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...
I'm glad they made the right decision, but shocked that it was so close (5-4). I'd expect more intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges.
Thank goodness. Gun control laws only keep the honest person honest and defenseless.
Law abiding citizens will obey the law and revoke ownership of guns. Criminals on the other hand already have a mind to break the law, and having a law against guns won't stop them for a second.
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
Flea markets are much, much better. No waiting while a background check is performed and absolutely no registration afterward!
My state has no registration regardless.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
This is obviously not belonging to "Your Rights Online". Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
The concealed carry permit in DC was pointless IMHO. The DC Metro literally has service to areas with gun stores (Virginia and Maryland). Thug life types don't get concealed carry permits anyway. All it did was keep the honest people honest and make the NRA types really really angry when they visited the city.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
Same here man Hi Five!
You mad
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.
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.
Yup, there's an old anarchist saying: "Oh judge, what good are your laws? The bad man will not follow them, and the good man does not need them."
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
If clones are made illegal, only clones will have clones!
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. (When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will
I suppose the claws could cut any intruder up pretty bad, but are they practical?
Well, he's right - the May '86 law still stands....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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
So you mean it's like a bazaar instead of a cathedral? :P
RTFD.
All of your questions are answered, if you choose to listen.
In case you don't see the connection, I'll spell it out: "Oh judge, what good are your laws?" They represent the consensus of the governed. The bad man will not follow them but the government will enforce them. This will always be true.
The good man absolutely does need laws, as the laws spell out what the consensus is, and as long as the rule of law exists, where laws are applied equally and fairly to all the governed, then the good man will accept them if they are acceptable, and will work through legitimate channels if they must be changed.
Or would it make sense to say, "Oh Grocery Store, what good are your prices? The shoplifter will not follow them, and the good shopper does not read them." -- no, of course not.
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
DEALERS at Gun Shows and flea markets have to do the standard background checks, but you don't have to be a dealer to sell a gun. There's a hazy grey area on the volume you need to be moving before you're considered to be "engaging in the business of selling firearms" and hence in need of a dealer's license.
Not saying that I have a problem with any of this (uncheck private sales are fine by me), just saying that not "every" sale at a gun show needs a NICS check.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.
If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.
So explain to me again why unarmed is better?
Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.
That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
"If a mugger knew I didn't have a weapon"
Um, how does he know this? 'Cause it's illegal? Well, it's illegal and *he has one...
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Amendment 2.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several StatesAmendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 4.
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment 9.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLEAmendment 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLEAmendment 17.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Besides, everyone knows that if you make laws prohibiting gun ownership, that only affects law-abiding citizens. The criminals always manages to have guns anyway, thus leaving the law-abider at a severe disadvantage.
Responsible Gun Ownership is the way to go, and will result in less crime, lessen the need for police (which themselves figure into the crime component), and fix a host of other ills.
Many liberals will disagree with me, but I have yet to see a sound counter-argument. And no, I am NOT a conservative -- I am a Libertarian.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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
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
... or Rosie O'Donnell can blame her spoon for being fat.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What disturbs me, and deeply, is that "the right to keep and bear arms" was all but ignored by 4 out of 9 people on that bench. I mean they basically reasoned that "well, it says that, but that's not what it really means".
The 2nd Amendment is in two parts... the first part gives a justification for the right, the second part lays out the actual guarantee to the right itself.
Even if you think that changing times has voided the reasoning for the first part, that doesn't actually void the right guaranteed in the second part. The only way you're supposed to be able add or remove something from the Constitution, including rights themselves, is through the amendment process.
But in reality that's not how it works. In reality, a simple 5-4 majority can, with the stroke of a pen, completely null and void not just laws passed by Congress and local governments, but it seems that they can also void parts of the Constitution itself, simply by declaring, in legalese, "never mind what the text of the Amendment says, here's what it means".
This is, in practical terms, a kind of "tyranny of expertise"... the notion that only experts can understand the Constitution, no matter how plainly written its text is, and the rights of citizens are subordinate to these experts, as the flock was subordinate to the rulings of the Priesthood in the old days of the Catholic Church, dependent upon their interpretation of scripture. But I say that if common citizens cannot trust the Constitution to be understood in its plain text... if it doesn't "mean what it says" .... then it's worthless. It is, in that case, not worth the paper it's written on. If the Constitution says "up means up", and a judge can say "no, up really means down in the Constitution", then we don't live in a free country after all. We are in thrall to the priesthood of experts.
Think about that for a moment. 4 people in black robes today voted to essentially null and void a part of the bill of rights, the amendment process aside, by declaring that, despite what is written in it, the right guaranteed in it was never really a right at all. Just kidding, folks. Ignore that "shall not be infringed" stuff. Is this not the kind of thing George Orwell warned of? Is this not Newspeak?
The vehicle of the minority's dissent was the notion of "collective rights". John Paul Stevens' dissent was truly frightening to read, as he reasons that virtually everything in the bill of rights is a "collective right"... not an individual right, but dependent upon the collective as a whole. It was Soviet-lite in its reasoning. What are rights if not for individuals? Isn't the very notion of a right that one man's liberty is not limited to the collective?
Today, I became convinced that the three branches are in fact not equal. I think SCOTUS is more powerful by far than the President and the Congress combined. Neither of those branches have the power to void the Constitution with an opinion, with the stroke of a pen. SCOTUS can null an executive order, or a law passed by Congress. The President and Congress can do nothing to cancel out a ruling of the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS deems in a ruling that left really means right, then that's it. That's the law. And unless the President and Congress openly defy that ruling (and trigger a national crisis as a result), then "Stare Decisis" indeed makes left into right in the eyes of the law. The issue is settled.
I'm firmly convinced that if the United States ever has another Civil War, it will be the direct result of a Supreme Court decision.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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!
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.
I didn't mention a "gun show loophole", nor do I like that terminology. As I said I don't see anything wrong with the current system. I was simply stating that it's INCORRECT to state that "every sale at a gun show requires a background check". That's not true, and rightfully so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side of the issue, but it works out better to keep your argument legit. Even a valid argument when using invalid facts to back it up will pickup a negative reputation.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
This will comfort huge numbers of single issue voters that would normally vote simply to protect their gun rights from Democrats.
I very much disagree. While 2nd amendment activists are pleased with the ruling, they're also deeply disturbed by the fact that it was 5-4. This only highlights the fact that elections are important. They matter, especially since the President nominates SCOTUS candidates.Had Anthony Kennedy woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, the 2nd Amendement... a key part in the Bill of Rights... could have been voided with the stroke of a pen.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No, the May '86 law still stands, that is where new tax stamps for Form 4 transferrable full auto goodies for us civilians were cut off. Police & military can still request dealer samples, but they must supply a formal request on letter head for the Class 3 dealer to order one. And, then, that item can only be transferred to police, military, or another class 3 dealer that has a sample request letter.
FWIW you can still get the tax stamps for short barrel rifles (less than 16" barrel), short barrel shotguns (18" barrel), Destructive Devices (hand grenades, etc), silencers, and "any other weapons" (such as the cylinder fed 12 ga "street sweeper" shotguns). Actual process involves finding the item, affording it, buying it, and working with a class 3 dealer. You may need the local sherrif to sign off (or form a living trust to bypass this step), but you definately need fingerprint cards, passport photos, and some time. Recently (past year) the wait times on form 4 approvals have dropped dramatically, so a 4-6 week wait is now typical for paperwork processing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
If people by law are unarmed the robber can safely assume the victim will hand over his or her money.
Personally I will any time give up my money rather than face the option of taking someones life or losing my own - its just money for Christ sake! Remember; when you are being approached your gun is in your holster - his is already out, who do you think gets to shoot first?
And all that crap about taking care of civilians - BS! if you got a gun and start flashing it people will die, even at 15 m. most people will be wildly inaccurate with a pistol - and if they are inexperienced with munition they are likely to have bullets that will go straight through the target and hit whatever is on the other side (hint even the police in several countries have bullets that fail to stop inside the target, and have killed innocent bystanders).
I'll take a gun less society anytime.
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?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"
In Florida they actually got rid of rental car plates because criminals were waiting till people left the airport in a rental (knowing they were probably unarmed tourists) and then ran them off the road and robbed them. So sometimes criminals do have ways of figuring out who is likely to be unarmed and do target them.
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
"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.
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 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
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.
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.
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
1st, not everyone can afford health care.
2nd, universal health care will raise your taxes but save you money. If you look at what you or your company pays for your health care, it will be reduced. Every nation with universal heath care pays less for care than we do and according to the UN have better care.
3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west.
4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
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.
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
You have logically misstated the problem. Most of us are a lot more concerned about being killed, more so than being killed with just a gun. The statistic that is relevant is if owning a gun is more likely to result in you or a member of your family dying than not owning one. For example, if a person breaks into your house and murders your whole family with an axe because you don't own a gun, and you are considering this in terms of "gun deaths" well that is not counted as a negative, despite whether or not owning a gun would have prevented it.
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.Again, you're misinterpreting the data. Take Sweden. They have very similar gun ownership rates to the US, but still some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. If you look at violent crime rates and strict gun control laws in general, you'll find there is basically no correlation at all. Well, overall there is a very slight, barely significant correlation between strict gun control and increased violent crime.
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.Your fixation on guns is blinding you. The US has a culture of violence that causes a lot of problems, but blaming it on guns is not supported by the evidence. The strongest global correlation with violent crime is wealth disparity. The US's wealth disparity is higher than most industrialized nations and increasing. Violent crime is right about where you'd expect if you factor in the problems of criminalized drug usage.
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.All of these programs are already in place in DC, but it doesn't seem to have had much impact on crime. You know what would have an impact on crime? Socialized healthcare would reduce wealth disparity and likely decrease violent crime significantly. You don't see politicians trying to explain this though, because the causality is not simple and it doesn't prey on people's fears and get people emotional and afraid.
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.That's a fine opinion, although I disagree with it. I think anyone who tries to sell gun control and an anti-violence measure has either not not looked at the numbers or bought into intentionally misleading "gun crime" studies that misstate the problem in an attempt to spread fear and misinformation.
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.
why do some people think that 'the founding fathers' were space aliens with more wisdom than anyone who has lived since?
We had some old white men write important documents in UK history too. Most of them were maniacs or bloodthirsty freaks, and we don't cling to some fantasy that what they wrote down was THE LAST WORD.
In fact, we overturned their views many times, regarding votes for women and homosexuality, abortion etc etc.
Just because people wrote a document a long time ago doesn't make what they wrote magically wise.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
with original intent. There are plenty of people who argue that stingers and anti-tank weapons and what-not (short of ships) are exactly what the framers intended, and some of them are even constitutional scholars.
the defense of personal safety, the order is just about the opposite.
damaged by dogma
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).
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 . . .
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.
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.
"Remember; when you are being approached your gun is in your holster - his is already out, who do you think gets to shoot first?"
You have the element of surprise. Am I really reaching to get my money/wallet? What is my other hand doing while they are watching the hand going for the wallet? What if it's a nice shiny clasp with a twenty showing? Are they already distracted by the bill or will 'dropping it' towards them as I pull it out/hand it over distract them for the split second it takes to draw and fire in a planned fashion? Why would I even do that if all indications and instincts point to simple robbery? How about a little reading or training on the subject before spouting off scenarios you clearly haven't thought through?
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
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/
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.
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.
A friend of my Mom's had this happen to their family.
They came home from a trip, came upon armed buglers in their home. The bad guys already had the drop on them.
The father went for the gun in his briefcase. He was shot dead. His son was injured in the same incident.
You might think you can sort all this stuff out and make the right decision when it happens. Or you might get
angry or scared or overcome by the desire to protect your family and wind up dead.
Maybe you think you are smarter and would be able to trick the guy with the gun on you. Hey, it happens a lot
in the movies. Let's hope you never find out.
Also by having guns in your household, you run the risk that one of your household becomes so distraught that
they would use the gun on themselves or someone else in your family.
Let's say that your wife decides you are cheating on her and sobbing and finds your gun just before you get home.
What might have been an argument can instantly turn into someone getting killed.
So on the one hand, the gun might make you safer. On the other hand it might make you less safe. The way the
US constitution is today, you get to choose. I choose not to have guns. You might choose differently.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
'Unnecessary Murders'
Careful how you word that, bub; frankly, I think the moment you threaten me with unprovoked lethal force (ie. armed robbery), you should expect just as much in return. Self-Defense is not murder, and I object to you implying that. There are more choices than just victim or criminal.
So do two friends of mine who survived a carjacking by killing the other guy first. They sure as hell were not looking for a reason to shoot someone, but they're alive, and still in therapy for it, and shitheads like you throwing the word 'murder' around for what they had to do is just small-mindedly gauche, thank you very much.
IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.
When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.
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!
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.
No, don't worry, we're not descending into chaos just yet.
If I understand it, the argument in favour of the right to own lots of guns goes something like this: "It's so common folks can rise up against a bad government". Presumably the assumption is that "common folks" will stand united in their cause, in complete agreement about how the country should be run afterwards.
However, seeing how people on this list argue and assuming that the opinions here are not that far removed from what is common in the US, I think it is highly unlikely to work that way. Isn't it more likely that that there will be 5 - 10 small, but violent groups fighting it out against each other, all the while killing indisciminately? It is certainly the way things have happened in all other countries throughout history. And who will come out on top in the end? Are we guaranteed a better society after a revolution? History again seems to show that what you have after a revolution is quite often a government that is more restrictive, not less, which is hardly surprising. After all, they have just been through a vicious, civil war, and have seen first-hand what happens when "common folks" are well-armed.
The American revolution was pretty unique, I think, in that after the English had been thrown out, the people in charge were fairly decent and idealistic. But those are not qualities that win the war each time; the victors will normally be ruthless people, low on the softer human qualities such as tolerance and decency.
I would be all for people being armed, if it made good sense, but I don't think it does. As far as I can see, all the argument in favour are weak, based on wishful thinking and the invocation of something high and holy, such as "The right of all men...", whereas the arguments against seem basically to be common sense. I know there is a lot of hysteria on both sides of the debate, but that's what I see, if you try to peel away all of that.
But how about a sort of compromise, then. Am I right in assuming that in the US you have the right to own a gun, even if you haven't got the faintest idea about how to use it? To my mind that is somewhat similar to owning a car without knowing how to drive safely. It would probably be a lot safer if you could only own a gun, if you not only learned how to use it properly, but also had to join the territorial army and spend time every week, not just on military drills, but also on the ethical side of gun ownership.
To you and the people answered you :
12000 at the peak in UK Same statistic for the US : 500000 victims
UK population : 60 million. So to get a similar figure to the US we need to multiply by 6. 60K handgun crime in the UK , compared to 500K. Unless I missing something, handgun crime in the US is still 8 time higher than in the UK. So even if there was a rise from 6K to 12K at peak (it went down to 9K recently for 2007), the rate of handgun crime is still way higher in the US, so it ain't really utterly convincing that handgun really help fighting crime, or a ban thereof is REALLY the reason the number of crime related to handgun, or even homeowner invasion rose. PS: to the guy citing a 2001 statistic , nice try. How about citing a recent statistic ? It took me 10 seconds to enter handgun crime statistic UK and clicking the first links.
One interessant fact is that in the US, handgun crime dropped by 50% since 1993. Now I would like to know if really during that time MORE city imposed handgun restriction or LESS (yes I know correlation would not imply causation, but that would certainly be a good angle to research , no matter on which side of the issue you feel yourself).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So for Scalia with his twisted understanding of history and the "true" meaning of the constitusion, habeas corpus can be thrown under the bus while hand guns are sacred. I personally find habeas corpus to be much more important than guns flowing on the streets in poor neighborhoods.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
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
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.
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.
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.