort it out in a few hours or weeks or courts do after a few years.
VERY occasional result: Bad guy fires. Bad guy becomes subject of manhunt (progressively moreso if he makes a practice of this) and is eventually run down and removed from circulation (either by a victim who did fire first or by the authorities).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Start spending money on domestic security instead of imperialism. Our military budget is nearing 700 billion per year. Even if that was only cut in half, and only ten percent of that was used on traditional police departments, you could open up ten police forces the size of the NYPD.
Or you could even do something crazy like invest in rehabilitation for non-violent criminals, and save our country 40k per year per head for those we're able to return back to society. Halfway houses are a lot cheaper than jail cells, and if they continue to commit crime, you're no worse than when you started.
That's what the populace would prefer. But here in the USA, our opinion doesn't count.
Maybe if we required anyone who wanted a gun to have training and regular tests of competence for their guns, and insurance, and register each gun, and get it inspected every year, and require each gun to have safety features the way that cars have antilock brakes, airbags and seatbelts, guns might be dragged back into some kind of safe degree of use.
In Germany prior to WWII they had guns but with very strict restrictions, a bit like what you suggest. Then in 1938 thanks to that neat file with everybody who had a gun's name on it they started disarming the Jews, and when they had done that they could safely proceed with their plans. Yay for registration of firearms!
Why yes, I Godwined myself in the foot, but who cares.
But instead, gun fetishists act like guns don't kill over 29,000 Americans every year.
And anti-gun nut jobs don't realise that the problem isn't law-abiding citizens owning guns but massive organised crime.
You just got troll'd!
I know down in the states that have that wacky Amendment. Hell up here in Canada we tried a gun registry which hasn't really worked so well.
To me it makes very simple sense. Ban handguns. I try and think of legitimate users of handguns, and I can think of two.
1) Law,
2) Target and collectors, but really they make up, what, part of one percentage point of the population?
The only other two users are criminals, and those people that think owning a hand gun will protect them from said criminals.
Of course there are the whack jobs who say they want them to overthrow the government should they get all tyrannical on their ass. To which I saw 3 things:
1) That boat has sailed my friends, and people fight, not guns.
2) Last I checked I have not seen a successful civil war, or any war for that matter that was decided with handguns. and
3) While having guns in the 1800's may have made some difference, wars are typically fought with like tanks, and planes, rockets and shit like that now. So maybe it is your constitutional right to bear those as well. Heck I know I want a tank, might be a tad expensive, particularly with the cost of oil these days!
The thing with handguns is that you can conceal them. So criminals love that shit. Make it illegal to have one, and all you have to do is catch them with one to arrest them. Also take enough out of circulation, and it will become very hard to obtain one.
This isn't to say ban long guns, no not at all. A rifle is good for hunting and for you wackos a staple of war and uprising. You just can't conceal them. Sure you can cut the barrel down, but it is illegal, again instant arrest if found. A criminal is gonna look mighty suspicious walking into a store with a rifle. Also for those wishing to protect your home, well I think I would find a shotgun a bit more intimating than you standard 9mm pee shooter. Besides what does a home owner need with a small concealable fire arm? Hide it from the kids? These are all supposed to be in a locked gun case (at least in Canada) anyway.
Anyway thats my take. Get rid of 'em. I have never fired one, nor will I, for what use do I have for one? Heck if you want to, have a program to trade in your handgun for a rifle or shotgun. Just get rid of them.
I don't agree with the CW on Slashdot that everything Bush has done is bad. And most of my disagreements with Bush come from the conservative side of the spectrum, not the radical, civil libertarian, the-Constitution-is-a-suicide-pact perspective that is so pervasive on Slashdot. But many here suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, or less elegantly, are haters. If Bush rescued kittens from a burning building, many here would have something snotty to say. That just isn't reasonable. Anyone who is happy with the Heller decision simply must recognize that without Bush in the White House appointing two justices, gun rights would have taken a serious hit today.
But if you suffer from BDS and don't care about a civil liberty so important that the framers listed it above search and seizure and right to counsel, then of course you are not interested in an objective, fair view of the 43rd president. Besides, it is much easier to call me names than to be reasonable and admit to something that flies in the face of your ideology. It is so much easier - and takes so much less thought and introspection - to just label Bush evil, with no redeeming qualities.
the fact that the so-called "originalists" on the court basically reversed about a centuries worth of decisions previously decided), but that doesn't matter.
Nonsense. Miller is the *only* 20th-century SCOTUS gun rights case that even addresses the Second Amendment, and only touched on taxation and registration of sawed-off shotguns, not the issue of individual gun rights in general. In fact, Heller upheld DC's licensing schemes.
Moreover, you have no idea what judicial activism means. It does not mean that a court is "active" in reversing precedent - especially if it is reversing case law inconsistent with the Constitution or statutory law (i.e., overturning activist cases is not activism). Activism means judges legislating from the bench, ignoring the Constitution or statute for their own public policy ideals. And "originalist" philosophy has nothing to do with upholding precedent (i.e., stare decisis); it is about judging consistent with the original understanding of the framers' intent, which this decision certainly does. You might disagree with the author of the Bill of Rights, but clearly he was talking about an individual right.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
For the record, I am a law professor, so I am not just talking out of my ass here, as most jailhouse lawyers here do. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts or law.
But since you are lamenting activism, I am sure that you are upset that, thanks to a recent SCOTUS decision, for the first time in American and world history, POWs/unlawful combatants now get access to civil courts. Now that's activism.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
you could open up ten police forces the size of the NYPD.
Not necessarily a good option. While I'm sure there are areas that could use more police protection, there are already a good amount where additional police would simply result in more speeding tickets(because they're easy).
No, my solution would be to legalize, regulate, and tax the currently illegal drugs. Killing the illegal drug trade would drop our violence levels to near european levels overnight.
I don't read AC A human right
why do some people think that 'the founding fathers' were space aliens with more wisdom than anyone who has lived since?
We had some old white men write important documents in UK history too. Most of them were maniacs or bloodthirsty freaks, and we don't cling to some fantasy that what they wrote down was THE LAST WORD.
In fact, we overturned their views many times, regarding votes for women and homosexuality, abortion etc etc.
Just because people wrote a document a long time ago doesn't make what they wrote magically wise.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
with original intent. There are plenty of people who argue that stingers and anti-tank weapons and what-not (short of ships) are exactly what the framers intended, and some of them are even constitutional scholars.
the defense of personal safety, the order is just about the opposite.
damaged by dogma
First off, about half the army will likely defect. Civilian targets? Marshall law? Blow up towns?
Second, you have guns so when the Nazis march into your town to start yanking you out of your houses, you're fuckin' armed. It worked for Hitler, it won't work here; Hitler collected up all the guns, if we have them all still then when the gestapo wants to take us they can take us through the bullet spray.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Well, maybe, and given an all-out civil war like that, I think you may have something there.
But how do we get from the point of "secret police rounding up dissidents" (think Rex 84) to "supply lines are vulnerable"?
Nobody objected to rounding up Japanese during WWII. Only about 1/2 the population objects to Guantanamo.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
it seemed to work pretty well for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Mujaheddin. The entire point of guerrilla warfare is that it almost completely eliminates the military advantage that large standing forces have. Artillery and other massive weapons are only useful against other standing militaries. Cruise missiles are only useful against infrastructure and other persistent targets. Attack helicopters are no use at picking one soldier out of a crowd of civilians. Aircraft carriers are useless against someone poisoning your barracks' food supply. ICBMs don't frighten someone who lives 2 miles from your own military base. Stealth fighters can't protect you from roadside bombs.
Of course, your argument is pointless anyways. As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right. You don't say that the freedom of speech is no longer protected just because Rupert Murdoch can easily speak louder than any protester, you don't say that the fourth amendment is no longer valid since the police can easily find out tons of information about you without entering your home. I don't think there's any risk that the government will want to quarter soldiers in private homes to save some money, that doesn't mean the constitutional prohibition against it ceases to be the law of the land.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The military is our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers -- they do not want to shoot a single US citizen. Most will follow orders so long as they do not include shooting and harming US citizens, and that's exactly why we need the guns; more than likely only a few minor incidents would be needed, because the aftermath would further ignite public outcry and also dampen military resolve to use weaponry on its own citizens.
damaged by dogma
Bush himself has used the "not at war" tactic to justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, claiming our prisoners are not POWs but "enemy combatants." This despite the fact that
...the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law." Seems we are at war when it is convenient, and not when it is inconvenient.FDR and Truman were wartime presidents. We declared war in WWII.
"Police action" was invented to circumvent the Senate. It was invented to take advantage of the ambiguity in Article 2 of the Constitution, which simply states that the president shall act as Commander in Chief. Presidents use this to order troops to war, without having to get the Senate to actually declare war.
Yes, war is hell. But we are better at killing our enemies than they are at killing us. That does not mean we should debase ourselves to use their tactics, tactics which we have agreed are illegal when we signed the Geneva Conventions. It certainly does not mean we should willingly sacrifice our core values because they are inconvenient. If we do that, we have already lost, because that is exactly what the enemy wants.
Not necessarily - Texas, Georgia, and Florida all have high population centers and lower crime than DC and California, I believe.
>>"So let me get this straight: Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?"
Yes. As an unfortunate example, look what is occuring in Iraq right now. The average citizen cannot withstand a toe-to-toe battle with an overpowering occupying army and they don't need to either. History has shown time and time again that a large army is incredibly susceptible to being stalled out or ground away by guerilla warefare.
Further, understand that many governments have been overthrown by people armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns. Armies show a reluctance to kill their brothers and countrymen, especially when thousands and thousands of them congregate, united in a common cause against a tyrannical government.
Hmmm...
What will be interesting, is to see how this ruling affects cases such as gun possession on state or federal property, on college campuses, etc.
When wearing seatbelts became mandatory, people were (and some still are!) arguing against it because "if you have an accident you are trapped". This reminds me a lot of this discussion where people say that if they don't own a gun then crime will be higher. How come this argument isn't true in many other countries? Plenty of countries where gun ownership is extremely restricted and funnily enough they have a lower crime rate (especially on gun crime) than the US. Just look at most European countries.
Gun ownership is in the constitution, so, fine, people should be allowed to own them and I think the decision of the Supreme Court is correct on that account. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea at all and the "but but but it reduces crime"-argument is flawed in my opinion.
One clear counterexample is Switzerland. With one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with the majority of adults having ready access to a military rifle, has a lower rate of intentional homicide than neighbor Germany. The problem of crime cannot by solved by the simplistic solution of governmental restrictions on tools. The stats simply do not show that less people die when there are gun controls in place. Period.
As I recall, the US military is also composed of private citizens, many of which are probably private gun owners themselves. Having a military comprised of private volunteers is probably a great deterrent against tyranny.
First off, about half the army will likely defect
Precisely why they wouldn't use the army. Think Blackwater gleefully plying their trade for very fat bonuses. They won't give a second thought about you.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
The difference is that 230 years ago,
1. a musket was the best any army had. Civilians even had the equivalent of sniper rifles, see the minutemen.
Heck, you could make a musket and ammo in a local smithy or in your shed. It was a simple weapon where the tolerances were _extremely_ generous.
Artillery? Sure. Anyone who could make a bell, could make a cannon just as good as the royal armourers in England.
Shock troops? That still meant cavalry. Any rancher who had a horse could be the equivalent of what today is a tank or a gunship.
2. Tactics were also more... lacklustre. Armies were trained to just march to 100 yards of each other and stand tall, shooting volley after volley at each other, until one looks like it's breaking. Then the other would do a cavalry charge or bayonet charge to finish it all. The only difference between a fully trained army and a militia was that the army was trained to stay in formation longer.
The Brits essentially did little more than pout when the rifled guns of the minutemen just sniped their officers in the first volley.
Modern infantry tactics and indeed combined arms tactics are a bit more effective than that. A militia whose claim to glory is shooting a few vermin now and then, and a bit of penis-size posturing at the shooting range on sundays, would sustain heavier casualties even if they had the exact same weapons the army had.
3. While willy-waving about the independence war is good and fine, let's not forget that it was mostly won because there was an ocean in between _and_ because France went bankrupt supporting you guys against the Brits. The whole French navy, as much as there was of it, fought hard to make that ocean a bigger problem for the Brits than it already was. And there was military help on the ground too from the French and from the northern indian tribes they had worked hard to befriend.
In fact, if you look at the French Revolution, soon there after, and at the king getting beheaded, that's what started it: eventually the peasants and burgeoisie had enough of paying the debt for a war that wasn't theirs and gained nothing for them. But I digress.
At any rate, you fought, only a fraction of the English army and you didn't fight it alone. And yeah, you repeated it a few years later, when the Brits were busy with Napoleon and made little more than a token show of force to keep you from trading with Napoleon. And gave up as soon as Napoleon was no longer a threat, and they had no more reason to keep you from trading with France.
Don't let it go to your head. Just a few rag-tag militias against the full might of England, _could_ have went a lot differently.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That's the crux of the problem with gun laws in general. Criminals, by definition aren't interested in following the law, therefore, the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
IIRC, it is not unlawful to wander around completely naked in Vermont. Oddly, it is unlawful to get that way in public.
Last I checked, Vermont was still within the United States.
The AntiJoey
'Unnecessary Murders'
Careful how you word that, bub; frankly, I think the moment you threaten me with unprovoked lethal force (ie. armed robbery), you should expect just as much in return. Self-Defense is not murder, and I object to you implying that. There are more choices than just victim or criminal.
So do two friends of mine who survived a carjacking by killing the other guy first. They sure as hell were not looking for a reason to shoot someone, but they're alive, and still in therapy for it, and shitheads like you throwing the word 'murder' around for what they had to do is just small-mindedly gauche, thank you very much.
IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.
When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.
What a dreadful idea. More firepower to whoever has the most money, as if power in the US wasn't already dangerously concentrated into the hands of a few, very wealthy people.
I was asking the AC who said: That's fine in theory, but in jurisdictions where guns are legal a lot of people are killed by members of their family because there just happens to be a gun in the right place at the right time (for "right" read "wrong").
It is clear that he is manipulating the representation of the statistics. Obviously households of law abiding citizens in areas were firearms are not legal will not have firearm related intra familial deaths, because they can't have firearms to have intra familial deaths with.
To then say that there will be "A lot more (than zero)" in areas were firearms are allowed is a gross misrepresentation of statistics.
Logically extended, this should apply to all laws, not just gun laws. Since the implication is laws are useless since they will only be ignored by the ones they mean to control, let's just get rid of all laws so nobody will be hampered.
The crux of your problem is the tautological "laws only hamper law abiding citizens"(emphasis mine) as a key part of your "argument". Of course they do! This is exactly the point of laws: to control the behavior of those that abide by the law!
the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.
You're too kind to our elected leaders. Stringent gun laws get people killed. Maybe if a few of these errant officials were put up on negligent homicide charges they'd think twice about this unConstitutional poppycock. So far as I'm concerned, every time a law-abiding citizen is killed because he was unable to legally acquire a firearm with which to defend himself, the people who prevented him are partly responsible for his death.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So let me get this straight: Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?
No handgun is going to stop an attack helicopter. But I think you'll find it's pretty effective against the 2-year-old daughter of the guy whose job it is to put gas in the tank of the attack helicopter. Kill enough babies and wives and parents of ground crew, and gassed-up helicopters will be pretty hard to find.
What, you thought guerilla warfare against your own government was going to be polite?
The National Guard, composed of people a lot like ushas fired on unarmed US civilians on several occasions. Same goes for the police. Why should we assume the military would be any different? It would be miraculous if there were a 5% desertion rate, let alone 50%.
Look, they're killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians now in Iraq-- they'd kill you and me too if someone pointed them in our direction.
Americans are just like the Germans when the Nazis took over, only more docile. Consider your coworkers and neighbors. They talk a lot about individuality but are more like a breed of unusually loud-mouthed sheep.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
No, don't worry, we're not descending into chaos just yet.
If I understand it, the argument in favour of the right to own lots of guns goes something like this: "It's so common folks can rise up against a bad government". Presumably the assumption is that "common folks" will stand united in their cause, in complete agreement about how the country should be run afterwards.
However, seeing how people on this list argue and assuming that the opinions here are not that far removed from what is common in the US, I think it is highly unlikely to work that way. Isn't it more likely that that there will be 5 - 10 small, but violent groups fighting it out against each other, all the while killing indisciminately? It is certainly the way things have happened in all other countries throughout history. And who will come out on top in the end? Are we guaranteed a better society after a revolution? History again seems to show that what you have after a revolution is quite often a government that is more restrictive, not less, which is hardly surprising. After all, they have just been through a vicious, civil war, and have seen first-hand what happens when "common folks" are well-armed.
The American revolution was pretty unique, I think, in that after the English had been thrown out, the people in charge were fairly decent and idealistic. But those are not qualities that win the war each time; the victors will normally be ruthless people, low on the softer human qualities such as tolerance and decency.
I would be all for people being armed, if it made good sense, but I don't think it does. As far as I can see, all the argument in favour are weak, based on wishful thinking and the invocation of something high and holy, such as "The right of all men...", whereas the arguments against seem basically to be common sense. I know there is a lot of hysteria on both sides of the debate, but that's what I see, if you try to peel away all of that.
But how about a sort of compromise, then. Am I right in assuming that in the US you have the right to own a gun, even if you haven't got the faintest idea about how to use it? To my mind that is somewhat similar to owning a car without knowing how to drive safely. It would probably be a lot safer if you could only own a gun, if you not only learned how to use it properly, but also had to join the territorial army and spend time every week, not just on military drills, but also on the ethical side of gun ownership.
To you and the people answered you :
12000 at the peak in UK Same statistic for the US : 500000 victims
UK population : 60 million. So to get a similar figure to the US we need to multiply by 6. 60K handgun crime in the UK , compared to 500K. Unless I missing something, handgun crime in the US is still 8 time higher than in the UK. So even if there was a rise from 6K to 12K at peak (it went down to 9K recently for 2007), the rate of handgun crime is still way higher in the US, so it ain't really utterly convincing that handgun really help fighting crime, or a ban thereof is REALLY the reason the number of crime related to handgun, or even homeowner invasion rose. PS: to the guy citing a 2001 statistic , nice try. How about citing a recent statistic ? It took me 10 seconds to enter handgun crime statistic UK and clicking the first links.
One interessant fact is that in the US, handgun crime dropped by 50% since 1993. Now I would like to know if really during that time MORE city imposed handgun restriction or LESS (yes I know correlation would not imply causation, but that would certainly be a good angle to research , no matter on which side of the issue you feel yourself).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So for Scalia with his twisted understanding of history and the "true" meaning of the constitusion, habeas corpus can be thrown under the bus while hand guns are sacred. I personally find habeas corpus to be much more important than guns flowing on the streets in poor neighborhoods.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
See, that's the part I don't get about gun control... Liberals -KNOW BETTER- than to trust the police, so why is it when the discussion turns to gun control do the police all of the sudden become some shiny-armored knight, trusted with the awesome power of destruction above all others? What about that piece of tin on their chest makes them more moral, or more humble (arrogance + the only gun allowed = professionalism?!?), or more reasonable? I've known cops, and there's nothing NOTHING about them at all that makes them any more capable of using a firearm correctly, in fact many of the cops I've known were aggressive bully types, precisely the kind of people you DON'T want getting access to arms.
I really don't get it. I'll be in favor of gun control when it's UNIVERSAL, including the tin-shielded overlords.
There's a sweet spot, of course. Banning firearms in a single are when penned in on all sides by legal gun trades is nuts. It's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean. Gun nuts have managed to turn your whole situation on its head so logic doesn't apply anymore. The US on firearms is like a junkie trying to justify his addiction. "It feels worse when I don't shoot up (ha, ha, "shoot up"), so it must be good for me!" Yes, it does feel better now, but it ain't good for you.
The fact is, by allowing guns you are putting other people's lives into your own hands. Surely, if there is anything in the world that needs to be licensed, it's guns? Hell, we license driving, and that's not even designed to kill (it's just an unpleasant side effect). Can you honestly tell me that the general population is rational and responsible enough to handle practically unfettered access to firearms? Moreso than driving? But, I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, because like the pathetic junkie, the science takes second place to immediate gratification. We anti-gun lobbyists may have the blood of several people on our hands, but it's a drop in a red ocean compared to what the founding fathers and every pro-gun person since has pooling around their necks.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You should change that to "I don't mind reasonable licensing of guns"...
I was a good law abiding concealed weapons permit carrying American on the East coast of thee US. Sometimes I'd carry my gun. Usually it would be left locked away somewhere safe. The only real "action" it saw was the shooting range.
I moved to Los Angeles. In driving across the country, every state I passed through was listed as respecting my concealed weapons permit, although I left it tucked safely away in the trunk.
When I got to LA, I investigated getting a valid local permit. That's when I found out that pretty much no one, including most law enforcement, had concealed weapons permits. In good areas, cars were stolen, and houses were broken into frequently.
Over a few years, I got to know people, and could acquire weapons if I wanted. None were that interesting to me for the price, but I could have bought a rather large selection. I'm looking for an AR-15, PS-90, and AK-47. I was offered others ranging from ancient to full auto.
Because home owners could not defend themselves, the criminal element had no real fear of retribution if they did their acts quickly. If you know you have a 5 minute window to get in and out, do it in less than 5 minutes.
I'm back on the East coast now, knowing every other homeowner has a loaded gun at home, and about 1 in 4 drivers have guns in their car. The worst thing I've seen in a similar class neighborhood, is a kid knocked over two mailboxes. I've gone as far as forgetting that I put my car keys on top of my car, in the driveway, and remembering in the morning, where the car hasn't been disturbed.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I don't like labels, but I would say I lean Liberal, in most matters. I approve of the SC decision, and here's why -
Individual LIBERTY (the freedom to do as we please) can only be restricted insofar as, when enacted, they restrict the RIGHTS (an individual entitlement) of other individuals (ie, I have the RIGHT to life, thus, you DO NOT have the LIBERTY to take my life).
It is much easier to take away LIBERTIES than it is to grant them; thus, LIBERTY must only be infringed upon with extreme caution and prejudice.
My owning of a gun in no way restricts another individual's rights, therefore there is no basis of justification to take that liberty away from me.
Liberty is what allows us to protect our rights. Example: my liberty of owning a gun allows me to protect my right to life. Thus, anything that limits our liberties also inherently limits our rights. However, rights ALWAYS come before liberties (see murder). Liberties should be restricted to the point of protecting rights, but no further.
I oppose anything that restricts our liberties, except as stated above (in cases where said liberty infringes on another's rights). Therefore, I commend the Supreme Court's decision.
Another matter at hand is the definition of "arms". I believe there are two facets to address when considering this: purpose, and potential.
A rifle has many purposes (hunting, sniping, etc), and the potential of misuse, while detrimental, isn't necessarily severe on a large scale. Same with pistols. Now, nuclear warheads have very limited purpose (last-line defense/deterrent, mass killing), and very serious potential (wipe out human race).
When considering "arms" available to the public, these are the two questions that should be asked and addressed.