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 they can address more pressing issues. Like the right to bare chests.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
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
Scalia and co, make this very point in their decision (found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html -- a wonderful site for Supreme Court decisions. The site, really.): Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
It's dead on.
On a related note, why don't new sites ever link to the actual decision? It makes no sense.
--sabre86
This is obviously not belonging to "Your Rights Online". Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
What's funny (sort of) is how closing the automatic weapon registry made them into such good investments. You can get a full auto weapon, but it'll cost ya.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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 "rolling speed reduced" department?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I'm a liberal, but I'm from Texas. Gun rights are about the only opinion I share with the right wing, though likely for different reasons.
There are tons of arguments against guns, such as safety in the home or availability to criminals. But in my mind it comes down to just one thing -
The availability of guns to the general public is the last safeguard against tyrrany. It becomes much easier to fight an oppressive government if you have the weapons to do it with.
And let me preempt a few arguments right here - a few of you might ask how a bunch of rag-tag resisters can fight against the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world?
For your answer, take one look at Iraq.
Well, this ruling is not the end all of this fight. The ruling explicit states that this is a FEDERAL law, so there still exists a fight to determine if the 2nd amendment is incorporated into the 14th amendment. That is an interesting legal question because the justices who ruled in favor the the second amendment generally do not believe the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment is correct, but the dissenting justices do believe in incorporation. SO when the eventual trials form Chicago get tot he courts, the next issue will be to decide if the 2nd amendment is applied to the states through incorporation in the 14th amendment. This put the justices in a weird spot - because those that are in favor of gun rights are against incorporation, which means the second amendment would only apply to individuals in federal territories and that states can limit guns however they want. However, the dissenting justices would rule otherwise that the second amendment would incorporated into the 14th, but this would enforce the 2nd amendment in states, which would be agianst their liking. SO it really depends on the next battle. Will we see judicial activism, or more stick to their principles type rulings. Either way, this is a big win against government domination.
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"
Ah, but soon you /can/ get an automatic weapon in Kansas. Starting on 1 July this year, Kansas residents may own automatic weapons, silencers, and sawed-off shotguns.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Look at how many other important decisions lately have been 5-4! Like the decision about Habeus Corpus.
I haven't done a comparison, but I wonder if they are the same 5 and 4? If so, maybe we should clean out the court and start again.
The whole 2nd amendment issue is mired to double-talk and conflicting laws. Although the Supreme Court has made this ruling, you still can't take guns into hospitals, schools, etc. Obviously the states and Washington DC can make their own restrictions, but how can those laws conflict with the constitution?
For the record, I am fairly neutral on the topic.
This is a correct decision. Strange thing is, it was decided correctly by the justices that are most often wrong. Just this week, the court handed down another correct decision, barring use of the death penalty in rape cases. The same conservative justices (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) that ruled correctly today, dissented in that opinion. It's kind of scary that there's only one justice(Kennedy) that was wise enough to rule correctly in both cases.
But what should I expect? Any court that doesn't immediately move to reverse Wickard v. Filburn obviously doesn't care what the constitution says or means anyway.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Really? I think that all depends on how one chooses to interpret the second amendment. Let's take a look at the text of the second amendment, shall we?
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.
Exactly which people are to keep and bear Arms? Is it only the people of the Militia? For that matter, what Arms are they to bear? And for what purpose? It specifically mentions the "security of a free State". To whom would this security be against?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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!
How about a link to a real newspaper?
here ;)
As someone who tries to avoid RTFAs, I was annoyed that the summary dodn't even HINT at what the actual decision was, obviously to drive traffic to the submitter's site.here
here
here (oops, my bad
here
here
here
or how about one from a city that is directly impacted by the decision, like here?
I'm disappointed in you, timothy. I'm sure there were a lot more submissions than this one. Since this is Thursday, I hereby nominate you as "Aurthur Dent" (Monday is my Dent Day).
Why do I have to <p> on my paragraphs when I've selected "plain old text"??
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You could just as well argue that Bush has saved the SCOTUS from degenerating into a puddle of crypto-marxist Priests of the Temples of Syrinx, bent on creating a nice, contented socialist world.
Go, McCain: let's see Fred Thompson as McCain's first nominee.
"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 ----
Finally our millions of fellow citizens can protect the security of our free states with guns from all the gross tyrannies perpetrated on us, like the attacks on practically every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and all throughout the Constitution. Those guns are our guarantee of liberty, and I expect those people with those guns to get out into the streets right away to fight off the tyrants. Thanks guys!
--
make install -not war
I suppose the claws could cut any intruder up pretty bad, but are they practical?
They knew they couldn't just outlaw alcohol because they didn't have the authority to, so they made a constitutional amendment to do it. Back then, they understood how the constitution worked.
Now, the Supreme Court *almost* put itself in a position to decide if the Constitution was "constitutional" or not. What the heck would have happened if the Constitution was not "constitutional," I'm afraid to know. In fact, that is pretty darn scary.
Now we might even debate if an inalienable right cold be taken away by a Constitutional amendment, but it is, once again, pretty darn scary that everyone just thought they could blatantly ignore the Constitution and get away with it.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I for one welcome our gun toting Overlor.. er Citizens
Our own government. I agree with you that it's not clear what the original intent of that wording was. I've always heard though that one argument for the general public having guns is that its additional check on our government over-stepping its bounds.
That didn't work out so well for the Southerners in the Civil War... but that's a whole other discussion. :)
Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
I beg to differ.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
RTFD.
All of your questions are answered, if you choose to listen.
I am pretty neutral on the subject, but I can attest to the fact that the gun ban was not working in DC. I lived in the district for a while, and my girlfriend had a gun shoved in her face by a 14 year old for her purse. I don't think he cared about the gun ban.
The people are the people, same people as the first, fouth, etc. amendments.
According to Miller vs. US (last SCOTUS 2A case, back in '34) ruled that the arms are arms that are common to the times (which is why Miller lost on his sawed off shotgun - they weren't in common military use).
And the security part? Its the security of being Free from a tyrannical government. Believe it or not, there have been armed revolts against The Government here in the US. And not just the Civil War. You may want to read about the Battle of Athens, Tenn. A revolt agains the local government with the underlying issue being Voting Problems (wonder how many remembered that in 2000 and 2004, and if I'll have an excuse to remind 'em in November this year) ...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Should be interesting. Barak's got to say something about this decision. It's almost required and were he to say nothing about that decision, well, that would kind of go against his 'openness' and 'change' thing.
There are millions of (especially) rural Democrats who support gun rights. Should be a real tightrope act to avoid pissing off a large part of the electorate no matter no matter which way he goes on this issue.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Or I should say when Govt. has all the guns.. IT IS A PROBLEM. Why is everyone is such a rush to give away their rights? Liberty is too much responsibility for you?
This will help Obama.
This will comfort huge numbers of single issue voters that would normally vote simply to protect their gun rights from Democrats.
...but on the lighter side, ESR might actually be able to win an argument with RMS now.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
All of your questions are answered, if you choose to listen.
That is the decision of the courts. That is how they chose to interpret the constitution. As best I know, the court did not travel back in time to ask the writers of the constitution to clarify the message they were trying to convey when they wrote it.
So thank you, but your link does not answer my question. It only provides a current supreme court decision on what it might mean. It really is not an authoritative answer on what the second amendment is necessarily adressing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
where i know i can hunt and shoot for self-defense.
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
So much of the debate surrounds the right to protect yourself from criminals, but I was taught that the framers also had a healthy mistrust of the British government and sought to ensure that the system of government they were proposing would never impose tyrranical rule over the people. Wouldn't that point of view also shed light on what they originally thought would be the purpose of the state militias, that the federal government was to be extremely limited, the states should hold most of the power locally, and that states could defend themselves against federal troops?
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
If guns kill people then I can blame my pencil for typos.
-516
"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"
See my sig
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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
"Arms" obviously means weapons. And "infringed" pretty blatantly screams that they can't stop the people from keeping and bearing arms. Twisting it to mean otherwise is being dishonest and grasping at straws.
My karma is in a nose dive
More useful would be a Supreme Court decision allowing citizens to arm bears. Why do the fighting yourself, when there's such an fierce platform already available?
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
I just hope they rule that I can keep my weaponized anthrax. I need it for duck hunting.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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
Which is of course how we've determined the meaning of all the other Amendments and or the necessary parts of the constitution, and pretty much every law we have.
The best you can do is read the Federalist Papers with a clear head and an open mind, which is about as likely as going back in time to speak directly to Thomas Jefferson.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Not while they're on The List.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Yeah crime in D.C. is high, that's where all our politicians work! *bdum-tsch*
Oh you meant violent crime amongst the regular population? I hear that's high too.
No sig for you!!
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
I write sci-fi for metalheads
In section 3, United States v. Miller is upheld, and supports its limit of the right to bear arms to those "in common use at the time".
Limitations on the possession of arms not in common use ensures that the arms in common use when gun control legislation began are the only arms that will ever be allowed. Thus, as the government gets more and more advanced weapons to use against the people, the people's arms will become less and less effective.
While the ruling does overturn D.C.'s handgun ban, it does not do enough to preserve the right granted by the 2nd amendment. "In common use at the time" must be explicitly defined to include the arms issued to US military and law enforcement.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
And all 4 of them were shot by guns that either they owned or were issued, were fully legal and registered.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
with 47 armed bears?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Of course it doesn't say guns. You are correct that is says arms. And your question is correct as well -- why can't I have a nuke?
Now, we all argue about regulating guns instead of outright banning them. I think we all agree that rogue bazookas in every living room are a bad idea. So we do need some limits on what can and can not be owned. It is not practical, nor safe, for every home to have a nuclear warhead "just in case". But on the same token, we DO have the right to own guns. Certainly handguns and rifles.
So we argue. We argue about what kind of rifles are allowed. Assault rifles? Machine guns? Etc, etc.
Welcome to society. Thankfully, in my country (US), we have a non-violent way to sort these things out. As flawed as it is, politics is that method.
This key here is that this decision changes what we argue about in politics. Instead of arguing about whether you can or can't have guns, we'll argue about the "kind" of guns you are allowed to have. We'll define characteristics and we'll have laws here and there that legislate those characteristics. And just like every system in the world, it will be gamed on both sides.
Meanwhile, we finally resolved the question, "are you allowed to own guns and have them in your house?". Yes. Yes, you can. Anywhere in the USA.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Then why start by discussing militias and the state?
Its the security of being Free from a tyrannical government
That is an interesting interpretation, but I have yet to see a good argument to back it up. And which tyrannical government would that be? Domestic or foreign tyrannical governments? And if that is the purpose, then why would we need to be able to carry concealed arms in public?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And why aren't you a member?
Deleted
Actually, that's often not the case. For example, the conservative justices dissented from the liberal majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (which ensured Habeas Corpus for detainees, thus limiting the power of the government to detain without due process). And Scalia usually pretty statist.
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!
Inferiority complex much?
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
...unless your a felon.
(yes, I know...lame to reply to your own post.)
I am a liberal, let me correct that, a proud liberal.
I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization.
I believe that taxes should be levied on "wealth" not "income." Everything else is just class warfare against the poor and middle class.
I believe in free speech. EVERY FUCKING WHERE, not, bullshit "free speech zones." The U.S.A. IS a free speech zone.
I believe that the 2nd amendment was a proud declaration of freedom. As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The 2nd amendment is intended to protect the sheep.
Does it mean it's putting an end to the ban on the District of Columbia and thus an end to over three decades of "oh shit crime is on the rise ever since we banned guns, let's make even more sure that no law-abiding citizen has a gun so that only criminals can have one oh wait a second no nevermind remember guns kill people therefore let's ban guns and ignore the fact that criminals will always get as many guns as they want"-type shit?
You just got troll'd!
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.
Congress could not have passed the Civil Rights Acts and SCOTUS could not have struck down segregation in Brown v Board.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
No results found for hoplophobia.
Did you mean hippophobia (in dictionary) or Hoplophobia (in encyclopedia)?
Hoplophobia, (pronounced [hplfobi]), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.
Some phobias are healthy.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
In the debate about this issue, there are usually many citations of things written in colonial times, which help to understand what the founders probably meant by the words. And that's fine.
But Breyer cites laws that were passed in the 1780s, such as a New York City law in 1784 that prohibited certain uses of gunpowder, as showing that such prohibitions wouldn't be incompatible with the 2nd amendment. Why does that make sense? The 2nd amendment was passed after that, presumably invalidating such laws. No?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you believe that gun ownership does not deter crime, put your money where your mouth is and plant a sign in your front yard that this is "gun-free" household.
I have yet to see one do it.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
What about tomorrow?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Please?
As I suspected, your mind is already made up and don't want to listen.
I'm sure I'm wasting my virtual breath, but if you were actually to open your closed mind and read the entire decision, it addresses your questions by studying the text of the Second Amendment, word-by-word, and interprets it with references to other laws, state constitutions, and publications during the era in which it was written.
So thank you, but your link does not answer my question. It only provides a current supreme court decision on what it might mean. So thank you, but your link does not answer my question. It only provides a current supreme court decision on what it might mean.Apparently, you didn't go to school in the US, or were sleeping in class that day. This decision is the authoritative interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The reason it's taken so long for the Court to do so is because the revisionist interpretation had been stretched to the breaking point in the past few decades. For most of the first 200 years since this Republic was founded, no one with any sense even dared consider that it meant anything else.
If you disagree with the Court, then be honest enough to say so. And show your work -- the Court has provided copious documentation for their rationale, so you should be able to show why they are wrong. Otherwise, your opinion isn't worth the electrons used to transmit it.
Well done. With the recent self-mutilation pact/coalition going so well, the rapidly falling dollar against all others and your economic meltdown, just getting started BTW, you qualify. This will help your population kill each other and I really think you will win this coveted award.
Good thing too you are "in the way".
I wonder if this ruling will really hold over time. While the current Supreme Court can chose to uphold various other weapon control laws, as a legal precident it may have many unforseen cosequences.
Remeber, it is the right to bear *ARMS* not *JUST* guns in the Constitution! That means knives, swords, chainguns, flamethrowers, tanks, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear weapons. Now of course many of those are not suitable for home defense, but the question is can the government regulate the TYPE of arms you possess. I assume there will never be agreement about what should go on the list, but is it possible to agree about who should make it? Why is a handgun in some way special in the category of arms, why would possession of a shotgun or rifle not be sufficient for self defense? Do you need a weapon you can easily hide? If you can leagaly bring a weapon somewhere, why do you need one that can be hidden?
The NRA groupies mostly want handguns and combat weapons as a toy collection and penis extension rather than any rational argument that I can see.
If all guns had to be painted pink I don't think that they would have such a following.
The intention of SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution and they seem to have done a reasonable job of that in this case.
The intent of the constitution is to allow the people to overthrow the government - which may have been possible when the government ruled over a few million people, but it's laughable now. Ghandian passive resistance would be far more effective today. This ammendment has lost its purpose and should be repealed.
Where arms are prohibited they are generally harder to come by, for criminals too. So it is far less likely that a robber would have a gun even if he wanted one.
Smooth bore shotguns could be useful in the country, but they are hard to hide and wield in small areas so only of limited use for crime. There are fewer people that would want one and those people can be more closely licenced (if done well, it need not be intrusive). Even hunting rifles are not really criminal tools and it seems to me that we pay more attention to ensuring that the owner has a hunting permit than having a gun permit.
The only point I can think of in favor of allowing widespread handgun ownership is that a criminal may be more physically powerful that the victim and arming the victim levels the playing field.
But is that last reason really good enough when:
1) the US has a competent police force, court system and prison system that shoudl not pass the buck to the victim.
2) There are so many unintentional shooting victims - Children in particular, people caught in the crossfire.
Nullius in verba
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!
I read Scalia's majority opinion when I should have been working (haven't read the dissents). ;)
My initial impressions:
1. The Court held that the Second Amendment ("2A") protects an individual right, one not dependent upon membership in an organized militia. The right exists for otherwise lawful purposes, specifically noting that self defense is one of the bases for the right. The Court recognized the pre-existing nature of the right, as well.
2. Some restrictions of the RKBA are permissible. E.g., licensing is not forbidden by the 2A, but only when imposed in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. That would seem to disallow much of the discretion typically exercised by issuing officials in places like New York.
3. Outright bans of classes of arms in common use by the people are forbidden. This is a key point because it disposes of the frivolous argument that even if the 2A protects an individual right, it only protects the right to keep and bear arms of a type common in use during the 18th Century. In particular, the Court notes that handguns are in common use and overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self defense. In dicta, the Court noted that machineguns could *possibly* be banned. However, it left open the argument that the reason machineguns are not in common use is because they have been so heavily regulated since 1934.
4. The Court declined to specify a standard for review in 2A-based challenges to gun control laws. For example, it will leave the matter of whether gun control laws must pass rational basis or strict scrutiny to later challenges. This wasn't unexpected.
5. The Court did not explicitly incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. However, it did cite several state cases in its decision supporting the idea that the 2A protects an individual right. This leads me to believe that the Court would be open to incorporation in a future case where a state law is challenged, e.g., Chicago's handgun ban. Again, this isn't totally unexpected, since the D.C. law which was struck down was a Federal matter, not a state law. The Court tries to craft most decisions narrowly.
In my opinion it is a sound legal decision.
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/
Your statements seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with torturing our enemies, and I, like many, many U.S. citizens, have an extreme problem with that. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to uphold the ideals of our Consitution. How can we talk about liberty, while we deny it to others? How can we expect countries to follow our example, become "free" and "democracies", when our example is kidnapping and torture?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal... U.S. citizens are not more equal. If we do not apply the ideals of our Constitution to everyone then it means nothing.The dissenting argument is that these evils are being perpetrated to protect us. The president claims he has to stomp all over our civil liberties, tap our phones, read our mail, torture our enemies, and dispose of due process to save American lives. I'll leave you with another quote, by Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?Part of the reason why the debate has shifted to the home defense side is because of the basis of the pro gun control position. Their points often revolve in the use of guns in crimes. As a result, the defense has been to argue the merits of private gun ownership in the context of crimes (namely that of self defense). While this does ignore the true basis on the 2nd Amendment, if the pro gun ownership side had not shifted with the argument, then it seems probably that the gun control lobby would point to the anti-tyrannical arguments and say that 'their fears are over blown' and that they are completely side stepping the issue (people are being shot by guns) completely.
Well, consider reading the Federalist Papers on the Bill of Rights. It tells you exactly what the writers of the Constitution thought about the issue, since the Federalist Papers were written by writers of the Constitution.
I note a single example:
What is the militia? The militia is the whole body of the people, except for certain government officials.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
There was also something called the Whiskey Rebellion in the wee infancy of the country.
Dubya (former general George Washington) sent federal troops (to I believe, western Pennsylvania?) to put down the rebellion that was in response to a whiskey tax just after the successful birth of the nation.
I'm wondering why so many of you hit the "post anonymously" checkbox.
You have urban school districts that suck when consumers of education should have sole choice of what education they get through vouchers, etc.
The schools aren't responsible for giving kids morals; that's the parents' responsibility. And vouchers won't help the poor, who are the ones whose kids are most likely to become criminals, unless the voucher pays 100% of the cost of school.
Not government's failure; it's parents' failure.
You have urban governments that chase away legit business with over-regulation and taxation.
Show some stats. I don't believe your anonymous assertions.
You have stupid drug laws that create huge black-market economies in the exact same places you chase away legimate business.
OK, I'll agree with the black market economics aspect; alcohol prohibition created a lot of violent crime that went away when it was lifted, and you have the same problem with the drug gans. But I don't agree that it is chasing away legit business, at least not here in Springfield. There are new businesses in the bad part of town, despite the fact that the people who live there don't have a lot of money fo rthose businessmen.
Stupid educational policies and drug policies need to be fixed and maybe we can stop blaming the gun objects (and beer objects)
Where are they blaming the beer objects? Gees, I'm 56 and my dad was only two when prohibition ended (my grandmother told me my grandpa had a beermaking kit in his barn).
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Crack open a dictionary, a REAL dictionary, and not just some Websters vernacular.
The "militia" is the entire draft age population.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...or perhaps you could find a dictionary published in the 1700's.
This isn't rocket science. There is no secret sauce here.
If you are claiming ignorance, it's willful on your part and only exists to serve your own pre-existing political agenda.
Any really good library will have a copy of the OED.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
I too was subjected to 12+ years of this mind numbing indoctrination. I wish I could get those years back. Homeschool is the best option for anyone (should say everyone even if they don't think themselves qualified to educate their own children) who may be interested in raising a critical thinking human. Sadly, your point is very well said.
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
Some illuminating gun statistics.
- Nine times out of ten, the gun that kills you is your own or belongs to someone you know.
- Nine times out of ten, the gun that kills your children and spouse is your own or belongs to someone you know.
Analysis - Owning a gun is not a preventative measure for the vast majority of gun deaths. In fact, owning a gun is magnitudes more likely to cause a fatality than random gun violence, and discouraging your acquaintances from owning a gun is in fact your best protection. For that relative rarity when it's a stranger's gun, maybe that person wouldn't have had a gun if there were sensible gun laws or attitudes. If America could reduce it's gun violence to random violence, it would be a reduction of 90%, and it would be doing very well. Owning a gun is not, nor has it ever been, shown to be a useful defensive mechanism. In my humble but correct opinion, the best defense against gun violence is living in a society that abhors gun ownership.
The consequence is obvious, and statistically correlates:
- You are four to ten times as likely to die of a gun-inflicted injury in the United States than other Western countries.
- Gun violence is one of the top ten reasons for death in the United States.
I believe that the rampant gun violence in the United States promulgates a society of fear, insularity and obstinate entitlement. It is wholly evil and backwards.
Further, gun ownership does nothing to prevent tyranny. It's the ability to coalesce en mass, and revolt as a general populace that controls governments' tendency towards totalitarianism. The prevalent gun ownership has clearly done nothing to deter the Bush administration's onslaught on freedom and rights. Gun ownership to protect freedom is a sexy idea, but utterly specious.
So what to do? Effectively removing guns from the streets ought to be a carrot-and-stick approach. The punishment for having a gun during a crime should be higher than without (but not so high that the perpetrator would choose to fight-to-the-death), but there should be an amnesty to turn guns and maybe even a minor reward for it.
I think what SCOTUS has done has been an assault on State sovereignty, as they have undermined the ability of States to self-govern. I believe they have misconstrued the Constitution of the United States, to the detriment of the ability of states to control peace and security, and to the benefit of gun manufacturers and their lobbyists.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
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.
"it doesn't take too much brainpower to see what he was talking about."
While I agree, it takes less brainpower to realize his point is fairly silly, and dismiss it.
You are aware that the founders were pretty much all what today we would call Libertarians. Without a doubt they would see our current government as a tyranny beyond imagination. Pretty much their entire intent was to protect the citizens against the government, an institution that they regarded basically as evil. If they could see us today no doubt all of their worst fears would be confirmed. In fact I think they would regard their attempt at keeping their new republic free to be an utter failure. They had far more freedom under British rule than we have today. All of their elaborate measures, their "checks and balances" to prevent government growth, in the long run really served to accomplish very little. Our freedoms are not much different from the England that they fought so hard to be free of. Today they would surely be regarded as terrorists by most people. These are people who fought a major war over a small tax. Even I regard that as a little extreme.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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!
The Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect individual rights. Arms are to be borne by individuals for all rightful purposes including self-defense, which has a long history of protection under Common Law.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
The Nazis did get trials.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Better yet, have gun safety education in the schools. Much like sex and driver's ed, teach children the proper and safe usage of firearms, to include an actual course.
More likely to save lives than quizes, training, background checks in order to purchase a firearm.
I don't read AC A human right
note, that they mentioned "in the home".
I'm worried that townships that are anti-firearm will use this to outlaw movement of firearms.
sure, you can have one at home, my how are you gonna get it there?
Honestly though, I believe any restriction on citizen weapons (not just firearm) ownership/carry is unconstitutional.
I live in Chicago, been to 35th and Michigan, they have signs declaring the SC's ruling that the registration law, and the forbidding of registration of handguns was not permitted, was perfectly legal; like a prize; kinda looked like...
19th century brit gentleman: "look at the savage's head, taken from the deepest africa"
Made me wanna cut their throats right there.
(and fuck FOID... go ahead mr. Daley, show me these gang-banger's FOID cards and firearms registrations that had a deadline before they were born)
Here is the 2nd amendment, in all it's modern glory, as the founders intended: .50-cal rifle hanging on your back; it does not matter if it's a pocket knife, a naginata, or a claymore; it does not matter if it's a cattle-prod, nun-chucks, a louisville slugger, or a stainless steel dildo (thank you Lord Carlin)...
All American citizens must be armed at all times and circumstances. It does not matter if it's a one-shot 22lr primer-only pistol, or a 10 foot full-auto
If you are not armed, you will be arrested and most likely deported.
Every gun owner I have met is 3 things:
1) interested in the safety of his community, not just himself and his family, everyone.
2) a firm believer in the rule of law, by everyone.
3) Realistic. The SC has ruled that police do not have to do anything to keep you safe or alive... "to serve and protect" is just a nice slogan, like "land of the free"... they made this decision under Clinton. As someone else has said "when seconds count, count on the police to be after a few minutes".
I see short-term benefits, but I worry about the long term damage prosecutors will try to inflict on us.
(and as to prosecutors, is there really any more satanic a profession? Satan WAS "the accuser of the breatheren". Think how police think; now think how lawyers think; now combine them... NOW. offer them some anti-paranoid medication, because they really need it if they want to join us in the land of adults).
I totally agree that training is an absolute necessity, many elementary schools actually did that years ago. Simply going off about unrestrained individuals is ridiculous. These same unrestrained people kill every year with their cars, drugs, booze, vending machines, weird sex acts, I mean really what you want is a license to go out in public or use the internet. It should involve an in depth interview with a psychologist, background checks on your life and all the bone head things you have done and a drug test. If you fail you stay indoors and hopefully only hurt yourself.
:-)
Here in AZ we have what they call open carry laws. We're not shooting up the streets and bars but we are safer, an armed society is a very polite society
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
The day the Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, you'll wish you had emigrated.
Fixed that for you.
I live in the Washington, D.C. area and went to an soiree at the New Zealand embassy earlier this week, meant to introduce the country to Americans potentially interested in moving there. They're crying out for IT people, and they certainly made it seem nice there. I thought it was interesting that the room was full of smart, capable people who found NZ's ideas intriguing and wanted to subscribe to their newsletter. Food for thought.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
So 4 of the greatest legal minds in the country think that the D.C. ban was not in conflict with the constitution, and 5 thought it was. That leads me to believe that there is a great deal of ambiguity here in what the constitution says, and the decision a judge makes is based more on his/her own "gut feel" rather than some obvious legal absolute. Randomly pick a different set of 9 justices from the top 100 legal minds in the country and you could get a decision which goes the other way.
From what I recall, in the year 2000 five supreme court justices decided to stop the recounting of ballots in Florida, then after a few days wrote in a decision "we agree that the ballot should have been recounted, but because we forced you to stop counting for a few days we find that there is no longer sufficient time to count the ballots, so GWB wins."
And thus these brightest legal minds in the country stopped the last chance to prevent the worst U.S. president in history from taking office. Brilliant! They fook up, have zero accountability for it, and get to continue with their reign of unquestionable infallibility.
"I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization."
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
One from the dear late Mr. Carlin...
Go into a gun store and buy a guy. Then ask if they have any ski masks for sale.
Buying a guy is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amednment.If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
In Kelo vs. City of New London, it was the conservatives in the minority (and in my opinion, on the correct side of the issue). It was the liberals that decided that your local government could take your property from you in order to give it to a private third party. Conservatives were on the side of "the little guy" and liberals were on the side of "big business" on that one. The conventional wisdom gets topsy turvy at SCOTUS sometimes.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
Excuse me. Writ of habeas corpus.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
It's good to see that the Constitution still means something.
The fact that someone modded that comment to zero is disturbing..Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control? India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.
Among other things, the constitution is a contract. As with most multi-party contracts, it includes a provision on changing it. In this case, Article V.
You're welcome to try and convince 3/4th of the state legislatures that the 2nd amendment should be abolished, and that we need a new privacy amendment.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Now I have to go and revise my opinion of Scalia as a fascist, presidential stooge. It was so easy when his public commentary on the Habeus Corpus decision was so obviously both emotional AND unconstitutional. Sigh, and just when I was beginning to enjoy a nice, two dimensional world view again he had to go and mess it up.
"Nobody has ever taken money off me at gunpoint to pay for healthcare. "
When you don't pay your taxes, who shows up to take your ass to jail?
Hint: It's not the Tooth Fairy, the ice cream man, or UPS.
They do take it at gunpoint, you just aren't lucid enough to think that deeply on the subject.
"At least of the courage"?
I had to re-read that twice before I realized you're part of the large group of people transforming the English language (nothing wrong with that) so that "would have", "could have" and "should have" become "would of", "could of" and "should of", probably by virtue of the "*'ve" variant -sounding- like 'of'.
And, as I said, that's fine - I'm not a big fan of it, but languages to change over time; thank goodness for that or we'd still be writing like shakespeare but without the literary quality.
But to then replace any and all 'have' with 'of'?
---
Of you thought of the consequences of doing that?"
I think you ofn't thought that through
---
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking behind the 2nd amendment is "in case of tyranny, take up arms, overthrow the government", right?
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?
So unless 2nd amendment advocates are going to actually advocate private ownership of stinger missiles and anti-tank weapons and what-not, it makes no sense at all.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
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
Doesn't seem like it to me.
For non-violent felons? Say, those who got a charge of conspiracy to witness? (It exists in Mississippi, and carries a greater penalty than actually doing the crime itself.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
No matter what side of this issue you are on, the dissenting opinions are worth a careful read. They highlight and document in detail the errors made in the Majority decision, the most blatant of which being a complete misquote of a supreme court precedent used to support their opinion:
Majority, page 47: "We (the supreme court, in 1876, in United States v. Cruikshank) describe the right protected by the Second Amendment as 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'."
The actual precedent set in 1876 was in fact the /exact opposite/:
Stevens, J., Dissent, page 39: "The Court wrote, as to counts 2 and 10 of respondents' indictment: 'The right there specified (in the indictment that they were overturning) is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" This is NOT (emphasis added) a right granted by the Constitution.' ... 'This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the NATIONAL (emphasis added) government.'"
Justice Stevens continues: "The Cruikshank Court explained that the defective indictment contained such language, but the court did not itself describe the right, or endorse the indictment's description of the right."
There are many other such contradictions in the ruling that merit serious reading. No matter what side of the fence you are on, it seems this ruling is based on very shaky grounds and dubious interpretations of precedents.
The accusations that one should expect more "intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges", attacking the dissenters are completely unfounded and could only have come from someone who didn't bother to read their well-referenced and well-argued opinions.
I've always boiled down that aspect of the 2nd Amendment as follows: it is the reboot button for our Government in the event of a catastrophic failure. Also note that those in the military swear to defend the Consitution, not the Government. In the unlikely event of a rightesous armed insurrection most of the servicemen (and women) I know would side with the populace. Let's hope it never comes to that though.
and you're unarmed, then they take you away.
If you're armed, they'll eventually either hit you with non-lethals like tear gas or mace or tazers, or they'll shoot you. All a gun gets you when facing up against agents of the state is dead.
I never understood the belief that "in case of tyranny, take up arms and overthrow the state." Good luck with that. You have rifles and shotguns and pistols and they have tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, and all kinds of other goodies that ordinary citizens don't have.
Ask the Irish patriots of 1917 (I could be wrong about that date, too lazy to look it up) how well they did against artillery.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
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
His outrage at the legal process is understandable. After all, mayors and city councils are supposed to have dictatorial powers.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I agree fully. A large part of the problem is the question of who's hands they're in. In the USA, the majority of the guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens. In places like Somalia they're mostly in the hands of thugs.
For those worrying about vigilantism*, consider that 48 states have CCW permits of one sort or another. That in 2 states you don't even need a permit.
I'd much rather see a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen than a thug - unfortuantly we haven't discovered a working method to disarm thugs, only law abiding citizens.
Arm willing citizens, ensuring that they have a minimum of safety and operating experience/training.
*Not so much here, but I saw a lot when I browsed the comments of DC stories on it.
I don't read AC A human right
Maybe I'm missing something, but please clarify exactly how owning an M16 or something will be of any use when the stormtroopers come to knock down your door. Your house is probably already surrounded by that point. You might take a couple of them with you in that event, but eventually, you're hopelessly outgunned.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
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.
In a country as well-armed as the US.
I think the 2nd amendment reasoning of "in case of tyranny, take up arms and overthrow the government" doesn't even pass the giggle test. You'll simply be hopelessly outgunned by any sort of state agency. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd probably own a pistol and get good at using it, simply because so many others have one.
Aren't there now more firearms than citizens in the US? The US government has trouble keeping track of the total number of illegal aliens in the country. Good luck tracking down 300 million firearms or so.
Gun control in the US is closing the barn door when the horse is galloping down the road.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Because it's not hard to see you didn't.
Listen, I didn't mention taxation, so bringing it up as a response to my question is not really useful.
So, please answer the question I asked, and please try to do so without straying off into things I'm not at all interested in hearing your opinion restated on.
"Your bitch is about why *you* should pay for someone else. Well, get over it."
Is that your answer, "get over it" followed by a ridiculous statement you couldn't possibly know to be true, and is nonsensical on its face?
No asshole I WON'T get over it. What now?
The rush is already underway.
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 people.
The fact that James Madison distinguishes between "states" and "people" in the 10th Amendment shows that he believed the words mean two different things. And which word did he use in the Second Amendment?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.?
I think it is fair to assume that the author of the Bill of Rights (and essentially the Constitution as well) was smart enough not to make a mistake on choosing between those two words.
BTW, the DC Circuit makes this argument in its Heller opinion.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which makes the defense of our nation worthwhile." - Earl Warren
Excellent comment. If you ever come to Southern germany, I'll invite you for a beer.
the defense of personal safety, the order is just about the opposite.
damaged by dogma
To borrow from another quote, "war is Hell." Like it or not, we're in a state of war. The "police action" technicality is a convenience purported by those who want decisive action, but want to keep it from being too decisive (and coincidentally reap the political capital that follows).
"And I don't see why I should have to take on the onerous task of defending myself "
I laughed at this. Yes, why should you take any personal responsibility at all right?
It's funny, some people like to be self-reliant to some degree, but many of us are happy to foist the unpleasantries of life on those can do them for us.
Strangely, you think that your personal safety, YOUR LIFE, which by any measure is your most valuable possession, is not important enough for you to take an active role in safeguarding.
Since we're talking specifically about YOUR life however, I may, this one time, be inclined to agree.
As an aside, I notice you ran and hod after firing off a snarky remark in reply to my claim of taxation at gunpoint. Was that because my reply completely proved you wrong or because being intelligent and informed is also something you are happy to let someone else do for you?
The most famous example I can thing of was the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - with which a minimally armed jewish population managed to hold up a large amount of Nazi troops for four months.
Now imagine every John, Dick, and Harry hanging around with their deer rifle - a significant threat even to a body armored SWAT member. Their helmets aren't proof from a headshot.
Ultimately the police and military are outnumbered. While no tanks might be lost in a conflict, An Abrams can last only a few hours without fuel support. What happens when the fuel trucks are ambushed?
This is all discounting, of course, that significant amounts of the military don't rebel. After all, part of the oath of enlistment is to 'uphold and defend the constitution of the United States'.
I don't read AC A human right
A fear of weapons is not healthy, a respect for the damage they do and therefore a level of care in their handling is healthy, but a fear causes one to improperly evaluate the situation often to the point of self endangerment.
1. The police are usually historians. They are not there to protect us.
2. The Second Amendment is the reset button on the constitution. You hope the processes all run & terminate cleanly, but sometimes . . .
AND NOW, IN THIS CORNER, THE LAW PROFESSOR!
Fantastic. So is my wife. I have discussions like this all the time and I now know what I'm dealing with. Let's continue.
BDS, you say. You're putting up so many strawmen here, I do believe you are trying to grow corn. But let me clarify if I hadn't before. You are delusional if you think this one decision by SCOTUS excuses this sorry excuse of an executive branch. I don't hate him, I just think he's incompetent or malicious, maybe both.
By the way, nice phrasing about Miller being the only 20th century case about the 2nd amendment. I really don't have the time to point out the previous challenges, most of them being state challenges, granted, but all of them affirming the fact when Madison drew up the 2nd Amendment, he was referring to a collective and not a individual right. So in that sense, the so-called originalists are rejecting the earlier rulings found over the course of the last 200 years.
Oh, seeing the whole activism bug has got you in a tizzy, please note that a state of war can only be declared by Congress, which I'm pretty sure is in the Constitution somewhere. That would classify the whole Iraq thing as a military conflict of some sort or another.
But all in all, I think I'm just upset that you see this so black and white. It's not. That's why it's confusing. But gosh, sure is fun to have this pleasant discussions on a well moderated web-site.
Jews were being herded around like animals in Germany for many years prior to 1938, but their guns didn't help. Their neighbors didn't lift their guns even when Jews got disarmed. And those neighbors got shipped off to camps, too, despite their puny guns in the face of the Nazi machine. Since gun fetishists like you haven't slowed down America's tyrannies though you've got all the guns you can carry, there is clearly not even a correlation between the two.
I suppose that those 29,000 gunshot dead Americans a year are all killed by "massive organized crime". None of them are accidental, or suicides, or murdered by people with permits. The "organized crime" doesn't include any irresponsible and underregulated sellers. Because that would mean that your fetish is helping kill people, and we can't have you feeling guilty for treating a lethal weapon like everyone should have one.
--
make install -not war
This is pure fiction, but say some neocons claim the war on terror requires martial law over the US, and dismisses congress, arrests the peaceniks for subversion and treason...basically takes over the government kind of like hitler did.
In this worst case scenario, some people might rather die than put up with it, and they might be able to overthrow the fake government and reestablish the constitution and avert years of totalitarianism.
Not likely to happen you say, but it's happened in other countries.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I had to debate between modding you down and replying to your comment.
The 2nd Amendment is in no way, shape, or form wrong. It was put in place as the ultimate check and balance for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Guns do not kill people, people kill people. How many murders are committed each year by registered gun owners? How many by illegally obtained guns? The former is way less than the latter. How many of those murdered by illegal weapons would still be alive today if they had a gun of their own to defend themselves with? On another note, how many people are killed each year in traffic accidents? How many children drown in swimming pools? Should cars and pools be outlawed?
The right to bear arms will not have mass-murderous consequences. Mass murderers are going to mass murder with a gun or without a gun. And wouldn't you rather be carrying a .22 when the knife-wielding maniac comes chasing after you?
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
The Internet is not a lethal weapon.
Arizona had 696 gunshot deaths in 1991 (the latest data I could quickly find, but I see no contrary evidence since), and only 14% more vehicle deaths. Yet many more people use cars than guns, many more hours a year. Guns are clearly a lot more dangerous than cars. Which isn't surprising, since guns are designed to kill people, and cars are designed to protect people from being killed. Oh, and Arizona, mostly desert, isn't Washington DC, entirely dense city.
But why should a gun fetishist stick to reason when arguing about how to control guns? What counts is whether you like guns, not whether lots of people are killed with them.
--
make install -not war
http://www.concealcarry.org/carrylegal.htm
With the first link, the chain is forged.
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.
OK, that clarifies it sufficiently.
If I'm not mistaken, the firearms in use at the time the Second Amendment was written, were so slow to operate that native Americans well experienced with bow and arrow could "fire" 8 shots to 1 from the gun-toter.
Pfew, at least my next visit to Las Vegas (August, the 185th meeting of the Fortran Standardization Committee) will be much safer ...
Only if you include suicide and disclude any incident where there's not a fatality. i.e. It's more 'Gun owning households are more likely to lose a member to suicide by gun than to kill an intruder'.
Personally, my studies make me believe that suicide has a near 100% substitution rate - people will simply use a different method to kill themselves if a gun isn't available.
For example, if you look at Japan, they manage to have a Suicide rate so high that it exceeds our murder rate & suicide rate combined - and hardly any of it is by guns.
I don't read AC A human right
Thanks for mentioning up front that you think modding someone down is a good way to disagree with them if you're just slightly more lazy.
People kill people with guns. Only a demented fetishist springs to the defense of the gun when we're talking about how to control them. Without guns, people kill a lot less people, a lot less often.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place because of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - any other reason is just one you're pulling out of your "hat". As I explained (and as you ignored), that necessity is demonstrably wrong in several ways demonstrated for over two centuries. WRONG.
Cars and pools are constrained by laws, or there'd be a lot more people killed by them. But your gun fetish insists that the 2nd Amendment means everyone should get whatever gun they want. Even though guns are a lot more dangerous, and a lot less useful.
The mass murders by guns (and the people who shoot them) number over 29,000 a year.
You're just another coward living your life in fear of "the knife-wielding maniac" chasing after you. What will you need when your imaginary maniac chases you with a .22? How about with a .45 that they got because you helped flood the streets with guns? You going to carry a nuke, and escalate everyone else into mutually assured destruction along with you?
--
make install -not war
Your comment made me stop and think, so congratulations for that.
What I'm thinking, though, is that it isn't gun ownership itself that deters crime in this example, but the fear of potential gun ownership. Consider your own reluctance to put the same sign in your own front yard. Both you and your gunless neighbors benefit from a criminal's fear that you might have a gun. In short, that particular benefit derives from the right, not necessarily the reality, of gun ownership.
This of course assumes a great many things about criminal psychology about which I'm afraid I'm underqualified to comment. It only proceeds from the assumptions evident in your example.
Since gun fetishists like you haven't slowed down America's tyrannies though you've got all the guns you can carry
What sort of tyranny are you drivelling about, you bloody hippy? By the way I'm French, live in Ireland and never even held a gun.
I suppose that those 29,000 gunshot dead Americans a year are all killed by "massive organized crime"
No, only two thirds of them are, and most of them are criminal-on-criminal crime. Accidents are insignificant in comparison, check statistics. And criminal sellers are much more important regarding crimes involving guns than "underregulated" sellers. When you're a Mexican gang member from Los Angeles your guns come from the Mexican mafia and such, not your average NRA-type dealer who operates a bit under the radar.
By the way, guns kill people. So we should ban them, right? Cars kill people. Tens of thousands, every year. Innocent people. Children. Ruins people's lives. Shouldn't we ban them as well? Oh no, we don't, because they're not weapons, it's not obvious enough that they're dangerous because they weren't built to kill, so their danger isn't obvious enough. Let's all roll around in our oil-powered coffins and wait until the next time someone crashes against a windscreen, be it your kid in the back seat or someone's who's crossing the street.
You just got troll'd!
Since you seem to understand the use of quotes in order to use a word sarcastically that you seemingly believe to be wrongly defined in a certain context, let's talk about the "war" on terror shall we?
Nobody doubts that different rules apply in a war, what we doubt is that the anti-terrorism measures we are currently partaking do or should constitute a "war". Terrorism is one of many things that harm our citizens, and which we must deal with as a country. Just because it is perhaps scarier and harder to deal with than other threats, does not legitimize the current farce of an ongoing and indefinitely long "war". Wars have ends. Terrorism is more akin to crime crime - very scary crime, but crime nonetheless.
"When you look at the tax credits Exxon and Moble"
No, I won't, I made it clear that I had no desire to hear you reiterate your reasoning on this subject. I even asked nicely.
"Do you not admit that there is the responsibility of a society to care for those who can not care for themselves?"
Let's say i do agreee, so what? I',m not talking about "those who can't help themselves" I'm talking about those who DO NOT help themselves, by their own choice. Please don't pretend they are the same.
"If you disagree, then I hope you never lose your job because of downsizing or outsourcing."
I have and I got another one. I helped myself. I CHOSE to, I didn't wait for emotional do-gooders like you to force others to take care of me, I took care of myself.
"We owe something for our position in life."
You might, I earned everything I have by my own hard work. I don't owe you or anyone else a fucking thing because of my "position in life".
THAT, by the way, is ultimately my problem with people like you. You think that you have some moral authority to take from me. What the fuck gives you the right?
Answer: Not a god damned thing.
Lastly, if your argument boils down to tear-jerking anecdotes, save it. I don't give much credibility to does that, and neither does anyone else.
The rest of your comment is such obvious fallacious nonsense that I'm not going to bother ripping it to pieces, because anyone reading it who can't tell for themself isn't interested in making sense, anyway.
Nice way to chicken your way out, sissy. More like you can't even begin to scratch it.
You just got troll'd!
Otherwise, firearms (rifle, shotgun, pistol) will not protect you from tyranny, because the government can send in Abrams, Warthog or even a bunxh of B-52 to quell the rebellion. The scenery is totally different from the 1770s, nowadays artillery, air force and tanks are king.
I'm sure everyone else with you in the FEMA camp will agree with those points.Otherwise I think pistols and revolvers should not be allowed, because they are not "militia" compatible and only serve crime via concealed carry. Long firearms have a legitimate use in hunting as well as militia, that should be acceptable for civilian posession.
You think you can throw out the government with rubber bullets? Now that's hilarious.
!suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
continuingstupidity
Particles, stuff that matters.
This site has a good number of statisics on it, broken up by age/race and so on...
I'm not really taking either side with this post, I'm just sick of unsupported facts being thrown around. From this data, my own opinion is "Wow, more people kill themselves with guns then other people."
I could care less if you have a gun, though I don't agree you should have enough to equip an army. More then anything, I personally just hate the fact that most people who are really all about having a gun are assholes. Gun owners (actuall good people) should focus their attention on shutting up gun assholes, then both Gun Owners and Non-Gun Owners would stfu about it all.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
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.
Try Google it works wonders. Here is a nice pdf that is quite encouraging if I read it right there has been a decline http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/im/im/im04/7/7-keyfindings.pdf and remember we are growing like a weed out here, all that desert to fill. AND the majority of deaths are suicide which should be somewhat discounted as they probably would find some other means to their ends.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
It's not definitively clarified. With a 5-4 decision and the possibility of a liberal court in the future, this ruling could get over turned.
Also, DC has not banned guns for 32 years, it has banned handguns for 32 years.
Spoken like a true hoplophobe.
Granted, we'll make sure you dont get to own a gun.
And you are just another coward afraid of the big, bad gun.
The lifting of the ban does not eliminate (and it shouldn't) the restrictions on licensing, registering and the application process for obtaining a gun.
If the reasoning of the second amendment is and has been wrong, then the US would still be an unrepresented, taxed group of colonies of Britain.
Here's another little fact out of my "hat" look at the rate of gun-related homicides in DC since the 1977 ban was enacted. Funny how when you ban guns, that number climbs. What does this imply? It implies two things: the ban was ineffective, and your second sentence was wrong.
Yes, people kill people with guns. People also kill people with cars, knives, fire, poison and any number of other potentially harmful things. Banning legal firearms only prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining them legally. Anyone intent on mass murder is going to mass murder with or without a gun, legally obtained or not.
Likening carrying a firearm to carrying a nuke shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. One is a tool, one is a weapon of mass destruction. Sure the gun can be used as a weapon, but so can any number of other things I have already mentioned in this post. A nuked is only used to kill thousands indiscriminately.
If the 2nd Amendmend was "bunk" it wouldn't have existed in the first place.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
Someone else posted links to gun-related homicides in the U.S. The numbers worked out to an average of around 0.00011% of all deaths (yes, one ten-thousandth of one percent). That's not even close to statistically significant. The notion that we have a "murder epidemic" in this country is completely overblown, primarily by news media trolling for eyeballs to sell to their advertisers. (I got so sick of this BS that a couple years ago, I stopped watching TV news entirely. It was all OMG THE SKY IS FALLING *all* the damned time.)
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
how could it NOT apply?
'with intent to use the same unlawfully against another'
what part of 'intent to use unlawfully against another' isn't clear? Last time I checked 'self-defence' was still a viable defense in NY courts.
If I deliberately run someone over in my car, that is an unlawful use of a motor vehicle; it's not a reason to ban private car ownership though
And to anyone uncomfortable with that idea, remember that some of your fellow citizens are at least equally uncomfortable with sex education, and that both are matters of life and death.
E) After getting the money the 3rd strike felon shoots you anyways to 'eliminate witnesses'.
F) The Mugger, feeling brave, forces you to take him to his house, where he proceeds to beat, torture, and rape you, your wife, and your kid, etc...
Note, my default action would be to hand over the money - but if I think it's going to go beyond mugging I'm going for the gun.
I don't read AC A human right
Guns protect the weak from the strong. Period.
The firearm today is what the crossbow was 600 years ago. if you don't understand the social significance of the crossbow, then this conversation is over for you.
Tomorrow we'll come for your cryptography by the way, that's also a dangerous munition with only one purpose that no responsible law-abiding person has any right to possess either.
"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 .. " freedom of speech.
Awesome!
Wouldn't this imply that we not only have the right to keep and bear *firearms* but also brass knuckles, telescopic batons, large knives, swords, blackjacks, etc.
I mean, they *are* less-deadly and with an exception of the "telescopic baton" all existed during revolutionary America.
Not true. And although there are too many variables to even begin speculating... Do not forget that the National Guard is a State Militia, under the command of the state Governor. The National Guard has all the Airplanes, tanks, artillery that the regular armed forces have.
I am very surprised to see that so many slashdotters are supporting the fact that every person should be allowed to wear guns. I always thought that they were sort of intellectual but I was mistaken.
The logic that more guns bring more safety is completely insane. It is very simple: In (most of) Europe citizens are not allowed to bear arms and very few people get shot. That's it. Or if you need another illustration: How often do children get shot at school in Europe? More guns in circulation just makes more guns available to total idiots and criminals.
I think many liberals are quite happy with this ruling. It clarifies that:
1) you can't outlaw guns
2) reasonable regulation is just fine
I think it's a rare win/win.
Very, very few actually want to ban guns altogether, but the nra and 2nd Amendment folks make it seem like ANY attempt to _regulate_ arms is an attempt to _outlaw_ them.
Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
and you know what, no matter how many times people repeat those numbers, it doesn't change the fact that the original study has been discredited as bullshit a hundred times over already.
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.
From page 4 of Breyer's dissent (117th page in the PDF file):
... a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence'---a provision that the majority says was interpreted as 'secur[ing] an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.' " (p. 6 of Breyer, 119th page of the PDF file)
"colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the 'right to keep and bear arms,' whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."
The majority relied on law and convention prior to the 2d amendment (in fact, way back into English history) for the notion that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a right to use arms in self defense. Nothing in the 2d ammendment expresses such a purpose explicitly---if there it is implicit in the interpretation of "to keep and bear arms." So, Breyer points out that essentially the same constituency that established the constitution and the first 10 ammendments (ratified in 1791), had passed regulations affecting the use of weapons in self defense under constitutional provisions of their times, which were stronger than the 2d amendment. Some of these constitutional provisions were the unwritten English provisions that the majority insisted supported such a right. Others were the existing state constitutions:
"Pennsylvania, like Massachusetts, had at the time one of the self-defense-guaranteeing state constitutional provisions on which the majority relies." (p. 7 of Breyer, 120th page of the PDF file)
In other words, according to Breyer, the majority relied on law preceding the 2d amendment to infer interpretations that should be applied to that amendment, yet ignored evidence that contemporary jurisprudence had not interpreted those laws in the way relied on by the majority:
"Massachusetts residents must have believed this kind of law compatible with the provision in the Massachusetts Constitution that granted 'the people
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
Based on this statement, you consider a single person shooting one victim to be "mass murder". Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.
I'm not really worried about a knife-wielding maniac, being rather over 6 feet tall and about 200 pounds. On the other hand, my wife (5'5" and 135 pounds) might be worried about such a guy. It gives me a warm fuzzy to know that she doesn't need to get killed/raped/etc just because she's not as big and strong as the average criminal.
Note, by the way, that .22's have not been a significant issue in crime for a long time. Way back when, we banned "Saturday Night Specials" (when you actually checked the details, that reduced to "cheap handguns"), and the criminals started using 9mm instead.
A bit later, Clinton banned guns that had more than ten round magazines. So criminals stopped using 9mm handguns, and started using .40 and .45 caliber handguns (after all, why carry a 9mm with ten rounds when you could carry a much more powerful .40 with ten rounds?).
Fortunately, we've never come up with an excuse to ban .40 and .45. I'd hate to think of criminals carrying .50 Desert Eagles.
Note, by the way, that I'm not outgunned if I have a .40 and he has a Desert Eagle. I'm outgunned if I cannot kill or seriously injure him as quickly as he can me. and a .40 will kill just as quickly as a .50....
Note, by the by, that Gun Control laws HAVE had an effect on criminals - they've made them better armed.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Federalist #46 has this to say:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
and
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
It is a logical conclusion that faced with an armed populace, even without the most modern weapons, that the numbers of those armed would concern any abusive power, and the first precedent would be to disarm them.
I wonder what the criminal on the street with an unlicensed firearm thinks of the ruling today. The day I got my gun was the day I realized I was now armed like a criminal. I actually felt privileged, not like I was doing a duty or exercising a right as an American. I felt judged by the state. I shouldn't have felt that way.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Where does this "discredit[ing]" appear?
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
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.
Indeed, and to add irony to injury, when an independent recount of all ballots in Florida was conducted, it was found that under Gore's proposed recount plan, he would have lost, while under the full-state recount that would have had a chance of passing Constitutional muster, he would have won. Google up the NORC
"But why would I want to point my gun down range at the target, when my foot is so much easier to hit?!"
Of course the fact that we were denied a full-state recount, despite the compelling argument that anything else would violate equal protection, is somewhat offensive. Oh well, history is history.
The enemies of Democracy are
Few people know that the citizens of New Orleans had their firearms confiscated right before the hurricane. This is only a few years ago.
Our own government stripped people of the arms they were using to protect themselves.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Funnily enough, though, if it's white skin on a redheaded girl (natural redheads don't tan, what with the melanin-producing gene being broken), nobody has an objection to _that_.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I'll give you one example that happens all over America.
A sports franchise wants a new stadium. The city cooperates by forcing everyone who owns land or houses in the new stadium site to sell. Usually there are more then a few who don't want to, but the city just takes their land and gives them fair value.
The Constitution says that the government can not seize your property. But even before it says that, it says that the government cannot quarter troops in your house, except in time of war and even then only with compensation. What good is the right to deny the quartering of troops when your home is now under the 30 yard line or home plate? Clearly the intention of the founders was to protect property rights, but some where thru the years, this right has been completely removed.
The constitution is a piece of paper and if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
Lethal firearms do not make sense for home defence for the simple reason that you are infinitely more likely to shoot a drunken son or neighbour who missed the door number, rather than an actual criminal intruder.
I'm just as likely to stab them in the dark, too. It's not like I'm going to announce my presence if all I have is a knife to defend myself. I'm gonna sneak up and slit their throat if I can.Having lived next door to someone who respected my property and my life *solely because* I let it be known that I *am* armed and I *am* willing to defend myself.... you can guess which side I come down on.
I always liked this sign:
"This property defended by a double-barreled shotgun three nights per week. You guess which three."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
And, don't rely on the Slashdot title: "Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals."
..."), and the legislatures' powers to regulate (not to prohibit entirely) its exercise ("A well regulated militia ...").
... Other law in force around the same time appears to regard restrictions on the individual storage and use of small firearms to be perfectly consistent with state constitutional provisions that were stronger than the 2d amendment.
Both the majority and the dissenters agreed that the 2d amendment reserves a right to individuals. They disagreed regarding the scope of that right ("... to keep and bear arms
The 2d amendment is one of those sentences that appears clear at first glance, then one wonders what are "arms," what it means to "bear" them,
My hunch, completely uninformed by serious historical research, is that the language came out a bit fuzzy because the Framers didn't agree among themselves, and chose language that each could suppose to be consistent with his own views.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
Read your constitution.
What does the constitution have to do with whether something is a right or not?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yes, every revolution.
That's the definition,
the government lost.
In a civil war the government is winning or has won.
How did this get modded funny?
All your database are belong to U.S.
From the Heller SC opinion: b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right-"the people"-to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms." Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we inter- pret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dic- tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf- ter Webster) (similar).
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
Hey look, it's the elitist yet socialist Doc Ruby piping in again about what the proles should and shouldn't have.
More important than the right to overthrow our government is the very basic English common law right to self-defense. Firearms are the most useful means of self-defense against the depredations of violent crime. Harsh words, pocket knifes, emergency whistles, Brinks home security, and calling 911 much less so. The State has no obligation to defend you (as upheld by the Supreme Court), self-defense is a personal responsibility. Given that, the State is obligated to give you sufficient means to do so.
Ironically, the Declaration itself sowed the seeds of slavery's destruction.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I really don't understand why people who have any livelihood to care about carry guns when you consider the huge liability.
In the last few months I have heard of two accidental gun discharges inside supermarkets, either the guns were fumbled or dropped. In one case, some children were hit.
When you consider how fond the USA is of suing people, I would have thought that carrying a handgun into a public place was too risky for ordinary citizens. After all, if you slip and shoot me by accident, should I survive, I will likely sue and sue big. Should I die, my family will sue.
Nullius in verba
Ever considered your information sources are a bit skewed?
"Man successfully defends himself from home invasion with legally owned firearm"
versus
"Family of five butchered in unsolved home invasion case, Police pretty sure it was a bunch of Mexican folks, or maybe some of those blacks, they're still a menace, right?"
Now.. think which of these two stories you are most likely to be seeing on the news tonight?
Right.. because the first happens pretty regularly, and the second is a rare event that is newsworthy..
Put down the mouse, stop playing CounterStrike, stop watching news, and *wake the fuck up*
Hoplophobic idiots like you make me embarrassed to be British.
Bears already have arms. They're attached to their claws.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
'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.
While I think the majority (overall) made the right decision, I find Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion to give the most interesting analysis of the issues involved. In my view he did the correct analysis, but came up with the wrong conclusion based on that analysis.
The majority argues both that the the "well-regulated militia" portion is merely explanatory, particularly when you consider that virtually all male citizens were members of the militia. This is well-reasoned, and makes sense. This is the conclusion that Stevens disagrees with in his dissenting opinion.
However, Breyer argues that the majority is being too lax in their analysis of the constitutionality of these particular laws based on the actual text. The majority doesn't give the particular laws being considered sufficient scrutiny in light of historical and judicial precedent. He is correct, as the majority's analysis is far too sloppy and poorly reasoned.
Breyer is right in that the trigger lock laws are not unreasonable given the assumption that an implicit exception for self-defence is available. The majority fails to consider this in their analysis of the trigger lock laws, and tends to dump this law in with the registrations laws without considering it individually.
He then begins an analysis of the reasonableness of the registration restrictions. He finds that there is significant evidence that handguns cause crime, but that there is significant evidence to support both sides. He however finds that the legislature is best suited to making the decision on whether there is a compelling interest in the registration law, and thus the court must agree that there is.
This gets us to where he goes awry. Breyer argues that the registration restriction does not significantly infringe the constitutional purpose because shotguns and rifles are still allowed, and because handguns can be fired in other jurisdictions.
His analysis is flawed for two reasons.
First, he himself quotes several sources who unequivocally state that handguns (pistols) specifically are an important part of militia training. He ignores this and claims that only rifle training is sufficient to satisfy the military training part of the militia purpose of the second amendment. He builds a strong argument for second amendment protection (even in light of Stevens dissenting opinion) and then discards it for no apparent reason.
Second, Breyer is incorrect in stating that allowing handguns in Maryland is sufficient to allow prohibiting them in D.C.. Just because something constitutionally protected is allowed in another jurisdiction shouldn't be enough to permit the legislature to enact a complete prohibition within their jurisdiction. If such prohibition was allowed, it only requires all jurisdictions to prohibit something to make constitutional protection meaningless.
Had he properly considered these problems, Breyer should have found that the registration laws unreasonably burden the constitutional second amendment protections, and thus should have been struck down.
If you read through the ruling, an issue that is brought up is that regarding citizens and a militia, citizens may need to own certain arms that would be useful for a militia. There is also concern that the amendment not rule out any modernization of arms.
It is a long read, but a really interesting one. Well worth a few hours to look through. This one was well thought through.
By the way: The third amendment wasn't just about being required to be a motel for an army.
One of the purposes of housing the soldiers in the civilians' houses was so they could act as spies to find out where the resistance was being organized and who was involved.
(This brings up the possibility of using a third amendment argument against government spyware resident on a citizen's computer.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is so much easier - and takes so much less thought and introspection - to just label Bush evil, with no redeeming qualities.
Hey, while we are at it, lets not forget that Hitler built the autobahns. Just think of all those great roads that would have never been built if he hadn't come to power. It just makes me wish I could have been there to vote for him!
Yeah, Bush may have done some things that had a net positive impact on the country as a whole. And yes, people tend to demonize their political opponents these days. But, as I was trying to illustrate above, at some point a person's negative qualities far overshadows their positive ones.
Without intending malice to the man, Bush is a closed minded, controlling, and weak personality that should not be in control of the country. I'm sure that he intends nothing but the best whenever he does something, and I am almost equally sure that his personality traits will cause no end of problems for any democracy that he was in charge of.
Going back to the example of Hitler: Most anyone will agree that he was 'evil'. There a number of people that have maid claims that he was mentally ill. If he was, would this extonerate his crimes? Most people would probably say no.
Suppose that we can agree that Bush isn't a particularly competent president. Would being inept extonerate him from either allowing or ordering the use of torture on suspected terrorists? I suspect that most people would consider torture to be an 'evil' act. If Bush didn't advocate it, he certainlly was aware of it, and was involved in it. He sure isnt 'good'. At best the man is morally weak, and inept. If he isnt 'Evil', what would you call him?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Regardless, owning a gun is my right.
I never said it wasn't. I said that in the collection of statistics on firearms discharged, they result in the death of the owner more often that the death, wounding, or missing of any person doing anything negative toward the firearm owner. That's a fact, and all I said about that.
I really couldn't give a fuck what your opinion about that is,
I think you are a liar. If you didn't care, you wouldn't have responded. But you did care enough to respond to make some comment. Or do you generally go around ranting like a lunatic about things you don't care about?
Learn to love Alaska
Here, now get some remedial education.You should have learned this in high school.
They did not have to travel back in time, just review the extensive writings of our founder's thoughts on the constitution (ie: the Federalist Papers) and how it should work, what the purpose was, etc.
SCOTUS seems quite fond of them as a reference, having quoted them in their decisions 291 times as of the year 2000. (according to the above wiki link)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Just as the lottery is a tax for dumb people, bearing arms is a tax for dumb and scared people.
Hope is free. You don't have to pay for it. Yet millions of lesser income people pay millions of dollars for false hope.
The right to bear lethal force is also what arms your enemies. It is what will get you shot in the face. Yet it will successfully get a lesser income person to pay hundreds of dollars for something they will never use.
In the end it's about money. How cliche.
Let me paraphrase your attitude: The idea of letting individuals have any responsibility scares the piss out of you. You would rather bury your head in the sand by placing some ill-defined hope in yet another layer of bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption to reign in the already existing inefficient and corrupt layers or bureaucracy.
Here's a quick history refresher. When the civil war was won and slavery ended in 1865, it took 100 years more before blacks actually had any rights. It wasn't just corrupt police, it was corruption in all layers. Who watches the watchers? You want more watchers -- who watches them? What kind of police watchers can you think of who would have done any good in those 100 years?
LBJ didn't give a rat's ass when the KKK was killing and harassing and disenfranchising blacks using the power of the corrupt state and local governments to do so. It wasn't until a few KKK trash got killed by blacks that he suddenly cared.
You really need to read up on the Deacons for Defense. Yes, read about the Athens war too, that's pretty interesting, and is white on white in case you can't handle the black vs white of the Deacons. Get your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have hidden it) and learn some real history, not pablum for people who are afraid to think and have some responsibility.
While you're at it, go look up some crime statistics. I won't provide links because you need to take the responsibility of doing your own research. Learn, for instance, that conceal carry permittees have a lower crime rate than off duty police.
Infuriate left and right
All of them.
It would be against the tyranny of their own government or of any invading nation.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
imagine a 'perfect' world where guns are banned and people are in stead stabbed, beaten, or killed or injured in other creative non-gun ways.
cant snipe students from a clock tower? build a bomb in stead! no guns, more bombs, more lives... saved?
how about in stead of going on a shooting spree, i simply drive through a farmers market at 50mph in my car?
the people who want to kill and injure others are going to do it. not having a gun isnt going to stop them.
you can demonize guns all you want (i think youre rather good at it), but that doesnt actually make them as bad as you want them to be.
I'd rather guess because the first isn't really in the interest of anyone in power, while the other one makes a good distraction from real problems. You can keep people busy with xenophobia and hate against minority groups.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I didn't mean that British rule was comparable to the gulags and the Gestapo. Merely that it caused the kind of violent opposition that today we'd only see for something like the gulags and the Gestapo.
I think people were more willing to get themselves killed back then, either because early death was a lot more likely anyway or because more of them believed in an afterlife.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Have case law that females can be shirtless anywhere males can. Otherwise, it hits "sexual discrimination" status, and any arrests/tickets will be tossed in court.
But I NEVER see anyone actually do it.
NSFW: http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=devharlotsofwarbyimmanuni3.jpg
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
"I always write with my .357 magnum handy. Why? Well, you never know when God may try to interfere."
-Edward Abbey.
~A.
in people who really have no idea what they're talking about or how to run a guerilla war. A lot of people keep pointing to Iraq as an example for some strange reason, when in fact, all the resistance did is get a lot of people killed for nothing. What they accomplished so far, is exactly what they could have accomplished by negotiating with the new government. IEDs and suicide bombers do not overturn a government. Your average Michigan milita-type would find out the same thing that the Sunnis found out. That they didn't know what the hell they were doing, and that they somehow thought having lots of rounds in their basement and a big set of cojones was all they needed. We all remember the U.S. Civil War, and that was with a far weaker, politically divided Union not against one of the most advanced, well-trained armies in the world. And no, half would not defect. They would do what they've always done, follow orders rather than allow it all to collapse into anarchy.
If you can afford it... 18 USC 922(o) prohibits the transfer or possession of a machinegun which was not grandfathered, i.e. legally possessed before 1986. Scalia's opinion suggests that this ban would likely be upheld by the court.
However machineguns (along with a number of other things - noise suppressors, cane guns, wallet guns, etc.) WERE in common use before the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. That act put a confiscatory tax on them which was implemented with draconian red tape.
It was the law that took them out of common use.
Seems to me that the law could be challenged on that basis, at least for a sufficient time to find out whether citizens would again put them into common use absent such a law.
Making "in common use" a test for whether a type of weapon can be banned has a number of flaws. In particluar:
- When a class of weapons becomes unpopular for a time the government can ban it, preventing it from coming back into favor. This creates a ratchet effect, allowing progressively more weapon types to be banned.
- It lets the government block the adoption of improved weapon types, preventing their adoption as a "common use" weapon. (Could the founders have intended the amendment to allow that? After they'd just fought a war where their use of ultra-modern rifled guns gave them a range advantage over the British smoothbores?) New weapon types could only "come into common use" by massive scofflaw activity by the population.
So this part of the decision has several weak spots where it can be attacked, and the recognition of the right broadened, in future cases.
And Bryer's dissent makes it clear that this is not a deep secret, but that the legal community is already aware of the inconsistency.
Meanwhile, though the decision is not all that could have been hoped for, the basic issue has been decided: There IS an individual right to own and carry weapons for self defense. Now we can proceed with figuring out exactly how far that right extends.
The first domino has fallen.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Everyone who has read your post is now just a little bit dumber.
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
If everyone is permitted to carry arms because of "protection" - and an image on CNN showed a woman with a placard saying carrying weapons was "a basic human right" - then you have to concede that everyone should be allowed weapons, even convicted criminals, mental patients and children.
Once you go there, then you are allowing for a mass murdering rampage every year or so as part of the cost of doing business.
I wonder what the position of the police is. They're on the front line and I would think they'd be happier if they were the only ones packing the heat, then they don't have to watch their backs as often.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
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.
Don't know where the hell you are coming from, but buying from ANY store background checks are pretty thorough on ANY non air powered firearm. I just bought a target rifle recently and had to wait a week for the background check to clear ( yeah I have been arrested a few times, no violence 1 conviction :-P ) so they are pretty thorough in their checks...
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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!
We *have* declared war and it is because we were attacked on our own soil. Enemy combatants are Prisoners Of War. Prisoners of War are not released until after the war, or if there is an exchange.
Making such a big deal about waterboarding is ridiculous. Making someone think they are drowning is nothing like cutting of limbs or heads like they do to our soldiers. There's no permanent damage to waterboarding, except that their feelings were hurt. Waterboarding is a non-issue anyway, they all know now that they will survive.
In WW2, captured soldiers out of uniform were shot as spies. "Enemy combatants" deserve no less treatment. There would be far less civilians killed if they followed the "rules" like we do, wore uniforms and didn't hack off the heads of people while they are still alive.
What is the point of restricting the use and ownership of guns to state militias? I mean, the purpose of the amendment is to allow the people to fight back against the Government, so keeping guns in the hands of Government-run forces defeats the purpose.
I mean, the Government has a real incentive not to tread too hard on the rights of it's citizens if they are armed. Nowadays, with the increase of tighter restrictions, and a negative stereotype of guns, the number of weapons that the people have to fight back is dwindling, and, coincidentally, the Government is growing more and more powerful, overbearing, and invasive (mostly thanks to Bush, but this has been happening for a while now).
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin
wabi-sabi
matthew
I can tell you first hand, that the right to bare arms has saved my life. Without it, I'd be dead right now. So I really disagree with the mostly liberal view that guns are bad 100% of the time. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. Personally, I love guns. It's some of the people using them that freak me out. Thing is, criminals are going to use guns either way. You can ban law abiding people from using them...but do you think that's going to stop Johnny the Rapist from keeping one on him? You ban guns, people will use knives (just ask great britan how that's working out) You can knives, people will use bats....etc The police just mark the bodies and investigate the murders. They don't protect. So when it comes to defending me and mine, I like the OPTION of owning a firearm.
"The 2nd Amendment was put in place because of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" - any other reason is just one you're pulling out of your "hat"."
You keep repeating the same incorrect nonsense like repeating it will make it true. It is you who are pulling stuff out of your hat. Educate yourself, maybe try some research for a change. You could start by RTFA for one, and how about remembering back to high school history and civics classes and re-read 'the Federalist Papers' that the framers of the constitution wrote in support of their actions and reasoning behind the Constitution. It is spelled out clearly enough that even you should be able to understand.
Here, I'll even make easy for you and give you the link as a starting point. If you are not so biased, how about the full text of the Federalist Papers so you can see for yourself.
You might start getting into the habit of tying your legs to your chairlegs so when you do your next kneejerk you don't knock your teeth out.
I think I've made more foes today than since I registered here, and about to add you to that list just to cut down on the inane noise here.
Stupid git.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The problem with all these 5-4 decisions is that many if not most of them were made for politically based or, perhaps more accurately, strongly politically biased reasons. And politics is not supposed to be the job of the Supreme Court.
Their job is supposed to be to determine what meets Constitutional muster and what does not.
One problem with too many judges (and lawyers) today is that they seem to have been assuming that the job of judge is to interpret the law. But that is not really accurate. Their job is to determine what the law is, and (often as not) whether it has been broken. That is not the same as "interpreting".
SCOTUS justices appear to have gotten in the habit of "interpreting" what the law should mean, based on their political bias. But a central principle to which judges are supposed to adhere is that it is their job to determine what the law meant when it was formed, and decide whether than law has been broken. In this case, of course, the Constitution. Part of that determination is learning or reviewing what the writers of the law meant when they wrote it. In the case of the Constitution, yes there was much debate over the Second Amendment. But the amendment as written was the compromise that was agreed upon at the time. There are many, many historical documents which explain exactly why it was written precisely as it was, and very little about it has, in fact, been historically unclear.
What I am getting at is that this decision should never have been anywhere near 5-4. The fact that it was is a clear indication that the dissenting votes (or most of them anyway) were based on politics rather than real legal principles. I could have understood 8-1 or even 7-2.
This is what is upsetting to me. While the actual majority decisions have not usually been too far off (in my opinion), it is clear that there are politics involved, which means SCOTUS is not doing very well at the job it was put there to do.
in the 20th century. Gun enthusiasts are assholes? How so?
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.
What is it with the American obsession with bear arms?? I, for one, pity all of the armless bears wandering around.
How the fuck is that a troll?? Some folks might see it as flamebait, but disagree != troll. Dumb fucking mods.
At least, it is when you couldn't care less about it. And it's not like they really teach you much in elementary school or high school. We need to get rid of the college-educated class system. We need schools and universities who will sell an education to anyone, at a decent price without pointless filler classes to take up time. When colleges and schools set admissions caps and standards, and make no effort to accommodate additional students in the face of obvious, dire need they are establishing and reinforcing a class system that hurts us all.
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
Yeah, works real well here in UK.
Population about 60 million, surveillance cameras everywhere, no guns allowed, about 20,000 firearms offences a year, about 500 serious injuries a year.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Last I checked, guns aren't required to commit suicide, accidental death can occur as a byproduct of swimming pool ownership, and manslaughter can be committed with a blunt object. So if guns are to blame for these, why not also blame: pools, rope (which is obviously unnecessary for the homeowner, unless her or she intends to hang themselves), razor blades, sharp drops, baseball bats, knives, gravity, broken glass... ...I think you get the idea.
He who has no
Things are looking up in Iraq. I said 4 years ago that we should be working WITH al-Sadr instead of against him. You can't win this kind of war without the support of the people. Maybe I should be president (then again, I never would've invaded Iraq in the first place. . .)
about 500 serious injuries a year
You have no frigging clue about how bad it is in US. A large city with population way less than 60M can easily have 500 gun-related DEATH per year.
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 ---
about 20,000 firearms offences a year
Most of those don't actually involve firearms, that figure includes imitations and airguns etc.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
(Well, I guess it has to do with history. Historically, the genocide on native Americans wouldn't have been possible without personal firearms, but this doesn't really make a good argument for personal weapons possession nowadays, does it.)
The decision was way too razor-thin for my comfort. A 5-4 decision just means that whomever wins the Presidency in November is going to get to decide this issue once and for all.
You can bet that if we elect Obama, he will appoint a Liberal judge to the bench at his first opportunity, and someone will promptly attempt to re-visit this issue.
There is no excuse for this having been such a close decision largely along party lines.
about 500 serious injuries a year
You have no frigging clue about how bad it is in US. A large city with population way less than 60M can easily have 500 gun-related DEATH per year.
Large US city -> strict gun control laws -> lots of "gun related deaths".
How many are criminals killing each other? How many are police killing criminals? How many are kids grabbing the guns of the criminals their mothers are dating? How many are criminals killed by honest citizens defending themselves?
How many are NRA members?
Here's your sig.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
A BBC report from 2003 detailing the narrowing gap in crime rates as US crime rates fall and UK crime rates rise.
Also telling is the 200-year comparison showing that when firearms were virtually unrestricted in both countries, the choice of weapons to commit murder were different. The use of guns to commit murder is simply a societal "choice," and has no bearing on how many murders are actually committed. The availability of weapons to criminals has virtually no impact on crime rates. The availability of weapons to people who are otherwise law-abiding, on the other hand, does have a measurable impact on those people being able to protect themselves.
Most people here think Bush is Stalin.
No, most people here use hyperbole. If they truly thought Bush was as bad as Stalin, they'd do the prudent thing and emigrate while they still can.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I forgot to add, either emigrate or keep very quiet for medical reasons, to avoid lead poisoning.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
All this discussion about crime statistics doesn't matter. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was to ensure the American citizens would always have, as a last resort, a means of stopping an out of control government. This was to prevent the types of abuses the colonists had faced under the British government and what they saw happening in other European kingdoms and countries of the time.
A good source of the history of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment can be found at this site which is actually a Congressional Subcommittee report on the Constitution from 1982.
Some interesting quotes provided include:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Noah Webster
that a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and freemen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government.... Patrick Henry
In Federalist Paper 46, Madison, later author of the Second Amendment, mentioned
The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of all other countries
and that
notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
The report lists many others.
The point is, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just for an individual to be able to defend themselves from criminals, but as a means of defending themselves from an overly oppressive government. An example of the type of abusive government envisioned is available today in Zimbabwe.
It is worth pointing out that those groups that radically oppose personal gun ownership also seem to be the same groups that believe the federal government should be able to control more aspects of an individual's life. And how interesting is it that the very vocally opposed politicians such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley don't mind having armed body guards for themselves while denouncing the Supreme Court upholding the rights of the citizenry to have similar protection.
You have been able to do that in the US for years.. You have to pay for the tax stamp. I have several friends with fully automatic firearms, as well as silencers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Quite frankly though with the price of ammo these days I'll pass on the fully automatic weapons. What I want to find is a 45-70 Rolling block with vernier sights. anyone have one of these for sale or trade ? Single shot black powder cartridge.(think Quigley down under)
far...out
My original post was modded troll because I had the temerity to say something positive about Bush. Some real fair and objective moderation going on here. But that's the left, get their viewpoint across and squelch others by any means necessary -
No, it's both sides. Neither of them wants you to get the other one's message. Of course most people only notice when it's the message they agree with that's being blocked. Then again when the message is, as at election times, just saying how bad the other lot are then who wants it?
Just put a $2000 tax on all hand guns. This would mean only real enthusiasts or people who really need them would buy one. And striking it down would have serious implications, such as invalidating the marijuana tax act.
Hand guns are garbage any way. Most of them are stamped together pieces of crap and most people don't know how to use them. If you really want home defense, get a pump shot gun. As soon as a burgler hears you rack up a shell he will know he is in serious trouble.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Some of us are fond of ours because they process our food and give us useful limbs.
Yeahhh...I think it's the abundance of food processing that is the root of this. If people are so fond of their bodies, why don't they take better care of them?
After all, you can get spare parts, but you only get one with matching serial numbers.
And yet the DC gun murder rate is the highest in the country
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
While your at it then, you can side with many of the "liberals" in this country that want it to tilt almost completely into socialism by negating almost all of the constitution. Then at that point, all our freedoms are no more. I think if you were one who got into power and proposed that, they'd hustle you out of power so fast it would make your head spin.
Long live the constitution of the USA. It's ours collectively as a nation. If you don't like it's rules, go somewhere else.
Just my .02 cents
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Apparently Stevens needs to learn how to read. Of course the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people.
Let me dissent from your dissent.
I'm sure you're a special unique snowflake, but it should go without saying that Justice Stevens (and the other three he spoke on behalf of in his opinion) knows a butt of a lot more about the Constitution and its framers than you do.
If you're going to make an argument that "of course the framers meant...", you'll need to provide some supporting evidence if you wish to convince us skeptics.
You watch too much TV.
We *have* declared war and it is because we were attacked on our own soil.
We have not. A declaration of war is a bill that must be ratified by Congress, and no such bill has been passed.
--
$tar -xvf
I can live with the nightmares, as long as I'm alive to wake up from them.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
quite so, but I was hoping that was obvious without having to spell it out.
While having the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual is the correct, I believe, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I do think that this could lead to an even greater amount of gun related deaths. Enough, perhaps, to foster an amendment to repeal the 2nd. The only way that would succeed is if there is enough turmoil caused by guns. Which, could only happen with Wednesday's ruling as a first step.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
Come on, the war against england was by a bunch of slaveowners so you could keep slaves and nick native american land. And the civil war was to keep slaves too. And the spanish-american war was about slavery too (spanish abolished it, US kept it).
I'm not sure where you live, but your idea of the motivations behind these wars is way off. Perhaps you should read up on American history.
The rebellion had nothing to do with slaves. It occurred because England was levying high taxes on the Colonies to support their war with France. However, they did not allow the colonists any representation in the English court. The colonists were British subjects, but were not granted the same status and rights as the citizens back home. In the face of this, the colonists rebelled. Colonies revolting is nothing new, but in this case the colonies won. Contributing factors include the fact that the British could not deploy troops to the Americas that were needed to fight France; the unusual convergence of political geniuses (Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) in America due to dissidents leaving England for the New World; and the fact that the American troops had learned guerrilla warfare from the Native Americans and refused, in most cases, to fight a "proper" battle with the British troops.
Contrary to popular belief, the American Civil War was not fought over slavery. The southern states were an agricultural society, while the north was beginning to industrialize. This led to major differences in the philosophies of the two societies, to the point where the south decided they'd be better off with their own country. This is the cause of the Civil War. Not slavery, but the fact that once you join the United States you can't leave. States are not allowed to secede. Slavery was important in the war only because it supported the agricultural society. In truth, much as we like to revere Lincoln for ending slavery, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in hopes of a massive slave revolt. As the general attitude of the North towards slavery was right in line with this proclamation, an industrialized society having no need for slaves, it naturally stuck.
In truth, with the shift in labor from people to machines, slavery was already doomed. Machines are more efficient than supporting large populations of slaves. For example, the invention of the horse collar caused the end of slavery in Europe. Without the collar slaves could accomplish more at less cost than a horse. With the horse collar transferring the load from the horse's neck to it's shoulders the horse becomes vastly more efficient, and you choose it over slaves. The best estimate is that slavery in the U.S. would have lasted around 50 more years.
This is not to say that ending slavery was a bad or unnecessary thing. Like the majority of present day U.S. citizens I abhor it. But slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.
I have not studied the Spanish-American war in any depth, but I seem to recall it was about ownership of land (Texas? No point in slaves here, poor soil, bad for farming, don't need slaves to raise cattle.)
You should read up before you make such erroneous statements. Motives are never that simple, and in at least two of the three cases you cited slavery was not the reason for the conflict.
;Eat it.
Now you've gone and done it!
You just made me remember that annoyingly catchy Michael Jackson melody from "Beat It", that took years for me to forget.
Grrrrr!
;Eat it.
Now you've gone and done it!
You just made me recall that annoyingly Michael Jackson song, "Beat It". It's like mental super glue. Almost as persistent as that "Benny Hill" theme --- Oh No, Benny Hill is "Now Playing"!
I just did it to myself --- Grrrr!
"Long live the constitution of the USA. It's ours collectively as a nation. If you don't like it's rules, go somewhere else."
That would work if you didn't actually interfere in all other countries. If you didn't, I'd be fine with you doing what you wanted.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Sure, there's some correlation in that one instance. But when you put it under additional scrutiny, it falls apart.
Take a look at homicide rates. Spain makes a great example: they have an incredibly low gun death rate, but they still manage to kill themselves almost as much as Americans (last reported rate 3.35). The Swiss have been catching-up as well, with their homicide rate TRIPLING in the last five years, even though gun ownership rates have not grown significantly.
What does this teach us? First, it shows that countries with low gun ownership and low gun fatalities can still have relatively high murder rates (Spain). For the record, Spain had VERY low murder rates throughout the 80s and 90s, and only peaked in the last five years; this is not due to gun ownership, as your graph makes plain.
Second, it shows that high gun ownwership does not automatically translate into higher murder rates (Switzerland): the Swiss had extremely low murder rates for the entirety of the 1990s, only peaking in the last 5 years. Their gun ownership numbers have hardly changed in that time. By comparison, in this same period of time, the USA murder rate has dropped by half AND has remained flat throughout the 2000s, despite growing gun ownership. Even violent crimes that didn't result in homicide are down for the same period.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
You're skeptical that the framers of the constitution, who had just mounted a successful revolution, thought that revolt was a good thing now and again? Think about that for a second.
Oh, and it'd be nice if the article had provided links to the opinions. 60 pages is a lot, but what the hell guys?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
Well that's interesting, but I looked up some figures (which are fairly hard to find by the way) and it seems that gang related homicides make up half of homicides in Los Angeles, so it's more like you'd have about 200 non-gang related murders a year in Los Angeles.
By the way, what's that 0.00011% figure?? Here's what I've got : about 2.5 million deaths a year in the USA, and it's hard to get recent figures for that one but it seems that there's about 9,000 gun homicides a year in the USA (give or take a couple thousands), so that's about 0.36% of all deaths, not 0.00011%... You've got your facts/maths wrong man.
You just got troll'd!
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.
(goes and checks facts)
Hey, you are right! That will teach me about stats.
Apologies, and mod parent +1 Correct
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I used whatever numbers someone else posted here to get the 0.000whatever% numbers; the numbers were so small that even being multiple orders of magnitude off still represents a very small risk. Even growing it to your figure of 0.36% of all deaths is an extremely small risk.
I saw some other stats whilst rooting around yesterday that gave annual figures of 30K gun-related deaths, BUT at least 40K lives SAVED by gun-toting citizens, and that's just what's reported. Which is a pretty good net gain of people still with us because of an armed defense. (I could contribute two such lives saved stats myself -- my neighbour's life, and my own. The first incident was reported; the second was not.)
So... let's change the perspective a bit. Rather than as a percentage of all deaths, how about as a percentage of all citizens, alive or dead?? Starting from the 300M+ Americans, what's any given person's chance of being targeted by a gun-toting perp? A: so small that we can't even get the math right. :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well I agree that guns covered by the scope of the 2nd amendment do more good than harm, and I think that's the main point. Anti-gun advocates overlook it and make a point that these guns kill people, but they just tend to over-simplify the whole issue, to the point they don't even make a distinction between legally obtained guns and illegal ones. This being said I wish the government would work harder against the big traffic of guns, although it might be the same kind of battle as the war on drugs.
There's no perfect solution regarding that problem in this very country, we just have to choose pragmatically (and not appeal to emotions and go "Hi evil Mr. Heston, look at this picture of a cute little white girl who died because of a gun!") the lesser of these two evils (well of course that's if we simply it all to a false dichotomy, in reality the way we do things and enforce things in details can make a lot of difference)
You just got troll'd!
Oh, wait, you mean the Nazis and North Koreans and VC never got trials or habeas corpus?
Oh, wait, you mean the Nazis and North Koreans and VC were never being held indefinitely under US jurisdiction?
And we didn't need warrants to wiretap them?
And they weren't living here? And didn't have phones?
What part of the Constitution was FDR upholding when he interred over 100,000 citizens against their will?
None, actually. That was pretty appalling.
Sigh - you have to love how the court's "Original Intent" philosophers explicitly state that there were three versions of the amendment written with the clause made specifically to individuals.
These three were rejected in favor of a version that put a definite purpose in front of it for a "properly regulated militia".
So obviously, this means the rejected versions are arguments *for* the right being an individual right.
Scalia and company are to the "Original Intent" argument what Fundamentalists are to the "Absolute truth of the Bible" - i.e., we *say* we believe in it word for word, but we ignore any phrasing or history that doesn't suit our purpose. But if you disagree with us you're an activist judge trying to legislate from the bench.
So, anyway, our originalist interpretation of "Well-regulated Militia" is that everyone is a member of the militia, and it's unconstitutional to regulate it in any way whatsoever.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say what "arms" are. That leaves the way open for Congress to define "arms" as pea-shooters and you're not allowed to carry more then 5 peas at a time. Bush does the same thing. You want to torture but it's illegal. Fine, do it anyway and call it something else. You want to sign a treaty with Iraq, but cut the Senate out of the Constitutional loop? Fine, call it an alliance instead of a treaty, demonstrating you don't understand english (treaties are signed to create alliances) and avoid the Constitution. By the time it goes through the Supreme Court 10 years from now, it won't be an issue anyway. The US Constitution is already dead. get rid of it and reform the government so it is actually accountable to someone......because the present setup delivers neither adequate representation nor effective accountability. That Bush is still in office is proof of the failure of accountability. That more than 98% of House reps are re-elected every two years - thanks to Constitutionally-allowed district gerrymandering by partisan state legislatures - is proof of the death of accountability. The 4th Amendment has been completely gutted. The President has been illegally ignoring it for years now and Congress has passing law after law that infringes on it.....until it now means nothing at all. Warrantless secret searches are conducted all the time.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Oh, absolutely. They aren't intellectually dishonest because they disagree with me. They are intellectually dishonest because their written opinions are full of disingenuous arguments.
I have read the dissenting opinions.
Sorry then... That wasn't apparent from your original post.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Large US city -> strict gun control laws -> lots of "gun related deaths".
Large US city -> outlying agricultural areas and neighboring states with loose gun control laws -> lots of "gun related deaths".
How many are criminals killing each other? How many are police killing criminals? How many are kids grabbing the guns of the criminals their mothers are dating? How many are criminals killed by honest citizens defending themselves?
Surely none of these deaths are justifiable unless we are talking about an armed (or frigging muscular) criminal with an obvious intent to commit a violent act? Does a drug addict really deserve to die for non-payment to his dealer? Would police be so eager to shoot a guy reaching into his pocket if only 1% of criminals are armed? I really don't see how you justify deaths of the kids, but probably more grab guns of their NRA member fathers. And a teenager who decided to rummage through your house doesn't deserve to die, even if he does cause you a great deal of grief.
Ok tell me honestly - if you somehow decided it was a good idea to off a healthy male in his 20th, how much confidence would you have in your success without a gun?
Sure, a gun by itself does not cause a person to commit murder. Other social factors, such as unemployment, break down of marriages and extended families, and a culture of anonymity and alienation from one's community all play a role. I am sorry that UK is catching up with US in these aspects, but according to your article one is still 3.5 times less likely to be killed by a gun than in America. Might the fact that guns are less available for casual criminals or distraught individuals have anything to do with that? Or the fact that many US states and cities passed stricter gun laws off late? In Iraq gun ownership is not real restrictive. The policy is to allow for one AK-47 per family for self defense. I don't see violence rates plummeting.
Ok tell me honestly - if you somehow decided it was a good idea to off a healthy male in his 20th, how much confidence would you have in your success without a gun?
I'm not a very good representative person to ask this of. My answer would be "Completely confident."
Even without specific training, many murders are committed with blunt or edged weapons. The point of my post was that those types of weapons were, in fact, preferred methods of committing assault and murder in the UK during a long time period of unrestricted access to firearms. The availability did not impact the choice in any meaningful way.
Yes, you are more likely to be killed with a firearm in the US than the UK. However, dead is still dead, even if you're killed with a knife or a club. Obviously the gun ban has not had an impact on the overall murder or violent crime rate in the UK. Just because fewer people are killed with firearms does not make it better when that drop is made up for by deaths caused by more intimate forms of violence.
For someone who is not trained to defend themselves with whatever is available (a category most people fall into), the option of a firearm is a great equalizer. There are an uncountable number of instances where crimes were prevented merely through display of a firearm. It doesn't even have to be fired to be an equalizer. That's a good thing.
UK robberies involving firearms, 1992-2002. January 1997 was the institution of the handgun ban.
http://www.aei.org/view.asp?docRecNo=6100&docType=0
Another thing to look at is the fact that a large number of firearm homicides in the US are the result of gang members killing each other. There's a lot more territory for gangs to cover in the US than in the UK, and more of them competing with each other for turf. This has the effect of increasing the number of violent interactions where there is really no "victim," and drastically increasing the number of reported firearm homicides.
I'd be interested to hear which gun control measures have been passed recently in the US. I am aware of several states loosening restrictions (or proposing that such be done) on concealed weapons permits and the locations that concealed weapons can be carried, but haven't heard much in the way of jurisdictions tightening gun control laws. Given the focus of the news digests that I read, I would find it odd that such stories were missing, but am always open to the possibility that they were.
Iraq is not a logical choice for comparison. A society in the midst of both a guerrilla war against an outside occupation force and a civil war between internal factions is going to have a much higher rate of violence than a relatively stable country. Then again, perhaps it is. Consider how much worse off families would be with no means to defend themselves from violent militas. As bad as Baghdad is, Darfur is worse.
While I'd tend to change a few bits of Heinlein's list, I DO agree with it over all. And yes, that line did have an effect on me as a child.
I think that we've lost track of things when we get students unwilling to dissect a dead frog or rat*.
I've proposed having a 'life skills' class in school. Some of the stuff I listed can be folded into other classes. Math doesn't and shouldn't be theory and numbers only. Real problems should be in there, might as well stick the budgeting into it. Sex Ed and proper diet fits into health class. Etc... Other stuff goes into the 'catch all'.
*Now, I did have a problem with the pig fetus dissection in high school - specifically, I was driven from the room by the smell within seconds of them opening the lid. Turns out I'm allergic to that preservative. Oops... Still, I've butchered deer before.
I don't read AC A human right
If you don't get modded down.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Is it possible that I don't care one whit about your opinion while similarly being very concerned about shouting down ignorant fools?
I'll believe that when I see you shouting down yourself.
Owners of firearms are more likely to be killed by them in a non-suicide manner than to ever discharge them in self defense. You have insulted me and said all sorts of things but never addressed that statement, other than you seem to not like it.
I do neither, but I do occasionally point out where people are forwarding stupid attempts at arguments, especially when they're obviously wrong and involve my rights.
If it's wrong, prove it wrong. That should be easy. Instead, you launched into personal attacks because you couldn't find anything to refute it, yet don't want to believe it. Oh, and what does this have to do with your rights? I'm talking about firearm safety. I guess talking about firearm safety is something that violates your rights? Perhaps you should work to disband the NRA. They discuss firearm safety all the time, obviously in an attempt to show how dangerous guns are and ban them.
Learn to love Alaska
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the U.S. Supreme Court for validating my long-standing Slashdot signature.
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.