Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Rules Chicago's Ban On Licensed Gun Dealers Unconstitutional
wooferhound writes with news that a federal judge has overturned part of Chicago's firearm laws. From CNN: "A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional. 'The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,' wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang."
The Chicago Tribune notes: "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." The ruling doesn't change anything yet: the ruling's effect was delayed to give the city time to appeal.
It seems that firearm ownership rights are the only Constitutional issue that this Supreme Court intends on correctly dealing with. At least it's a start - our other rights emanate from the 2nd Amendment.
Why is this on slashdot?
This is a not a gun blog.
As a non american, does "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." mean that you are not protected by the constitution if you're not 18 years old?
"Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,"
Uhh.... yyoouu have no idea what you're talking about. At no point in your rambling statement of unconnected and generally false ideas did you make any sense.
I award you no points... and my Charlton Heston have mercy on your soul.
yes, the whole
comment is kind of a trope, but it is a valid question in the case of this article.
'gun control' has been an ongoing debate (flamewar) all across our culture lately...there is nothing newsworthy about **this** one particular ruling that has anything to do with technology or other typical /. topics.
we need to stop...all of us...everyone is in favor of some kind of 'gun control'...as in no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit.
it's **where we draw the line** that is at issue...we need to start asking that question, and debating it in a proper forum, not a site with a focus like slashdot
Thank you Dave Raggett
unless people are stacked in front of you like wood, you aren't going to hit much on full auto
most people killed by firearms are killed by handguns - semi-auto is more than enough if your opponents aren't armed, and is better if you lack training anyway
That only accounts for Legally obtained fully automatic weapons. What about Illegally obtained fully automatic weapons. Besides the fact that you completely ignore the nuances of the NFA and FOPA act of 1986 is staggering. It is COMPLETELY legal to own fully automatic weapons, however those willing to pay the price and go through the hassle tend to not be criminals. Instead they pay their brother vinny 20$ to illegally convert it for them.
Troll
How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.
-Unless you look at conclusions from scientific, non-partisan studies performed on gun control's effect on violent crime, instead of trying to use witty analogies involving apples and oranges.
But gun control advocates don't let pesky things like numbers and facts get in their way. "Sandy Hook! Sandy Hook!"
Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. We have multiple points of confirmation and there are a few skeptical politicians that are starting to come around.
The old truism is confirmed. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.
Does Chicago have a violence problem? Yes. Gun bans are not the solution.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If you remove the right to sell them, then you remove the right to own them. What'r we all supposed to do, make our own guns?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Laws like this target gun owners who follow the law. The problem is that most of the violence is perpetrated by people who could not buy a gun legally anyway. There are some cases of legally owned guns being used illegally but that is not the norm. This law will do nothing to curb the illegal gun trade.
Local laws like this have little or no effect except moving the legal gun dealers and the jobs out of the jurisdiction. All gun buyers who would normally do business in Chicago will do is drive outside the city and buy their guns. The result will be the same.
Banning the sale of a legal product that is protected by the constitution will be almost impossible. When a higher court refuses to hear the case the politicians can say "At least we tried". This is a PR stunt as they just want to look like they are doing something even when they know it will not work. What a waste of time and money that could be better used elsewhere.
"no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit."
I won't get into every facet this brings up, but I will say this - ordinary citizens should be able to own any weapon that is carried by a soldier in battle. Why? Because the primary intent of the second amendment was to always allow the people to be armed well enough to fight their government if ever they needed to. A lot of folks disagree with this, but that WAS the intent, if you actually study what the founding fathers believed. Obviously, the second amendment is not wordy enough to fully explain itself, and the main bone of contention is the meaning of "well-regulated militia", but again, if you read what the founding fathers said about it, the "militia" was the people. ALL of the people.
The definition 'well regulated militia' is irrelevant. The right is of 'the people'. If they wanted the right to be of 'the militia' they would have written that. Clearly they knew the word, having just used it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
First, yes, let's get this discusson off of slashdot. It is sad when articles on robotics get 60 comments total, and firearms flamewars get to 500 in a few hours. But..
> no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit.
What do you think the founders believed? In the early revolutionary period, the US had no navy. They issued letters of marque to privately owned, armed ships. As in: private individuals owned war ships.
The consitution has a mechanism to amend it. If you don't like what it says, use that. Letting 9 old timers in black robes try to convince us to collectively believe that it means something other than the plain words on the paper is caustic to the rule of law.
But yes, the debate should be about where to draw the line today, in the here-and-now. But, please, don't try to tell me "well, this week, this is what these words mean." Becuase I'm not buying it.
No one believes? I guess you never read anything by James Madison, writer of the Constitution.
Go back to Eur-Asia with your statism please.
If this ruling is upheld, and the law is permanently ruled unconstitutional, what happens to the people previously convicted under this law? IANAL, obviously.
Yet Chicago has been banning the legal sale to lawful owners of handguns for a long time. Gun Control fails. Criminals Murder.
Better run and tell the judge! I'm sure you know much more about the relevant facts, circumstances and laws than he does.
Hold the phone here: The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns, yet makes no mention of the right to sell them. I'm actually 100% positive what Chicago did here was not illegal
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Among non-gun nuts it is not well know that you can no legally sale or transfer a handgun across state lines. So unless you move somewhere with your handguns you have to buy them in the state or territory where you live. Although the Heller decision struck down outright prohibition or handguns in the cities of Chicago an Washington DC they are still not easy to get. In the case of the later there are no federally licensed gun dealers in the greater D.C. area. So you effective can not own a handgun there still. There has been attempts to chance that law but it continues to be to held in place by anti-self defense factions within the government. IE the political left.
As a small caveat this idea has no bearing upon the carrying of handguns. Which is still very VERY illegal in D.C. This is merely related to the near ownership of handguns. Which is pretty much the optimal weapon for self defense. Don't believe the hype that 'Double Barrel Biden' says about it.
2nd Amendment and the bill of rights was a mistake, as many at the time stated. Codifying certain rights presupposes that the govt grants rights. Gun ownership, and self defense were common law, and it was argued that coding basic human rights into words would be counter to the notion of the founders of this federal govt had that rights were inherent in humans and govt didn't grant those rights.
Some nerds like guns. Some nerds REALLY like guns. In fact, some nerds are defined by the fact that they play a ton of games that revolve around, pretty much, guns... So, guns themselves aren't "anti-nerd."
Wrong... dead wrong. The States each had their own Navy, and they were combined in 1775. The first Continental Navy ship was launched in September, 1775.
I applaud your Libertarian worldview, but it is not consistent with reality in this instance.
Not only that, but most of the mass killings lately have been in "gun free zones". Clearly the gun free zones do not protect life or liberty.
Yes.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.
Sweet troll, bro. But, I'll bite.
Surely you've seen the reports of failed muggings, robberies, home invasions and more because the victim was armed and able to defend themselves, no? Google it. It happens every day all across America.
Regardless of laws, criminals will always be there. Guns will always be there and in the hands of criminals. There are dozens(hundreds?) of countries where possession of a firearm is illegal. But, this has yet to prevent gun violence and deaths in those same countries.
The fact that I carry a gun, significantly reduces the likelihood of me dying from a lack of shooting back.
To think that gun control would ever reduce the violence; these people would be knifing each other like it was '94 in Rwanda if they had no guns. In fact, if you check the statistics, they do. And now that they're impoverished and disarmed by their government, they're getting in groups and raiding stores wholesale.
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpTJ6ctj77Y
If you don't solve the underlying reason for the violence, it will continue.
Clearly, a student of history would prudently recognize the lack of sufficient self-defense capability by a domestic body politique is an invitation to tyranny and foreign invasion. Ultimately, if you compare the total of every single domestic firearm related death including suicide and every death in every war, you'd find genocide kills as many if not more than war does, and War and Genocide kill FAR more than domestic firearms would ever conceive of.
A sufficiently armed populace Eliminates both War and Genocide.
But keep telling yourself gun control works Comrade, if you're an unfavorable religion or political party, you'll be put to rest soon enough.
America is not like Europe. If strict gun laws worked then you'd expect Chicago's gun crime to be low instead of among the highest in the nation. All the criminals in Chicago have guns, irrespective of what the law says. The only people affected by these laws are law abiding citizens who may want to protect themselves. Banning guns would make us all safer if you could ban them from everyone, everywhere.
Zero. Gun control measures at anything but the federal level are utterly worthless, as there's no border control between states. The most lax controls of anywhere in the country are the de facto controls for the entire country.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The facts show that more people are killed every year in the United States by Knives than by "Assault Rifles." However public opinion is driven more by emotion than by facts.
The militia consisting of all white male citizens capable of marching. Obviously the founders were so concerned about the rights of other demographics they forgot to enfranchise them.
Citation please.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns?
Very few. The actual number is pretty close to none.
How many school killings were committed with one?
Also an incredibly small number.
How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?
So few that it is statistically insignificant. The exact number is less than 100
I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.
Really? There are about 100 million rifles in the US with AR15 "assault rifles" accounting for around 5 million of these. In 2012 rifles of any sort were used to kill 348 people. That means the percentage of rifles used in a murder is 0.000384%. More people were killed from hands and feet then were killed by rifles of any sort last year. And you are going to tell me that an assault weapon ban is anything but propaganda?
If you want to talk about gun control, handguns account for virtually all murders with a firearm. Worrying about any other type of firearm is simply a waste of time.
...unless you live in Philly, anyway. The US government left the loopholes in place in December for using 3D printing to make plastic guns (you just have to have a metal strip so it meets the requirements of current law).
My confidence that you are ignorant of the meaning of your statement is unity.
The Government knows:
Who you gun owners are
Where you gun owners are
What you gun owners own.
And what you gun owners are saying - at least on the Internet thanks NSA!
Now let's say you want to fight "tyranny" as the current NRA President says.
So, do you think you can do it part time while you work?
Hell no!
You'll have to quit your job - assuming you are not fired first because you WILL be labeled as a terrorist by the authorities and your fellow NRA members will be right there - backing up the authorities; talking BIG how they'd take YOU out themselves (I've seen it. ).
So, you quite your job to fight tyranny.
Your house will be taken away. And if you spent your entire life savings on ammo, you'd have enough for one battle.
But wait! There's more! You'll be fighting professional troops who are trained and more than likely battle hardened. Sorry, your one token Afgan/IRaqi vet doesn't cut it. They'll kick your ass without any losses - that's what happened initially when the US Revolutionary Militias fought the British - British - zero losses; Americans - wiped out.
And there's more! While you're fighting tyranny, your house is taken away, your bank account seized and you are put on America's Most Wanted. Good luck buying supplies.
Self defense? WTF are you doing going into places where you need a gun? Looking for a fight are we?
I am part of the gun culture in the US - I'm just a target shooter. That's all. And there are the hunters. Great folks who I think are doing a service to the environment since all the predators were killed - mostly at the behest of folks who freak out when they see a big cat or wolf in their back yard.
Then there are the folks who live and breath watching action movies - the hero has a high kill rate and "just a scratch wound" or some stupidity - the ones with the AR15s or AK47s - shit guns.
If you are so afraid of your neighbors, just fucking move!
As far as I'm concerned, nothing I own is worth a firefight and if my loved ones are in danger, I'd get their asses to safety because I am by no means a one man army.
tl;dr: your gun rights are just a bone the ruling class throws at you to shut you up and distract you. And it works quite well.
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
The thing is, it doesn't, at least not in the opinions of many people. All those folks who like to blather on about negative rights rarely bring up the fact that, without strong and well-enforced environmental regulation, the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the land upon which we live can be contaminated to the point that it will not sustain healthy life, and all of that is okay because air, water, food, shelter, and health don't fall into the category of negative rights, but are instead positive rights that restrict (often unfairly, in these people's minds) the rights of others.
In other words, I'm talking about the type of people who like to talk about natural rights like freedom of speech, worship, ownership, but hate the idea of government restrictions on what they do with their land, their air, or their water, even those these are all commons that are shared with the community at large.
A person who both supports natural and negative rights but sees strong environmental protections as important to protect those rights is a rare person, indeed.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
OK, so essentially if you want a gun-free community you need to create a gated community that forbids fire arms, and to move in you have to agree to that. That way, Trayvon Martin won't be able to hide one (can't have one on him within the community) and George Zimmerman can't shoot him (he can't have a gun on him either), and both live to tell the cops how the other threw the first punch.
While the government is hands-off guns, the people can agree among themselves, under the rights of free association, to ban guns within their private and common properties.
The judge rulled that it's unconstitutional to restrict all firearms because it prevents those used for self defense. By wording it in that way, the judge opened it up for restrictions against everything else.
Fact is, the 2nd amendment does not say or indicate a single thing about home or self defense, or sport. it's about maintaining a free state. In order to do that, the people must be able to fight against a tyranny. The people must have a reasonable chance of success against the government, and in order to do that, they must have the weapons and firepower, the capacity, the caliber, the types of weapons, and must keep it unknown to their potential enemies, such as the governments.
The Cities and states do not have any authority to restrict firearmes. Even congress can't do so unless there is a constitutional amendment.
The text says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, however it does not specify for what purpose.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
we need to stop...all of us...everyone is in favor of some kind of 'gun control'...as in no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit
Stealing form MZW:
"The Constitution has a section about "letters of marque and reprisal." This means it was understood and accepted that people owned private warships WITH CANNON as a common event, and that Congress should have the power to offer them pay as mercenarieswhen needed."
So yes. Any weapon that government obtains and employs for it's military or police force, it should moral and legal for me to maintain in my own right.
In a system of government "of the people, by the people, for the people", there is nothing the government can do which should not be legal to do myself.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
There are still borders to the north and south which are easy to pass weapons through.
As a more practical example, take your average Federal Prison or military base... federal complexes run by the feds (or those they hire to do the job)... how effective are they at reducing the illegal drug/weapon population within?
Nidal Hasan demonstrated just how effective federal gun control is.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Again: The definition of 'Militia' is irrelevant. The right is of 'the people'.
Even a ginger has the right to bear arms, the being no requirement the person have a soul.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
While I personally don't see the need for guns aside from hunting, and we all know that the US's gun proliferation is directly correlated to it's staggering gun violence numbers, I can accept that that's what the constitution says and it's valid. However, the "right to bear arms" is completely separate from the "right to buy arms". Here in Canada, I can smoke pot, I just can't legally own it. Different situation, I understand, but a good analogy.
Americans often like to say that the Constitutional rights aren't granted—they are simply enumerated.
Of all the rights on earth, why does the right to bear arms merit a mention in the Constitution? Why isn't, say, access to potable water or breathable air a more fundamental right?
The judge is basically arguing that human life weighs less than the Constitution. By and large, the Muslims of the world have less regard for the Sharia Law than the average American has toward the Constitution. For the rest of the world, the constitution of a nation is a political rulebook and not a sacred document engraved on gold tablets.
"There are three and only three ways to reform our Congressional legislation, familiarly called, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box".
-Stephen Decatur Miller, 1830
As much as it might make government officials uncomfortable, that last one is non-negotiable.
-Styopa
BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!
> The constitution says that we have the right to own and possess guns
No actually, it doesn't. Rather, it says:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's a subtle but very important difference. Basically, the constitution says what the government can't do, rather than what the people can. So instead of saying the people can have guns as you claim, it says the government can not stop people from having them. Preventing people from buying, selling, etc. guns would certainly infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, so isn't allowed.
Your argument would be akin to saying that the government could imprison you for speech, because being in prison doesn't really limit your ability to speak freely. Or that no police search is unreasonable because it's always reasonable for the police to make sure that you aren't committing any crimes. Or... etc. If your goal is work around the law you can almost always do it while still paying some amount of lip service to it, which is why courts and judges exist.
Please enumerate for me the rights "granted" by the Bill of Rights.
(Hint: None. The Bill of Rights hinders actions of the government, not the people.)
Given the propensity of legislators/executives/courts to construe the language of the Constitution and amendments as broadly or narrowly as desired, I doubt that removing the Bill of Rights would make any significant difference. See the Commerce Clause and its construction since the 1930s for an example of extremely broad construction, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I for an extremely strict construction. Commerce can restrict what you grow in your garden for your own consumption. Necessary and Proper, despite being a literally broad clause, has been considered an insufficient ground for pretty much anything (unless combined with some other power).
For the Bill of Rights, the 9th amendment has generally been interpreted to convey no rights at all, while the 1st and 4th have been given a nebulous privacy component. Fun with courts!
TL;DR: The Constitution is very malleable to the whims of government, with or without the Bill of Rights.
Clearly, having a full auto rifle would help the sick person achieve his goals more efficiently.
I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.
As someone who deals with statistics as his day job (AI research: extracting signal from noise), I find the question of gun control fascinating.
Ideally, there should be an evidence-based answer that one can use as a basis of opinion. We have an enormous amount of evidence and analysis from which to draw out conclusions, so the answer should be obvious.
Is it?
Actually, it is. There is a clear and unambiguous answer to the issue of gun control, an answer based on evidence and when implemented would minimize societal damage. Anyone who cares can go looking for it...
To a statistician and armchair observer, this is what makes it fascinating. The country cries out for the definitive answer that no one - no side of the debate - will give. I find it highly amusing.
Some examples:
Comparing America to any other country is not valid. Unlike other countries, America does not have good health care, which presents an overwhelming influence on the statistics. Fewer people die from guns in country X, but fewer people die from any cause in country X so don't form your opinion on that.
Comparing America to England specifically will not work because the two countries count murders differently. In America a gunshot victim is either an accident, suicide, or murder. In England, it's not murder unless there's a trial and conviction. England has fewer gun murders than the US, but it's not relevant.
Calling attention to a narrow, specific statistic will not work because it asks the wrong question. "If you own a gun you're more likely to shoot someone you know than an unknown assailant" is my favourite, but there are others: "...more likely to commit suicide by gun", "...more likely to accidentally shoot a family member", and so on. These are carefully-worded responses of the same nature as NSA denials: literally true and misleading.
Any statistic statistic related to deaths or injuries won't work because it asks the wrong question. Guns have an influence on society and behaviour that goes beyond their actual use: disincentives for crime, for example.
Can you find the right question to ask?
Once you have the right question, you can compare different sections within America to each other, and different European countries (with similar health care) to each other.
When you do that, the evidence is strong and unambiguous... but I find the squabble and debate surrounding the issue Pythonesque, almost something that Franz Kafka would write.
Fascinating. And highly amusing.
Lightning Link: http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html
$20? You're paying too much.
Why in the 21st century there is the need of carrying a gun? Only by stupidity... and a 200 year old constitution...
In Europe, and in most civilized countries, it's very easy: only cops and criminals have guns, this way is very easy to distinguish a common citizen from both, specially because cops use uniforms.
If common citizens do carry guns, then it's very easy from them to try to be cops ending to become criminals sometimes just because they carry a gun.
Modern civilizations don't need guns! Only comboys.
Cheers.
To be honest you are wrong, A navy was created in 1775, but it consisted of 6 warships built for the navy. The states has no navy, it was all privateers and the French, as all the ships at the start of the war were owned by the British.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence...
Tell that to a black man in Mississippi circa 1964. There are a few that might tell you how the only thing that stood between their home and family, and a dozen angry klansmen with torches, was a 12ga shotgun and the will to use it. Guns in the hands of good people have been used to defend the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to vote, throughout the 20th century.
Racism is the foundation of gun control in America. Only someone ignorant of history would dispute that. The same thing goes for drug policy, but that's another conversation.
It was more for illustrative purposes, but you are correct. a dremel and a jig saw blade can be made into a Lightening link.
Correlation is not causation, however if you look at most of the developed world and take the ratio of privately owned firearms to deaths from firearms, you will find that the results are nearly constant. This ignores laws, lawfulness, causes of death, population density, etc. The number of firearms in a country will be directly proportional to the number of deaths from firearms.
It's not a matter of intent or use, the more firearms you have, the more people will die from firearms-related injuries.
If you outlaw kindness, only outlaws will be kind.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
you misunderstand how the Constitution works. it is NOT a list of our rights, and thus your argument is invalid. it is a list of what the government is allowed to do, and those not listed are delegated to the states and/or the people. the Bill of Rights is extra protection against government and specifically lays out what they MUST NEVER do.
the right to bear arms is not a Constitutional right, it is a Natural right Constitutionally protected.
no where does it say the government can infringe on gun sales, therefor it is unConstitutional for them to do it.
user@darkstar:~$ links -dump http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html | grep "the people"
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
or to the people.
Why is it that one of these "the peoples" isn't considered to be The People?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
The reason it seems that way to you is your willful ignorance of the facts and data.
Wait, wait wait. Let me get this straight...
What you're saying is.... The OP is a fucktard!
Dodge City was an armed society and not very polite.
Yeah, 1 murder per 100,000 per year is astronomical! Do you actually check your facts or do you just go by what the movies show?
It's trolling, but it's effective trolling.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Good luck killing me from across the room in a moment without a gun (a wide stance and a long spear get there too though).
And I would want to do that because.......?
I'd say because "gun control" tends to be a a polarizing topic amongst nerds. Far more people tend to have strong opinions on the issue (either for OR against) than the general populace, so hence most gun control topics get a lot of support here.
Remember that guns are indeed technology, and the legal situation around the restriction and sale of a technology is of great interest to technophiles.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It's a shame that the city fathers of Chicago couldn't do the same for RNA, and DNA based viruses.
Because I'm sure that many of these criminals legally purchase their firearms... SMH
Our constitution is not up for debate.. EVER!
Where all the trolls are insightful, sense is uncommon, and rationality is fallacious.
It also makes no mention of the right to manufacture guns, does it? Would you still be saying "the law's the law" if EVERYTHING besides possessing a gun was made illegal?
right, now get into stopping them from classing returning comabt veterans as having psych issues and forcibly stripping their guns from them as a result of this medical classification.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Wrong. Dodge City had strict gun control laws... and was not very polite. Criminals had a nasty habit of violating those laws... gee... same thing happens today...
Though there are more guns than ever (legal guns numbers are up, permits are up, and probably illegal gun numbers are up) but,,,,(drum roll please)
2013 Chicago murders are DOWN 20% over last year.
So, guns cannot be the root cause.
So you wanna get rid of not only the second, but the fourth amendment as well? or are you just a troll.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
That is how it was MEANT to be (civilians having same as regular army or better). Read the writings of the founding fathers and read history. During Revolutionary War times militia's HAD weapons equal to if not better than the regular infantry. So fast forward to today - that would be civilians SHOULD be allowed to keep and bare arms comparable to the military. Heck my 5th great grandfather who was a private in the Revolutionary War had a 72 caliber musket, it had more power than most of the regular infantry did. (That musket is still in the family - I hope to inherit it one day.) The founding fathers specifically wanted "we the people" to be equally or better armed than the regular army so we could defend ourselves from "Tyranny in Government" - which is about where we are at NOW. Most people who talk against or "around" the 2nd Amendment - generally don't know the history or the true background on it IMHO....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
well, don't leave us hanging. after all that pontification, you could have at least given us the right question, and the answer, and the evidence to back it up! jeez!
Giving the answer doesn't seem to work well in practice.
As an experiment, I'm trying to encourage people to find the answer for themselves. My theory is that, by leaving you hanging you will have incentive to find the answer in systemic mode. The incentive comes from the need to fulfill an unanswered question, and phrasing it as a question puts the reader in systemic mode.
Your response indicates emotional involvement (annoyance), so I take that as (at least partial) success: the technique can foster involvement on the part of the reader.
Thanks for the feedback - I'll make note of it.
(And no, this isn't a jab. I'm completely serious.)
You're absolutely correct, except for the "strength in numbers" part of the equation. If you're one man with a gun trying to fight the massive Federal government? Yeah, it'll pretty much do you no good. If, however, there's civil unrest because government clamped down a little too much on individual rights and freedoms? Now you're looking at a possible scenario where a good chunk of the government's own military is liable to defect and side with the average citizens. That plus a well armed general citizenry means a real possibility of overthrowing the unjust government, or at least pushing back to the point where certain states could institute different sets of laws and break off from said government.
Wow, look at that, a perfectly preserved example of uniformed, ahistorical nonsense intended to provoke smug feelings in other uniformed persons with no historical knowledge. Please note, today's gun controlled cities have a dozen times more crime than the "Wild West" ever had. Stop parroting things and do at least some cursory research.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Citation please.
Seriously? Here you go.
They also got rid of the navy after the war, which caused problems with the French not long after.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
It seems that firearm ownership rights are the only Constitutional issue that this Supreme Court intends on correctly dealing with. At least it's a start - our other rights emanate from the 2nd Amendment.
Bah. I see no evidence that this Supreme Court is correctly dealing with the Second Amendment. I only see a slight tilt toward those who want to mostly ignore the second amendment but still keep their toys and away from those who want to get rid of the toys too.
Overthrowing an oppressive government (what the second amendment is about) requires modern military hardware. In this age, that means tanks, RPGs and military aircraft. When the Supreme Court rules that private ownership of these must be allowed then I will believe that it is handling the Second Amendment "correctly".
Less you think I am nut case who actually wants my neighbors to be toting rocket propelled grenades: I don't. But that is what the second amendment means. As long as we have a section of constitution that it is considered OK to grossly misinterpret, all of our rights are in danger.
Really sad that the links have few details, and more than 1.5 hours later, no one's posted anything more.
The decision text is available here. The decision is by Judge Edmond Chang, appointed in 2010 by Obama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case name is Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago (formerly known as Benson v. City of Chicago).
This link says that the lawsuit challenges five aspects of Chicago's law:
If it's irrelevant, then why is that phrase included? Just for shits and giggles?
Repeal what is considered an inalienable right and you no longer have inalienable right... If you repel the second then what is to stop them from doing it to 1-27 as well. Remember this is one of the original bill of rights, not just an amendment that was added later. l
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Hmm, guess you don't know anything about the Revolutionary War... There were black regiments that FOUGHT with the white regiments. Also try reading about the different gun control acts... Yup it was the NRA who was so all over it because they wanted to stop the Black Panthers from buying guns mail order (for instance). The founding fathers saw fit to allow ANYONE of any RACE to own a gun. It was the NRA (the supposed defenders of the 2nd Amendment) who wanted to take that right away. People don't realize the NRA is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
So you you can stop the race baiting....
Ref:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Of course - nerds LOVE guns! many own SEVERAL.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Eh, he's a Packers fan, almost certainly from Milwaukee or Madison. His opinions can safely be ignored.
Grab a shovel and get to work!
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!
He likes the Hollywood version of real life. Next week he plan on taking out a helicopter with a taxi.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I think you inadvertently hit upon something important. That is the difference between Ownership and Operation of Firearms of various classes and types.
Attempting to prevent the ownership of anything in a "free" "capitalist" "democracy" is plainly a farce. Consider what would happen if someone attempted to join a "gun club" which collectively owned some "club guns" for use by the members. Now what if that person were a convicted felon (after having served their sentence).
Attempting to limit the ability of persons to purchase, own, (and safely transport or transfer) firearms leads to all sorts of bad legislation.
Communities, or even Cities (I cant think of any examples where it would be acceptable on a state level), might have good reasons for attempting to prevent the operation of firearms within reasonable limits. For instance limiting outdoor use to rural areas, daylight restrictions, ammunition type restrictions/licensing, use on Sundays, Hunting Seasons, Required Age/Supervision...etc.
The sooner people start to understand the difference, the sooner this "debate" might actually make some progress (not anytime soon given the basic lack of understanding of the anti-firearms crowd). I feel that reasonable operations restrictions would be in the spirit of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (so long as you don't infringe upon anyone else rights to the same), and would be upheld vis. second amendment scrutiny.
It's higher than nearly all of Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Fully automatic. Think Tommy gun.
The reason so few crimes are committed with them is because we have regulated them out of common use. It is very difficult to buy one.
You missed the GP's point with respect to "assault weapon" bans. The 5 million or so AR-15s are NOT fully automatic, "assault weapons" are a political fiction based on cosmetics not fullauto capability. Put a 5 round magazine into an AR-15 and it is functionally identical to various popular semiauto small game and target rifles that have detachable magazines. Put a 30 round magazine into one of these small game and target rifles and they are functionally identical to the gun banner's poster child of crime, the AR-15.
The point being that there are FAR more than 5 million semiauto rifles with detachable magazines AND there were only 348 people killed with rifles of any kind in 2012 out of a population of 312 million. The GP's point about "assault weapon" bans stand.
I suspect that the most important reason is the same reason why most gun crimes are committed with handguns...rifles of any sort are big, bulky, unwieldy, and heavy. So allowing automatic rifles would likely not make much difference.
Fully automatic machine pistols though might increase the danger, though I suspect in many cases it would just mean that the person would zip through their magazine that much faster and then be stuck with no ammo. It might actually make things safer since inept users would be more likely to use up the whole magazine in one (likely inaccurate) burst.
You are listing the largest cities in the states, of course they will have high gun deaths! Once you normalize for population size, the relationship between policy and deaths is not very significant: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/07/gun-death-data-points-in-both-directions/
Recently Iceland recorded it's *FIRST* police shooting resulting in death, ever. An Icelander could say the same thing about Canada (or most other countries). And, in case you're interested, the rate of gun ownership in Iceland is HIGHER than in the U.S. Link to BBC if you don't believe me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25201471
Hint: guns and gun ownership aren't the problem.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Sorry, but between 1934 and 1986 there were no mass killings with full-auto weapons by civilians. Several by people in law enforcement, but no civilians. To get one you merely needed a background check ensuring your lack of felonious nature and a tax stamp. The only reason full-auto weapons are currently banned is because Charles Rangel(D) is a corrupt son of a bitch and SCOTUS are a bunch of fucking hypocrites to allow the bootstrapping of the ban to continue.
Think more along the lines of targeted assassinations, terrorist tactics, and guerilla warfare. Good fucking luck with your tanks and hardened military guys, you dumb asshole.
You are right. But those folks who are the insurrectionists wouldn't have any money to do what you say. Everything you said requires money to buy the ammo and supplies - they wouldn't be able to do that as far as this dumb shit is concerned.
How, if I - the dumb shit as you say - am going to pay for my war?
Help me. I am too stupid to figure it out - I'm just a gun owner after all.
how do you explain the massively lower homicide rates of europe, which generally has much stricter gun ownership laws?
He said murder rate not gun murder rate
FBI statistics, that is. Where offender race could be identified, 5,486 were murders by blacks, 4,729 by whites, and 256 by "other." As blacks make up 13.1% of the population, the inescapable conclusion is that a wildly disproportionate share of U.S. murders are committed by black males. The fact that 72.5% of all black children are born out of wedlock might have something to do with that, which in turn may be due to greater welfare dependency among blacks than whites.
Now go ahead and tell me how my government statistics are racist...
Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.
Impose a tax on firearms sold in the city and use the funds raised to compensate victims of crime. That would probably stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Actually the so-called "wild west" was not open carry.
Upon entering town, you surrendered your weapons to the sherriff who would hold the weapon until you left town. If you didn't surrender your weapon, the sherriff would -- and did -- take it from your cold dead hands. The most famous incident was the Shootout at the OK Corral.
Back then, it was considered "common sense" to not carry a gun around in civilization.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
We also get rights from nature (the right to protect ourself) or if you don't like that from English common law, which would include the right to self-defense. Or defence. Or some other British variant spelling
But the main point is not everything has to be explicitly in the Constitution for it to be a right.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
There are still borders to the north and south which are easy to pass weapons through.
I cannot speak to the Mexican border, but it's not that easy to pass weapons across the Canada / US border. Otherwise Canada would be flooded with illegal guns to a much greater extent than it is.
All those folks who like to blather on about negative rights rarely bring up the fact that, without strong and well-enforced environmental regulation, the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the land upon which we live can be contaminated to the point that it will not sustain healthy life, and all of that is okay because air, water, food, shelter, and health don't fall into the category of negative rights, but are instead positive rights that restrict (often unfairly, in these people's minds) the rights of others.
I'm not sure who you've been talking with, but the cases you mention fall pretty clearly into the category of negative rights. Specifically, if you release contaminants into the air, water, land, food, or anything else which then proceed to end up in other people's bodies or other property and cause them harm, you've infringed on their negative rights the same as if you'd injected them with poison. It's indirect, and thus harder to trace back to the source, but those who are harmed by pollution can definitely claim damages against polluters. That was in fact how pollution used to be handled, before certain socially-minded judges decided that industrial development was a greater social good (read: paid more taxes) than strong property rights for individuals and stopped hearing such cases.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Here, from the published book "US Government and Politics":
If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.
Thus, the 9th and 10th amendments. James Madison was a Genius.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
Or "Congress shall pass no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" now hurry along, your free speech zone is downstairs in the disused lavatory with the beware of tiger sign.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Please note that the link posts exactly two statistics: Number of homicides over a set of years for a number of western cities during the wild west, including Dodge City, and the number of homicides in the top 4 US cities.
Homicides, not crime.
And Indians weren't really considered people.
And there are plenty of people that simply disappear in Chicago without an investigation just the same as there were plenty of people that simply disappeared on the frontier without it being ruled a "homicide".
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Please stop misinterpreting data points and follow through with your cursory research.
You have rights because you can shoot government drones out of the sky. The government has no power over you because you have a gun.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
That number is bullshit. I corrected the original post upthead.
300 per 100,000 per year is the correct #.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Are guns a problem? Yes. The bigger problem is (from this Canadian's view) is that the USA is full of MURDEROUS ASSHOLES who see mortal violence as a reasonable first resort method of dispute resolution.
That they are heavily armed assholes makes it more destructive, certainly, but the problem is clearly sociological. The USA has yet to grow out of its frontier attitude.
I rarely go there any more. Those people are just fucking crazy.
For a Canadian, that was an over-the-top rant, eh? Blanket generalizations and everything, and I didn't see a "please" or "thank you" in the entire post... Crap- If the Canadians are getting pissed, I'm starting to think we may have a problem.
In Chicago, minors are forced to join gangs by gun wielding adults. Does this do anything for them?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I lived in an area in new mexico where it could take two to three hours for a sheriff to get out to the house. How would I defend myself without a firearm? How would I stop a bear attack? If you were a single woman of 120 pounds recently removed from an abusive relationship with 250 pound drunk that walks right over a court order how do you defend yourself? How does a old woman of 80 years protect her home from two grown men kicking in her door for her painkillers? If guns are not needed why do the police and military have them? How do you stop a coyote from actively attacking livestock or your child? What do you use to stop the 300 pound alligator that just chomped on grammy's knee?
If it is irrelevant, why is it in the text? You could just as easily make the argument that 'the people' in the 2nd amendment isn't meant to be 'every individual' but 'the people' as in the citizenry, whose primary means (at the time) to defend themselves against government overreach and to defend their lands against threats the government was not able to assist against (due to the limited communications of the time) was to organize themselves into armed militias. And their right to do this is what was being enshrined in the constitution. Look, I get why you prefer to make the interpretation you do, but the argument that the writers of the constitution found it an absolute necessity that Americans be allowed to walk around with whatever weapons they please wherever and whenever they like is also fairly ridiculous. As someone who has received extensive military weapons training, I find it frightening to think of people being allowed to possess powerful firearms with virtually no requirements for verifying that they actually know how to use them safely and store them in a manner that keeps them out of the wrong hands. I am not against private gun ownership, but with such a right must come an equivalent level of responsibility, and the current pro-gun movement appears bitterly set against any and all attempts at requiring that.
Explaining why the right exists and poetic language.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not to mention even the term "gun control" is biased and is based on the false premise that prohibiting possession prevents crime.
No one promotes "pen control" measures to prevent accounting fraud.
No one promotes "spoon control" measures to combat obesity.
No one promotes "penis control" measures to prevent rape.
It's the same with the term "gun violence"
We don't have "pen fraud", "spoon calories", or "penis rape".
I agree, it's a technology issue and has strong parallels to other issues like rights to privacy, encryption, 3D printers, intellectual property and science. For those who don't see these parallels, then maybe you're not fully digesting the content that you're taking in from Slashdot.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
The money would be better used to buy guns and pay for target practice for everyone in the neighborhood where gun crime is rampant.
i.r.id10t (595143)
user@darkstar:~$ links -dump http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html [cornell.edu] | grep "the people" or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. or to the people. Why is it that one of these "the peoples" isn't considered to be The People?
Because, for a most non-gun people (and a few Fudds), 'feelings', 'social justice', and 'transferrence' are more important than law.
Also; they are smarter than you, so you should just do what they say. And like it.
m
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
This must, then, mean that corporations also have the right to bear arms. Given that they "are people", as per current legal thinking. Can't wait for armed corporate drones to hit the scene.
Considering most murders are committed with handguns, just the overall rate of gun ownership is pretty meaningless. I don't know about Iceland, but here in Canada, there are tons of rifles and shotguns, but very few pistols and revolvers. I expect European countries with a high rate of gun ownership will be similar.
I prefer the term 'gun geeks' over 'gun nuts'. It's much less scathing, and doesn't make you sound like a complete liberal media parrot.
I know quite a few 'computer geeks' who are also huge 'gun geeks', They are far less 'nuts' than the uneducated vocal leftists that despise them.
Handguns are typically legitimately used for self defense. Rifles and shotguns are typically used for hunting. People in Alaska and similar parts of Canada will frequently carry a handgun due to the danger from bears or various types. On the other hand, I don't know of any duck hunters who also carry a pistol while hunting. It all depends on what perils you're worried about. Around here (Colorado) deer hunters will frequently also carry a pistol since a mountain lion may think you're just being helpful by carving up you're deer when you thought you were field dressing him.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Really, so there has never been an accidental gun death in Iceland?
And, in case you're interested, the rate of gun ownership in Iceland is HIGHER than in the U.S.
lol, no, it's not.
there are approximately 90,000 guns in the country - in a country with just over 300,000 people.
The country ranks 15th in the world in terms of legal per capita gun ownership.
and for comparison:
#1 - U.S. - 89.0 per 100
#15 - Iceland - 30.3 per 100
Hint: guns and gun ownership aren't the problem.
i agree, but don't tell flat out lies while providing 'evidence' that clearly refutes them.
This point is as misleading than most arguments from either side of the spectrum: using an overall rate of gun ownership between different countries, without considering type of gun, society, is all but useless. One can find examples and counter-examples for these, since these are arbitrary mangos to aardvarks style comparisons.
Put another way: low rate of homicides (with or without firearms) in Iceland has little relation to overall gun ownership rates.
It can, of course, be used as an argument to dispute claim that high general rate of gun ownership need not necessarily lead to higher homicide rates, but that again is as irrelevant to discussion wrt Chicago legislature as one can get.
Considering the Constitution was meant to dramatically limit the power of the Federal Government, I have no choice but to exercise the 1st Amendment and say that you, sir, are completely full of shit.
And, in case you're interested, the rate of gun ownership in Iceland is HIGHER than in the U.S.
lol, no, it's not.
Are you sure? Because your statistics don't show that.
Hint: guns and gun ownership aren't the problem.
i agree, but don't tell flat out lies while providing 'evidence' that clearly refutes them.
The "evidence" that you're pointing to shows how many guns are in the country, not what percentage of the population owns guns. Guns per capita is an interesting statistic, but if one man owns one million guns, he throws the statistics off considerably. In reality the numbers are more commonly more similar to one man owning one dozen guns, but the point remains that per capita gun ownership is not useful in itself for determining what percentage of a population is gun-owning.
Please don't tell flat-out lies by misrepresenting evidence.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... crickets ...
Ah, libtard idiocy. The rulings said that being composed of people, they had some of the same rights. For that matter, I don't think I've heard of any laws limiting corporation security forces to weapons any crappier than most civilians. In fact, in most jurisdictions, especially bastions of libtard idiocy, they have more rights to weapons than the average civilian.
It's a rationalization prelude for the meat of the amendment. Because competent, well organized militias were considered important to the survival of the US, people were allowed to have firearms without restriction.
This must, then, mean that corporations also have the right to bear arms. Given that they "are people", as per current legal thinking.
They aren't people per current legal thinking. They are legally treated in a limited sense as people for enforcement of certain legal rights of the people who comprise the corporation.
Look, today it's the right to bare arms, tomorrow it's the right to arm bears!
If you give these people an inch, they will take three centimeters...
and then your $125 million Mars orbiter ends up in a smoking crater!
/jfk *that's "just fucking kidding" not the guy that kicked our asses into space.
Seriously, the people who conceived and established our "right" to own weapons had just finished using the finest weapons technology available to overthrow their own lawful government... and they knew full well that the issue would come up again... because it always does.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
But iceland does have gun control law,
Hand gun are restricted as well as certain caliber an fully automatic weapons. Gun owner must pass a test, a medical examination and a gun registry. Does that not demonstrate that gun control Works... Kind of like in Canada.
The founding fathers never planned to have much if anything of a professional army and the Continental Army was largely disbanded when the fighing was over. In times of need the army would be raised from members of the militia serving a short term as full time soldiers. That's the prelude everyone seems to agree what says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" which has morphed into the National Guard. Since the armed forces of today should never exist, it's very hard to extrapolate exactly what they'd think about that.
What we do know is that they strongly feared the career military only loyal to the chain of command (like say, the English Crown) or possibly itself who could oppress the general population and that is why they wanted the militia to be a central fighting force and it should under no circumstances be disarmed. It seem clear they really the priciple and ideals of it, even as there as quite a lot of evidence that they performed poorly as military units even back then. In any case, in that respect it's already a massive failure, the armed forces are vast, full of military veterans and excrushiatingly powerful.
It's not the 18th century anymore when a man and his hunting rifle can double as a minuteman. Even if you gave people the opportunity to buy all the military gear they'd like, it'd still be bizarrely expensive gear with relatively little (legal) use in peacetime. There'd be a few more scattered gun nuts able to pull off a Waco stand-off but it'd never amount to any real military threat. There's a reason why the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq use IEDs and hide in the civilian population, if ever the military got to use their big guns they'd be toast. With small arms fire you can be a nusance, with a privately owned tank you're a walking bullseye.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I would extend this to say that any weaponry possessed at any level by the us military should be fair game for US citizens.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and make a wild ass claim with nothing to back it up, so flame away if you want, BUT perhaps Switzerland doesn't have stupid high crime rates, not because everyone is military trained, but because Switzerland isn't poor.
Actually, there is an interesting related statistic, when you adjust for children raised in single parent households, black and white crime rates essentially equalize.
Thanks!
That neatly addresses my misgivings about citing that particular statistic.
I'll switch to your statistic with a clear conscience.
Might want to check your math on gun ownership numbers there, USA is number one by a large margin. Even Canada has higher gun ownership per capita than Iceland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
You can pollute your own land all you want, but once your land starts leaking substances onto my land, it's a tort. That's the proper libertarian response. It's trickier with air pollution, obviously, but really not that hard to figure out. Does standing downwind of a smokestack give you cancer? Y/N. K, you're polluting. Pay up.
F U Slashdot time limit
So here's my equation for the leading cause gun deaths.
Gang membership (* some_rate) * gun ownship (* some_rate)
Gun deaths are mainly in cities with access to guns. DC had a measure of success in controlling hand-gun access (a hand-gun's only purpose is to harm another human being -- it has no moral concepts of "protection" nor "aggression"). Similarly, without high rates of gang membership, it's possible to have relatively few gun deaths with a high ownership rate. You can't restrict gang membership on freedom of assembly grounds (though the word "peaceably" might be a good legal loophole -- I've yet to meet a peaceful gang).
This is not very different from security at an airport.
Terror group membership (* some_rate) * weapon possesion (* some_rate)
Since we can't know the intentions of everyone on the flight, but we search everyone on the flight (while trying to minimize the first item as well).
Also, suicide is a funny thing. As it turns out, means is important. When England switched from gas stoves, suicide by gas went down while virtually all other methods of suicide remained constant. We could expect that fewer people having guns would prevent suicide -- common sense in this case is damned by empirical evidence.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Enough with the invoking of your libertarian gods. It doesn't matter one iota if James Madison said 1000 times over and over that it was ok for a citizen to own a fucking tank. That's isn't what the document that he signed says. Don't invoke his spirit to bolster your defense, invoke it to chew his ass out for doing a half-assed job!
It seems even your own bro's think that the only way to secure your rights is with a gun. Are those rights imbued upon you by your creator an inalienable as you claim, or must they be secured with force lest they be taken away by someone with a bigger gun? Go spend some time in one of Joe Arpao's desert slave camps for awhile and tell me how good those god given rights work out for you.
Repeal what is considered an inalienable right and you no longer have inalienable right
You always have the right (that's why they are "inalienable"), you're rather being denied its exercise.
. Remember this is one of the original bill of rights, not just an amendment that was added later.
The Bill of Rights itself is a collection of "just amendments", it was not part of the original Constitution. The amendments that are in it, are no different from the ones that were added later, and they all hold equal weight (or lack thereof).
Wrong... dead wrong. The States each had their own Navy, and they were combined in 1775. The first Continental Navy ship was launched in September, 1775.
I applaud your Libertarian worldview, but it is not consistent with reality in this instance.
Privateers is the word you are looking for. The Continental Navy had less than a hundred ships compared to the nearly two thousand privately owned war ships.
http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html
Yes. Put a tax on ammo. Use the revenue to help fund aggressive buyback programs. The long term goal is to reduce the number of guns and make gun ownership an expensive burden. Will this be unpleasant for law-abiding gun owners? Yes. I don't care. The US has the highest homicide rate of all developed countries.
If you take the "strong" out, I'm one. I think I'm a pretty libertarian guy, but I recognize environmental protection as a legitimate government function when that protection can clearly and unequivocally be linked to the overall better good, or reducing harm for all. However, I think the government has a high standard of proof that they must meet before denying "natural rights" to a property owner. I think that for the most part that bar has dropped too low. Worse, it has really become a weapon of market exclusion. If you are a big multinational corporation with a team of lawyers and environmental compliance department, then it is simply a cost of doing business and really doesn't stop you from doing anything. Conversely, if some NIMBY files a claim that the speckle-footed gob stopper was seen on the lot my small business was planning on developing, I'm totally screwed.
Mommy, Mommy, Look what I got today! My very own Twitter Account Owner's Identification Card. Now I can tweet three times a week, whatever I want, as long as it doesn't offend anybody or disparage the police or incite violence or discontent or encourage people to queue up for things they don't really need. Isn't the First Amendment wonderful?
Stop looking at me, swan.
According to the Small Army Survey in 2007, the Icelandic ownership rate was about 30 guns per 100 people. The United States was 89 guns per 100 people. Big difference.
References:
In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
And what do people think the patriots were keeping in Concord? Hint: it' wasn't muskets and powder the British was after. It was a bunch of artillery cannons...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The NRA did indeed successfully lobby congress to block all sorts of government agencies that have nothing to do with guns from getting in on the left-wing anti-gun propaganda game. The Center For Disease Control (the CDC) has NO LEGITIMATE role in FIREARMS; they are supposed to be spending their time and money dealing with diseases like the flu, smallpox, AIDS, cancer, hepatitus, measles, the plague, etc.
NOBODY, not even the apparently mightier-than-Obama uber-boogieman-of-the-left NRA, has done anything to block the ATF or the FBI from keeping gun data and/or murder data... which is why any of us can go look at the data on firearms-related (and non-firearms-related) deaths for free any time we like on the FBI website.
You leftists are proven to be dishonest in this claim every time you cite the FBI crime stats in other arguments; You know full-well that the NRA has NOT blocked the Federal Government data collection, and you know you are misleading people when you write this drivel about agencies like the CDC being blocked from the activity. Guess what? NASA is not collecting gun violence data either! Which evil right-wing conspiracy do you think was involved in keeping the U.S. Coast Guard from monitoring hand gun purchases in Denver Colorado? .... probably the same evil shadowy group that keeps tha National Bureau of Mines from keeping tabs on the number of people killed with baseball bats in Orlando...
Take your propaganda back to HuffPo or Daily Kos where the stupid/ill-informed/poorly-educated people have a demonstrated tendency to fall for it
It was a stupid argument then, and it's a stupid argument now. The 2nd refers specifically to the militia, who armed themselves, and while the "well regulated" bit does imply that a basic standard of weapons is really best at a minimum, if a militia member showed up with a couple donkeys or horses pulling a cannon, or tied a small, well-armed (cannons, etc.) vessel up to the nearest river pier, likely they'd be given a joyous welcome at the time.
The 2nd doesn't specify "guns", it says arms. Arms, at the time the 2nd was written, included (among other things): all manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for quite some time. All of these things were in common use in warfare and self-defense at the time. Yet, knowing all these things, all they put in the 2nd amendment was “arms.” So clearly, that’s what they meant. Arms of any kind. They didn’t say “muskets and pistols.” They said arms.
Miller vs. US is a prime example of people who have very little knowledge or skill trying to alter the intent of the framers. Unfortunately, the judge wasn't any better informed, and congress has been creating legislation in a highly unconstitutional manner ever since.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yeah and acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test.
I really doubt the mouth breather crowd would allow for any sort of test requirement let alone medical examination in the US.
It's because we don't have the intent (or the political will, if it came to that) to actually "win" in the classic sense. That's not why we're there, and you will never, ever see it happen in Afghanistan, which is a resource rich state we are trying very hard to subvert for the obvious reasons.
Back to arms in the US, same thing applies: Come (the very unlikely event of) an armed revolt, do you *really* think the government has the political will to try to crush those people with heavy weapons in general use? I highly, sincerely doubt it. Furthermore, I doubt that the soldiers tasked with such a thing would be very happy about it at all, and suspect this would cause more trouble than the actual revolt. "Bomb Allentown? MY FUCKING SISTER/(kid's teacher, dog's vet, preacher, wife's brother, etc.) LIVES IN ALLENTOWN!" And so forth. My conclusion is you'd have more of a sniper / brush war than anything else, and those are messy enough. It's very, very difficult to suppress combatants that are distributed and know the territory better than you do and you really can't use heavy weapons. When there's less than 3.5 million government fighters (that counts all US military branches, and all reservists, and all police forces) and about 200 million or so (leaving out toddlers) potential revolutionaries, and you really can't bomb your own infrastructure and supply lines into debris... well, you have a very serious set of tactical and strategic problems. There's unlikely to be a path to an easy win no matter what a brilliant leader in the field you might have on tap. Jets and tanks? Pretty much useless. It'd be all about infantry, and I have to say, some pretty damned unhappy infantry at that.
The whole "gummint got da big guns" and so revolt is impossible meme is the product of extremely simplistic analysis (if you can even call it analysis.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
First, guns are machines and, hence, "technology"; they are NOT evil little gnomes that run-around creating their own mischief.
Second, EVERY "anti-gun" or "gun control" argument can eventually be launched against any other useful technology. If we must ban certain guns because they "look dangerous" then why not ban all cars that "look dangerous"? If we ban some guns because some person might use them to harm others, then why not ban some computers/websites/internet protocols because somebody might use them to harm others? Politicians love to ban/regulate inanimate objects rather than go after the specific people who misuse them (gadgets do not vote, but even the nastiest person has friends and relatives who DO). Our society has already gone WAY TOO FAR down this mindless path. We refuse to clamp-down on the insane or various gangs, so we go after guns. We refuse to properly scrutinize musim extremists, so we must all get x-rayed or groped (in a search for "dangerous" THINGS) and then be deprived of our personal property (THINGS) at the airport. The problem in ALL cases of misused technology is the PERSON and NOT the technology - and as long as we focus on the stuff instead of the (relatively few) bad users of it, we will NEVER be able to regulate/ban enough.... because people are clever and can abuse ANYTHING.
We are all by-natural-right supposed to have the right to go where we want, own what we want, and carry what we want - and we grant the government a limited ability to intervene in certain limited ways (those ways/areas not specifically in the Consitiution are not supposed to be the concern of the federal government - they remain the purvue of the people, who may lend some of these other powers to state and local governments (see: 10th Amendment)) The Second Amendment does NOT give anybody ANY rights it, like the 1st Amendment, only re-states that the government may not interject itself into these natual rights. Many of our founders did not even see a need for the Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments) because they thought this would all be plainly obvious to anybody who READ the Consitiution; unfortunately they do not seem to have forseen a nation of 300,000,000+ people who would mostly be so ingorant that the vast majority would never read the Constitution and would would think their only rights were what the government granted to them in the "Bill of Rights" (most of which, they'd also not have read).
If you do not care about "gun rights", all your other geeky/nerdy/gearhead rights are in jeopardy - hanging just upon the whims of elected officials, the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats they appoint, and their transitory fixations/whims.
If the 'Well Regulated Militia' is so irrelevant why was it included?
>If they wanted the right to be of 'the militia' they would have written that. - But they did. The made damn sure to include the line about a "Well Regulated Militia". I am sure they did not mean for it to be irrelevant.
Well regulated, in the parlance of the times, meant that they would show up with x amount of shot, powder, a weapon to use same, change of socks, etc. It was used the same way "regulator" is used as a clock trademark. It didn't mean bossed around; it meant consistently supplied and prepared. This is explicitly laid out in legislation from the time. The point of the 2nd being made was that people required the freedom to keep an bear arms if they were to form up in a well prepared and supplied manner.
We're still pretty well regulated in that sense. A very large number of US citizens could show up with a rifle and cartridges for same if called upon to do so. Be quite a few handguns, too, and a wide assortment of other weapons that aren't classed as firearms at all. But that's the 2nd for you: arms. Not just firearms, but arms.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Reminds me of this truism: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"....everyone is in favor of some kind of 'gun control'...."
No. Not at all.
I favor criminal control. The people who favor "gun control" are far too often politically aligned with the people who keep letting criminals prey on society with illegal weapons. In California, over half of all crime (between approx 50% and approx 70% depending on year and specifics) is comitted by people who have been previously released from jail.... and the very same courts which allow unconstitutional gun grabs, keep driving the early release of violent criminals to protect their rights to not be "overcrowded".
I trust every person I associate with fully, with any firearm that exists including fully-automatic firearms. In fact, I'd trust all my friends with mortars, grenades, and even nukes (though the "right to bear arms" goes nowhere near that far - it's a right to bear firearms). I do not associate with any evil person or idiot who I would not trust with such a device.
Before 1934, Americans could freely own fully-automatic machine guns and they were not the cause of death for any significant number of innocent civilians. Criminal gang use of such weapons at incidents like the "St Valentine's Day Massacre" (which only killed 7 people) lead to all law-abiding citizens being stripped of the right to own full-automatic weapons. Even after the massive pile of 1934-and-more-recent gun restrictions, the "St Valentine's Day Massacre" looks tame compared to a modern weekend in Chicago - and the gun-grabbers keep proposeing to take more rights from the law-abiding responsible people with the promise that every new step will finally bring peace.
No. Stupidest meme ever.
If people -- US citizens, generally -- don't like the Constitution of the United States they can (if they so desire) speak up, attempt to build consensus at various levels, and even agitate for constitutional amendment. This radical idea is, amazingly enough, part of that very constitution you so ignorantly think justifies their ostracism.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Lines in the sand defined by age are both wrongheaded and ineffective. Would you hand the keys to a car to a person because they reached some particular age? No. Because they'd probably run over your dog and your wife before next Friday. Instead, you test them for the requisite understandings and skills. This, at a minimum, sets the stage for higher performance in the regime in question.
Tip: Just because something is codified into law, doesn't mean it is sensible, practical, or reasonable. In fact, sometimes just the fact that some blithering legislator put it together makes it a pretty sure bet to be really bad law. Age lines in the sand are a primo example of the legal system proving beyond any doubt that it is largely comprised of total idiots.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Guess you weren't around when the government thought we were old enough to go fight and die in Viet Nam, but not old enough to have anything whatsoever to say about it.
I was there. I was in that exact demographic.
So I *do* have a problem with it. It's fucking abusive.
Flash forward to today: There are plenty of minors I'd trust implicitly with a weapon, or a vote, or my daughter's sexuality. Contrariwise, there are plenty of adults I can think of -- without even trying hard -- that probably shouldn't be allowed to handle weapons, ballots, engage in sexual activity with others, or handle sharp objects, until someone takes them aside and bloody well trains them, rather thoroughly, in all of the above.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
" It seems to me..."
That's not science nor statistics.
The empirical facts are all around you and easily googlable (no need to read propaganda of either side, not NRA nor HuffPo). While President Obama has been in office, gun purchases have skyrocketed with many models being in short-supply. During these same years, gun violence has been falling according to Obama's own FBI stats. Yes, there have been some very high-profile mass shootings which have been hammered into the public conscience by the net and by 24hour news, but so-called "gun violence" is actually DOWN even at a time when one might expect it to be up due to all the economic strains af a crummy economy.
The USA has yet to grow out of its frontier attitude.
I rarely go there any more. Those people are just fucking crazy.
Don't forget to close the door as you leave.
Those rights are not "protected" by the constitution. Those rights are named for the benefit of the government, specifically in aid of explaining to said government that they are not to be fooled with.
Which said government roundly ignores today, but still, that's what it is: restrictions of government action. Not protection of your action, unless you're speaking in the vague sense of being protected from your government, which, sadly, the constitution has not been adequate to do, as it has absolutely no teeth -- if government chooses to ignore any particular thing, nothing happens to anyone. Without people of strict honor in the government (not happening) and the judicial system (also not happening) and law enforcement, the constitution is truly of little value to us.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Nope. 14th amendment. No state can violate anything in the bill of rights "downstream", as it were. It's very clearly written. Not that it's well enforced, but it *is* clearly written.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Zero. Gun control measures at anything but the federal level are utterly worthless, as there's no border control between states. The most lax controls of anywhere in the country are the de facto controls for the entire country.
Which is why the War on [some] Drugs has been such a resounding success at eliminating drug availability and use in the entire country.
Are you sure? Because your statistics don't show that.
and GPs statistics don't show anything either.. so please post ANY evidence suggesting that a higher percentage of people in iceland own guns, i certainly can't find any.
getting a gun in iceland requires written tests and mental exams.. getting a gun in america requires being 18 and not a felon. common sense tells you it's extremely likely that a higher percentage of gun ownership exists in america.
Therefore the state can institute that ownership of a gun is to be signed into the state millitia, where they have things like arms stores to hold guns, ammo and so on.
This is how you regulate your millitia so that it is most effective. Logistics demand that you do not have 800 different types of amunition for firearms, otherwise your ability to wage war against an agressive federal or soverign power is fractured to uselessness.
and GPs statistics don't show anything either.. so please post ANY evidence suggesting that a higher percentage of people in iceland own guns, i certainly can't find any.
I can't either, but that still doesn't excuse your misrepresentation of the statistics.
getting a gun in iceland requires written tests and mental exams
There's no mental exam, but you do need the recommendation of two gun owners who will vouch for you and you have to provide a passport photo. That's literally the only requirements that Iceland has which you don't have to meet in California or New York. You're lying again. Stop lying, that's what liars do.
It's ridiculous to compare the USA to Iceland anyway, without many caveats; we have a number of cities with more people than their whole country. It's just not a directly comparable situation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you get to decide what is parenthetical and meaningless, then I will too.
We are all equal.
If there is no standing army, then all you need are the arms to beat your congressmen in a fight if congress (federal government) decide to be oppressive.
Take their guns away, you won't need them either.
Actually, it kinda does. The second amendment just says arms. A tank is arms. So yeah.
It should be legal to carry a gun to protect yourself?
I mean if where you live is so dangerous that you need to carry a gun to feel safe, there are serious issues with your society.
And someone said "if only everyone wouldn't freak out at the sight of a gun", Orem carry would be more acceptable.
Again, seriously? As Im walking around the supermarket, or other normal places, I see lots of random people - not police but Joe 6 pack types - openly carrying firearms, and I'm not supposed to freak out? This is the same population too stupid to believe in climate change or evolution, and I am supposed to be comfortable with them carrying weapons designed to kill?? That doesn't make me feel safe - write the opposite!
actually, nothing in that amendment is irrelevant. The purpose and what the amendment refers to is military oriented. It means arms are not limited to firearms nor limited to sporting arms. A proper interpretation would be to include arms commonly in use or usable by a military soldier. If in the future individual soldiers are issued star trek phasers or tactical nuclear weapons - it then applies to those arms as well. Amazing how they avoided words like musket and flintlock, things that would have become obsolete in the first 100 yrs of the constitution's existence.
Unfortunately, the whole gun control debate is indicative of pending disaster whose roots are deep and terrifying. First, it indicates large numbers of people are incapable of rational or independent thought, choosing instead to mindlessly follow some sort of leadership. Second, it represents an attempt at changing the nature of law itself from its original purpose to define what is unacceptable in society and define punishment for one's unwillingness to abide by laws and change it to some ridiculous unobtainable purpose of preventing people from being able to violate the law. In doing this, it reduces citizens to slaves, denying them the right to defend themselves from predators and denies them the right to own property. Slaves are property.
All of this brings up the question of the applicability of Darwin's ideas to modern society and the role of intelligence in evolution. While there is little debate now on Darwin's evolution, it would seem that so far as intelligence goes, his evolution ideas seem to be running in reverse in modern society. Intellectually, we are devolving, not evolving. Evidently, F rank Drake's equation about intelligent life in the universe failed to take this into account as one of the factors. Judging by life on Earth, intelligence itself may not be something commonly improved upon by evolution considering millions of years of dinosaur evolution resulted only in improved teeth and claws and not improved intelligence.
Fact is, US crime rates are falling! Try watching less TV - local news is the worst - and take a look at the actual world.
So, which coal plant owners are getting fined and jailed "the shit out of" for spewing mercury and other radioactive elements into the air? What about their and the natural gas plant owners' carbon dioxide? What about all those superfund sites where the owners danced away to happy graves and their grandkids are still spending the money? What about the company in West Virginia that just declared bankruptcy to get out from all the lawsuits about their leaking chemicals? Even if the company is shut down - and it probably will be - the investors' money will all be protected to start up a new similar business to take its place.
Frankly, in a few seconds, I can come up with dozens of relevant examples that completely refute your claims, sorry.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
It's impossible to ever prove cause and effect in such a scenario. Just which person, exactly, drove the car or ran the factory that emitted the precise particles of pollution that I had to breath while crossing the street in Shanghai?
Only regulation can prevent such toxic emissions, as the courts are virtually impotent to address it after the fact. See my other response above for plenty of other examples where the court system can not and has never been able to achieve justice for such things.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Does the carbon dioxide your plant released 25 years ago cause my land to flood? Yes, your specific molecules. Oh wait, you died rich and happy and your kids have inherited the money. And you had incorporated to protect your assets so I couldn't get at them through the court system anyway. Oh well libertarian fail, again.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
It's impossible to ever prove cause and effect in such a scenario. Just which person, exactly, drove the car or ran the factory that emitted the precise particles of pollution that I had to breath while crossing the street in Shanghai?
Sounds like you need a class-action suit, all the victims vs. all the polluters. You may not be able to prove the specific case, but if you're so sure about the general cause and effect then it shouldn't be hard to prove that your group is being harmed by the actions of their group. Of course, if you can't prove cause and effect, even in the general case, then you have no business prosecuting anyone for harm which they may or may not have caused. As an alternative, social consequences (boycotts, peer pressure, ostracism) can be very effective in such cases, and don't require the approval of any court.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat