Who's Happy that the SC Favored Guns over Lives? Why Freepers, Gun Nuts, and Murderers of course!

[Herman74]

But let's get more specific:

Chimpy is quite happy:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said today.

And you know that the NRA and this guy here are also very happy:



You might guess that crazy Son of Sam is happy, but from what I understand he's feeling pretty guilty nowadays about all the people he shot:



Never mind him. With all the guns in American society, and too many people indifferent to the carnage, we're just bound to get more of the following situations in our future! First something like this guy:



then followed by the candlelight vigils for the dead:



What’s that screaming that you hear now? Gun nuts yelling about just how wonderful guns are in self-defense? Let’s look into this matter. Consider the following case: “Miami-Dade police said that four officers were shot Thursday morning after stopping a man who was driving erratically.” (see http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/131334.html ). Alas, one of these officers died. What you and I can figure out, but what the gun nuts have so much difficulty with, is the fact that the criminal having foreknowledge that a crime is about to be committed draws his gun first. And a gun isn’t really of much use for self-defense if it’s still in the holster, even if it’s in the holster of someone well trained with guns, right?

Ah, but we can still hear the gun nuts screaming: “That doesn’t mean anything! Murderers might still think twice if they thought there was any possibility at all of getting shot at, so in our wonderful gun-saturated country murder rates are low.” But they’re not low. The U.S. homicide rate is easily the highest in the industrialized West, almost three times that of gun-scarce Britain, and much higher than that for all the other industrialized countries (France, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, etc.) where guns are scarce. In Japan guns are basically illegal, and the murder rate is easily less than 20 percent of what it is here. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate )

The gun nuts will at this point undoubtedly try to compare DC’s murder rate with some other U.S. locale lacking gun control laws. But such comparisons are, of course, worthless, for the criminals in DC can just take the subway to get their guns from nearby Virginia!! No, until the entire country bans the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns and bullets, we really can’t see the effect of what a gun ban would do by looking at particular gun bans that merely have a tiny (though likely positive) impact.

WELL THEN, WHO EXACTLY IS OPPOSED TO TODAY’S SUPREME COURT RULING?

Why the liberals of course, starting with the liberals on the Supreme Court! Let’s look at the dissenters:
Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter. All of the Court’s liberal wing.

And what Supremes made up the majority?

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, “Machine Gun Sammy” Alito, and Roberts. All conservative, all appointed by Republicans. Which way to go? Hmm. Scalia or Ginsburg, Scalia or Ginsburg? I’ll go with Ginsburg, and let the gun nuts side with Scalia.

Yeah, it’s basically a no-brainer determining what the true progressive position is. The true progressive values human life over his or her own material possessions. The true liberal gladly relinquishes his right to one means of self-protection (there are others) if it means that a CRAZED NUT CAN NO LONGER WALK INTO A CLASSROOM AND SHOOT TEN AMISH SCHOOLGIRLS IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD AS THEY BEG FOR THEIR LIVES, WITH BLOOD FLYING EVERYWHERE.

Sorry if some of you found that last part a bit graphic, but somebody’s got to wipe the faces of the gun nuts in the blood of the victims. Maybe, just maybe, a few of them will then start giving a damn.

[Recursion]

1. Incidentally, I'm happy about the ruling

Tarring people who support gun rights as "gun nuts" might make you feel better but doesn't do much to address the situation.

[w4rma]

105. I'm happy with this ruling, also. (nt)

[villager]

137. It was a typically shittily-reasoned Scalia ruling. As ever.

n/t

[Posteritatis]

123. Damned rights nuts...

*ducks*

[jody]

2. The Democratic Party is happy because the Heller decision adds the support of our Constitution to

the party platform that promises, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

[Andy823]

3. The problem is

Criminals will "always" have guns, no matter what the law says. I think cities have the right to enforce gun laws, but even when they do, the criminals will still have guns!

[reggie the dog]

48. As I have always said

Growing up ouside of Chicago in the suburbs I always said that the law telling people in Chicago that they could not have handguns was unconstitutional because gun laws were not powers left to the states or municipalities, it was a specified right in the constitution as per previous interpretation. Really, there are shootings all the time in Chicago. Handguns are sold illegally all over and the gangsters doing shootings don't give a damn about a law saying they can't have them. Now people can have their own 45 to protect themselves against gangsters.

[pleah]

146. You are so right!

This ruling does not make it any easier for murderers to get guns, they have always found a way to get them.

[Mojorabbit]

4. Um,

Bush was against this and the administration filed a brief against it. It was under this administration that guns were confiscated from people in NOLA. I think you have it ass backward.

[Recursion]

9. Bush would LOVE to be able to decide who is and isn't armed

It would make filling up those detention camps a lot easier when the time comes.

[Herman74]

16. It's not me that has it backwards...

What part of --

"I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said today.

-- do you fail to understand? And, uh, who appointed Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court? It's clear that Bush supported this decision, the actions of a renegade Justice Department notwithstanding.

[Mojorabbit]

17. Of course he said that.

What did you expect him to say? His actions however are the exact opposite. He has totally trashed the constitution. His administration filed a brief in support of the DC law. He would be happy as hell to disarm the population. He was happy to have Blackwater patrolling in NOLA for the wealthy while the populace were disarmed.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Yes, we New Orleanians will NEVER FORGET how Bushler TRASHED the 2nd Amendment!!

:grr:

[jmowreader]

45. Can you just hear the heads exploding...

One of the biggest Republican selling points, at least to other Republicans, is "if you elect a Democrat, the first thing he'll do is grab all your guns."

Well, that's nice and all, until one remembers the first president to ever attempt a gun grab was Chimpy, who is not nor will ever be mistaken for a Democrat.

[Herman74]

59. But Chimpy didn’t attempt a Gun Grab!

Indeed it was Chimpy who put on the Supreme Court this guy, "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito:

http://www.machinegunsammy.com/



(You must love those machine guns, right, jmowreader???)

From the website:

-Voting to strike down the 1986 federal machine gun ban. Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in the decision upholding the conviction of a gun dealer who sold illegal machine guns at a Pennsylvania gun show. (U.S. v Rybar, 1996).

-Possession of an unusual and extremely restrictive view of Congressional regulatory power. Alito (also called "Scalito" by his associates because of his similarity to conservative Judge Antonin Scalia) is known to possess views that could imperil virtually every federal law that regulates firearms, ammunitions, and explosives.

-Known consortion with practically criminal organizations, including the NRA. The NRA's opinions almost completely mirror Alito's own, as they also worked to destroy the 1986 federal machine gun ban, and made plans to "actively work toward the repeal of the recent machine gun ban and will take all necessary steps to educate the public on the sporting uses and legal ownership of automatic firearms." Their efforts in that case failed.

Chimpy appointed this guy to save the day for the gun nuts when a gun control case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. And he and his fellow Bush-appointee, John Roberts did just that! Whew, 5-4, that was close!

You see, though Bushy does lie a lot, he can be quite truthful when it advances a cause dear to Republican hearts. Let’s read his words again very, very slowly:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said yesterday.

And when it comes to gun control, it amazes me how people can forget that Clinton sought to grab away those ghastly assault weapons, so that they couldn’t possibly hurt anyone! You really do need to give Bill Clinton some credit where credit is due, dude. Here:

"The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban )

[Papa Boule]

93. That's the big irony

since citizen gun ownership is actually a classic liberal position, intended to empower individuals against authoritarian domination and abuse.

I've long believed that it would actually be the authoritarian conservative right that would eventually take away guns--just as they have acted, and continue to act even now, to take away other rights.

If they were to decide it was time to do it, all it would take is another big shock doctrine type "terrist" attack. Then we can watch the insanity as the "you're for us or against us crowd" patriotically goes along with that Constitutional right being gutted too.

[MadMaddie]

5. It's not just about guns my friends....what this court has done

is almost treasonous.

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, “Machine Gun Sammy” Alito, and Roberts have now set a precedent not to look at legal precedents from past courts. They are making rules so one they can be lazy and two possibly take us back to the early 1900s when Corporations ruled America with an Iron fist and the American populace was shit on.

The Republicans have always gone for the emotional fix and that is what they did with this ruling. It was done to appease the gun lobby group.

Longterm all bets are off on any standing law that was decided by all previous courts.

Abortion
Civil Rights
Womens Rights
Laws governing Corporations.

It's much more devious than giving DC citizens the right to bear arms.

[Antinius]

10. they didn't GIVE anything

"It's much more devious than giving DC citizens the right to bear arms"

Neither the SCOTUS nor the Constitution nor the Govt. can GIVE people rights. Subjects are given rights.

Free citizens have rights that are RECOGNIZED. Read the constitution.

The Scotus recognized that the 2nd actually means what it says. Imagine that.

The govt. recognized the rights that were first recognized by the founding fathers.

Even liberal scholars like Larry Tribe (Harvard Law Prof) have come around to the reading of the individual rights aspect of the 2nd.

[Herman74]

18. Actually, 5 members of the Supreme Court pretended that...

the phrase, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" simply didn't exist, and should have no effect. Imagine that. Then explain how Scalia's references to self-defense relate to "a well-regulated militia." ("But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." -- Antonin Scalia) You might start by explaining under what circumstances a mere handgun could be a part of a militia. You going to stop any foreign invasion with your derringers?

[aikoaiko]

25. You do realize than many of our combat troops are issued handguns too.

[Herman74]

29. You do realize that such handguns aren't a major part of military operations n/t

[aikoaiko]

38. Actually they are "A PART" of most major operations in urban warfare

Sure its not the only weapon or even the primary weapon in most operations, but a handgun is often a mission essential tool in the toolbox for close combat.

[Squatch]

40. Tell that to this guy

Additionally, *EVERY* member of my team has both an M-4 rifle and a M-9 pistol.

[Herman74]

58. You REALLY Want Me to Tell it to Him???

That’s funny! It looks whatever confrontation he got into, he and his handgun didn’t make out so well. More importantly, how long do you suppose he’ll be out of commission, that is, when (if ever) will he be able to return to fighting on behalf of Bush?

“Additionally, *EVERY* member of my team has both an M-4 rifle and a M-9 pistol.”

Well, thanks a lot for helping me with my argument that there’s no need for anyone to own pistols to defend the country as the military will just provide them anyway once you sign up.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

66. He made out alot better than

the 9 insurgents he found in the room with him. He was put in for a Medal of Honor but it was downgraded to a Navy Cross. It took a while but Gunny heal up and returned to duty. I have a lot of respect and admiration for that man.

One thing I must say, every single one of the crimes listed in the original OP happened before this ruling so the interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment that was in place before yesterdays ruling aparently did little to deter these determined criminals.

[Herman74]

77. "these determined criminals" IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY????

I don't suppose yesterday's Supreme Court ruling would have had much of an effect one way or the other. But thanks for your funny comments.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

91. You did not see that there were 2

different comments. The OP listed several notirious gun crimes from the Son of Sam to the Virginia Tech Massacre. The ruling that was in place BEFORE the Supreme Court's Ruling had no effect on those particular crimes at all except that they had access to guns and law abiding citizens did not.

I find nothing funny in praising a man who was awarded a Navy Cross and saved the lives of men. That you do, well I will reserve any further comment. Would not want to besmirch your sparkling former military service or anything.

[jmowreader]

47. All Special Operations troops carry handguns as part of their load

If you need to shoot someone in a highly confined space, handguns are FAR more useful than rifles. That's why our tunnel rats in Vietnam used pistols, and it's why every SpecOps trooper has a pistol.

In open areas? No. Handguns aren't good for that, but they do have their uses.

[Edweird]

85. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the GOVERNMENT, not the rights of citizens.

That includes 2nd amendment.

[Angleae]

86. And 4 members pretended that

the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't exist

[tritsofme]

151. You seem to pretend, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed" part

doesn't exist either.

[MadMaddie]

62. You missed my point....it wasn't about the guns.

It's about rolling back previous courts decisions.

Fine everyone can have a gun.

This court is dangerous to ALL Americans because they have alterior motives.

The law that they ruled on has been on the books since around the 1930's. There are very good laws that protect the citizens against Corporations, if you think you are getting screwed by Corporations now give the court a chance to change those laws.

[hack89]

64. The DC gun ban dates from 1976.

what law from the 1930's are you thinking of?

[MadMaddie]

118. You are correct

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect.

However; the 5-4 decision is the court's first ruling on gun ownership since 1939.

[appal_jack]

97. MadMaddie, I think you are confused about the SUPREME Court

I don't care how mad you might be Maddie, it still should not be too much of a stretch to realize that the SUPREME Court, unlike other Federal Courts, is not bound by precedent: it is (or should be) bound only by the US Constitution, plus any US-ratified treaties. Lower Courts must respect both precedent and Supreme Court decisions, which is a convenient way of not having to start from scratch every time a Constitutional issue is raised during litigation. But the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to interpret (and reinterpret) the Constitution. Ideally, such reinterpretations would arise when the court realizes that past interpretations have unduly restricted fundamental liberties. I believe that the Court did exactly this in Heller: past memes/precedents about the 2nd Amendment as a collective right are garbage, and the Court has reinvigorated the Bill of Rights via its Heller decision.

Yes, the Supreme Court does recognize a principle of 'stare decisis' which means 'let it stand.' But that principle (not law, nor Constitutional stricture) is more a guideline that settled principles should not be gratuitously rehashed. I think that even the most gun-grabbing member of DU will recognize that the pre-Heller national spectrum of opinion on the 2nd hardly resembled anything 'settled.' Heck, even here on DU, there was (is) nothing resembling a consensus on the Second.

The fact is, that to restore our Republic, someone (Supreme Court justices, Congress, and/or average citizens like you & I: I'll take all the help I can get) is going to need to upset A LOT of precedents: free speech zones, warrantless searches, presidential declarations, the war on drugs, etc. All of these precedents NEED to be tossed into the trash bin, right on top of that collective 2nd Amendment nonsense.

We now have a national (but not, apparently a DU) consensus on the 2nd, thanks to the Heller decision. I hope that you embrace this consensus, and work with other DU'ers to expand our liberties in other arenas (last I checked, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th., etc. Amendments all need some help).

-app

EDIT to add that your attacks on the decision by trashing the justices who wrote it might be fun for you, but adds little to the debate. Do you believe that the 1st Amendment does not protect flag burning as a form of protest-speech, just because Scalia participated in THAT opinion? Sorry, but even though I have hated nearly every decision of Scalia's between 1989 (Texas vs. Johnson / flag-burning) and 2008, like I said above, I'll take the help in protecting fundamental liberties where I can get it.

[virginia mountainman]

14. Treasonous??

What is treasonous, is the 4 desenters...

[alarimer]

31. No doubt about it.

Another sop to their right-wing asshole, gun-toting felon friends. These people are not legal scholars by any stretch of the imagination. Scalia and company are simply right-wing corporate tools, appointed for this purpose.

[colt equalizer]

6. CNN poll said 73% agree with SCOTUS 2nd Amendment ruling. NT

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. Let me guess

on-line poll right?

[Herman74]

20. Well, if 40 percent of the country is Republican, and 20 percent is Independent...

...then 73 percent isn't that big a deal. Heck, it implies that a substantial portion of Democrats opposed today's ruling.

[slackmaster]

7. Classic False Dilemma

You're good at this.

None of the people or crimes you mentioned had any relation to the DC handgun ban.

[Antinius]

8. i support it

but you beg the question. you assume that by supporting the civil right of RKBA that the scotus DID favor guns over lives, which is nowhere in evidence.

the states that have passed CCW have ALL (every one) seen a reduction in crime, to include violent crime. the evidence does not support your (embedded ) conclusion.

you can bring out any anecdotes you want. as you did. so can i. that PROVES nothing. I prefer to reference our constitution, and actual statistics, not anecdotes.

[Herman74]

27. Before you start talking about crime reduction by state

you might want to ask yourself if crime rates haven't decreased just about EVERYWHERE in the country. And then you might want to ask yourself if there aren't other effects going on with regards to crime reduction other than one out of thousand (10,000, or whatever) legally carrying a gun.

[pipoman]

67. (10,000, or whatever)

You do realize that Florida alone has over 1.2 million ccw permits issued don't you?

[Herman74]

76. Out of how many million people????

And are all these CCW people carrying guns at the same time, or are most leaving them at home? And no, I don't give a damn about the proportion of CCW people. I'll leave that to you gun nuts.

You do realize that in Japan there are no CCW people, and there is a murder rate that is a mere fraction of what it is here. Evidently, the Japanese realize that it is more important that crooks not have access to guns, then it is to try to deter crooks with this CCW nonsense. That's not so hard to figure out!

[pipoman]

83. A comparison between the culture of Japan and the US...

well...do you want some cheesecake with your raw octopus? Japan has historically had lower crime and murder rate than the US (and higher suicide rates), for decades, as have most of the other countries so oft sited as bastions of "gun violence" free societies. Seldom is there regard or acknowledgment of higher overall violence rates following gun bans as the strong commit violence against the weak.

[ileus]

12. Count me in as happy also.

[virginia mountainman]

13. WOW

How bigoted.


Keep in mind, that a clear majority of DU, owns, or supports gun RIGHTS.

[Herman74]

22. And how the hell can you make such a claim???

Have you interviewed all the members of DU???? If not, you may well want to keep quiet.

[virginia mountainman]

37. Actually, their have been several polls, here at DU,

That show STRONG support for gun rights..

Real progressives, protect ALL, the bill of rights, it is republicans, that try to take them away.. Like Sara Brady, Paul Himlicy <--SP, and Blomberg.

Stop carrying water for them, and stand up for the Constitution.

[Herman74]

55. Polls and Progressives

So you’re relying on polls, huh, rather than knowledge of each of the Duers. Well, polls are only reliable insofar as they are truly representative of the larger population. Who’s most likely to participate in these polls? Why, the single-issue gunlovers like yourself. I know that I personally have never had even the opportunity to participate in such a poll, which leads me to wonder how often these polls are even run.

“Real progressives, protect ALL, the bill of rights” – Virginia Mountainman

This of course assumes that all parts of the bill of rights are progressive, rather than some parts being progressive, with at least one part regressive. I strongly assert that the assumption is invalid. Turn your attention, Mr. Mountainman, to Sweden, a country far more progressive than the United States. (No Bush-type EVER running things there in modern times, no military presence in Iraq, income disparities far lower than here, a government actively involved in the welfare of its citizens, etc.). How is it that Sweden can get by perfectly well without a second amendment??? WELL, WHAT’S YOUR ANSWER????

[maryf]

152. Gun laws elsewhere

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/gun-control-in-most-countries-more-stringent-than-/

BTW:I don't think its the guns that cause the violence here, I think the media is complicit with its glorification and glamorization of violence of all kinds. Sweden has 32 guns for every 100 people, but are much less violent.

[Richard Steele]

15. What an honest, well-reasoned post-not flamebait at all! Stay classy. nm

[bdamomma]

19. so they can spy on us as long as they don't take away our guns.

how disgusting.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. They favor gun rights over Prince William Sound fishermen,

that's for sure. Fuck the Supreme Court.

[cobalt1999]

23. Wow, what a weak and stupid argument.

I'll tell you who is happy.

Those who work to defend our rights as defined in the Constitution, that's who.

[aikoaiko]

24. I recommend this post as the lamest one of the day.

Straw men, false dilemmas, and lots of bullshit.

[Vickers]

28. Fuckknob post of teh evar fuX0r d4Y!

:patriot:

[angrycarpenter]

30. Owning a gun is good

loving a gun is bad. Any attempt at a rational gun policy is shouted down by people who love their guns. We do stupid things in the name of love.

The gun lobby presents themselves as a responsible group of people. I guess they are never enraged or drunk or suicidal. They never want to take revenge or murder anyone. They refuse to see the bad points, that's love.

I understand that the love of guns is really the love of power. The anti-gun lobby is going about it all wrong, They are using rational arguments against something that many love beyond all reason. Emotional arguments nearly always seem to carry more weight.

You can't fight love, you will lose every time.

[virginia mountainman]

33. No...

Stop projecting your weaknesses on the rest of us...

Since you have issues, like being drunk, and suicidal, YOU, should not own them.

[angrycarpenter]

34. I know you said that out of love so I will forgive you. nt

[pt22]

141. You probably shouldn't smoke that shit.

:eyes:

[-..__...]

32. What's the "progressive position" on property rights and eminent domain?

Ask some home owners in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#Majority_and_concurring_opinions">New London, CT if you don't know the answer.

(Oooops... looks like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer evacuated their bowels on the 5th amendment too).

[Herman74]

53. Are you incapable of finding out yourself?

Okay, then.

The progressive position is to favor economic development, public safety, whatever, over individual property rights. The reactionary position is to favor property rights. That’s why if you go to any of the reactionary websites (e.g., www.freerepublic.com ), you’ll find the conservatives over there were livid, absolutely livid, over Kelo. Let me help, with McCain's position itself, provided by the Libertarian Republican:

"In perhaps his most libertarian statement of the campaign so far, Republican John McCain came out strongly today for Property Rights and against Eminent Domain." (see http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/05/mccain-mentions-kelo-decision-on.html )

It's all really quite simple. When it comes to choosing between individual property rights versus community prosperity and well-being, the conservative chooses the former, the liberal chooses the latter.

[pipoman]

68. Why do you claim good liberals

favor corporate prosperity and political greed over the rights of those unable to fight off the overwhelming wealth of corporations and municipalities? When is the last time a golf coarse community was destroyed to build a Wal-Mart? Oh, I forgot, the taxes collected on said golf coarse community are acceptable, it is the less valuable homes of less wealthy that you believe should be destroyed for the good of the whole....real liberal..

[Herman74]

75. Come up with bizarre scenarios all you wish...

...I'll have faith in the future that local government will in the future continue to use eminent domain wisely, just like all four liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court did. Feel free to side with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (hey, we do have freedoms in this country!).

[1]

35. wow. chill. you could present all of your graphic images about automobile owners if you wanted...

relax a bit, bud...

[Fla_Democrat]

36. Me.

:hi:

Oh, maybe you were not after a show of hands.... my bad. :evilgrin:

[old mark]

39. I consider myself a liberal, and I applaud the decision.

I have owned guns for over 40 years, and have been voting Democratic for about the same amount of time
I own quite a few guns now, will be buying another next week.
You are certainly free to not like guns, or not own guns-that is your choice.
Please don't vilify me for choosing to do what I want to do.

Have a great day.

mark

[Burma Jones]

41. I am good with the Decision

So are Senators Feingold and Leahy and any number of other progressive Democrats. If you are telling me that Feingold and Leahy aren't true progressives, you really are clueless.

It's way too late to shove the handgun Genie back in the bottle. I mean, if we can't prevent tons and tons of Weed, Smack and Coke from entering the US, what makes you think we'll be able to keep handguns out....

You might want to consider that a low Japanese murder rate is based more on cultural homogeneity than banning guns. Or maybe Japan's low murder rate is a result of their use of the Death Penalty? There are many reasons for homicide, the instrument itself isn't one of the most important.

[Herman74]

51. Two for You to Consider

Senators Feinstein and Leahy. Wow. I guess I’m supposed to be impressed. Well, let me in turn provide you with a couple of progressives for your consideration. How about first off this former Democratic presidential candidate:



Hmm. Wonder what he might have thought about gun control, given what happened to one of his brothers.

Now turn your attention to this progressive here:



National holiday for his birthday. Nobel Peace Prize winner. Very much into nonviolence.

Now, why is it that we can’t ask Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. about their most recent thoughts on gun control??? Ah, yes, THEY WERE BOTH SHOT DEAD!!!

Guns seem just a bit inimical to the progressive cause, don't they now?

And as to your “cultural homogeneity” argument, you should ask yourself to what extent that flies in the UK, where ownership of guns is prohibited for self-defense purposes, and then ask yourself if this argument of yours is just a call to do nothing, to keep the status quo.

[slackmaster]

56. Neither of those shootings had any relation to the DC gun ban

Even if it had been in place in 1968, it wouldn't have prevented those assassinations.

Red Herring.

[Burma Jones]

92. JFK and MLK were not killed with handguns, they were killed with guns that would be legal in DC

RFK could very well have been stabbed to death given the proximity of Sirhan Sirhan to RFK and the lax protection he received. Earlier this month, a Japanese man stabbed seven people to death in a rampage- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7442327.stm

Why do you think banning guns will make them all disappear?

All calls for gun bans do is take votes away from Democrats.

[Mad_Dem_X]

42. I agree with you, but we're in the minority here.

I had no idea there were so many gun fans on DU. :yoiks:

[TexasObserver]

43. you left out "people who understand the second amendment"

The history of the creation of the Bill of Rights makes the role of the second amendment very clear. It was designed to see that all adult were properly armed, and that they would be ready to repel any oppression by the federal government. THAT was its purpose. The Bill of Rights was about securing rights for individuals and protecting those rights from the ability of their federal government to remove them.

[Herman74]

50. You mean those with an antiquated understanding?

“It was designed to see that all adult were properly armed, and that they would be ready to repel any oppression by the federal government. THAT was its purpose.” -- TexasObserver

Not really. It was designed so that sane adult white males (most likely under the age of 50) could repel foreign invasions, or whatever else a military does to keep the state free. But over time, people have moved away from such an interpretation, to broaden the scope of what individuals could constitute a militia. Fine then. We’re free to interpret the second amendment so as to not render the justification clause meaningless (the clause referring to the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state). Then should another means be determined as keeping the state safe, say either a national guard or army providing guns to participants, then we could dispense with the second amendment altogether.

AFTER ALL, WHO EVER PAYS ATTENTION TO THE THIRD AMENDMENT ANYMORE??

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

It’s an anachronism, a relic of a bygone time. So is the second amendment.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Gee, that's the way GWB treats the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendements!

It’s an anachronism, a relic of a bygone time. So is the second amendment

You could send him a letter expressing your sympathy that the decision didn't go his way, seeing as you
expressly agree with his stance on Heller.

Then should another means be determined as keeping the state safe, say either a national guard or army providing guns to participants, then we could dispense with the second amendment altogether.

If you think the Second Amendment was passed to keep the "state" safe, and can be dispensed with, you
need to read (1) the text of the decision in Heller and (2) the Democratic Party platform.

You can, of course, seek to become a delegate to the national convention and remove that language
from the platform.

I suspect you won't

[Herman74]

72. Me agreeing with Bush??? That's a laugh.

You might read these words below real slowly, so that they can sink in:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said yesterday.

Should you have any trouble understanding them, please let me know.

[TexasObserver]

57. No, I mean those who actually understand the constitution from 1787 through today

Like me. You, not so much.

[Two Americas]

87. and the 4th and the 5th as well, and possibly the 9th and 10th

There is no way to enforce possession laws that is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Even if the Second Amendment did not exist, I would oppose criminalizing fire arm ownership for the same reason I oppose the war on drugs - the 4th and 5th amendments protect us from the type of government action that would be absolutely required for the law to have any affect on gun violence, and that would be certain to occur were we to outlaw fire arms. These government actions would also be certain to disproportionately be used against poor people and minority people.

The Bill of Rights is about limiting government power, not granting privileges to citizens. It doesn't matter "why" a person owns a gun, nor does it matter what the purpose for gun ownership might be. The Bill of Rights is not about what we may or may not so, or own, or why, it is about what the government is precluded from doing.

I have noticed in recent gun control arguments here that people are also prepared to dispense with the 9th and 10th amendments, by repeatedly suggesting that the Bill of Rights "allows" citizens this or that - in other words, that all rights are reserved to the authorities, and none to the people, unless people are granted explicit permission from the authorities.

I support and defend the 2nd, the 4th, the 5th, the 9th and the 10th amendments to the Constitution, and therefore oppose outlawing fire arms.

No matter how good the cause, that never justifies authoritarianism.

By the way, I am not a gun owner and never have been and resent the statements that no one would support the Second Amendment unless they "loved guns."

[havocmom]

44. Looking out the window, I see cars are still allowed too.

Bigger killer (by far) and no Constitutional guarentee to own one.

I am happy about the SC decision. And about the only way we will lose in November is if we keep harping on about guns and wanting to get rid of them. Fuggit about it. Lots of us DEMS/Liberals favor gun ownership too.

We can't fix what is broken without being in power and one sure fire way to prevent us from getting the power to fix is a fixation on guns. Am wondering about GOP operatives being sent out in the great discourse to keep stirring this pot so we keep losing elections. Sounds rovian enough to be possible.

Worried about unnecessary deaths? Work to ban cars. Until then, I won't take you seriously.

Violence and a culture that spawns it is the problem.

[Herman74]

49. Cars, Who Needs Them? Do you?

“Worried about unnecessary deaths? Work to ban cars. Until then, I won't take you seriously.” – havocmom

Well, I have no car, never had one, never had a driver’s license, get around by bike, (walking, bus on very rare occasion), and will soon be sending a check to here: http://inspiredgifts.unicefusa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ig_prod_bicycle so that there are more bikes in the developing countries. That good enough for you?

But two can play this game. Just how do you get around? Know that if you have an air-polluting, global-warming, resource-depleting vehicle, I shall refuse to take you seriously. Do you? I anxiously await your reply.

[havocmom]

63. Less than 5000 miles in five years in a car

Shanks mare or bike most of the time. Live one block from store and four blocks from work. Bark up another tree.

[Herman74]

73. Ah, so unlike me, you do own a car, huh?

Well, don't worry. Though I don't take you seriously, I won't follow your advice and "work to ban" your car. I got other things to do.

[havocmom]

106. No, I don't. I sometimes have access but no ownership

Keep trying, this is amusing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Some former constitional law professor is happy too

[dysfunctional press]

52. i definitely think that the scotus made the right call on the issue.

:woohoo:

[Herman74]

60. Yep, You and Antonin Scalia, and George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney and the NRA, and.... n/t

[hack89]

65. And Obama. nt

[dysfunctional press]

84. until a new technology renders them useless and obsolete, guns are here to STAY.

might as well get used to it.

real world, and all...

[boomerbust]

61. Right Decision

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I have owned many weapons all my life, and I have never felt that my right to own one was ever in jeopardy. It's just one of those right wing wedge issues to get the faithful fired up. If you send money to the NRA it will be going right to the Republican party. To join any organization on the premise of having any of our constitutional rights defended is pure folly, right wing folly at that.

[beevul]

69. I favor...

I favor a womans right to choose,

I favor ending the war on terror,

I favor ending the war on drugs,

I favor charging this administration with war crimes,

I favor universal healthcare,

I favor a social safety net,

I favor property rights,

I favor broad first amendment interpretation,

I favor ending dependency on foreign oil,

I favor separation of church and state,

I favor responsible energy policy with an eye on the future,

I favor a clean environment,



AND I APPLUAD THIS DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

Does that mean I don't get to be in your progressive club?

[The Straight Story]

70. Cause the only people to trust with guns are the government, like bush

yeah. right.

Fear the terrarists, fear guns, fear, fear, fear.

[OnionPatch]

71. Outlawing guns punishes everyone for the actions of a few.

I hate to agree with Bush on anything, but I agree with the ruling.

The progressive values life, yes, but I believe the true progressive values the bill of rights and personal freedom just as much. A society that punishes or takes away the rights of everyone because of a few bad apples is not the "free" society I want to live in.

I feel the same way about drugs. They shouldn't be outlawed because *some* people abuse them. If someone mugs an old lady for drug money, arrest them. If someone shoots another person...the same. Outlawing drugs and money and any other thing that may indirectly cause harm to another in the wrong hands is too much of a slippery slope. There are some risks in a free society.

[Herman74]

156. Greetings, Ms. Patch. Some thoughts for you to consider:

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that 99 percent of gun owners used their guns to create mayhem, and you couldn't go one block from your home without noticing three homicide victims. Would you agree that in that case guns should be prohibited, even if that meant "punishing" the one percent who never hurt even a flea with their guns?

I don't know at this point your answer to this question, but let me assume that it is "yes." Now suppose that 70 percent abused guns, two dead bodies each day a block from your home, your answer still "yes"? 25 percent, a single murdered corpse within two blocks, is it still "yes"?

And if the answer is still "yes," then you could see that the whole matter simply becomes one of what percentage of gun abuse are you willing to accept, that is, live with. We know that the actual fraction of those who abuse guns is very small, but the costs are very, VERY high. What costs are you willing to accept? The murder rate in the gun-saturated USA, is easily the highest in the industrialized world, about four times that of Britain (where guns are severely restricted), at least five times that of Japan (where guns are outlawed, and I really suspect not five but ten times), and so on and so forth. DOES THIS FACT GUIDE YOU IN REACHING AN ANSWER? In addition, guns are often used in other crimes, e.g., robbery, rape, etc. (You're seldom going to find a bank being robbed by someone with a mere knife). Moreover, some people wind up getting shot, but don't wind up dead (they wind up crippled, or brain-damaged, etc.) ONE OF THE REASONS THAT NOBEL ECONOMICS LAUREATE JOSEPH STIGLITZ GAVE WHY BUSH's IRAQ WAR WILL COST SO MUCH TO THE U.S. economy (billions $) is that so many soldiers will be needing longterm rehabilitative care, but gun victims in the U.S. who survive need this too. The fellow who shot ten Amish schoolgirls in the back of the head only killed five of them (exceedingly terrible to be sure); I shudder to think what the lives will be like for the other five. The damage caused by guns in a gun-saturated society doesn't stop there, in addition, we have fatal and nonfatal gun-accident victims.

I urge you to reconsider.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. Wow! That was a lot of words just to say "I don't like guns so *you* shouldn't own one"

I've never heard such a bunch of shit flinging screeching monkeys as I have since listening to gun grabbers spew their tripe. You may *call* yourself a Liberal, but you *sound* just like an authoritarian jackboot.. let that settle in for a while...

What's the difference between a fascist wanting to take away our Rights guaranteed by our Constitution and a gun grabber??

Why.. nothing! Nothing at all!

[Herman74]

78. What else about me...I don't like bazookas and machine guns...

...are you going to claim a constitutional right to own them?

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. Well I'd like to have surface-to-surface missiles mounted in my grill, just for those dumbasses

that pull out in front of me and go 45 mph in a 60 mph zone, when there was nothing behind me for two miles.... :evilgrin:

I'm all for reasonable restrictions and controls on gun ownership, but I'd never support an outright ban.... unless you're going to take them away from the cops and military, too...

The bottom line is this: it's too unrealistic to call for a ban. Are you going to support a door to door search and seizure? That's fascism at it's finest... and it'll never work, either... are the jackboots going to search my whole 12.5 acres, woods and all, with metal detectors, to find mine?? That's what's going to happen if they announce a ban... or haven't you thought that far ahead yet?? That seems to be one of the common denominators of the gun grabbers.. they don't think things all the way through...

Are you a jackboot fascist who wishes to deny my constitutional right to own a gun? A simple yes or no will suffice...

[Redneck Socialist]

82. Sure, why not?

Since both are perfectly legal, provided you're willing to jump through the required hoops and can afford them. The latter rather than the former is what stops most folks from owning them.

At the time the Constitution was written cannons and battleships were privately owned so the idea that military armaments shouldn't be in private hands would probably strike the founding fathers as rather an odd notion.

[Two Americas]

89. still are

Private companies make cannons and battleships, and missiles and bombs and all sorts of weapons and then sell them to the government. You can't sell something you never owned.

[Thothmes]

109. No these people manufacture these items because they

have a signed contract with the Government to provide that equipment for an agreed to price. they do not build battleships, then seek out the Federal government to buy their product.

[Two Americas]

115. with permission?

Are you saying that only with permission from the government?

Our government is not based on the notion that the authorities give permission to the people to do things, let alone own things - quite the reverse. This is foundational and non-negotiable, and it is surprising how many people are willing to so undermine and destroy the principles and ideals of self rule and limited government.

As a matter of fact, there are countless examples from history when a private citizen invented and made a weapon before he or she was able to sell it to the government, let alone get permission from the government. The Monitor, the first armored ship comes to mind, and if I am not mistaken that is also the case with the submarine, the machine gun, repeating rifles, telescopic sights and many, many more.

[Thothmes]

138. I never said they had to have permission from the Government

to design weapons. But no one builds a battleship or an aircraft carrier then trys to sell it to the Government. Erickson designed the Monitor, the Navy let a contract to have it built. Many weapons in our inventory were invented by civilians or private companies. But mass production of those items for military use is the exclusive perview of the U.S. Government. In some cases the government has to pay patent fees for the right to manufacture some of the weapons. Sometimes a useful civilian design is not purchased by the government and never makes it into the military inventory. An example of this is the Henry repeating rifle. Tyler Henrys design was revolutionary, the Ordnance department rejected it. In the middle of the Civil War, the Govt only bought about 1000 Henry repeating rifles. They were issued to only one Cavalry Regt in the Union Army. After the War, Henry sold rights to his rifle to a fellow name Winchester. You can design a better 1,000 bomb. But you will only get it manufactured in this country with the accent of the U.S. Government.

[Two Americas]

142. one or a thousand

Whether a person builds one or a thousand, the principle isn't affected.

What is the difference between "consent" or "permission" from the government?

Not following your logic here.

[Thothmes]

157. Try and build a thousand , say, bombs and see what the

Actions of the United States Government is. You may call it permission or consent or anything else you want to, but, we as citizens are not allowed to build quanities of destructive weapons without the Federal government being involved in some way or another in the process.

[Two Americas]

158. that is true

But "we as citizens are not allowed" to do much if anything anymore "without the Federal government being involved in some way or another in the process." That is the problem. It has nothing to do with weapons.

[Thothmes]

161. I fully agree, it is a problem.

The unfortunate fact, at least in my opinion, is that it no longer makes a difference who we elect to either the Congress or the White House. The Federal government as an entity has a 75 year history of involving itself in the lives of American citizens. Many times this involvement is helpful and desirable, many times it is not. But I do not see any retreat from the Government involvement in our lives, regardless of the election outcome. JMO

[Two Americas]

88. yes, of course

I don't think you understand the concept of "rights," since you keep talking about them more as privileges - government granted permission for people to have things they "like" and then you want us to decide whether or not the authorities should "allow" them to have the things they "like." That violates the entire spirit of the Bill of Rights, as well as specifically violating 5 of the amendments, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the entire theory of our government and what its legitimacy rests upon.

Yes, depending upon lawful use, you can own "bazookas and machine guns" or any other sort of weapon.

There is no way to enforce possession laws that does not grant the government too much power. That is what rights are about - protecting us from tyrannical government power.

[iquiring mind]

79. Who's Happy? Why Freepers, Gun Nuts, and Murderers AND Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5NxL
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

[Herman74]

99. Words, Words, Mere Words of a Presidential Candidate...

...Ask yourself this, gunlovers:

If Obama has to choose the next Supreme Court Justice, will he choose someone like "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito (appointed by Chimpy to the Supreme Court), or someone like Stephen Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton)?

What's your answer, gunlovers????

And then realize this:

Machine Gun Sammy voted for continuing the gun carnage, Stephen Breyer voted to permit jurisdictions to try to halt it.

[Thothmes]

108. He will select another Ginsburg or Stevens

that believes the Govt has the right sieze your property because they can get better tax returns if they tear your house down and build modern condos on what was your property.

[Herman74]

132. And Throughout the Long History of Eminent Domain,...

...this was all that it was ever used for????

Get real.

When a Supreme Court Justice writes an opinion, he/she is not thinking merely of a single case, but all future cases where the issue might come into play. Moreover, no one can and no one will lay claim to a particular part of the planet for decade after decade, century after century after century, millennium after millennium: property rights pertaining to land are not absolute, as the planet belongs to all of us.

[Thothmes]

140. The traditional use of eminent domain

was to seize property for a public use. Until the court decision I refer to, public use was generally limited to public building, roads, dams, schools, infrastructure type items. The court decided that the iminent domain could be used to take property to increase the tax base of a community. They also said that Legislatures had could legally limit the uses of iminent domain via legislation if they chose to do so.

[Redneck Socialist]

80. I'm happy. I hope you're happy doing the rights work for them.

The NRA and the pubs in general applaud your efforts to further the idea that Dems are anti-gun. Believe me they appreciate your hard work. Keep it up.

[mmonk]

90. I'm not going to beat up on decent citizens who have been led

to believe the decision is a correct reading of the second amendment. I happen to disagree with the decision due to the clear language of the amendment and despite clear intentions of the founding fathers that local matters not addressed in the constitution were to be retained by the states and the people. But I worry more about the others rights and guarantees and I fear what post republic, post constitutional America is going to finally look like.

[TexasObserver]

94. Alcohol. Tobacco. Sugar. Fat. Prescription Drugs. Cars. Hospital Infections.

All of those are things that kill more Americans annually than guns.

Just because you don't like gun ownership, just because you're one of the Americans who doesn't own a gun, that doesn't give you the right to strip the constitution of one the most fundamental of rights in the Bill of Rights.

Accept that your opinion, however heartfelt it may be, has no constitutional basis.

[Herman74]

98. But my opinion would have been triumphant, had we not been Diebolded in 2004

"Accept that your opinion, however heartfelt it may be, has no constitutional basis.' -- TexasObserver

Tell that nonsense to the four liberal Supreme Court Justices who dissented. Texas is Bush Country, to its everlasting shame responsible for Bush being president, and I suppose there is a lot of joy where you're at over the Supreme Court decision (Bush himself is in love with the decision -- no surprise there). But your side only won by one SINGLE vote. Had various election districts in 2004 not been Diebolded, you and all the rest of gun lovers would have lost, because no way someone like John Kerry picks "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito, or John Roberts for the Supreme Court. (Needless to say, all the Supreme Court justices voting on your side were picked by REPUBLICAN presidents).

Tough luck for you and the gunlovers that Obama will likely be choosing the next Supreme Court justice, undoubtedly someone in the Stephen Breyer-Ruth Ginsburg mode. You see, Obama wants to reduce the gun carnage, whereas the gunlovers don't give a damn, offering no real working solutions at all, just FEEBLY THROWING THEIR HANDS IN THE AIR, SAYING NOTHING CAN BE DONE (e.g., giving stupid arguments like "trains kill people too, should they be banned?").

And so the carnage will continue.

But maybe, just maybe, you'll be thinking of another gunlover before you go to sleep tonight, one who loved guns so very much. This fellow here:



Pleasant dreams!

[iquiring mind]

102. The four (+1) Justices also decided

that the government has the right to take your property if the government feels it could be put to better use!!! OMFG!!!!!

I want the government to have the least authority over me as possible.

The Government that you wish would exercise increasing control over aspects of my life is often controlled by those with a different political philosophy than yours. Which is why the Government's power/influence should always be as restrictive as possible.

[Thothmes]

107. You forgot to mention that they were the four most liberal judges

on the Court.

[TexasObserver]

103. Unlike you, I don't believe a handful of tragedies justify trashing the constitution.

In a free society that has the right of gun ownership, there will always be a few instances of people like the one in your post. Fortunately, most Americans are rational and most are more capable of processing information than you seem to be.

Good luck with that "if you're from Texas, it's your fault we have Bush" meme. It's idiotic, but it fits you well.

[Herman74]

104. Amendments Come, Amendments Go...

Remember the 18th Amendment? The one banning alcohol???? Well, it was repealed. And if that one could be repealed, so too could the 2nd Amendment.

ABSOLUTELY. NO. BIG. DEAL.

No trashing of the Constitution, it would still be there, your melodramatics notwithstanding.

***********

You use the word "idiotic" to describe something I wrote. WHAT TRULY IS IDIOTIC IS TEXAS, for if it never elects Bush governor, Bush never runs for President, and if Texas never gives Bush a majority of its a majority of its votes in a presidential election not once, BUT TWICE, then we don't have a Chimp as our President.

Deal with it.

[beevul]

110. ABSOLUTELY. NO. BIG. DEAL.

And if that one could be repealed, so too could the 2nd Amendment.

ABSOLUTELY. NO. BIG. DEAL.

Lets see...constitutional amendment requires ...umm...requires a constitutioanl convention and yea votes from...umm...2/3 of the states.

You have ALOT of work to do.

You will never get that done if you spend all your time here ranting about guns and the second amendment.

Good luck.

:rofl:

[Herman74]

128. Yep, The Founding Fathers Made it Quite Hard to Overcome Their Stupidity

...but hey, we eventually did it in the case of slavery, perhaps with time we could do it again in the case of guns.

[TexasObserver]

114. You can't get the states to pass any amendment changing the rights under the second.

That will never happen. More chasing your tail and calling it thought.

But do give it a try. It'll keep you occupied.

[krispos42]

124. The only amendment that was ever repealed...

Was the one that reduced the rights of Americans.

[Redneck Socialist]

116. The irony of course being, if not for the AWB Gore would have won in 2000.

And yet you cry for yet more gun control.

[Herman74]

131. Uh, You Mean Just Like Clinton Lost in 1996 Due to the AWB???

Oh, scratch that, he won in 1996, didn't he now?

[Herman74]

134. AND AL GORE DID WIN IN 2000!!!

But he was robbed by the Supreme Court. You know, the Supreme Court featuring Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, whose side you're now on.

[Meiko]

148. His home state

He didn't win his home state. It has been said that his stand on gun control is what lost him his home state.

[Herman74]

154. And who did the saying, was it you???

Let's see here. Bill Clinton (not Al Gore) signs into law the Assault Weapons Ban, and then later, Bill Clinton wins Tennessee (in 1996).

Try a little harder next time.

[formercia]

95. Lets get the Dems to fight each other with another wedge issue.

Guns aren't going away. Criminals will always have guns no matter how many are taken from honest citizens.

As long as there are assholes on this planet, I intend to have at least one gun.

[kskiska]

96. Boy, how times have changed

[Hangingon]

100. I am happy with the decision. It is not a trade of guns for lives.

[Two Americas]

101. unhappy

I am not happy that defending 2nd amendment rights has become a right wing cause and that the court split the way it did. I am unhappy to see this framed as "guns over lives." I am unhappy to see the implication that because people we don't agree with support the 2nd amendment, that therefore we should not for fear of "being on their side." That is guilt by association, of course.

I am not happy to hear the idea that the only reason people would support the 2nd amendment is because they "love guns." That is like saying that the only reason a person would support the 1st amendment was because they "love books." I am not happy to see the Bill of Rights construed as a list of permissions granted by the authorities, and subject to the whims of the authorities, and to see rights talked about as though they were privileges.

I am not happy that we continue to hand the right wingers a political advantage on this issue, for little or nothing in return.

[beevul]

111. WOW.

Well said.

Extremely well said.

I agree with you 110%.

[WildEyedLiberal]

112. Perfectly said.

:thumbsup:

I have absolutely no idea why so many "liberals" keep shooting themselves in the foot arguing against a Constitutional right, especially the same people who screech when Bush disregards the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments. And I am saddened and angered that 4 judges voted in the minority (with an extraordinarily weak dissent, I might add), which perfectly allows the right to claim that only they care about safeguarding the 2nd Amendment.

[beevul]

113. Also...

It allows the right to say "see?!?!?!? I told you if bush hadn't become president, that some other USSC judge not friendly to guns would have gotten in, and the second amendment would be TOAST."


A terrible choice for the dissenters to make, IMO.

[Mz Pip]

117. Indeed.

I grew up in a house with guns. More than one. No one ever killed anyone.

I don't own one now, but as a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime, I think I should be allowed the freedom to own one if I choose to.

[Two Americas]

120. careful with that word "allowed"

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as voluminous other writings by those who signed those documents - risking their lives to do so - are all predicated on the notion that it is the people who allow governments to do things, under strict limitations, it is not the authorities who allow the people anything.

Many, many years ago I made an elderly friend when I was in Europe, a professor from Switzerland, and he shared an insight with me that I never forgot. "So my young American friend. Can you tell me the primary fundamental difference between the government you have in the United States and all of the other governments in the world?"

His answer? "Here, (we were in Greece at the time) everything is considered to be illegal until and unless the government specifically allows you the privilege to do or have anything. In the United States, at least in theory, everything is considered legal until and unless the people grant the government the power to outlaw it. The day that Americans stop appreciating that is the day that it will begin to die, not just there but around the world."

For centuries in Europe, the peasants were not allowed to hunt nor to farm their own land. Those privileges were reserved for the hereditary nobility. Most people could not feed themselves and their families, nor defend themselves and their families. They were little better than slaves as a result and they lived or died at the whim of the aristocracy. Modern city people, 3 or 4 generations removed from the farm and village, insulated from reality to a large extent, and ignorant of human history as a result on a very profound level, fail to understand that for people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and to have the "right to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" are the two most important rights, and the foundation of our freedom.

No arms, no secure home, and we are all at the mercy of the aristocracy once again. It doesn't matter if we personally own guns or not. It is not about guns. It is about the midnight knock on the door by the authorities, about having no lass ditch options for defending and feeding your family, about giving the government a green light to controlling every aspect of your life. So long as we can feed and protect ourselves, the government can only push us so far. Not because we would "shoot back" at government agents, as many anti-gun people foolishly presume, but rather so we can fend for ourselves rather than rely on the authorities.

Nevertheless, the idea that it is useless to fight back against a tyrannical government, should it ever come to that, was not one that the courageous resistors in the Warsaw ghetto subscribed to. They lived in sewers and fought the German army with handguns and homemade bombs. They were up against overwhelming force. They had no chance of winning. But they made the choice, and I believe that all human beings have the right to this choice, to die standing up rather than to be herded like sheep to the slaughter, meek and passive and terrorized. And who knows what that one episode of phenomenal bravery actually cost the Germans, and how many lives were saved as a result?

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Many Jews in ghettos across eastern Europe tried to organize resistance against the Germans and to arm themselves with smuggled and homemade weapons. Between 1941 and 1943, underground resistance movements formed in about 100 Jewish groups. The most famous attempt by Jews to resist the Germans in armed fighting occurred in the Warsaw ghetto.

In the summer of 1942, about 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka. When reports of mass murder in the killing center leaked back to the Warsaw ghetto, a surviving group of mostly young people formed an organization called the Z.O.B. (for the Polish name, Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa, which means Jewish Fighting Organization). The Z.O.B., led by 23-year-old Mordecai Anielewicz, issued a proclamation calling for the Jewish people to resist going to the railroad cars. In January 1943, Warsaw ghetto fighters fired upon German troops as they tried to round up another group of ghetto inhabitants for deportation. Fighters used a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto. After a few days, the troops retreated. This small victory inspired the ghetto fighters to prepare for future resistance.

On April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. Seven hundred and fifty fighters fought the heavily armed and well-trained Germans. The ghetto fighters were able to hold out for nearly a month, but on May 16, 1943, the revolt ended. The Germans had slowly crushed the resistance. Of the more than 56,000 Jews captured, about 7,000 were shot, and the remainder were deported to killing centers or concentration camps.

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wgupris.htm

When the Germans came in to clean out the ghetto, much to their surprise, they were met with resistance. There were over a thousand fighters, including children. They used pistols and Molotov cocktails against the Nazi weaponry, and they successfully repulsed the Germans.

It was a short-lived victory. The Germans returned a short while later. This time they brought major fire power. They started to destroy buildings, bit by bit by bit, knocking everything down. After about a day, they broke into the hospital, shot everyone in their beds, and torched the place. Gradually, they destroyed the entire ghetto.

...

Although the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was not really very successful, it was the first time in all of German-occupied Europe that there was any organized uprising against the Nazis. Word got out, and it set a climate. And afterwards, there was Jewish resistance in many other places, including some of the camps.

http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/he05n27.htm

The resistance fighters, with a handful of pistols, grenades and captured weapons, had broken the fatalistic mood that nothing could be done. Fighting in dark, narrow apartment passages, escaping over rooftops and through alleyways, they grew in confidence.

...

"Our fear", wrote a survivor, "was that we might arouse the notion that a man could save his life even if he did not fight... We saw ourselves as a Jewish underground whose fate was a tragic one, as an underground that was not part of the overall war of undergrounds the world over and would have to stand, cut off and alone; as a pioneer force not only from the Jewish standpoint but also from the standpoint of the entire embattled world – the first to fight. For our hour had come without any hope of rescue".

In the early hours of 19 April, troops massed outside the ghetto walls. While residents rushed to the bunkers, the fighters took their positions and waited. At 6am hundreds of SS troops poured in, along with tanks, armoured cars and artillery. A column marching up the road singing loudly was suddenly attacked with bombs and hand grenades, retreating in disorder. A second column was ambushed with grenades. Two tanks were set on fire. At the end of the first day, all Nazi forces withdrew, having lost 200 killed or wounded.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/75/warsaw43.html

[Herman74]

133. Alas, Not Everyone Grew Up In Your Fine Household, Mz. Pip...

For example, this fellow here:



And his guns did kill people.

Allowing you the freedom to own a gun means allowing him the freedom to own one too. This in turn means denying to his victims a certain freedom. Can't you just hear each of his victims pleading, "I think I should be allowed the freedom to live, if I choose to."

[Two Americas]

144. murder is illegal

He killed people.

You make a play to tug on people's emotions "I think I should be allowed the freedom to live, if I choose to" and ask us to imagine that. I would rather imagine people defending themselves and the innocent and the dependent and the weaker, and surviving.

First, people have the inherent right to life, according to the Declaration of Independence, it isn't a privilege that is "allowed" to them.

If you think people should be "allowed" to live, if they choose, why do they also not have the right to defend themselves so that they CAN live?

The killer violated the rights of his victims. How does that justify infringing on the rights of others? That is illogical.

[Meiko]

149. One has nothing to do with the other.

Allowing you the freedom to own a gun means allowing him the freedom to own one too.

He was a criminal. You can't compare the two issues. Even if he were banned from owning a handgun he still would have gotten his hands on them somehow. If you are advocating the complete ban of all weapons you are in a dream world. The estimate is that there are between 280 and 300 million firearms in the US, you are going to attempt to ban all of them? Americans are not going to comply with a law that says they have to turn in their firearms, not going to happen, me included.

[Charlie Brown]

121. that echoes my own thoughts

the most embarrassing thing about this decision, to me, is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter do not believe we have a right to push back against the government if it comes to that. I agree with them on an awful lot of issues, but the founders knew damn well the importance of an armed citizenry in resisting tyranny, and I can't subscribe to their version of the 2nd that makes a militia the exclusive property of the state. I'm not a gun-owner, and I don't know if I'll ever own one, but if we continue down the road to fascism, I'd really like to have the choice.

It's a shame to see "our" justices forfeit any possibility of resisting a despotic regime due to the ridiculous theory of "collective rights" over individual rights. Indeed, if you look at the Justice Dept's brief in the case, it looks like the four "liberals" were more in line with what Bush wanted than the conservatives.

I sincerely hope that future justices will not carry this insane compulsion to chip away at our rights and immunities, one-by-one-by-one, based on whatever trendy political ideology is en vogue, or else we'll end up screwed no matter who is elected.

[Herman74]

153. "despotic regime"???

You don't believe that over the years we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Yeah, I know Bush is bad, but has he sent any tanks down your street? You truly think there's a chance he will anytime soon? Even if he did, just how effective would your pistol be in stopping them ???

Oh, yes, too, do you truly think the people in Jolly Old England ever live in a fear of a fascist takeover??? Remember they don't have a "second amendment" there. I don't quite picture anyone applying to own a gun (which are exceedingly difficult to get) getting very far with the argument, "Prime Minister Brown is planning a fascist takeover!", do you?

And don't be bringing up the legal brief of a renegade Justice Department. It was Bush who appointed "Machine Gun Sammy" Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, so that you get the result that we did, and it was Bush who wholeheartedly applauded the Supreme Court decision.

[Herman74]

130. Had this "Bill of Rights" given you the right to own slaves, cocaine, or nuclear bombs...

...would you have regarded such a right as completely sacrosanct, not ever subject to revision?

There are some things that people shouldn't own, because such ownership has the potential to adversely affect other people. And the Founding Fathers (many of whom did own slaves) were not perfect, nor were their written words.

[Two Americas]

143. rights are not "given"

The Bill of Rights does not "give" people rights. You are misusing the word "rights" as though it meant "permissions" or "privileges." The Bill of Rights restricts the government from infringing upon what are seen as inherent and universal rights.

If it were the "Bill of Permissions from the Authorities," then your argument would make sense.

The Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on a theory of limited government and self rule. The Bill of Rights restricts the government, it does not hand out permissions, presumably granted by the government - who else? - to people.

Something does not need to be "perfect" in order to be good and valuable, and imperfect men can create valuable things. So it is irrelevant whether or not the founding fathers were "perfect" and illogical to suggest that this has any bearing on this discussion.

We don't throw away good things because they are not perfect nor because they were made by imperfect people.

[krispos42]

119. "Who's Happy that the SC Favored..."

"Who's Happy that the SC Favored Terrorists over Lives? Why DUmmies, Trial Lawyers, and
America-Hating Liberals, of course!"



If the true progressive values human life over his or her own material possessions, why not over his or her right? Why won't they relinquish their right to privacy if it means that A CRAZED AMERICA-HATING FANATICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST CAN NO LONGER HIDE AMONG REAL AMERICANS AND BLOW UP A SCHOOLHOUSE FULL OF AMISH SCHOOLGIRLS? OR DETONATE A NUCLEAR BOMB IN A US CITY, MAKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS INTO ASH AND VAPOR AND MILLIONS MORE DEAD FROM SLOW RADIATION POISONING?

[Herman74]

126. Thank You So Very Much for Proving My Point

That the U.S. homicide rate IS ALMOST FOUR TIMES THAT OF BRITAIN!!

[krispos42]

135. And that is the only little fact you managed to draw from the information I posted?

You didn't notice, perchance, that the rate used to be 12 times? That their homicide rate had DOUBLED in the past 40 years?

Then you are beyond reason, beyond hope, beyond communication. Beyond any basic ability to see any kind of trend at all.

Here's another fact you can sprout off about: the DC homicide rate last year was lower than the DC DC homicide rate the year before their ban was enacted. See? It's working!

[SemperParatus]

122. An armed public...

Is one of the most important aspects of keeping a large, powerful government in check honestly. Sure, they can get out of line now and then, but I doubt a large scale takeover of the country by it's government (so long as there is an armed public) is a real risk. The collateral damage would be astronomical.

What was the first thing that guys like Hitler and Stalin did? They took the weapons away from the masses...no real risk of rebellion or uprising by the general public.

[Herman74]

125. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia were not Democracies

...We live in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"

And when was the very last time you and a pistol had to "keep the government in check honestly"??? When??? MAYBE NEVER???? (I wonder just how well you and your little pistol would do against a government with tanks, bombers, bazookas, howitzers, etc. -- could you please tell us?).

HOW IS IT THAT THE DEMOCRACIES OF WESTERN EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, ETC. CAN GET BY PERFECTLY WELL WITHOUT HAVING A "SECOND AMENDMENT"??? Are you going to argue that the Danes (for example) live in constant fear of their government going oppressive on them???

[Retired AF Dem]

150. I spent thirty years in the Army and the Air force

and I never ever seen a bazooka. You need to get past your GI Joe dolls and do a little reading up on modern weapons.

[bean fidhleir]

127. All you've done is create some cheap flamebait

[dems_rightnow]

129. Happy here

I don't own a gun, and never have. But I'm comforted to know that if I ever decide I'd like to have one for self-defense, I'll be as able to get one as the criminal who already has one.

[Retired AF Dem]

136. Since we live in the era of the "common man"

The 2nd Amendment is to complicated to understand. I think it should be shortened down to read "All people can keep firearms".

[pt22]

139. We get it that you hate guns. I suggest you don't get one. Meanwhile, what the hell do you propose

to DO about my guns and those of about half of Democrats? You're not taking them away...so where does that leave you?

[Herman74]

155. It leaves me with a recommendation, just for you:

That you melt all your guns down, and use the metal to create something useful.

[pt22]

162. Well, it ain't happening so I guess you're just shit outta luck.

...

[cliffordu]

145. I'm happy. Over 40,000 people killed by autos every year and you aren't

sniveling about that.....

[Greyhound]

147. The "true progressive" is bright enough to realize the legislating the entire nation

based the most extreme, and rare, events leads to the continued concentration of power into the hands of those least suited to hold it, and to diminished right for the citizens of this nation.

[fascisthunter]

159. Whooooraaaay for the Gun Industry

oh and ..... Guns vs Automobiles - bad comparison

- for those who love to parrot that ridiculous comparison.

It's a necessity and it's WELL REGULATED!

A gun is not a necessity (unless your profession as a soldier or law enforcement demands it)

Think about it.... it's a bad analogy.

PS - I'm betting gun violence goes up in years to come. Invest in protective gear.... :sarcasm:

Remember, security is all you need!

[beevul]

160. The gun industry?

Perhaps you can tell us all more about that.

How big is the gun industry compared to say...the drug industry, or the auto industry, or even wal mart?

How much does the gun industry gross every year from sales of firearms to private citizens?


"oh and ..... Guns vs Automobiles - bad comparison- for those who love to parrot that ridiculous comparison. It's a necessity and it's WELL REGULATED!"

A lot of people don't own a car.

Whats well regulated about cars - more specifically, what regulations apply to the automobile on private property?

"PS - I'm betting gun violence goes up in years to come."

What are you betting?

People said the same thing about concealed carry for decades, and were wrong about it.

Whats so different that you'll be right in your claim?

[RebelOne]

163. Kennesaw, GA where owning a gun is mandatory.

Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in all of metro Atlanta. I lived there for a while. Now I live in the town next door.

www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN1719257620070418