Supreme Court strikes down DC handgun ban (DC V. HELLER)

[derby378]

Source: SCOTUSblog

Details to follow. Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm.

Read more: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[jefferson_dem]

1. As expected.

Fuck.

[SteveM]

10. As expected, too. Wish it could have been stronger, but they're conservative (nt)

[SlipperySlope]

131. Obama should speak in favor of this ruling AND sponsor a senate bill in support

Time to start striking down bad gun laws.

[Tejas]

558. Yep, he'd win the GE in a landslide n/t

[comtec]

32. remind me please... as im too tired to read all the articles...

but what exactly does the DC law do (did?) and why is was it important that this law be struck down?
It seems to me this kinda falls under states rights.
The states have certain rights to restrict dangerous things.
For those of you jumping up and down no one has E V E R suggested TAKING AWAY already owned weapons... only restricting CONTINUED SALES!

The general danger is and always has been that people with this kind of power (WEAPONS) ABUSE IT. Not all, certainly not even many.
But that's why there have been reasonable restrictions on firearms.

I don't know the details, so that's my 2 cents so far.

If the DC law was looking to actively take away people's firearms FROM THEIR HOME, then, yes I agree it should have been shot (no pun intended) down.

[krispos42]

44. It went something like this...

You could only have a registered handgun in DC.

They stopped issuing registration certificates in 1976.

Long guns (rifles and shotguns) could not be kept loaded or otherwise ready for immediate use. They had to be either assembed or locked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975

[comtec]

49. thank you.. in THAT case.. yeah that's fucked up

if they stopped issuing licenses all together, then I agree that IS unreasonable!
I am concerned a bit about all this jubilation however.
Yes it takes away a major issue, but it also opens the doors to eliminate reasonable laws as well.

[krispos42]

85. Chicago has something similar

They're probably next.

The anti-gun city and states will cling to their laws because they're not going to be pushed around by "gun nuts", so it's going to take more lawsuits to get them overturned.

[SteveM]

97. I just gots to see how all these conservative justices use the 14th! (nt)

[SlipperySlope]

134. the 14th had nothing to do with this ruling

14th amendment incorporation wasn't addressed.

[SteveM]

358. Yeah, I know. But the Supremes WILL have to deal with it (nt)

[JerseygirlCT]

115. Well, the irony of course, is that literal minutes away in NOVA,

you can practically buy guns at the nearest 7-11. So I'm not sure how effective DC's laws were, anyway.

[michreject]

223. This has to do with legal rights

not criminals.

[JerseygirlCT]

325. Not talking about criminals

I'm saying that VA's gun laws are so loose, that I can remember seeing guns for sale *everywhere*. And of course, it's an extremely short hop from DC (which is tiny) to NOVA.

So even try as they might to regulate guns, I cannot imagine DC was very successful, since anyone wanting one - for legal or illegal use - was a very quick car ride or metro hop away from one.

[michreject]

335. You can't buy a legal handgun

outside of your state of residence. Short hop or not.

[benEzra]

170. No, I don't see that it does.

Yes it takes away a major issue, but it also opens the doors to eliminate reasonable laws as well.

No, I don't see that it does. The opinion specifically states that the existing Federal controls on automatic weapons, state restrictions on concealed carry without a license, state restrictions on carrying guns in schools and government buildings without authorization, background checks for purchase, prohibition on felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing guns, are OK.

What are NOT OK are sweeping bans on commonly owned guns (which would probably include the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), and the outlawing of armed self-defense in your own home.

This opinion changes nothing in most states, only those jurisdictions with draconian restrictions. It does put the kibosh on most of the gun-control lobby's ban-more agenda, though, but very little of that has been enacted outside of D.C, Chicago, and California.

[northzax]

275. actually, it kills trigger locks

as mandated. and gun safes. I would interpret this ruling as superceeding any regulation about safety in the home entirely.

got a toddler in the house? keep your loaded pistol on the coffee table, you have the constitutional right to do so.


personally, as a DC resident, I can't wait to take my new gun to the fence just by the white house. it's for hunting, see? surely that will be legal!

[benEzra]

296. It only kills the law that says a gun must always be unloaded and trigger-locked.

It would allow laws that make it a crime to leave a gun where a child can access it, as most states have. You can still prosecute people if a child gets hold of a gun. The purpose of the D.C. law wasn't child safety, but to outlaw keeping guns in a usable state for defensive purposes. It succeeded at that, which is why the Court struck it down.

The problem with D.C.'s law was that there was no legal way to have an assembled, loaded gun in a usable state in your own home, even if you didn't have young children.

I have two children (aged 9 and 7). We keep our guns in a safe when not in use, but at least one carbine in the safe is loaded when we are home. It is also legal for my wife or me to have a handgun on our person. It is NOT legal in this state for us to leave it lying on the coffee table for a child to play with.

[northzax]

305. i bet you are wrong

if it is unconstitutional to mandate trigger locks or safes, then that superceeds 'child safety' laws.

[benEzra]

332. No. The ruling was very clear that the problem was in outlawing self-defense.

The no-child-access laws of most states do not outlaw self-defense as D.C.'s law did. There is no constitutional hurdle to enacting criminal penalties for allowing a child unsupervised access; the problem is with D.C.-style laws that use preventing child access as an excuse to outlaw armed self-defense.

[VermeerLives]

376. Yes

There was also the case in D.C. in the 1970's where women were attacked in their home for several hours. Can't remember if any of them were killed, but for some reason the police also did not respond properly. Had these women been armed, they might well have been able to defend themselves.

"You can't beat a woman who shoots."

[bossy22]

43. as expected

but yeah!!

[SlipperySlope]

120. What a happy day! I couldn't have HOPED for a better ruling!

It would have been nice if they somehow could have added 14th amendment incorporation, but that wasn't the question in front of them.

OUR RIGHTS ARE SAFE!!!

Whoo-Hoo!

I am SO stoked today. I'm walking on clouds!

[boilinmad]

139. Yippee...

...we can all keep our instruments of death. GUNS FUCKING SUCK

[SlipperySlope]

141. Yahoo!

[Leftist Agitator]

213. Firearms are an integral element to the preservation of freedom.

To say nothing of their value with respect to self defense.

:hi:

"GUNS FUCKING SUCK"

When society inevitaby collapses, we shall see if your shortsighted belief remains intact.

[DainBramaged]

322. This will be an interesting day as my ignore list grows exponentially

Gun lovers, get a life.

[jaspoor]

352. bogus meme 101

i support gun rights.

i don't "love guns"

i support abortion rights

i don't "love abortion"

get it?

amazing that opponents of this fundamental civil right love to use ad hominems like "gun lover" "gun nut" "gun fanatic".

i don't note similar ad hominems used against supporters of other rights

"abortion lover" "privacy fanatic" "free speech lunatic"
etc.

[DainBramaged]

397. Right, join the list, I don't suffer gun lovers well.

The U.S. DOESN'T need a 'well armed militias', we have a MILITARY and POLICE force to protect us. You want to hunt, fine, but don't fucking tell me you NEED guns because it's your 'right' as a member of a militia, THAT is bullshit and a useless meme. You still have to REGISTER your guns, especially handguns, THAT is what the Court says today. This wasn't about rifles or shotguns, it was about owning handguns.

[DissedByBush]

462. Read the decision

Part of it recognized the fact that this is an individual right, not one predicated on membership in any militia. Similarly, I don't expect to have to be a member of a government-organized "free speech club" in order to exercise my right to free speech.

Another part of it specifically addressed firearms other than handguns.

You really need to read decisions before commenting on them.

[DainBramaged]

464. I did and I don't agree which is my fucking right

[invader zim]

484. what about the american firearms worker ???

You seem to be actively working against good paying american manufacturing jobs. I guess only us auto workers jobs worth saving??

[Bake]

524. You may not agree, which is your right, but it's now THE LAW.

Get over it. (Wow, I've been waiting years to be able to say that!!)

Bake

[DissedByBush]

536. Of course it is your right to disagree

But you showed that you didn't read it, especially with your statement that it was only about handguns.

[RNG]

511. MIlitary & Police

911. Government sponsored dial-a-prayer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

531. I don't have to register anything.

[Dimensio0]

365. Fascinating.

Are you choosing to ignore positions with which you disagree in response to a fear that you will otherwise be confronted with the possibility that your position is not rational?

[1Hippiechick]

404. You can't handle reasonable discourse? Or, a different point of view other than your own?

[DainBramaged]

411. Dumb question. I do not suffer the love of guns, and that is my opinion to which I AM entitled

Don't like those of us who feel those of you who love guns should be trying to do something good for humanity instead of discovering new ways to kill or maim others?

Too bad the gun nuts have as little tolerance of us as we do of them.

[1Hippiechick]

417. Owning a gun does not make one incapable of "doing something good for humanity"

[DainBramaged]

419. You missed the point, and I will not take the bait, goodbye

[1Hippiechick]

470. No bait - simple question. Your premises do not make sense to me. I am just trying to understand,

and what do I get? Insults. Tsk, tsk.

[Matariki]

441. You put people on ignore for supporting rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

on ignore? maybe you should 'get a life' - or at least some perspective.

[DainBramaged]

463. It's my 'right', but I guess only rights you believe in are ok

typical.

[1Hippiechick]

481. Not at all. Your comment in your profile is interesting. Why so angry? Asking questions and trying

to create a meaningful dialog is the key to communication and understanding. We have opposing viewpoints, but can't those be discussed calmly? I certainly am not angry, but I am interested in why you are so angry. Is that an ok question?

[derby378]

517. Exactly - happens with my wife and I all the time

If we can discuss our differences and remain calm about it, surely it can't be that hard for everyone else to do?

[Matariki]

500. It seems you chose your user name aptly.

bravo.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

530. The length of your ignore list indicates just how narrow minded you are.

What's wrong with being challenged about your beliefs? I never have understood why some liberals are so quick to be narrow minded and judgemental.

David

[VermeerLives]

380. Amen!!

Without the right to self defense, what other rights are there? It is the second amendment, after all, not the fifth, the sixth, or the tenth.

"Freedom of choice includes the right to choose to prevail in a violent encounter."

[DainBramaged]

399. The right to self defense, how many people DIE every year either 'protecting themselves'

or their families or friends (or children) who mishandle a gun. Don't give us that shit. I was plenty proficient in handling and using guns of all types before I realized they didn't save lives, they took them.

Cya

[1Hippiechick]

418. Good question. Where are your facts?

[DainBramaged]

421. Find them yourself, Miss one-liner

real easy.

Step one, install Google toolbar.

Step two, think about a question about gun deaths you may want to ask the all powerful Google

Step three, read answers.

But I'm asking too much, aren't I?

[pipoman]

445. It seems those most against this individual freedom

are always the angriest, loudest, and nastiest in these discussions. My theory is they know that they themselves can't be trusted with the responsibility of firearms ownership so they believe everyone is as angry and irresponsible as they are.

Ignore, ignore, ignore

[DainBramaged]

457. Yes, it prevents me from wasting my time on bullshit

or dwelling on death and those who think dealing death is a right. Including you.

[1Hippiechick]

467. You are approaching this subject from the standpoint of gun owners perpetrating an offense rather

than protecting themselves. Please go back and look at some of the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc., regarding the right for individuals to bear arms. Their quotes were from the era that our Contsitution was written. So, my question to you is this: how does today's decision violate our Constitution?

There are two sides to this coin. I sincerely hope that you or a loved one is never a victim of serious crime. What if a loved one were murdered in your presence and you had no means to protect them or yourself, and there were no time to dial 911, or the phone could have been ripped out of the wall, or a thousand other scenarios. Think about it.

My other relevant question to you is this: since you are so against the death caused by guns, I'm guessing that you are proLife--opposed to the death penalty, abortion, etc. Just curious.

[1Hippiechick]

461. Now, see? Hurling insults at me for asking you to back your argument, and I did it nicely.

[DainBramaged]

465. What insults? You don't know how to use Google, not my fault

(sigh) and I thought we were progressive here, not regressive. BTY, can you formulate more than one sentence at a time, or is that too much to ask?

[1Hippiechick]

469. Incorrect assumption

[DainBramaged]

472. Goodbye

[1Hippiechick]

475. U-hyu'-s-ti

[Endangered Specie]

490. FIVE HUNDRED AND ONE POSTS... I wonder if

Universal Healh Care or even the Iraq War would get that many?

[Dimensio0]

519. It is fundamentally dishonest...

...to respond to a request for a substantiation of your claim by demanding that those making the request do the research on their own. As you have made specific claims, it is your responsibility to supply evidence for them, and it is dishonest for you to refuse to do so.

[depakid]

504. Tell that to citizens of nations that are MUCH freer than the United States

They would (and do) laugh at you. And rightly so.

[INDIA]

561. Which countries? Europe limits free speech and gun ownership quite severely...

Not to mention some countries (U.K) have a CCTV camera for every three citizens.

Which countries are you talking about again?

[jamesA]

498. Impeach Scalia now !

Its time to impeach Scalia, and make room fro Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. The democratic Congress can make it hapen, right after the first Tuesday in November. Then we can all walk on the clouds!!!!

[jaspoor]

350. 5-4

was surprising. several knowledgeable folks, on great legal blogs like scotusblog and volokh.com predicted a 7-2 or even 9-0. i was surprised it was as close as it was

[Matariki]

439. Why is every other attack on the constitution bad, but not the 2nd?

[Mercracer]

551. Some Just Don't Get It!!! Not a Clue!!!!

The issue was NOT overturning the requirement of safe storage. The issue was NOT overturning the requirement to secure guns so that children can not readily get a hold of them and harm themselves and others. The issue WAS that a gun lock could NEVER EVER EVER EVER be removed from the firearm while it was in your home especially if you needed to use it for self defense. You could NEVER do something so simple as clean or inspect your guns in your home... The DC Gun Ban prohibited DC citizens from ever using a gun for self defense in their home. This is plain and simple. THIS is why the law was found to be in CLEAR direct contradiction to the CONUS!!!! A City, County State, etc CAN NOT implement legislation to strip away our Constitutional Rights!!! The "right" to self defense supercedes even the CONUS!! The 2nd Amendment is not the source of your right to defend yourself. It merely affirms this basic human right which everyone naturally has. It goes right along with the Rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

[BrklynLib at work]

2. It is just what BushCo and minions ordered!!!

Tell me again how there was no difference between Bush and Gore ...or Bush and Kerry!!!!!!!!!!!
They have made a mockery of the Supreme Court..

[Dimensio0]

3. Why woud Bush have "ordered" this ruling?

This ruling is contrary to the brief that the Bush Administration submitted to the court in support of DC's position. Why would they have "ordered" a ruling to contradict their brief, and in what way does this ruling demonstrate a "mockery" of the Supreme Court?

[fascisthunter]

6. so the gun industry profits

you really think this is about rights? Fascists in the Supreme Court don't give a shit about rights. They protect those who want to profit and they rule to protect that profit taking irregardless of the People's rights.

TO many have been sucked into the NRA meme.... now if only these same folks worked so hard to keep this FISA bill from passing.... yeah rights.

[Dimensio0]

13. Are you saying that you disagree with the ruling,

or are you saying that you disagree with the alleged motivation behind the ruling? If it is the latter, what evidence have you that "gun industry profits" directly motivated the ruling. If it is the former, what evidence have you that "gun industry profits" directly motivated the ruling and why do you believe that the ruling should have been different?

[fascisthunter]

25. Why Yes I DO... That's My Right

get used to it.

[Squatch]

31. Ahh....the "neener neener" gambit.

Well played, sir....well played.

[Lasher]

113. !

[sir pball]

219. I think at this point...

"neener neener" is our gambit...seriously, if I were in the neighborhood, I'd be standing in front of Brady or VPC HQ with my thumbs in my ears, flapping my fingers, sticking my tongue out and going "thbpthhhhhhhhhhhhh".

As is, I'm just going to rip off a few hundred rounds into some innocent milk jugs :D

[Lasher]

403. I celebrated today...

by picking up my renewal for my concealed carry permit. :7

[sir pball]

409. Amateur.

My CCW is good till 2011 (I think PA is 5 years...at any rate it isn't going out soon) so I went through ~300 rounds of .45, same of .223, and 100 of .308. Jugs of water are So Satisfying to shoot!

Now that the guns are clean and away, it's two gigantic juicy ribeyes on the grill and a nice bottle of Bordeaux that I got yesterday in anticipation (prolly would have shot it if the ruling went the other way ;)). Cheers!

[Lasher]

425. But my CCW is now good until June 2013!

I suppose that must have been .45 ACP you were firing. Gotta Model 1911 right here with military holster, web belt and clip pouches just like I had when I qualified expert with on in 1970 in Seoul.

Those high caliber rounds are fun but also expensive. Lately I've been shooting my .22 rifle and pistol at cans hanging from strings. Being quite the hick, my back porch is my range. My recent target shooting favorite is black powder. It's as much fun to load as it is to shoot. But when it's time to put food on the table I reach for my Browning BAR II Safari .30-06.

I'm glad you've enjoyed the day. That meal sounds top notch too.

Lasher

[sir pball]

435. Cheaper...

If you handload. You should look into it, it's really not that pricey for a few calibers.

After the press and components, the 45 is about 12¢ round assuming 5 rounds per brass, the 308 is 50¢ per round assuming the same...the 223 is Wolf, like 12¢ once-used :)

A 185-gr JHP ACP out of a 1911 is FUN to put into a gallon of water at 10 yards...SPLOOSH!

But the steaks and wine were even better!

[Dimensio0]

40. Your reply is ambiguous.

I asked whether you held one position or another. Saying that "you do" does not constitute a logical response to my inquiry.

[-..__...]

42. Next, we're going after the Chicago handgun ban...

with the intent of seeking 14th amendment incorporation so that the individuals right to keep and bear arms applies to the states.

From there, it's on to overturning a myriad of state gun control laws.

Get used to it! :smoke:

[fascisthunter]

64. Dumb... nice twisting of the Constitution (no militia)

thanks for making America a less safe place only so gun manufacturers can profit.

Never was about the right to protect oneself from a tyrannous government. If it were, we'd have militias.

[-..__...]

69. What is this "militia" you speak of?

Didn't you just get the memo?

It's an individual right... get used to it.

[fascisthunter]

83. Militia... nice try though

but the debate on this is not over no matter how many times you twist the Constitution for your obsession with guns.

You don't fool me one bit though you already fooled yourself. It's not about rights or the constitution, not for you.


It's about the right to sell arms to "individuals".

[michreject]

229. And I'm buying

Not that anything stopped me before.

[1Hippiechick]

405. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

[jefferson_dem]

127. Yes it is, as of today.

I think this is the first majority ruling in probably half a century that references the second amendment in overturning a non-federal law.

The question now is where that consitutionally-protected individual right ends and reasonable government policy begins.

[biermeister]

140. exactly! someone else noticed

[nels25]

265. Jefferson - Right You Are

And as you point out the next parts are to be determined.

[krispos42]

87. Militia?

-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

<boldface mine>

That's about 55 million males in the militia, and maybe 30k females. Sounds a little gender-biased, this militia-only argument thingy.

[Retired AF Dem]

249. Old Richard is pissed about the decision

crooks have always favored gun control.

[DainBramaged]

309. Another red X added to my 'gun'

that's my right.

[SteveM]

15. If you're so concerned about fascism, why do you support gun control? (nt)

[fascisthunter]

26. Gun Control... LOL. Can You Own a Nuke

save the rhetoric. Where's your militia... ya... didn't think so.

All about fear, cowards, suckers and profit takers. Not about your rights. With a gun, you endanger more than protect. But don't let your ego stop ya. Fascists love guns.. it give them a sense of security. Might makes right...

[SteveM]

33. Typical. Your fear of fascism is 2 hours in a movie house...

So, how serious are you about fascism when you give the government the power to control arms? Not very, evidently.

[fascisthunter]

57. right..... guns will protect ya... keep telling yourself that

and when it comes time, pray to the ghost in the sky that you don't blow an innocents head off. Your pee shooter will do nothing to stop tyranny. Only political solutions and peaceful solutions will ever do anything. Meanwhile, you'll feel safe thinking you will know what to do when that Hollywood script presents itself. I find this whole debate laughable.

No wonder America has selected the likes of Bush for two terms. Everybody thinks they are John Wayne.... FEAR without THINKING. More guns will only make us less secure and de-evolved as a society. May as well get rid of the Police Force too... who needs their protection anymore, we'll just privatize security and leave personal security up to the individual.

Fear is the motive behind the need for gun protection. It begins with fear and rolls downhill from there. It's why we have an arms race, but hey, don't let those facts stop ya.

PS - arming yourself will not make you safer from your own government. Tank meets SteveM. That destroys your theory that people like me want you to at the whims of your government. You already are unless you try to change the government. Having a gun is ban aid on your insecurity and if you are planning on protecting yourself from your government you might want to pay attention to those other freedoms you are presently losing. Those freedoms that allowed you more protection than any idiot gun you will ever hold in your hand.

I see people filled with fear grasping for guns because they gave up on trying to fix a mess. More band aids for the fearful.

[SteveM]

95. Again: why do you fear fascism, yet support gun control? (nt)

[KneelBeforeZod]

165. No worries ...

>> and when it comes time, pray to the ghost in the sky that you don't blow an innocents head off.

I'm a pretty good shot. No worries.

>> Only political solutions and peaceful solutions will ever do anything.

Tell that to the couple that was murdered execution-style after a home-invasion in Pasadena, TX just this week.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5856533.html

If they'd been armed, the other guy might've died instead.

>> More guns will only make us less secure and de-evolved as a society.

The right to self-defense is pretty fundamental. If you're attacked with deadly force, you have the right to kill your attacker. Gun laws do not take guns from criminals -- as a criminal, by definition, doesn't abide by laws -- it only takes guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

Forcibly disarming the good guys isn't much of a solution to crime or tyranny. When only the bad guys have guns -- be they criminals or tyrants -- they will always win.

KBZ

[bean fidhleir]

190. "arming yourself will not make you safer from your own government. Tank meets SteveM"

I believe that idea is currently under review in Iraq.

[michreject]

235. And was illustrated

against Russia in Afghanistan.

[derby378]

382. Nicely put!

:applause:

[Leftist Agitator]

248. Small arms and small explosives seem to have done a bang-up job (no pun intended)...

...against the greatest military power that the world has ever known in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Your pee shooter will do nothing to stop tyranny."

Sure thing, boyo.

:eyes:

[MicaelS]

273. fascisthunter...How Ironic

Since the most infamous "fascist hunter" used a GUN to kill a DEMOCRATIC President of the United States. :sarcasm: :puke:

[1Hippiechick]

406. Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races

to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
- Adolf Hitler

[bossy22]

70. why dont you read the oppinion

it will answer many of your questions

its much more productive than fear mongering

[pt22]

91. Nothing personal, but that opinion is batshit insane.

:eyes:

[fascisthunter]

96. What... the fact arms are regulated

but pro-gunners still throw out the same meme to support their insane need for guns or the sale of guns? Then I'd agree.... it is insane especially to pretend this issue is about our collective rights. It's about an industry being able to sell guns to individuals who care less about the fact that guns make society less safe. But man does it feel good to hold one. Make little men feel like big shots.

Well, I say every person who buys a gun for security should sign a waiver saying, no need for police to come to their homes when something happens. Afterall, a gun makes them safer.

[pt22]

99. No shit. When seconds count, the police can be there in mere minutes.

:eyes:

[1Hippiechick]

408. Read a cop's point of view on that subject - post 277

[comtec]

105. Amusing a thought as that is... no that's not right

The police, such as they are, need to protect everyone, even the gun licking toadies.
EVERYONE

[primavera]

123. Kind of a moot point...

... since gun nuts don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves. It's so much tidier that way: with your victim dead, there's no way s/he's going to contradict your side of the story. With police, you've got all of those inconvenient things like due process of law, it's just a nuisance. Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters.

[SteveM]

178. Well, you have smeared tens of millions of your fellow Americans...

Maybe that is why "liberal" Democrats have had such a hard time winning elections; I mean, who wants to vote for a "philosophy" that sanctions smearing of tens of millions of Americans.

I see you are a fan of Gandhi. So am I:

"Taking life may be a duty...Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Gandhi, M., SELECTIONS FROM GANDHI, by Nirmal Kumar Bose, Navajivan Pub. House, Ahmedabad, 1948.

[primavera]

198. Ironic...

... that out of of all of the teachings of a man renowned for his abhorence of violence and devotion to peaceful resolutions of disputes, even at the cost of self-sacrifice, you should latch on to that one quote. Ghandi must be spinning in his grave.

[milou]

228. Since you like Gandhi...

"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." -Mahatma Gandhi

[bean fidhleir]

319. Another Gandhiji quote

"Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly ... has made us think we cannot ... even defend our homes and families".

(That's not a "selective" quote - the material I elided was lead-in about Britain's occupying army)

[redqueen]

295. THANK YOU! Especially for the Gandhi quote!

Jesus, these threads... *sigh*

[Bake]

If somebody enters my home in the middle of the night

knowing that my family and I are at home, I think it's a safe bet they're not there for a social call. But I'll be sure and politely ask them to wait a few minutes while I call 911.

:sarcasm:

Better yet, I'll kill the motherfucker and THEN call 911 to have them pick up the body. If it comes down to him or me (or one of my loved ones), it's going to be HIM that gets it. If that's a problem for you, don't come through my door at 1:00 AM.

Bake

[primavera]

193. Then again, maybe it's just your spouse...

... having snuck outside for a cigarette. And, as you say, you'll kill that motherfucker and have the police pick up the body. Thanks, you just made my point.

[Bake]

215. Nope, my spouse doesn't have to sneak outside for a smoke.

We go to bed together, and generally get up together (oh, and we smoke together too ... we still have that right also). And my doggies will sound the first alarm so I'll be wide awake and knowing exactly who/what I'm shooting at.

Contrary to popular belief, at least among the gun-grabbers, not all of us are "gun nuts" who will blast away at anything that moves without making sure it's necessary. Nice attempt to paint us all with that broad brush, though.

Bake

[primavera]

224. Glad you're so confident

I sincerely hope you aren't mistaken. Whether you personally are or are not vindicated in that optimism only time will tell, but whether you ultimately are or aren't doesn't change the fact that a great many innocent people die every year at the hands of people just like you who are totally sure that they could never make a mistake... and are proven wrong.

[Bake]

307. I'd love to see your empirical statistics

regarding the number of people who are shot and killed BY MISTAKE in someone else's home because they were mistakenly thought to be a burglar/home invader. You can include the family members, if you wish, who are mistakenly shot and killed.

In other words, "LINK PLEASE."

Bake

[primavera]

311. Why?

Does it make a difference to you whether it's 10,000 dead each year or 1,000 or 100? How many innocent corpses are you will to step over in order to be allowed to continue playing with your lethal toys?

[Bake]

314. Why? Because I think you're full of bullshit, that's why.

And you just gave yourself away, anyhow. To you it doesn't make a difference whether it's 10,000 or 100. If you can find EVEN ONE, you'll take away our "lethal toys."

Stop being so condescending to the other side and we MIGHT listen to you. We don't look at them as toys. I treat my firearm with the utmost respect and care. I'd prefer never to have to use it except for target practice (on inanimate objects, if you must ask). I have the utmost respect for all human life. But so help me God, if I have to use my firearm and kill someone in order to save the life of one of my loved ones, I will.

Bake

[primavera]

317. And, lucky you, in this country, you get to shoot me for that

All you got to do is say that you thought I was a threat and, hey, your conscience is clear. And, of course, you needn't worry about me contradicting you because, hey, I'll be dead!

[Bake]

326. Don't break into my house in the middle of the night while I'm there, and you'll be fine.

On the other hand, if you DO, then you're probably right. You won't be able to contradict me.

I neither "get to" nor would I want to shoot you for disagreeing with me, or for being full of shit, or any other reason short of being an imminent threat to my life or the life of my loved ones. Another nice attempt at a straw man. You're not doing your argument any good at all like this.

I'm still waiting for that link, if one exists.

Bake

[primavera]

329. And you're going to recognize an "imminent threat" how, precisely?

See, the rub here is that breaking and entering isn't a death penalty offense. Well, excuse me, I guess I'm wrong about that in that, if I break into the house of a gun owner, they get to judge and execute me immediately without a trial based upon whatever kind of threat their adrenaline pumped imaginations think I may pose to them. C'mon, you can't imagine someone being alone at home, late at night, reading Alfred Hitchcock, hearing a strange sound downstairs in the dark, and going off half-cocked? I mean, of course, it would never happen to you, because, as you've explained, you're the world's first infallable human being incapable of ever making a mistake, but can you not imagine lesser mortals making such a mistake?

[Raskolnik]

334. How does this figure into whether individual gun ownership is Constitutional?

If you don't like guns, don't think people need guns, don't like people that think they need guns, or generally find guns and their owners distasteful, have at it. However, your personal dislike of firearms and/or their owners doesn't really matter one whit when it comes to the issue that was before the Supreme Court.

If you think the Court got it wrong on Consitutional ground, let's here why. If you think that a Constitutional amendment is necessary and wise, let's here why. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind, even by internet standards.

[primavera]

337. See post 128

But you're right: as usual, the thread has strayed from the original topic. But that's natural - people come here not only to discuss the specific details of a decision or policy, but what they perceive to be the probable consequences of that development.

[Raskolnik]

342. You're taking a rather ridiculous position with that as well.

Until today, the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms. The problem enters in when you a cherry picked group of ultra right-wing justices conclude that the Framers were on crack when they wrote the Constitution and really didn't intend to include the language about a well-regulated milita - that bit just somehow was slipped in by accident but nobody ever really intended for it to be there - and extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry a new right which never existed. But that's not the Second Amendment's fault - the Second Amendment has always been quite clear - that's purely the fault of right-wingers trying to give a veneer of legality to the achievement of their Wild West wet dream by attributing their homicidal aspirations to the Second Amendment.

You may think that the Court got it wrong, but to try and argue tha the 2A "was always understood" as a collective right and that today's interpretation somehow pulled a "new right" out of thin air is just rubbish. There have been good-faith arguments on both sides of the issue, and I think we are beeter off because the more persuasive arguments carried the day at the Court.

[primavera]

345. More persuasive arguments? Please!

As if Scalia and Roberts gave a shit about legal reasoning. You could drive a locomotive through the holes in the "logic" they've traditionally employed in justifying their decisions. They're right-wing ideologues, always have been, always will be. Right-wing ideology governs their decisions, not whose arguments are more persuasive.

I'm not sure why you claim it's "rubbish" to state that the prevailing legal wisdom on the Second Amendment has been what it has been for the past 200 years. It's all right there in black and white. In ruling after ruling, the courts have held that the well-regulated militia language included in the Second Amendment probably wasn't there by accident and the Second Amendment therefore did not impart an absolute right to firearm ownership. That kind of makes today's ruling stand out as a landmark change.

[Raskolnik]

360. By all means point out the locomotive-sized holes in the logic of today's opinion.

You could drive a locomotive through the holes in the "logic" they've traditionally employed in justifying their decisions. They're right-wing ideologues, always have been, always will be. Right-wing ideology governs their decisions, not whose arguments are more persuasive.

Conspicuously absent from from that passage is any mention of what today's opinion got wrong.

I'm not sure why you claim it's "rubbish"

Because you are absolutely wrong to suggest that there was unity about the scope of the 2A. By and large, courts did their damndest to avoid the question, and they were pretty successful at doing so. If you think there was academic unity on the subject, then I can only conclude you chose to remain wilfully ignorant about the scholarship that did not support your interpretation of the 2A, despite it being there so plainly in black and white.

Isn't that funny, by the way, how your own interpretation of the 2A is plain for any reasonable person to see, while the contrary interpretation is a "Wild West wet dream" inspired by "homicidal aspirations?" I read the briefs in this case, and I listened to the oral arguments, and I didn't find the issue black and white in the least, despite my preferred outcome.

[Raskolnik]

359. Self-delete

wrong place

[VermeerLives]

373. Imminent threat

Kevin: Anyone breaking into your home, your safe haven, is by definition an "imminent threat." Particularly if you have a spouse and children. And especially of they have a weapon of their own, and start heading for the bedrooms. That shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

If you are worried about someone else being your judge, jury, and executioner, then don't break into someone else's home. That's the real mistake. Your reasoning makes no sense at all, and seems to indicate that you are more concerned about the criminal than the potential victims.

[primavera]

384. By whose definition?

I know, I know, that is the existing legal definition just about everywhere. But, you know, I keep thinking about crime report reports I used to read in my parents' small town newspaper, in which they described how someone broke into so-and-so's house and stole a ham sandwich and a bottle of beer from the refrigerator and left. Okay, so this was a pretty small town and obviously not all crime is that innocent, but conversely, the blanket assumption that any type of crime constitutes an imminent threat warranting the utilization of deadly force seems like overkill. I mean, if someone were arrested breaking into someone's home, they might get, what, a few years in jail? Certainly no one would ever be executed for simple B&E. But if the owner happens to be at home and has a gun, then suddenly it's okay to execute someone on the spot. You suggest that I'm more concerned about the criminals than the potential victims. Well, the key word there for me is "potential." For all you know, when you creep down the stairs in the dead of night with your gun, the source of the strange noise you heard may have been someone in trouble and in need of help, maybe they just needed food to feed themselves, or maybe they're a drug addict who just wants to rip off your stereo in order to support their habit. Who knows? Certainly you won't, pumped to the gills with adrenaline, tip-toeing about in the dark. I remember one occasion from my own experience when I was a teenager living in my parents' house. We had been awakened in the middle of the night by a strange noise coming from the garage and found a badly beaten woman who had been fleeing her abusive spouse and sought shelter from the inclement weather in our garage. Legally, according to this prevailing definition, simply by virtue of having entered our property, she constituted an imminent threat and we would have been within our rights to kill her on the spot, no questions asked. Happily, we weren't armed and didn't believe is was appropriate to shoot first and ask questions later, so we listened to her story, took her to the hospital, found her a homeless shelter, and put her in touch with a good lawyer. How often do such things happen? I honestly don't know, but I'm very wary of blanket definitions which give people authority to take human life because you don't know. And, if it were the case, as in the situation I experienced with a "break-in," that the "criminal" was simply seeking shelter or food or whatever, at no point posed any danger to you or your family, and you blew him away anyway without knowing anything about what he was doing there, I'd have to say it was the "criminal" who was the victim.

[Dimensio0]

396. It is impossible to discern the intention of a home invader.

Therefore it is irrational and unreasonable to suggest that a home occupant be required to restrain the use of force against a home invader. As the possibility that the invader wishes to do harm is nonzero, a home occupant is and should be legally justified in using deadly force to repel the invader.

That individuals who illegally enter the dwelling of another individual may not have nefarious intent yet may still be met with deadly force is unfortunate, but it is irrational, unethical and unresonable to require that homeowners assume that any home invader does not have intent to cause harm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

494. Excellent points!

[VermeerLives]

423. Kevin, you raise some excellent points

I can tell from your post that you are a good person and have a concern for doing what is right, and you are to be commended for that. The situations you described require judgment, as do all such circumstances. Bless you and your family for recognizing that and taking care of someone.

It is very important to understand the seriousness of owning a gun. The responsible gun owner does not wish for the day they can shoot someone. Sometimes showing your weapon is enough for someone to leave, and I don't think shooting someone in the back as they are fleeing, especially if they are unarmed, is right. Sometimes what is required is to keep someone there until the police arrive, if the intruder doesn't have a weapon. That happens, too. I would never, ever advocate simply shooting someone just to shoot.

But if an intruder is armed, they usually mean business, and once a line is crossed, like coming up the stairs toward the bedrooms, then it becomes a completely different manner.

[primavera]

430. Thanks

I appreciate the gesture of civility, there's so little of it to be found on this topic on either side, and I confess I'm no better. I see images of innocent people lying dead from gunshot injuries and it's very dificult for me to be as calmly rational as I would like to be. Thank you again and have a good evening.

[pipoman]

466. So it seems you believe the home owner should

watch the murder, injury, or other heinous act against themselves or a family member, be a good witness and let the courts decide at a later date what is suitable punishment? Or allow the intruder to kill them and hope the police catch the perp before he kills again...sooner or later the perp will see justice, huh?

Maybe criminals in your neighborhood only B&E for ham sandwiches, in my neighborhood some B&Es play out something like this which happened not far from my house just a few years ago...

The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had serious criminal records when they began their spree. On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against 23-year-old assistant baseball coach Andrew Schreiber. Three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian Ann Walenta as she tried to escape from them in her car.

Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when they invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and a young woman identified as H.G. , all in their twenties, were spending the night. Initially scouring the house for valuables, they forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual humiliation, including rape and sodomy. They also forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They then drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before finally bringing them to a snowy deserted soccer complex on the outskirts of town and shooting them execution-style in the backs of their heads, leaving them for dead. The Carr brothers then drove Befort's truck over the bodies. Muller was a pre-school teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic School. Every year the school awards a deserving 8th grade student the Heather Muller Love of Mary Award.

They returned to the house to ransack it for more valuables. It was then they claimed their final victim, Nikki, H.G.'s muzzled dog who was beaten and stabbed to death.

H.G. survived (thanks to her plastic hairpin having deflected the bullet), after running naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to report the attack and seek medical attention. In a much-remarked point of tragedy, she had seen her boyfriend Befort shot, after having learned of his intention to propose marriage when the Carrs, by chance, discovered the engagement ring hidden in a can of popcorn.

The Carr brothers, who took few precautions, were captured by the police the next day, and Reginald was identified by Schreiber and the dying Walenta. Law enforcement officials ultimately decided that the Carrs' motive was robbery, despite the other aspects of the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

[primavera]

473. Actually, I have an apparently novel suggestion

... which is get the hell out and go to some place of safety. Strangely, though, that never seems to occur to people who profess to be so concerned about the safety of themselves and their family, all they ever want to do is whip out their six shooter and walk right on in to the OK Corral, thereby assuring that shots will be fired. Me, I'd take my family and bolt out the nearest window and call the police from the safety of a neighbor's house. I don't have to kill anyone, no one has to kill me, everyone's happy. So no, to answer your question, obviously I do not propose sitting around and watching a bona fide homicidal maniac carve up my family. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I understand that you would rather just dismiss my point of view as that of an irrational idealist, but I'm afraid I can't oblige you. I do believe in protecting the safety of myself and my family, I just don't happen to agree that the best way to accomplish that is by charging into an unknown situation with guns blazing. Sorry.

[pipoman]

486. That is the rub,

to pretend that because roughly 1/3 of American households have a gun for self defense, the owners of said guns are blood thirsty maniacs not capable of making a rational decision concerning their own safety. Utilizing every alternative to killing another person as any trained (and most are trained) gun owner would. Roughly 1/3 of American households have guns for self defense yet no OK Corral, imagine that. In addition, your choice not to own guns is dandy, it is hard to argue that you enjoy some deterrent value to those with less than savory intentions not knowing if there is a homeowner with a gun on the other side of your door.

[frank4570]

489. Hopefully your neighbors will come to your rescue.

You seriously underestimate the speed and violence of a criminal home invasion. You won't be gathering anybody up and rushing them out the window. If you are even still on your feet.

[Dimensio0]

529. It is also unreasonable

to demand that a home occupant flee his or her home, possessions and family instead of defending them. While a home occupant should certainly be free to do so, the law should not require such action.

I believe that it is fundamentally irrational to suggest that the consequences of a home invasion lay upon the occupants of the home; the consequences of a home invasion are the direct responsibility of the invader, up to and including the death of the invader from the actions of the occupants.

[SublimeFan1978]

553. KevinJ

Have you ever thought about writing as a hobby?

You certainly have a vivid and wild enough imagination. This entire thread is full of you with your puppies and bunnies getting mowed down by crazed gun owners stories while completely ignoring the facts.

I normally just lurk, but I have read your imaginative stories one after the other and frankly, I wonder where you became so angry and acquired such a negative stereotype towards gun owners.

I thought we were the party that doesn't profile and discriminate and fights against prejudice?

Many criminals burglarize houses to feed drug habits which in case you've never done drugs(unlikely) means these people are dealing with less than perfect rationale. Plus, with the implementation of 3rd strike rule many criminals find is easier to kill witnesses instead of facing them on the witness stand.

There are 300 million guns owned by 80 million Americans. If a VERY small minority abuse that right, then you don't remove that right from the rest of America. If everyone lost the right to free speech because Fred Phelps is an Asshole (capital A)then we'd all be screaming bloody murder as well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

492. You are in my house at night, you are an imminent threat by nature.

[primavera]

502. So I guess I should have shot the battered spouse sheltering in my garage?

How about the young woman I found hiding on my porch just this week, who was waiting for a couple of tough-looking guys who were hanging out in front of her house to depart? You think I should have iced her too? After all, she was on my property after dark, ergo, by your reasoning, an imminent threat simply by virtue of her presence. Damn, there's pretty cold. Here's hoping no one ever shows up on your doorstep in need of assistance, they'll evidently get nothing more than a chestful of lead from you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

515. Your garage is not your house.

A person in your garage does not pose an imminent threat to your life. If you are going to say I said something, do it accurately, misleading people doesn't serve your cause. I said someone in MY house at night, is an imminent threat by nature. I have 5 large dogs, so if you decide to break in to my house at night then you are a threat. Notice I didn't say garage or property, I leave it to you and the republicans to misrepresent people to try and make a point.

David

[milou]

526. If you break into my house, you are an imminent threat

Whether you're here to steal my TV or rape my wife or kill my family, it's not my job to guess. You don't want to risk being shot, don't break into my house. Plain and simple. You're an imminent threat solely because you're in my house at 2:00AM and I don't know if there's more of you outside or what your intentions are, and I'm not going to ask.

California makes it awfully hard to defend yourself, but fortunately juries are sympathetic.

[VermeerLives]

379. If you enter someone else's house without their permission, you are a threat. (NT)

[1Hippiechick]

401. weak argument. People ARE allowed to speak and say, "Identify yourself". Some of these posts

make me think that the ppl opposed to handgun ownership are the very ppl who don't need guns which is great. You can't handle a gun, don't get one, but leave alone the rest of us who KNOW how to use guns and use common sense, okay?

[HockeyMom]

299. Well, somebody did try to break into our house

when we were asleep at night. He tried to jimmy open a downstairs window. It woke me up. I woke up my husband who went to the closet to get his gun.

I walked over to the window and pushed out the metal window fan. It went crashing downstairs and just missed the guy. Think he struck around? He ran the hell out of there. In addition, when that fan hit the concrete below, it woke half the neighborhood who came running out to see what happened.

Nope, the burglar was long gone by the time my husband got that gun out of the closet.

I also defended myself once with a hot steam iron, but I don't bore you with that one.

[1Hippiechick]

424. Defending yourself with a hot steam iron would not be boring, IMHO. Tell away!

[HockeyMom]

451. I was 19 and working in a dress shop

Guy came into the store flashing a knife, went right over to the register, and the took the money out. I was ironing a dress, just stood there and let him take the money without saying or doing anything. He then started coming towards ME. That made me mad. He got his money. Get away from me. I yanked the iron out of the socket and threw it at him. The ironing board fell over. The iron just missed him, hot water splashing all over, and crashed though the plate glass window. The owner's dog was sleeping in the back bathroom. All the noise woke him up and he came running into the store barking and snarling.

That guy turned and ran out of there like a bat outta hell.

[1Hippiechick]

459. Glad you weren't hurt. It's that "fight or flight" thing, and used what you had to defend yourself

[DainBramaged]

471. I was gong to make a snappy comment about you 'killing the motherfucker'

but if you think having a loaded gun that close to you thinking you will react fast enough while keeping your family from hurting themselves or their friends with a loaded gun in plain sight, I don't need to make a snappy comment. The gun is simply an extension of your penis, nothing more.

'Kill the motherfucker'. What if that 'motherfucker' was your kid sneaking in past curfew and you just happened to think they should be picked up after you call 911?

Beyond bravado, just plain stupid.

[Bake]

525. Yes, let's all pity the "motherfucker" who breaks into others' homes

Poor, poor "motherfucker." I'm sure somehow it's MY fault he is forced to break into my house in tyhe middle of the night. Maybe I should just offer him a ham sandwich, since that's clearly what he's there for. We could sit up all night and watch movies on cable.

And I DO know the difference between a home invader and a battered spouse seeking shelter. Unlike you, perhaps, I **have** had someone trying to break down my door with me on the other side of it trying to push it closed. (Oh, by the way, I called the cops that night, and when they got there 45 MINUTES LATER the perp was long gone - fortunately it was ME pushing back on the door and not my wife or child!) I've walked out to my car the next morning to find a threat written in the dust on my back windshield, "I'm going to fuck up your girl."

I bought my first gun that same week.

Sorry, but in my book, somebody who wants to do harm to me or my family IS a motherfucker. And if he comes into MY house, he's going to be a DEAD motherfucker. Call it bravado if you wish; I really don't care. THE LAW OF THE LAND says I have the constitutional right to own a firearm. You don't like it? GET OVER IT.

Bake

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

532. Excellent response, I'm sure you are on ignore now.

I know that probably hurts your feelings. It's funny though now he'll lose every argument, he just won't know it.

David

[DainBramaged]

538. .........................

[krispos42]

214. Ummm... Hi, I'm Reality. Nice to meet you.

[primavera]

240. Thanks, you keep making my points for me!

Let me explain something so basic I can scarcely believe I need to explain it: police officers are professionals engaged in law enforcement, they are trained to deal with dangerous situations and their jobs exist to deal with precisely those situations. They are supposed to be the ones who deal with those instances when the use of deadly force cannot be avoided. Yet, according to your little graph, citizens, who have no training and whose number of homocides should be zero, routinely rival or even exceed the kill rate of the pros! Oh yeah, I feel safer now.

[krispos42]

254. I think you need one of these

Or perhaps one of these:




Because you are wound up tight.


People all across the country, every single day, find themselves dealing with dangerous situation precisely because those that have the training and equipment, aren't there!

Every day, ordinary citizens save people from drowning, use CPR to stop heart attacks, pull kids out of burning cars, perform the heimlich maneuver to save chokers, etc., all without proper training or equipment, because the professionals weren't there!.

[primavera]

263. ... and every day, ordinary citizens kill innocent people. n/t

[Thothmes]

293. So do the police

[milou]

302. 13470 in 2006

That's how many people died because of unrestricted alcohol consumption along with driving licensed but still dangerous automobiles. This doesn't even include liver disease! I think they were right when they passed the amendment banning alcohol, it's evil and must be stopped!

[Bake]

321. You DID notice that the chart said "justifiable homicides" didn't you?

Justified, as in NOT INNOCENT BYSTANDERS KILLED BY MISTAKE?

By the way, it's "homicide," not "homocide" .... just sayin'.

Bake

[primavera]

323. Yeah, but who really knows what happened?

It turns out now that nearly half the guys on death row, who underwent years of trials and appeals and intensive investigations, have been exonerated by DNA evidence of the crimes for which they were convicted. Even under the most carefully crafted, controlled settings we can muster, we've proven that we are ultimately incapable of determining guilt with any reliability. But I'm supposed to have faith, based solely upon the say so of the individual responsible for committing a homocide, that the killing was justifiable and such people never make mistakes in judgement or make serf-serving misstatements to the police? I dunno, I always find those "justifiable homocide" stats kind of questionable.

[Bake]

328. Please stop spelling it "homocide"

Someone will misinterpret you.

Bake

[primavera]

330. Oops, sorry, my bad

Thanks for the correction.

[1Hippiechick]

426. 1. cannot assume that citizens have had no training; 2. chart is about justifiable homicides - why

should citizen's rates be zero, according to your opinion?

[Raskolnik]

247. What percentage of people that own firearms qualify as "gun nuts" in your opinion?

I am extremely curious to hear how many people in the U.S. "don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves."

[primavera]

259. Well, the optimist in me would like to believe that it's a tiny percentage...

... but the number of posts I see around here militantly asserting a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later once everyone's dead I confess does little to support that optimism.

[Raskolnik]

267. You didn't answer the question.

You made a plain statement about "gun nuts" and followed it with an even more sweeping proclamation that "Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters."

On what basis do you make such ridiculous claims?

[primavera]

276. On the contrary, I did answer your question

... which was how great a percentage of gun owners I thought were gun nuts. You are now asking a second question, which is what is the basis for my concern that gun owners feel comfortable taking the law into their own hands and passing out death sentences to anyone they rightly or wrongly perceive to be somehow threatening. I will be happy to answer that question as well. My basis for that concern is the large number of people who are killed or injured by guns every year in this country and the vehemently stated views of my fellow DUers who plainly, openly, unashamedly, and repeatedly assert their right to blow away anyone they perceive to be threatening. Now, do you have another question you would like me to answer?

[Raskolnik]

286. "Now, do you have another question you would like me to answer?"

Please point out where you fin the posts of DU'er who "plainly, openly, unashamedly, and repeatedly assert their right to blow away anyone they perceive to be threatening." Apparently, you find these posters to be represetnative of gun owners as a whole, so I would be very interested in seeing what those posts actually said.

With all due respect, I think you're spouting nonsense. Clearly, there are gun owners who are douchebags that enjoy nothing more than spouting off about how tough they are. If you think that you can make judgments about all gun owners (which you obviously have) based on those douchebags, you are either being intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy.

[primavera]

301. No, not all gun owners

You're carrying my point too far. I don't for an instant believe that every gun owner is of the douchebag variety. I'm sure that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Where I part company with gun owners is in how we weigh the costs versus the benfets of gun ownership. It may well be a small percentage of gun onwers who fall into the douchebag category, but the problem is, when someone does use a gun irresponsibly, somebody dies. And you can't fix that. It's permanent, irrevocable, unappealable. And people, even well-intended ones, do make mistakes. At the point, the question for me becomes, how small a percentage of gun owners need to be irresponsible before we decide that gun ownership is simply a luxury we can't afford? How mnay innocent people need to die before we decide that the costs outweigh the benefits? A thousand? A hundred? Ten? Reasonable people obviously can and do disagree on that calculation. For me personally, as I perceive virtually no benefit to be had from guns, the number of accidental deaths at their hands that I'm willing to tolerate is pretty damned small. But that arithmetic too varies depending upon the context being discussed. Many people hunt and augment their family's diet that way. Well and good, there's a clear, valid purpose in owning a hunting rifle and using it for that purpose. You don't need an Uzi though to go hunting. You don't need a fingerprint-resistant, x-ray defying ceramic handgun which fires armor piercing rounds in order to go hunting. So the number of innocent people I'm prepared to watch die in order for Americans to preserve their perceived right to own and operate weaponry goes down when I perceive no lawful purpose to be attained through the ownership of such weapons. At that point, even if the number of douchebags out there is only a miniscule percentage, the cost relative to the benefits is too great as far as I'm concerned.

As for the posts of other DUers, DU rules prohibit naming specific individuals, but look around, it's not hard to find cowboys proudly proclaiming their right to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Raskolnik]

304. If you think that, then why make such a silly statement?

This:

gun nuts don't wish to avail themselves of the services of police, preferring instead to just blast away at anything that moves and then pat themselves on the back for having defended themselves. It's so much tidier that way: with your victim dead, there's no way s/he's going to contradict your side of the story. With police, you've got all of those inconvenient things like due process of law, it's just a nuisance. Gun owners don't need no stinking badges, they have an innate sense for who deserves to die, no need to muddy the waters

simply cannot be reconciled with this:

You're carrying my point too far. I don't for an instant believe that every gun owner is of the douchebag variety. I'm sure that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

If you're now acknowledging that your previous statement was unsupportable (if not ridiculous) then I will leave it at that.

[primavera]

313. Not every gun owner is a "gun nut"

Sorry, you're right, that was kind of unclear from my post. I use the term "gun nut" to distinguish the especially hardcore gun owners.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

495. You really don't know anything about guns do you?

I have never seen or heard of anyone hunting with an uzi. I only know of one person that owned one and he was a cop. What manufacturer makes a ceramic handgun that fires armor piercing rounds? Your ignorance of the situation virtually disables you from rationally discussing this issue.


David

[primavera]

501. Enough to know...

... that there are munitions manufacturers who make armor piercing rounds, as well as hollow point rounds, as well as explosive rounds; that there are such things as fingerprint resistant coatings and ceramic guns designed to escape x-ray detection; that some gun companies produce tiny, cheap guns which they market to children; that there exist high calibre guns and high cyclic rate guns and high muzzle velocity guns; and, most important of all, I know that none of those things are needed for hunting deer. One does not need to be a gunsmith acquainted with every last technical detail of every firearm in order to have an opinion about their utility, a basic knowledge of their destructive potential is sufficient. Nice try, though.

[RNG]

513. High cap guns

I take it you've never walked into the middle of a herd of 50 or so wild hogs or javalinas in the middle of the woods. These critters don't care that humans are at the top of the food chain. If not, you're welcome to come walk through the woods on my farms, and the fields, witness the crop damage hogs cause, and the resulting economic losses to the farmers, the environmental devastation these things cause and then come up suddenly on a herd of 30+ wild hogs rooting around for lunch. If we don't have high-cap firearms, I won't be going, but I'll be glad to come along later and take you to the hospital, if you survive.

RNG

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

516. So post some links to the makers of these ceramic guns designed to escape x-ray detection.

Munition manufacturers do not make rounds designed to pierce armor or explosive rounds to sell to the public. If you have links to those that you think do so please post them, they would be in violation of federal law. You don't need to be a gunsmith, you do need to do some research.

David

[primavera]

520. What am I, your staff researcher now?

I have to hand it to you gungeon denizens, you've really mastered this trick of challenging opponents to document everything under the sun and, if they don't feel like blowing a few hours doing research for you, you get to feel all smug and vindicated. Yet you're never obliged to produce any research yourselves. A clever tactic. Nevetheless, having frittered away the better part of a day yesterday to following this thread, I'm behind in my work and really need to be productive today. So, do your own damned research. Have a nice day!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

521. I'll be happy to educate you.

From wiki here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock and a snip

"Plastic pistol" myths.

Glock 22 in the new Olive Drab frame (with magazine)Glock pistols do set off metal detectors and can indeed be detected by X-ray machines, due to their metal barrels, slides, magazines, and ammunition. The claim that they could not was first made in an article by columnist Jack Anderson, entitled, "Quaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol", published in The Washington Post on January 13, 1985. The claim was then reported by the Associated Press and further reported by many United States television news stations and newspapers. It has since become an urban legend that to this day continues to appear in news reports and movies, and has even been a topic of debate in the United States Congress and during oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

In fact, 83.7% (by weight) of the Glock pistol is normal ordnance steel and the "plastic" parts are a dense polymer known as "Polymer 2", which is radio-opaque and is therefore visible to X-ray security equipment. In addition, virtually all of these "plastic" parts contain embedded steel not to make the firearms "detectable", but to increase functionality and shooting accuracy. Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder, neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "porcelain", "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices. Even if a pistol were completely undetectable by either X-ray machines or metal detectors were to be developed, the ammunition inside would still be detectable.

In Die Hard 2, the character John McClane portrayed by Bruce Willis specifically referred to a non-existent "Glock 7" with many fictitious characteristics:

That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!

Mike Papac, an armorer at Cinema Weaponry, which supplied the Glock pistols used in Die Hard 2, has stated, "I remember when we did that scene, I tried to talk them out of it. There's no such thing as a gun invisible to metal detectors, and there shouldn't be, but they wouldn't budge. They had it written into the script and that was that."<3>

snip

You'll notice this statement, "Contrary to popular movies like Die Hard 2: Die Harder, neither Glock nor any other gun maker has ever produced a "porcelain", "ceramic" or "plastic" firearm which is undetectable by ordinary security screening devices." in the second paragraph.


Maybe if your arguments were more reality based, then people would take them more seriously.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

535. It only took about 20 seconds to feel smug and vindicated.

That's how long it took me to do a google search for ceramic firearms and go to the wikipedia article. You have a nice weekend.

David

[Paladin]

540. Self-Deleted

[Erebus67]

567. The Porcelain or plastic gun myth

Kevin,

The problem with that myth is that only steel is strong enough to handle the chamber pressure created when a cartridge is discharged. If they were to make it out of porcelain or plastic it would rupture and likely blow up in the shooter's face.

Also hollow point bullets have two specific purposes. The first is to transfer all the bullet's energy into the target. It's that energy, which causes hydraulic shock, that incapacitates the target effecting the stop. And that(should be anyway) the goal in shooting another human being, immediately stopping them. It is a fact that it is very likely fatal. The second is to prevent over penetration. Basically to prevent the bullet from going through the intended target, continuing on and hitting someone or something else.

[Bake]

312. Straw man much?

I haven't seen ANYBODY here "militantly asserting a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later once everyone's dead." You have (typically) overstated and exaggerated the other side's argument in an attempt to make it look both extreme and ridiculous.

I did say that if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, it's safe to assume they're not there for a social call. If there is a home invasion, I don't think you have to ask a lot of questions.

You make your argument weaker by resorting to hyperbole in stating the opposing argument. Let's see some statistics please. How many people kill innocent people every day (to use your words) under those circumstances?

Bake

[ieoeja]

327. There is one post right on this thread.

Here is the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3369233#3369611


This post pretty much says shoot first, talk second.

Some guy going to a party finds all the doors locked. He was with some friends a few weeks ago who pulled this as a prank on another friend. Assuming the same situation, he slips around back and climbs through a window.

Only it turns out he's got the wrong house! He just snuck into the above poster's home, and gets killed because the above poster WANTED to kill, and just needed the legal excuse to do so.

[1Hippiechick]

427. "...a perceived right to shoot first and ask questions later ..." Posted here? Where?

[davepc]

256. Actually, they police don't have to show up at all. They are under no legal obligation to respond

"...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)


See also the decisions in:

* Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
* Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
* Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
* Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
* Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
* Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
* Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
* Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
* Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
* Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
* Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and
* Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

[gulfcoastliberal]

261. You are wrong: the supreme court said the police are NOT obligated to protect ANYONE

Sad but true!

[jeepnstein]

277. A cops point-of-view

When I went through the police academy, they made a special point to explain to all of us that it wasn't our problem to "protect" anyone. Our job is to protect society at large by catching folks who do commit crimes. It's nice if you can catch a robber while he's inside the house but it's really not our problem to protect you. Ask any cop. They'll tell you the same thing. Anyone who thinks they can protect every individual citizen from criminals is insane and won't last long on the job.

I'll bust my tail to get there when the call comes in. I'll do what I can for you. But don't think for one second that it's my personal responsibility to protect you individually.

[primavera]

280. Interesting, thanks for posting

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[jeepnstein]

283. This seems like a pretty good place to be...

[primavera]

285. It's got its moments

As you can see, we've got our differences of opinion and the conversations can get pretty animated, but it's an interesting place to hang out. :)

[redqueen]

298. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[1Hippiechick]

402. WoW! This needs to be its own topic, Might change the mind of ppl against gun ownership

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

167. I'll sign up if I can quit paying property taxes.

No need for the police for me, cut my propery taxes by 70%. Where do I sign?

David

[MicaelS]

272. That's cool...

Well, I say every person who buys a gun for security should sign a waiver saying, no need for police to come to their homes when something happens. Afterall, a gun makes them safer.

That's fine with me. ... And I say every animal rights zealot should sign a waiver saying they refuse any and all medical care and medicines since they were derived from animal testing.

[1Hippiechick]

413. - Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789: "And that said Constitution be never

construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
- Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789


You know, I think it interesting reading to read quotes from the era of our Constitution, instead of all the speculation about what the framers' "intent" was....

[RNG]

512. Call the PD

I don't call the police. I call the coroner.

[Bake]

177. Sure, fascists love guns, when only THEY have them!

As for profit takers, I'm not opposed to Smith & Wesson making a reasonable profit when I exercise my constitutionally-protected right to purchase one of their products.

If the protection of my right allows them to make a reasonable profit, so fucking what?

Bake

[DU Man]

306. I want the ability to protect myself.

You please tell me how, when a violent crime happens to me (hope it never does) I am actually supposed to assume to police will help me? Please explain that without twisting it...

[1Hippiechick]

429. Welcome, DU man...you've picked an EXCELLENT day to join DU....don't get carpal tunnel....:)

[krispos42]

52. Well, according to your logic...

if crime, injury, deaths go up as you apparantly believe they will, well, the money to be made is in the medical treatment of those injuries!

Gun makers have narrow profit margins, the medical industry (including insurance) have big fat ones. How do you know that BushCo didn't order this as a way to protect their profits?

[fascisthunter]

68. It's all about Profits

can you imagine we had this much of a push to get rid of the Patriot Act? Or how about that bill that destroys our rights to privacy. What good is a gun without privacy?

[Raskolnik]

378. Yes, it would be wonderful if people fought against the government taking away rights

My fondest wish is for people to stand up against the infringement of *any* constitutional right.

Unfortunately, people such as yourself and the current adminstration treat the Bill of Rights like a salad bar--picking and choosing which rights are convenient at that moment and which you'll ignore.

I say bah to the lot of you.

[jaspoor]

356. So?

Roe v. Wade wasn't about privacy? It was about corporate abortionist PROFITS!

Lawrence v. Texas wasn't about sexual freedom. It was about lubricant company PROFITS!

yea. that makes a lot of sense. There are plenty of companies that will profit. Just like many profit from other laws. So what?

[krispos42]

17. I suppose the smackdown of Bush's denial of habeas corpus for detainees...

a couple of weeks ago is also what BushCo ordered?


This court may generally suck, but they managed to get a few things right. This DC handgun ban is one of the them.

[davepc]

21. The Bush Justice department submitted a brief in SUPPORT of the DC gun ban.

[Gormy Cuss]

187. Probably so they could claim that this was a nonpartisan decision by the court.

The Bush administration itself knows that they've already stacked the deck.

[davepc]

203. Or the Bush administration are fascists who prefer a disarmed populace

It's a lot easier for fascist thugs to kick in your front door when the thugs don't have to worry about the citizens shooting back.

[Gormy Cuss]

207. The right to bear arms against fascist thugs hasn't been in question.

It's the right to play judge, jury, and executioner.

[davepc]

222. Uhm do you bear arms against fascist thugs when its illegal to bear arms at all, like it was in DC?!

How does one accomplish such a task?

[Gormy Cuss]

233. If the court decision only proscribed outright bans, you'd have a point.

It goes beyond that.

[davepc]

236. That's what this case was ABOUT!

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

The D.C. law in question made it impossible to have a legally held firearm in ones residence.

[NYC_SKP]

24. More likely that the neocons would like to disarm us, IMO.

They're more visionary than to only be thinking about NRA and gun manufacturer support.

[SteveM]

183. Wasn't William Bennett in on the drafting of the original AWB? (nt)

[NYC_SKP]

216. I believe he was involved during his stint as Drug Czar. nt

[primavera]

114. Actually, this was too right-wing for even the bushistas

They opposed this, as it renders unconstitutional any attempt to regulate any weapons in anyone's hands. The shrub's crazy enough for that kind of reich-wing decision, but I think he must suspect that he's not terribly well-loved in this country and now that any escaped mental patient can assert a constitutional right to purchase a nuclear missile at any street corner ATM, he's got to be a bit worried. No, it took the Federalist Society half a century to stack the Supreme Court with wackos sufficiently right-wing to overturn the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent. A dark day for American jurisprudence indeed.

[1Hippiechick]

433. "...to overturn the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
- John F. Kennedy

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
- Sam Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug 20, 1789

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
- Adolf Hitler


"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry


"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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
- Gandhi, “Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth”


"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini


"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings."
- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese dictator, August 1588


"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933


"Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents."
- Don B. Kates


"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. <...> To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788


"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
- James Madison

[jaspoor]

353. um, No

Bushco supported the DC ban NOT the Heller side. They even wrote an amicus brief.

[Tinfoil]

4. Excellent News

Excellent news!!

[jobycom]

5. That should decrease the average life expetancy a few more years. nt

[krispos42]

30. Or not...

[jobycom]

45. Yeah, that's because of the ban.

Conservatives are so damn single-minded.

[bossy22]

55. its unrelated

the ban had no affect either way on crime in the city- it will change nothing except give people back their rights

[krispos42]

76. So it's not because of the ban?

Then what, exactly, did the ban accomplish besides making politicians look like they were accomplishing something?

[primavera]

168. It attempted to set an example

Since but a short five minute subway ride across the river lands you in Virginia, which has always felt that anyone and everyone should have free and unfettered access to any and all weapons of mass destruction quickly and easily, the efficacy of DC's ban is impossible to guage. I think DC's experience with their ban highlights why gun control needs to be practiced at the federal level, although that's obviously going to be a lot tougher to do now that mad dog Scalia and his reich-wing cohorts have reinvented the Constitution.

[krispos42]

208. Which is why it was a dumb idea to pass the law in the first place

It's like DC decides to pass a $5-per-pack tax on cigarettes, then looks shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya, when people are going to other states to buy them.



The SCOTUS did not reinvent the constition, though. They decided that "the people" means the same thing the Second as it does in the First. And the Fourth. And the Ninth. And the Tenth. And the Seventeenth. And Article One, Section 2.

[primavera]

218. By which reasoning, no state should ever attempt to pass their own laws

California has certainly lost businesses to other states who have weaker labor and environmental protection laws. According to you, it was a dumb idea for them to pass those laws in the first place? If that were the case, then every state should compete in a downward spiral of reduced regulation in order to attract business. How long do you think it would take before we hit bottom and simply allowed businesses to dump toxic waste anywhere they liked and keep their workers in slave labor camps?

[krispos42]

258. No a valid comparison

Buying a product is different from establishing a business. Establishing a business means looking at the area you want to put it, and there are dozens of factors that go into it, such as transportation, labor force, taxes, local market forces, energy, resources, other suppliers, etc. As opposed to crossing state lines, buying an object, then driving back and putting in in a drawer in your bedroom.

If what you were saying was true, every business would be in South Dakota. But they're not.


In addition, DC's gun was was not effective at anything. Enviromental laws at least improve the environment.

[primavera]

274. Disagree

Why do you think every credit card company in America is based in Delaware? Because Delaware has taken steps to make themselves a haven for those kinds of businesses. And environmental laws are likewise limited in their efficacy by the actions of states who elect to place business interests ahead of the environment. The vast, toxic slurry lakes produced by West Virginia's coal mining industry impact the environment well beyond West Virginia's borders. Toxic emissions pollute air that staunchly refuses to remain hovering over just one state. Yet it's still worth trying to pass environemtal protection laws, even though less scrupulous states can diminish their impact. The same applies to DC's gun control laws. How effective they were or might have been is impossible to know because of the number of variables in the equation, but it was nevertheless a courageous attempt by the people to do something to address public safety hazards posed by too many people having too many guns.

[krispos42]

320. States can control smokestack emissions

As well as the federal government. States can also, I believe, sue other states for their pollution.


Regarding Delaware, well, they're "based" in Delaware to the extent that they need room for a mailbox and a fax machine. Just like Halliburton is "based" in Dubai, or KBR is "based" in the Cayman Islands.

...to address public safety hazards posed by too many people having too many guns.

The problem is not the number of guns in DC, or in any other state. In fact, US citizens have some 68% of the worlds non-governmental guns, over 240 million of them.

The problem is, as always, the guns in the hands of the career criminals Which DC's gun law was not effective in combating.

[Thothmes]

292. States must be willing to accept the consequences of their laws

Look at the migration of industrial jobs from the strong union states to the right to work states is one example.

[Mojorabbit]

117. I am a third generation gun owner

and no one in my family has ever been killed nor killed anyone with one. I am happy as hell with this reaffirmation of my constitutional right to bear arms despite Bush's attempt to kill it. Esp since He is getting ready to be successful in undermining my 4th amendment rights later today with the help of congress.

[jobycom]

253. I'm a first generation non-gun owner.

And people in my family have been killed by handguns. All of my family has been gun owners for as long as I can remember. My father, his father, his father's father, my mother and up her family tree, my brothers and sister, my father-in-law and brothers-in-law. I grew up around them, used, married into them, have witnessed some pretty close calls, have had them pointed at me in situations where I wasn't sure I'd come out okay. If you think you've got anything on me as far as exposure to what guns are really like, you're deluded. I've had more friends killed by guns than car accidents and diseases, until you get to about age 60. I've had four friends killed in two separate murder-suicides, a family member (not close, fortunately) committed suicide in front of my sister (who no longer owns guns), and I've lost count of the family and friends killed in "accidental" shootings, although some of those accidents may have been murders or suicides.

Growing up where I did, on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, squarely between hunting territory and two military bases, (and now living in Texas) I've been surrounded by guns and gun deaths my whole life. When I was a teenager we used to start every school year by comparing notes on who had been shot to death that summer, and sometimes which of our friends had done the shooting. Once, and only once, one of my friends was saved by a gun, when he shot a man with a chainsaw trying to break into his house--but that was a shotgun, not a handgun, and we never did find out what he had done to piss off the guy with the chainsaw.

Guns empower people, so that they feel invincible, especially younger people. They romance guns, feel that they are safe if you take care with them, create delusions about protecting themselves with guns, or that they will somehow defend themselves against the government (like your comment about the 4th Amendment). People pull out guns to avoid a fist fight, and kill to avoid an ass whoopin'--many even seem to believe that's okay.

So more power to you if you are one of the few who are responsible. So are most of my family. So is my military aunt, and my military FIL, and my military BILs. But most are not, not even close, and the more guns you put out there, the more these things are defended and romanced and glorified, the more people are going to die for no good reason other than that some little boy who has enough years to be considered a man wanted to play with the toys in his favorite Rambo movie.

It's a real stretch to interpret the 2nd as about private gun ownership. Only the SCOTUS team that ruled that all votes don't have to be counted to decide an election could twist it thus. And that's a lot worse than anything Congress is planning to pass on FISA today. You may like it, but then again, you may not when you've got a little more experience in life.

[Mojorabbit]

281. I have plenty of experience

I am in my 50's and plenty old. Being that I grew up around guns I have a healthy respect for them. I was educated at an early age on how to safely handle them, saw the damage they can do, and that is the key. No one I know would think to point a gun loaded or not at anyone unless they were ready to use it which is the first thing anyone who has any education re guns learns.
I think the supremes interpreted the constitution correctly without the least bit of stretching today and I am a happy woman. I am sick of people trying to gut the constitution and this is a bright spot for me esp on a day when it looks like the 4th amendment is due to be trashed.

[1Hippiechick]

437. So many of the incidents you mentioned had to do with mental health issues, criminal intent, etc.,

so IMHO it sounds like these people would have caused harm or death whether or not they used a gun. Just because they used a gun as their weapon of choice does not make the gun the problem. The issue is those PEOPLE'S issues.

Since you mentioned so many family members who are responsible gun owners, have you talked to any of them today to see what their viewpoint is on today's ruling? Just curious. And, obviously, you are entitle to your own opinion.

[Bake]

191. Think of it this way ... it puts Social Security that much closer to solvency.

Bake

[Ryano42]

7. One good thing about this...

There won't be a gun wedge issue clarion call for Puke voters...

:kick:

[slackmaster]

90. Don't worry, Ryano42, there are a few Democrats who will screw that one up for the rest of us

If they haven't already done so.

[krispos42]

108. Wanna bet that Mayor Daley...

...will grandstand and refuse to lift Chicago's ban despite the Supreme Court ruling?

[SteveM]

110. Sort of like George Wallace standing in the door at Univ. of Alabama (nt)

[slackmaster]

111. Does the ruling even apply to Chicago's ban?

That may take another case.

I have not read the whole decision yet.

[Craftsman]

136. I can assure you that someon will take Chicago and NYC to court

Using this as precident to overturn their gun bans.

[slackmaster]

182. I'm sure that someone will too

:hi:

[slackmaster]

303. It's already happening

The NRA is filing suits in Illinois state courts today.

[NYC_SKP]

8. Please remind me, the 2nd Amendment is bad thing because....?

An increasing number of my progressive friends have decided to generally support second amendment rights.
One friend in Santa Cruz even joined the NRA. Something about not trusting the government. Sound familiar?

I happen to agree with those who say that if we enforce and refine the laws we have now, there will be no need to scrap this important safeguard against a malevolent government.

[primavera]

128. It's not, or at least wasn't

Until today, the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms. The problem enters in when you a cherry picked group of ultra right-wing justices conclude that the Framers were on crack when they wrote the Constitution and really didn't intend to include the language about a well-regulated milita - that bit just somehow was slipped in by accident but nobody ever really intended for it to be there - and extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry a new right which never existed. But that's not the Second Amendment's fault - the Second Amendment has always been quite clear - that's purely the fault of right-wingers trying to give a veneer of legality to the achievement of their Wild West wet dream by attributing their homicidal aspirations to the Second Amendment.

[bean fidhleir]

185. You're misinterpreting. Honestly you are. Do please study the history of the BOR because

it's awful for left-libs to remain confused and ignorant about very basic democratic issues.

[primavera]

201. For 200 years, the vast majority of legal scholarship has shared that interpretation

And appropriately so.

[milou]

217. Right....

Got any citations on the "'vast majority' of legal scholars believe"? Didn't think so. It's been contested for quite some time. From the fact that "well regulated" meant "well drilled" at the time of the framing to the fact that "the people" means "the people", not "the state" and some people believe, to the fact that it's two distinct but supporting statements. Funny how some people think "the peoples right" is somehow different in this amendment compared to all the other references in the constitution.

Try reading up a little before making statements like that.

[primavera]

234. So why do you suppose it's survived this long?

If, as you assert, the prevailing intepretation of the Second Amendment is so unsupported by legal scholarship, why do you imagine that it's been upheld time and again for over two centuries? Why do you suppose that the ones to overturn that prevailing interpretation are a tiny handful of ultra right-wingers it took the Federalist Society half a century to maneuver into positions to be able to practice their revisionist Constitutional ideologies?

Try thinking a little before making statements like that.

[milou]

252. Last time this came up...

Was 1939 against the NFA, that was restrictions against things like sawed off shotguns, that was upheld. This was the biggest decision since then. This was the first challenge of the outright ban that DC enacted in 1977, and hopefully one against the Chicago ban will come down. Just because something hasn't been challenged since doesn't make it constitutional.

And your rights weren't touched by this decision, you still have the right to NOT buy a gun and have it in your household.

And I didn't say it was unsupported, I just said that your assertion that a "vast majority" believes that it is a collective right is a lie.

[bean fidhleir]

268. That's not as good an argument as you'd think, really. If you look at the record of legal

decisions in the US, almost all the "good" ones come from the heyday of the Warren Court.

The rest tend strongly *not* to come down on what we would probably think of as "our" side. History is packed solid with decisions against labor, against the First Nations people, against Black people, against the poor, against peace....it's pretty sickening when you really look at it. Decisions that attempt to restrict our natural human rights are part and parcel of that.

I think it got off onto the wrong foot at the very start, when Jay was appointed the first Chief Justice. You know, John Jay, Mr. "Those Who Own The Country Should Run It" Federalist?

[NYC_SKP]

231. Clear as mud is any concensus on what defines "Militia".

I agree insofar as the interpretation of "militia" largely determines the application of the amendment.

I do not, however agree with the statement, "No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms."

IMO, the National Guard became so nationalized as to no longer resemble what would have constituted a "well regulated militia" in 1791.

Scholars, jurists, and citizens will struggle and argue that point for years to come.

Personally, and given my sense of conditions at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights, I feel that a militia might not have to already be established to "qualify", and that what they had in mind was that ordinary citizens should be equipped to form a militia should events develop that would necessitate the formation of a militia to ensure the security of a "free state".

Of course, every word in the amendment is open to interpretation and becomes the basis of any number of arguments. It fascinates me!


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.

[primavera]

251. Interesting point, but then how do you deal with "well-regulated"?

I mean, I hear what you're saying and I agreee that part of the role of the militias was to act as a deterent to a central government ever getting out of hand and absuing its power. But the words "well-regulated" are, I think, important ones: I do not believe that the Framers perceived some lofty purpose in unorganized gangs of marauders, bandits, looters, rioters, lynch mobs, whatever, being armed to the teeth. Plainly such groups fail the "well-regulated" test. So how can we infer that the Framers intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply to any and all persons or groups, the vast majority of whom are not well-regulated?

[NYC_SKP]

262. It sure wouldn't regulated by the federal government or the national guard.

In the most strictest interpretation, I believe that the framers, if anything, meant for it to be left to the states to determine that. And each state might, in turn, decide to leave it to be decided by more local agencies on a county or city level.

In a less strict interpretation, it might be left to leaders of the community, as defined by that community and regulated by the government at no higher than the state level.

Good reads on the matter, and you probably already are familiar with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Interesting sections:

Homeland security

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing controversial provisions that granted the President additional rights to use federal or state National Guard Troops and inside the United States in emergency situations. These changes were included in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR).

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Natural disasters

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.

Just for kicks: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

[milou]

493. Meanings

Well regulated meant well drilled back then. And your description of "unorganized gangs of marauders, bandits, looters, rioters, lynch mobs, whatever, being armed to the teeth" just about described the militia of 1776.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

537. the right of the PEOPLE

Notice they didn't say the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well regulated at the time meant every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.

David

[michreject]

241. You thought that

the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

No one I knew thought that. It was always understood to mean an individual right. This affirms it.

[NYC_SKP]

Dupe..n/t

[tidy_bowl]

9. Great!!!!!

The court has now spoken that my right to bear arms is secured as was intended by the original framers. This affirms that tyranny can always be challenged by the people and the 2nd amendment was 2nd primarily to protect the 1st amendment.

[jefferson_dem]

50. Welcome back!

:hi:

SCOTUS drags out its sharpie and scribbles over "A well regulated militia..."

[michreject]

63. Grabbers can't use that argument anymore nt

[jefferson_dem]

67. People can still use it. All this ruling says is that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts disagree.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in that sorry company.

[bossy22]

73. the difference is

that scalia, thomas, alito, roberts, and kennedy's oppinions actually mean something

[jefferson_dem]

78. Indeed. They are controlling.

But that doesn't mean they are "right".

[bossy22]

75. btw

isnt that a bush administration policy- ignore the constitution?

"i dont believe the constitution applies to me- im the president"

so you are saying its okay to use that logic?

[jefferson_dem]

81. Um no...

I'm saying the Court doesn't always get it right.

When I'm elected President, then you can accuse me of being "Bush-Like" when/if I ignore the Constitution. Right now i'm just a citizen who may disagree with our government, including SCOTUS, from time to time.

Were you whistling the "just move along...get in line" tune after Bush v. Gore?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

172. You'd rather be in the company of those against civil rights.

Ok, if you say so.

David

[michreject]

245. Argument is no longer valid

Now maybe people will stop using it.

[-..__...]

11. YES!!!

:party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause: :party: :toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :applause:

My faith in the SCOTUS has been restored.

Now... lets just wait for the full opinion and hope that strict scrutiny is applied to the decision (no requirement or allowance of "reasonable restrictions")

[jefferson_dem]

54. My money is on the "reasonableness" doctrine being applied.

n/t

[-..__...]

65. You're probably right.

I'd be a bit surprised if the opinion doesn't mention some degree of reasonable restrictions.

The big question... what restrictions are reasonable?

[SteveM]

107. And how will these justices deal with reasonableness w/out 14A? (nt)

[Bake]

196. I suspect there is/will be a "compelling government interest"

And that "reasonableness" will be the standard.

Bake

[comtec]

12. i only saw a snippet, but this only applies to one's home?

If it's just the home, than it should not affect the rest of society... I mean, people do have a local right to defend their home IMHO.
That said, if this is used to strike down all gun laws then.. yeah.. utter bullshit to be expected from the reich wing!

GOD How I have conservatives!

[skywalkrNCSU]

16. WHOO HOOO

WOOOOT!!!!

this is a great day to be an American!!!

[jefferson_dem]

60. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Enjoy your stay.

[Mojorabbit]

121. Why because tht poster

is happy with the decision? I am happy too and I ain't going anywhere.

[jefferson_dem]

129. I hope you don't.

:hi:

[Bake]

199. I'm pretty damn happy with it too

And I've been here from the beginning and plan to be here until my computer dies ...

Bake

[1Hippiechick]

189. NC State? Hi, down the road from Carolina--Tarheel Country!

[derby378]

14. This is a paradigm shift in the debate over gun legislation

Now we can start talking about ways to decrease gun crime instead of gun ownership.

[Xenotime]

162. This decision is fucked up. We have a weaker country today because of this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. Individual rights were affirmed the country can't be weaker.

Unless you are a facist.

David

[primavera]

211. Individual rights were fabricated and the country can be weaker

Unless you're an anarchist.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

344. That's funny I just drove from the Fire Dept training center and

everyone was obeying the traffic laws and there wasn't a single shooting. No news of anarchy breaking out anywhere in the US yet. Get back to me when it happens.

David

[primavera]

348. Obeying traffic laws?

Obviously the work of fascists.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

349. I thought you said anarchy was ruling the day.

[primavera]

351. Nope, just pointing out that regulation doesn't automatically equate with fascism. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

354. and freedom doesn't automatically equate with anarchy. n/t

[primavera]

357. Agreed. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

372. Likewise. n/t

[1Hippiechick]

416. "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry

[tidy_bowl]

230. We are stronger because the 2nd Amendment

Protects the 1st Amendment ultimately. Can't you see the simple point of it all? I's amazed how some peope will so willingly give up our rights but a bit of security. Franklin said it best and you had best heed him:

<b>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.</b>

I'll go with Franklin thank you whilst you go with Stalin.

[Doctor_J]

18. Activist judges again usurping local administration

This is the most fascist court in world history.

[krispos42]

22. Local administration can't take away your rights

If they are doing that, and they were, then it needs to get taken down. "What the people want" only goes so far.

Now if DC wants to have gun registration and magazine limits, they can do that. But not a ban.

[derby378]

381. Exactly - makes me wonder who's more "fascist," SCOTUS or the architects of the DC ban

One cannot simply wish away the Constitutional rights of an individual by means of popular vote. This is known as "mob rule" and is very detrimental to anything resembling an egalitarian democratic process.

[skywalkrNCSU]

it is called the constitution

sorry pal but it is called the constitution. if they banned free speech in DC wouldn't you want that overturned?

[jefferson_dem]

58. This is landmark in that the court now says states and municipalities can violate the 2nd.

Free speech has been protected from states and localities since the 1920s.

Sorry pal?

[whopis01]

239. Uh... no. The court said states and municipalities can NOT violate the 2nd. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

38. Uh, sounds to me like banning gun ownership would be more fascist

Just a hunch.

[virginia mountainman]

41. How does that make us fascist??

Fascist nations, tend to take away all the guns fom the people???

[Doctor_J]

56. It seems to me that our 2nd Amendment has done nothing to stop

the galloping fascism in the US over the last 7 years. The resident of the WH now writes his own laws, and tears up the ones from the legislature that he doesn't like. People who want to peacefully protest are put in cages, miles from view of the target of the protest. We have political prisoners held with access to any of the bill of rights. The Executive branch censors what we read, see, and hear.

Our ridiculously lax gun ownership rights have done nothing to prevent a fascist government from taking over. So this business about "When fascists want to take over, they'll take our guns first" is bullshit.

[slackmaster]

93. The Second Amendment has been infringed

By tyrants of all stripes.

It's time to take it back.

[krispos42]

102. If people aren't motivated to politically protest and get out on the streets...

... then they aren't going to be motivated to take up arms.

:shrug:

Liberals should have been pro-gun from the start, knowing that the new breed of conservatives 40 years ago were pro-fascist authoritarian types. Instead, they became anti-gun as a social issue. I mean, after all, those uber-civilized Europeans do it, right? And why can't we be more like them???

They began doing the dirty work for the fascist conservatives. If liberals got guns banned or restricted, the right won because liberals were disarming the people, especially the blue states. If liberals didn't and were punished at the ballot box for their efforts, the right still won because now they had legislative and executive power and were able to point to those obvious and direct "socialist" efforts of the liberals. And gun-owners were pushed into the conservative camp.

Liberals have never won with the gun issue because the restrictions and bans they manage to get passed have never demonstrably helped lower crime or homicide rates, but the people that passed them then always start thumping their chests for even more gun control.

[1Hippiechick]

194. "Liberals should have been pro-gun from the start,..." Amen! This is great news for the Party,IMHO

[Raskolnik]

279. So you're saying you're upset that the government is infringing some rights

but not others? Personally, I'm a fan of the entire Bill of Rights, but maybe that's just me.

[SteveM]

48. They had a lotta "local administration" in the Jim Crow South...

If this is the most fascist court in world history, then why would they strengthen the right to keep and bear arms? I don't believe any fascist would "shoot" themselves in the foot.

[pt22]

88. Like Lawrence vs. Texas?

That fascist court?

[slackmaster]

92. No, it affirms the right of INDIVIDUALS to control their own homes, bodies, and property

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

19. guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm ?

does your Constitution say that expressedly or does it infact say arms ?

[krispos42]

27. Arms=weapons that can be carried and used by an individual person n/t

[dipsydoodle]

35. So presumably that includes

rocket launchers etc ?

[joeglow3]

36. Weeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh

This slippery slope is fun!!!

[iverglas]

53. If I had a rocket launcher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPMy7V9moc

Bruce Cockburn.

For anyone in need of something more inspirational and meaningful than the words of a bunch of right-wing cretins interpreting the words of a bunch of old dead rich white guys as if they were somehow relevant to the lives of human beings in the 21st century ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

179. All of that bluster and this is the best you got.

[Bake]

200. I want one of those mounted on my car

I just get so frustrated with traffic jams ...

:rofl:

Bake

[michreject]

59. If you could find a place to legally buy one

otherwise, SOL.

[krispos42]

66. As a matter of practical public safety, no

Things that explode (rockets, artiller shells, land mines, etc.) and fully-automatic weapons are held under stricter scrutiny and restriction, as defined under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

I believe this is a good thing because fully-auto firearms and explosives are non-discrimatory weapons, whereas "regular" guns are discrimatory in that they only fire one shot per pull of the trigger and the shooter has complete control over where each shot goes. In comparision, full-auto and explosives have basically areas of destruction, and public safety demands increased controls.

When you detonate an explosive or spray bullets from a full-auto weapon, you can't know exactly where everything is going to go, you see.

It is reasonable in the same sense that falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a resonable restriction against the freedom of speech.

[Doctor_J]

77. So you do believe in SOME restrictions on arms ownership

just not others.

[comtec]

89. yes

[iverglas]

106. ah yes, they do

They believe in the restrictions / regulations that *they* think are reasonable.

Somehow, the restrictions / regulations that *they* think are reasonable seem to have dropped on stone tablets from the sky.

Received wisdom, don't need to be justified ... and don't suggest that there may be justification for other restrictions / regulations based on similar considerations ... like, oh, the public interest in the welfare and safety of the public and individual members of it ...

The right to own firearms. It's one of those inherent, inalienable, natural, deity-given rights that people *they* think shouldn't have firearms (criminals, people with certain mental illnesses / disabilities) can be denied. Just because.

But nobody else's concerns about the welfare and safety of the public and individual members of it matter at all, you see.


One more crack in the edifice of liberal democracy, in which governments elected by the public make laws and policies to promote the welfare of the public.

Just what the right wing ordered.

[slackmaster]

118. Oh, so YOUR opinion of what is reasonable is more important than mine

I see.

[iverglas]

126. ah, so you'd rather pretend I said something I didn't say

than engage in civil discourse.

Oh, so YOUR opinion of what is reasonable is more important than mine

No, friend. You've managed to get that completely backwards, haven't you?

The gun lovers who advance existing restrictions / regulations (or at least the existing restrictions / regulations they happen to like) as just dandy by them are the ones saying that.

As Heller has just illustrated, the fact that a restriction / regulation exists does not mean that it does not have to be justified.

And if existing restrictions / regulations can be justified, then it's entirely possible that other restrictions / regulations can also be justified.

As I recall, your own consistent tack consists of positing existing restrictions / regulations (like NICS checks, prohibitions on certain convicted criminals owning firearms) as some sort of gold standard. They exist. They're fine by you. Therefore they are what and only what is justiifed.

The restrictions / regulations in Heller existed. They weren't fine by you. Your Court agreed.

What's to say it wouldn't agree in the case of prohibitions on convicted criminals having firearms in their home "for self-defence"? Are they not human? Do they not have the right to life? Do they not have the right to defend themselves against rival drug traffickers busting down their doors to kill them?

The fact that YOU like a particular restriction / regulation does NOT mean that it is constitutionally justified.

And the fact that you do NOT like a particular restriction / regulation does not mean that it is NOT constitutionally justified.

[slackmaster]

181. Let's go back to where the Heller case started...

Mr. Heller, a professional security guard, applied for a permit to keep a handgun in his own home for his own defense.

Local officials denied his application. They didn't have to give any justification; they just denied it.

How on Earth can anyone consider that reasonable?

What's to say it wouldn't agree in the case of prohibitions on convicted criminals having firearms in their home "for self-defence"?

You really should read the decision before asking such a question. ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

184. Now iverglas you hate it when people speak for you.

Let's not be a hypocrite.

David

[Raskolnik]

202. "Just what the right wing ordered."

Could you please point out what portion of today's opinion you disagree with, if any?

[krispos42]

That has ALWAYS been the debate

What is "reasonable", and what is effective. For example, I believe it is Constitutional to have gun registration, but I don't think it is either useful or effective as a crime-fighitng measure. But because it is "reasonable", many juristictions will do it.

I think a magazine-capacity limit is Constitutional as well, but, again, not effective or useful as a crime-fighting measure.

[dipsydoodle]

86. So a rocket launcher would be ok provided

the charge was removed from the warhead. Rocket launchers are not automatic and are single shot so they otherwise fit your description for acceptability - apart from the warhead.

[krispos42]

122. Except the rocket itself is a projectile

That contains flamamble fuel. Yet at the same time, people do model rocketry all the time. And some of those are quite large.

Probably the laws regulating model rockets would apply.




Incidently, you can buy warheads and stuff, mortar rounds, etc., you just have to have the purchase ("transfer") approved by the Treasury Department and pay a $200 tax. Per item.

[michreject]

264. If it kills anyone but your intended target, you're going to jail

Same as with a gun. If I load FMJ into a 44 mag and shoot a carjacker, it will exit his torso. It hits an innocent bystander, I'm going to jail. That's why I carry hollow-points in my carry guns.

[slackmaster]

112. No

Not at all.

[benEzra]

174. No. People, READ THE OPINION!!!!!!!!!!

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “rdinarily
when called for service men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

The existing Federal ban on rocket launchers is OK, as are the Federal restrictions on machineguns. It would appear to put the kibosh on handgun bans and the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, though, as those are some of the most popular civilian defensive and target weapons in the United States.

[scrinmaster]

20. Woo hoo!

Hell yes.:toast:

[colt equalizer]

23. WONDERFUL ruling! Bless their pea pickin hearts!

I think this is great news. It finally puts all the 2nd Amendment BS out there to bed.

[jefferson_dem]

62. Not sure the opinion will be that far reaching. Welcome to DU anyway.

:hi:

[Lasher]

28. Yay!

At least there's one part of the Constitution that hasn't been trashed this decade.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. According to the blog, a narrow ruling

that if you want, you can have a gun in the house. It can be assembled, in working order, loaded, and with no trigger lock installed. In other words, it can be ready-to-shoot.

Nothing about restrictions on sales, features, carrying, etc.

Hopefully, common sense and adherence/education on gun safety will keep the kids safe.

[derby378]

37. That's why the focus should now be on gun SAFETY instead of gun OWNERSHIP

If I wish to own an AK, it is my right. But it is a right that carries a tremendous responsibility. Now we must discuss the parameters of such a responsibility - and I think there is plenty of opportunity to do so, starting today.

[comtec]

39. It IS your right to own a AK-47

but NOT to have it work in full automatic mode.
That is not an unreasonable limitation!

[derby378]

46. If I want full-auto, I'll get an NFA license...

We can debate the National Firearms Act some other time.

[Squatch]

47. Actually, it IS your right to own a fully-automatic weapon

provided you are at least 21 years old, have no felonies or violent misdemeanors, pay the requisite $200 transfer tax, and no state laws prohibit their possession/use.

[NYC_SKP]

61. You can even own fully automatic weapons in most states...

with the proper permits. And it's fine with me!

[comtec]

84. as long as there are permits and a process, i agree

it's fine. My concern is that any idiot can buy an Ak-47 fully operational.
I ant those road blocks in place for my family's protection.
If you are a responsible person (at least according to the law) then I have no problem.

[BreweryYardRat]

173. Any idiot generally won't have $8-10,000 to pony up for an AK.

They're pricy.

[jeepnstein]

287. Poor people have rights, too.

Just because you have the money for an NFA weapon doesn't mean you have the sense to come in from the rain when it's pouring. The NFA process weeds out the morons. The artificially high prices from the arbitrary ban in 1986 just means it's a rich man's firearm.

[comtec]

505. guns have always been the rich man's weapon

the poor have always had to rely on knives, and sticks n stuff.
You want to see something fucked up, look up our knife laws.
weapons that would be usable by the poor are QUITE illegal!

[jeepnstein]

518. A good pistol is cheaper than most TV's

A knife is useless against the power of the State. If you want be be part of even an informal "militia" you'll be needing something with a bit more oomph. It is an "arm", however, so I'd tend to think it will eventually fall under Heller as well. You should be free to own whatever blade you want to protect your home and family. States and local governments will be allowed to pass reasonable controls but not outright bans on the ownership of them. That's all Heller is doing, saying that you are free to keep "arms" in your home, not parade down to the Courthouse or drive around shooting up the neighborhood with them.

Oh, and I carry a knife daily. I don't carry a firearm that often, not by a long shot.

J.

[benEzra]

507. The going rate now is $17,000 and up. (n/t)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

169. Most of us can own a "sorta" AK

Most will not bother with the stamp, so we're limited to semi-auto.

The SCOTUS ruling does not prohibit further restrictions, like the assault-weapons ban that limited bayonet lugs, magazine size, pistol grips, and some other law (I forget which) that limits the foreign part content of some guns. Those restrictions are all still "constitutional", effective or not. Hopefully, no such bill will reach President Obama's desk.

[michreject]

34. specifically a handgun

There goes the gun grabbers claim that the 2nd refers to a militia.

[NM Independent]

51. This is an great day to be an American!

I was holding my breath and crossing my fingers for this. I would never want my firearms taken from me. My grandfather was a gunsmith and made all of the rifles and shotguns.

I have a MAJOR problem with the idiots calling this a "facist decision by a reich wing court." ONLY in a facist society would the people be disarmed and made unable to defend themselves from a tyranical government which infringes upon the rights of the citizens. Think through what you're saying and find the logical loop-holes, please.

[Doctor_J]

71. Sadly, the 2nd amendment has not prevented all the others from

being revoked. So your claim that "we're not fascist because we still have the 2nd amendment" is, bluntly, ridiculous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

192. Stop being dishonest.

You used quotes when the poster never made that statement, that is dishonest.

David

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

503. "ONLY in a facist society" LOL. I guess evey other western nation with responsible gun restrictions

is fascist.

:crazy:

Enjoy your repeated mass shootings, absurdly high murder rates and the lagest, most expensive and growing prison system in the world- because this decision only reaffirms your "right" to that!

[hack89]

510. If we had a reasonable drug policy in this country - like Europe

then our murder and incarceration rates would also fall. Lets fix root causes and fix them before fucking with the Constitution. It is a little more complex then "guns are bad". But then some people like living in black and white cartoon worlds, I guess.

[Blue_Tires]

74. well, at least there will be

no gun wedge issue in november, and i can be happy about that...having lived in DC, i can say the 'ban' existed on paper only, anyways -- anyone who wanted to carry was going to carry, ban or no...

[bossy22]

80. exactly

it removes much of the wedge issue for this election so we can get a candidate in there who can really fix this mess- Whinnie the Pooh

[Craftsman]

132. This issue is not going away

Yes it is a win for the progun side but many of the anti gunners are trying to ban guns and ammo through other means. Such as requiring micro stamping and taxing ammo.

[GOPNotForMe]

79. Whatever my opinion is on guns, I think the Court got it wrong.

I studied the various courts of appeals who have come to different conclusions about whether the language of the 2d Amendment applies to state-regulated militias or to an individual right. Historically, it seems pretty clear that the concern when the 2d Amendment was drafted was not over individual self-defense but about a national army usurping state powers.

I wish people would separate their personal opinions from the historical and legal issues involved here. Both sides of this issue are very compelling which is what makes it such a difficult decision (and 5-4 and one which the Court has dodged for decades).

[bossy22]

82. interesting though

is that some of the dissent oppinion seemed to agree with an individual rights interpreation but that handguns arent protected under it

[Gman]

94. Like the founding fathers debated at length and came to a consensus

that everyone needs to own a handgun for personal "protection".

The opening words from my Con Law professor many years ago were to the effect that the SCOTUS is as political as any other entity in the government. At the time 30 years ago I was rather shocked. Over the years I've seen that it has been the conservative courts that make the political decisions. Don't think that's so? One case: Bush v. Gore.

If Obama manages to get elected, and if he has a strong enough Congress, one of the first things that needs to be done is to expand the SCOTUS to at least 11, preferably 13 or even 15 members and pack it with the biggest liberals he can find.

[SteveM]

138. That SCOTUS is political is old news here...

I am not sure what you mean by saying "...the founding fathers debated at length and came to a consensus that everyone needs a handgun for personal 'protection.'" I think they recognized that "the people" had a right to keep and bear arms. Are you suggesting a literalist interpretation by citing handguns? If so, then our use of keyboards to discuss this thread is not protected.

You suggest that Obama should expand SCOTUS (FDR-style?) and pack it with the "biggest liberals" he can find. At the time of FDR's attempt he was accused (and rightly so) of trying to subjugate the courts to the will of the executive. In any case, packing in the "biggest liberals," presumably to continue battling the Second Amendment, would be like instituting a culture war which would result -- voila! -- in the GOP once again gaining power.

You mention Bush v. Gore. It was one Bill Clinton who said Gore lost because of his inconvenient support of the AWB.

[Gman]

195. It's sarcasm

the founding fathers never debated, about and incorporated into the 2nd amendment the need for citizens to own guns for protection. Fact is, they would not have been able to even imagine an America the way it is today so it was impossible for them to have the intention of incorporating personal protection into the 2nd amendment.

The farce of this opinion is the convenient "judicial activism" and Scalia's underlying but unstated argument that the constitution evolves, which is completely contrary to anything he has ever said in public.

[tidy_bowl]

238. What Planet are you...

...from?

"Fact is, they would not have been able to even imagine an America the way it is today so it was impossible for them to have the intention of incorporating personal protection into the 2nd amendment."

Just exactly what do you think guns were used back in then for, picking their teeth? Of course they were for individual and communal protection? Your argument is just plain silly on the face given what we know they precisely used guns for that very purpose back then as now.

[SteveM]

355. Well, I think I see what you're saying...

Some scholars, however, think that "personal protection" with a gun was so accepted that there was no need to spell it out in the Constitution. I agree with you that "judicial activism" is just a slogan with about as much use as "religious fundmentalism."

[SeanQuinn]

98. With all due respect to the writers of the ban,

did it really help curb DC crime anyway?

[comtec]

104. not even a little

it's not so much the ban, I think that was seriously challenged, but as someone posted (assuming it's true) that the stopped issuing permits, thus disenfranchising people the option to be legal with hand guns.

[Purveyor]

100. I'm pleased with this decision. Not pleased it was 5-4 however. eom

[-..__...]

101. Complete decision here.

All 157 pages worth...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[AngryAmish]

103. EVERYBODY PANIC

[cobalt1999]

109. Reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon

On defending constitutional rights, the gist being

Democrats are responsible for defending the 1st amendment.
Republicans are responsible for defending the 2nd amendment.

I guess only a few of us are for defending ALL our rights from the government.

[robicon]

164. I think I agree with you

Without the 2nd, how would you protect the 1st?

I'm not a hunter. I own firearms for target shooting, self defense, and the off chance me or my family would need them for protection against a tyrannical government.

Politicos are far too sly to wholly remove constitutional rights, instead they chip away, piece by piece, until they are no more. Sheeple don't care, American Idol's on tonight.

I absolutely cannot fathom why Feinstein et al insist on taking away the right to bear arms. It is simply illogical to deduce that taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens would reduce crime. Numerous studies have been conducted that show just the opposite. I'm left to assume that their motive is one of personal irrational fear and/or the appearance of "doing something" for their constituency.

[tidy_bowl]

244. Exactly...

...right on the money.

:applause:

[tammywammy]

116. I agree with this ruling

[NBachers]

119. Huzzah! Huzzah! More Penis Boosters! n/t

Squeeze that trigger baby, make it hot. Discharge your weapon. Shoot out your load and eject your shells. Here's to the Big Ballistics crowd.

[Dimensio0]

125. Nothing in the ruling relates to "Penises".

Why have you introduced an irrelevant concept into the discussion?

[SteveM]

142. Still wrestling with yourself under the sheets? Who will win? (nt)

[1Hippiechick]

212. Hmmm.... my 'puter is getting hot & bothered w/ that quote - having to fan the ol' girl...

[lynne]

124. Excellent! However, it should have been struck down 9-0, not 5-4.

[Bacchus39]

130. no kidding, its like the "right" to eat food

the only reason the second amendment was needed was to PROHIBIT goverment from seizing arms from citizens. the lame arguement by the ban supporters would only give the "right" to the State which is exactly what was feared originally.

[lynne]

135. THANK YOU!!

Finally, someone who understands their history and gets it!!! :applause:

[Bacchus39]

166. thanks, I'll be able to stop banging my head against the wall for awhile now

the "logic" of the ban supporters was maddening. I hope no-one tries to take away my "rights" to sleep in on Sundays or grow chile peppers. those "rights" aren't explicit in the Constitution.

[VermeerLives]

407. Agree!! Thank you!

[Paladin]

431. Awwww...Diddums Not Like The Nasty Old 5-4?

Boo-fucking-hoo.

How about enjoying your victory, regardless of the split decision? And while you savor things, just keep in mind that the 4 justices who dissented were the liberals, the Good Guys, the ones we real Democrats cherish. As I said elsewhere on this thread, I'm not too upset with the decision, because I know it could have been a lot worse. That's not going to keep me from thanking God tonight that I'm not beholden to Anthony Scalia or Clarence Thomas for any favors.....

[SublimeFan1978]

555. Supreme Court Justices

aren't supposed to be politicians. We have politicians for that.

Their job is to interpret law, not rewrite it as they see fit.

So yes, it was disappointing to see that 4 of them put their party over their country.

[Paladin]

556. You Know What You 5-4 Whiners Remind Me Of?

A guy with an 8" cock, griping that he doesn't have a full 12" to swing around.

The Supreme Court just enshrined the right to own guns in this country, just like you wanted, and they did it by means of a stunning show of judicial activism that virtually ignored the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to bitch about justices turning into politicians, deal with Scalia & Co. The 4 liberal justices were models of restraint in comparison.....

[Dimensio0]

559. Please justify your assertion.

Please demonstrate that the ruling amounts to "judicial activism".

Also, I am curious; you have made a comparison to male geniltalia. I have observed that, frequently in firearms discussions, individuals who are in favor of increased firearms ownership restrictions make comparisons or references to male genitalia. Why is this? Are anti-gun advocates possessed of a psychological fixation?

[Paladin]

560. I'm Not Going To Waste My Time.....

...trying to persuade you of the judicial activism involved here; if you're challenging my claim when the reality of Scalia's opinion is so patently obvious, nothing I can offer will convince you. I'll just say this: I firmly believe that the Heller decision will still be studied in law schools a hundred years from now, not so much as a 2nd Amendment ruling, but as the ultimate example of the rankest sort of activist politics trumping established principles of judicial review; the dissenting opinions of the 4 liberal justices will be vindicated beyond question.

As for your comparing my earlier post to the standard Guns Are Penises sort of thing we see here every so often, once again, not much in the way of comment is warranted. Although having a gun militant criticize anyone for "psychological fixation" is unintentionally hilarious, for reasons I doubt you'd grasp....

[Dimensio0]

562. I see.

Thank you for making clear that you have no intention of showing that your assertion are representative of reality. Your candid admission makes it clear that your claims are not credible.

[liberalpress]

133. If anyone has said this already I'm sorry

If you look at the amendments that grant individual rights, all of them, with one exception, have granted more rights to the individual. The only exception, the Volsted Act was overturned.

[Prophet 451]

137. No surprise there

The constitutional rights and wrongs don't matter to this court, it's just a question of what teh hard right wants.

[Caentor]

369. That's not supported by recent ruling

Do you think the hard right wanted the recent habeas ruling? The lawrence v. texas ruling?

etc.

I think not.

[Prophet 451]

370. Fair point

On one hand, there really was no legal way they could decide those cases differently. On the other, that's never stopped them before (Bush V. Gore, for example). On the third hand (?), if you're willing to entertain a truly Machiavellian scheme, perhaps they did want the habeus and Lawrence rulings to go the way they did, in order to give the right something to rally against and create public support for undermining the powers of the SCOTUS.

BTW, I'm not taking any particular position on this case since I don't know the details of either the law in question or the ruling.

[Caentor]

371. I agree

with the Habeas ruling and the Heller ruling, although I think the latter did not go far enough. Iow, I think all states should be shall issue states based upon the constitution.

Regardless, I see this as a glass half empty thang.

There are tons of rulings that the Scotus does that PO the far right.

[Liberty Belle]

143. Supreme Court Says Americans Have Right to Guns

Source: Yahoo News (Associated Press)

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.


The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

<snip>
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

<snip>
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

---

Guess what wedge issue will now be back on the front burner?

This decision is troubling. While I understand someone's wish for self-defense in a crime ridden neighborhood, how can any rational person rule against trigger locks that might prevent a child from having a tragic accident with a loaded gun in the home?

I am also troubled at the prospect of every crazy or extremist individual or group now seeing this as a green light to stockpile dangerous weapons for dubious purposes. In my area, we have Minute Men acting as vigilantes and there are many reports of violence against immigrants, for instance. We've also had multiple school shootings in my kids' former school district. If homeowners want to keep guns for self-protection, they ought to be required to store them safely at the very least.

[gratuitous]

144. Where's the original intent, Justice Scalia?

Those words about a "well-regulated militia" aren't just window-dressing, are they? And the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute by the very wording of the amendment, but rather is not to be "infringed."

I guess divining original intent only counts for paper ballots and their inviolate right (trumping even the right of a citizen to have his or her vote counted) to equal treatment.

[slackmaster]

147. I think you should read the whole decision before you make comments like that

I haven't read it all yet, and won't have time until this evening.

[endarkenment]

148. to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

infringe means just that. The 2nd is what it is, we have the right to keep and bear arms, and the court has upheld that right, for better or worse. Too bad they can't seem to find much merit in upholding most of the rest of the bill of rights.

[benEzra]

159. The decision didn't say it's an absolute right.

The existing Federal controls on automatic weapons, state restrictions on concealed carry without a license, etc. are specifically mentioned as being OK. Felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent are still barred from possessing guns.Sweeping bans on commonly owned guns, and the outlawing of armed self-defense in your own home, are not.

[Bacchus39]

171. have you ever considered that all your "rights" aren't enumerated in the Constitution?

in 1785 having to say that you have the right to own a gun would be like saying you have the right to drink water. the original intent of the amendment was to prohibit government from taking away your weapons, not establishing that you are allowed to have them.

[Triana]

145. Boy these whackos have been busy destroying the country lately, haven't they? Trying to influence...

..the Nov elections, mayhaps?

Being that all but two of them are Repig jockstraps, I think they are.

In the past few days, they've handed down some rather "interesting" rulings.

This is the usurping crap kangeroo court that appointed King Psychopath. What type of deal does the BFEE have with the court to meddle in the elections by handing down all these assinine rulings lately?

LOOK: here's another one from that Scalia cretin:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/dead.witness.ap/index.html

Dead (abuse) victim's prior statements can't be used at trial (victim was threatened with death by abuser)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a convicted killer deserves a new trial because jurors heard testimony that should have been excluded. His ex-girlfriend made the statements shortly before he killed her.

The justices, in a 6-3 vote, reaffirmed the rights of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them, even in cases where the defendant is responsible for the witness' absence.

The issue arose in the case of Dwayne Giles, arrested in the shooting death of Brenda Avie in 2002, several weeks after she told police that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.

Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion that domestic violence, though "an intolerable offense," does not justify "abridging the rights of criminal defendants."

Gotta wonder. :tinfoilhat:

[bean fidhleir]

158. Scalia is a true lunatic. I'd bet money he's diagnosable.

He's the guy who said factual innocence should be no bar to execution. Someone who thinks form is everything is not operating within the "healthy" range, mentally.

[Triana]

161. Scalia: Another psychopath/narcissist in gov't/law....

...I think anyone running for public office or who deigns to sit on a state or federal court ought to have to undergo two psychiatric evaluations with different psychiatrists - who are NOT chosen by the appointee but rather by the publicly-run or a non-profit organization whose sole function is to determine a candidate's suitability for public office in law or gov't from a psychiatric standpoint - the results should be publicized.

[bean fidhleir]

242. The idea of them having to undergo psych eval is an *excellent* one, imo

I'd include anyone who carries a weapon on the job, too.

The only tricky bit would be making sure that the ones who believe in class- or role-based entitlement got filtered out.

[Caentor]

367. I disagree

We don't require psych checks for other rights, or for most jobs- (police work being an exception).

There is no right to be a PO, so they can be rather selective.

On the other hand, the 2nd is a right of the people,so there needs to be a reason for the psych exam, or else it's a fishing expedition.


Just like a search is legal GIVEN probable cause, a psych exam should be workable GIVEN sufficient cause. Requiring them would be unconstitutional, and an invasion of privacy.

[bean fidhleir]

389. You might have mis-read.

I'm talking about having to pass a psych-check before being hired to do a job that involves the authority to shoot someone: cop, secret service, fbi, prison guard, etc. Too many gravitate toward those positions because they like the idea of having - and abusing - power.

[paulstylos]

269. so

you don't respect medical privacy?

that's nice to know

[bean fidhleir]

391. Not for jobs that involve the use of public power, no.

Nobody has the *right* to a job that carries great trust and responsibility.

[paulstylos]

271. its' called hearsay

and it's part of the RIGHTS of criminal defendants, along with innocent until proven guilty, the right to counsel, etc. that our system of law (NOT MEN) ensures.

do you not support the rights of the accused?

or do the accused in domestic violence not have rights? shockingly similar to what bush says about terrorist suspects.

hearsay is only admissible in criminal trials in a few instances (some follow): admission against interest, dying declaration, excited utterance, etc.

just because a crime is domestic violence doesn't mean we throw away criminal procedure, constitutional rights, and the rule of law.

here let me quote the constitution:

6th amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

the constitution matters

hth

[slackmaster]

146. It would be a TERRIBLE mistake for Dems to allow this wedge issue to be on the front burner

Abortion is where it's at.

We can win on that one.

If homeowners want to keep guns for self-protection, they ought to be required to store them safely at the very least.

That is not logical. Keeping them locked up all the time precludes their prompt deployment as defensive weapons.

[colt equalizer]

149. My partner said just 50% of Democrats are pro-choice. Is that right?

I can't find any valid statistics or studies to prove her right, or wrong.

[slackmaster]

152. It probably depends strongly on how the question is asked

I'd guess that 85% of Democrats are pro-choice, but maybe only 50% are in favor of KILLING INNOCENT BABIES.

:sarcasm:

[surf]

150. This actually works for dems

It keeps right wing gun owners less interested in the election. It kinda takes the issue off the table. You cant ban handguns, they have a right to bear arms, not much of an issue anymore.

[slackmaster]

153. It helps Dems who are wise enough to shut the fuck up about it

:argh:

[1Hippiechick]

220. I agree. It ABSOLUTELY works for Dems - may even attract RW gun owners who don't like McSame

[TechBear_Seattle]

151. Was the issue expressly stated as one of self defense?

I won't have time to read through the opinion until this weekend.

The thrust of my question is that, during the 1999 WTO attacks (of the police against the citizenry) in Seattle, the mayor used his "emergency powers" to make it a criminal offense to carry a gas mask. It struck me then that, if we have a constitutional right to take protective measures against a tyrannical government, gas masks and related passive protective gear should be just as constitutional as guns.

[Baclava]

156. The main statement: "...unconnected with service in a militia"

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

[TechBear_Seattle]

221. So arguably...

The Second Amendments extends to other items customarily associated with a militia, when used for "traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I expect that Scalia has loosely defined "home" so as not to exclude carrying a gun away from one's physical residence. Therefore, an order or law prohibiting the posession of a gas mask would, arguably, be as illegal as an order or law prohibiting the posession of a gun.

It will be most interesting to see how this might play out in the future.

[Caentor]

366. It says it's unconnected with a militia

(The right, that is).

That's clear from the text. It's a prefacing statement, much like, for example, those used in NH law. It was a more common grammatical construct back then. Examples abound.

The text is clear. It's a right of "the people", not the militia.

[paulstylos]

266. i'm sorry

i was there during WTO . it was not "police against the citizenry".

in the entire riots, the amount of injuries were TINY compared to many (most) of the foreign countries where they had riots. the cops were very restrained. sure, mayor "i am not a wuss" schell had a ridiculous under THEN overreaction. sure, police chief norm (it can't happen here) stamper, similarly understocked pepper spray, etc. (cops had to fly to idaho to restock), sure most protestors were peaceful.

but i was there. there was a LOT of violence and vandalism from a small but determined cadre on the protestor side, and the cops acted reasonably.


i stood next to one guy who screamed racial epithets at the cops, then said to his friend he didn't know what WTO was, but this was a "kick-ass" opportunity to break stuff.

seriously.

those are the kinds of idiots that created the problems

[1Hippiechick]

284. Has anyone welcomed you to DU? Wow, what a day to join! Don't get carpal tunnel.... :)

[paulstylos]

288. they have now

thank you!

between the scotus case today (heller), and the other stuff - man is a it a good day to join!

in brief- fisa - congress rolled over. i think it sucks

heller - i strongly agree with the decision

there. i stated my positions! :)

[TechBear_Seattle]

333. I not only was there, I live on Capitol Hill where much of the police brutality took place

I not only saw it out of my apartment window, I was attacked by the police myself, trying to obey an order (of questionable legality) to return to my home immediately.

I was walking home around 11:30 pm on the night of December 1, 1999 from a friend's house; the day before, she had been maced by the police while trying to get home from downtown Seattle after work (neither she nor her partner, who also worked downtown, had been involved with the protests.) I was walking along Harvard Avenue, one block south of Broadway. The protests had already reached Capitol Hill and I wanted to avoid them. As I started to cross Denny, an anonymous jackbooted thug ordered me to go home. I said I was and tried to cross the street. He laid hands on me and screamed that I was to go home NOW. I said that I was trying and again tried to cross the street. That got me a billyclub in the stomach while two of his colleagues shot beanbags at me hard enough to break a finger and crack one rib. I had to turn around and walk back to my friends' home, where I stayed until the next morning when I was taken to the hospital.

Don't you fucking DARE tell me that there was no police brutality involved against innocent citizens during those riots.

[SlipperySlope]

154. I'm dancing in my chair here at work.

This is the best ruling I could have hoped for. It is like frigging Christmas here!

[1Hippiechick]

176. You got that right! Have a son and DIL just south of DC, and they have permits to carry concealed..

[mckara]

155. Come the Revolution...

We'll need those guns!

:patriot:

[askeptic]

157. I happen to agree with SCOTUS on this one

I think that since the STATE owns the malitia, that would only leave the right under absolute STATE control, not citizen control, if the malitia argument is used. I've always believed that the 2nd was there to assure individual gun rights, for better or worse, and thought they did a lousy job of wording the Amendment, thus making it so ambiguous and contentious. I also think that the STATE has no right to tell you how to store things in your home (and in-fact that it is ridiculous on it's face because it is unenforceable), just like it has no right to tell you which programs to watch, or to decide what programs can be broadcast at what time of day just because a child might hear it or see it.

Time for the DEMs to drop this as an issue, since it has kept an awful lot of people away from our party. Lets get on with more important issues, so we can dump the RW greaseballs.

[Prospero1]

160. Fascinating logic from these bozos

The 4th and 5th amendments, habeas corpus, international treaties and US statutes on torture, and the Geneva Conventions should all get tossed because of the war on terra. The one item in the bill of rights that one could reasonably argue needs adjustment due to the "threat" is absolutely f***ing sacred. (remember those terror manuals they found that said - "you don't need to bring guns to the US you can get all you need there") The "original intent" was that you could have a single shot black powder musket or pistol. I suspect the framers would not view modern assault and sniper weapons quite the same way.

[milou]

206. Original intent

The 1st amendment is bs. The "original intent" was that you could put quill to paper, use a printing press, or shout your words. I suspect the framers would not view the internet and mass media quite the same way. Great logic eh?

[SteveM]

209. Fascinating reading your type-set, delivered on a horse (nt)

[1Hippiechick]

225. "I suspect the framers would not view modern assault and sniper weapons quite the same way" .

We'll never know, will we?

Welcome to DU, BTW

[jeepnstein]

282. NFA 1934

You do know that in most localities it is perfectly legal for a lawful citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, even before Heller? There is a bottleneck on the supply thanks to a ban on new manufacture in 1986 but if you have the money you can go to a dealer and buy an M16. Some States and municipalities do restrict ownership. The paperwork is pretty extensive and quite reasonable. The easiest part of the procedure is dealing with the Federal Government through ATFE. Oh, and those legally held NFA weapons almost never surface in connection to any sort of crime.

[1Hippiechick]

316. Welcome to DU! What a day to join! Don't get carpal tunnel!

(I was quoting Prospero1 about the framers of the Constitution)

:yourock:

[Thothmes]

289. There are a lot of thinks that the framers of the

Constitution would view differently today. Governments involvement in education, abortion rights, imminent domain are issues that we hold in a different light today than they did in the 1790s. Would they word the Constitution differently, today, maybe, maybe not.

[1Hippiechick]

318. Fantabulous point! Issues today that were not faced by the framers of the Constitution! n/t

[Raskolnik]

339. Fascinating logic abounds.

The 4th and 5th amendments, habeas corpus, international treaties and US statutes on torture, and the Geneva Conventions should all get tossed because of the war on terra. The one item in the bill of rights that one could reasonably argue needs adjustment due to the "threat" is absolutely f***ing sacred. (remember those terror manuals they found that said - "you don't need to bring guns to the US you can get all you need there")

So invoking the spectre of terrorism is a bad idea when it comes to the watering down the First, Forth, and Fifth Amendments, but a good idea when it comes to watering down the Second? Tell me, how many terrorist attacks have occurred in this country using guns?

The "original intent" was that you could have a single shot black powder musket or pistol. I suspect the framers would not view modern assault and sniper weapons quite the same way.

Should that logic apply to the Internet, cable television and cell phones?

[Endangered Specie]

197. Gun locks pretty much ruin your ability to use it

in an emergency.

It takes 5-10 seconds to unlock, remove, load magazine, charge weapon... assuming you have the key around.

In that time any intruder can have you in their not so loving arms.

A better solution to preventing children from shooting themselves with it is education and exposure.

[snooper2]

163. This is greatness, a capital punishment and gun Issue in same day

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:


Them Internets are a buzzin :rofl:

[Renew Deal]

180. More than enough to make DU explode

:nuke:

:party:

[slackmaster]

186. The cognitive dissonance on DU today is deafening

:nuke:

[Renew Deal]

188. I think this is a going away present for the outgoing mods.

Something to remember DU by. :rofl:

[llmart]

204. I just feel sorry for those people.......

who continue to think this is THE most important issue in their lives - whether they can own a gun or not. This country is seriously f***ed up when this is where we put our focus. Meanwhile our bridges and roads and the rest of our infrastructure is crumbling, the average person is struggling to pay just for necessities, but OH MY GOD, I can buy a gun! Yippee! Well, maybe it IS a good thing because while people are fighting for this sort of crap, they are being bled dry and can't afford to feed their families. This way they can shoot their dinners.

Very sad indeed.

[paulstylos]

260. would you have the same response

to the habeas decision?

the habeas decision affects MAYBE .01% of the population. if that.

so what? it's still a good decision, in overturning bushco's illegal detentions and ignoring of habeas.

this decision affects FAR FAR more people. but it is a classic dodge to say "what about..."

it's like the guy who gets arrested for the cops for theft and says "why aren't you out catching rapists and murderers?

[krispos42]

331. Then why dont' the gun-control advocates stop?

Nobody's trying to make them own guns, after all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

346. Sorry you feel peoples ability to defend themselves is crap.

[Caentor]

364. I would say

Two issues where we trump nearly every nation on earth are:

1) gun rights
2) free speech

in both areas, we trump europe, canada, etc.

I won't even get into Canada's "hate speech" laws. Or England's. Or France.

Yes, they trump us on health care, and several other issues. But we have a lock on these 2 ! :)

[onehandle]

205. Yay guns! Now we are Free to shoot our teenager when he comes home late at night...

...thinking he's a burglar!

Ain't Freedom Grand!

[1Hippiechick]

226. You must have never heard that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

[onehandle]

243. That needs to be updated.

Now it needs to be:

"Guns aren't Free to kill people. People are Free to kill people."

Lock and Load!

[Renew Deal]

246. If you are dumb enough to do this

Gun laws are the least of your worries.

[NYC_SKP]

250. We call that "natural selection".

Of course we need gun safety and we used to have it in many schools.

Where I live, driver's need training and testing to drive a car, but boaters do not. We get a lot of boat deaths and injuries just for lack of safety training. Same difference.

[Raskolnik]

255. Could you please point out which portion of the opinion grants you

license to shoot your teenager when he comes home lat at night. I've read through the opinion once, but evidently I missed that portion.

Thanks in advance.

[onehandle]

374. More guns = More dead people

It's the American way!

[tidy_bowl]

383. More guns = More dead criminals. nt

[1Hippiechick]

278. Aw, c'mon...don't you think that argument is a little weak? Our sons are still living, ages 33 &36

It just requires communication and education. And, quite frankly, our son and DIL live in Spotsylvania (beside Fredericksburg) and on one of our visits, they took us around to the sites where the DC sniper had randomly killed people. I can tell you that it was an eerie sight and feeling to see bullet holes in the plate glass windows at one of the gas stations. My son and DIL both grew up around guns, and they know that they are not toys. I have to agree with an earlier poster that I believe many of the people who protest gun ownership are ppl who have never possessed guns--and maybe are even afraid of them--and maybe have not lived in a high-crime area. I, for one, am happy that my older son and DIL are now licensed to carry concealed weapons--particularly where they live.

As far as "Ain't Freedom Grand!" Yes, it is.

Peace.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

347. I wouldn't do that if I were you.

You'd probably feel really bad about it afterwards and there might be criminal charges to face. For your information, you should never shoot at anything until you have clearly identified your target and decided to shoot at it.

David

[dysfunctional press]

210. BEST news from this court in quite awhile...

:woohoo:

[followthemoney]

227. The U.S. is the largest exporter of weapons.

All of the rest of the empire deals with ubiquitous weapons from the U.S.

Why do we need 'special protection' from criminal and state violence?

The 'special protection' amounts only to the disarming of a class of society.

I ran as a delegate for Kucinich. His sound rejection by the party emphasizes the fact that the public is not in favor of a sane nation or a sane world.

In a world where there exists only a small minority willing to support rule of law under the constitution, guns may be the only, if feeble, restraint on violations of individual rights.

[paulstylos]

257. relevant?

this is relevant to the SCOTUS decision how?

if we were the world's largest distributor of pr0n would that have any bearing on SCOTUS cases regarding freedom of speech?

[Erebus67]

308. Good decision, now on to other bans/infringements

"if we were the world's largest distributor of pr0n would that have any bearing on SCOTUS cases regarding freedom of speech?"

We're not?!?!

What bothers me is that the decision was 5-4 and that Obama supports a new AWB. I don't like how Bush-like McCain is but I also don't like Obama's anti-rights stance when it comes to the 2A.

So far the Brady Campaign and Diane Feinstein have made statements that they will have to find other ways to restrict guns. I guess it will remain a wedge issue as they are not going to lay off. Chicago Mayor Daly is in meltdown. If this decision would have put this issue on the back burner in November these people are going to drag it back to the front burner.

Interestingly CNN just made a statement that inferred that Internet sales of guns are unregulated. Apparently they are unaware that all state and federal laws apply to Internet sales, background checks and such.

[HockeyMom]

310. Does this strike down licensing and registration?

I know where I used to live on LI, Nassau County several years ago upped the registration fees to $250 PER GUN. I don't remember what the fee was just for the license. Separate carry permit fees too.

In order words, they wanted to cut down on the number of guns so they made it VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE to own one.

[Bacchus39]

315. nope, not at all, but I imagine DC will try something like that

I could even see them saying a license is required but not issuing them.

[slackmaster]

336. That is basically what they were doing, and it got them sued

Mayor Fenty said today that DC would not allow registration of semiautomatic handguns.

He's itching to get sued again.

[primavera]

478. He's accountable to his constituents

The vast, overwhelming majority of whom support the handgun ban. I understand that you and the current Supreme Court don't believe that the people have the right to make that decision for themselves, but Washingtonians are unlikely to appreciate being told that.

[slackmaster]

541. "...don't believe that the people have the right to make that decision for themselves..."

I believe individuals have the right to decide whether or not to have guns in their homes and places of business.

I do not support the notion that members of a community have the power to dictate what private, personal possessions individuals keep in their own homes, as long as those individuals are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

We both believe in self-determination, KevinJ. I lean toward, whenever possible, leaving choices in the hands of individuals rather than communities.

[primavera]

544. Therein lies the crucial difference alright

You see an individual exercising a personal freedom; I see some damned fool leaving his loaded gun out for his kid to blow his foot off with. Sorry to be so cynical, but my experience is that, far more often than not, individuals make crappy decisions based upon incomplete and/or inaccurate information, laziness, and/or selfishness. Everywhere I look, I see people driving gas guzzlers, shopping at MalWarts, voting Republican because they're afraid a gay couple might get married, turning blind eyes to official kidnapping, torture, and murder, endorsing warrantless wiretapping and suspension of our most basic legal protections, and it always seems to boil down to the "looking out for number one" culture we legitimize in this country under the guise of "individual freedom." Why don't we start talking about individual responsibility for a change? In practice, individuals talk a big line about wanting to protect the environment, but only so long as they don't have to give up their gas guzzler. Individuals talk about protecting US jobs, but then stride right in to a MalWart to buy those $5 jeans made by slave laborers in Sri Lanka. Individuals talk about wanting to reduce illegal immigration, but when they need a good deal getting their house painted, they're only too happy to employ the services of migrant labor. I could go on for hours, but you get the idea. Face it, we do a lot of really stupid shit in this country and enshroud our right to do stupid shit without responsibility or accountability in the sacrosanct mantle of "individual freedom." I'm sorry, but there are a great many free, democratic societies in the world, many of which are arguably more democratic than ours, which are prepared to regulate to a far greater degree the behavior of their citizens and their corporations for the sake of the public good and, frankly, I think they're better off for it in a million different ways. A society without regulation isn't "free;" it's Beruit and it's a bloody fucking dangerous place to live.

[slackmaster]

546. People have the right to make bad decisions, and they are usually the ones that suffer

As I see things, when society at large takes decision-making power away from individuals, then we all have to take responsibility for all of the consequences, both good and bad. If you disarm people and leave them defenseless, then you should be held accountable when they are attacked and lack the tools to fight back.

I see some damned fool leaving his loaded gun out for his kid to blow his foot off with.

Gun accidents have been declining steadily for over 100 years. The solution is education.

I'm sorry, but there are a great many free, democratic societies in the world, many of which are arguably more democratic than ours, which are prepared to regulate to a far greater degree the behavior of their citizens and their corporations for the sake of the public good and, frankly, I think they're better off for it in a million different ways.

Democracy does not mean putting to a vote every conceivable decision. Some things are best left to individuals.

A society without regulation isn't "free;" it's Beruit and it's a bloody fucking dangerous place to live.

Nice Straw Man. Nobody is arguing for a society without regulation.

[primavera]

548. Well, I'll go along with part of what you say

I agree that education is key to reducing gun accidents. Take Switzerland, for example. Because they employ a universal conscription system, virtually everyone has guns, yet gun accidents and gun fatalities are very low. Because every one of those people who has a gun has undergone formal and rigorous military training on the safe and responsible usage of firearms and they are required to periodically undergo referesher courses and demonstrate their continued ability to safely and responsibly use a firearm.

My problem with your position, slackmaster, is not that people are incapable of safely and responsibly using guns; my problem is that, despite your protest to the contrary, you guys are in fact constantly arguing for as close to unregulated gun use as you can get. Gun advocates stress that gun ownership and usage is a right, not a priviledge, and, as such, there should be virtually no constraints upon it. You guys don't want to have to undergo safety instruction, you don't want to have to take licensing exams in order to prove that you're competent to operate firearms, you don't want any limitations on the kinds of guns you can own, you don't want constraints upon how many guns you can own, you don't want anyone to judge whether your use of guns is responsible or irresponsible, you resent delays of even a few days in order to obtain a background check before you can obtain your gun, you want to be able to carry your weapons anywhere and everywhere without constraint, you don't want simple safety constraints such as requiring the use of trigger locks or requiring that guns be stored unloaded, you're unsympathetic to law enforcement considerations which are frustrated by things like fingerprint resistant coatings, or endangered by widespread availability of automatic weapons and/or armor piercing rounds, face it, as a community, gun advocates show no sign of being willing to accept any responsibility whatsoever. Not once have I ever heard the NRA come out and call for mandatory gun safety education or advocate on behalf of a gun safety device. You don't like trigger locks? Fine, come up with a better one, I'll be delighted to hear about it. But no, all I ever hear coming from the gun community is how they want guns as a free gift, no strings attached, no responsibility, no accountability. And they feel justified in that desire because they perceive it to be an absolute right to which they are entitled from birth, simply by virtue of breathing.

That is where I part company. I believe that, if you have to own a gun, you should at least be obliged to prove that you are competent to do so. And I see no infringement upon personal freedoms in that. We require drivers to take road tests and pass exams in order to be issued a license to operate a motor vehicle and no one thinks that simple precaution makes us a fascist state. If you wish to practice many professions, you're required to pass exams, obtain licenses, and undergo continuing education in order to demonstrate your competence to practice your profession. And that doesn't make us a fascist state. It's just common sense. Do you want your brain surgeon to be drilling holes in your head if they're not competent?

But because you guys insist upon having guns as a free gift, I cease to have the luxury of being able to look upon individual gun owners and acknowledge that a majority of them are probably capable of safely owning and operating firearms. Because you guys want guns for anyone and everyone without any meaningful limitations, I have to base my opinion of that upon the weakest links. From a macro policy point of view, it's not viable to look at any one individual and subjectively know that, well, this person's obviously going to handle guns responsibly, so it's okay for them to own them without any constraints, whereas this guy over here, well, now, he looks like a trouble maker so we'd better not let him have guns, that's just not possible. So it becomes an all or nothing proposition. And as long as you're not willing to accept any regulation of your behavior, the weak links, i.e., people who cannot be relied upon to use guns responsibly, end up having them anyway and the only possible conclusion you've left me with is that no one should have a gun.

If you want to persuade me that private gun ownership is a good thing, it's very easy: stop talking about how it's your inalienable right to do whatever the hell you please with a deadly weapon and start talking about how you plan to ensure that people who have guns can be trusted to use them responsibly.

[Paladin]

549. Beautifully Stated, KevinJ (n/t)

[Erebus67]

324. No it doesn't

In fact Fenty already stated that semi-auto handguns are still banned and that every gun will have to be registered. The semi-auto ban will likely result in another lawsuit. The NRA has announced that they are going to file lawsuits all over the country. Chicago and LA were 2 of the places that were mentioned but there were more.

How this would effect a new national AWB I don't know since "Assault Weapons" are not military weapons but semi-auto look-a-likes.

But I am fairly sure this wedge issue isn't going to go away, between the statements made by the pro-gun and anti-gun people today they are going to keep it in the forefront.

[Caentor]

363. I would suggest

That just like a poll tax, it's unconstitutional and will be ruled as such given time.

[Contradistinction]

232. YaaaaaY!!!!

Victory for the constitution!

[atufal1c]

237. Excellent. Chicago's next.

I haven't read the ruling, but I damn sure agree with it.

It was bad law.

[Recursion]

270. Ooh... DC's Constitutional-limbo status comes into play

I can't wait to finish reading this decision

[jody]

290. ACLU must now recant it's position that the 2nd Amendment does not protect individual RKBA.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment {as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller} that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47"

The Heller opinion says:
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

[primavera]

338. Why? Because a handful of right-wingers say so?

ACLU's stated policy is that they "agree with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment". Now, because five ultra right wingers have expressed their disagreement with the Court's long-standing interpretation, suddenly ACLU needs to agree with them? I know this is Republican America, but aren't we still free to agree or disagree with whom we choose? Or is that now thought crime for which we can be whisked away to Gitmo? It's so hard to keep up with these things these days.

[jody]

340. Because the Democratic Party says so as supported by SCOTUS' decision in Heller. Either ACLU

protects all civil rights among which is RKBA or it should change its name to "American Some Civil Liberties Union".

[Caentor]

362. The ACLU can disagree with the Scotus

Unknown if they will. But two things

1) The 5 are not "ultra right wingers". Scalia, yes. But not all of them.
2) You can disagree all you want. But the law of the land is written thusly

[derby378]

375. Hey, the Court never GAVE an actual interpretation until today - not even in MILLER

In Miller, they simply ruled that sawed-off shotguns are not proper weapons for a well-regulated militia.

[KneelBeforeZod]

394. No ... because ...

... if it expects to be taken seriously, the ACLU cannot pick and choose which civil liberties it likes and which it doesn't. It is the nature of defending liberty that one must defend the popular liberties, and the unpopular ones. And, ultimately, it is the unpopular ones that need the most vigorous defense.

The ACLU must defend ALL civil liberties -- even those it wishes weren't liberties.

KBZ

[Erebus67]

547. Here's what the ACLU has to say about it

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html

Quoting some of the more operative statements. IMHO of coarse.

Bold emphasis is mine.

"In Heller, the Court REinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights."

It was never interpreted by the Court as anything else. So they are sticking to the tired old mantra.

"It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."

So they apparently will still support infringements as their concern was about how the Constitution will harm how strict the laws can be and not how the laws will infringe on the individual's right.

[happyslug]

291. Here is the Opinion

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[closeupready]

294. I am instinctively suspicious of authorities, and thus, I like this decision. Everyone

should have the right to self-defense.

[KillCapitalism]

297. I have no problem with their decision.

It's a victory for the people and a defeat for criminals.

[desk]

341. Not good enough

Though this is awesome I am still not completely happy. How can they say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms yet ignore the part about not being infringed. How can they let laws limiting concealed weapons stand? And laws outlawing guns in schools and government buildings? I won't be happy until a person carry a gun openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded anywhere in public.

[redqueen]

300. Glad to see this!

:)

[brentspeak]

343. This shouldn't affect the only real important thing concerning gun ownership

Proper background checks of prospective permit holders, complete with personal interviews with the applicant and their neighbors, employers, family, etc.

Local and state police vetting of NJ permit applicants is the main reason why NJ suburbs are safer than most other states' suburbs.

[Caentor]

361. correlation =/= causation

WA is a shall issue state. No vetting, no interviews, no big brother conducting "personal interviews" in order for us to exercise our rights.

Our suburbs are also very safe. Our homicide rate is low, both in the bigger cities (Seattle) and in the suburbs.

Guns are also perfectly legal on our college campuses.

What evidence do you have that it is the vetting process that makes NJ suburbs safe?

[brentspeak]

387. NJ doesn't experience the kinds of gun massacres that WA does:

While gun crimes have occurred in suburban and rural NJ, and will occur in the future, I don't know of any NJ equivalent to recent WA stories like the following:

1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318508,00.html">Carnation, WA woman, with boyfriend's help, massacres six of her family members

2) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/264412_shoottimeline26ww.html">Seattle man shoots six young people dead

[primavera]

434. Out of curiosity...

... do you happen to know how many people in Washington even own guns? I lived in Seattle for several years and it didn't strike me as much of a gun culture there. I think it's interesting that Washington has low gun violence yet relatively easy access to guns. But if, for instance, it were the case that Washingtonians simply never bought guns, even though guns were readily available, it wouldn't support a conclusion that the presence of guns, or laws granting easy access to them, was a contributor to the relatively low homicide rates you're seeing there. On the other hand, if it were the case that everyone and his mother took advantage of those easy access laws and owned a shitload of guns and gun violence was still low, well, that would be a pretty interesting fact. I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking.

[Antinius]

452. I know

literally dozens of people who have guns and./or CCW's in WA state, but I don't have any hard #;s.

Seattle does not have much of a gun culture. WA does. Once you get outside the city limits.

It is not at ALL interesting to me that WA has easy access to guns and low crime. Since, there is not a positive correlation between "easy access to guns" and crime. In fact, quite the opposite. So, I would expect a state like WA to have relatively low crime.

The point is this - WA allows SHALL ISSUE -- anybody not disqualified (felon, etc.) must be issued a permit.

MANY take advantage of this. WA also allows carry on college campuses.

There is no carnage on the streets, and our crime rate is quite low. In many areas, it is lower than nearby Vancouver, CA fwiw.

Many gun grabbers claim gun rights advocates want to ARM people. We don't. We want to give them the CHOICE. Many choose to arm themselves in WA state. Many don't. But I can tell you as somebody who has lived and worked here for years, and know many gun owners here, we ARE here. You don't notice us because we usually carry concealed.
Although WA does allow open carry - very few do it

[slackmaster]

368. It's great that NJ suburbs are safe, but tell me one thing

Why are NJ inner cities so dangerous? Don't they have the same background checks and interviews as the 'burbs?

Could it have something to do with the people?

[brentspeak]

388. As I've already said many times before, in past discussions

Gang members in NJ cities have to import their guns from out-of-state. The lax gun policies of some of the other states make it easy for the nation's underground gun-running pipeline to remain well-supplied.

[slackmaster]

395. But the nice people in the suburbs, who could just as easily get guns illegally, don't

The problem is the people.

[HockeyMom]

415. Georgia and Florida

#1 and #2 top states where illegal guns come from. Think these two states have a lot of gun control laws? Florida doesn't have take you kids to work day. They now have take your guns work every day.

[krabigirl]

377. Meh, I am in a small minority, but I wish we weren't so gleeful about the right to own guns.

It frightens me, really.

[KneelBeforeZod]

400. Some are frightened of glee ...

... at the right to own guns. Some are frightened at the glee at the right to choose. Some are frightened at glee at the right to engage in homosexual conduct. Some are frightened at glee at the right to speak out against a Republican war.

The fact that you're afraid of gun ownership doesn't detract from the true victory for liberty that this represents. My wife was afraid of guns once upon a time ... until I taught her to use one.

My recommendation, buy a handgun and learn to use it. Fear generally stems from unfamiliarity. I've grown up around guns, and have never understood the phobia surrounding them. Additionally, children, once they reach a certain age, learn to respect guns when they're familiar with how to handle one. Its the kids that aren't taught correctly (or at all) that end up hurting someone.

Ultimately, I look at it like sex-ed ... its better to know how to safely engage than to put on blinders. With blinders, you just end up mystifying guns (and sex), and someone can get hurt through uneducated engagement.

I gather from your handle that you're female (impressively observant, eh?) -- try a Walther PPK or Glock 19 ... a nice, smaller, manageable handgun. Personally, I'm partial to the Heckler & Koch USP Compact .45 -- concealable and it carries some pop. But, the HK is ridiculously expensive.

KBZ

[VermeerLives]

410. Excellent comments

"better to know how to safely engage than to put on blinders. With blinders, you just end up mystifying guns (and sex), and someone can get hurt through uneducated engagement."

You are absolutely correct. Responsible gun owners aren't running around gung-ho, waiting to shoot someone. They do not look forward to doing so, and they hope that day never comes. But they also realize that self-defense is a basic human right, and are willing to protect their families and loved ones. What kind of person would not want to be able to do that? To quote someone else, "I carry a gun, because I can't carry a policeman."

[primavera]

428. Then again, some of us are afraid of what guns do

[1Hippiechick]

440. What's the story behind the picture, e.g.. was he possibly a serial rapist who was finally stopped?

[primavera]

443. Would it be more attractive if he was?

As is so often the case, though, we don't know the story behind the picture and he's now in no position to explain it himself, is he?

[1Hippiechick]

456. On the other hand, if he had had a gun, maybe he could have defended himself?

[primavera]

474. On the other hand, if his attacker hadn't had a gun, maybe he wouldn't have needed to?

[1Hippiechick]

476. Circular reasoning?

[primavera]

480. You mean, like, if he'd had a gun, maybe he could have defended himself?

[1Hippiechick]

482. LOL. I give up. I 'm tired.......

[primavera]

485. I hear you

This is a very tough topic with so many people feeling so strongly about it (and how can they not when people's very lives are so directly involved?) and so little way of knowing what, among the ocean of politically motivated propaganda floating around out there, is true and what is not. You end up not feeling like you can't trust any of the "data" and are just left with your gut instinct. And I think that's one of the biggest divides in human psychology: the so-called realist school of thought on one hand, which viscerally believes that Machiavelli was right, it's a dog eat dog world, every man for himself, and force is the most reliably efficacious way of protecting one's self in a hostile world; as opposed to the liberal view of the world, which feels equally strongly that most problems are more complex than they appear and dealing with them requires a variety of approaches, of which force is but one and not even reliably the most effective. But that's such a basic philosophical difference, it's really hard to find a common ground there. To the realist, shirking from the use of force is recklessness bordering on criminal; to the liberal, resorting to force without first ascertaining whether force will help or harm the situation is no less dangerous. Which one's right? Humanity's been arguing about that since Herodotus' time and probably long before that. But I agree, trying to solve such eternal questions does seriously take it out of one - I'm exhausted!

Have yourself a good night!

[KneelBeforeZod]

528. That argument only works ...

... as an argument for banning guns, if it can be established that the shooter wouldn't have gotten the gun if gun laws had been in place. As drug laws have taught us, prohibition doesn't mean eradication.

There will always be guns in society ... their elimination is an absolute impossibility. You cannot uninvent the wheel. The only question is whether good people should have the right to own/carry them, or whether gun possession should be restricted to people who are willing to disobey laws.

Your suggestion would ensure that the all gun victims would be innocent victims, my suggestion would even the odds that the dead guy is the bad guy.

KBZ

[KneelBeforeZod]

522. Banning guns would ENSURE that the dead guy was the good guy ...

I don't know the dead guy in the picture -- maybe he was a good guy, maybe he was a criminal. Banning guns wouldn't prevent his death, it would only ensure that the dead guy pictured would be the good guy instead of the bad guy.

I don't know the guy in the picture -- maybe he deserved to get shot, maybe not. Maybe he was shot by a law-abiding gun owner. If he broke into my house and/or threatened my family, I wouldn't be afraid of what my handgun could do (though HE should), I'd be appreciative. Maybe the death of that man saved innocent lives.

But, maybe not. Maybe he got shot by a thug who couldn't care less if you ban guns or not. Maybe he'd still be alive if he owned and carried a handgun ... maybe the shooter/thug would be dead instead.

Maybe he accidentally shot himself ... maybe he'd still be alive if he'd been properly trained to use a gun without blowing his own head off. Maybe he intentionally shot himself, in which case I wouldn't be any more afraid of the gun than I would of the noose, knife, or carbon monoxide. There are LOTS of ways to kill yourself.

Ultimately, a gun is simply a tool. It is trite -- but truly the case the guns don't kill people, people do. Guns can be a tool of destruction or salvation. It can be a tool of tyranny or protection. It can be one of many tools of suicide or murder, and one of a few effective tools of self-defense.

However, laws banning guns don't prevent tyranny, destruction or murder ... they only prevent protection, salvation and self-defense. Keeping guns out of the hands of the good guys means only those who couldn't care less about the law will be armed.

Ultimately, banning guns will ENSURE that the guy in the picture was the law abiding one rather than the criminal aggressor. Allowing good guys to carry at least evens the odds that the right guy will get shot.

KBZ

[HockeyMom]

436. Big difference

If the woman down the street decides to have an abortion, is that a threat to YOU? If a gay couple 2,000 miles away decides to marry, is that a threat to YOU?

Those choices don't affect anybody else. That is the difference. Guns are a threat to other people. They can be stolen from law abiding citizens and used against other people. You can use your gun to protect your property (stores) or yourself and accidentally shoot innocent bystanders.

Can you see the difference in these choices?

My husband is a gun owner. When we dated, he used to take me shooting. I could care less, but just went along back then. He is an NRA member. He even used to make his own ammo, but over the years gave that up. The guns for decades stayed locked up and unused. He sold them all when we moved to Florida.

Then he discovered the lax laws and cheap guns of Florida. He went out and bought more. He got a carry permit, not to carry, but just because he COULD. He couldn't do that in NY because he didn't have a legitimate reason to. In Florida he didn't NEED a legitimate reason. I do not like this at all. You don't buy a gun and get a carry just because YOU CAN. I am only slightly relieved with the fact that the gun is still in the locked cabinet and not in the car.

It does worry me the obsession this country seems to have with guns. I am not afraid of the guns, I am afraid of the PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS. No, I am not even afraid of the CRIMINALS with the guns because I expect and know what they are capable of. It is all the other "law abiding citizens" who scare me to death with their pry my gun away from my cold dead fingers crap or whatever the hell that saying is.

I wish they would pass a law stating that every person who is a gun owner and is carrying would wear a patch stating such. I would stay as far away from that person as possible.

When I got to Florida, my husband announced he was buying ME a gun. I told him that was a foolish waste of money. It really upset me that he even suggested this. I suppose I should have said that, but I didn't want to hurt his feelings. He bought me a spray bottle of mace instead. I put it somewhere in the house, but I cannot even remember where I put it.

Just a little background. I grew up in NYC. I have not lead some sheltered life. I have lived all alone, walked and rode subways all over at all times, saw a bus driver shot to death when I was a child, lived in the area at the time of the Son of Sam murders, been robbed and burglarized and defended myself with ordinary objects which were available to me at the time.

I just do not understand the mindset of you gun owners. Not at all.

[Antinius]

450. a gun owner

is not a threat to you, specifically speaking, any more than a non-gun owner

statistically speaking, a lawful CCW gun owner is LESS of a threat to you, since they commit less crime per capita.

A legally owned gun is not a threat to you. A criminal is - with or without a gun.

And criminals don't obey gun laws.

So, no... I don't see the difference in choices.

[HockeyMom]

454. That legal gun can be stolen

and used in crimes against other people. Mary's abortion or Joe and Steve's wedding will not harm or affect anybody else.

[Antinius]

455. look

Yes, the gun can be stolen.

but the GUN is not the issue. If a criminal WANTS a gun, he will get it. And if he wants to kill somebody he does not need a gun. They make do.

You don't restrict a civil right (gun ownership/carry) because a gun CAN be stolen.

a car CAN be stolen and used in MV Homicide. Or DUI Homicide. Cars kill more people than guns fwiw. People steal cars and commit crimes, even deadly violent crimes.

etc.

[Mojorabbit]

487. I live in Florida

and grew up here and I am a woman. I have been attacked four times. I was raised with guns and am totally comfortable around them but this is not about that. It might not be a bad idea for you to at least carry your mace. I was attacked in a mall parking lot. A nurse I worked with at the hospital was raped in the hospital parking garage. I know as a woman you know to always be aware. If you don't want a gun that is your decision but the mace really might be a handy thing to have.

[KneelBeforeZod]

527. Not so much ...

>> If the woman down the street decides to have an abortion, is that a threat to YOU?

An anti-choicer would say it is a threat to the lives of the most innocent among us.

>> If a gay couple 2,000 miles away decides to marry, is that a threat to YOU?

A homophobe would say it is a threat to the Godliness of marriage, and thus they perceive a threat to their own family.

>> Those choices don't affect anybody else. That is the difference.

Not according to those who fear them.

>> Guns are a threat to other people. They can be stolen from law abiding citizens and used against other people. You can use your gun to protect your property (stores) or yourself and accidentally shoot innocent bystanders.

So are cars. The fact that a tool can be inappropriately used does not detract from its purpose -- especially when that particular tool is protected by a Constitutional right. Guns need not be stolen from the law-abiding to get into the hands of a criminal ... as is clearly demonstrated by the RISE in gun crimes in DC since the ban. Additionally, banning the APPROPRIATE use of guns doesn't stop the illegal and inappropriate use thereof.

>> Then he discovered the lax laws and cheap guns of Florida. He went out and bought more. He got a carry permit, not to carry, but just because he COULD.

Let freedom ring, eh? True freedom is allowing others to make choices that you don't understand and don't like. If your sense of liberty extends only to choices that you understand and agree with, I'd argue that it is pretty shallow. Seems like that'd just substitute one tyranny for another, more agreeable, tyranny.

>> He couldn't do that in NY because he didn't have a legitimate reason to. In Florida he didn't NEED a legitimate reason. I do not like this at all.

Self-defense, one of the most fundamental of rights, is a legitimate reason. Ultimately, I am uncomfortable with the government determining whether my reasons for carrying a weapon are "legitimate".

I have a concealed carry license (Texas). Never drawn my weapon, though I've flashed it in its holster (accompanied by a "May I help you?") one time, to stop a man approaching me in a dark parking lot at 2am. He stopped and turned away immediately. Perhaps he was just a panhandler, perhaps he was a criminal and I saved my own life and/or property. Either way, no one was hurt ... and I didn't even have to draw the weapon to get my point across.

>> It does worry me the obsession this country seems to have with guns. I am not afraid of the guns, I am afraid of the PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS. No, I am not even afraid of the CRIMINALS with the guns because I expect and know what they are capable of. It is all the other "law abiding citizens" who scare me to death with their pry my gun away from my cold dead fingers crap or whatever the hell that saying is.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly phobias know no logic. You're not afraid of a criminal with a gun, because you are comfortable with him killing you, or robbing you, or raping you, or whatever (because you know what he's capable of).

You're more afraid of me -- a law abiding gun owner who wouldn't unholster his weapon except as the absolute last resort. You're afraid of Mr. Heller, a police officer who wanted to keep his gun with him off-duty. Your more afraid of the honest citizen whose only intent is to defend himself and others, than the criminal whose intent is to create mayhem for his own benefit. Genius.

>> I wish they would pass a law stating that every person who is a gun owner and is carrying would wear a patch stating such. I would stay as far away from that person as possible.

Clearly. Until something bad happened and he was the only good guy around capable of defending himself (and you).

>> When I got to Florida, my husband announced he was buying ME a gun. I told him that was a foolish waste of money. It really upset me that he even suggested this. I suppose I should have said that, but I didn't want to hurt his feelings. He bought me a spray bottle of mace instead. I put it somewhere in the house, but I cannot even remember where I put it.

I can certainly understand being upset. The bastard cared enough about you to want you protected when he wasn't around.

>> I have lived all alone, walked and rode subways all over at all times, saw a bus driver shot to death when I was a child, lived in the area at the time of the Son of Sam murders, been robbed and burglarized and defended myself with ordinary objects which were available to me at the time.

Perhaps this history contributed to your irrational fear of people with guns, and your apparent inability to see a gun owner as a well-motived individual who only wants to protect himself and his family.

>> I just do not understand the mindset of you gun owners. Not at all.

Clearly.

KBZ

[Erebus67]

568. I don't think anyone should have to justify to the government...

...the exercise of a right. Would you accept having to go before the police chief and give a legitimate reason(as determined by someone else) for your right to speech before you could exercise it? How about you have to go before a panel and justify your reason for choosing to have an abortion and if your reason doesn't meet their criteria of "legitimate" it can be summarily denied?

"He couldn't do that in NY because he didn't have a legitimate reason to. In Florida he didn't NEED a legitimate reason. I do not like this at all. You don't buy a gun and get a carry just because YOU CAN."

[bread_and_roses]

385. oh goody! more guns! more dead people! more dead children!

i can't wait! Do I need a sarcasm thingy?

[1Hippiechick]

442. "i can't wait! Do I need a sarcasm thingy?" Only in your subject line.....

[HockeyMom]

386. Can I ban guns from my personal property?

This is in reference mostly to that new law in Flordia (where else?) allowing employees to take guns onto private property of their empolyers, even over their objections.

If this is the case, do I have the right to ban guns from MY personal property and my home if I don't want them there?

Whose rights trumps whose? Your right to have a gun or my, or business owners, right to NOT have guns around?

[slackmaster]

392. Yes, you have the right to do that

But don't expect your local police to comply if they pay you a visit for any reason.

Whose rights trumps whose? Your right to have a gun or my, or business owners, right to NOT have guns around?

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the law in Florida. An employer can prohibit employees from bringing firearms into work areas - offices, manufacturing plants, cafeterias, break rooms, etc. However, employees who (I believe) have concealed weapons permits can leave guns in their cars while parked on work property. They still can't bring them into the office.

[HockeyMom]

414. Then can't those employers say

if you have a gun in your car you cannot park your car in my parking lot (private property). If I can say to someone, you cannot park in my driveway (private property)if you have a gun, why shouldn't they be able to say the same?

[Antinius]

444. it depends

is it a place where the public has access as invitees or licensees (like a mall), which is a quasi public place, or TRULY a private place - like a personal driveway.

you can tell somebody you don't want any guns on your property, but generally speaking (i realize case law varies state by state), they are not committing a CRIME when doing so if they are otherwise legally possessing it. you can tell them to leave if you find out they are carrying, and if they refuse - it's trespassing.

the vast majority of the time people are around armed people, they have no idea . it's concealed. i've carried concealed for 20 years, and people don't know i'm carrying. you wouldn't either.

[Antinius]

449. yes, you can "ban them" in a sense

In that you can tell somebody who is armed to leave your property. You have the right to allow or disallow entry to anybody (except police/fire and other emergency officials may access even against your permission with a warrant, exigency, etc.).

You can ban fat people, armed people, people in wheelchairs, people who are bald.

You can ban people for ANY reason. If it's personal property (note: not referring to businesses here, just residences, curtilage, etc.)

[Doug.Goodall]

390. Goodness Gracious, just what we need, even more guns to shoot Innocent people with

The gun pushers at the NRA must be dancing in the isles. Gun sales will go up for sure on this ruling

More dead wives from drunken enraged husbands.

[slackmaster]

393. That's sexist

:nuke:

[1Hippiechick]

398. "Moron" is misspelled in your avatar, isn't it?

:hi:

[primavera]

438. Inside joke

A few years back, at one of the big peace marches in DC, there was a small group of counter-demonstrators, one of whom was holding a sign which read "Get a Brain Morans." Someone took a picture of it and it's become a symbol of right-wing erudition.

[1Hippiechick]

448. Have seen the picture, didn't make the connection with your avatar....thanks.

[Critters2]

446. You're new here, aren't you?

:hi:

[1Hippiechick]

483. Yes, but I have been busy posting. You're from Iowa? What is the latest?

[Antinius]

447. Not the issue

Statistically speaking, holders of CCW's shoot "innocent people" VERY VERY rarely, when they shoot their guns at all.

Most CCW'ers never fire there guns at a person (range only) in their entire lives.

So, there is no evidence that allowing people to carry will result in what you think. Evidence is to the contrary, as in every state that PASSED CCW crimes went down.

[Doug.Goodall]

506. That's good for people with the CCW

The people in Washington DC can't get a CCW (thank goodness). The people in DC will very soon be able to go out and buy handguns (probably at the gun shows the gun pushers at the NRA are already scheduling to be held on the Mall).

Like anything new, people are going to go and buy a handgun just because they can. The result will be innocent people getting shot for a whole range of factors starting with lack of experience with guns, over reaction to threating situations and yes, people in a drunken rage using their new handgun to settle a score.

[Mojorabbit]

488. As an armed woman

I think your post is a bit ridiculous.

[alarimer]

412. To be expected from these right-wing pieces of shit.

Fucking gun nut assholes.

Christ, I HATE Scalia. He should never have been appointed, let alone confirmed.

[jamesA]

499. Amen

Amen

[benEzra]

508. Given the fact that a quarter or so of Dems personally own guns, and most Dems support the right to

how the HELL do you get this?

To be expected from these right-wing pieces of shit. Fucking gun nut assholes.

This ruling is GOOD for Dems. A ruling stating the 2ndA doesn't protect an individual right, on the other hand, would have been a disaster for the party, because it would have brought the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme back with a vengeance in the election.

[Paladin]

420. I Disagree With The Decision----But It Could Have Been Worse

A lot worse, considering it came from the likes of Fat Tony Scalia and his surly handpuppet, Clarence Thomas.....

[superconnected]

422. They also reduced enron damage to only 500 mil to pay instead of 2.5 billion today

and they only missed executing child rapist by one vote yesterday.

They're a scary group.

[Thothmes]

509. Exxon not Enron

[superconnected]

534. Yeah I realized I mistyped that when I got home last night :)

[minnesota_liberal]

432. If Scalia voted for it, the ruling must be flawed!

I don't even have to look into the details.

[slackmaster]

460. Always nice to see such a thoughtful, open-minded post

:argh:

[minnesota_liberal]

468. I guess some people need the "sarcasm" smiley.

Seemed clear enough without.

[w4rma]

453. Good. (nt)

[Bacchus39]

458. the Constitution confers no right to bear arms

just as there is no explicit right to wear pants. self defence, hunting, and the like are a given. the fact that it was 5-4 and not 9-0 is astonishing

[Thothmes]

539. Does Now.

[Endangered Specie]

564. EEEEHHHHH

5 - 4 is just as good as 9 - 0

Roe v Wade was 5 - 4, does that make it less effective?

[ileus]

477. Let Freedom Ring....

[1Hippiechick]

479. Indeed! :)

[scarface2004]

491. two words..virginia tech!!

right to bear arms my ass!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

496. Guns were banned there, how did that work out?

Funny how criminals and mentally unstable people don't seem to obey the law.

David

[1Hippiechick]

514. "Funny how criminals and mentally unstable people don't seem to obey the law. " BINGO! n/t

[Endangered Specie]

563. 2 words: APPALACHIA STATE

[beevul]

565. 4 words: Pearl High School shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

[jamesA]

497. Impeach Scalia

It's all political.
And all's fair in politics.
Tired of the Conservatives controling the court?
Impeach Scalia now to make room for a new justice appointed by President Obama.
Clinotns impeachmetn was political, so what goes around comes around.

[slackmaster]

523. What high crime or misdemeanor do you believe Justice Scalia has committed?

Please be specific.

I don't like the guy either, but I'm not aware of any impeachable offense in his record.

[beevul]

533. Wow, Epic thread...

Wow, Epic thread...seems contrary to the "fact" that "the gun issue doesn't matter".

[Paladin]

542. Divisiveness Accounts For The Length Of This Thread

Divisiveness, pure and simple. There are plenty of other issues that are a hell of a lot more important than guns in this country, for anybody with a passing acquaintance with reality. And no, Beevul, this is not sour grapes on my part. As I state elsewhere, the Heller decision is one I can live with. Besides which, the decision is turning out to be a gift to the Obama campaign; it's already disappearing from the news cycle---a contrary decision would have gotten all the gun militants hot and bothered, aiding McCain's efforts unduly......

[beevul]

543. A fair point, Paladin...

A fair point, Paladin, however, even divisiveness which may contribute to the length of the thread, is somewhat indicative that it IS an important issue, at least IMO.


I agree with you about this being a gift to the Obama campaign, and I am happy about that.


In any case, now that the arguement shifts away from gun banning, maybe it wont be the divisive issue it has been, here on DU, after the dust settles.


I would welcome it. As I have said before, I think I'd enjoy shooting the shit (no pun intended) with you about fly tieing, and fly fishing.

[Paladin]

545. Glad To Agree With You, Truly (n/t)

[derby378]

566. I dunno...

DC's mayor is already talking about enacting a new gun ban to sidestep Heller. The current plan, IIRC, is to limit citizens of DC to revolvers and flintlocks. No semi-automatic pistols of any kind, be they Beretta, Glock, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc.

So gun banning appears to be rearing its ugly head again, this time in terms of a technology gap.

[xdoctor]

554. What could possibly

be more important than keeping sacred the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights?

[Paladin]

557. Try An Actual Response To My Comments (n/t)

[Tejas]

550. Tough crowd derby

Not too bad though, haven't seen any "blood overflowing the streets into the Potomac" posts yet.

;)

[Mercracer]

552. This Thread illustrates that some people are just absolutely clueless!!

The issue was NOT overturning the requirement of safe storage. The issue was NOT overturning the requirement to secure guns so that children can not readily get a hold of them and harm themselves and others. The issue WAS that a gun lock could NEVER EVER EVER EVER be removed from the firearm while it was in your home especially if you needed to use it for self defense. You could NEVER do something so simple as clean or inspect your guns in your home... The DC Gun Ban prohibited DC citizens from ever using a gun for self defense in their home. This is plain and simple. THIS is why the law was found to be in CLEAR direct contradiction to the CONUS!!!! A City, County State, etc CAN NOT implement legislation to strip away our Constitutional Rights!!! The "right" to self defense supercedes even the CONUS!! The 2nd Amendment is not the source of your right to defend yourself. It merely affirms this basic human right which everyone naturally has. It goes right along with the Rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...