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.
"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
Actually, yes, that is the case. Kids have no right to free speech, or any right to reasonable search and seizure of their property
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Protected by, yes. Full access to all constitutional rights, no. Despite how US constitutional arguments are often presented, there are actually quite a few limits placed on things guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. The classic example is that it is illegal to falsley and intentionally yell "Fire" in a movie theater, which is a limit on freedom of free speech, a right guaranteed by the constitution. At some point it became established in US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult who is entitled to a number of things. This is an application of that principle.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
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.
Short answer: Pretty much yes.
Long answer: While legally it's "no" the truth is that minors have significantly less rights than adults. It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.
There are several cases where US schools have punished students for doing things which aren't illegal while off school grounds. Student's have essentially no rights while they are on school grounds. They can be searched without any justification. They're punished if they have something that even like a weapon. Even worse, school is compulsory, so it's not like any of this is opt out.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult
Not US law but custom. States can stipulate arbitrary age of majority such as Nebraska where it's 19.
Well the cynical part of me says: pretty much
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.
In practice, yes. And not just in this respect, either -- schools, for example, do all kinds of things that would be unconstitutional to do to adults.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
2 or 3 decades later after continuous gun ownership I still haven't shot any people or had any firearms accidents resulting in human injury. Additionally I retain the ability to secure meat for food and the ability to defend my home and family against malicious intruders.
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.
Many rights are denied legal minors such as the right to vote. The right to bear arms seems to be another one not afforded to minors. I don't see a problem with that.
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.
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.
how many gun deaths and violent crimes are there in areas that forbid people the means to defend themselve, such as Chicago?
Note Chicago is a gun-free zone legally (courts told them recently they had to implement permit system but they're dragging their heals on it)
Note what happens in most areas where concealed carry is implemented, initial spike of justifiable homocides followed by lower crime rate.
Many criminals have been shot and killed by good guys with guns. Many more have been stopped just by seeing the good guy with the gun. Google it. The examples are not hard to find.
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.
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
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).
Not really, no. While the media is very happy to talk about any incident where someone is killed by a handgun they are next to silent on all the incidents where a death or injury was avoided with the use of a firearm. It sounds counter intuitive, I know. But the numbers are there. Never forgot that plenty of people get injured or killed with no firearm related weapons.
What the above AC also ignores is that the age of majority around the time of this nations founding was closer to 21 than 18.
Hell, there was a time in the last century and the passage of the 26th Amendment that a person could be prohibited from voting based on age... and while still 18+.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
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.
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'
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.
It happens all the time. Recent example:
Dallas Store Manager Shoots at 5 Armed Robbers Police Arrive 74 Minutes Later
Study shows concealed-carry laws result in fewer murders
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I live in Colorado where the law explicitly states that people have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves if someone breaks into their home. Seems like most years there are three to five justified shootings of intruders that make the news. That number seems to be going down over time as people learn that breaking into homes can be very unhealthy.
So both individual crimes are being prevented and potential crimes are being deterred.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
MADD is a laughable remnant of yesteryear puritanism. They're nothing more than the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in a different dress. Lightner herself left the group not long after it started because they just tilted straight into prohibitionism.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
> 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.
Damn Slashdot and their uneditable posts.
The Wiki entry is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
but obviously I decided to use the earliest version of the quote, which was THREE boxes of liberty. (More modern vernacular adds "soap-box" to the front of the list.)
-Styopa
So if I can't afford to pay for a class, then I essentially am not allowed to exercise my second amendment? Would you also suggest requiring people to pay for a class to learn about how out electoral system works, and showing that you are up to date with current events in our government, before you get a permit that allows you to vote?
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.)
Just a point of fact, it's legal to yell "fire" falsely in a theater. I've done it personally.
The current standard test is whether any speech will incite "imminent lawless action". Inciting a panic will likely result in injuries, property damage, and reckless behavior as people rush to exit, so it's reasonable to censor such things.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
I was going to come here to post exactly those survey findings.
Lightning Link: http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html
$20? You're paying too much.
we all know that the US's gun proliferation is directly correlated to it's staggering gun violence numbers
Oops, looks like you meant to say "negatively correlated." As gun ownership has been going up in the last few decades, violent crime (including gun crime) has been dropping. Almost all major gun legislation is followed by increases in violent crime. For example, the Brady Laws created a waiting period to buy guns and then rape crimes increased. After all, what kind of person that needs to protect themselves would ever think of buying a gun when they really, really need it?
the "right to bear arms" is completely separate from the "right to buy arms".
Not reasonably, and not in US law.
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.
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
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.
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
Actually, it's more a case of a myriad of responsible persons outweighing a few non-responsible ones. As it should be.
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.
McDonald vs Chicago (2010) offered a different interpretation (and the more recent decision takes precedence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
Specifically:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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!!!
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.
NOT a solution. You just end up with really aggressive HOAs which are mini-governments. In some cases HOAs have trampled on rights that are considered free speech outside their domain. Most famously there was the case of a veteran who put a flag on a pole in his front yard, in violation of HOA policy. In that case, there was so much outrage against the HOA that they made an exception and backed down. In most cases however, residents in HOA communities that chafe under the rules have to grin and bear it, or move out with a costly life lesson learned: avoid HOA communities unless you are the type of person who likes to follow lots of pointless rules, doesn't mind petty politics, doesn't mind nosy neighbors, and doesn't mind paying extra taxes to support the HOA.
Anyway, the HOA derives its power from the government, via deed restrictions and the law. It's private in name only. IMHO, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a municipality within a municipality within a county, within a state, within a federation, within a global agreement. How many layers of government do we really need?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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
Piss poor analogy.. It is like saying you have a freedom to speak, but not to be in the same space with anyone else... You cannot have one without the other.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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
I don't think you can compare national crime statistics between nations.
1. They aren't all collected the same way.
2. They aren't all counted the same way.
3. They are highly political and you don't know whether politics are distorting numbers in country A or country B.
4. Demographics are not the same. They are different populations with different cultures, different economics, different religions, different politics, different age break downs, different distributions of rich and poor... etc. To compare them between the two only looking at that one variable is silly.
If you want to do this you first have to compensate for all population differences. So figure out what your base line demographic is then look at all the crime stats in each nation and reweigh the stats on the baseline demographic. And that would ONLY address the demographic distortion.
In short, I view such comparisons as less then worthless because while being worthless they confuse many into thinking they have value which effectively spread ignorance thus rendering them of negative value.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, so the criminals can see who the law abiding people are and make them easier targets.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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:
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.
You are not a person or citizen until 18+. And even then, have reduced rights or protections until 21 or 25. But are apparently are a person from conception to birth, but have no rights from birth to 18, when they start to get handed back slowly.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
Hmmm, perhaps people should be forced to pass a Fundamentals of English Grammar course before being allowed to post on Slashdot on topics concerning English writings, especially ACs.
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.
And emancipated minors can obtain all rights at an age younger than the general age of majority.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
I've never had to take any class or buy any permit to own or shoot a gun. The only remotely similar thing that happened was I took a hunter's safety education course as required to obtain a hunting license.
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.)
People don't even read the summaries here, let alone the articles. What makes you think anyone is going to bother doing the research? Especially if, as you seem to believe, they have preconceived notions that bias their views on the matter? They will discount you as a troll, disregard your commentary, and continue on in their beliefs.
Don't need to be statistics, really.
Here is how home invasion looks like in the criminal capital of Germany. I find it highly telling that the google translator translates "two unidentified perpetrators" as "two unidentified gunmen".
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
You punish irresponsible people, not responsible people.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
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.
would you mind just saying what you mean. I'd rather not look at a german google translated link... :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It seems to you, thus proving that you need to retake that 5th grade math class.
"That number seems to be going down over time as people learn that breaking into homes can be very unhealthy" Hmm - I'm going to break into this home, but the occupant may own guns - so to be safe, I'd better shoot him immediately.
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.
If you are old enough to join the military and die in defense of your country, you are old enough to drink. Raise the minimum age for military service to 21 and your viewpoint might have merit.
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
I can't tell if this is a troll or not. you have some very valid points mixed with absolute idiocy.
as an OIF and OEF vet, i would never get in a fire fight with professionals. i'd rather live to fight another day. i'd use the tactics i was afraid would get used against me. those that know our military tactics and vehicles will have little trouble mounting an effective resistance. those that just watch and observe will quickly find the week points and exploit them as well. it's not as bad as people think. if dirt farmers can keep fighting the strongest military the world has ever known for 10+ years, just think what intelligent 'Mericans can do.
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.
The classic example is that it is illegal to falsley and intentionally yell "Fire" in a movie theater, which is a limit on freedom of free speech, a right guaranteed by the constitution.
This may be the classic example, but not in favor of censorship. It's a great example of how politics can interfere with the judicial branch and result in horrible precedents. The only reason this case turned out as it did is that the president at the time threatened to pack the court with partisan judges until they ruled the way he wanted. (At the time there was no limit on the number of judges on the Supreme Court.) The ruling was a blatant violation of the First Amendment, which does not set any boundaries on the content of protected speech.
This is not to say that any action which involves speech is automatically protected, but intent of the First Amendment was clearly to rule out any legal consequences for speech as such, regardless of the content. For the action to be illegal it would have to involve something other than mere speech. This is also consistent with the idea that the punishment should be proportional to the crime, which is impossible when the crime is speech and the punishment is just about anything else.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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
People don't even read the summaries here, let alone the articles. What makes you think anyone is going to bother doing the research? Especially if, as you seem to believe, they have preconceived notions that bias their views on the matter? They will discount you as a troll, disregard your commentary, and continue on in their beliefs.
I agree with your sentiment entirely, but at the same time I'm conducting experiments to find out. As a field of study, how does one change someone's mind about an issue? What techniques can be used?
As far as trolling, I use the Slashdot feedback system as a metric to tell what works and what doesn't. Getting a +5 tells me that the post is not particularly trollish, and was favourably accepted by most of the readers. I've put my views in front of a host of readers, with little or no push-back. That's a success.
I'm sensitive to the issues you raise, and am actively trying to navigate them.
Care to join me?
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'
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?
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
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?'
Hasn't seemed to work that way is all I can say. Don't recall any reports of preemptive shootings by people breaking into houses since the law went into effect. Quite a few dead or wounded wanna be thieves, rapists, etc. though. Could be that the people breaking don't want to escalate by default.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
.. It seems like a trade off between more deadly (gun related) accidents and less crime, versus no such deadly accidents and more crime.
I think you answered your own question. Also, we'll never know how many of the dead or wounded intruders would have done the same to the people living there if they had had the chance.
There have been a few oopses where someone drunk (as an example) tried to "go home" to the wrong house and got shot for attempting to break in. The common attitude seems to be that Darwinian selection still exists and don't get so drunk that you can't find your own home.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
perhaps if you had given us the question, but not the answer, you could have motivated us to seek it ourselves. but by not even giving the correct question, you really aren't going to accomplish anything at all except annoy people who otherwise might have been interested in your point.
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.
You have the reasoning the wrong way around. The only reason that kids get sent to war is that they are stupid enough to go. QED. They really are too stupid to drink.
But really, you are barking up the wrong tree. You do not understand my viewpoint at all. I was responding to the poster who doesn't know or understand history and making fun of that stupidity as a reflection of kids of that age which, for whatever it is worth, has a small kernel of truth to it. And it is that truth that drove the increase in the drinking age in the U.S.
Personally I think that any sort of government limitations on drinking and drugs is wrong. Parents should bear full responsibility for their children's behavior up to the age of majority. And after that, everyone declared an adult should be able to make their own choices about inebriation.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
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
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.
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.
I don't care about deaths from firearms. I only care about crimes committed with firearms, and I don't count suicide.
It's not a matter of intent or use, the more firearms you have, the more people will die from firearms-related injuries.
So what?
If you outlaw kindness, only outlaws will be kind.
If you outlaw stupid shit, slashdot posts will be virtually nonexistent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.'"
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.
And emancipated minors can obtain all rights at an age younger than the general age of majority.
All rights? Not regarding controlled substances.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.
Oh no, my friend, it's much, much worse than that. We try minors as adults all the time. Responsibilities without rights? That's called slavery. Institutionalized, in this case, much like privatized prisons. America is keeping its legacy of slavery strong.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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'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
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.
However, the "right to bear arms" is completely separate from the "right to buy arms"
In similar other cases (not just pertaining to guns), US judges have ruled that it is not the case - that if the law indirectly but effectively precludes you from exercising a certain right, than it has to be treated as a direct infringement on the exercise of that right.
Eh? You are definitely a citizen from the moment of birth. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the 14th:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And this is exactly how it has been applied in practice. E.g. the whole "anchor baby" business hinges on the notion that a person is a citizen at the moment of birth.
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
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.
All these nanny-staters never want that kind of "regulation.". They'll even scream and howl if you suggest that they might have to carry an ID to prove they are eligible to vote.
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.
Kids have no right to free speech, or any right to reasonable search and seizure of their property
That's not true at all. Minors basically have most free speech rights and are protected by the 4th amendment against searches and seizures.
I think you're confusing the fact that parents and those acting in loco parentis (in the legal place of parents) can restrict speech of minors and search them. Schools, for example, can restrict the speech of minors and search their belongings while at school, since they are acting in the place of parents as effective guardians over them during schooltime and on the school's property.
HOWEVER, this absolutely does NOT mean that a cop could randomly arrest a kid for "free speech" that an adult would normally make, NOR can a cop randomly search a minor without a warrant -- though a parent or school might give them permission to do so. In the absence of permission from a parent, guardian, or the minor him/herself, the police have to accord with normal 1st and 4th amendment protections for minors in most circumstances.
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.
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.
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.
Clearly.
Other than amendment 26 (sets voting age to 18 years), your "recognized" issues are not codified in any way in the constitution. The rest is all legislative product, with the occasional collusion of constitutionally ignorant feeble minded fools at the bench.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
I use the Slashdot feedback system as a metric to tell what works and what doesn't. Getting a +5 tells me that the post is not particularly trollish, and was favourably accepted by most of the readers. I've put my views in front of a host of readers, with little or no push-back. That's a success.
Ahh, the politician method -- popularity over principle.
Well, two idiots invaded a home of a pensioned couple. Pushed them around a bit, threatened to beat the seniors up if they don't give them valuables. Took 100 Euros and ran away.
No firearms, no shootings, not even knives. And Frankfurt am Main is really the most criminal city in Germany, full of drug addicts, shady foreigners, banksters and so on.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
They're not racist, but your interpretation sure as hell is. You're missing out the poverty statistics, and any information relating to the racism exhibited by many US institutions and society in general.
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.'"
I don't get to, the "English Language" does, you dolt.
The AC above me was implying that the 2nd only applied to the militia. Clearly he never learned the terms prefatory or justification clause in his Grammar courses.
But that's basically regulatory overreach. As to whether what they're doing would stand up to a Constitutional challenge....??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
No problem, I'll just shoot you back first. ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I've attempted my own research on this and discovered that I could not count on official statistics at all. A lot of the issues you mention make direct comparisons difficult to useless. It takes, as far as I can tell, an in-depth and frankly professional (as in, paying someone with an actual degree in statistics) analysis to make anything compare properly.
My greatest frustration is with the NRA's influence having caused the (I could be misremembering which department) CDC to be unable to record/publish relevant information on a national level. I'm almost certain the NRA general constituency believe the stats will bear out firearms as a safe factor overall, yet the lobby prevents the actual numbers from being available, aside from the FBI stats which from what I've been able to tell are constantly redefined/recategorized to make historical comparisons impossible (a necessary component of evaluating trends following the passage/sunsetting of legislation).
I've had to resort to philosophical reasoning rather than real evidence to come to my conclusions. A proper analysis would be invaluable, and explaining the intricacies of the other flawed methodologies and why they need to be discarded would probably require a full book. One which I would most likely buy, if I could vet the author well enough to believe the relevant biases have been accounted for.
Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
I actually come here largely because in the various comments are other folks' research, which save me a bother I'm not really motivated enough to do for myself, yet am happy to learn if it's presented to me. It's a form of relaxation. The rest of the time I have other work to do. If I had to do all the research myself, that tips it over into 'work' and that defeats part of the purpose.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There's not need for the government to set prices for the requisite training classes. They simply need to accredit the class as sufficient for their purposes. Similar to those defensive driving courses you sometimes get forced to take or the driver's training course some states require. The prices vary, some charge $75 others $80. Same deal here.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To put that in contemporary parlance: Because a standing army is a necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to own weapons, shall not be infringed. Prior to the early 20th century, the US relied heavily on state and private militias for defense and war time support. The Second Amendment is essentially saying, because a military is needed to protect the country, the citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the military.
In 1876 the notion of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the states was still being rationalized. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights into the States in it's Due Process clause. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" You are arguing an old, outdated, and rejected interpretation of the Constitution that holds far less validity due to the 14th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That says nothing about rights and you left out that they're reserved also to the people. You might want to retake that class as well.
Except I don't need to take a class, or even have a license, to drive a car on private property, only public roads. Also, driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
I never said it was, and you're now counter arguing for a point I did not make. You argued that if you're not able to pay for it you won't be able to exercise your 2nd Amendment right. I countered with the point that the government doesn't need to set prices for taking the course, they could accredit training course and those places could set their own prices (implying that they may charge little or nothing if it's their discretion). I then gave you two examples of training courses usually required by the government where prices can vary.
But the point still remains that the government is forcing you to pay money in order to be allowed to exercise a constitutional right. If I have absolutely no money to spare (but already own a gun and ammunition), then am I just too poor to have that right?
No it doesn't remain. If all that's required is certification by an approved trainer/training class, then there's no stopping anyone from offering the course/certification for free.
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
Due to years of prohibition in most states, the numbers of people carrying concealed (or even open carrying) handguns is still pretty small. Still, there are several reports a week in Texas of a bad guy shot or killed by a good guy with a gun. It doesn't take anywhere near 100 coverage for it to deter criminals. There is at least anecdotal evidence that people trying to commit mass murder do so in areas that are officially gun free (schools, theaters with no-guns allowed signs, etc.)