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...
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.
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.
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.
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"
In case you don't see the connection, I'll spell it out: "Oh judge, what good are your laws?" They represent the consensus of the governed. The bad man will not follow them but the government will enforce them. This will always be true.
The good man absolutely does need laws, as the laws spell out what the consensus is, and as long as the rule of law exists, where laws are applied equally and fairly to all the governed, then the good man will accept them if they are acceptable, and will work through legitimate channels if they must be changed.
Or would it make sense to say, "Oh Grocery Store, what good are your prices? The shoplifter will not follow them, and the good shopper does not read them." -- no, of course not.
On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.
If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.
So explain to me again why unarmed is better?
Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.
That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
the defense of personal safety, the order is just about the opposite.
damaged by dogma
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.
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.
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.........