User Comments

1. 

   6/26/08

   br3adman

   comment removed by the community.

   [reply]
2. 

   6/26/08

   MadameX

   Mark, I agree with you that the parsing of the Amendment was a bit disingenuous--I got an email from an attorney friend this morning asking "do any of the OTHER amendments have preambles?"--but I think the more important issue here is that it was certainly within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that we might need those guns for rebellion, or defense against those who are supposed to be defending us. The idea of having all of the nation's guns in the hands of people taking orders (albeit through a chain of command) from George Bush troubles me at least as much as the idea of having them in the hands of violent criminals.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      DrBurst

      yea, it seems even the army's safe guard, the soldier's responsibility to disobey illegal orders, is failing.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      IanThal

      Actually it is very clear to me from the preamble to the amendment and the historical context of the Constitution being drafted in the wake of Shayes' Rebellion that the part about the "well regulated militia" was so that a legally elected government could call upon the citizenry to defend it from both invasion, and from violent overthrow by an unelected armed faction.
   3. 

      6/26/08

      flamingpoodle

      [The idea of having all of the nation's guns in the hands of people taking orders (albeit through a chain of command) from George Bush troubles me at least as much as the idea of having them in the hands of violent criminals.]
      Very, very good point.
      
      When guns become outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Most people who (legally) own guns, have never had to fire them, yet their mere presence actually prevent other violent crimes like rape, assault, etc.
      
      Guns for people who want them, no guns for people who don't want them.
   4. 

      6/28/08

      Norski

      Good heavens. Rights for individuals? Not just for groups?
      
      Revolutionary!
   5. 

      6/28/08

      legbamel

      I'd rather that people who have guns be required to fire them, preferably on a regular basis, so that they know what the hey they're doing. I think owning a gun should carry a certain responsibility for knowing how to use and store it so that you don't accidentally shoot your neighbor through their kitchen window or your kids don't accidentally shoot themselves. That's just me, though. I'm all about rules.
      
      I may, however, be a little het up about this topic. Perhaps I should leave it alone for a few days.
   6. 

      6/28/08

      Norski

      legbamel,
      
      Good point. Gun safety classes are offered in many towns: at least here in central Minnesota.
      
      (On a personal note, one of my daughters was such a good shot, that her team went to the nationals in Atlanta: giving me an excellent excuse to tag along.)
      
      In my opinion, the big problem is people with guns, but without the good sense and experience needed to use the things.
      
      And, using a gun - for target practice - can be an excellent form of meditation. (Yet another idea that was not made in America - Kyudo ( www.kyudo.com/ ) has been around for a long time.)
   7. 

      6/28/08

      clioandme

      I wonder how affordable such classes would be in DC, where even target practice would have to be in a special indoor range. It's not like there's room to do so outdoors. New market opportunity, perhaps, but everyone has to wait for whatever legislation DC draws up in the next weeks.
3. 

   6/26/08

   richrf

   There were several weird 5-4 decisions this week. This was certainly one of them, and shows how radically right-wing this court has become.
   
   For those who think that it doesn't matter who you vote for (that is for those who actually take the time to study politics and vote), these rulings should be incentive enough. Especially, if you think the conservative court has gone too far. Roe V. Wade overrule is just one vote away.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      "shows how radically right-wing this court has become"
      
      This is a very interesting statement from someone who has expressed equal dismay at the two "left-wing" decisions rendered by the court this week in favor of the protection of criminal defendants.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Yeah, I really don't think the left-right political divide can substitute for meaningful analysis. This has been an interesting week that defies our current partisan divides.
   3. 

      6/26/08

      richrf

      There is no such thing as a left-wing decision the way the court is currently constituted. What you have, at best, is a muted Kennedy decision now and then. With the four conservatives always coming up with some extreme dissent, one way or the other.
      
      With that said, there are any where from one to three judges that will be retiring within the next four years, so these issues are certainly something to worry about.
   4. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      Actually, Mark, this court has been that way for a while. There were three rather surprising death penalty rulings during the last term as well.
   5. 

      6/26/08

      techfun

      What really struck me about the death penalty case this week and the judges' decisions was the memory of Bush railing about activists judges.
      
      Expanding the use of the death penalty - via the courts - the way Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito wanted - seems awfully activist to me.
   6. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Which is one more reason why I'd like to forget the whole activist rhetoric and learn to accept these decisions when they come down.
   7. 

      6/27/08

      MadameX

      Mark, what if we'd all quietly accepted Plessy v. Ferguson when it came down?
   8. 

      6/27/08

      clioandme

      Well sure. Judges can be humans and idiots. But we're not dealing with another legislature here, are we? The court sometimes needs time here.
      
      Edited to add: Another wrong decision whose time has passed: the one that gave corporations personhood. I'm not holding my breath though.
4. 

   6/26/08

   clioandme

   One good thing about Scalia's decision, which I'm still trying to understand as I do other chores, is that it sees the regulation of guns by local jurisdictions as legitimate. So Scalia's argument seems to be guaranteeing gun rights for individuals, but he has also says regulation is okay. Maybe that will make more regulation possible in this country without people rejecting it out of hand because they see it as a slippery slope to gun bans, since now the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been clarified and outright gun bans are unconstitutional.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      legbamel

      I hope that turns out to be the case, that gun control laws can be placed and enforced by communities that want them. If that was the aim of the ruling, regardless of the immediate effect, it would make more sense to me.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      pointlessbanter

      Yeah basically a blanket ban can't be made but restrictions are ok. Mental illness, past record, etc. The bad thing is the NRA is going to see this as a way to fight every single gun control law out there.
      
      I don't have a problem with people owning a handgun for home protection. As long as their is a stringent review and training process.
      
      It is the heavier guns and armor piercing bullets that I have a problem with. There is no reason to have some of the high level assault rifles that were once banned by (I believe) the Brady Bill.
   3. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      I'm not sure the NRA would get away with that. As I understood it (and I need to take a closer look), regulation is okay. And now that the NRA no longer has to fear an outright gun ban, maybe they'll have to get over it and maybe just become an organization that promotes safe gun use. But I suppose paranoid traditions---fears of losing the right to bear arms---will die hard. The got the gold prize today. No more reason to fear anti-gun rights candidates.
   4. 

      6/26/08

      pointlessbanter

      According to CNN the NRA is ready to head to court tomorrow in something like 7 cities and multiple states where they have various bans.
      
      Of course I was eating a sandwich and thinking about how I don't have to work for like 17 days so I might not have been paying attention.
5. 

   6/26/08

   Anok

   Hooray! I know you and I don't agree on this issue, Mark, but I for one am glad that those who wish to defend themselves from criminals with guns, by using guns, now have the right to do so.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      What do you wanna bet that visitors to this city are gonna still find themselves at odds with its more restrictive laws (whatever those are in three weeks) and end up in trouble if they're not careful. Would serve them right too. Can't go around visiting other jurisdictions without obeying their laws.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      Anok

      Well, yeah I think it will need some serious ironing out before everything settles in.
   3. 

      6/26/08

      richrf

      You must be kidding. Even Wyatt Earp had the commonsense to ban guns in Tombstone, in the old wild west. That is all, I need now, in my neighborhood. Everyone packing firearms. I was talking to some older friends of mine this morning about how weird the world has become. Thanks for the added confirmation.
   4. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Rich, I am totally against owning guns in my city, and I have a different take on the 2nd amendment than Justice Scalia does, but to say that the world is becoming "weird" on this score is to ignore a couple centuries of American political culture.
   5. 

      6/26/08

      Anok

      Yeah, well if the thought of your neighbors owning a gun scares you - you might want to move to a place where the PEOPLE are less scary.
      
      I will steal this from someone here on BC - (Was it RC? Ammobob? I can't remember).
      
      Why not post a sign in your window - "This is a gun free home".
   6. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Anok, the argument about moving to a neighborhood that is less scary is as silly as the argument that Rich was making. Just saying.
   7. 

      6/26/08

      Anok

      No, it's not silly. If he is scared of his neighbors because they own guns, what does that say about his neighbors?
      
      Law abiding citizens with common sense and decency don't become weirdo monsters simply because thy bought a rifle, or pistol.
   8. 

      6/26/08

      legbamel

      Yeah, I'm not scared that my neighbors will get mad and shoot me. I'm terrified that their kids will find the gun and accidentally do it, or that they'll get drunk and start taking pot shots at that squirrel that's been eating their strawberries. (I live in a very quiet, boring neighborhood, but I heard that the folks who rented the house across the street before we moved in used to have a target on their fence and practice throwing hatchets at it, only occasionally missing and landing in their neighbor's driveway. People are weird and not to be trusted. )
   9. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Too many assumptions, Anok. Some of us wouldn't feel comfortable with any neighbors owning guns no matter where we lived. I was unhappy when I found out a good friend of mine always carried a pistol in his car (legally, not in DC). Course maybe with the right regulation and training in place I could develop some confidence in the system. Maybe.
      
      Edited to add: Consider too the kind of vigilante rhetoric I'm hearing on the other thread about another Supreme Court decision. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/death-penalty-and-child-rape Ugh.
   10. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Yes, Mark, I understand your opinion.
       
       However, if a person you claim to call a friend (a trusted one?) owns a gun, and then automatically lose your trust of him or her because they own a gun....it doesn't say much for their character or your trust of them in the first place.
       
       Particularly if they are law abiding, and responsible human beings.
       
       We own guns. Our friends own guns. I trust them a a helluva lot more than the police around here. Particularly with guns. They have been through training, and are expert marksmen who hunt regularly, practice regularly, and employ the highest quality of gun safety possible.
   11. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       More assumptions. I didn't say they lost my trust. I said I was unhappy. I find the gun thing uncanny. I don't like it. But apparently I have to live with it.
   12. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       What is there to be unhappy about, Mark? They are responsible, yes? They are kind, yes? They are law abiding, yes? They are not harming anyone, yes? You trust them, yes?
       
       What would make you go all uncomfortable and unhappy, then?
       
       Who would you rather own the guns, criminals, or a trusted friend?
   13. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Gotta run, Anok, but maybe I should try to answer that in a blog post.
   14. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       No problem.
6. 

   6/26/08

   clioandme

   [wrong placement]

   [reply]
7. 

   6/26/08

   richrf

   This is our take in Chicago, when crazies take over the Supreme Court. There is no sense of the practical effect these well considered decisions have on common people, who are already walking the streets, scared for their lives.
   
   www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story
   
   By the way Mark. I am glad there is a referee to decide on what arguments are silly, and what are not. You know that four Supreme Court Justices voted against this decision. This is not a situation of jurisprudence. This is a case where a few Republican Presidents successful put some nuts on the Supreme Court. The same President who took us to war on false pretenses. Let's not take these guys too seriously. It may hurt our sense of being a human being.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      There are a couple of million people in Chicago, Rich. Kindly do not take the words of one reporter and one politician and attribute them to all of us.
8. 

   6/26/08

   NINE

   So I guess my question is who cares what the original concept of right to bear arms means, whether it means for militia or personal use....
   
   The entire basis of our system is that we can revise and edit these things isnt it?
   
   At some point it is going to be come increasingly more obvious that the bad outweighs the good when it comes to everyone having guns. The problem is, will it be too little too late?

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      I think we have to care about the intent behind the words as long as those words stand in the Constitution. The only way to change things is through another amendment, which isn't gonna happen in my lifetime.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      NINE

      I guess I see things differently. The fine men who wrote the constitution knew they were not perfect, which is why we have the ability to amend things. If one of the items in the constitution is obviously not good for the country then we should take action to amend it regardless of the original intent shouldn't we?
   3. 

      6/26/08

      clioandme

      Exactly. But amend entails a complicated constitutional process. It can be done. Maybe it should be done. But I don't think there is anywhere near enough support for such an action. So the court has to interpret what it has. It doesn't amend. It interprets, nothing more---even if some conservatives like to talk about "activist judges" when they disapprove of a decision.
   4. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      And then complain when sticking to the framework provided doesn't net the result they desired.
   5. 

      6/26/08

      NINE

      what good is taking years interpreting the sentence "kill the next person you see" if everyone who reads it takes action immediately.
      
      Now that's obviously an overexaggeration but you get the point. while they keep arguing more and more people are dying when no matter what the original intent was... it is a bad idea right now, its time to take action.
   6. 

      6/26/08

      kevingoodman

      opps wrong place
   7. 

      6/26/08

      DaneMorgan

      But there are rules, Nine. And there is no way that such an amendment is going to be ratified, or even sent for ratification without a full constitutional convention. And there's no way in hell that's going to happen because that would scare the pudding out of all parties.
9. 

   6/26/08

   clioandme

   Is there a common denominator in the recent rulings? My sense is that the Guantanamo decision offended a majority if Republicans and delighted a majority of Democrats. And I'm willing to bet the poles were reversed for many on the current decision. But in both it seems to me that maybe the common denominator relates to individual rights. Will be interesting to see some analysis on this written for non-lawyers when this is all over.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      I think the common denominator is sticking close to the history and original intent of the Constitution regardless of which side of the ideological/political fence that means landing on.
   2. 

      6/26/08

      DaneMorgan

      And we regard that as odd... Interesting, eh?
   3. 

      6/26/08

      MadameX

      Not only odd, Dane, but many people seem to be outraged.
10. 

    6/26/08

    BlueSunshine

    Thank goodness this was shot down (no pun intended). If this would pass, all it would do would take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens. If you live in a city like DC, that's the last thing you'd want.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       NINE

       you bring up an interesting point... its obviously bad now... but think about how much worse it is going to get as time goes on.
       
       You think it will be bad for lawful citizens now, how much harder will it be for them when things get really out of control?
       
       That response seems like a lazy way out... let my children and children's children deal with the mess, I don't want to have to deal with it right now because its too much work and not SOOO bad for me right now.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       @BlueSunshine I live in DC, and I'd prefer that you not speak in my name. (Not sure what you mean by "a city like DC". There is only one DC.)
    3. 

       6/26/08

       BlueSunshine

       @markstone
       
       Leave it to you to get your panties in a bunch with anything that conflicts with your views. When a city is #18 in violent crimes in the country, I really don't think being a lawful gun owner is a bad idea.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       My objection was not to your opinion. My objection was to your insinuation that DC residents would automatically agree with you. And a change in your tone would be in order.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       NINE

       @BlueSunshine Your logic is flawed though, when your city is #18 in violent crimes and growing... why would you continue on the path that got you there? Why not take action to alleviate the problem now before your city becomes #1 in violent crimes and you are too scared to walk outside your house?
    6. 

       6/26/08

       BlueSunshine

       I don't understand how you can see my "tone" from text.
       
       I'm a very black and white person. You should have the ability to be able to protect yourself, plain and simple.
       
       @Nine
       
       Statistically speaking, putting guns in the hands of lawful citizens decreases crime rates. On the other hand, taking guns away from them lets the real criminals run wild. Take the UK for example where gun violence has sky rocketed.
    7. 

       6/26/08

       NINE

       If you were walking down the street and someone punched you in the face and neither of you were carrying a weapon would you have the ability to protect yourself?
    8. 

       6/26/08

       BlueSunshine

       @Nine
       
       Considering I took nine years of martial arts as a kid, I'm over 200 pounds, and I work out on a weekly basis, I'd say so. I don't even own a gun, in fact I don't even like guns at all. But in a world of muggings, car jackings, and gang violence, you can't be the guy without one. It's an awful scenario, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
    9. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Nine, to answer your last question, yes, I would.
       
       However it isn't likely that someone will just up and punch you in the face. It is more likely that a criminal or attacker will stick a gun in your face.
       
       Level playing fields are all most of us ask for.
    10. 

        6/26/08

        NINE

        @BlueSunshine I am a guy without one, yes its a scary thought but my ethics override my fear.
        
        @anok I don't know where you live or if your state lets you carry a concealed handgun but lets suppose they dont... a criminal puts a gun in your face, what good is the right to arms if you dont have it with you right then and there?
        
        While there will be situations of innocent people being held up without guns to protect themselves I just dont know if its enough argument to counter the amount of good that can be made once guns start seeping out of our society as time goes on.
        
        Its not an easy road, its not a fast road, but isnt it obvious that its a better road to take?
        
        No one likes the idea of innocent people dying but the truth is that both of the alternatives that we are debating involve people dying.
        
        Which one has less in the long run?
    11. 

        6/26/08

        BlueSunshine

        @Nine
        
        Well if ethics take a backseat for personal safety, then that's your call. To me, if I have to protect myself or my loved ones, it's going to be by any means necessary. Unfortunately, when Joe Schmoe is trying to break into your house and he's armed, the only solution you have to the problem is arm yourself.
        
        Sadly, my family has been in the situation where our home had been invaded. My mother was the only one home and she had a BB gun (that looked very real) and it was enough to scare the person off until the police showed up.
    12. 

        6/26/08

        DaneMorgan

        Wait. This ban has been in places for some time has it not?
    13. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        Nine, yes it is legal to carry concealed weapons here and many people do. Many of my friends do (I do not, as I am not licensed to, I'll be working on that).
        
        If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon, but choose not to, then the result of not carrying it is your fault. If you have the choice to carry a concealed weapon, but have not been licensed, that too, is your fault (which is where I am) if the choice has been taken away from you - then what do you have?
        
        I understand the point of view that guns should not play into anything, as they should not exist. But that simply isn't going to happen.
        
        And I have more than myself to protect, at that.
    14. 

        6/26/08

        IanThal

        I grew up in Washington, D.C. -- it's my home town. And I can say this-- the biggest problem with gun violence in the 1980s came from weapons legally purchased in Maryland and Virginia (with their lax gun laws) and illegally brought into the District-- and from my own perspective: every rough situation I have ever been in in my hometown (or for that matter, just about any town I have been in) would have been even worse had there been handguns present.
11. 

    6/26/08

    JustAFarmBoy23

    300 million people armed with guns...sounds safe to me.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       Popular sovereignty, I trust three million independent gun owners more than I would trust any single individual who thinks they know my state of well fare any better than I do.
12. 

    6/26/08

    Anok

    It is no accident that areas (be it cities, or countries) with bans on guns for lawful citizens have higher crime rates - and higher rates of violent crime, then in countries where people are allowed to defend themselves with the same weapons being deployed against them by people who don't give a damn about the law.
    
    This correlation is not a coincidence, folks.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       No, it's certainly not a coincidence, but there are a lot of factors involved that make it virtually impossible to determine whether or not there is a causal relationship. First, cities with high crime rates have more motivation to enact restrictions on weapons, such that many of them may already have higher rates of violent crimes before the limitations. Second, the comparison here to "countries" skews any kind of meaningful comparison, since there is an entire separate framework of law and cultural reference point to consider. Just a couple of quick and obvious considerations; there are many more.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       DC's situation is crazy complicated, because it is part of a larger metropolitan area with other jurisdictions and laws. The fact that so many guns come into the city from Maryland and Virginia illegally anyway is one argument that proponents of gun ownership call attention to. They say the guns are here already illegally from these and other jurisdictions (many from down south were many DC residents have family), so why not make it legal for law-abiding citizens in order to level the playing field? They have a point, even if I disagree with their ultimate conclusion.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       @Anok
       Have you researched the Canadian stats? What's been required here since the 1930's is handgun licensing and registration. The vast and overwhelming majority of crimes gun committed with handguns in Canada today involve the use of illegally obtained firearms that come from the USA where such registration and licensing are not required. This seems to point to the fact that criminals will acquire and use handguns regardless of registration and licensing requirements.
       
       However, having such a system in place also means that we have the means to compare the guns used in crimes and those who used them to the database and actually track where they came from, including in some cases, who supplied them. From a national security perspective handgun registration and licensing may serve a useful purpose.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Hair splitting, in my opinion.
       
       First world countries on par with the US that allow - and sometimes encourage - gun ownership have practically zero crime, with very few actual distinction sin the law or framework. (With regards to violent crimes).
       
       It is also no coincidence that restricting the use of firearms for defense in urban areas have little effect, if not a reverse effect on crimes committed with firearms, or other violent crimes.
       
       Because obviously, criminals aren't following the bans, no matter how strict they get
       
       Edited to add - TT I have not read up on Canada's laws.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       The great thing about Scalia's decision is that licensing and regulation will become more possible here too. A golden lining.
    6. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       Yeah, definitely a good idea, if we're going to acknowledge that one of the reasons we're allowed to have guns is in case we have to revolt against our government, to give that government a complete and regularly updated list of where those guns are.
    7. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Tiffany, was that a hint of sarcasm I detect?
    8. 

       6/26/08

       IanThal

       > one of the reasons we're allowed to have guns is
       > in case we have to revolt against our government,
       
       Tiffany-
       
       1.) A well armed citizenry is no match against the United States-- in either its law enforcement capacity or its military capacity. The idea that the citizenry is going to overthrow the government is a fantasy straight out of the Turner Diaries. The only way an armed American faction is going to overthrow the US government is if the military does it. Does anyone really think a military Junta would be a better custodian of freedom?
       
       2.) The whole point of a "well regulated militia" isn't to overthrow the government that does the regulating of militias-- basic logic. Looking at the historical context of the era during which the US operated under the Articles of Confederation (think "Shayes' Rebellion"), it's clear the point of a "well regulated militia" was to protect against a lawfully elected government being taken down by a private or factional militia and eliminating all opposition-- like we recently saw Hamas do in Gaza this past year.
    9. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Lets take a look at one causal relationship shall we? In almost every case (every case so far as I know, but I'm not up on this year's stats.) When a particular State "liberalizes" its concealed carry laws, the crime rate goes down. You might argue that the one doesn't necessarily cause the other. (Although you'd be arguing against A LOT of circumstantial evidence. But note that despite there being more armed citizens on the street, the crime rate doesn't go up.
    10. 

        6/26/08

        MadameX

        Ian, whether or not it's likely to be effective doesn't have much to do with Constitutional rights--and the "context" in which the amendment was written was that we were about five minutes removed from having fought a war for independence from our previous leadership.
    11. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        Hey Ian. There are a number of instances of armed citizenry overthrowing their government in World History. Assuming you're an American, you live in one now. According to a continuing yearly Gallup poll, roughly half the homes in America report having a gun in the home at the time of the survey. Other surveys suggest that about 80 to 90 million Americans own or have access to firearms.
        
        Most of the founders believed that private gun ownership was first and foremost for security from their own Government should it leave the path of individual liberty. This only make sense, since they used their guns for that purpose.
        
        Which begs the question: Why would the Founders, who fought a "despotic" government for freedom turn immediately around and require that the new government control the means of resistance?
    12. 

        6/27/08

        IanThal

        American history is far more nuanced and and complex than high school history textbooks generally portray it.
        
        Tiffany:
        
        > the "context" in which the amendment was written was
        > that we were about five minutes removed from having
        > fought a war for independence from our previous leadership.
        
        Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
        Shays' Rebellion (1786-1787)
        
        The Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 because of a number of crises that were coming to a head, one of which was that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had almost been overthrown by an armed faction led by a charismatic leader who had been neither elected nor appointed by a representative body. Protecting elected Federal, State, and local governments from intimidation by armed factions and bringing all militias under state regulation (again see the preamble of the Second Amendment was the order of the day.)
        
        Remember also that the Continental Congress that signed and ratified the Declaration of Independence was a representative body either elected or appointed by the duly elected Colonial Governments and that George Washington was appointed to by this Congress to command the Continental Army. This was a revolution, but it was a revolution that insisted on legal accountability.
        
        The founders were actually very interested in rule of law-- so long as it was accountable.
        
        DonLewis:
        
        > Why would the Founders, who fought a "despotic"
        > government for freedom turn immediately around and
        > require that the new government control the means of
        > resistance?
        
        a.) Because "the founders" believed power should come from the rule of law and neither from lethal force nor from poer of personality.
        
        b.) Because they had their own self-interest to protect, for instance: Thomas Jefferson believed in local government in part because he wanted to prevent abolitionists like Alexander Hamilton from using a strong federal government from end the institution of slavery. Jefferson and some of his ilk, were despots in their own right.
        
        Anyway, I already explained the absurdity of a well armed (and unorganized) citizenry defeating the U.S. military-- and also how undesirable that really would be. However bad you think our government might be-- replacing it with either a military junta or a terrorist militia is far worse.
13. 

    6/26/08

    atlasbear

    stoneman... DC will be a much safer place now.
    What a victory for AMERICA!!!

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       You know the city?
    2. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       Hm. The statement "a victory for AMERICA" is a bit ominous these days, given that we rarely seem to be on the right side of anything.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       IanThal

       Sorry, as a school teacher in a city with restrictive gun-laws I'm glad that I only have to confiscate the occasional knife or adult magazine that the kid stole from his or her parents and brought to school and not a firearm.
       
       Remember that legally obtained items still end up in the hands of those who should not have them.
14. 

    6/26/08

    kevingoodman

    The idea of guns doesn’t bother me because I could make something much worse for ten dollars. And besides the criminal gun is probably an unregistered gun or an unlawful owner anyways.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Exactly.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       NINE

       Once again though that response is more like: "oh well its bad but the law wont change much since most criminals will still have guns... that's far too much work so lets not even try and let things get worse by taking no action at all"
    3. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I hear you Nine. Too much cynicism about society and human nature for my taste.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       We are making the problem WORSE buy forcing citizens to rely on "authority" to take care of problems, and keep us safe though.
       
       That is NEVER what America stood for. We are supposed to be do it yourselfers.
       
       We are supposed to be self reliant.
       
       And no cynicism is necessary here - crime stats are facts, not poor outlooks.
       
       Before guns, there were knives. Guess who used them? That's right, criminals!
       
       before knives there were bows. I'm sure that criminals used those too.
       
       Before that, humans used rocks and sticks, and before that, they used their bare hands.
       
       This is nothing new, guys.
       
       Furthermore, the right to bear and keep arms is ALSO a right because as citizens we have the right t take on our government, if we feel we need to. Nothing invites dictatorships and despotism like an unarmed society. Our founding fathers knew that, hence their inclusion of it.
       
       Maybe they just might have known what they were talking about.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       Well that's not exactly what I'm saying. I believe we have an innate right to arms. But that is a differen matter -
    6. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       In a situation where handguns and owners are required to be licensed and registered at the very least you are in a position to sort wheat from chaff. As the registered and licensed owners are properly trained in handgun safety and as they are eager to preserve their privilege to possess and use firearms, the majority of them are not at all hesitant when it comes to turning in those, who are not registered and licensed and/or who are not using firearms safely. The criminals and those with criminal intent become more "visible and detectable" when packing guns, as they are not registering for and graduating from taking safety upgrading courses and therefore are not being registered as members at hunting and shooting clubs.
    7. 

       6/26/08

       legbamel

       So, what's wrong with making it harder for crminals to get guns? I don't see how arming every mother, father, and child will make them any safer unless we regulate them getting trained and practicing with their weapons. Wouldn't that be gun control, too? It's not that I don't think anyone should have them, it's just that I think they are inherently unsafe in the hands of the average lazy slob like me or most of the people I know.
    8. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       @Anok: Gotta love it when the Anarchist finds herself in the position of defending the Constitution and the highest court of the land. The decision is consistent with your philosophy of course. Just enjoying the irony of the situation.
       
       @Legbamel: Indeed.
    9. 

       6/26/08

       NINE

       @legbamel I agree also, I am not saying that no one should have guns persay (I've mostly just been playing devils advocate) but at least that is doing something about the problem while people continue to argue.
    10. 

        6/26/08

        kevingoodman

        @legbamel
        
        
        I really don't know what your contrasting against. I support regestering and licencing. I believe anybody who wants a gun and has a good background should be entitled to do so within certain regulations. Thats far from saying every person on the planet should go get one. I have a handgun and a rifle and it's beyond my comphrension that those could be taken away from me. I have had them along time, I took classes, they make good recreation, and they give me assurance at night that I am empowered to defend my family if need be. And alot of the fuss is more symbolic than anything in terms of violence.
    11. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        Legbamel, criminals don't follow laws, ergo any attempt to make it "harder" to obtain a firearm via legal processes is a wasted effort, and only restricts those who are not criminals.
        
        There are already legal requirements for the purchase and use of firearms, legal restrictions, and protocol involved. But the only people paying it any heed are those who are already inclined to ethical and responsible with said firearms.
        
        Mark - yeah, I know it's pretty funny
    12. 

        6/26/08

        MadameX

        Anok, I know that to some degree you're just condensing for the sake of message board presentation, but it's a bit silly to claim that laws intended to make it harder for criminals to get guns have NO effect simply because criminals don't follow laws. Drugs are illegal and bubble gum is not; the fact that drugs are illegal by no means makes them impossible to obtain--in some circles, they're not even difficult to obtain-but they're certain not as readily accessible as bubble gum (nor as cheap).
    13. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        That depends on where you live, Tiffany Drugs are readily available where I live, and they're not that expensive to get, either. (OK, not as cheap as bubblegum, though )
        
        Restrictive laws are already in place, they obviously have made little progress in the use of illegally obtained guns. Creating more laws isn't going to stop the trade
    14. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        @Anok... I disagree.
        
        There are certain things that should be difficult and make people prove they are able to own in order to obtain. (I am not even saying just guns.)
        
        -Auto License
        -Dr. License
        -Motorcycle License
        -Pilots License
        -Gun License
        
        All of those have an impact on people's safety one way or another. If a criminal wants to steal a car and drive it without a license he can. But does that mean it shouldn't be restricted and hard to get for everyone else?
        
        Lets face it. People are irresponsible idiots, if there is some sort of screening process and aptitude test for anything that can threaten the life of another person I am all for it.
    15. 

        6/26/08

        MadameX

        See, this kind of statement raises a lot of questions in my mind: "they obviously have made little progress in the use of illegally obtained guns."
        
        How is that obvious? Because there are still some illegally obtained guns? Where is the data that makes it clear that, with enough passage of time and enforcement, there is NO net difference? There is a widespread assumption (which I don't know whether or not you're making here) that if there is still gun crime, nothing has been accomplished. People still die of heart attacks, and I would hardly say that means there "obviously" hasn't been any progress in the treatment of heart disease in the past hundred years.
    16. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        Exactly Kevin. Could you imagine a world with no licenses? Well, I know Anok can, but these are the United STATES of America, not a loose association of Anarchists.
    17. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm (I don't know why this is from 1997, as the rest of the stats go up to 2005)
        
        Offenders
        
        *
        
        According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
        o a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
        o a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
        o family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
        
        * During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
        * On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
        * Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
        
        www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm (go to the site for details on the highlights, and sources).
        
        * Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
        
        * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
        
        * Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.4
        
        * Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."5
        
        * Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.6
        
        * More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.8
        
        * CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."9
        
        * Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show."10 And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.11
        * A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:
        
        * Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home."16
        
        * In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."17
        
        * Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.19
    18. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        Maybe next time you could just give us the link and summary. You're gonna kill the thread by pasting so much data into it. Might be breaking copyright too.
    19. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        Kevin - N one is saying that you shouldn't have a license, or training.
        
        What we are saying is that MORE restrictions aren't going to do any good, as the current ones (if you look at the stats) have done very little.
        
        Edit - those ARE the highlights I posted the relevant information to make sure people would see it. Oh, and the federal statistics are not copyrighted
    20. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        If laws don't work they need to be changed.
        
        Half of the crap we have on the books doesn't work because it isn't enforced or isn't constructed right.
        
        If people want to have handguns and hunting rifles I am all for it.
        
        I just don't want people to be able to buy guns at gun shows, over the internet, and I think certain types of rifles should be banned.
        
        I'm pretty easy.
    21. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        I don't necessarily disagree with you, here. In THIS world I think a gun free for all is a bad idea.
        
        One thing you can't stop though, is a private sale No matter what laws are on the books.
        
        I would allow the purchase of certain types of guns for collector's purposes though.
    22. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        FINE I will allow you to buy your musket to re-enact the Battle of Ticonderoga in your backyard.
        
        Actually if you licensed guns and gave them titles you could restrict private sale. Basically making you have to sign the title of the gun over to the new owner.
    23. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        I actually used to own an awesome blunderbuss.
        
        But titles, meh - what good will that do? It's not like signing the title to a car, or home. It's still a private sale, and there are no tests or requirements that would prevent the gun from being sold to just anybody.
        
        Besides that, they can get "stolen" pretty easily, if you know what i mean.
    24. 

        6/26/08

        kevingoodman

        I suddenly feel like I need to go to walmart and buy a shotgun. I tell you what I'll take a good shotgun over a handgun any day when it comes to home defense.
    25. 

        6/26/08

        Anok

        Yup! That is the truth, KevinG.
    26. 

        6/26/08

        kevingoodman

        Oopss
        
        edited for sanity
    27. 

        6/28/08

        legbamel

        @ KevinGoodman (from way, way up there), I was responding to Anok. What I meant was, "Wouldn't having more guns around make them easier for criminals to get?" Now, if I rob your house, I get your TV and stereo. If you have a gun and I'm smart enough to rob you when you're not home, I've got your TV, your stereo, and your gun. How is that an improvement?
15. 

    6/26/08

    DaneMorgan

    @Nine
    
    "Once again though that response is more like: "oh well its bad but the law wont change much since most criminals will still have guns... that's far too much work so lets not even try and let things get worse by taking no action at all""
    
    Or, "so long as there are those who would do the innocent harm there must be those willing to stand in their path".
    
    The courts have already ruled that our police forces have no obligation to protect us, only to solve the case our corpses leave and try to find the guy what dunnit.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       Actually, Dane (and really, in support of your point), they don't have much obligation to solve the cases either, and prosecution is discretionary. They really have no responsibility to us whatsoever.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       DaneMorgan

       Ahhh... I guess I misinterpreted. Or probably just read that bit into it thinking that they MUST serve SOME purpose or another.
16. 

    6/26/08

    DaneMorgan

    When did the ban first go into effect?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Which Ban? DC's handgun ban? Or the Supreme Court's decision that strikes it down? DC's ban has been in effect since 1976, if I understand correctly.
17. 

    6/26/08

    DaneMorgan

    You people always start the really interesting convos just as I have to leave.

    [reply]
18. 

    6/26/08

    clioandme

    In the office and I'll take a moment to raise one other interesting issue before I get to work. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long used the gun ownership rights issue to beat politicians over the head with. It's helped to influence which politicians get elected. Now if this decision means the 2nd Amendment means that individuals have a right to own guns, as I think it does, then the NRA and certain parts of the Republican party no longer have this wedge issue. It's done.
    
    Of course, that would mean accepting the court's decision, as I do. But look at what happened after Row v. Wade. Would have thought that that had settled the issue of abortion rights, but instead people decided to delegitimize the court's ruling as the work of "activist judges." So maybe people won't settle down.
    
    And really, I'm unhappy. Nonetheless, I consider this a done deal until and if at some point there is a consensus in the country to amend the constitution. You win some and you lose some. Time for me to move on and think about what the overturning of DC's handgun ban and the clear statement about the 2nd Amendment's meaning have for me personally.
    
    Time also to pay attention to how policy is made about gun licensing and so forth. That'll be local politics everywhere, just like driving laws and license are local or statewide matters.
    
    [edited to add: I might have to steal some of my own statements here for a blog post this week; we'll see]

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       
    2. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       *snort*!
    3. 

       6/26/08

       IanThal

       Yeah, well, John Kerry is a decorated former Naval officer and actually has served in combat.
       
       George W. Bush is a spoiled rich kid with machismo fantasies.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       and he looks scared.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       Yeah... but that picture of Kerry is just before he throws the gun into an incinerator....
       
       I'd have put Kerry against Cheney in his duck-hunting outfit. I mean, you have to admire a guy who can shoot his buddy in the face and not get charged with even a minor firearms violation.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       IanThal

       > you have to admire a guy who can shoot his buddy
       > in the face and not get charged with even a minor
       > firearms violation.
       
       Sounds like a storyline from "The Sopranos."
       
       I suspect that Kerry has better aim though.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Really? I rememeber a similar picture running in the news that was taken at an NRA rally.
19. 

    6/26/08

    jackpayne

    It's scary. The thought that 4 of the Supremes think they can actually AMEND the Constitution. It was bad enough when they rolled along making new laws from the bench--new laws never even hinted at in the Constitution--but, now, this? Incomprehensible to me. These 4 Justices essentially voted today to throw out the Second Amendment.
    
    Some good arguments for the minority side. But, please, sensible people, first let Congress handle it, any old crazy law (something they're good at). Then let the Supremes rule on that--the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I don't understand a word you're saying. DC had a law for its jurisdiction. There was a lawsuit based on the 2nd Amendment. The lawsuit went all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate arbiter of such matters. DC lost. Gun rights advocates won. The meaning of the ambiguous 2nd Amendment has now been clarified for the first time in two centuries.
       
       Now once upon a time Congress made laws for DC, but we've had home rule (albeit imperfect) for quite some time now, thank you very much.
       
       Anyway, the court isn't making the law. It's interpreting the Constitution.
20. 

    6/26/08

    jackpayne

    Sorry, Mark. My interpretation is the diametric opposite of yours.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       I'm with you Jack. But that won't surprise anyone
    2. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       @Jack: I don't know what your interpretation is. It seems like you said the court was overstepping by overturning the DC gun ban. Really?
       
       @Don: If I understand Jack correctly, then your response confuses me even more, because I thought you considered self-defense a human right and one also anchored in the 2nd Amendment.
       
       I must have not understood what Jack was saying. Talking about 4 justices might mean he's talking about the minority opinion, but what am I supposed to make of the reference to Congress. No, I remain confused by the statements, which I can neither agree nor disagree with.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       I hate to speak for him, but I believe, subject to his denial, that he is indeed referring to the dissenters. And he is also referring to the roll of the Courts as interpreters rather than originators of laws.
       
       From the AP: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
       
       He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
       
       I will argue that the Framers DID make a choice to limit elected officials from regulating civilian weapons, and that the Honorable Justice must be blind as a bat, because I can easily fill this whole discussion with quotes from the Framers, while in office and out, that say just that.
       
       I also invite anyone out there to find me a quote from a Founder of this Nation that says anything about regulating or controlling private ownership of weapons.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I invite anyone to find a framer who said we should regulate who can drive a car, fly a Boeing 747, or put someone under with anesthesia and operate on them. I'll grant you your gun rights. Have to now. But it looks like you have to grant me regulations for ensuring that irresponsible or mentally unstable idiots don't get their hands on them
    5. 

       6/26/08

       pointlessbanter

       Trying to apply what the framers said a few hundred years ago to current standards is impossible. The context and times have changed, weaponry is extremely different.
       
       Let's look at this from another example that isn't as hot as this. Maple or Ash bats in baseball are higher technology than the typical bat. The problem is that when the bat splinters it sends large pieces out instead of shattering like typical bats. This puts fans and players at a really high risk for injury.
       
       There is nothing in the original rules of baseball that rules on the type of wood bats can be made of. If we take a strict view of it this rule shouldn't be changed safety be damned.
       
       However times change, technology changes, and thus the context in which the rules exist need to change.
       
       Again I am not saying that I disagree with people able to own handguns because honestly I think it is their right but I hate when people try and to apply: the bible, the Constitution, or other things that were written hundreds of years ago to now and try to interpret the meaning against today's standards.
       
       EDIT: Mark beat me to it... I was writing this before I saw that. Damn... and he did it much more concisely.
    6. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Mark, those things didn't exist back then. And are not in the Constitution. Guns did, and are. And arguments about relative lethality make little difference. (At least to the thousands who were wounded or killed during the Revolutionary War.)
       
       However, I do grant you that it is best for the mentally unstable to not have weapons. We do have laws for that. Unfortunately, recent administrations, both rep and dem, have been doing a piss-poor job of enforcing them, despite having existing systems in place to do so. And this while they make new laws which will effect my Rights negatively, without doing much of anything to meet those real needs,
    7. 

       6/26/08

       pointlessbanter

       So anything that is on the books that the original founders of our country came up with we should follow to the T?
       
       Come on... they were freaking making wooden teeth and bathing every few days.
    8. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       PB. You mean like freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Right to trial by Jury? Search Warrants? Due Process? etc. etc.
       
       Those are also in the Bill of Rights. And all are described as Rights NOT from government, but to be protected by government. The Right to self defense is a inherent in the human condition. Or, it is a gift from government and therefore revocable at the whim of the same.
    9. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Actually, the Constitution says "arms", not guns. And the English Bill of Rights from 1689, from which this right stems, talks about arms appropriate to the condition of the people in question (those people being Protestants in that particular document). But Don, what you and I think on this score is irrelevant. The court decided that regulation is okay. Get over it. Go nurse your wounds and I'll nurse mine about the end of the DC gun ban.
    10. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        We also wanted to count blacks as less than a person and only property owning white males had the right to vote. So I guess our founders weren't exactly batting 1.000 now were they?
    11. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        I thought we left the British in part due to their restrictive laws. And don't forget Mark, in 1776, much of our side was armed with the "assault rifle" of its day. It always makes it easier of course if you are armed better than the government. But I suppose we at least got 'em in numbers.
    12. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        PB. If you think that something in the Constitution is wrong, there is a process for changing it. But it isn't by Congressional vote or by legislative fiat.
        
        We changed the 2/3rd human thing sometime back. If you feel that the Second Amendment is outdated, it can be changed too. By the rules.
        
        Edit: Opps! I said legislative and I meant judicial.
        
        Now back to our regularly scheduled argument.
21. 

    6/26/08

    Arcticulates

    In Alaska just about everyone owns a gun, I live in a wild area, guns are used for protection from animals that would love to eat me, and guns are used for hunting.
    
    Very rarely are they used on people.
    
    In my humblest of opinions, a required certified training program should come with the gun you purchase. This isn't the best example but here goes: Sorta like when you have to sign to have a dog neutered if you want to adopt from the "dog pound" or you can't adopt the puppy.. Well if you have to have certified training on how to use your new gun, and if you don't you don't get the gun.
    
    @pointlessbanter: I too have a problem with armor piercing bullets and high level assault levels being available to everyone.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Or semi-automatic rifles of the type I used in the army (M16s) but maybe that's what you mean.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       legbamel

       I was thinking about this while working, and I wondered if regulating ammo would be an effective approach. I can understand an argument for needing a handgun, but I can't understand the argument for needing armor-piercing bullets or ones that explode or are otherwise designed to shred a person or animal. What possible justification can you offer for needing those? That the deer are buying vests these days? That you need to be able to dismember a burglar?
       
       I'm going to need to do more reading on the topic. I don't know squat about guns or ammo, but I've never understood the availability of those types of bullets or shells to anyone who walks in the door, without any regulation (as far as I know). That just seems like a recipe for disaster. Then again, I've wandered pretty far off-topic so I won't be surprised if y'all choose to ignore my musings.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Only in case you need to fight your government I suppose.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I don't know enough to talk in detail about regulation either. I've only ever had the regulation issue stuff used in the U.S. Army in the 1980s. M16 semi-automatic and automatic rifle. M60 machine gun. 50 caliber machine gun. And 8" howitzer rounds. Most or all of that is illegal in the civilian world, except for collectors with special licenses. Never ever thought about actually buying ammunition and weapons and using them outside of the army. Don't plan to make any purchases any time soon either.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       @legbamel
       FWIW in Canada ammo is not just available to anyone who wants to purchase it. Two pieces of Photo ID, plus a valid Possession and Canadian Acquisitions of Firearms License (PAL) must be presented to purchase ammo.
    6. 

       6/26/08

       pointlessbanter

       Dude if we have to fight the government we are going to need a hell of a lot more advanced equipment than armor piercing bullets.
    7. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       @TimeThief: And then look out bears!
       
       @Pointless: That whole fight the government is just nonsense in my book. If we do our civic duty and show a little respect for the law and the process that gives rise to it, we'll never need to go that route.
    8. 

       6/26/08

       pointlessbanter

       It is just failed logic to begin with. Again it is all context, they founding fathers lived in an era with empires and were fresh off a fight for liberation.
       
       Again people had access to almost the same type of weaponry except cannons and a few other things.
       
       Compare that today... unless Don has a stealth fighter in his backyard we are kind of screwed if we have to rise up against the government.
    9. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Gosh, I'm getting sore fingers! Someday, there will be a revolution in the US. It's pretty much assured, if history is any judge. (In fact we had one in the mid to late 1800's)
       
       Sooner or later, the government here will suppress human rights to the point where the people will rise. It could be an extreme left government or an extreme right one. Makes no major difference, the leadership goals will be the same.
       
       I'm always amazed about the fact that people say "It can't happen here." That has got to be the most commonly said mistaken statement in the history of the world.
       
       
       Addendum:
       
       And don't be surprised if portions of the military jump sides. Just like in the Civil War and hundreds of other conflicts, it happens.
    10. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        I don't say it can't happen. I say there's no reason to guarantee the right to bear arms specifically in order to bring about such a state of affairs. That's just nonsense.
        
        By the way, if we see our political history in a longer trajectory and include Britain and England, then revolution has been pretty much absent from it, though not civil war. I don't even think of the American Revolution as much of a revolution. More like the American War of Independence.
    11. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        Shit... well i guess I better save up for a patriot missile system just in case.
        
        I can put it in the backyard next to my grill.
    12. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        Got any room for an 8" howitzer and a few hundred rounds of ammunition? Maybe we could hide it with some camouflage netting?
        
        Edited to add: by the way, I had a sergeant explain how to take out a fighter plane with an M16. So everything is okay.
    13. 

        6/26/08

        pointlessbanter

        Yeah I think I can put it next to herb garden my neighbor has been working on. It will scare the piss out of the rabbits if they try and get in there.
    14. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        "The strongest reason for the people to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government"
        
        Thomas Jefferson
        
        "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, that historically has proven to be always possible."
        
        Hubert Humphrey
        
        "Tyranny comes on cat's feet. It's the warrantless wire tap; only for security sake, the registration of your gun; only for safety sake, the banning of "hurtful" speech, only for diversity sake."
        
        Don Lewis
    15. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        I think I'll get me a missile that reaches all the way to Idaho. Maybe a few other parts out that way too, just for good measure. You know, for self-defense.
    16. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        Just remember Mark, I'm a small-mouthed pacifist. We shoot back.
    17. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        Well, you agreed with me on the habeas corpus decision, so I'm not actually shooting, not yet anyway.
    18. 

        6/26/08

        Donlewis

        Had to agree Mark. To me they're the same thing. Power to the People!
    19. 

        6/26/08

        clioandme

        I see the similarity. That's why I'm just working my around to getting used to the decision, even as I will also advocate strong regulation appropriate to where I live.
    20. 

        6/27/08

        MadameX

        "I too have a problem with armor piercing bullets and high level assault levels being available to everyone."
        
        But you're okay with having them available to some people?
22. 

    6/26/08

    helloitsme

    As a crime analyst, I am so pleased about this decision and hope it falls like dominoes through every state with a gun ban. The bad guys easily get their guns no matter what the law says for about $40 a piece or in trade for narcotics. It's the law abiding citizens who are left bringing a key chain light to a gun fight.
    
    Please check out my perspective if you're curious: www.crimeandcrooks.com/2008/06/high-five-high-court-washington-dc-gun.html

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       "It's the law abiding citizens who are left bringing a key chain light to a gun fight."
       
       IMHO the number of law abiding citizens in America in any given year that are in voluntary attendance at a gun fight must be a low figure. And those law abiding citizens that bring "a key chain light" to them must be quite dull witted because the best course of action would be not to go to a gun fight. ... lol
       
       Actually I'm finding all the arguments presented here seem to be so amusingly lame, as the thread pertains to "handguns" and as those posting seem to all be urbanites who contemplating the use of the pistols on other human beings and their government, that I have some Canadian firearm owners, who live in the back country lurking and watching this discussion.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I don't know as I'd say the arguments are lame. We're talking fast, so can't present everything well, but the arguments here capture pretty big chunks of our broader discourse on the issue, meaning they need to be taken seriously---at least in the United States they do.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       @Mark
       Canadians who live in the back country and in the North with grizzlies, cougars and wolf packs no doubt have a totally different perspective on what they consider to be "lame" arguments for handgun possession than other folks do.
       
       They might even suggest that the wild animals they cope with in the back country are more predictable and trustworthy than "an untrained paranoid suit with a pop gun and a hate on for government".
       
       @pointlessbanter
       Jeez ... in Canada you could really run with this "an untrained paranoid suit with a pop gun and a hate on for government" as a blog post and get lots of hits, comments and much laughter.
       
       @Mark
       No disrespect intended, just some comic relief.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       pointlessbanter

       Well I do write for the largest Canadian blogging network and I like Labbatt's.... So you might as well make me a citizen now.
23. 

    6/26/08

    jackpayne

    Right on, Don. You read the Constitution the same way as I do. High five.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       But the Constitution, unlike the Bible, is not open to individual interpretation in the long run. We've all got to come to terms with this decision, which, interestingly, seems to have given something to and taken something away from both sides.
24. 

    6/26/08

    richrf

    "In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. And it's not just about murder."
    
    "An American youth is murdered with a firearm every four and a half hours on average. And an American youth commits suicide with a firearm every eight hours. It's worth remembering that many of the most spectacular mass murders of recent years were really suicides, with the perpetrators choosing to take a few other people with them while they were at it."
    
    This is one society that has gone lost control of itself. A Presidential candidate joking and singing about bombing Iran. An anarchist who wants everyone armed - even the ones that want to take some people with them, in their glorious hurrah, which marks the end of their life. A gun lobby that wants to attack the laws of relatively peaceful towns (e.g. Morton Grove, IL), so that crazies in those peaceful towns can have their share of the gunslinging circus, that infects this country.
    
    A country gone really weird.
    
    atlanticreview.org/archives/434-Murder-Rate-in-the-United-States-and-German...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I still disagree. It hasn't "gone really weird." It's been weird for a long, long time. Just gotta figure out how to enjoy the ride (and not get shot in the process).
    2. 

       6/26/08

       timethief

       @Richf
       OOps! The link you posted is b0rked.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       richrf

       Thanks timethief. I changed it to a link which links to the Independent article.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       richrf

       This ruling would never, ever had happened if this Supreme Court was constituted with a bunch of far right, extreme zealots, that were nominated and confirmed by a Republican President and House.
       
       Remember, this Court is one vote away from taking away abortion rights - and they will do it. All they need is McCain to win, and Stevens to resign. Stevens has been holding on as long as he can, for a Democratic President. Now it is our turn to get out and vote for Obama to ensure that Scalia and Roberts can't finish this the way they want to. This will be the single, most important election for women since suffrage.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       That worries me. Though so far I have not noticed the court overturning its own precedents. Have you?
    6. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       guns are bad but killing a fetus is ok? Just joking you can leave me out of the abortion debate.
    7. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Yeah, it doesn't sound so good when you put it that way. Course you know there's another angle to that one, but yeah, I'm not touching that here either. The larger point was about the relevance of the Supreme Court's composition, though there's still no predicting what it will do.
    8. 

       6/26/08

       Anok

       Um, no, Rich. I don't want "everyone armed" and having a weapon isn't weird, or a loss of control. I want everyone to be responsible, self reliant, and personally accountable - and if they were, then they are perfectly capable of handling a firearm.
       
       And your statistics are loaded, as usual.
       
       Please check back to the federal stats I posted above - which tells you exactly what law abiding citizens do with firearms.
       
       Oi, and people wonder why this country is going to pot
    9. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Hey Rich and TT!
       
       Take a look at this and tell me you thoughts if you have the time.
       
       
       www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
    10. 

        6/26/08

        polybore

        @DonLewis I had a look at the link you posted (it is a bit old) and I found it rather amusing that someone would use the UK as an example of gun control gone wrong.
        
        Firearm homicides in the UK are very rare. When they do occur they make the national news. 2006- 2007 there were 59 firearm related homicides in the uk. For the same period in the US there were 10,177 firearm related deaths.
        
        www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.htm...
    11. 

        6/26/08

        kevingoodman

        Riches statistic got me interested so I checked out Alcohol related deaths which averages around 80,000 a year and I'm not sure if that includes DWIs which numbered at 17,000 last year. But by stastical comparison we'll save more lives by banning alcohol which is clearly the greater evil.
    12. 

        6/26/08

        polybore

        The US has already tried banning alchohol. Prohibition resulted in organised crime which to this day contributes to the number of firearm homicides.
    13. 

        6/26/08

        kevingoodman

        I still impress my friends by passing out cuban cigars imported from tax free Switzerland. It amazes me how the simple fact of being illegal makes an eleven dollar cigar worth a hundred.
        
        I have a recipe for moonshine from an old family diary. Now lets save lives and ban the booze.
    14. 

        6/26/08

        DaneMorgan

        "In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. And it's not just about murder."
        
        Wow. Way to throw numbers out and shift the point as you go. How many people in Canada and Britan? How many murders total? How do non firearm murders stack up? per capita? In cities of comparative size? There are so many factors you tried to sidewind through in that one sentence that you should get an award.
    15. 

        6/26/08

        polybore

        @Dane some of the stats you want can be found here. www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violen...
    16. 

        6/26/08

        DaneMorgan

        Thanks polybore, but the actual request for the numbers was rhetorical. The larger point I was making was that Rich was pulling numbers that have no direct relation, providing two vectors in one part and only one in the next, and otherwise "using" the numbers.
        
        Clever, but not all that honest, really.
    17. 

        6/26/08

        MadameX

        There seems to be a lot of that going on today, Dane.
        
        The most recent numbers I've seen do have the per capita murder rate in the US much higher than that in the UK, but at a ratio of about 3:1...a far cry from the approximate 100:1 that the apple & orange numbers above appear to suggest.
25. 

    6/26/08

    mitch972

    I'm just shocked that the vote was soo close. Texas is based of the ability to protect your home and property. We carry guns here..there's a reason they call it the wild, wild west.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       Why would you be surprised that it's close? The wording of the 2nd Amendment is ambivalent enough to make a close decision (in either direction) almost predictable.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       But fortunately the Framers intent is pretty apparent.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I disagree, Don, and I'm speaking as a historian and not a partisan opponent of gun rights. I also think it's no accident that the court has actually avoided making a call on this ambiguous amendment for two centuries.
    4. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       Yeah, Mitch, we heard that heartwarming story on the news where the 911 operator was telling the guy over and over again to stay in his house and he went out and shot a couple of guys dead who were LEAVING his neighbor's house and not presenting a threat to anyone.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       I'll agree that it wasn't a mistake. But as a lover of history at least and a voracious reader of early American history, I've read no evidence that the Framers ever had anything other than a consistent view on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
       
       If you have anything to the contrary, let me know, as I can probably win a lot of money in bets with some of the guys down at the Elks.
26. 

    6/26/08

    kdawg68

    I think Mark hit the nail on the head earlier with the comment:
    
    "We've all got to come to terms with this decision, which, interestingly, seems to have given something to and taken something away from both sides."
    
    Very well said.
    
    Seems that neither "side" was very happy overall with the SCOTUS rulings this week. And he's right - we've got to come to terms with the decisions whether we like them or not.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       I'm still not happy. Bet I still can't get a bazooka.
    2. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       I'm delighted with all of them.
    3. 

       6/26/08

       clioandme

       I can follow the logic of all of them. Is it me or has this been an unusually momentous two weeks for the court?
    4. 

       6/26/08

       Donlewis

       Yep! And all for the good of the republic. (And even for the people.)
       
       Now let's get them all off to summer break before they screw something up.
    5. 

       6/26/08

       Theresa111

       Mark, Today the price of oil has indeed jumped dramatically and it will keep doing so until November. Mark (no pun intended) my words. They are lining their pockets with our hard earned cash!
    6. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       "I can follow the logic of all of them."
       
       Well, there you have it, Mark. Nothing makes me happier than when things make sense.
27. 

    6/26/08

    Theresa111

    Living a ten minute ride to the east of Washington, DC, this make m even more uncomfortable. My niece resides and works downtown. This is not the ruling I and so many other metro residents wanted to hear. It is a scary area in which to live.

    [reply]
28. 

    6/26/08

    richrf

    Killing a fetus huh?
    
    Heck, you don't mind thousands of people getting killed with handguns here, thousands of troops being killed over there, tens of thousands of innocent people being bombed to oblivion everywhere - BUT when it comes to a women's right to choose, all of a sudden you find religion. Good for you. What the heck. Women die from a botched illegal abortion. Children die from some lawfully abiding soul who all of a sudden decides to take out a dozen students with his semi-automatic. All in a good days work. But wait. Why not put more guns out there. Yep, just today a three year old killed herself in Chicago playing with a gun. Yep, we need more of that Good work.
    
    The problem here is that tens of thousands of people being slaughtered by drunken drivers, accidental shootings, deranged gunman who get their guns legal, doesn't matter. What does matter is .... DUH DUH, that women MUST carry a pregnancy to term. There. Now you can sleep well at night.
    
    Where is that drink? I need one.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       Rich, who do you know who "doesn't mind" thousands of people getting killed with handguns?
    2. 

       6/26/08

       polybore

       Do you need to take out an insurance policy if you buy a gun in the US? I mean like you have to for a car?
    3. 

       6/26/08

       kevingoodman

       I agree with the drink part. You need to calm down because I have no idea what your talking about at this point.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       What we need, Rich is some responsibility, common sense, and a de-pansification of people.
       
       Not bans.
       
       As you can see from your ramblings that it isn't the guns, or the cars, or the alcohol that is the problem, it is the PEOPLE who are using the products who are causing the problems. What was a three old doing alone near a loaded firearm long enough to hurt herself?
       
       An idiot can kill himself and others with little more than his bare hands and a 'great idea' Darwin award moment.
       
       Maybe we should ban everything! I mean, after all, we can't seem to handle ourselves. /sarcasm.
       
       My proposal is that the first thing we do is remove the warning tags from everything, and weed out the population.
29. 

    6/26/08

    RenalFailure

    Has there ever been a time where a stand-off with federal forces ended favorably for the ones doing the standing off? Ruby Ridge, Waco, MOVE... all didn't end well.
    
    Will we see Don on the news?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Donlewis

       Na, I'm the skedaddle type. Although...I would look pretty good. And I see Johnny Depp playing me in the movie.
30. 

    6/26/08

    DaneMorgan

    MadamX,
    
    I'm definitely not a lawyer, but what you said earlier got me thinking. I'll admit that I see the second as containing a preamble of sorts. And I base this at least in part in the fact that men who otherwise seemed to choose their words carefully (and deliberate and debate them at length) chose to adress two seperate entities in this amendment. Forst they adress that the militia is important to the security of the state, and then they provide for it by securing the right not of the state or of the meilitia, but the people to keep and bear arms.
    
    My question is, must we read this as not preamble simply because the others do not contain preamble. Is it not possible that for this one they felt the needed to phrase it with one?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Dane, you don't have to be a lawyer to make intelligent analysis--just to inform yourself and think things through, which you always do. The form of the other amendments isn't conclusive, but it's not something to be ignored, either. It's one of the clues, like legislative history, to be used in determining what the framers of a law meant it to mean (and, in fact, structure comes into play more than you might anticipate). The Bill of Rights is quite short, considering the range of subjects it covers and the impact it carries. There's little extraneous language. That doesn't mean that there couldn't have been a reason to include a preamble to one amendment, but it seems highly unlikely that one would have been included without clear reason. And, if there is a clear reason, then it seems likely that it was meant to impact the interpretation of the law.
       
       I haven't really had the chance to think about this in detail or to revisit the Bill of Rights and examine the structure more closely, but I'm headed off on vacation tonight and expect to be doing a bit of writing about several of the recent Supreme Court decisions while I'm away, so I may return with a different perspective.
31. 

    6/26/08

    gerryPlanetEarth

    "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."
    
    I know nothing about the lives of these lunatic unJustices or what hole they crawled out of, or most importantly who and why ordered them to reach this ridiculous decision...
    
    I do know for a fact that the American Constitution condoned the practice of slavery till Abraham Lincoln's time, allowed the genocide of millions of native 1st Nations Indians, allowed the practice of apartheid till the Rosa Parks,MLK,RFK era....Any constitution that allowed these atrocities to happen is truly garbage...
    
    The constitution should be rewrittten by public consultation and voted on by the citizens...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/26/08

       MadameX

       "I do know for a fact that the American Constitution condoned the practice of slavery till Abraham Lincoln's time, allowed the genocide of millions of native 1st Nations Indians, allowed the practice of apartheid till the Rosa Parks,MLK,RFK era....Any constitution that allowed these atrocities to happen is truly garbage..."
       
       Slavery, yes...and then the Constitution was amended to correct that (which is the appropriate procedure for amending the Constitution)
       
       I would love for you to point to the provisions relating to genocide of anyone.
       
       "The constitution should be rewrittten by public consultation and voted on by the citizens.."
       
       Great idea. I can't think of anything I'd love more than having a new Constitution created by the people who elected George Bush twice.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       IanThal

       > I do know for a fact that the American Constitution condoned
       > the practice of slavery till Abraham Lincoln's time
       
       Precisely why William Lloyd Garrison, a leader of the Massachusetts abolitionist movement described the Constituion as (and I quote from memory: "A covenant with the Devil, signed in Hell" and would regularly burn copies at Fourth of July picnics on the Boston Common.
       
       Made people mad, but America would be a poorer place without him,
    3. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Tiffany you are spot on.
32. 

    6/26/08

    gerryPlanetEarth

    Frankly MadameX you make a make a very good point and may have even hit one out of the park...
    
    "Great idea. I can't think of anything I'd love more than having a new Constitution created by the people who elected George Bush twice."
    
    However that does not change anything...American guns that anyone can buy while buying a slurpee or off of a kindergarten gang student(who takes the rap) in the U.S.A. are being smuggled easily into Canada to the criminal gangs and black market and murders and drive by shootings have dramatically escalated...
    
    This decision is absolute nonsense...
    
    Perhaps you are right...If the existing constitution could not stop slavery,genocide and apartheid...A new constitution might be worse...

    [reply]
33. 

    6/27/08

    suburbqueen

    Mark, you know I love ya, but I have to say this:
    
    Guns don't kill, people do. Richmond, VA (where I have lived) has a bad rap for gun violence. It also has a bad rap for unwed mothers. I can't help but think there's a connection. I truly believe the morals of this country have been dug into the ground. We are no longer "founded" on what we were "founded" for.
    
    If people grew up with the guidance and morals as they did in the past, this country would be a better place. Each year, we allow more and more things to become "acceptable." Over time, those "acceptable" things become out of control, but by then, it's too late.
    
    We need to stop worrying so much about laws and amendments and focus on what's really important, because as a nation, we are dying.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Timesobserver

       Suburbqueen, you do make a good point. I've been down South and it's very easy to buy guns in a 7-11. However, down South, they generally do not have the type of crime and violence that is common in the North and the major cities.
       
       In the South, people are brought up to respect guns and taught how to use them properly. Many people are amazed to discover that most 2-year-old children know enough to never touch a gun if it's out down there.
       
       timesobserver.blogspot.com
    2. 

       6/27/08

       helloitsme

       Queen, I'm with you. My police agency has largely become a social service department, funding parenting classes, mentoring programs, after school sports and tutoring, anger management...It's ridiculous. Our mission is protecting life and property but it's morphed into parenting by necessity.
       
       The "guns don't kill, people do" cliche is tired but so very true. I saw a sign today reading, "Do we blame pens for misspelled words?". Yes, I know, pens are not deadly weapons (unless you insert one 3" deep through the eyeball:) ). Do we ban planes, trains and automobiles because some operators cause fatalities? And on.
       
       Crime statistics don't tell you how many guns are on the street. They tell you about tensions - social, economic, racial. Those tensions become entitlement that snowballs until society regulates what's acceptable and what's not.
       
       For those seriously interested in current, clean data for the U.S., visit the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) page. Apples to apples, grouped by state, city and population. The NationMaster stats are interesting but most murder rates and gun violence data are eight years old and reporting standards between nations are questionable, to say the least. www.fbi.gov/ucr/2007prelim/index.html
       
       One last hurrah, it's interesting how much participation this thread gets. I'm encouraged, but perplexed at this much interest in public safety. I have a crime and safety blog that gets a speck of traffic. Google Lab trends show very low search volume for crime and personal safety. When's the last time you invested in your own safety by learning what crooks are doing and how to thwart it? Hopefully I'm wrong and you're up on the latest crime trends. If not, consider funneling some of your enthusiasm about citizens owning guns to filling your crime prevention tool box beyond the usual 'lock your doors and windows.
       
       Best regards, Cat.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       IanThal

       "guns don't kill, people do"
       
       Guns just make it easier. A would-be murderer can kill more people, faster, and with less struggle with a gun than with a knife.
       
       Cities, which have more restrictive gun laws, are also less likely to be the sites of school shootings.
       
       That epidemic back in the late 1990s of school shootings-- that was really a suburban and rural problem in places where guns were readily available.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       That's so wrong it's not even funny, Ian. So in your mind only suburban kids bring guns to schools. Perhaps you're talking about one specific instance - such as Columbine - but a sweeping statement like:
       
       "...really a suburban and rural problem in places where guns were readily available."
       
       Is such a distortion of fact I don't even know what to say.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Kdawg, I can't speak for other large cities, but I've taught after-school classes in the Chicago Public School system, and I had to pass through a metal detector to get in the door...as do the students every day. There are guards at the doors, and they're not the hall monitors we remember from our school days. So in that sense, it's much less likely that a student is going to get in the door with a gun.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       @suburbquenn
       I would agree with you on amendment
       
       I wouldn’t call it a moral issue because that’s a loaded word but go with ‘cultural’ and I’ll hop aboard.
       
       But of course it is a moral issue.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       helloitsme

       Why all the speculation on school shootings in the context of this gun ban reversal? It doesn't mean kids can now go buy guns at the local Walmart because they're no longer banned. Are you saying that with more people buying guns, disturbed students can more easily find one in their parents' drawers? Maybe, but let's get one thing straight, there has never been an "epidemic" of school shootings as you claim, Ian.
       
       And as far as "making murder easier and faster", murder is one of the lowest volume crimes in America. Guns are used far more frequently for robberies and during drug offenses to control the victim, not kill them. This ban will not result in an increased murder rate. I guarantee it. If anything, robbery volume will go down. It's a crime of opportunity and assumptions are made that victims are defenseless. Now the risk/benefit ratio has certainly shifted in favor of the victim instead of the suspect.
    8. 

       6/27/08

       polybore

       Children are killed by firearms at a higher rate in States that have more guns.
       
       focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html
       
       More children will be shot dead in Washington because of this ruling.
    9. 

       6/28/08

       helloitsme

       This study lumps motives together, murder isn't isolated. The highest ratio increases are firearm accidents and suicide, both not responses to violence. I was specifically referring to murder. I recognize the study found children to be murdered 2:1 in states with low gun control, but juvenile murders (age 0-17, not 0-19 as most gun control proponents define) are the smaller portion of total murder statistics. I still stand by my statement that the murder rate, or per capita calculation, won't rise.
       
       You can find a study or a statistic to support nearly every position of an issue. www.theacru.org/blog/2007/05/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive... , www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4459 . I'm simply speaking from 18 years of criminal justice research experience, but I certainly respect all opinions even though I might not agree with them.
34. 

    6/27/08

    Timesobserver

    I just wrote an editorial about this and I think it's great. For years, all the ban did was allowing the criminals to control the city with their own guns or other weapons, while honest citizens weren't allowed to defend themselves.
    
    Taking away the people's right to bear arms hasn't worked in other places in this nation and other countries and I would like to think this ruling is a step in the right direction.
    
    To view my editorial and to make comments and to take the gun ban poll, go to:
    
    timesobserver.blogspot.com

    [reply]
35. 

    6/27/08

    chrisc324

    The right to bear arms needs to belong with the citizens of this country. The old cliche holds true: we can't let the govt and criminals be the only ones who can bear arms legally or we are screwed.
    
    This is the liberals' problem. They don't understand that people who want to do harm to others won't prey upon the strong but rather the weak. Criminals don't go for targets that they think will be able to defend themselves. Guns help with this issue.
    
    If you show you won't be messed with people won't mess with you unless they are as powerful as you. It really is that simple and there is nothing wrong with following through on that concept.
    
    But you can't be trigger happy either. You shouldn't carry a gun with the intention of causing harm but rather personal safety.
    
    Our lives are more valuable then money yet a Brinks driver can open carry.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Donlewis

       OK Chris, There's a place for you in my bunker.
36. 

    6/27/08

    IanThal

    The argument of a right to bare arms for self-defense is not actually in the constitution but has some merit.
    
    The argument that it is a right to overthrow the government is also not in the constitution and is straight out of some paranoic fantasy.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Right. I probably imagined that part where the very first thing the "militia" here did was to FIGHT FOR FREEDOM FROM THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT.
       
       Ian, after our first exchange nearly a year ago, I avoided responding to anything that you said because your intellectual dishonesty in that discussion was such that there was no possibility of meaningful interchange. I can see that it was a mistake to alter that approach. I didn't feel I could let this one pass because there seem to be a lot of people in these forums who take your overblown statements like the one above is gospel, but I don't have to learn the same lesson three times, so have at it...I won't be responding again no matter how you twist my words or reality.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Actually, Ian, you are wrong about your last statement.
       
       It is in teh Declaration of Independence, and was certainly a high priority concern for teh founding fathers:
       
       That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
       
       Our right to revolt and overthrow the government was promised, solidified, and guaranteed by this statement in conjunction with the second amendment.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       You don't have a right to revolt and overthrow the government. Get over it.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       The argument of a right to bear arms is not in the Constitution?
       
       Wholly Christmas! Did the bill of rights burn up in the national archives?
    5. 

       6/27/08

       legbamel

       I'm pretty sure that the Declaration of Independence is a separate document from the Constitution, and does not, in fact, grant a single right to any person anywhere. It's a statement of grievances and an explanation of the reason for that revolt taking place. At least, that's the way they taught it in junior high where I grew up.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       The fact that the framers of the constitution put the second amendment in the constitution, and then declared, in the declaration of independence, that we did, in fact have the right means that we do, in fact, have the right.
       
       Mark, we have the inherent and inalienable right to overthrow any form of leadership that we wish. Whether that "right" is granted by the government or not, and you will never convince me that I do not have the right to overthrow a government.
       
       Why?
       
       Because human beings have the right to say how they want to be ruled - and I can think of more than a few governments that deserved to be overthrown, and a few that need to be.
       
       Furthermore, if we don't have that right, then we should go back under the law of England - since our founding fathers broke the "rules" when they revolted and overthrew a government.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Just for argument's sake:
       
       en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
       
       Several states have included the right to rebellion and revolution, in their constitutions.
    8. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Anok I have a hard time believing that Revolution for Revolution sakes is a right. I do believe that all people share certain innate rights and when those rights are imposed on then revolution is justified within the realm of natural law – but not existing on its own as a right without condition.
    9. 

       6/27/08

       IanThal

       Tiffany:
       
       > I probably imagined that part where the very first
       > thing the "militia" here did was to FIGHT FOR
       > FREEDOM FROM THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT.
       
       You are making a gross over-simplification, which I have addressed elsewhere in great detail on this thread. I suggest you read it before you call me "intellectually dishonest."
       
       The Continental Army was appointed by the Continental Congress whose members were appointed by the legally constituted Colonial governments. George Washington wasn't some insurgent fighter who came out of nowhere-- he was appointed by a legally constituted representative legislature. I have already gone over this in great detail on this thread-- which I notice that you didn't respond to.
       
       > Ian, after our first exchange nearly a year ago, I
       > avoided responding to anything that you said
       > because your intellectual dishonesty in that
       > discussion was such that there was no possibility
       > of meaningful interchange.
       
       Charges of "intellectual dishonesty" when a.) I cited the actual document in question; b.) cited the historical context; c.) cited the concerns of the authors of the actual document to which you have not presented an actual rebuttal is nothing but a slur.
       
       Am I making things up? Is my logic faulty? Or am I just citing facts that don't jibe with your ideologically slanted view of U.S. history?
       
       Note, that what you call "intellectual dishonesty" of a year ago, was merely my noting that several participants in a conversation on Christian theology were advocating "triumphalist theology" (i.e. the idea that Christianity supercedes Judaism's legitimacy) and your response that I was not welcome to participate in that conversation if I could not accept that basic assumption. But since you want to dredge up the past:
       
       www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-the-old-testament-still-valid
       
       Anok:
       
       The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land; the Contitution is. But again, the Declaration was issued by duly appointed legislative body.
    10. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Right, the conditions for revolution for our government is clearly laid out.
        
        It goes without saying that if people are living in a harmonious place, with a harmonious leadership (or none at all) it isn't likely that revolution will be on their minds. (Not to be confused with a dubious mastermind "taking over" a government or country via non violent, non revolutionary, propaganda driven means).
        
        If the people are happy, there is no reason to revolt. When they are not happy, there is. And they have that right.
        
        In any case, the argument I was responding to at first was that the right to a revolution was never put forth by our founding fathers - which is incorrect - and later that it does not exist - which is also incorrect.
        
        Ian - see my other points.
        
        Edited for one more point: I see that the right to revolution was granted to our forefathers - but not to us? *snort* OK, that makes sense! /sarcasm
    11. 

        6/27/08

        legbamel

        The Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence 9 years before the Constitutional Convention signed the constitution and the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until three years after that. The two documents shared a grand total of six signers (out of 55 on the Constitution). I don't mean to nitpick, but they were not contiguous or formulated by the same "founding fathers" as imagined my many people. We (the people) declared our independence and backed up our words with force. Then we decided how best to rule ourselves and provided for the states' maintaining their own militias, in case they should need them.
        
        Now that those militias have become the National Guard, trained and armed by the federal governement, well, I think that the argument must be differently framed. But I also know that you and I have completely different takes on this issue and I don't think it's productive for me to attempt to make points with which I already know you don't agree. If I'm going to research this well enough to make a coherent argument, I might as well write a massive article and sell the darned thing. Unless, of course, you're willing to pay me to do so? No? Darn.
    12. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        There are also state militia's called State Defense Forces under the governor of the state and otherwise unrelated to the National Gaurd. I believe about half the states have them - in Indiana it's called the Gaurd Reserves.
    13. 

        6/27/08

        IanThal

        Anok-
        
        The only armed force in the United States capable of overthrowing the United States government and then holding onto power is the United States Armed Forces.
        
        Do you want to live under a military junta? If so, you're a rather heterodox anarchist.
        
        legbamel-
        
        You made an excellent point about the discontinuity between the Continental Congress of 1775-1776 and the Contitutional Convention of 1787 not just in terms of circumstance (which I mentioned) but of membership.
    14. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Legamabel - Ha! No, no payment from me, but I will read it
        
        Yes, the documents were in fact written at different times, and not all signed by the same people - but I think you have to look to the intent of the second amendment and the intent of the American Revolution as a whole, which was well worded in the Declaration of Independence.
        
        The general sentiment is that we have the right to overthrow a government should the need arise, and that in order for that right to be preserved, the people need to be able to bear arms.
        
        The language, although interpreted differently, is still pretty clear to me that the intent was to keep a dictatorship from overtaking the new country, by keeping people AKA the "militia" in a position of power to help prevent a bad government from taking over.
        
        That said, I think it should be noted that while the founding fathers did not explicitly grant the right to revolution in the Constitution, they fought and won a revolution against their own government, when no such right was ever granted to them in any explicit manner.
        
        But they did it anyway.
        
        I think it would be fair to say that between their words, and their actions, it was common sense knowledge that revolution was an inherent right, and may not have needed explicit explanation beyond guaranteeing the right to bear arms to hold said revolution should the need arise.
        
        Ian where do you get this information that only the military can overthrow a government?
        
        Could you cite the sources that have helped you form this opinion?
    15. 

        6/27/08

        legbamel

        I wasn't aware of that, Kevin. I'll have to do some reading on modern-day state militias, it appears. Thanks for the info. I'd think that, if a state wanted to "overthrow" the government, it would amount to succession rather than marching on DC and booting the president out of the White House, anyway. The odds of more than, maybe, three states agreeing on the aims of a new federal government are not so high as to make this a believable scenario, but I supose it's conceivable.
    16. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Well, whether or not a revolution of any kind from any place in the US if feasible is a different argument altogether
    17. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        @ Ian – For anoks sake I’ll make this argument but it’s otherwise too hypothetical for m y flavor. If conditions became prevalent for civil war or rebellion it would probably be in the face of economic strife and general discontent. In these conditions the armed forces probably would see a great deal of dissention and command, logistics, and financing would also be skewed. So in the event that a significant rebellion happened it would be in such a state of devastation that the American armed forces would not be the same that they are today.
        
        @Legbamel. Yeah it’s interesting because they are the closest thing we have to a legal mililitia in resemblance to the original militia. In most states it’s a hundred percent volunteer and the members provide everything – even their own uniforms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
    18. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        and we also have Citizen Corps
37. 

    6/27/08

    clioandme

    Much of the talk about the 2nd Amendment focuses on the meaning of the militia part of it, but for me the question has also been about the meaning of "the people", which I have always understood as a collective. Haven't had a chance to read through serious reporting or the decision itself yet, but I"m wondering if anyone's seen this issue addressed.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       Actually Mark - I'd say Heller yesterday skulled the "militia" argument right upside the noggin and totally whiped out that argumentation as a line of arguments for the pro-gun lobby. They haven't realized it yet - but that part just got completely destroyed by Nino's analysis... the right to keep and bear arms is seperate from the militia argument... hence the affirmation of the individual right. It's not tied to a function... it's an individual right.
       
       We'll see how it plays out tho - a 5-4 decision is hardly a "consensus" viewpoint...
       
       That and I'm sure Justice Kennedy is enjoying his new-found "O'Conner" status.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       I get that, Bryan, but do they talk about what the phrase "the people" means to get to that point? From the ultimate decision it's clear how they interpret the phrase, but I am wondering if they felt the need to dwell on the matter for at least a paragraph or so, or if they left that issue unexamined.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       Well - here's where the NRA suits that have been filed are going to be helpful. I suspect that the appeals are going to clarify the issue... and depending on if any of those cases get cert in the fall - we'll know.
38. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    The U.S is in good company when it comes to murders with firearms/capita:
    www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-pe...
    
    and the gun advocates are trying to convince us that putting more guns on the street is somehow going to make us safer. We are already flooded with guns in this country:
    
    www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lists-of-countries-by-gun-ownership#List_...
    
    What shear insanity. And what is more insane, is that we got some Supreme Court Justices who are living in the world of 1782, pretending that they can divine what the writers at that time were thinking (now what could they be thinking about semi-automatic weapons?), and then in the most preposterous thinking that I could ever conceive, they are trying to take those divined thoughts and juxtapose them on today's society. What INSANITY! And these guys are making the laws for us. And what is more insane, is that there are people who actually have adopted this incredibly ludicrous point-of-view (as a game?). People are dying! Obama cannot come to soon for me.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       @Rich: To assume that the court can somehow not get at the framers' intentions is wrong. There is a long paper trail. The fact that there is disagreement about the interpretation of those intentions is another matter, but I think their intentions about the constitutional role of the Supreme Court are pretty darn clear.
       
       Bringing Obama into this as a quasi savior makes no sense either. He has to follow the law of the land like everyone else. [Edited to add: I'm voting for him, but I'm also aware of the fact that he's human and has to work within the same culture and constraints that other people in this country do.]
       
       My advice? A little less rhetoric and a little more research into what the next steps are. Remember. This ruling also recognized that the right to bear arms is not universal and unequivocal. The state can regulate the use of arms, but DC overstepped the Constitution, according to the ruling, and I'm guessing Chicago has too.
       
       Edited to add: I don't plan on ever owning a weapon either, unless I move to the woods someplace. Only ever used the things in the army, that is, while working for the state.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       @M,
       
       Right. There are many more rulings to be had on the actual restrictions, and Chicago, is going all the way to the Supreme Court to defend our laws. When we get there, hopefully there will be Obama appointees who are living in the 21st Century of heavy armaments, and are not playing some game of "what it would be like to live in the 18 century again".
    3. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       I wonder if the court will even hear your case or if that one will be settled at a lower level. Isn't it just as restrictive as DC's law was?
    4. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Wrong place
    5. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Chicago is going all the way to the Supreme Court? So Rich, you've already been a part of secret meetings in which have been gathered individuals or organizations who will bring a claim contesting the Constitutionality of Chicago's laws, the city attorneys who will respond to those claims AND the district court and appellate court judges who have divulged that they will rule against the city, necessitating appeal to the Supreme Court? And have you also polled the Supreme Court Justices and assured yourself that an adequate number of them will vote to grant certiori? That's impressive. It involves a long list of criminal acts, but it's impressive nonetheless, given the brief period that has elapsed since the ruling.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       [wrong place, because Rich moved his comment]
39. 

    6/27/08

    rightcommentary

    Richrf-
    
    You're always welcome to remain unarmed... with both logic, facts, and firearms...
    
    Secondly - ever talk to people in Canada or Britain - where the firearms laws are the most stringent? Or even the Dutch? They're not too particularly happy with an unarmed citizenry.
    
    Third - I presume you're with DiFi... Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in. Right? I mean ultimately that's your policy prescription...
    
    Well as Charleton said...
    
    From my cold...
    
    Dead...
    
    Hand.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       I've been unarmed since I was born. I don't get into trouble. I don't look for trouble. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of western gunslingers all around me (apparently), who have nothing better to do with their lives, so they just go around arming themselves. I guess at some point, they'll feel like using them (why else buy them), and then people die. The stats reveal it all.
       
       BTW, I have many Canadian friends, and the gun thing never comes up. They are not gun happy as you are. They don't even think about it. Imagine for a minute. A society that doesn't live and breathe guns. Can you imagine such a thing?
       
       I think the U.S. population has chosen one crazy game to play - "Can you outgun me". Bad enough to play it inside our borders. It is immoral to move it outside, as we have in Iraq. Innocent people dying, because we want to use our guns.
       
       "If you don't change direction, you will end up where you are headed".
    2. 

       6/27/08

       aningeniousname

       @RC
       I'm British and I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody bemoaning the fact we don't have guns, whether that's a good thing or not I'm not sure, but I can definitely assure you it's not in the top hundred things people in this country want.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       Timesobserver

       I don't know about that, Aningeniousname. This YouTube videos shows a great many Brits who are very unhappy with the gun ban.
       
       The address is too long, so please copy and paste into address bar to connect them. The name of the video is: England Gun Ban Update
       
       www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_
       comments&v=I0XncdmUivI&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DI0XncdmUivI%26feature%3Demail
       
       timesobserver.blogspot.com
    4. 

       6/27/08

       aningeniousname

       That's a pro hunting march it isn't a march advocating gun ownership, it's more to do with hunting with hounds and hare coursing. It's also very skewed towards an American audience.
       I can only repeat my day to day experiences and reiterate that I have never heard people calling for personal gun ownership.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       Timesobserver

       Some of those people weren't just talking about hunting, Aningeniousname. In fact, in other interviews I have either seen or read, many people from England want the ban lifted. Besides being able to hunt again, they want to be able to defend themselves.
       
       timesobserver.blogspot.com
    6. 

       6/27/08

       aningeniousname

       I can only tell you my experience of living my whole life in Britain, obviously you know something I don't.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       Angie -
       
       Obviously England is not any more monolithic than America. So perhaps I've overstated the case. However, many I have talked to in Britain have complained about the right to bear arms - any of them, btw, were police (most of whom, to the surprise of many Americans I'm sure) do not carry guns.
       
       Bottom line for me - America is a gun culture and a gun state.
       
       ... it's how the West was won.
40. 

    6/27/08

    rightcommentary

    Cite some of these "stats" - because all the studies I've read of case studies like Florida, Texas, Virginia, etc., crime went down when they went to "shall issue" states...
    
    The Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences conducted exhaustive studies and could not identify a single gun-control provision that had a meaningful impact on gun violence. Cops antectodally claim guns increase crime, but FBI studies never seem to be able to confirm it.
    
    Bottom line is - in states where people have to guess is the person they're about to rape, rob, break in their home, etc., have a firearm and could kill them on the spot... criminals seem to be a bit more hesistant.
    
    God made all men...
    
    ... but Sam Colt made them equal.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Everytime I hear stats going one way on this issue, I get a set that proves the opposite case. Honestly, I don't think the stats are relevant to the fundamental Constitutional issue, are they? Though they are relevant to the business of regulation.
41. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    Remember, the current gun laws as stands, is the result of a ruling by four extreme right wing justices, and one right-centrist. This is not what the Constitution says, it is what they want it to say. Had Gore or Kerry one, the outcome would have been totally opposite. Don't read any more into this ruling than the fact that four guys making room for their gun lobby friends.
    
    And exactly the same will happen with women's rights to legal abortion, if McCain appoints a replacement for Justice Stevens. They will contort their own will on the Constitution, and take away that right. That is why they were put there to begin with, and everyone knows it.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Rich, since you seem to barely have time to sleep for repeating that the Justices are making partisan, ideological decisions, how do you explain the fact that this court has, over the past two years, handed down a number of decisions highly favorable to protecting the rights of criminal defendants?
    2. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       @Rich: Gore and Kerry didn't win. And it doesn't matter how close this decision was. It was made. I'm tired of people treating the Supreme Court like some kind of legislature that can reverse itself on a dime. I get that from the opponents of Roe v. Wade too, and I don't like it.
42. 

    6/27/08

    kevingoodman

    I said it before and I'll say it again - alcohol kills many more people a year than guns - at least in the US. 80,000 to 17,000 a year and I still don't know if those stats include the 17,000 killed by drunk drivers each years. Alcohol is what we need to ban.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       I said it before, and I will say it again. If someone is caught driving while drunk, their license should be revoked for life. Period.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       But most of the people that alcohol kills (whether or not that number includes drunk driving victims) are the people who chose to consume it--so if that's grounds for a ban, then shouldn't we also be banning tobacco, high-fat food, paint, JetSkis, power tools...where's the line?
    3. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Well if they didnt have liquor in the first place then we wouldnt have to worry about those who will still get on the road and kill a number that is equal to gun related deaths - and 4x that in consumption related deaths.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       If people want to kill themselves with fatty food, Jetskis, or whatever, that is fine with me. It's their life, not mine. But I don't want to pay for it through universal health care without opt-out provisions. It's when someone can just kill me from hundreds of yards away, like they do in the Chicago streets, that I can really concerned. Do you understand the difference?
    5. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       @MadamaX
       
       Of course I know better - I'm just demonstrating how it's easy to manipulate numbers in an emotional plea as rich consistently does.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Plus, if we didn't have CARS, no one would ever be killed in an automobile accident.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Rich a very large number of innocent people are killed by alcolol. Your some how using MadameX's words as my own.
    8. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       You know guys, I would be satisfied if one life was saved. How about you? Or doesn't that three year old that was killed this week with a gun, in Chicago, count?
    9. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       How about that three year old killed by a drunk driver last week?
    10. 

        6/27/08

        MadameX

        There you go, blurring the issue again. The question at hand is what the Constitution does and does not allow for. If doing away with the Constitution "saves just one life" then no, I most definitely do not think it's worthwhile, since I know that hundreds of thousands of lives would later be lost as a result.
43. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    @MadameX
    
    Kennedy is more of a right centrist, and even he cannot stomach Scalia/Thomas/Roberts and their agenda. Heck, these defenders of the Constitution see no problem with torture, government spying on its citizens, or doing away with the writ of habeas corpus. If Stevens goes, so does abortion rights. But I figure, that since you do not vote, that doesn't really matter to you.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Figure that all you want, Rich--it will be uninformed rhetoric like almost everything else you say here.
       
       But I can't help but notice that your response didn't really...well...respond. Maybe next time around you could leave off the assumptions and the issues not at issue and make a pass at answering the question. Or not--that's fine, too. But let's not pretend.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       For a person that doesn't vote (that really is in the Constitution), I would hold down the advice to others.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Thanks for the advice. Think I'll pass. I prefer to make decisions based on information and logic.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       I hope there are those who do take women's rights seriously, and do vote this election for Obama.
       
       The alternative, is to sit back, let McCain win, and then have him appoint a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade.
       
       What then? Are we going to sit around and discuss the Constitutional rationale for why it was overturned? I'll tell you why it was overturned. Because Obama lost and McCain won. And I will tell you how not to have it overturned. To have Obama elected. Same Constitution, different President.
       
       I know it is all a game. The Game of Life. Play this game by Voting!
    5. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       Rich, what you've described here is a great example of a small slice of the reason that I can't vote in good conscience. It's nice that things are so simple and black and white for you, but also unfortunate that the people who can't see the complexities or larger ramifications are running out to vote in huge numbers...that's how we got George Bush.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       We got there because some people wanted to make a Statement by not voting or voting for Nader. We go there because Ohio put junk voting machines in poor black districts, and Florida fooled around with punch cards in heavily liberal Dade county districts. This is politics, not some school study of the Constitution.
       
       I don't need no academic Constitutional rendering of this verdict. This verdict, and the forthcoming verdict on Roe v. Wade, is based on one thing, and one thing only - Who wins the Presidency. That is the way this Game is being played.
       
       The other one, the academic one, that you are playing, is good for board discussions.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       When I look through Rich’s threads they are filled with loaded language and kudos’s to those who give in. It’s clear he has a singular agenda and will take an inch for a mile.
    8. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       I couldn't agree more, KG. Reason #101 an "ignore" feature would be nice.
       
       Tiff - just want to compliment you on your matter-of-fact commenting thoroughout the SCOTUS threads. I've said some emotionally fanciful things myself and just want you to know that your ability to point out fundamental truths does not go unnoticed/unappreciated - even when it's my untruths in question. I shudder to think what we might be as a community without you - and I also note your patience as well. I can only imagine that dealing with us (and I certainly include myself in the use of "us") can be testing at times. Thank you for your patience.
    9. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       I make no bones about it. Women's Rights. Civil Rights. Economic fairness, is what I am about in this election. The Gore and Kerry losses were a social and economic disaster for our nation. I don't want to see it perpetuated. You play your game, and I will play mine - but don't think you are any more Holy than I am, simply pretending that you are sitting on the fence, waiting to be convinced. If you care about Women's Rights, there is literally only one choice in this election. And no amount of pseudo-legal analysis is going to make it any different.
       
       "If you don't change direction, you will end up where you are headed"
    10. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        No not any more 'Holy' but honest. But if this kind of mudslinging typifies you'r canidate of choice I'm ready to jump the fence.
    11. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        I'm not a cheat and I won't knowing contort the facts to support my interest. I don't confuse intelligence with being right and I readily change my point of view when I see a better perspective.
    12. 

        6/27/08

        kdawg68

        Sadly Kev, there are plenty of idealogical zealots on my side of the fence as well. They come in all shapes, sizes, and political persuasions.
    13. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        Yeah Kdawg, well evidently some things don't merit defense.
44. 

    6/27/08

    polybore

    Flintlocks and muskets is what they had in mind back in 1791.
    
    Single shot weapons.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Yep. I wonder if Scalia studied that part of history, or does he spend all his time parsing words in the Constitution, to get to his own view of the world?
    2. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Point made (see my comment above)
45. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    So, I'm just wondering...since I own 4 shotguns, 3 rifles, and 3 pistols, does that make me an uneducated, evil lunatic that just wants to go around shooting things?
    
    I grew up with firearms. I had my first Red Ryder BB Gun when I was 4. Virtually everyone I knew growing up had guns. To date, no one I know of has shot anyone. Well, I take that back, an older gentleman I know shot an escaped convict in the chest 3 times while he was trying to rob his gun shop, right after he robbed the clothing store next door. The convict lived...
    
    Doesn't personal responsibility factor into any of these things anymore?
    
    Just out of curiosity richrf...have you ever fired a gun of any sort?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Always nice to hear another story about someone trying to kill someone. We have lots of those in the Chicago newspapers. Heck, people killing each other all the time with weapons sold to them by their local Walmart. Nice place to live here in Chicago, with all of those guns.
       
       You know, those kids who shoot up the high schools owned lots of weapons. Why don't you ask them about personal responsibility? Better yet, why don't you ask all those kids who were killed about what they think? Hmmmm ... I guess they didn't have much say in it.
       
       Rich
    2. 

       6/27/08

       MadameX

       So what you're saying, Rich, is that restrictive gun laws like the one Chicago is going to "go all the way to the Supreme Court" to protect don't work?
    3. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Tim, you are dead on, and have reiterated what I have been trying to say for most of this debate.
       
       Firearms as well as other weapons have their uses. No one (who is sane) wants to go on killing sprees with their guns. A gun is used (by sane people) against another human being in self defense - which is a human right, and generally a last resort.
       
       They may want to.... hunt, or defend themselves or even just collect certain types of guns. Typically it's all three.
       
       My mother grew up in a very rural, wild area - and even children didn't go for walks in the woods without a gun on their person. If they didn't have one, they could have been eaten or mauled by bears, coyote, mountain lions and other large, nasty beasties.
       
       While it isn't that wild where I live now (certainly not my immediate area) there are still areas that I like to hike through that have wild animals that will maul you. On the flip side, there are human beings in my immediate area that would also like to maul you.
       
       And, of course, we hunt for food.
       
       All valid and SANE reasons to own and use a gun.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       They do work, which is why all of the Police groups in our city support them. However, we do have many surrounding counties which make a lot of money selling weaponry to our population, and people buy those weapons and use them. Now, thanks to the very well thought out opinion of Scalia and Roberts, we'll have that many more weapons for people to use and kill with. Great.
       
       Or maybe I have it wrong. Do they ask you to step out in the street and give you a chance to draw first? You know - are they fair about it and all that? Or do I need to take fast draw lessons when someone points a semi-automatic at me from a window in a high rise? Heck - what kind of kiddy game do you think they are playing here in Chicago?
    5. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       "...Better yet, why don't you ask all those kids who were killed about what they think?"
       
       Well apparently Rich communes with the dead spirits of those from Columbine and knows none of them wish that they themselves (or one of their classmates) were armed and able to defend themselves from Kleibold/Harris.
       
       Thanks for giving us their opinions (end sarcasm).
    6. 

       6/27/08

       timethief

       @Anok
       I'm amazed to hear that you hunt for food using a handgun. I've never heard of that. Here in Canada we hunt for food using hunting rifles. Provided one has a valid registration and license, pistols are used on shooting ranges for target shooting only.
       
       This discussion has gone so far afield that it may have lost focus. The ownership, possession and/or use of hunting rifles, semi-automatic or automatic weapons is *NOT* the subject matter in this thread titled "Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban".
    7. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       TT, no we use a rifle or shotgun for hunting I was simply addressing the issue that ownership of a gun (any gun) automatically means you are crazy, violent and whatever else. Which does play into the debate at hand because it seems as if those who advocate for the ban of handguns, also advocate for the ban of any guns, period.
       
       Although I suppose handguns could be used for hunting, if you were in a jam.
46. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    No rich...it was self defense. My pal spent 3 weeks in the hospital recovering from injuries resulting from the pipe the guy hit him with two or three times from behind.
    
    I can go to Walmart and buy a ball point pen. If I choose so, I can kill someone with it. So, should ball point pens be outlawed??? What about baseball bats...they are just as effective. Closer range...but still effective. Where do you draw the line? Why stop with handguns? Bow and arrow drive bys? Blow guns...
    
    People will kill people regardless of the weapon. Anything can become a weapon.
    
    I am in no way condoning violence. I've been shot at in a drive by in Watts (Los Angeles). I was putting on a community fair there while I was in college. It's not a pleasant experience. It's a terrible thing to have school shootings, kids being killed on the streets, etc.
    
    Personal responsibility has everything to do with it in my opinion. A kid won't pick up a gun thinking it will solve his problems if his parents did their job correctly. I firmly believe that.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Absolutely correct, Tim. (I've been through a drive-by shooting myself, not fun).
       
       My child's friend comes over to play a lot - and what I realized is that parents who don't own or use guns let their kids play with toy guns, an dplay "shooting games".
       
       The kids think this is great.
       
       I do not.
       
       The little boy started playing shooting games in my home, and I put a stop to it immediately. A good place to start with personal responsibility would be to teach children that guns are not toys, and shooting is not a game.
47. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    By the way rich...you never answered my last question.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Give me a break. I've been shot at. I've seen other been shot at. I don't live on a gun range.
48. 

    6/27/08

    kevingoodman

    wrong place

    [reply]
49. 

    6/27/08

    latewire

    NRA isn't going to fight anything but other gun bans. The NRA are a bunch of **ssy's (pardon the french) when it comes to gun laws.
    
    If you look at the rating they give congressmen for their gun voting record, they give LOWER marks to those who have never voted for gun regulation.
    
    Ron Paul got a lower grade than McCain for refusing to compromise.
    
    The NRA isn't all that "right wing" (which is a RETARDED way of putting it, being as how guns are a personal freedom and therefore a left wing issue). The media just don't bother to read what they're really about.
    
    I'm all for total legalization of semi-auto small arms to anybody who wants them. That's my view, not the NRA's. The NRA is for restricting against the mentally ill and felons, for instance.
    
    The more you know ...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       What interests me about the NRA will be its future attitude towards regulation. It used to fear regulation as a way to ban guns through the back door. Now that that fear can no longer be justified, since banning guns can't happen, what will it's attitude be towards regulating guns? Will it be 100% anti-rules? If so, it will be going against this decision. Or will it find a way to push for responsible gun ownership that is not just based on its members, but also the laws of the states where its members live? And how far will it be comfortable with letting these laws go?
       
       And will it continue to use this issue as a wedge political issue, when it no longer has to be one? WIll be interesting to watch, even if I'm expecting no major change anytime soon, because old habits die hard.
       
       FYI, Latewire, you'll find your comments will be deleted if you refer to other people's comments as "retarded", "stupid" or anything else along those lines. See the rules in the first thread.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       latewire

       I didn't mean to call anyone here "retarded", I was referring to the concept of labeling gun rights as a right wing issue as such. I didn't notice if anyone had even done that in this thread yet.
50. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    Quote:
    Give me a break. I've been shot at. I've seen other been shot at. I don't live on a gun range.
    
    So, how is that an answer to the question as to whether or not you've ever fired a gun??? No offense, but come on...
    
    I don't live on a gun range??? Well, gee...I didn't ask that. What kind of quip is that anyhow?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Look - let's make a deal. I don't have to answer all of your questions and you don't have to answer mine. OK. I'm not in a court of law. If you have something to say, then just say it.
51. 

    6/27/08

    timethief

    Perhaps the qualifier for posting an further discussion ought to be this:
    If you have something to say that is specifically focused on the topic posted by the OP ie. "Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban" then, say it.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       latewire

       I think it's great!
52. 

    6/27/08

    satijournal

    

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Great cartoon.
53. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    Well, in some cases, silence speaks volumes Rich. So, I'll honor your request.

    [reply]
54. 

    6/27/08

    Anok

    Here is a link to an interesting interpretation of the second amendment, and for the record, I will repost what the second amendment actual says - so that this debate may continue.
    
    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. 5
    
    www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
    
    It talks about the language used, how the right was framed, and what the implications may be.
    
    There was another legal interpretation that I had posted - I thought on BC - that was very, very good as well, but I can't find it

    [reply]
55. 

    6/27/08

    mikeny07

    If I was an alien visiting here, the idea of people being able to own guns here, knowing what crimes are commited, is enough to make me never return!

    [reply]
56. 

    6/27/08

    mikeny07

    I can't load this thread very well on my dial-up just so everyone knows It is damn big.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       legbamel

       Isn't it great?! This must be one of the best threads on this site, ever, and one that addresses a deeply complex issue. Hurrah for us!
57. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    Let's be clear here. This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution is like the Bible. It can be interpreted any way someone chooses.
    
    The right wing zealots, have successfully packed the court with ideologues, who have a certain point-of-view, that they are implementing and codifying as Constitutional Law. There was another discussion, concerning another recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the conviction of a murderer. Why? You see, he killed the woman who had brought the complaint to the police, and since the woman was dead, she could not testify, and no prior testimony of hers was admissible. You get it? The prosecutor has to prove that the murderer killed her because of the testimony, before the testimony can be admitted. I guess that court forgot that the woman was already dead.
    
    We have four Supreme Court justices, with an agenda, and that is why the right wing zealots put them there. This is all about hardball politics, and it is a total waste of time to parse out the Constitution. Four justices disagreed with this far out ruling, and had Gore or Kerry won, there would be two others who would have also come to a different conclusion. Each party is playing to its own constituency, in order to win elections. Time for a reversal of this extreme direction.
    
    "If you don't change direction, you will end up with your headed."

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       The analogy with the BIble doesn't hold water. Rich, you know we're on the same side of gun debate, but sloppy thinking will not advance anything. Besides, the ruling has already happened. The next step is to find where the limits on regulation are. Cold hard politics is what is necessary, not whining and moral outrage.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       AAARRRRGGGHHHHHHHH
       
       Only two of the Justices who supported this decision was appointed by GWB. And there is NO proof whatsoever that Kerry would have appointed someone who would have dissented on such an issue.
       
       On the other thread, complaints of Liberalism ran through, and yet some those justices were appointed by republican presidents. Others by Democratic presidents.
       
       ARRRRGGGHHHHHH
    3. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Actually, it's quite possible that it would have turned out differently. Probable even. But it's so beside the point.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Maybe, maybe not - the point, however, is that many of the justices were put on board by many different presidents and while some have political leanings on same cases, they don't on others - and quite frankly we have no idea who would have been appointed by a different president!
       
       I mean, there are left leaning judges who were appointed by republican presidents and vice versa. Yeesh! (not at you, Mark)
    5. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       With loaded language like that - who is he calling an ideologue?
    6. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       I mean you really, really, really got to be kidding.
       
       These judges were vetted, approved, and pushed through by the political right. And if you are so naive about politics, maybe it is a good thing that you are not voting.
       
       Heck, there was a virtual political war going on during the nominations and Senate hearings on these judges. And, it was only after the last election, with Democrats now in control of the Senate, that the gravy train for right-wing ideologues was finally shut down. Do you guys know anything about the politics around you? Do you ever watch the hearings and the uproar around them. My jaw is on the ground.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       I really, really, really am not kidding, Rich. You can dwell on this defeat or your can gather your energies and think about the future. Stay focused on the past and you risk dropping the ball when it counts, the 2008 presidential race. But make no mistake about it. This race is not about guns.
       
       Maybe you should start another one of your general political threads?
    8. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       Rich, I hope you’re not talking about me because I have never said I’m not going to vote. I will certainly vote one way or the other. And if that comment is meant for me than it’s a good measure towards your integrity.
    9. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       No, I think that was aimed at me. That said, all one has to do is look at the actual voting records of the judges to determine who is leaning which way - and furthermore look at which presidents a pointed which justices and you start to get a different picture altogether.
       
       Naive? Not so much.
       
       And, by the way, the court case hearings you are talking about - you aren't talking about Mukasey, are you Rich? That was the last big appointee brouhaha.
    10. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        don't even feed it.
    11. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        don't even feed it.
    12. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Sorry Kevin, you are right
58. 

    6/27/08

    clioandme

    Just curious, but I haven't noticed the federal-local angle here yet. In the past I've heard people criticize the federal government for telling them how to live their lives locally. Well, this decision has national implications, to be sure, but I'm not really enjoying hearing people tell me and my city's other residents how we should run their own business.
    
    The irony of this situation doesn't elude me either, as it used to be conservatives in this country who were against a strong central government and liberals who had other thoughts about that. Sure, this isn't a federal spending program, but the court's decision will have far-reaching ramifications for my locality. And guess what? None of us was able to elect a senator who could confirm the members of the Supreme Court. Nope. None of that. So not only do we get taxation without representation, but we get guns without any representation too.
    
    Just thought this other perspective might interest some of you, especially because many of you might not be aware of our unjust constitutional position. Course since the 2nd Amendment also talks about a "free state", maybe we could get that part now that we have to take the guns. That'd be okay by me.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Well, I think that because it is a legal ruling - it has ramifications that are greater than the simple local in which it was implemented.
       
       It creates legal leverage for other areas of the country as well - particularly and even more so, because it is our nation's capital. It's pretty big.
       
       That said - the whole taxation without representation thing - yeah I'd be looking for a party to be had
    2. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Maybe we should throw a boatload of guns into the Potomac.
       
       Edited to add: In all seriousness, if there were ever a citywide income tax boycott, I would be there. But it would only work if the whole city did it. I could accept my colonial status a lot better if I wasn't paying federal income tax.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Hey, if there is a riot, call me, Kay?
    4. 

       6/27/08

       satijournal

       Call you Kay? Alright you're Kay!
    5. 

       6/28/08

       legbamel

       I assume that they took on the case in order to clarify the court's position on this question rather than in a backhanded attempt to increase federal power over state or local regulations. I suppose it was their best shot to draw a line in the sand, considering DC's unique "city-state" status in the US.
    6. 

       6/28/08

       IanThal

       Unique "city-state" status? Do you know anything about Washington D.C.?
       
       A city-state is an independent sovereign city. Washington D.C. is anything but.
       
       Congress has the ability to iver rule any law passed by the city council, alter the city's constitution without consultation from the residents or their elected representatives, and deny Washingtonians congressional representation.
       
       Washington can't even have a commuter tax-- which nearly every other major city that borders another state has-- because Maryland and Virginia have a disproportionate control over Washington.
       
       It's colonialism. And if anyone has a "right of rebellion" it's the residents of Washington D.C.-- but I doubt most of the folk who support the recent ruling will agree with that.
    7. 

       6/28/08

       legbamel

       I should have chosen a less-defined term. I was not implying a sort of Ancient Greek style of government but more referencing the unusual political situation in which the city operates. But thanks for calling me ignorant and ignoring my point.
59. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    Here is a quote from Tribe:
    
    "Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, an expert in constitutional law, said Thursday's ruling was the most politically loaded decision since the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000."
    
    "The split 5-4 decision also thrust the issue of the court's composition into the campaign, as the next president may appoint as many as three new justices."
    
    www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11371_Page2.html
    
    The Right Wing knows what it is all about. It is about codifying extreme views into law, by packing the Court with ideologues. The same ones, that somehow found in the Constitution, the right for the Supreme Court to stop and election recount in Florida. This is the most politically charged Court that we have had in our history, and an Obama victory will finally put a stop to it. If Scalia sees that he cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, he will probably quit in frustration.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       latewire

       >It is about codifying extreme views into law, by packing the Court with ideologues.
       
       Uh we've had gun rights for 400 years, if you think that's extreme, it means you're the extremist here.
       
       Nothing wrong with it, I'm sure you're way more mainstream than I am. Just saying: maybe you should keep an eye on center field before saying what's what.
60. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    BTW, this whole ruling, coming at the time it did, is probably an attempt to rally gun owners around the Republican Party, as we close in on the election. That's right. They think that people will vote for the right to have handguns, even as their houses are foreclosed on and their retirement funds go down the drain - and the right to a legal abortion is attacked. Whether or not the Republican Right is successful, remains to be seen. It is not a bad tactic though, I have to admit.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       This thread is about the Supreme Court decision. Why don't you start a spinoff thread as appropriate?
    2. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       This Supreme Court decision is all about politics. Read the blogs. But if you want to parse out the Constitutional ramifications of this, please do. But Lawrence Tribe, one of the most learned Constitutional educators and theorist of our times, has already weighed in - its about politics. So let it be. Two can play the game.
       
       Americans have lost, in aggregate, $3 trillion dollars in home value, in the last two years. Are they going to place more importance on this or on their guns. We shall see.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       If your comments are politics, they're about the politics of regrets. I plan to look forward and take back the White House. And fighting gun rights ain't gonna get me there. But I'm through on this point. This has been a pretty civil thread about an important constitutional decision, with people on both sides of the fence engaging in dialog. I'll stick to that. And saying the sky is falling down ain't gonna change that.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       kevingoodman

       I really believe that if this is the popular attitude of the democratic party then Obama is in trouble. This country doesnt need another wedge it needs moderation and canidates in both parties who are willing to work with one another.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       This is certainly nothing about regrets. This is entirely about the future, and a warning about what is to come. For me, it is quite clearly all about women's rights, and whether a women wants to go back to the time when abortions were illegal, and done in back alleys. The Right Wing has cleverly packed the court with four ideologues, packaging them as "non activists", or constructionists. But they are quite active, quite political, and the four of them are just waiting to see if they can overturn Roe v. Wade.
       People who are concerned about issues such as Choice, now have an opportunity to make their voices heard in the next election.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Please start another thread. This is not about abortion rights. I'm tired of this hijacking.
61. 

    6/27/08

    Donlewis

    Hi Everybody! What'd I miss??

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       A lot more civil dialog than I would have believed possible.
62. 

    6/27/08

    polybore

    Prior to the supreme court decision people in DC could keep a shotgun at home. Following the decision people can have handguns at home as well.
    
    The problem I have is that states with more handguns have more child fatalities. focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html
    
    If someone is attaching your home a shotgun is a better defense than a handgun. The only thing handguns have going for them is that they can be concealed. Why do you want to conceal a gun in your own house?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Actually, those weapons had to have the trigger locked or be disassembled. That requirement was struck down this week too. (Takes effect in three weeks.)
    2. 

       6/27/08

       polybore

       That is how I store my firearms. It is a common sense safety precaution. A shotgun does not take long to assemble. Hang on... Oh my. Are we talking about having loaded guns in the house?
       
       Are houses in the US made of tissue paper or something?
       
       Ok my home defense tip for the day. Do NOT buy a handgun. Get a sturdy door with a lock and if you must have a firearm get a shotgun. Only an idiot would favour a handgun over a shotgun for home defense.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       I'll just point out that a shotgun blast "sprays" an area with pellets while a handgun can deliver a precisely aimed bullet. Not to mention it's easier to wield in close-quarters combat.
       
       I agree that the shotgun has more "stopping power", if blasted at close range, but handguns have a purpose as well.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       I'll stick to my "method" of owning absolutely nothing of value.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       Donlewis

       Hey Mark! Is that a case of making a virtue out of a necessity?
       
       (That's the method I use.)
    6. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Damn straight.
    7. 

       6/27/08

       polybore

       @kdawg68 In the US you can get shortened shotguns, the type used by the military to do house to house clearance (they know the best equipment for this). In a home defense situation ranges are going to be short, the spread of shot is not going to be much more than fist sized.
       
       Handguns have pathetic stopping power compared to shotguns. Thats why people trained to use hanguns are usually taught to fire two shots to the body and one to the head. Unless you are very lucky a single hit with a handgun and your target will keep coming at you. A single hit with a shotgun and the target is incapacitated.
       
       One thing for certain with handguns is that 70% of child firearm deaths are associated with them.
    8. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Polyebore, while I agree with you that shotguns are preferred for home defense, I will state that the prevalence of handgun related accidents is something that can be stopped, addressed, and rectified.
       
       I was very uncomfortable with the thought of having a gun in the house at first - with my child here - but then I remembered back to households that I had grown up in that taught gun safety from a very young age. As I mentioned above, one thing that needs to change is how we teach children about guns and shooting.
       
       No more gun and shoot 'em games.
       
       We should treat guns the same way we treat equally dangerous items in our homes with regards to children. Chemicals, hot stoves, knives, swimming pools (which, by the way has a higher percentage of child related deaths and injuries than guns).
       
       But that responsibility lies squarely in the hands of the parents. And no amount of laws will protect children from dangerous things or activities if the parents are idiots, absent, or just not doing their job.
    9. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       depends on the handgun, I suppose - not all are like. Overall I agree with you, just felt like someone needed to defend handguns I suppose.
    10. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        It also depends on the user of said handgun
        
        A friend of mine is surgically precise with one of those guns - I trust him enough that I would probably let him shoot an apple off of my head at a hundred paces (or whatever )
        
        But, that isn't true for everyone, nor for small statured women defending their homes when the Mr is out.
        
        Then again, I do prefer edged weapons, anyway
    11. 

        6/27/08

        kdawg68

        bayonet? cavalry saber? crude knife or "shank?"
    12. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        Ninja with a Machete. Pizaaz
    13. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Pffft - Samuri Sword, baby!
        
        Actually my favorite edged weapon of choice aside from the handy dandy boot knife, is and was a 16th century undulating German mercenary sword.
        
        At 6' long (thus bigger than me ) it is a weapon to be reckoned with.
        
        Has a good reach, too
    14. 

        6/27/08

        Donlewis

        I know an awful lot of excellent marksmen ("I'm no too bad myself", he said with a modest blush.) But nobody is taking an apple of my head! (I don't owe any of them enough money to be that trusting.)
    15. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        I think it goes without saying that I would be mighty drunk to actually do that
        
        In any case, I'm happy to know that he is on MY side and not teh other guy's.
    16. 

        6/27/08

        kdawg68

        drunken apple shooting - I think that was referenced in the ruling.
    17. 

        6/27/08

        Donlewis

        for or against?
    18. 

        6/27/08

        Anok

        Oh man, did they ban that? *sniff*
        
        
    19. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        Don I will give you a thousand dollars if I miss
    20. 

        6/27/08

        Donlewis

        It's not that I couldn't use the money Kevin. Can you amplify a bit. Are you referring to the apple?
    21. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        absolutely. I'm not that good with a gun but I'm a sure shot with my pistol size crossbow. You'll have nothing to worry about
    22. 

        6/27/08

        Donlewis

        Well...Ok.
        
        But only if the Supreme Court ruling still allows me to be drunk.
    23. 

        6/27/08

        kevingoodman

        Don - I think we'll need to do this in Mexico anyways. But hey, maybe I can work up more money for you through sponsorships and film and photo rights.
        
        Yeah, well about the drinking. If they do ban (as they should) considering the 80,000 alcohol related deaths - I can still get you some good stuff for a premium.
63. 

    6/27/08

    latewire

    Gun rights are a serious issue for many Americans. A lot of self-proclaimed "left-wingers" out there think of it as a safety issue and think you're somehow unenlightened if you think otherwise.
    
    To the "left", gun rights is just one of a bunch of things they'd change if they were king for a day--but it's not a huge issue.
    
    To the "right", many are so opposed to gun bans that they would even risk jail to keep them. They see it as the ultimate defense against a tyrannical government. You may have heard from these folks that "the 2nd amendment protects the first" and other axioms.
    
    They see gun bans as another means of control--so the enforcers of populist (but draconian) laws can do as they please without resistance. They simply will never vote for anybody who is openly anti-gun.
    
    If you were to make guns illegal, many otherwise law abiding Americans would keep them anyway. I'd probably be one of them.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       And I'm so glad this decision maybe gives us a chance to get beyond this stage of our public discourse.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       Yes, I too love cordial, polite, moderate discourse, as our cities fill up with guns and more children are gunned down. Maybe, we should do it over a cup of tea.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       Somehow the words cordial, polite, and especially "moderate" don't seem to define your discourse here.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       While you are worried about guns (a good distraction), the government is quietly developing the legal rights to spy (phone tap), on its citizens without a court order. They are not going to tap your phone or mine. They are going to tap the phones of the opposition party, and use the information as they wish. Pretty Orwellian if you ask me.
    5. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       @kdawg68
       
       There was a three year old killed this week by wild gunfire, here in Chicago. Permit me a little emotion.
    6. 

       6/27/08

       latewire

       You know rich, I'm not going to get into this with you. To me, the death rate could double and it still wouldn't change my mind about gun control. Am I heartless? or am I just better at math?
       
       I'm a student doctor. We have discipline called "evidence based medicine" in which we use statistics to determine whether or not to perform a risky test/procedure or see if a study is valid, and so on.
       
       You use these numbers to weigh risk. That's what we're talking about here: the risk of getting rid of or keeping guns.
       
       There are tons of studies both ways: having guns kills more, having guns saves more. The CDC stated that firearms prevented a half million crimes a year. Murder rates in cities with gun bans (before this supreme court decision) were higher than those without.
       
       Of course, there's bias in the studies--you can't say murder rates are higher due to gun bans, because they may have been higher regardless!
       
       The point being, if I were going to amputate your leg when there's a only a 5% chance you have gangrene, you'd probably have the right to sue me. Is that right? We all know the benefits of having a leg, but we all know gangrene is fatal.
       
       (Hint for the metaphorically impared: gangrene is gun deaths, the foot is guns)
       
       What do I do, Rich? is the issue so cut and dry? Do I hate kids if I'm pro gun? Can we calm down a little?
64. 

    6/27/08

    clioandme

    Since this thread is getting hijacked by one person intent on tying it to the presidential election, I'll make one comment in that direction before abandoning this thread.
    
    David Brooks made an interesting point this evening on the News Hour. The Supreme Court is important to members of both the Republican and Democratic base, but it does not resonate much with independents. Making it a huge issue in the campaign is something neither McCain nor Obama want to do, except among their bases. I think he's right.
    
    Course this could make an interesting separate discussion, but I've given up on the possibility of such a thing, as long as Rich is intent on warning us that the sky is falling in. All that's missing now is AtlasBear.

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       latewire

       yeah, it is getting hijacked. I'm done.
    2. 

       6/27/08

       Donlewis

       Yeah. I think this one is played out. Let's do something on the fur trade next.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       kdawg68

       Agreed - well done to those who engaged in some good conversation while it lasted.
    4. 

       6/27/08

       gerryPlanetEarth

       @markstoneman...
       
       "Since this thread is getting hijacked by one person intent on tying it to the presidential election"
       
       These recent supreme decisions are at least partially tied to the upcoming election...The decision regarding the hand-guns is very popular with the american jerry springer show type voters and Steven Seagal wannabe type voters..
       
       Why was this suddenly done before the upcoming election ? Same Question gutanamo bay...
       
       Perhaps these recent decisions is merely the outgoing administration leaving their footprint...
       
       I find McCain and Obama responses to the handgun decision somewhat interesting...
       
       McCain seemed really happy and almost winking...He took credit for some sort of briefing he submitted to the process...The vigilantes ate it up...
       
       Obama buttered both side of his toast by saying what a great decision it was to appease the gunmongers...
       
       Then in a complete u-turn appeases the anti-gun group by saying the various jurisdictions will be able to make new laws and regulations regarding guns tailored to their jurisdiction because of the new supreme court precedent...
    5. 

       6/27/08

       Anok

       Aww Matrk, but it was just getting good! And now I'm home with no husband to irritate me.
       
       Don't tell me you want me to like, actually blog, or something!
       
       
       
       Oh, re: your point about independents - yes I think that is true across the board, not just with the Supreme Court Justices.
65. 

    6/27/08

    richrf

    A good article on the political nature of the Supreme Court and this ruling:
    
    "A Rasmussen Reports opinion poll this month, however, indicates that 60 percent of the public believes the justices have their own political agendas, and just 23 percent believes that the high court decides cases impartially. Just one-third of those polled said the Supreme Court is doing a good job."
    
    www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/27/recent_rulings_sp...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       Donlewis

       Hey Rich. What's your thoughts on the fur trade?
    2. 

       6/27/08

       richrf

       lol.
    3. 

       6/27/08

       rightcommentary

       Wow. Opinion polls...
       
       How did they sneak the question in between asking America abut Lindsay Lohan's lip gloss and the latest Spear's family debacle?
       
       No offense - I could care less what Mr. and Mrs. America think of the Supreme Court. They don't pick justices.... Quite frankly, most of America couldn't even tell the difference between the Supremes and the Supreme Court... and most people can tell you who Judge Judy is... but can't tell you who John Roberts is...
       
       And btw - it's been like 20 posts since you mentioned Obama... what happened... fall off the soap box?
    4. 

       6/28/08

       MadameX

       Let's have a poll ABOUT the public. I predict that 65% of the public has no idea what the $%#!@ the Supreme Court does and another 22% know but willfully disregard it because acknowledging the reality leaves nothing to go off on an emotional rant about.
    5. 

       6/28/08

       Norski

       MadameX,
       
       "...emotional rants."
       
       I did some research for a post ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/dc-gun-ban-online-censorship-in... - shameless plug), and ran into a bushel of those. On both/all sides.
       
       I'm a little surprised - but not all that much - that the 'gun rights' bloggers didn't twig to the Supreme Court's giving the green flag to registration and regulation of firearms.
       
       Oh, well.
    6. 

       6/28/08

       rightcommentary

       I didn't blog about the restrictions... but I was quite happy with them. I'm not particularly keen on the mentally ill owning weapons... and I'm okay with CCL laws... but I would say that the Heller decision now essentially has enumerated what are the lawful "broad" regulations on guns... making it difficult for municipalities to do their own regulations. Anyways... I was okay with what Scalia outlined...
    7. 

       6/28/08

       legbamel

       "Quite frankly, most of America couldn't even tell the difference between the Supremes and the Supreme Court."
       
       Sure they can. It's the spangles on their dresses that separate them.
    8. 

       6/28/08

       Norski

       rightcommentary,
       
       I'm not sure if you were addressing my reply, or not, but here goes:
       
       I wasn't aware that you were a 'gun rights' blogger - although you have more in common with that sub-group than, say, with 'ape-rights' bloggers.
       
       My reference to 'gun rights' bloggers was intended to indicate those bloggers who focus on their personal view of guns, gun ownership, and so forth. The ones I run into are remarkably unreflective, and seem to be as ideologically hardwired as their counterparts in other fringes of the human experience.
66. 

    6/27/08

    TimMc

    Well, here's my last post for this thread. I enjoyed the 'discourse' here earlier today. Anok...thanks for the support.
    
    Today, I went out with my 13 year old son and we shot his brand new .22 rifle that he received for his 13th birthday. We were miles upon miles out in the wilderness of beautiful northern Idaho and we had a wonderful time. He is already very familiar with firearms safety, but we went over all of the basics again today. He's quite a good shot. We were shooting empty shotgun shells off of a log at about 40 yards.
    
    Now...what harm is being done? None. And just for clarification, yes we picked up our casings, the shotgun shells, the milk jug, and the leftover pieces of balloons. My son is learning respect for the firearm and learning how to use it properly AND enjoy it.
    
    It was a good day.
    
    Tomorrow...I'm off to go fishing with all 3 of my sons.
    
    Have fun y'all...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/27/08

       clioandme

       Course the gun ban that was overturned never affected you. It was for a city that has seen a lot of deaths due to handguns. Entirely different cultural and social situation, which is why I expect we'll still have pretty restrictive rules, much more so than your state will have, though no outright ban anymore.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       Norski

       markstoneman,
       
       The way I see it, DC still has a moderately effective ban - or will, once they do a little re-writing. From what I heard, the right to bear arms in DC may only extend to the walls of someone's house. From the inside. Outside, it's still a no-no.
       
       That still leaves the possibility of house-to-house firefights, which would be unpleasant in an urban setting.
       
       We'll see how this shakes out.
    3. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Which is one reason why I was able to calm down pretty quickly after the initial news flash.
    4. 

       6/28/08

       IanThal

       Regulations that seem to be intrusive or unnecessary in one setting are common sense in other settings. There's a reason why people who live in cities are more likely to be liberals and people in small towns tend to be more conservative.
       
       In cities, we need public transportation systems, some form of wellfare system for individuals, large scale public funding for all sorts of institutions, strong respect for religious diversity, and freedom of speech, and the right to assembly.
       
       Quite simply-- what I do affects my neighbor nearly instantaneously when I live in a city, because we're very close together, and that neighbor is far more likely to be from a different culture than I am and we still need to get along as neighbors-- in a small town, you can more easily avoid thinking about these issues, because they are far away.
       
       What Colorado residents may think to be completely appropriate gun legislation for their communities is utterly dysfunctional in an urban environment like Washington D.C., or Boston, or New York. And, assuming that the founders were only kidding when they said the part about the "well regulated militia" since so many gun-rights advocates ignore that part of the second amendment-- we also have to point out that none of the founders lived in cities that had hundreds of thousands-- even millions of residents living close together. Population density changes things quite a bit.
    5. 

       6/28/08

       legbamel

       Unpleasant? You are certainly the master of understatement, Norski. I think that, as you've noted, the court's decision eliminates bans but leaves plenty of room for "common sense" laws requiring that people demonstrate a little responsibility if they want to own a gun. I'm all for that.
       
       Oh, and TimMc, you and your son were in a rural setting with a rifle, not walking around downtown with a pistol in your pocket. Those are two very different situations, as far as I'm concerned. Also, you were teaching your son about gun safety. I don't see a problem with that at all.
    6. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Course the gun ban that was overturned never affected you. It was for a city that has seen a lot of deaths due to handguns.
       
       I can't let this comment go, Mark. I just can't. I certainly agree that there has been too much gun violence in DC, there is no debate on that, but let's look at this rationally.
       
       You have two kinds of people, ones who obey the law, and ones who don't. (with regards to major laws, for the purpose of this discussion).
       
       The people who obey the laws have adhered to the handgun ban since 1976 give or take a few years (I'm going on your answer above, I'm not sure when the ban was actually implemented).
       
       The people who don't obey the law have little regard for the handgun ban, and thus have brought handguns into DC, and consequently used them.
       
       So, logically speaking, it is safe to say that:
       
       A) the gun ban has had little effect on violence and violent crime where handguns (or any guns) are used, because the people willing to use guns violently have no regard for the law, anyway.
       
       B) The people who did obey the law would obey other handgun and gun regulations no matter what they state, and are NOT committing these crimes, and are not likely to commit violent crimes, because they do have a regard for the law,
       
       therefore
       
       C) The lifting of a ban on handguns does not seem likely to encourage an increase in violent crimes that use handguns,
       
       and
       
       D) If statistics prove correct (which I think they do), the ownership and proper use of guns, handguns by lawful citizens in fact decrease crime rates.
       
       Ergo, the facts that DC has seen high crime rates with regards to handgun usage is really an emotive argument - although an understandable one - because the crimes were against the law to begin with.
    7. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Actually, Anok, I believe I was pretty careful in how I expressed myself. I talked about the purpose of the law that was struck down and how that purpose related to a specific context. But I didn't pronounce an opinion on the efficacy of the law.
       
       Ian also talked about context. I agree with him. You cannot ignore context. Different rules will be necessary. But I'm not going to get into a policy debate about what is appropriate to this particular city. It seems pretty clear how a majority of the voting age population felt, because the law has stood for many years. I'll wait and see what they come up with in the next three weeks.
       
       Edited to add: I see Legbamel recognizes the context issue too. So does Norski.
    8. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       My argument isn't necessarily with your specific opinion, but rather the constant use of violent crime statistics with regards to gun laws in general.
       
       It's a logical fallacy, in most if not all cases.
    9. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       There's only one person here throwing statistics around while crying that the sky is now falling. I see he's back this morning.
    10. 

        6/28/08

        Anok

        Ha! Yes, that is true. But there are a lot of people not engaged in this thread who also have the same emotive knee jerk reaction to rulings such as this, and the fact of the matter, to me, with regards to that sort of opinion, is that citing crime statistics is a moot point when talking about judicial rulings on legal gun ownership and usage.
        
        It's persnickety, I know, but it really does bother me!
67. 

    6/28/08

    Norski

    My two cents worth: Between striking down a very broad ban on guns, and explicitly saying that regulating the ownership of firearms is okay; I don't think people at any of the far ends of this debate will be happy.
    
    I know: 'gun rights' bloggers have been gleeful about the decision. I don't think they've read that part about regulation and registration yet.
    
    What struck me about the DC gun ban decision was that the Supreme Court made a decision that gave power to individuals: not to a group (the DC city government, in this case).
    
    Having grown up with 'power to the people' ringing in my ears, that's an important point. I wrote (harangued, maybe, looking back on it) about the individual rights angle if DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/dc-gun-ban-online-censorship-in... ).

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       That people thing seems to have been a common thread this past week or two. Notice the similarity with the habeas corpus ruling?
    2. 

       6/28/08

       Norski

       Truthfully, no. Thanks for the heads-up.
68. 

    6/28/08

    richrf

    I wonder what Wyatt Earp would have to say about this Supreme Court's understanding of human nature:
    
    "In the days when Wyatt Earp was making his name as a lawman in Dodge City, he banned guns north of the railroad tracks that ran through the frontier town, where most families lived."
    
    www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/mar/07/guns_still_an/
    
    Scalia, in his own warped mind, believes that people, with guns in their homes, are going to behave responsibly. Must we revisit the 19th Century? How many children are going to have to die in our city streets, to make this guy wake up. When people go crazy, they do crazy things:
    
    "In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S."
    
    "The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care."
    
    The number of firearm fatalities in the U.S. is more than Brazil and Mexico, and three times more than Canada. And, what is our solution? Put more guns in people's homes. What insanity. The fact that we are even discussing possible merits of this decision is beyond me. But, this to shall pass. And in 50 years, after tens of thousands have died, we will revisit Wyatt Earp, and the reasonable solution that he found.
    
    library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Wrong.
       
       www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm
       
       Number of deaths for leading causes of death
       
       graphicHeart disease: 652,091
       
       graphicCancer: 559,312
       
       graphicStroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
       graphicChronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
       
       graphicAccidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
       
       graphicDiabetes: 75,119
       
       graphicAlzheimer's disease: 71,599
       
       graphicInfluenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
       graphicNephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
       
       graphicSepticemia: 34,136
       
       and for accidents with gun usage and kids in the home:
       
       Er, sorry the image is fuzzy:
       
       www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
       
       
    2. 

       6/28/08

       richrf

       @Anok,
       
       I don't get your point. You think it is OK for more children to die in the streets of Chicago, simply because there are already so many dying from other causes? Certainly a good argument for adding more pollution to our waters, soot in our air, guns on the streets, chemicals in our foods - heck, before long we have pure anarchy - don't we?
    3. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       OK, i should not feed your debate, but here goes.
       
       The statistics prove that a much lower percentage of children die from legal and lawful handgun or any gun ownership in the home than anti-gun activists care to admit.
       
       In fact, more kids die, accidentally, from car accidents, falls, pedestrian accidents, poisonings (from HOUSEHOLD products), drowning (in HOUSEHOLD pools, under supervision!), fires, and suffocation then by guns.
       
       If child safety is your main concern, then mayhaps you should get into banning pools, cars, household cleaners, anything that could light a fire in the home, and any and all objects that could cause a child to suffocate, too.
       
       The point, Rich, is that while you throw around statistics with reckless abandon, there is a little fact I mentioned above.
       
       It is a FAULTY argument!
    4. 

       6/28/08

       richrf

       Like, I am really trying to understand your argument. Is it:
       
       "It doesn't matter if more people die from handguns, because there are a greater number of people dying from other causes?"
       
       Looking, I am all for removing pesticides from our climate, permanently taking away the right of drunks to drive, and cleaning up the air. I am for REDUCING accidental deaths. I don't use increases of accidental death to justify more. That is adding fuel to the fire. It is already getting pretty out of hand, here in the cities.
    5. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Like, my argument is that accidents happen, and there are far more dangerous things out there than legal gun ownership - that are NOT regulated, and using accidental deaths, faulty statistics, and crime rates to make your point is disingenuous.
       
       You stated that deaths from handguns are oh-so-very high, and all these kids are dying and and and...Sensation! emotion! Knee jerk reaction!
       
       The fact of the matter is that you have your facts wrong, accidents do not automatically make the banning of something the answer, nor does it mean that something is inherently evil that should never be used or touched again (lest we would be living in a legal dictatorship that bans everything), and crime stats with regards to legal gun ownership has nothing to do with it, and is a moot point.
       
       Oh, and people who point out that your facts are wrong does not make them heartless individuals who support the death of children. Nice try, though.
       
       Please, save your sensational arguments for the angry town mob.
69. 

    6/28/08

    clioandme

    I'm not big on numbers for this debate, since it's a constitutional issue, not a policy debate. (The policy comes next and is a local issue.) Still, I found an argument by latewire, who feels differently than I do, quite interesting: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/supreme-court-strikes-down-dc-handgun-ban...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Yes, I thought his point was excellent.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       richrf

       his is a most pure political issue, in the most cynical form. The Supreme Court Right Wing Justices, come out with this ruling just before the election in order to pacify the NRA, and its members. You know, take people's minds off the tremendous losses they are suffering in their homes, their stocks, their jobs. They did the same thing during the last election, with Gay Marriage.
       
       At the end, it is all about money and how to hold on to it. If it costs a few thousand lives in Iraq or in Chicago, who cares? Who really cares? Quite disgusting, but who ever said politics and greed (they go hand and hand), was anything but.
       
       Of course, with a liberal supreme court justice, the decision would not only have been different, it would probably never even have been made, allowing local cities to maintain their autonomy on who should be allowed to possess a gun. You know, just like Wyatt Earp.
    3. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       It's quite possible that a different court would have also taken up this issue. There've been a lot of calls for clarification of the 2nd Amendment.
70. 

    6/28/08

    Timesobserver

    Richrf, I've written about this topic quite a bit in my blog and other publications. Trust me, banning guns from honest citizens only results in the criminals getting their hands on guns.
    
    While I was visiting my wife's family in Japan a few years ago, I was reading a newspaper story about crime and even though that guns are banned in the country, it didn't stop the criminals from using them, or using other things, like knives, swords, pipes, etc.
    
    In fact, England is having the same problem with its own criminals.
    
    Now gun responsibility is needed and most gun owners are extremely responsible.
    
    But the criminals who use guns or other instruments care little about human life. It simply doesn't make sense to prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.
    
    timesobserver.blogspot.com

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       richrf

       And yet, all other Western developed countries have a very neat equation: less guns/capita less killings from handguns. It is kind of difficult to get away from the fact, that the U.S. is flooded with guns (says a lot about what is important to our psyche), and also has more deaths from firearms than either Brazil or Mexico. Talk about safer places to live.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Uh, NO! That is blatantly untrue, and not even verifiable, and the facts are directly the opposite!
       
       Egads!
       
       Listen, you hate guns, we know that - but until you find a way to incinerate all guns in the world, they will exist, and if we continue to regulate the ownership, then the only people who will use the guns are criminals, as the legality of ownership means nothing to them!
       
       And even if you manage to rid the world of guns in total, you would still have other weapons to contend with.
       
       Guns are not the problem, irresponsibility is the problem, among a few other things. The only cure for that is education, equality, and making sure people aren't living in poverty!
    3. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Yes, people are the problem, including people who peddle guns irresponsibly in our own country and abroad.
       
       But again, I thought this was about a constitutional issue.
    4. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       I think that addressing the cause, rather than the symptoms of gun related violence is very much an important factor the constitutional aspect of this debate.
       
       A lot of people state that when the constitution was written, it was a different world, and it was. Of course, we were more self reliant, more responsible, and eagerly able to defend the needs for individual rights by being responsible, and sometimes, by actually fighting for it (using guns, by the way ).
       
       Which is the point, really.
    5. 

       6/28/08

       IanThal

       "Guns are not the problem, irresponsibility is the problem, among a few other things. The only cure for that is education, equality, and making sure people aren't living in poverty!"
       
       But rather than improve education, end poverty, and promote equality, let's just put more guns in the hands of fearful people.
    6. 

       6/29/08

       Anok

       Um, not fer nuthin' but the irresponsible folks I was talking about were the people using guns illegally and violently not people who are responsible human beings.
       
       Taking away a gun ban puts the guns back into the hands of the responsible folk.
       
       When do you think you will get that? AT what point will you admit that the only people obeying gun bans are the only people who would not use a gun irresponsibly? And that those who obey the laws are not, and would not, be fearful if properly taught how to defend themselves?
       
       Furthermore, nobody here said we should give guns to fearful irresponsible people instead of improving education, decreasing poverty, etc.
       
       Good grief. If you don't like guns, fine, Don't own one. But don't expect a good Samaritan or police officer to use one in your defense, either.
    7. 

       6/30/08

       IanThal

       Actually, it's the job of the police officer to use a gun in my defense if there are no other reasonable options.
       
       My comment about "fearful" people is regarding the idea that gun ownership is that last bastion protecting America from a despotic regime, foreigners, or falling into criminal anarchy-- though I've not seen any of them threatening to take up arms to protect more fundamental rights like habeus corpus, freedom form unlawful searches, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion.
71. 

    6/28/08

    kdawg68

    Hey, who drug up this thread? I thought we were done? Oh, I see....it's the masked anarchist.
    
    Anyhow, my last point since this keeps coming up with respect to D.C. residents. I know there are questions as to why so many folks care - since this was a "local decision."
    
    I recall many months ago I angered several members here by suggesting that Alabama should decide what's best for Alabama with regards to allowing the sale of sex toys:
    
    www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/ban-on-toys-in-alabama
    
    Apparently suggesting as much was "stomping on the rights" of others.
    
    So wht does this mean - well, heregoes my best attempt to rationalize. Folks hear discussions about "rights" being taken away, no matter where or in what context and they immediately jump to the conclusion that: "hey, if they take their rights away, whether they want them or not, won't that give them precedence to move on mine next? "
    
    So you see, it's something of a fear of a domino effect. Hopefully that explains why folks outside of D.C. took such an issue in this case. If D.C. had been allowed to circumvent the 2nd Ammendmant, what would stop other municipalities from doing the same?
    
    Note, I don't necessarily disagree that they (municipalities) should be allowed to do the same, and for those scratching their heads wondering "aren't you contradicting yourself between here and the alabama thread?" Perhaps, as I am prone to contradiction (although I readily admit it and don't try to hide it), but in this case we're dealing with a constitutional right to bear arms, and a perceived right to be able to purchase dildos. I see a difference in the two.
    
    Good god...did I just bring dildos into the discussion?

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       barryfromtexas

       Now the button clickers will attack you
    2. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Wasn't in on that discussion. Looks like that's not a bad thing either.
    3. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       What fascinates me is that right or left - we seem to waver often in our consistencies.
       
       I was vehement that Alabamians be able to decide for Alabama - yet later on I'm celebratory over a ruling that, for all intensive purposes, forced popular opinion regarding gun laws onto D.C. citizens. There's some inherent contradiction there that isn't lost on me.
       
       Also interesting is that I was being labelled a "bible belt conservative" in the sex toys thread for "trying to legislate morality." One can only assume that a person who would use the term "conservative" in a negative fashion against me identifies themselves as more liberal. Just as I seem to contradict myself, it's not lost on me that with sex toys "legislating morality" is out of the question and the will of popular national opinion should rule over local sentiment, yet with guns the opposite seems to hold true.
       
       Lord, what damn fools we all are. Live and let live is the basic premise I'll go back to, I suppose. I'm still in favor of the 2nd Ammndmnt, but I'm not feeling victorious if the will of D.C. citizens to self-govern has been squashed.
    4. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       Edit: dang double postin' horse!
    5. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       I take your point. That's why I've been able to come around on this one pretty quickly.
       
       Which amendment protects sex toys again?
    6. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       None
       
       Sorry for derailing down that road - just struck me as relevant from a national opinion over local sentiment standpoint.
    7. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       Does it have something to do with the pursuit of happiness?
       
       No, seriously - Kdawg you've brought up a good point here. Now, take this for what it is worth, but from the perspective of an Anarchist living under a government, the idea of state rights vs federal rights does play into my political ideology, and I think it's pertinent to the debate at hand, as well.
       
       I would much prefer states having more rights than the federal government (a sit was intended0 for a long list of reasons, that can be discussed elsewhere. But for this debate, I think addressing the fact that federal rights have, over the years, gained far more power than it ever should have is a growing concern with citizens all over the place.
       
       Where was I? I forgot what I was trying to say - anyway, yes! You are right, people think that laws enacted and etc... in one place will eventual become federal law, thus forcing people all over the place to adhere to laws they may or may not agree with.
       
       Um, yeah, and it was SO not my fault, I did not dig the thread up, I swear it!
    8. 

       6/28/08

       IanThal

       "I would much prefer states having more rights than the federal government (as it was intended.)"
       
       You'll find yourself in agreement with apologists for the Confederacy, segregationists, and the anti-environmental movement on these matters. Guns make odd bedfellows.
    9. 

       6/28/08

       Anok

       You'll find yourself in agreement with apologists for the Confederacy, segregationists, and the anti-environmental movement on these matters. Guns make odd bedfellows.
       
       Gee, I had no idea that the founding father's opinions of State's rights vs Federal rights with regards to the construct of this country's governmental system had anything to do with guns, segregationists, and anti-environmentalists.
       
       Silly me, all this time I thought it had to do with keeping government small enough to accurately represent the needs and wills of the people, fully represented by their neighbors who actually lived in the vicinity!
    10. 

        6/29/08

        legbamel

        Silly ninja, states are for kids.
    11. 

        6/29/08

        Anok

        Legbamel - LMAO.....
    12. 

        6/30/08

        IanThal

        "all this time I thought [the founding father's opinions of State's rights vs Federal rights] had to do with keeping government small enough to accurately represent the needs and wills of the people, fully represented by their neighbors who actually lived in the vicinity!"
        
        This much was true, but it was also to ensure that the local elites could not have their privileges undermined by a Federal government that would be more biased in favor of "universal rights." This is why a slave-owner like Thomas Jefferson was on the states' rights side of the equation against Federalists like abolitionist Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton and company wanted to take away the Virginians' rights to hold human beings in bondage.
        
        Slavery had always been defended as an aspect of states rights, as has segregation, as had denying the vote to women, former slaves, and the decendents of former slaves
72. 

    6/28/08

    Timesobserver

    Anok is right, Richrf. Right now, England has a huge problem with stabbings. In fact,I'm sure we can all whip out stats that will support each other's opinion on the matter. But the fact is, the gun ban wasn't working in D.C.
    
    So getting rid of it and trying some that isn't so extreme might be a better solution. Because when you're talking about guns and crimes, you're really talking about criminals and not responsible gun owners. In fact, many of them use their guns to defend themselves from criminals.
    
    Markstoneman, sadly, topics have a habit of changing into something else. But at least we're still talking about guns and not the sex habits of the Southern woodchuck.
    
    timesobserver.blogspot.com

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       I don't have a problem with topics winding all over the place. Proselytizing and rants bother me though. That's what I was seeing, so I tried, not all too successfully, to say maybe that stuff was beside the point.
       
       By the way, have you noticed how none of us uses a signature here? Ever wonder why and if that might be some kind of etiquette thing? Just saying.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       actually....I may have taken us closer down the road of the woodchuck then originally intended.
    3. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       But you're one of the few who took my national-local concerns seriously.
73. 

    6/28/08

    barryfromtexas

    Mark - I am glad you started this, I have enjoyed reading it. It is odd, that I had not felt a need to comment, other than a non comment here and there.
    
    I am confused how this will affect the DC citizens that have no interest in guns. With the lift of the ban, will bad guys now go out and buy guns?
    
    Your point about the court making decisions all over the place is well taken, I don't see a right or left swing of this court.
    
    I think the ammendment to have dildos is the same one as a right to privacy - I still haven't found that one

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       I think you're right about sex toys.
       
       As far as the effects on DC itself go, many of us believe that there is a connection between guns and death, despite the illegal ownership of guns. Of course, now we're going to have to reorient ourselves. Saying exactly what the implications are at this point is impossible, as the city is still in the process of drafting new regulation legislation.
       
       I also get a little annoyed, because the 2nd Amendment talks not only about militias but also states. We don't have any rights in that area, meaning we have no meaningful influence on how most of the laws of his land are written, though these days we are allowed to vote for president.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       barryfromtexas

       I hear you there Mark. I am a big fan of states rights. I was a bit peeved when California's non-gay-marriage-what-have-you was ruled unconstitutional - I thought states had the right to set the laws on marriage (unless it was unconstitutional under California's Constitution).
       It wasn't about gay marriage to me so much as the Fed sticking its nose into state rights
    3. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       I'd tend to agree with that as well barry.
    4. 

       6/28/08

       IanThal

       Barry-
       
       It was Caliafonia's highest court that decided that same sex marriage was not merely legal but that any legislation limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was a violation of the civil rights enshrined in the California Consitution.
       
       Same thing happened in Massachusetts.
       
       These were state courts ruling on state laws.
       
       I am not sure where you got the idea that somehow "states' rights" were in anyway overruled. If you are a defender of "states' rights" to regulate marriage, then you should reserve your anger for the Defense of Marriage Act.
    5. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       I'm pretty sure Barry realized he might have got his wires crossed. That's how I read his parenthetic remark anyway.
74. 

    6/28/08

    clioandme

    Finally wrote a short blog post about this, just to mark the event: markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/learning-to-accept-the-courts-decisio...

    [reply]
    1. 

       6/28/08

       kdawg68

       visited and commented. Nice job both here and there.
    2. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Thanks Kdawg.
       
       You know, I just used BC's social search and found out a whole bunch of people have blogged about this who I have never seen here. Might be some interesting posts: www.blogcatalog.com/dashboard.search.php?q=second+amendment
    3. 

       6/28/08

       clioandme

       Okay, I'm finding a lot of crap posts through that search that just celebrate this decision without understanding its nuances or appreciating that the 5-4 decision also reminds us of how much ambiguity there was in the Second Amendment itself. But I'm also finding a little nuance too.
       
       Kinda strange to visit blogs of bloggers who I've never seen here.
    4. 

       6/28/08

       Norski

       marstoneman,
       
       re. "Kinda strange to visit blogs of bloggers who I've never seen here."
       
       If those are like the ones I waded through the other day, I'd say some of the s