No it's regressive because it doesn't exempt people, just products, and therefore doesn't exempt the "Poor" while making the "Rich" pay their "Fair Share", and liberal think tanks tell us it's so so it must be true.
"I don't think it's reaction times that matter so much as perhaps just brazen balls out fearlessness. Fast reaction times are useful when you overstep the limit or someone ahead blows a tyre out or something like that, but most of the time I don't think it's the defining factor in what makes a good race-driver. For most types of racing I'm of the opinion that anyone could do it with a bit of tuition and cash."
Perhaps - but "overstepping the limits" or "someone ahead blows a tire out" happens ALL THE TIME in racing; while anyone may be able to turn competitive times on a racecourse, that's different than an actual race. Joe Blow may last one or 2 races, but without getting his reaction times up to speed he will either lose miserably or crash - either way his racing career is likely to be quite short.
It's like saying because Ray Charles could be a perfectly good driver, because he drove a Mercedes out in the middle of the Mojave; sure, he operated the controls competently, but lets not call him a "driver".
Likewise, comparing lap times for professional racers in a "reasonably priced car" to the average guy is ridiculous; drop them both in an F1 car and see what happens - I mean, the only difference is that one is faster than the other, right?
Let's make it even simpler - American style drag racing. Simplest automotive sport in the world - go 1/4 mile as fast as possible. No turns; pure acceleration. Now, lets put Tony Schumacher in a Honda Accord next to me in my identical car and race. We will probably get to the finish line within.400 seconds of each other -.400 being the difference between when he reacts to the starting light and when I do. We will both finish in about 15 seconds with a top speed around 90 miles per hour. AWESOME - that means I'm competitive with a 5 time National Champion - racing just can't be that hard.
Now, put us in his car - a top fuel dragster. A competitive car will travel the 1/4 mile in under 5 seconds, and finish at well over 320 miles per hour. Are you really going to say that I will still be competitive in that car? Assuming I actually survive the trip?
That's the problem with egalitarianism - some people really ARE better than others.
In fairness, humans DO have a problem with high speeds, but it's biological, not physical. A person's reaction time has a lower limit, and it is quite possible to exceed that limit and cause problems with a person's control of a vehicle regardless of gee forces. If this were not the case, then all it would take to be a race car driver would be an extra capacity bladder.
That being said, I'm pretty sure the anchor meant "wouldn't they be crushed?" Given that the main viewers of morning news programs are soccer moms killing time after their spawn have gone off to what passes for education in this country, I'm sure tat was their interpretation as well. After all, minivans are DANGEROUS when you go fast - that's why you have car seats and a cell phone. For emergencies.
Yes, because pigheadedness and willful ignorance are SOLELY found in christians and conservatives. Liberals and atheists are clear thinking and rational in everything they do.
"I have no proof one way or the other, I just think it would be surprising for the government to retire something as valuable as the Blackbird without having an even better replacement in the works. Then again, using logic to explain government decisions is often a losing proposition."
The unofficial/official line was that the government DID have something better - satellites with resolution much better than previously available.
That being said, I'm with you and think Aurora is real - hell, the SR-71 "didn't exist" for a long time.
Sorry about the blockquotes, or lack thereof - I normally post text only.
Regarding your last point, I would argue very much so that ak-47's and M-16's should be allowed - they are the standard arm for any modern soldier or militiaman. They are common. And they are not "especially destructive" - one of the problems with the current version of the M-16, the M-4 Carbine, is that it isn't lethal ENOUGH. And the AK-47 has notoriously poor accuracy and range. One of the reasons that assault weapons are proclaimed to be extraordinarily lethal is their use against *unarmed* citizenry, which certainly skews the results
If I were calling up a militia in 1776, I'd expect the men to show up with rifles, knives, and possibly pistols and perhaps grenades. That would be the basic arms for a militiaman to be effective in their role. If I were to call one up today, I'd expect an assault rifle, semi-automatic handgun, knife/bayonet, and grenades. That would be the minimum armament for a militiaman in their role. I would not expect militiamen in 1776 to show up with cannonade or missiles (although there were many in private hands - rich private hands), nor would I expect a modern day militiaman to show up with stingers, etc.
I do believe you are correct in pointing out that Scalia is somewhat contradictory; but when looking at the context, I believe it becomes clearer. He brings up the point about M-16's to counter the reductio ad absurdem argument that "If 2A is an individual right, then machineguns are allowed; since we don't want machineguns allowed, therefore it is not an individual right". He is saying that it may be argued that M-16's are not covered under the understanding of "militia" arms, but that has nothing to do with whether the 2A is an individual right. But the statement on Page 8 is clear as a bell - we cannot limit a right using the sole excuse that technology has changed.
"Perhaps one of the most likely to be overlooked lines comes at the end of page 57, where Scalia writes: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Moreover, he then continues to write: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep an carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'."
Believe me, it isn't being overlooked - it's the one damper on what would otherwise be celebrated as total victory.
But further analysis of that section reveals an interesting omission. He tacitly agrees (nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt)with existing laws on criminals, the insane, "sensitive locations", and CONCEALED weapons. Note that he does not address laws that ban the carrying of weapons openly. That, combined with his excruciatingly detailed dissection of what the word "bear" means (he used one of Ginsburg's quotes to HELP him), leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through. My own state of Maryland blanket bans the open carry of arms unless one is a police officer, etc., but a reading of this opinion makes that wholly unconstitutional.
"The District's statute says, essentially, that every handgun should be kept unloaded and dissassembled or trigger locked unless the firearm is kept at a place of business or being used for lawful recreational purposes. It is unclear exactly what self-defense exemption the Court would prefer; i.e., whether such an exemption would require that firearms be able to be kept loaded and ready to fire when in the home to be used for self-defense or whether it would require that they be allowed to loaded and ready to fire while being used in self-defense."
Nope - Handguns are banned outright. Long guns - rifles and shotguns - are the ones with the "locked or disassembled" qualification. Both got struck down. The District law already allowed firearms to be assembled or unlocked when self defense is required immanently, so the opinion must be construed to mean that firearms are allowed to be kept assembled and unlocked. "Loaded" is the funny part - many gun locks preclude a firearm being loaded, and many states define "loaded" many different ways. This will probably be one that will vary state to state.
"Fairly interestingly is the Court's statement at page 59, that "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." This interestingly folds back into its prior decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana of earlier this week that 'what the public thinks' is becoming a relevant constitutional test. I'm not sure, and they don't elaborate, on how this would come into conflict with the 'in common use' test. For example, imagine the American public decided that automatic grenade launchers were the best method of hunting- would they then also be allowed? If that is not true, I'm not really sure what Scalia's purpose for pointing out that Americans like handguns happens to be. It seems like he's saying that weapons which are overwhelmingly used for a lawful purpose are to be given more legal defense than those which are not."
There has always been a type of "popularity" test in the Constitution - specifically, the ban against "cruel and unusual" punishment. Both of them have their root definition in what the populace thinks.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons
That decision is a spanking any way you look at it. I was somewhat surprised, but if one assumes that Scalia wanted this to be IT, the ne plus ultra on the Second Amendment, he took the time to batter down all the other arguments so it can be used down the road.
"Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest."
Huh? Gun control, by common definition, is based in the argument that the individual does NOT have a fundamental right to geep and bear arms. What is your definition of gun control? (besides the ability to hit what you are aiming at?"
What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control? India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mohandas Ghandi
"Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision' High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implications An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.
The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.
Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.
Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.
Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail."
They are whistling in the wind. If you read the decision, it is specifically worded to set up a ruling regarding the 14th amendment application of the 2nd.
Right now, Heller only applied to the Federal Government, in that DC derives it's power from Federal law and not state law. The 14th amendment states that the States cannot abridge rights guaranteed under the US constitution, but it needs to be actually applied in a court. Chicago just happens to be the VERY NEXT target of the guy bankrolling this fight - their law is almost exactly the same as DC's. The majority decision, by defining the right to keep and bear arms INDEPENDENT of a militia, elevates the Second to the level of the 1st, 5th, etc.
My guess is that the Chicago suit will be filed by EOB today, suing the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois for violation of the 14th Amendment in regards to the (now firmly established) right to Keep and Bear Arms. And the state will lose.
"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-- confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
Yes, Justice Ginsburg, in a case only 10 years old, quoted a definition of the word "bear" which included the Second Amendment IN the definition. But somehow, she is a dissenter on this case. Maybe she forgot, and her law clerks didn't want to point it out to her. Fortunately, Scalia's did.
Meh - she said that her Mom was totally ignoring what SHE wanted.
Let me clue you in, toots - I have a 13 year old daughter too, I've never played a second of WoW, and I ignore what my daughter WANTS all the time. But I never ignore what she needs.
It's called parenting, and you won't get it until you have kids of your own. (Alt-tab back to the porn I was surfing)
Ideally, manage the passage of bills for the good of the country. On a practical matter, the speaker basically controls the whole works - no one can speak or introduce bills in the house without being recognized by the Speaker, so she has enormous power. So if she doesn't want something brought up, it doesn't come up - period. Remember "impeachment is off the table"? That wasn't a threat, but simple fact.
Reality is that the Speakership is always a somewhat partisan position. The better speakers have treated the minority with various amounts of noblesse oblige - being respectful and fair, but never letting them forget who is in charge. This was the state for 40+ years under the Democrats, until the Republicans took power under the Clinton Administration. Initially, they did some good things - a good portion of the Contract with America dealt with reforming the House itself. But that didn't last, and they soon became as partisan or more so than the Democrats before them. Now that the Dems are back in power, they are not bothering with platitudes about bipartisanship and reform; the Republicans are scumbags who are going to be put back in their place.
What Pelosi is forgetting is that the Senate sees how things are run in the House, and if she is running roughshod over the Republicans there the ones in the Senate are NOT going to be inclined to cooperate. If Harry Reid wasn't also playing the partisan game, he'd have had her ass by now just for making his life so damned difficult.
Pelosi's election to the Speaker of the House was historic because she was the first woman, the first italian, and only the second western state speaker. But that is ALL history will remember her for, except as a footnote in the hundreds of revisionist and counter-revisionist history books about the Bush years.
Did you even read what you wrote? With MS split up, they couldn't "collectively" do anything. Part of the split would be the fact that their management would have to separate into 2 groups and not interconnect. at all. So Bill Gates could have stayed with the OS side, or the Apps side, but not both.
"Seems Pelosi would be the kind of person you'd want a speaker, the kind who can utilize favors effectively to get the party synchronized."
You are confusing the Speaker of the House with the Majority Leader or the Party Whip. It is the job of the Majority leader to maintain party unity and the job of the Whip to ensure that party members vote accordingly. Pelosi was quite successful in both those positions, maintaining unity among the Democrats which played an important part in their re-taking of the house. Then she was "promoted" to Speaker, which has broader responsibilities than maintaining majority party discipline. She appears to have forgotten that, and is continuing to act the part of the Majority leader, to the detriment of the nation.
She is a perfect example of the Peter principle, rising past the level of her own competence.
"IMHO there is only one way we can help Obama be in a position to make good with his promise to remove immunity.
Elect him president."
Revealing your fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. As a senator, Obama could put a hold on the bill, do a REAL filibuster (think Strom Thurmond), or use parliamentary tactics. His leadership won't stop him, because an internal fight right now is the last thing the Dems need.
As President, he would be faced with a bill that has ALREADY passed, and....what? He can't retroactively veto it. He can demand Congress change the bill, but Presidential demands are variable in power - is he really willing to burn up that much clout over something that, now that he is in power, will be SOOO attractive to use?
If he cared about that provision, he could stop it now, instead of mouthing platitudes in January 2009.
You are overlooking the largest reason she is speaker - money. She was an enormously successful fundraiser for the Dems, and she was imbibed hardball machine politics like mother's milk from her family in Baltimore.
So many other democrats owed her they HAD to vote for her when she threw her hat in the ring - they owed her literally and figuratively.
"Every country in Europe has restriction on hate speech. The crime is called "incitement to racial hatred" in France. The US has some too, but it's much weaker: the only thing you can't do is call for murder."
Umm, ok - I'm pretty sure I referred to Europe on the whole, while using individual countries as examples.
"The US has no lesson to give to France when it comes to racial hatred. Should I mention racial segregation, Jim Crow, miscegenation laws, KKK...."
Are you saying the US has no right to scold Europe? Certainly not, and I wasn't doing that and I've never heard anyone in the US seriously propose that our racial history is better than Europe's - although there is quite a bit of grumbling when Europe pretends to have clean hands. They don't; who do you think owned the slave ships that supplied the plantations with human chattel?
If you are saying that France cannot learn from US history, you are sorely mistaken. France, and most of the rest of European countries, have been culturally and racially homogeneous until recently. They didn't have racial problems because there were no large populations of anyone who was not ethnically French (or German, Swedish, whatever). The small pockets of Others could be treated as an aberration, which could be easily supported in the name of tolerance. The US, on the other hand, had a large culturally and racially distinct population shoved right into the middle of it for economic reasons (which Europeans played a huge part in). We did not handle it well, but we are handling it.
Now countries in Europe have a similar problem - large populations of culturally and racially distinct people, brought there for economic purposes but otherwise disenfranchised. They aren't even citizens, and will never BE citizens, nor their children (something most in the US can't really fathom). And now that the populations of dark people are getting too large to ignore, some of the nasty is peeking out from under the European civilized veneer.
It took a war and almost 150 years and the US is STILL dealing with issues of tolerance and multiculturalism, and Europeans think they are somehow going to get off scott free? Most of the US population of European descent were fleeing the political, economic, and cultural oppression of their fellow citizens - do you really believe the descendants of those who remained will be MORE tolerant when their applecart is upset?
"France and other European countries have much tougher gun laws than the US, and considerably less violent crimes than the US (as well as considerably less people behind bars)."
For now. Europe has been living in an economic and political fantasyland for 60 years, with the US subsidizing their defense and the historic rivalries swallowed in the face of being crushed between 2 military titans. The second factor is gone, and the first is fading, and Europe is already starting to feel an economic pinch. And when resources get scarce, ugly things start to happen; when the French can no longer buy off the Algerian immigrants, the AK's will start showing up.
While I agree with the basics of your argument, I believe you are still missing my fundamental point - It is not MY assumption that other things are not factors; rather it is the assumption of those pushing gun control laws to begin with. There are obviously many factors involved in crime and violence, and while I would argue that the availability of guns is not a major contributor, gun control advocated want to argue that firearms are the ONLY contributor. When faced with documented evidence that crime rates have NOT gone down with increased gun control, the only solution that gun control advocates see is MORE gun control.
Here's an example. The State of Maryland passed a law requiring "ballistic imaging" of all new handguns sold in the state. Each gun would be supplied with a fired cartridge casing, which would be scanned into a State Police database so that they could be matched against future crime scenes where brass is recovered. It was hailed as a model for other stares and a breakthrough in law enforcement, despite some obvious flaws (revolvers don't leave spent brass, and it is trivially easy to deface the chamber of a firearm so the pattern on the brass is different).
Fast forward. The law has been in place for years, and $2.5 million has been spent on it, and not a single crime has been solved using the data. Not.A.Single.One. The State police even issued a recommendation that the program be terminated because the money could be better spent elsewhere in the criminal forensics devision. But just recently, a prominent politician introduced a bill to INCREASE the scope of the program, supported by the the state police commissioner. Their theory is that, since the program isn't getting the results they expected, they need to expand it. This would in turn take away funds from other programs that have been proven to work (like basic police investigation), but the only thing they can see is that the current program MUST be effective - they just aren't trying hard enough. It's like a battered spouse not moving out because she believes she just isn't trying hard enough to be a good wife.
On the French side: cheap labor and noblesse oblige (the bad kind)- you know, helping those poor dark people out despite their ungratefulness.
On the Algerian side: jobs and being treated better than in Algeria - independence from France doesn't mean the new Algerian government was any better.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's regressive because it doesn't exempt people, just products, and therefore doesn't exempt the "Poor" while making the "Rich" pay their "Fair Share", and liberal think tanks tell us it's so so it must be true.
"I don't think it's reaction times that matter so much as perhaps just brazen balls out fearlessness. Fast reaction times are useful when you overstep the limit or someone ahead blows a tyre out or something like that, but most of the time I don't think it's the defining factor in what makes a good race-driver. For most types of racing I'm of the opinion that anyone could do it with a bit of tuition and cash."
Perhaps - but "overstepping the limits" or "someone ahead blows a tire out" happens ALL THE TIME in racing; while anyone may be able to turn competitive times on a racecourse, that's different than an actual race. Joe Blow may last one or 2 races, but without getting his reaction times up to speed he will either lose miserably or crash - either way his racing career is likely to be quite short.
It's like saying because Ray Charles could be a perfectly good driver, because he drove a Mercedes out in the middle of the Mojave; sure, he operated the controls competently, but lets not call him a "driver".
Likewise, comparing lap times for professional racers in a "reasonably priced car" to the average guy is ridiculous; drop them both in an F1 car and see what happens - I mean, the only difference is that one is faster than the other, right?
Let's make it even simpler - American style drag racing. Simplest automotive sport in the world - go 1/4 mile as fast as possible. No turns; pure acceleration. Now, lets put Tony Schumacher in a Honda Accord next to me in my identical car and race. We will probably get to the finish line within .400 seconds of each other - .400 being the difference between when he reacts to the starting light and when I do. We will both finish in about 15 seconds with a top speed around 90 miles per hour. AWESOME - that means I'm competitive with a 5 time National Champion - racing just can't be that hard.
Now, put us in his car - a top fuel dragster. A competitive car will travel the 1/4 mile in under 5 seconds, and finish at well over 320 miles per hour. Are you really going to say that I will still be competitive in that car? Assuming I actually survive the trip?
That's the problem with egalitarianism - some people really ARE better than others.
In fairness, humans DO have a problem with high speeds, but it's biological, not physical. A person's reaction time has a lower limit, and it is quite possible to exceed that limit and cause problems with a person's control of a vehicle regardless of gee forces. If this were not the case, then all it would take to be a race car driver would be an extra capacity bladder.
That being said, I'm pretty sure the anchor meant "wouldn't they be crushed?" Given that the main viewers of morning news programs are soccer moms killing time after their spawn have gone off to what passes for education in this country, I'm sure tat was their interpretation as well. After all, minivans are DANGEROUS when you go fast - that's why you have car seats and a cell phone. For emergencies.
Yes, because pigheadedness and willful ignorance are SOLELY found in christians and conservatives. Liberals and atheists are clear thinking and rational in everything they do.
Glad you cleared that up for me.
"I have no proof one way or the other, I just think it would be surprising for the government to retire something as valuable as the Blackbird without having an even better replacement in the works. Then again, using logic to explain government decisions is often a losing proposition."
The unofficial/official line was that the government DID have something better - satellites with resolution much better than previously available.
That being said, I'm with you and think Aurora is real - hell, the SR-71 "didn't exist" for a long time.
Sorry about the blockquotes, or lack thereof - I normally post text only.
Regarding your last point, I would argue very much so that ak-47's and M-16's should be allowed - they are the standard arm for any modern soldier or militiaman. They are common. And they are not "especially destructive" - one of the problems with the current version of the M-16, the M-4 Carbine, is that it isn't lethal ENOUGH. And the AK-47 has notoriously poor accuracy and range. One of the reasons that assault weapons are proclaimed to be extraordinarily lethal is their use against *unarmed* citizenry, which certainly skews the results
If I were calling up a militia in 1776, I'd expect the men to show up with rifles, knives, and possibly pistols and perhaps grenades. That would be the basic arms for a militiaman to be effective in their role. If I were to call one up today, I'd expect an assault rifle, semi-automatic handgun, knife/bayonet, and grenades. That would be the minimum armament for a militiaman in their role. I would not expect militiamen in 1776 to show up with cannonade or missiles (although there were many in private hands - rich private hands), nor would I expect a modern day militiaman to show up with stingers, etc.
I do believe you are correct in pointing out that Scalia is somewhat contradictory; but when looking at the context, I believe it becomes clearer. He brings up the point about M-16's to counter the reductio ad absurdem argument that "If 2A is an individual right, then machineguns are allowed; since we don't want machineguns allowed, therefore it is not an individual right". He is saying that it may be argued that M-16's are not covered under the understanding of "militia" arms, but that has nothing to do with whether the 2A is an individual right. But the statement on Page 8 is clear as a bell - we cannot limit a right using the sole excuse that technology has changed.
"Perhaps one of the most likely to be overlooked lines comes at the end of page 57, where Scalia writes: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Moreover, he then continues to write: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep an carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'."
Believe me, it isn't being overlooked - it's the one damper on what would otherwise be celebrated as total victory.
But further analysis of that section reveals an interesting omission. He tacitly agrees (nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt)with existing laws on criminals, the insane, "sensitive locations", and CONCEALED weapons. Note that he does not address laws that ban the carrying of weapons openly. That, combined with his excruciatingly detailed dissection of what the word "bear" means (he used one of Ginsburg's quotes to HELP him), leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through. My own state of Maryland blanket bans the open carry of arms unless one is a police officer, etc., but a reading of this opinion makes that wholly unconstitutional.
"The District's statute says, essentially, that every handgun should be kept unloaded and dissassembled or trigger locked unless the firearm is kept at a place of business or being used for lawful recreational purposes. It is unclear exactly what self-defense exemption the Court would prefer; i.e., whether such an exemption would require that firearms be able to be kept loaded and ready to fire when in the home to be used for self-defense or whether it would require that they be allowed to loaded and ready to fire while being used in self-defense."
Nope - Handguns are banned outright. Long guns - rifles and shotguns - are the ones with the "locked or disassembled" qualification. Both got struck down. The District law already allowed firearms to be assembled or unlocked when self defense is required immanently, so the opinion must be construed to mean that firearms are allowed to be kept assembled and unlocked. "Loaded" is the funny part - many gun locks preclude a firearm being loaded, and many states define "loaded" many different ways. This will probably be one that will vary state to state.
"Fairly interestingly is the Court's statement at page 59, that "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." This interestingly folds back into its prior decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana of earlier this week that 'what the public thinks' is becoming a relevant constitutional test. I'm not sure, and they don't elaborate, on how this would come into conflict with the 'in common use' test. For example, imagine the American public decided that automatic grenade launchers were the best method of hunting- would they then also be allowed? If that is not true, I'm not really sure what Scalia's purpose for pointing out that Americans like handguns happens to be. It seems like he's saying that weapons which are overwhelmingly used for a lawful purpose are to be given more legal defense than those which are not."
There has always been a type of "popularity" test in the Constitution - specifically, the ban against "cruel and unusual" punishment. Both of them have their root definition in what the populace thinks.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons
That decision is a spanking any way you look at it. I was somewhat surprised, but if one assumes that Scalia wanted this to be IT, the ne plus ultra on the Second Amendment, he took the time to batter down all the other arguments so it can be used down the road.
Heller:2A::Miranda:5A
"Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest."
Huh? Gun control, by common definition, is based in the argument that the individual does NOT have a fundamental right to geep and bear arms. What is your definition of gun control? (besides the ability to hit what you are aiming at?"
What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control? India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mohandas Ghandi
"Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implications
An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.
The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.
Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.
Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.
Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail."
They are whistling in the wind. If you read the decision, it is specifically worded to set up a ruling regarding the 14th amendment application of the 2nd.
Right now, Heller only applied to the Federal Government, in that DC derives it's power from Federal law and not state law. The 14th amendment states that the States cannot abridge rights guaranteed under the US constitution, but it needs to be actually applied in a court. Chicago just happens to be the VERY NEXT target of the guy bankrolling this fight - their law is almost exactly the same as DC's. The majority decision, by defining the right to keep and bear arms INDEPENDENT of a militia, elevates the Second to the level of the 1st, 5th, etc.
My guess is that the Chicago suit will be filed by EOB today, suing the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois for violation of the 14th Amendment in regards to the (now firmly established) right to Keep and Bear Arms. And the state will lose.
Keller:2A::Miranda:5A
HAAAHahahah...
From the decision, on what "Bear" means:
"At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to
"carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
"carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization."
Yes, Justice Ginsburg, in a case only 10 years old, quoted a definition of the word "bear" which included the Second Amendment IN the definition. But somehow, she is a dissenter on this case. Maybe she forgot, and her law clerks didn't want to point it out to her. Fortunately, Scalia's did.
Uh, they do. At least your dad does.
Meh - she said that her Mom was totally ignoring what SHE wanted.
Let me clue you in, toots - I have a 13 year old daughter too, I've never played a second of WoW, and I ignore what my daughter WANTS all the time. But I never ignore what she needs.
It's called parenting, and you won't get it until you have kids of your own.
(Alt-tab back to the porn I was surfing)
Think again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102501463.html
Stole a diesel tanker at gunpoint; the truck was found later, abandoned and empty. He sold the fuel to *someone*.
Ideally, manage the passage of bills for the good of the country. On a practical matter, the speaker basically controls the whole works - no one can speak or introduce bills in the house without being recognized by the Speaker, so she has enormous power. So if she doesn't want something brought up, it doesn't come up - period. Remember "impeachment is off the table"? That wasn't a threat, but simple fact.
Reality is that the Speakership is always a somewhat partisan position. The better speakers have treated the minority with various amounts of noblesse oblige - being respectful and fair, but never letting them forget who is in charge. This was the state for 40+ years under the Democrats, until the Republicans took power under the Clinton Administration. Initially, they did some good things - a good portion of the Contract with America dealt with reforming the House itself. But that didn't last, and they soon became as partisan or more so than the Democrats before them. Now that the Dems are back in power, they are not bothering with platitudes about bipartisanship and reform; the Republicans are scumbags who are going to be put back in their place.
What Pelosi is forgetting is that the Senate sees how things are run in the House, and if she is running roughshod over the Republicans there the ones in the Senate are NOT going to be inclined to cooperate. If Harry Reid wasn't also playing the partisan game, he'd have had her ass by now just for making his life so damned difficult.
Pelosi's election to the Speaker of the House was historic because she was the first woman, the first italian, and only the second western state speaker. But that is ALL history will remember her for, except as a footnote in the hundreds of revisionist and counter-revisionist history books about the Bush years.
Did you even read what you wrote? With MS split up, they couldn't "collectively" do anything. Part of the split would be the fact that their management would have to separate into 2 groups and not interconnect. at all. So Bill Gates could have stayed with the OS side, or the Apps side, but not both.
"Seems Pelosi would be the kind of person you'd want a speaker, the kind who can utilize favors effectively to get the party synchronized."
You are confusing the Speaker of the House with the Majority Leader or the Party Whip. It is the job of the Majority leader to maintain party unity and the job of the Whip to ensure that party members vote accordingly. Pelosi was quite successful in both those positions, maintaining unity among the Democrats which played an important part in their re-taking of the house. Then she was "promoted" to Speaker, which has broader responsibilities than maintaining majority party discipline. She appears to have forgotten that, and is continuing to act the part of the Majority leader, to the detriment of the nation.
She is a perfect example of the Peter principle, rising past the level of her own competence.
"IMHO there is only one way we can help Obama be in a position to make good with his promise to remove immunity.
Elect him president."
Revealing your fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. As a senator, Obama could put a hold on the bill, do a REAL filibuster (think Strom Thurmond), or use parliamentary tactics. His leadership won't stop him, because an internal fight right now is the last thing the Dems need.
As President, he would be faced with a bill that has ALREADY passed, and....what? He can't retroactively veto it. He can demand Congress change the bill, but Presidential demands are variable in power - is he really willing to burn up that much clout over something that, now that he is in power, will be SOOO attractive to use?
If he cared about that provision, he could stop it now, instead of mouthing platitudes in January 2009.
You are overlooking the largest reason she is speaker - money. She was an enormously successful fundraiser for the Dems, and she was imbibed hardball machine politics like mother's milk from her family in Baltimore.
So many other democrats owed her they HAD to vote for her when she threw her hat in the ring - they owed her literally and figuratively.
http://www.webscription.net/
They have been doing this exact thing for YEARS. What's with all of the "Finally" and "About time SOMEONE" comments.
Are Baen books everyone's cup of tea? Of course not. But isn't O'Reilly just as much of a niche?
Pass. Big pass.
"Every country in Europe has restriction on hate speech. The crime is called "incitement to racial hatred" in France. The US has some too, but it's much weaker: the only thing you can't do is call for murder."
Umm, ok - I'm pretty sure I referred to Europe on the whole, while using individual countries as examples.
"The US has no lesson to give to France when it comes to racial hatred. Should I mention racial segregation, Jim Crow, miscegenation laws, KKK...."
Are you saying the US has no right to scold Europe? Certainly not, and I wasn't doing that and I've never heard anyone in the US seriously propose that our racial history is better than Europe's - although there is quite a bit of grumbling when Europe pretends to have clean hands. They don't; who do you think owned the slave ships that supplied the plantations with human chattel?
If you are saying that France cannot learn from US history, you are sorely mistaken. France, and most of the rest of European countries, have been culturally and racially homogeneous until recently. They didn't have racial problems because there were no large populations of anyone who was not ethnically French (or German, Swedish, whatever). The small pockets of Others could be treated as an aberration, which could be easily supported in the name of tolerance. The US, on the other hand, had a large culturally and racially distinct population shoved right into the middle of it for economic reasons (which Europeans played a huge part in). We did not handle it well, but we are handling it.
Now countries in Europe have a similar problem - large populations of culturally and racially distinct people, brought there for economic purposes but otherwise disenfranchised. They aren't even citizens, and will never BE citizens, nor their children (something most in the US can't really fathom). And now that the populations of dark people are getting too large to ignore, some of the nasty is peeking out from under the European civilized veneer.
It took a war and almost 150 years and the US is STILL dealing with issues of tolerance and multiculturalism, and Europeans think they are somehow going to get off scott free? Most of the US population of European descent were fleeing the political, economic, and cultural oppression of their fellow citizens - do you really believe the descendants of those who remained will be MORE tolerant when their applecart is upset?
"France and other European countries have much tougher gun laws than the US, and considerably less violent crimes than the US (as well as considerably less people behind bars)."
For now. Europe has been living in an economic and political fantasyland for 60 years, with the US subsidizing their defense and the historic rivalries swallowed in the face of being crushed between 2 military titans. The second factor is gone, and the first is fading, and Europe is already starting to feel an economic pinch. And when resources get scarce, ugly things start to happen; when the French can no longer buy off the Algerian immigrants, the AK's will start showing up.
Have fun!
While I agree with the basics of your argument, I believe you are still missing my fundamental point - It is not MY assumption that other things are not factors; rather it is the assumption of those pushing gun control laws to begin with. There are obviously many factors involved in crime and violence, and while I would argue that the availability of guns is not a major contributor, gun control advocated want to argue that firearms are the ONLY contributor. When faced with documented evidence that crime rates have NOT gone down with increased gun control, the only solution that gun control advocates see is MORE gun control.
Here's an example. The State of Maryland passed a law requiring "ballistic imaging" of all new handguns sold in the state. Each gun would be supplied with a fired cartridge casing, which would be scanned into a State Police database so that they could be matched against future crime scenes where brass is recovered. It was hailed as a model for other stares and a breakthrough in law enforcement, despite some obvious flaws (revolvers don't leave spent brass, and it is trivially easy to deface the chamber of a firearm so the pattern on the brass is different).
Fast forward. The law has been in place for years, and $2.5 million has been spent on it, and not a single crime has been solved using the data. Not.A.Single.One. The State police even issued a recommendation that the program be terminated because the money could be better spent elsewhere in the criminal forensics devision. But just recently, a prominent politician introduced a bill to INCREASE the scope of the program, supported by the the state police commissioner. Their theory is that, since the program isn't getting the results they expected, they need to expand it. This would in turn take away funds from other programs that have been proven to work (like basic police investigation), but the only thing they can see is that the current program MUST be effective - they just aren't trying hard enough. It's like a battered spouse not moving out because she believes she just isn't trying hard enough to be a good wife.
On the French side: cheap labor and noblesse oblige (the bad kind)- you know, helping those poor dark people out despite their ungratefulness.
On the Algerian side: jobs and being treated better than in Algeria - independence from France doesn't mean the new Algerian government was any better.
DAMMIT - it's "denying the consequent". Sorry 'bout that - it's been about 20 years.