JNagarya, I believe I should point out that I’m not an NRA member. I quit them way back in the 1990s because I came to understand that all they were was a fund-raising auxiliary of the Republican Party. I’m a libertarian (note the lower-case “l”) and a minarchist, who agrees with what the late Harry Browne once said—-“I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution”.

As usual, TW, I agree with you.  Nevertheless, I think comparative stats on homicide rates provides a scientific basis for examining the issue sans the emotions many have provided in support of either side of the equation.

EC,

I believe our propensity for gun violence far exceeds that of any other industrialized nation. Somehow I think this correlates with the fact that we have a lot more wars than any other industrialized nation. I’m not sure you can blame corrupt politicians or the NRA for this. There is a big streak of violence in America. The NRA is probably only doing a good job of representing this element. We’re just not very civilized. “The public sucks - Fuck hope.” George Carlin.

Lots of guns are not the reason Americans kill so often, we have a relatively high murder rate even if all hand-gun murders are taken out of the equation.  One can’t really address this issue without addressing the underlying social and cultural factors which make America one of the world’s most violent countries.  I personally think has more to do with a culture of victory.  The American psychology seems to frame everything as victory vs. defeat.  We are obsessed with winning and loosing.  I think the obsession with winning breeds the kind of violence we see in the US.  Severely limiting gun ownership is not going to change that culture of violence.  Switzerland has high levels of gun ownership but relatively low levels of gun violence.  I think it has more to do with the culture than the guns themselves.  Growing up in the rural U.S. I have been around guns pretty much my whole life.  I don’t remember any gun violence in my locality despite a very high rate of gun ownership.  It seemed like everyone knew about guns and had the healthy respect for them they deserve.  I don’t own a gun anymore, because I don’t have a need for one, I don’t hunt and I am not a shooting enthusiast.  Lots of people keep them for protection, but I can honestly say I have never known anyone who was in a position that made it necessary to use it in that way. It seems to provide more of a feeling of security than actual security.  I could have it for protection, but I don’t think it would give me the protection I need when I need it.  When the time arose I probably wouldn’t have it on hand or would be facing someone just as armed. If there were lots of cases of guns saving lives I would have a bit more faith in their usefulness for that purpose.  However, I hear far more often of accidents happening with guns bought for “protection.”  We need to have a uniform national gun policy.  It should allow people to own guns, but should have a strong system of licensing, which includes gun training, psychological evaluations, and have to be renewed on a regular basis (every 3-5 years.)  This is especially necessary for hand guns.  It seems to me that such a system is just commonsense.  However, I harbor no illusions that the US of A would cease to be a very violent country.  We might just have our first school shooting with black market guns.

TW, while the survey of gun laws in other countries is interesting, to be truly useful, one would need the per capita homicide statistics on each of these nations.

Just for some perspective, here is a summary of gun laws in other countries:

BRITAIN:

The government bans semiautomatic rifles and handguns. These bans do not include deactivated handguns or replica handguns, but the 2006 Violent Crime Reduction Act made it illegal to buy sell or manufacture “a realistic imitation firearm.” Owning guns for self-defense is not permitted.

AUSTRALIA:

In 1996 reforms led to uniform gun laws across all states of Australia that include: tougher licensing, registration of all guns, removal of guns from domestic violence offenders, and a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

Gun ownership for self-defense is not legal. Civilian gun ownership is only valid for hunting, target sports, historical collection or occupational need.

A person must be at least 18 and undertake adequate safety training to purchase a firearm. The waiting period is not less than 28 days, and the license is issued for no more than five years.

SOUTH AFRICA:

The minimum age for gun possession is 21.

To obtain a gun, the applicant needs to obtain a competency certificate, showing they can use a firearm safely and are not a threat to the public, then they may apply for a firearms license for a specific gun they wish to obtain. That gun is registered with the police before it is transferred to the applicant based on a number of conditions.

From
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/06/26/sampling_of_gun_laws_in_other_countries/

To JNagarya: I appreciate the depth of feeling that you seem to have on this topic. While I empathize, I must disagree with you. I side with Paul_GA on this one. A gun is nothing more than a tool, to be used as the owner sees fit. As a method of mass murder, there are much more effective means readily available to kill large numbers of people. I personally believe that the people who committed those acts chose a public sort of suicide. If guns were made illegal right now, there is no way they would disappear. They are here to stay, regardless of if you like it or not. In the end, EVERYTHING that we do boils down to personal responsibilty. I see nothing wrong with a responsible person owning/carrying a gun. If he abuses that responsibilty, he will be dealt with. Please don’t start about kids who get killed with a parent’s weapon. That is the fault of the parent. All of you who hate guns need to get over it. They are not going away. If you want to ban everything that could possibly maybe kill someone else, you have a LONG road ahead of you. As far as making fun of Paul_GA about him being willing to protect himself, all it takes is him not being ready ONCE and he could be dead. As for your comment that a scumbag’s life is worth as much as Paul’s: take it in context. If someone is attacking him, that criminal has now went over the line from protected citizen to scumbag. If a criminal wants to act like a criminal, he gets what he deserves. Believe me, if I am in fear for the lives of my family or myself, I would not hesitate to eliminate the threat. I will not concern myself with the attacker’s welfare. In a case such as this, am I the bad guy for not caring about his rights? If the world were perfect, none of us would need weapons of any kind. Since it isn’t, we do.

I suppose, Paul, that we will simply have to agree to disagree.  I appreciate the sincerity of your position and hope you appreciate mine.

Had a teacher been armed at either Columbine or Virginia Tech, or had a fellow student been armed at the college (in each case with concealed-carry permits), the tragedies at those two places might never have happened, Cann4ing. Sick individuals who want to kill large numbers of people and then go out with a “blaze of glory” and a bullet in their brain from their own gun do what they do because they expect to do it with impunity—-because their potential victims are unarmed. I firmly believe that more guns in the hands of decent, law-abiding citizens is the solution to mass shootings. Won’t you agree that the police can’t be everywhere?

Total prohibition and zero tolerance has never worked, whether it’s been about drugs, alcohol, or firearms. And in the case of the latter, the State is to blame for the deaths of innocents, just as much as the killers themselves, in mass shootings. What’s needed is just plain old common sense—-something that’s awfully rare in States nowadays. (When I say “States”, of course, I mean governments.)

Paul, how can you watch the results in places like Columbine and VA Tech, and suggest that mine is an “irrational fear” of simply a weapon.  The scope of these mass tragedies exponentially increases with the effectiveness of the weapon, and, as someone who served in Vietnam, I can attest to the fact that an AK-47 is an exceedingly effective weapon for killing human beings.  What I find irrational, and even selfish, is your willingness to cling to your own weapon knowing full well that the public availability of that weapon can lead to the deaths of innocent human beings.

Of course the Second Amendment was about the Southern fear of slave revolts.  Click http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

Cann4ing, I still find it hard to understand your irrational fear of a mere weapon. A rifle, handgun, shotgun, etc. can do nothing unless acted upon by the hand of man. It’s morally neutral. I must insist that being armed and responsible, even with one of those (gasp!) “assault weapons”, is better than to be unarmed and dependent, no matter how many lives are theoretically “lost” because of it. No human lives have been lost because I am armed, and God willing, it will remain that way.

” . . . your assertion that a ‘well-regulated militia’ was intended to be a force capable of challenging the federal government.”

I don’t assert such a thing—just the opposite.  The Second Amendment would prevent a confrontation by precluding anti-slavery Northerners from using the federal government to disarm the militias.

What I am saying Paul is that if one weighs the value of your possession of an AK-47 against that of even a single life that could be saved by a total ban on AK-47s, I believe that the saving of that one life far outweighs your desire to own such a weapon. 

You keep repeating that criminals should not have access to weapons, but many of the homicides are committed by people who have neither past criminal records nor abnormal psychiatric profiles, and that is especially true with some of the mass killings we have witnessed over the years.  Thus we are not simply considering the relative value of your desire to own an AK-47 against one life, but many.

How could any rationale person place a higher value on your right to such a weapon when measured against the lives of the innocent? 

PT—your reference to a law review article citing the Second Amendment as deriving from a fear of slave rebellion belies your assertion that a “well-regulated militia” was intended to be a force capable of challenging the federal government.

So criminals use them, Cann4ing. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that, if just a few bad eggs abuse a freedom like RKBA, no one should have that freedom? Remember, arguably, people abuse video and still cameras all the time to produce pornography; should we then register, restrict, or ban video and still cameras?

I think private firearms preserve far more innocent lives than are taken in accidents, suicides or criminal homicides every year. I’m willing to live with the latter three, knowing that every now and again, news of the former one is available on TV or the Internet or in a newspaper, and it gives me a great deal of grim satisfaction to read of a really scum-baggish criminal with a rap sheet a mile long coming up against an armed (and ready) citizen he thinks is easy pickings and ending up being carried away feet first and toes up.

Isn’t the armed citizen’s life, in such a case, worth more than the scumbag’s life?

Essentially, the five justices are saying they will cherry pick the weapons someone must be allowed possession of, in the home, for self-defense.  Handguns are okay, but weapons that would seriously threaten the government are not.

That line of reasoning would make more sense if the term “well regulated militia” did not appear in the Second Amendment.

The five conservative activist justices want to substitute their views for those of state and local governments that pass laws the five men do not like.

Let me begin, Paul, by stating that I believe you have been quite sincere in expressing your strongly held views on this subject and I admire that.  But the problem is that the empirical data does not reflect the accuracy of your position.

While you would support a ban on the sale of weapons to convicted felons, the fact is that the majority of mass killings carried out on campuses and places of work are the product of individuals with no prior records.  You can claim that an AK-47 is merely a paramilitary carbine, but the fact is that it was the weapon of choice used against our forces in places like Vietnam.  It was also the weapon of choice used by two bank robbers during the North Hollywood shootout, the worst such incident ever to take place in the U.S.

The Supreme Court did “not” rule that you have a right to possess an AK-47.  But let’s assume that it did.  Would you be so adamant about preserving such a right if it were shown that many innocent lives would be spared as a result?  Does your belief in such a “right” extend that far?

Of course the Second Amemdment was about the fear of slave rebellions.  Click http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

It has long been clear to me that the term “Bill of Rights” is a terrible misnomer. It is a “Bill of No-No’s” which, in the case of the second amendment, spells out what the federal government cannot do to individual states namely disarm a State or all States of the U.S.A. All other interpretations such as “they feared slave rebellions” etc are pure hogwash. Yes, slave rebellions were always feared in those days but do you really believe that the slave owners needed permission from the Constitution to shoot rebellious slaves? How incredibly naive!

But the weapon I have is not an “assault rifle”, Cann4ing; it is a paramilitary carbine, because it lacks the one feature (selective-fire capability) which would otherwise make in a full-scale assault rifle.

As I am a libertarian, I feel that what’s best for the community at large is freedom, not a mass of stupid, silly, useless laws that only benefit the State by making it bigger, more powerful and more coercive. If a State is like that, it’s also warlike and spendthrift.

As I mentioned in another post, “Certainly, there are limits to the 2nd Amendment—-you’ll never find me advocating the arming of convicted felons (unless they’ve served out a long and stringent probationary period beforehand), irresponsible children, or the mentally ill. Nor will you find me advocating a tank in every garage or an RPG or machine gun in every bedroom closet. But I see no problem with people owning semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles (like the AR-15 or the AK-47); I own one myself.”

You’re quite right—-where we differ is precisely where the line should be drawn. I want a blurred, indistinct line, to give us gun owners the breathing room to be free and practice our rights.

There’s another way of looking at this.  Usually extreme right wing as well as extreme leftist governments like to get guns out of circulation.  If the neo-cons had any plans for a police state they would want a gun ban.

Paul, “you” may not be personally inclined invade an elementary school with an AK-47 but we have seen far too many instances in which others have.  Part of the price of living in a society is that each of us is called upon to make some level of individual sacrifice for the benefit of the whole.  If your foregoing possession of an assault rifle as part of a general ban that could save lives of school children, you should not only be willing to give up your assault rifles, but should be proud of doing your part!

That is one of the problems I have seen ever since Reagan was elected.  It’s all the self-centered “me, me, me.”  You talk about your personal right to keep such a firearm; never considering what might best be for the community at large.

Finally, I am curious as to where you would draw the line and why.  If you can own an AK-47, why not permit your neighbor to stockpile 50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, and howitzers.  If you make a distinction between your weapon and theirs, why?  If you see nothing wrong with your neighbor having any of those, would you stop them from possessing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? 

At some point, even you will draw the line in the interests of public safety.  Where we differ is in where that line should be drawn.

With all due respect to you as a ‘Nam veteran, Cann4ing (my eldest brother is one, also—-1st Air Cav, ‘67-‘68), I must disagree strongly with your telling me what sort of firearms I can and cannot own. I live in a rural area, far from local law enforcement, and I’m handicapped by deafness and cannot use a phone. I am my first and final line of defense, and I have a paramilitary carbine because it suits me perfectly.

I don’t dream of going to the local elementary school and shooting it up; I don’t even use the term “assault weapon”, because it’s meaningless and stupid. I prefer to call my rifle a “paramilitary carbine” because it lacks one feature (selective fire) that would otherwise classify it as a true “assault rifle”. Some right-wing gun owners call them “homeland defense rifles”, but I see that as political correctness of the right, as much as “assault weapon” is political correctness of the left. And I utterly despise political correctness.

While, as an attorney, I am dismayed by the manner in which the court ignored precedent and settled law, I think it important that people understand the limits of this case.  The Court did not rule that states have no authority to ban guns or other weapons from public places like schools, courts, airplanes, etc.  It did not rule that a statute banning the sale of assault rifles (e.g. Paul’s AR-15s & AK-47s, whether semi-automatic or fully automatic) are unconstitutional.

The Court merely ruled that an individual has a right to keep a gun (in this case a pistol) inside his or her home for purposes of self defense.  Nothing more; nothing less.

By the way Paul, when I was in Vietnam, me and my fellow grunts kept our M-16s on semi-automatic mode as we found a significant loss in accuracy from fully automatic.  Whether semi-automatic or fully automatic, as someone who has witnessed the impact on the receiving end, I can tell you with no reservations whatsoever, an AK-47 is an extremely lethal instrument.  It does not belong in civilian hands.

Certainly, there are limits to the 2nd Amendment—-you’ll never find me advocating the arming of convicted felons (unless they’ve served out a long and stringent probationary period beforehand), irresponsible children, or the mentally ill. Nor will you find me advocating a tank in every garage or an RPG or machine gun in every bedroom closet. But I see no problem with people owning semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles (like the AR-15 or the AK-47); I own one myself.

It’s amazing for me to be agreeing with Cyrena but she’s absolutely right—all the rights in the Constitution DO have limits—it’s based on the principle that the US Constitution is a contract, not a suicide pact.  Thus you cannot cry fire in a crowded theater or threaten to kill someone in the name of “Freedom of Speech”.  You can’t sacrifice a virgin in the name of “Freedom of Religion”. You can’t withhold evidence of a felony in the name of “Freedom of the Press”.  And you can’t just walk into a school carrying an Uzzi in the name of “The right to keep and bear arms.”

I had never heard the militia argument as necessary to prevent slave rebellions—I’m annoyed with myself that I never made that connection because it’s an obvious part of the logic of the 13 words. Thanks Cyrena-you and others taught me some history this time. They were also for Indian attacks or from attacks by the British in Canada or the French (remember: The French and Indian War was still solid in the memories of the men writing the Constitution—most of them lived through it—young Col. Washington actually fired the first shot—or one of his men did).

Isn’t it ironic that a large portion of the NRA-type gun advocates are from the same stock as those that wrote the 2nd Amendment—Southern Whites who wanted it to suppress slave revolts, then Southern Whites, who wanted it to enforce Jim Crow, now Southern Whites who want it for…what DO they want it for????

Also, our Euro and Canadian friends, who are SO used to gun control have far, far fewer murders/100,000 than the US.  Can ANYONE explain that difference due to anything but gun control?

Here in NJ, in the central to western part of the state, black bears roam all around.  It’s gotten so bad every few years the state authorizes a bear hunt to cull the population.  Yet many people’s main weapon against them is common sense, having a fenced yard with a big dog, or even banging pots and pans to scare the bears. I cannot REMEMBER the last time a bear fatally attacked a person here.  So…home defense against these animals is not a valid argument. (Since bears see dogs as wolves, which they are, and the species generally avoid each other if possible, a fenced yard where a big dog lives will be avoided by bears as they look for easier targets.  Bears are somewhat “cowards” in that they are opportunistic and go for what’s easier.)

Re: Cyrena

I believe you may have hit the nail on the head with this comment.

“So ya see…it’s all relative”

To my way of thinking this is exactly it. Because always…and I wish I there was some iconic elaborative term to OVEREMPHASIZE your very astute observation, but as it is…. I wholeheartedly endorse your assertion.

And it’s been announced…. at an almost deafening roar…that that is wherein reasonability resides.

Extremes are for those who have lost their sensibilities.

What we need to change is the members of the Supreme Court.

And Cyrena, if you dislike guns so much, why not begin advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

Speaking of pigeon-holing Paul…How did you determine that I ‘disliked guns so much?”

In reality, I don’t particularly like them PERSONALLY, but I’m not opposed to people owning guns under the required conditions. In fact, I’m from a family of both former military AND law enforcement, and so guns go with the territory. Now we never had them in my own home when I was growing up, because my dad always said that he could handle anything that came up, without the need for a gun. So far, that’s been the case. I don’t know if he felt that way because he was permanently injured/disabled by gunshots in the military, or if it’s because my mother is not as stable as one can be, and so he may have felt that it was just best not to have them around. Either way, we’ve managed to stay alive without them.

That’s not to say that guns don’t serve a purpose, or that those who know how to use them, and have reason to need them, (like for bears or hunting food?) shouldn’t have them. That was never my suggestion.

Rather, PT made the argument that the 2nd amendment had more to do with protecting the ‘settlers’ from slave revolts and I would add PROTECTING THEIR PROPERTY, which just happened to be SLAVES, than it did with any right to ‘protect oneself”. You came up with the lame comparison between Indian raids and home invasions, and it was lame because if you were aware of the history at the time that the US Constitution was written, you’d know that the Indians were the first to be enslaved. They didn’t work out so well as slaves, (and didn’t take all that kindly to being enslaved by invaders to their own land) so they began importing slaves from other places…primarily Africa. And the whole gun thing was very much about the protection of and from their own ‘property’, even if it was worded as the right to maintain a MILITIA.

So, we can CALL it anything we want Paul, because that’s what the wording of any legal document does.  But that doesn’t change what it is, or what it was. And yes, overall…people who have stolen something from someone else, or brought harm to someone else, generally DO maintain weapons in order to protect themselves from retaliation. That’s how it began, and in many cases, it remains that way today.

In the meantime, I don’t have any problems with you being a gun owner Paul. I DO have a problem with guns being made available to anybody who has (or has stolen) the money to buy them. I believe that people have a right to go to work or school or drive down the road and not have to worry about a crazy wiping them out. Now some (gun lovers) would say that my right to go to work or school without fear of being massacred in the process is trumped by your right to own a bunch of guns. Therein lies the conflict. And, that conflict can and should be assessed and determined by the local statutes for the area. That is my opinion. That’s all Paul. I’m not interested in changing the Amendment, because it would not solve that particular conflict. There are other ways to manage it.

Meantime…I’m an airplane pilot. (though not as regularly as I used to be). And as an airplane pilot, you and your gun would never be allowed on any airplane that I might be piloting. On that, there would be no argument, and your 2nd amendment rights wouldn’t be worth a damn thing.

So ya see…it’s all relative.

The only reason D.C. put a ban on guns is simply so politicians wouldn’t get shot as easily. That’s it. The gun ban had nothing to do with the crime rate of ordinary citizenry. Politicians were protecting their own asses. Ask yourselves why this one city would ban guns entirely, and try to ask without your own agendas, whatever they be.

And when you quote statistics that “prove” removing guns drop the crime and death rate by handguns, why don’t you quote the rates of death by knives, tire iron beatings, strangulations, poisoning and the staggering rise of murders committed in other ways? Because it doesn’t prove your point, that’s why.

No government, state or city can law morality into being. Laws are there to punish AFTER a crime has been committed, not to stop them. Same reason we put locks on our doors, people. They do NOT stop the determined from breaking in, they just deter people who aren’t really committed to stealing your stuff.

You can’t babysit the world, and you can’t babysit your neighbors. You might think you can, but after all the laws passed to restrict personal freedoms and to disallow each individual in this country to just live the way they want to, watch what they want to, say what they want to say, or even put up Halloween decorations that seem to irritate the pseudo-Xtians in this country without being sued, denied your First Amendment rights and persecuted by a very false facade of “Political Correctness”, can you still honestly believe that a law can force anyone to stop doing what their free will tells them they have the right to do? I still hear people tell Polack jokes and people who laugh along with them, in the privacy of their homes. My friend Charlie tells them out in the open because he is one BIG Polack and makes the point you can insert any type of person into the joke and it still works, so there’s a weird sort of equality in joke-telling but people no longer have a sense of humor. I still hear people you would never think able to rail about “fags” and how their getting married is going to “ruin” this country. I’m not sure how that works, but I’m aligned with Lewis Black about that nonsense. I still hear the word nigger being used. Just not in public. From all types of people. No one has “fixed” anything in any society. It just gets glazed over by political correctness and performed in private.

And, there were ducks in D.C. at one time. All over the place. But I think Cheney and his pals got bored one day.

It’s all just about protecting politicians from the masses. Waste your time trying to protect men and women from going to Iraq and Iran instead. At least there won’t be more people who can shoot far more accurately than most of us….

PT, I’m a gun owner, and I voted Libertarian each of the last two election cycles. I’m not a member of the NRA because all the NRA is, is just a fund-raising auxiliary of the GOP—-and now that I’m politically wise to the villainy of both the major parties, I’ll be in Perdition before I give money to either of them. So please, don’t pigeonhole me.

And Cyrena, if you dislike guns so much, why not begin advocating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? That would be the honest thing for the antis—-and their most radical element, the total gun prohibitionists—to be doing now. You can’t quibble about the meaning of the 2nd any more; it’s all about individual rights, just as we pro-rights, pro-freedom folks have said all along. So begin advocating repeal, or just sit down and shut up and let us enjoy our freedom.

Paul_GA

This is sort of funny…

“...Again, PT, what about Indian raids on frontier settlements?...”

Ah…what about the ‘frontier settlements’? Any idea why those Indians might have wanted to raid them?

Do you have any clue to the fact that the Indians were SLAVES as well, and likely to revolt against these people that had traveled across Oceans to come and enslave them and massacre them, and steal all of their stuff?

Whose homes were being invaded back then? Humm..the Indians maybe? But alas..they didn’t have any guns. I guess then didn’t need any until the invaders came and enslaved them and stole their stuff.

Paul_GA, here it is, all laid out for you.  Click http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

I’ll believe gun owners are interested in protecting our rights when I see them take on George W. Bush, who is busy taking away our rights.  Gun owners back Bush.  They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Lincoln and his ilk destroyed that concept when he refused to allow the States (who had a perfectly legal right to do so) to succeed. The Founders where intent on making union membership VOLUNTARY!

********************************

The right to secede was assumed to supersede the right to be viewed as a human being. The South’s addiction to slavery forfeited its right to make decisions like withdraw from the Union. 

There is a principle that YOUR rights cannot impinge on mine—your right to swing your fist stops before it hits my nose.  The rights of the citizens and kidnappees in bondage SUPERSEDES the right to withdraw.  And any nation that doesn’t acknowledge that is morally bankrupt.  As far as I’m concerned the South needed to be crushed and slavery wiped out just like the Nazis needed to be crushed 80 years later.

Again, PT, what about Indian raids on frontier settlements? What about present-day home invasions? Your theory that slavery is somehow responsible for the Second Amendment, as far as I’m concerned, is straight out of a popcorn machine.

All I can say is that with Dick Cheney in town, its a good thing there are no ducks in DC.

Slavery is why we have the Second Amendment.  Click http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

rhizome, please explain to me what these words mean:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”

Somehow, all your arguments and in the SOCUS’s 5-4 decision it was determined by the “originalists” that these 13 words don’t mean a fucking thing and can be ignored.  Are we now a Chinese restaurant menu—“One from column A, two from column B” when it comes to our Constitution?

13 words—and the activist, radical, anti-freedom cohort of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and sometimes Kennedy pretended they don’t exist to further the political ends of the Right.

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state….”  Why won’t they address them?

Slavery was not why we have the second amendment. I am guessing you read slavery into a lot of things. You should listen to Paul_GA. I have a feeling you will be one of the first ones screaming for help when someone kicks your down. Gun ownership is mainly about self-reliance instead of dependence on the government. If a lot of you people don’t want a gun, fine. Don’t you dare try to take away my right to own one! In America you have the right to say whatever you please. I, with my dangerous deadly gun, will always defend your right to say it. Have a nice day

So, are you implying that anyone who has a gun is a coward? If so, you must be dumber than your comment. Cowardice has nothing to do with anything when it comes to protecting your family. I suppose you could call the cops, and they would bring their guns. You are quick to say that people with guns are cowards. How will you protect your children from someone with a gun? Bravado? Harsh language? I’m guessing you would call the police; and in their cowardice, they will bring guns to protect you. Personally, I do not want to wait, locked up in my room, worrying about my children while the cops are on the way. If a cop can have a gun, so can I. If a cop can protect me, I can protect me and mine. The Army taught me all I need to know about how to use a firearm, so why should I ask someone else to do it for me? It takes a real brave man to want someone else to deal with his problems.
Have a nice day

Nuclear bombs don’t kill people. People kill people.  Nukes for everyone! That’s the logic of the NRA.

Paul_GA, the Iraqi fighters aren’t giving the U.S. trouble with handguns.  So, should roadside bombs be legal?  Say “yes.”  Have the courage of your convictions!  Don’t be like the Supreme Court.

OBAMA SOLD US OUT ON FISA AND WILL NOT GET A DIME FROM ME OR MY SUPPORT. HE HAS LIED ABOUT THIS SO WHAT ELSE IS HE GOING TO DO TO US? HE HAS PROVEN HIS WORD AND PROMISES MEAN NOTHING. HIS NEW SLOGAN.

OBAMA, JUST ANOTHER LIAR.

Darrell

Ever heard of asymmetric or 4th-Generation warfare, PT? That’s what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s why those people are not enslaved by their foreign invaders—-and never will be. The Afghans have a tradition of being armed, and just before the US invasion, Saddam passed out AK-47s like hotcakes.

I say handguns, rifles and such CAN defeat jet fighters and all the other apparatus that an “almighty” State has at its disposal. It happened in Vietnam; it’s going to happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. It merely requires the will and determination to fight and win, no matter what. Perhaps we Americans haven’t got it, or we’ve lost it somewhere along the line as we’ve urbanized and become weak and effete. But other people have it.

Guess what, ye latte-sipping laptop liberals, there are people on the left who DON’T think the State should have a monopoly on gun ownership. We’re regularly denigrated as ‘gun enthusiasts’ or ‘gun nuts.’ Do you consider a supporter of the 13th Amendment an ‘anti-slavery nut’? Do you consider a supporter of the First Amendment a ‘free speech nut’?Gun prohibitions have class ramifications, as those who are wealthy enough can hire private security, and the cops- the guard dogs of privilege- will always keep their guns. Only the rest of us will be disarmed. No thanks. Even in San Francisco, considered by all lazy pundits and journalists to be the most liberal city in the world, 42% of the voters rejected a handgun ban, knowing it was nothing more than grandstanding and showboating by the hair-gel-slathered boy mayor and a few addle-pated supervisors. It makes people feel good to be ‘against’ gun violence; it’s simply ill-considered self-beguilement. I for one do not look forward to the day when the cops will not   bother to think twice before busting down your door or mine, confidently assuming that no firepower will be there to greet them. Seeing as how both of the major party presidential candidates have affirmed the expansion of warrantless surveillance, seeing as how increasingly we’re being herded into ‘free speech zones’ far from the action whenever we wish to exercise our right to protest, I would ask you to detail what precisely YOU have done to effectively, tangibly stay the malignant growth of the authoritarian corporatist state before you smugly assure me that 200 million handguns are no match for F-16s. The Gestapo went door to door in the night; Hitler didn’t send fighter planes to swoop down on the German populace.

Do you honestly think that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths?
YES!!
I know I have posted this before this is part of the massive evidence for fewer guns.

Gun Death Decline Doubles Since Arms Destruction
Thursday, 14 December 2006, 9:04 am
Press Release: University of Sydney

Decline in Gun Deaths Doubled Since Australia Destroyed 700,000 Firearms

The risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has dropped twice as fast since the 1996 Port Arthur gun buyback, says a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

“Not only were Australia’s post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn’t happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws,” says study lead author, professor Simon Chapman.

“From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide,” said adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. “This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments.”

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: “There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws.” As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: “The new legislation’s first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.”
“On top of that, and despite the new gun laws not being designed to reduce gun suicide, domestic shootings, and the much less common ‘stranger danger’ individual gun homicides, firearm fatalities in the three largest categories – total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides – all at least doubled their previous rates of decline following the revised firearm legislation.”
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3% each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6% each year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4% (gun suicide) and 7.5% each year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.

By 2002/03, Australia’s rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.

The authors conclude that “The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.”

I did not think it was such a big secret that conservative judges legislate from the bench.Welcome to reality EJ.I guess all the rhetoric from the right about liberal judges legislating from the bench made you a believer.I have always felt with about 30 thousand deaths attributable to hand guns that what America needs is more guns on the streest in the house in the classroom in places of worship and especially in courtrooms.We can make our worldwide lead in deaths attributable to guns insurmountable.America number one.

It is uninteresting to see conservative activist judges legislating from the bench.  It is routine.

Majoritarian tyranny is one of the things our Constitution was intended to be a bulwark against.  It is interesting to see E.J. Dionne appeal to democracy (read: majority rules) when it suits his statist intentions.  Right is not a function of vote counting.

Of course armed people can be enslaved.  Your handgun is no match for their tanks and jets.  If armed people could not be enslaved, all they would need was knives.

The Nazis crushed the Dutch in three days.  The government is never going to allow you to own weapons that seriously threaten it.  Get caught with a rocket propelled grenade, and see what they do to you.

from JNagarya in a thread where the dissent was made by Scalia: The obvious point: not everyone knows—or respects the fact—that dissents ARE NOT THE LAW.  As result, they try to advance the view expressed IN THE DISSENT/S as if having legal weight, as if relevant.

and my response to him at the time: I hope in the future when the liberals are in the dissenting minority and folks on Truthdig want to have an intellectual discussion about the dissent, that you will stop them from having a discussion about “irrelevant” material. Make sure they dont advance those views expressed in the dissent!

So now, where are you, JNagarya? This is your chance.

PT, armed people can never be enslaved. That’s why the 2nd Amendment is about freedom—-not slavery. Sure, armed people can enslave unarmed people, but the solution to that problem is to be armed and willing to fight to prevent that. Weapons are the great equalizer.

Well, CY, at least for now we know where to locate most of the criminals who have run rough shod over the constitution these past eight years.  Most are still inside the WH.

Paul_GA, you just proved my point.  The Second Amendment was not about freedom—just the opposite.  It was about slavery.

On the contrary, PT, gun control was all about disarming “undesirables”. The very first gun-control law in what later became the USA, in Virginia in 1622, forbade any black, Indian or half-blooded person from owning a firearm. And under the black codes following the War Between the States, whites created restrictions on what sort of guns blacks could own. And New York City’s “Sullivan Act” kept foreign-born people from owning or carrying pistols.

My conclusion is: gun control is not about safety; that’s a lie. Gun control is about empowering the State at the peoples’ expense.

A good comparison is between Philadelphia (with its high murder rate and lax gun control) and New York (with its much lower murder rate and strict gun control).

Those who were behind the Second Amendment were not worried about oppression—just the opposite.  They were slaveholders who wanted to engage in oppression (slavery).

I don’t think you can pigeon hole the founders intentions with the second amendment to something like keeping down slave revolts.  That may have been a factor for some at the time, but it wasn’t the only reason, even for those of whom it was the main reason. At the time the colonies had just defeated a repressive government.  They were wary of being taken over from within or without.  It seems clear to me that what was meant of militia’s at the time were like the the minute men, people living at home, with guns, and being part of a local group of collective self-defense.  I think it is pretty clear that the original intent was for people to have guns in order to defend themselves from what ever threats might arise. It seems to me that there was a collective fear of government repression and control and they saw an armed populace as a defense against that.  I personally think its still the best defense against total tyrannical control.  I think the constitution does give citizens the right to keep arms in their home for defense. It doesn’t make sense to me that they would give the right and intend for it to be held by groups and not individuals, seeing as they were so wary of oppressive groups. 

All that being said, I think their is considerable room for gun regulation by municipalities.  I don’t see how a ban on handguns could really be seen as a clear infringement on the right to bear arms if rifles are still allowed.  On the other hand, it doesn’t seem that certified and trained handgun owners will have much of an impact on the murder rate.  I have a hunch that most murders are not carried out by certified owners with certified guns.  I think waiting periods, background checks, and certified training are all reasonable requisites for owning a gun that do not violate the constitution.  In the end this ruling is not likely to have much impact either way.

The Southern fear was that Northerners opposed to slavery might use the federal government to disarm the militias, as a way of undermining slavery (by lessening the South’s ability to deal with a slave revolt.)

The Second Amendment was not about freedom—just the opposite.  It was about slavery.

An Obama Presidency is imperative at this moment in time if only to help keep the balance of the Judicial System from being completely controlled by the conservative right!  The Right Wing has infiltrated & dominated every aspect of our government and has come to fruition in the decisions made by the Supreme Court this year.  Roe v. Wade is next on their agenda and the Democratic party better wake up!  Maybe Obama can get a new law passed that there shall always be a balanced, non-partisan Court at all times so we can never again be ruled by the radicals that control our judicial system now!

PT, as I said in another string, there was also the fear, by folks living on the frontier, of Indian raids. To me, the home invasion of today is no different from the slave revolt or the Indian raid of yore. So I want to be armed—-and I am.

And just like with Mike 112769, you can’t pigeonhole me as a right-winger. Fact is, I’m a libertarian, antiwar, and I voted for Ron Paul. I despise both of the two major parties as being part of the problem, not the solution, and my favorite dismissal of them comes from Shakespeare: “A plague on both their houses!”

The laws where your examples come from our different than America’s, except for New York. You must admit, these places don’t tolerate the blatant disregard for the law that the American criminal has. You aren’t taken seriously by the courts here until the judges know you by name! When the Law fails to protect a citizen, what should they do? By the time a person is able to contact the “guardians of the peace”, the danger is passed or the victim is dead. It doesn’t matter if you need to defend yourself from a criminal or an invading army. The availability of guns of ANY TYPE should not be denied a law abiding member of our society. If you choose to forfeit those rights through committing a felony, that is your choice. If you choose not to carry/own a firearm, that is your choice. I think it amusing that anti-gun people always call someone with a gun when they need help!
By the way, you also need a license to carry a gun, as well as fish.
Since you went off-topic a bit: just because I’m pro-gun doesn’t mean I’m anti-abortion. They are BOTH examples of a government putting their nose in where it isn’t needed. I agree it should be a woman’s INFORMED and MATURE choice. Just like owning a gun.                                  Basically I believe that in the end, the only one who will protect what is yours, is you.

The dissent by Justice Stevens rests on solid ground.  The majority opinion, made up of four radical Federalist Society jurists plus one swing vote conservative, have created an individual right that was never previously recognized in more than 200 years of American jurisprudence and is expressly at odds with the one instance in which the Court took up the issue of the Second Amendment in the 1930s.

But this is but one area of the law in which the Federalist Society fundamentalists have displayed an utter contempt for the principle of stare decisis.  This case entails a blatant example of judicial activism by the very same people who have consistently denounced such activism whenever it has appeared in the past to protect the rights of common citizens against the excesses of corporate America.

But hey, maybe we can still get around this little judicial coup.  Let them have their guns.  Ban the sale of bullets!

There are numerous actions of “we the people” which our constitution either specifically allows or forbids. Gay marriage, for example, is one of these. With regards to gun ownership by individual citizens or legal residents, the second amendment neither allows nor forbids such ownership. Both sides of the argument of the Supreme Court were therefore “correct” hence the Court should never have taken the case to begin with. Just as in the case of gay marriage, individual states and perhaps even counties or communities, except Washington D.C., can still but are not obliged to ban the ownership of guns by individuals. Now, notice that Senator Obama with his comments has sided with the Court’s majority. Evidently he does not understand our constitution.

mike112769, June 26 at 9:39 pm #

Do you honestly think that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths? If someone wants to kill you badly enough, they won’t wait to get a gun. The only ones who really fear guns are the police. State, local and federal government agencies have made so many things illegal that the police can now arrest you for damned near anything they please. Therefore, they don’t want guns readily available. As far as I’m concerned, the “right to bear arms” is one of the last things stopping America from becoming a total police state.
P.T.-It wasn’t only southerners who framed the constitution. The second amendment was about freedom from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic.
***************************************************

So….why is it that European nations have far lower homicide rates?  Why is it that New York City, with its ancient and highly restrictive Sullivan Law has, for a big city, one of the lower murder rates, regularly staying out of the Top Ten Murder capitals?

You need a license to drive, hunt, barber, or catch a fish.  At least Scalia recognized that felons and the mentally incompetent can be restricted from gun ownership.

And what about those first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment?  Do they simply not exist?  They don’t for the so-called “Originalists”—who worship the text of the Constitution—when it’s convenient for them.  These are the same men who don’t recognize that we have a right to privacy when it comes to abortion.  And Exxon has a right to destroy our environment through deliberately irresponsible money-saving behavior, with only limited liability.  Did you know the Exxon Valdez is STILL in service with a different name?

Unfortunately, most here have substituted their personal agenda for the facts.  IF you REALLY want to know the reasoning of the Founding Fathers, I suggest you read the writings of the founding fathers of this nation.  Their Federalist Papers give an extensive, detailed, and complete background for each and every Clause and Amendment in the Constitution – including the much misquoted and misunderstood 2nd Amendment.

You can find the text of their Federalist Papers on line using Google – Synoptically, they were UTTERLY OPPOSED to a strong military and standing armies and considered them a consummate danger to freedom and liberty. By design, they ONLY supported a SMALL cadre officer corps.

Their plan for protection of this nation was that EVERY INDIVIDUAL was to be armed and a member of the militia—an independent ad hoc irregular defense force. Thus, providing any invading enemy with a prickly porcupine of innumerable armed enemies that COULD NOT be defeated by any organized military forces. And, while those militia might not “win” a war in a conventional sense; eventually, the enemy would find any invasion to be too expensive to maintain.

They based this on their proven success in defeating the British (the superpower of their day) in the American Revolution. And, their stance was MORE than justified in that the defeat of the British was accomplished even though only about 20% of colonial residents actively supported the American Revolution. So it stood to reason that with an independent militia representing 100%, their stance was a sound military defense strategy.

Would such a plan work in today’s high-tech, smart-weapon world? You BET—regardless of the smoke screen provided by self-serving military-industrial government sources, THAT is exactly what defeated the USA in Vietnam and is defeating us in Iraq.

All you junior-league arm-chair history channel john waynes please spare me your comments. I KNOW first-hand what I am speaking about. I served from 8 aug 66 to 7 aug 72 including stints in the 101st Airborne and was an instructor at Ft. Lewis WA—my specialty was Techniques of Guerrilla warfare—so I do NOT want to hear ignorant comments from wannabee idiots whose only combat experience is fighting their wife for the remote control.

Hopefully, this clarifies the Second Amendment for ALL—bubble-headed, touchy-feely, doo-gooders and centralized, standing-army, military-industrial warfare, “super patriots”—both of whom are unwittingly undermining this nation and cutting their own throats as well as the rest of ours.

The idea that has been touted by the Far Right that judicial activism and legislation from the bench is a problem of the Left has just gone down the tubes.
Mr. Dionne rights points out that the Right and Far Right members of the Supreme Court are the ones for whom there is no law good enough unless it fits into an obscure and otherwise radical view of the Constitution based upon the idea that this is a “Christian” country and that only those for whom the system has “worked” are afforded the protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This being said, I am appalled at the temerity of the members of the court that spout the beliefs that this document is not living and should only be interpreted through a narrow framework and then only, through a prism of fundamentalist Christianity,
We are becoming a nation that no longer believes in the rule of law, we have an imperial president, King George II, for whom no law is good enough unless he can make a signing statement that contradicts the will of Congress and the people.
We have an activist Supreme Court that sees the Constitution through the prism of a continuing battle between the “forces of good and evil:”  those forces being Christian Fundamentalists and Christian Evangelicalism, and a do nothing Democratic controlled Congress that is folding like todays laundry to the will of Big Business and His Majesty King George II.
We are in danger, unless there is a citizens revolt, and actually that cannot happen as there is HR 1955 to contend with, of becoming a Third World country, a debtor nation that cannot pay its bills to China and India.
All this being said, the Constitution does not give the individual the right to bear arms unless he or she is a part of the well-regulated militia. Each state is to have at its disposal an armed force to repel invaders and to safeguard its freedom.
I must protest, the lack of intellectual foresight that these members of the Court have seen fit to use to justify an obviously ideological and inane position that can only lead to anarchy and disorder in the streets. One need only look at Florida’s “Castle Doctrine,” to see the results of an untrained and armed citizenry.
Within the last 6 months, there have been in Palm Beach County alone, numerous cases of people shooting into cars and houses to “protect” themselves from imminent and present danger.  A case which comes to mind, one which, I am acquainted with at least one of the principals, a mentally challenged person thought that he was at his house, tragically for him, he was not and trying to get his “father’s” attention, shook the door loudly, because it was locked. Unbeknown to him he was one block over and the owner of the house, behind a locked and bolted door, “feared for his life and his families safety, took a shotgun and shot this mentally challenged person through the locked and bolted door without calling the police.
Needless to say, the homeowner was acquitted on charges of manslaughter and released without any penalty.
This is the kind of thing that you will see much more of in the coming years, because of a wrong-headed and sorry ass interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution that was supposed to protect all citizens from the threat of invasion by another country not an individual in his locked and bolted home shooting a shotgun through a door and killing and otherwise innocent person for a mistaken identification of his home.
The blood of innocent people will be on the hands of those Supreme Court justices which voted for this insanity and chose a freedom which was not intended in the Constitution to be there for ideological and political reasons.

PT, I must agree with your take on the 2nd amendment, since there is so much else to the Constitution that supports it. No doubt this was largely intended because Southerners (and others) feared not only slave revolts, but the Indians as well. Those times were, quite simply, very violent.

Be that as it may, even THAT much of it was intended for militias, and not ‘individuals’. Otherwise, the term would not have been included in the original wording. So, militias, lynch mobs, Indian Killers…whatever…this allowed groups of Americans to respond to any threats from slave revolts, or other oppressed peoples. It allowed for them to arm themselves in order to re-capture runaway slaves, and all of the rest.

Who else was around to arm themselves against?

For the hidden (fear of a slave revolt) history of the Second Amendment, click http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm

If the conservative activist justices had the courage of their convictions, they would declare a right to bear all types of arms, instead of cherry picking certain arms.  However, they are completely unprincipled.  We knew that when they stole the 2000 election.

The Second Amendment was about slavery, not freedom.  In particular, it was Virginians behind the Second Amendment (the primary Constitution author James Madison at the behest of George Mason).

Do you honestly think that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths? If someone wants to kill you badly enough, they won’t wait to get a gun. The only ones who really fear guns are the police. State, local and federal government agencies have made so many things illegal that the police can now arrest you for damned near anything they please. Therefore, they don’t want guns readily available. As far as I’m concerned, the “right to bear arms” is one of the last things stopping America from becoming a total police state.
P.T.-It wasn’t only southerners who framed the constitution. The second amendment was about freedom from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic.

The Second Amendment was never about freedom—just the opposite.  It was about slavery.  Southerners feared a slave revolt.