Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms, while leaving room for governments to regulate gun ownership.
By 5-4, the court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun ban as an infringement on fundamental rights. The court's historic ruling reinterprets the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years, foreshadowing new challenges to local, state and federal gun laws.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
The court cautioned, however, that some gun laws will remain intact.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," Scalia wrote. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
The decision was the last to be announced for the 2007-2008 term and perhaps the most widely anticipated. Several dozen camera crews awaited reactions on the Supreme Court steps while pro-gun demonstrators carried signs such as one reading, "More guns equals less crime."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
"The opinion the court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons," Stevens wrote.
The court's majority ruling repudiates the long-held notion that the right to bear arms is strictly linked to militia service. The court concluded that it's an individual right untethered to military or government necessity. This will make it easier for gun rights advocates to resist new regulations and overturn existing laws.
The Second Amendment says, with all its archaic capitalizations:
"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."
The District of Columbia essentially has prohibited handgun ownership since 1976 except by retired district police officers. Rifles may be owned, but must be stored disassembled or with trigger locks.
The case known as District of Columbia v. Heller is named in part after Dick Heller, 66, a one-time security officer. He was one of six plaintiffs originally recruited to challenge the law, and the only one whom lower court judges deemed to have the legal standing necessary to proceed.
Chicago is the only other city that bans handguns outright; no state imposes a complete prohibition.
The case drew kibitzers from across the spectrum.
Police chiefs in Los Angeles, Seattle and Minneapolis, Minn., had urged the court to uphold the D.C. gun ban, citing the "devastation caused by handguns in American cities." Handguns were used in 81 percent of the homicides committed from 1990 to 1998, the police chiefs noted. San Francisco and Sacramento, Calif., and other cities added that an average of 737,000 violent crimes are committed annually with handguns nationwide.
District attorneys stretching from California's rural Calaveras County to urban Dallas County in Texas warned of a "wave of Second Amendment litigation."
On the other side, groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty and 250 members of Congress urged the court to strike down the gun ban. Texas and 30 other states, for instance, called the prohibition "markedly out of step with the judgment of legislatures" that have more permissive gun rules.
The court last addressed the fundamental Second Amendment issue in a 1939 case called United States v. Miller, in which justices upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns. That decision reasoned that owning a sawed-off shotgun wasn't reasonably related to the "preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
© 2008 McClatchy Newspapers
105 Comments so far
Show AllThere is no need to have Police Department maintains law and order according to the rules of law."Police mission is accomplished".
Now the law of the jungle will prevails. Might is right. The riches,the powerful will have carte Blanche to kill whomever they don't like. Shoot now and ask question later if need be.i.e,
You get shot in a neighborhood because you belong to a different ethnic group or for any other reasons.Evidence are tempered with.
"Dream team lawyers" will compel the court to exonerate their riches and powerful customer. And, no justice for the victims.
Why some one in their right mind [reptilian]want to carry a gun?
Guns are made to kill not to save life.Thus, whoever carrying a gun has the intention to kill.
Sometime gun are shot accidentally resulting in the death of the owner,a family member or a friend. Other time, the shooting is done willfully during senseless arguments.
Self defense is a poor justification because whoever want to rob you in the street or to your house will have their weapons ready before you will have a chance to pull yours.
There is no need to have Police Department to maintains law and order according to the rules of law."Police mission is accomplished".
Now the law of the jungle will prevails.Might is right.The riches,the powerful will have carte Blanche to kill whomever they don't like. Shoot now and ask question later if need be.
Dream team lawyers will be in court to compel the court to exonerate their riches and powerful customer.And, no justice for the victims.
Why some one in their right mind [reptilian]want to carry a gun?
Guns are made to kill not to save life.Thus, whoever carrying a gun has the intention to kill.
Sometime gun are shot accidentally resulting in the death of the owner,a family member or a friend.Other time, the shooting is done willfully during senseless arguments.
Self defense is a poor justification because whoever want to rob you in the street or to your house will have their weapons ready before you will have a chance to pull yours.
Let's all repeat that together:
PROBITION DOESN'T WORK.
I want to point this out again:
1. I don't think us owning guns makes us safer.
2. I don't think us owning guns will magically make us able to defend ourselves from the feds.
3. I don't own a gun, and I generally abhor "gun culture." Others have described it adequately.
However, I still am against gun control because:
1. Gun control doesn't work. It takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
2. The existence of guns does not lead to crime. Social inequality leads to crime.
As a result, I don't give one flying fuck if the second amendment relates to militias, I still am against gun control for libertarian and anarchistic reasons. Local communities can make up their own minds about it, but wherever I happen to live, I am going to argue against it. I will argue for gun education, safety measures, social justice instead.
I would never do heroine or meth, but I still don't think making these drugs illegal stops people from using them. Educated people don't turn to drugs simply because they have easy access to them, and educated people don't turn to violence because of easy access to firearms.
Make a fuss about machismo gun culture all you want,I will too.
But recognize the realities of what works and what doesn't. Prohibition doesn't work.
guntotinliberal June 27th, 2008 10:10 am -- 'How about helping me not misunderstand, then? I'm just a dumbass gun totin' enthusiast you know'
What you took to be "hysteria" concering the possiblility of nuclear arms possession by the citizenry was actually nothing more than a response to those who try to make the case that the 2nd amendment provides an absolute right subject to no regulatory constraint whatever.
There are a lot of good comments on both sides of the issue. And some stupid ones. While I agree that there are better ways of stopping crime than having or not having guns, it is irrelevant within the constitutional context what effect gun ownership has on crime.
To those of you who say to read the whole Constitution and that the second amendment is an individual right, there are distinctions between states rights and individual rights. My reading of the literal text of the amendment, while confusing, does seem to indicate that a militia is necessary for the security of the states and the reason for rights of individuals is for that purpose. The National Guards satisfy this right of the states and they supply the weapons to the citizenry. Therefore, this is a state right, not an individual right.
However, this is not completely convincing to me. In the historical context, it is also not clear to me what the framers had in mind. In reading the history, the Anti-Federalists were concerned that a strong central government would abridge the rights of the states. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists appear to have been concerned about federal and state governments abridging the rights of the people. I couldn't find a clear indication of what they decided and, therefore, if the second amendment was a state right or an individual right.
However, the driving force for right to bear arms was for protection against government, not protection against criminals or for hunting. In the current political climate, notwithstanding the correct interpretation, and while not planning to get weapons at this time, I think I'm happy to have an individual right for possible protection against the government or against terrorists.
wcdevins
"Gun owners are 300% more likely to die by gunshot wound than non-gun owners. Let's hope in a few years they all just kill each other off."
I could say something pithy, like "Let's hope you die of plague", but I just won't stoop low enough.
kelmer,
Maybe the people in your family are too stupid to own guns without shooting each other. Mine has used them for hunting for years, responsibly, safely.
The Swiss show us that it is a society that is violent, per se, not that guns create violence. Virtually every Swiss male of military age has an assault rifle issued to him. He keeps it and a full load of magazines at home, at the ready, waiting for his militia unit to be called up. Yet, somehow gun violence is extremely low.
Leave me and my family alone. Go after people committing gun violence. Attack the root causes. These are the societal problems you should be worried about.
Some of you don't like hunters. Fine, there are certain things I don't like, but I don't want them to be restricted because it is someone else's choice and it doesn't really affect me one way or the other. Live and let live.
~ KEM ~
How about painting those cars bright day-glow ORANGE, that hold owners with RPGs or other automated weapons of my destruction ( lets called it WMD ).
When pedestrians are carrying, perhaps an ORANGE band on their hats?
This way everyone else knows who to avoid, and who never to pick an argument, or attempt to steal from. Of course some clever people might feign having WMD, by falsely wearing the color of war, but so what ? If they want people to avoid them, it will better than carrying a sign that I'm a Leper, right ?
Namaste
"The racist pigs and FBI made as short work of them as they did the unarmed Gandhian pacifist movement of Dr King."
So what is your point, that extremes either way are fruitless? I'd probably agree with that.
"An armed militia keeping the government in line? Sure it will! That 9mm Glock will certainly going to keep the AH-64's, the AC130 specters with computer driven, independently trainable, 1,800 round per minute 25 mm (1.00 caliber) gatling guns, or the hellfire missle equipped Predator drones. Sure! Fight for your freedom!"
The Iraqi "insurgents" are doing a pretty good job of keeping the mighty US Military at bay with small arms and improvised explosives.
Obviously, they are incurring massive casualties doing so, but so what, if the end result is the same with the "unarmed Gandhian pacifist movement of Dr King"
I agree with lisa's argument. This desire for security in the form of gun is certainly some kind of false religion.
An armed militia keeping the government in line? Sure it will! That 9mm Glock will certainly going to keep the AH-64's, the AC130 specters with computer driven, independently trainable, 1,800 round per minute 25 mm (1.00 caliber) gatling guns, or the hellfire missle equipped Predator drones. Sure! Fight for your freedom!
Whay gives us freedom security are healthy democratic institutons. This gun-fetisism is just one more sick, sick, dysfunctional system.
Your capitalist boss can dirive you into the ground everyday, but at least you you got your guns and your Jesus - and at least you are white.
The capitalists keep the US worker cowed and helpless by promoting guns, infantile religion, and racism. It has worked brialliantly!
And dear Black Anarchist, (I like anarchism too) did you see even a single black person (in a 70% black city) protesting for their guns in front at the supreme court?
When whitey talks about their right to bear arms, what makes you think they are including you??? Remember what heppened the last time black people tried to assert their right to defend themselves through the Black Panther Party? The racist pigs and FBI made as short work of them as they did the unarmed Gandhian pacifist movement of Dr King.
"Heh heh. I guess I should have known that a reductio ad absurdum argument would be misunderstood by some 'gun totin' enthusiasts."
How about helping me not misunderstand, then? I'm just a dumbass gun totin' enthusiast you know.
(can't help being reminded of the Smug Environmentalist South Park episode, not that I don't support environmentalism...)
"Personally, I'd far prefer to live in a society where the horrific is not to be asked of me."
Big_Money - that place sounds great... where is it?
With all due respect, the folks from the pro-gun lobby are trapped in Pandora's box. Once you have many guns per capita, you're doomed to a life of defending yourself. Once you let everyone have one, you can't go back. We have some pretty big cities in Canada that are comparatively gun-free, and our homicide rates are shockingly low compared to those south of the border.
Defending yourself may well be a human right. If so, then it is a privilege to not have to. To never have to worry about if your kids will find your gun. To never have to worry about being able to get to it in time if you are threatened. To never have to worry about your gun being big enough. To never have to wonder who is armed and who is not.
I suppose you have a "right" to remove your own appendix, as well, in time of dire need. Personally, I'd far prefer to live in a society where the horrific is not to be asked of me.
guntotinliberal June 27th, 2008 8:32 am -- 'The absurd hysteria that people will bear nuclear arms b/c of the 2nd Am. is just as ridiculous as the absurd hysteria that habeas corpus rights are somehow dangerous to America.'
Heh heh. I guess I should have known that a reductio ad absurdum argument would be misunderstood by some 'gun totin' enthusiasts.
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.
"I have an idea. Let's call it Bullet DNA. "
And Spear DNA, and Club DNA, and Knife DNA. I guess we've already got fist and teeth DNA...
I have a better idea. Let's address the root causes of violent crime in this country.
The absurd hysteria that people will bear nuclear arms b/c of the 2nd Am. is just as ridiculous as the absurd hysteria that habeas corpus rights are somehow dangerous to America. Neither stands up to critical analysis.
There are already regulations in place to keep most regular citizens from owning more powerful weapons like machine guns and such.
Focusing on guns is not the answer. If we reform drug laws, address social inequality, improve public education, and take what belongs to We the People back from the rich filth who stole it from us, violent crime will go down.
I had been very dis-pleased with our Supreme Court after their decision
on the 2002 Florida election mess where they ruled against Gore and put
Bush into the Presidency. But now I'm glad they are a Republican majority.
Consider this: Say for just one example that your job is at the Pentagon
and you drive to work every day. What happens if you should get into a vehicular argument with another driver and it turns into a "Road Rage" situation, and you don't have a hand gun in your car to protect
yourself? What if the other person is not of your race?
There are other good examples of why it is necessary for one to always
have a hand gun ready for self defense. Some are: You and your
wife or a girlfriend are leaving a nightclub and someone insults her,
or some dufus jumps his or her car into a parking spot you have been
waiting for and that turns into an argument. "Be prepared for almost
anything" is the motto. If everyone was packing, 9-11 would never have happened.
My preference is a sawed off 12 gage pump, loaded with double O buck
loads, but they aren't legal. A hand gun is easier to conceal and an
Army surplus Colt 45 with Plus-P loads is better than nothing.
Ya know, if all school teachers were "deadly weapons safety trained"
and allowed to "carry", there would be a lot less problems in our
schools. That type of a program could be carried over for all employees
of banks, jewelery stores, convience stores and fast food outlets too.
Just think of the reduction in our crime rates. Bankers should be
allowed to have the 45 calibre Tommy guns. That is a really good gun
which would be very effective over time as a crime stopper. Some day,
RPGs and the inexpensive Chinese made AK-47s may be legal. You don't
hear much about bank robberies and muggings in Baghdad.
"The founding fathers never anticipated the advent of mass production of firearms- some 60 years after they wrote the Second Amendment."
Really? Can you back that up with some documentation, or are you just putting words in their mouths? Personally, I think you are selling them WAY short. These men were pretty far ahead of their time.
I was at a recent graduation party where one side of the family was really into hunting. Some of these guys have 15 or 20 guns. Turkey guns, deer rifles, 12 and 20 gauge shotguns.... But NONE of them owned a handgun, automatic, or assault rifle. NONE of them carries a rifle or gun in his car unless he's going hunting. NONE of them keeps a pistol under the pillow. Everything is carefully locked up with bullets and firing mechanism removed.
That is fine with me, if a little boring, but what does the right to bear arms have to do with thousands of handguns being purchased in cities like Philly each year and going straight to criminals and punks? Killing citizens and policemen.
EARHT TO "KELMER"..UHHHHH.."MISTAKES" THAT'S YOUR LOGIC FOR TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY? THAT IS YOUR REASONING?...WELL GUESS WHAT ASSHOLE...DEMOCRACY..FREEDOM..IS FUCKING DANGEROUS...A "MISTAKE" COULD HAPPEN IN A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAKING A CHEMICAL COMPUND...WHOOPS..KA-BOOM..IT'S HELLO JEEZIS...SO..UHHH..WHAT?..NO MORE INSTRUCTIONS? UHH..KELMER..YOU ARE A FOOL..YOU ARE A RIGHTS HATER,..FOR SOME REASON..A HAIR SPLITTER...A PERSON WHO SIMPLY DOES NOT..LIKE SO MANY OF THE GUN HATERS..UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC TENET OF FREEDOM......IT AINT FREE...
SEE..KNOWLEDGE..IS..POWER...AND A FREE PEOPLE..FREE TO ACQUIRE AND UTILIZE BOOKS..GUIDES..FREE TO LEARN...IS A DANGEROUS THING..VERY..VERY..VERY...DANGEROUS..SO..BY YOUR LOGIC..ANYTHING THAT IS DANGEROUS..OR THAT COULD CAUSE A TRAGIC ACCIDENT..OR COULD BE MISUSED..OR WHICH IF MISYAKES ARE MADE...CAUSE DEATH..OR HARM...BY YOUR STANDARDS...THAT IS JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE..WELL..UHHHH..THERE'S ALWAY'S RUSSIA..THERE' ALWAY'S SOME NIGHTMARISH DICTATORSHIP THAT AGREES WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY..AND THINKS EXACTLY AS YOU DO...AND WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE YOU...SO GO...
PEOPLE WHO "THINK" LIKE "KELMER" REALLY BOTHER ME FOR A COUPLE SIMPLE REASONS..THEY BOTHER ME BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOULY NOT ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP...BUT SOMETHING ELSE..AND IT'S PERSONAL..WHATEVER IT IS..BECAUSE GASOLINE IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN A GUN..AND THE LIST IS LONG..SO IS YOUR CAR FOR THAT MATTER..HOW MANY PEOLE ARE KILLED EVERY DAY BY DRIVERS? HUNH? AND YET YOU DON'S SEE THESE HATERS CLAMORING FOR AN END TO AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP...NOPE!..SO IT IS..REALLY JUST ANOTHER "US V. THEM" TRIP...AND THEY MAKE ALLOT OF NOISE..IDIOTS..
Anyone..ANYONE..posting here..NOT in favor of this decision...is a FOOL..sorry to be "Personal" about it..but..well..that is that..
First and foremost, the Constitution...ALL OF IT..YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE..BECAUSE YOUR IDEAS ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP..ARE ANOTHERS IDEAS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH..PERIOD..IT S THAT SIMPLE...YOU ARE FOR PERSONAL LIBERTY..AND THE DANGERS THAT ENTAILS..OR YOU ARE AGAISNT PERSONAL FREEDOM..AGAIN..PERIOD!
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE IDIOTS...NOT BY A LONG SHOT..THERE ARE GOING TO BE..'CASUALTIES'..BECAUSE THE REALITY IS QUITE BASIC..THAT FREE PEOPLE...ARE FREE TO MAKE TRAGIC MISTAKES..KNOWLEDGE IS POWER..WOULD YO BAN THAT? I CAN MAKE MY OWN GUN..HAVE MADE TWO..AM MAKING A THIRD..THE MUSKET WAS USED BY THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY...IT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON...
LIBERTY IS DANGEROUS..AND YOU ASSHOLES THAT THINK THE RIGHT TO GUN OWNERSHIP IS NOT ACCEPTABLE..WELL..HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF I TOLD YOU THAT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT? YOU SHOULD HAVE LIMITS PLACED ON YOUR SPEECH BECAUSE YOUR SPEECH IS DANGEROUS TO THE CONSTITUTION..HMMMM?...CAN YOU UNDERSTAND? YOU TAKE ALL THE RIGHTS...OR NONE...PICK AND CHOOSE AND IT'S OVER...WE ARE ALREADY SEEING HE RESULTS OF HAIR-SPLITTING THE CONSTITUTION...NOT GOOD..NOT GOOD AT ALL...SO WAKE UP..AND CANADIANS?
HEY..CANADIANS? GUESS WHAT? THE "MILITA" IS...THE CITIZENRY...WE ARE ALL..MILITIA...AND CANADA..LIKE THE U.K. IS NO LONGER IN ANY POSITION TO ACCUSE ANYONE OF INSANE LEGAL REALITY..THE U.K. COULD HAVE SAVED ALLOT OF LIVES BY SIMPLY JOINING HITLER...WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? BRITAIN IS A POLICE STATE UNLIKE ANY IN HISTORY...MAKING EAST GERMANY AT IT'S PEAK LOOK ...FRIENDLY...WHAT IS IT NOW? 3 CAMERAS FOR EVERY ONE BRIT? IT'S CLOSE TO THAT..AND CANADA..JEEZIS..YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS...SO..WAKE UP GUN HATERS...FOR YOUARE IN EFFECT...RIGHTS HATERS...IT IS A RIGHT..AND IF YOU VALUE ANY OF THEM..THEN VALUE ALL OF THEM...OR GO AWAY...
AWESOME VICTORY..FINALLY..SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE..THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE TOOLS...TO TRY..TO DEFEND YOURSELF...THANK THE FORCE OF BENEVOLENT INTELLIGENCE...
LIVE FREE OR DIE..AND FUCK THE CENSORS..THE RIGHTS HATERS..THE HYPOCRITES..FUCK EM AND FEED EM FISH HEADS..
And Obama agrees with them. And thinks child rapists should be sentenced to death. So much for change - he's just another Amerikkan politician on the make.
All Iraqi's keep a machine gun at home. They are a very advanced society.
Once again, an issue which has no easy answers. At the age of 17, my father was shot to death. Yet I still believe that each individual should have the right to decide whether to own a gun or not. It's not guns that lead to killing; it's some other reason, and a gun is an easy way to kill - rather than clubbing someone to death.
In the end, I feel that with a proper education of firearms and safe-keeping of firearms in a home, are a small way to alleviate some of the mistaken or unintentional killings.
I also believe that mitigating the problems the USA has with the distribution of wealth and access to a quality education, would go a long way towards forming a society with less of a need to consider murder.
As things stand today in the US, if I were still living there I would certainly want to have a firearm or two in my place of living. True, in the end the government and its mercenaries win the issue of firepower, but at least you can do something if your home is invaded by the government or one of its hired guns.
Fortunately, I live in a culture where killing is not seen as a way to settle issue or arguments. Here, people talk to each other. Communication is used rather than confrontation. For whatever reason, the USA is enamoured with violence and being physically powerful or unassailable is viewed as something desireable and to be admired. It's as if many people in the USA see the world as it is portrayed in comic books - with our Supermans, Ironmans, and Batmans. It is still a society where might makes right.
But the constitution is pretty clear on the right to bear arms. Let each city, county, or state decide what the gun laws should be, rather than the Federal Government. Keep it local.
I have an idea. Let's call it Bullet DNA. Every bullet manufacturer should assign lot numbers to its bullets. They can dope the lead in each lot with trace elements that could easily be analyzed by a spectrograph. Different elements could represent ones, tens... millions, and different concentrations could be used for the numbers 0 - 9. A mathematician might have a better idea.
The bullets would be traced by bar codes from manufacture through distribution and sale. When someone gets shot, the cops take the bullet (even a fragment) to the lab and within minutes they would have a list of people who purchased that lot of bullets. It would also quickly match a fired bullet with bullets not yet fired in a suspect's gun.
People would have a grace period to trade in their non-doped bullets for the new ones, and it would eventually be illegal to have untraceable bullets. Is there any reason why traceable bullets violates the right to bear arms? You have the right to own a gun, but we will know who bought the bullets if you shoot someone.
hey poser_pete:
Gun owners are NOT losers
They are in fact happier
In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ... The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns. According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco - as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group. Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Gun owners are 300% more likely to die by gunshot wound than non-gun owners. Let's hope in a few years they all just kill each other off.
Exactly Right Brother Howard, Praise Jesus!!
It is a God-Given Right, and every chickenpluckin' American should prepare their children to support local Christian Militias in Service to President McCain, as written in Scripture and with the help of his hot young wife.
With Smith & Wesson stock up 7%, God has blessed the DC black neighborhoods with the means to defend themselves against the Muslim Heathens and others with different opinions. The Lord Provides!
The right to keep and bear arms was correctly interpreted by Justice Antonin Scalia and correctly stated in paragraph 3 of this article. Bravo!! At the time of the writing of the constitution the American people had recently thrown out a corrupt dictatorial and authoritarian government that was remote from the people and not responsive to them. Without access to arms these Americans would NOT have been able to hold the revolution, and our country would not exist today. Disarming the people leaves them helplessly at the mercy of what should be a benign government...... but often proves to be a malignant bureaucracy that oppressed rather than serving the people. Our recent.... brush with Fascism.... which is not yet past.... drives home the importance of an armed population. We may well eventually have to take up arms against our own government as the patriots who founded this country did. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the tree of liberty required fertilization consisting of the blood of patriots and tyrants to keep it alive...... this pithy saying ...... not quite the same as my paraphrasing of it.... is something worth remembering. It is fundamental to the roots of our nation.
It is worth mentioning that the founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence begins with the words:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, That all men are created equal and endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.....and AMONG THOSE RIGHTS are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
It is very very clear from these words that we derive our rights NOT FROM GOVERNMENT, but from our creator. And the word "AMONG" makes it clear that these are only a very few of the rights granted from above.
The right to be secure in ones home and protect one's family and one's person from harm is fundamental, and no law on earth can set aside this God Given Right. If the means of protection involves weapons, it is your right and mine to have weapons available........... Period. It is beyond comprehension to me that some folks seem to feel that depriving honest law abiding people of weapons could make them safer and more secure. It is simple minded insanity!
Howard
Why not continue down this road - let every American own 2 or 20 guns, to his heart's desire? But restrict the amount of ammo sold or distributed, maybe one round per individual. You know, kind of a Barney Fife solution. Just a thought...
Gun owners are so idiotic. They say prevent Columbines by arming everyone--but if you do that it increases the possibility of accidents and misfires(earth to gun nuts: humans make mistakes).
I think the NRA HQ needs a Columbine style massacre--someone with grenades and all the stuff they say people should have.
But being as stupid and anti-life as they are, they would just bury the dead and get bigger guns. lol
Let's hear it for Judicial Activism! Down to Scalia declaring in the face of the language of the 2nd Amendment what it "actually means." That's about as bold a statement of judicial activism as we've heard:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority."
vs. the Second Amendment:
"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."
Scalia Makes Law
"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."
Militia: A citizen army, as distinct from the regular army. The armed citizenry as distinct from the regular army. - The American Heritage Dictionary
Congratulations to the Supreme Court justices who upheld constitutional law with respect to the "security of a free state"!
I think it was Camus who suggested that the story of Pandora's box might have been misinterpreted. 'Hope' was left at the bottom of the box after all kinds of afflictions had been loosed. Camus suggested that 'hope'was the worst of mankind's afflictions, not a redemption from all the others.
I wonder if possession of a pistol, or maybe a few pistols by an American has him believing that somehow this makes him a free being? Even when all other citizen rights in the constitution have been stripped away?
Over time I've seen on these messages boards, and on other message boards, on this 2nd Amendment topic, comments that run something like,'By golly we pistol owners should get together and show the federal government what-for! The federal government better watch out for all us pistol owners.'
But somehow I don't think that the possession of pistols by individuals who have no intention, or the wherewithal, to get organized bothers the well armed government of the USA.
It could be that a federal centralizing government is perfectly happy to strip all other parts of the USA constitution except for the 2nd Amendment, because they know that millions of American gun owners believe they are free if they have their pistols...even tho all else smacking of freedom, and the ability to act like citizens in a self governing democracy are gone.
In other words, allowing pistol ownership allows people to pretend to be free, and keeps them from paying attention to other issues.
(Two topics that get people fired up, guns and Israel.)
Don't read to much into this case; it only affirms that some people have a "right" to possess and carry arms, sometimes.
Here's a little clip disproving the MYTH that crime rates go down when the ordinary citizens are disarmed.
I haven't hunted or fired any weapons in 10 years,but if you decide to enter my home in the middle of the night while my family is sleeping you'd be well advised to announce your intentions.
A few years ago in a town not far from here Lock Haven PA a WWII veteran was hacked to death by a girl {with a hatchet} that then robbed him of the little money that he had so she could purchase some crack cocaine that may or may not have been brought into your lovely country by the government drug dealers.
Hatchet Control Laws?
What drugs are the rest of you on that leads you to these distorted conclusions?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8073244168098391436&q=Gun%20con...
With this HISTORIC decision, good ol' Chickenpluckin' Christian Militias will have the power to protect our children from the Heathens in all forms:
1) The Islamo-Fascists
2) The Liberals and Progressives with their so-called "Multi-Partisansip"
3) The Atheists who cross off "In God We Trust" from currency using a Sharpie pen
4) The "educated" professors from Princeton and Cornell
5) The Treacherous techno-geeks and their sophisticated software for de-encrypting and reversing the influence of Main Stream Media
Through JESUS, these AXIS of EVIL will be BANISHED from GOD'S CREATION!
To Brian Brademeyer June 26 6:57 pm:
It's not that the majority five are Catholic, it's that they have such little penises.
Laughing my ass off!
To opeluboy et.al. June 26 7:42 pm:
...those of you who see no difference between a McCain administration and an Obama one, think SCOTUS.
And I say, once again, that the Demo-corporate Senate can pass on any (or all) of McBush's nominees.
Someone looked over Justice Thomas's shoulder, read the notes for his opinion, reported back. Here's what he saw.
"Give everybody a gun. Let people shoot each other, the more the merrier. I never liked them anyway."
The working class is already armed and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is not that they are armed, but that they are fighting for the interests of the ruling class.
This whole issue is a class question. As soon as the working class comes to realize this the ruling class will disarm them. Only mercenary, cooperate army's, will be aloud the weapons they need, to keep the rest of us from getting what we need to survive.
Good point, Samson (June 26 2:32 pm)
If some of you were to read the Federalist Papers, you would see the evolution of the 2d Amendment. It had everything to do with militias and nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights.
There is no Constitutional right for individuals to own and bear arms outside of service in a State militia. I mean, come on! Think about it. In the latter half of the 18th century in the semi-wilderness that was the nascent USA, everyone had firearms. It would be as if we were to draft an amendment today that would guarantee everyone the right to, I don't know, own and maintain automobiles. The framers did not see a need to specify an individual's right; they did see the need to protect State militias from an aggressive centralized federal government.
Full disclosure: I am a resident of the colony known as Washington, D.C. In addition, I think jurisdictions should have the right to decide for themselves if they want strict or loose gun control laws, provided they mee federal minimums (background checks, registration, etc.). Personally, I think some people should be able to own and keep firearms. Just not in D.C.
Euarto Gullible June 26th, 2008 7:41 pm -- 'If the Bush Administration calls off elections, declares martial law and, and decides to round you all up into concentration camps, what are you going to do without guns?'
Or with them, for that matter? Do you really expect to face down the full weight of the U.S. government and a declaration of martial law with a disorganized bunch of civilians toting handguns and hunting rifles? You'd have about the same chance as that Chinese guy who stood in the path of an oncoming tank with no gun at all. If the situation is actually allowed to arrive at that point, you'd better hope that you can convince the trained and organized U.S. military to join your 'citizen militia'.
The Second Amendment is the Achilles' Heel of the Bill of Rights, and it spouts a ceaseless river of blood. The social and technological "improvements" in the intervening centuries have elicited a high price, and it's getting steeper by the day.
Forget the facile talking points-- the dubious rationalizations about the necessity of defending ourselves from King George and the redcoats, or the World Government black helicopters, or the predatory street thug or burglar.
And don't dwell on sentimental bromides lauding the stout hinterlanders who value guns to put food on their family.
All of the above float like spinning lily pads on a pond of technical ecstasy: happiness IS a warm gun. As a fellow fanatic and user of mood-altering substances, I recognize a buzz when I see one. And I recognize a buzz culture when I see one, too. Guns have it all! They confer primal, brute power-- they are, after all, machines cunningly designed to violently propel finely-engineered pointy projectiles that wreak physical destruction on a target. Yet they're also esthetically attractive, fruits of generations of fine engineering and craftsmanship. Similar to the motor vehicle mania; there's room for a vast range of interests and budgets.
Granted, there are desperate occasions where it's not exactly FUN to use a firearm. But trust me, if guns weren't attractive and fascinating, there would be no passionate, principled outcry to preserve the right to bear arms.
Even the dumbest, least imaginative hunter in the world pats the barrel of his gun between shots, figuratively speaking. It's impossible to read a comments thread on this issue without sensing that those expressing Perfectly Good Common-Sense Reasons for owning and using firearms are High on Guns. And feel the understandable rage and fear evoked by those who seek to Harsh Their Buzz.
I'm not being sarcastic-- or at least, I'm not sure that I am. Gun nuts love and need their beautiful, superbly functional firearms the way I love and need a fat joint of sinsemilla, or a bowl of... no, it's too painful. Because MY drug(s) of choice isn't likely to be endorsed by the Supreme Court.
So we WILL have our guns! And gun manufacturers will have an ever-expanding, juicy market to inspire infinite diversity and innovation in firepower, and a thousand tangential products to enhance the gun-owning experience. And not a day will pass that someone isn't accidently maimed or killed by all of the unforseen ways that guns shoot themselves off. Probably lots of someones, though I won't stop to Google for statistics.
And as far as imposing Law and Order by gun proliferation-- even if the Good Guys are as heavily armed as the Bad Guys, the violence, bloodshed, and death will rise in direct proportion to the popularity of firearms. The arguments-- if they may charitably referred to as such-- that more guns will lead to a safer, less violent, increasingly just society are so plainly the product of Buzzed Thinking that it brings a lump to my throat.
I only wish that the Founders had had the foresight to include an Amendment in the Bill of Rights forever exalting and safeguarding the Right of the People to Toke Up at Will.
You pursue YOUR happiness, I'll pursue MINE.
I hate to start this, knowing what I'm in for on this site these days, but those of you who see no difference between a McCain administration and an Obama one, think SCOTUS.
Here's the second 5-4 decision in just the past couple weeks, the first being barely hanging on to habeus corpus.
The next president will likely appoint 3 new judges — for life. Imagine, please, McCain's choices (he just loves Scalia) and just what that could do to all of us.
You fools who are blaming the guns and want to change our Constitution will remove the last safeguard against our government. If the Bush Administration calls off elections, declares martial law, and decides to round you all up into concentration camps, what are you going to do without guns? Write your Congressmen? "Oh, that's not going to happen. Give me a break," you say. All of you, with your infallible trust in the government, the same flimsy and corrupt entity that has enabled corporate takeover of foreign policy, perpetual war and the destruction of our economy. It is the same federal government you rail against all day long here on CD, and yet you would willingly hand them the last protection that prevents us from being openly enslaved?
The Founding Fathers CLEARLY understood that an armed public would keep the government in check, which is why they were as clear as possible with the language stating the "right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They realized that efforts WOULD be made to infringe that right. I understand that many people who are for banning guns are good intentioned nonviolent people, but they don't understand the inherent dangers of giving the state absolute power.
They also do not understand that all it takes is some major event, such as a terror attack or natural disaster to swamp the resources of law enforcement, and turn regular American neighborhoods into a war zone. There are large and armed gangs with clearly drawn up plans to capitalize on disaster, and owning a gun to protect you and your family is not the redneck thing to do. It's the smart thing to do.
People who work in law enforcement understand this. Big-city liberals who spend their time chatting only with other college educated middle/upper class folks at the coffee shop get this fantastic idea in their heads that gun control is a good idea. These people rarely have exposure to violent and dangerous people, of which there are more than you'd like to think. They can live in their nice imaginary middle class world where people are all good and idealistic, and we can all put down our guns and grow bean sprouts on some new age communal farm in the sky, but the truth is the somewhat unsafe world you live in now is a thin net of law enforcement holding back a wall of violent thugs. Due to a hurting economy, you can bet to see cuts in law enforcement, and see even more people turn to crime than ever. At no time in modern history is gun ownership more critical than now.
I just can't believe that there are so many people here on CD who think that the average American who undergoes a criminal background check and is cleared for the purchase of a gun is more dangerous than our Federal Government, which regularly arms some of the nastiest terrorists in the world, and sends our own sons and daughters to get killed to clear the way for oil companies.
Guns are only paper weights without bullets. Check your "gun nut" sites for the latest attempt of the anti-gun lobby to regulate ammunition.
I guess when Chris Rock stated:
"Fuck gun control, they should have bullet control. If a bullet costs $5000 there would be a lot less people getting shot"
The anti-gun lobby was listening.
in my opinion, GUNS would be better if they were GNUS............
This isn't over folks. This is going to be revisited again within 10-20 years (if not sooner) count on it. Probally when the murder rates from gun crimes start rising in the city's from various factors. One of them being gang violence.
guntotinliberal June 26th, 2008 3:27 pm -- '"…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's about as black and white as it gets.'
dablackanarch June 26th, 2008 2:12 pm -- 'the one thing that all governments fear is a informed and armed citizenry.'
I agree and, since that right is constitutionally absolute and unrestricted, I say that the 'armed citizenry' should have its own nuclear arms. Then the people might actually get the fear and respect for their sovereign will that it was intended to create in their governing authorities. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to be doing so well these days in achieving its intended purposes.
Of course that might also have something to do with the 'informed citizenry' part of it and bearing those arms might require require some combined family effort. Nevetheless, a few nukes tucked away in every home would certainly tend to concentrate the minds of any government on who's really in charge. And it's clearly within the rights of any militia to possess the most modern and destructive arms available without governmental infringement of any kind.
Or, to put it another way, absolutisms tend to invite reductio ad absurdum responses. I doubt very much that "The People's" governement, including its judicial branch, would ever allow the citizenry to pose any real threat to its authority and control over them.
no gun control until the cops drop their weapons too
It's not that the majority five are Catholic, its that they have such little penises.
I once heard a man exclaim that if you don't have the right to protect yourself (2nd Amendment) then tell me what good are any of the other unalienable rights.How are you going to exercise them if the government says you can't and by the way if you attempt to exercise your rights we(the government) will jail or kill you.
Just study Stalin , Hitler, Mao or any other socialist "we are here to protect you governments". They ALL disarmed the populace to free them of their rights.
This is an ancient tactic .In the Roman Empire the serfs were not permitted to own knives.
If you are not willing to defend yourself, well that's your funeral BUT you have NO RIGHT to tell me that this corrupt fucking government is going to "protect" me so I can't protect myself.
I am baffled at how many SHEEPLE still cling to the" Let's give all our power to defend ourselves to BIG BROTHER"
Did any of you every read Animal Farm or 1984 or ANY of Orwell's warnings against giving away your rights to governments that will then "protect"you?
What Universe are you people from? Communism is a failed experiment.
Go to Alternative Radios site http://alternativeradio.org/
find Arundhati Roy purchase the lecture:
Brave New India : Uprisings
She will explain to all you socialists how well Marx's Communism is working right now in India.
Until you educate yourselves please stop your attempts at taking away ANY of my rights that the government has acknowledges are NOT YOURS TO TAKE.
It might seem a bit off the topic ,but as I see it YOU and I are either responsible for our own actions or we're not.
If someone is proven guilty of murder be it by gun ,bomb or stone then it seems as though THAT PERSON should be dealt with accordingly .
Well, now the Supremes can drop the opening clause of the 2nd amendment --- who needs it!
Guns for everyone!!!
This is another right-wing vote for violence ---
Notice how violence and abuse of women and children rises with
the rise of the right ---
Actually, this right-wing court should be jailed for what they're
doing to the Constitution and Bill of Rights ---
Corporate - America --- enjoy it!
And in all this high minded blather about constitutional rights, nobody notices that many countries, free of this mad obsession with owning a handgun, have much lower gun crime rates and much lower murder rates than the USA. Look not at them, though. That would be unAmerican. Americans love guns more than life itself.
fakedemocracy;
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st amendment, they did not forsee mass communication and mass media.
When they wrote the fifth and sixth amendments, they did not forsee global terrorist organizations commiting perfidy and mass murder to order to blackmail nation-states.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
...except for federal criminals or mentally-ill ... that's our government!
The Second Amendment was writen in 1789.
In 1789- there was hardly such a thing as a hand gun. There were rifles- and they where hand made and very expensive. This being so, only a rich minority could afford to own them. They generally kept them locked up down at the local armory as well.
In 1849, Colt Co. was founded. They were successful at miniaturizing the design of firearms. They also invented mass production (Ford did not invent mass production)- thereby drastically reducing the cost of manufacturing a firearm and simultaneously making large volume production possible. They were also a capitalist company and profit driven. Now that they could make lots of weapons- they needed people to buy them- so they advertised. This is about the time that the NRA came into play- helping companies like Colt advertise and lobby for gun ownership for every man (except blacks, foreigners, and Mexicans of course). Soon there was a proliferation of concealable weapons everywhere- and crime and murder rates skyrocketed.
The founding fathers never anticipated the advent of mass production of firearms- some 60 years after they wrote the Second Amendment. They also didn't anticipate the miniaturization of guns and the drastically lower cost of owning a firearm. They wrote they second amendment to give themselves the opportunity to maintain an organized militia- no matter what BushCo. Supreme Appointees think. The founding fathers were not stupid guys- they never would've put forward a Second Amendment that would one day lead to school children gunning down their classmates on a regular basis. The amendment is out of date and out of touch with the current reality. It is a disgrace that the highest court of the land is today siding with Gun Manufacturing Corporate Profiteers- instead of your own children who may never get to enjoy their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness because one of their troubled teenage classmates blasted a hole in your child's head.
I would just like to point something out. The amendment says the right of the PEOPLE will not be infringed. NOT the right of the STATES. Read the whole Constitution, not just the 2nd amendment. Crap, just look at the 10th amendment. Doesn't the 10th amendment conclude with 'the states OR the people'? Doesn't this demonstrate they are seperate entities?
guntotinliberal-
right. the claiuse you quote does seem clear. By itself. but that is preceeded by
the main clause reads "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state...." which is why the question has been so hotly debated. This suggests that the guns will be used in a well regulated militia, not by every John Wayne wannabe in town.
I stole this off of a gun-nut website, but it makes pretty good sense to me:
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
I agree with leftk that it is silly for right-wingers to carry on about constitutional rights, and only really pay attention to this one.
I still don't agree that gun control makes communities safer. I think you really hit the nail on the head leftk. It is a system plagued by militarism, vast economic inequalities (as a result of free market devotion), irrational and xenophobic fears, and the destruction of communities via globalization that is at the root of violent crime. I think we really need to point out that globalization is at the root of community degradation, which in turn leads to gangs, religious cults, and other destructive subcultures -- not to mention increases in suicide, mental illness, and addiction.
I too break with libertarians on these issues, mainly because I don't see corporations and markets as having the same rights as individuals. Corporations are power structures and should be feared as much as any government.
I also feel the repeal of drug prohibition would do more than gun control to address violent crime. (as Shawn points out.) But that's still not going after the root of the problem mentioned above.
Let's not forget that, while Prohibition may not be the "biggest disaster in American history," it still led to organized crime and a quadrupling of the murder rate. Let's also not forget that prohibition has never led to a decrease in what it prohibits. Gun control will not take guns out of the hands of criminals. It will allow criminals to profit by selling guns to other criminals.
As someone mentioned earlier, take away guns, people will use knives, take away knives, they'll use clubs. As long as people are still driven to make bad choices as a result of their social settings, violent crime will continue to exist at destructive levels.
We do have to recognize, however, that even if our society was one devoted to community, peace, justice, and sustainability, violent crime would still exist because people aren't perfect and we make mistakes. There would just be substantially less of it.
Barn Burner, you're the kind of idiot 'liberal' that gives all of them a bad name. No one is advocating shooting their own kids or any dumb shit like that. As a matter of fact, banning weapons means less training on how to use them properly and thus, will tend to cause the very accident you described in your weak ad hominem.
As for fending off the military, I don't think that will be a problem, as the vast majority come from the poorer elements of our country. It's the foreign armies and mercenaries we should be afraid of.
Every citizen is in the militia, when it comes down to it.
It says "the right of THE PEOPLE" not "the right of those formally involved in some kind of government agency"
I don't think its fair to call me a "right-winger" because I believe in the ENTIRE Constitution. Right-wingers only care about one piece of the Constitution, albeit the piece that got a little reinforcement today. These days, I'll take my Constitutional reinforcement wherever I can get it.
Funny that the same supreme court justices who are "upholding" the second ammendment rights are stealing every other Constitutional right and expanding the power of the government over individuals. Well said beartown & barnburner.
Banning handguns can be a first step in keeping communities safer. Do you think the poor who live in neighborhoods plagued with gun violence are concerned about gun rights? Hell no.
"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."
Hmm..sounds like it has to do with militias which were used to defend the state and defend the people against tyranny. This isn't the problem in D.C.
I'm sorry I have to call a spade a spade. Guns rights people like guntotinliberal are right-wingers.
Every other part of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general is being shredded and in the garbage can and here we are celebrating some sort of victory as if the right of keeping a frigging gun in you home or stuffed in you pocket makes everything OK, geeze, we got a little crumb tossed to us. Now we can kill some robber or fend ourselves off when the military wants to take us out-yeah, so you shoot your kid or wife sometime mistaking her/him for that robber you have so patiently waited for a chance shoot and vindicate packing, just a little collateral damage. Idiots!
Interesting how Scalia stated empahtically that restoring Habeas rights will lead to the death of more Americans, while facilitating hand guns for all in DC. Americans need to understand that it is other Americans not foreigners who pose the greatest threat to our security, not to mention rights.
"I applaud those who try to keep communities safer by pushing for anti-gun laws."
How do anti-gun laws keep communities safer?
I think the 2nd Amendment is the most clearly stated of any in the bill of rights. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's about as black and white as it gets.
Only goes to prove that the American power structure truly is insane. It is my fervent hope that American "culture", beliefs, ideas, are contained within its borders, and that they are seen by the civilized world as the pariahs that they have become.
Personally perception, I don't care about whether or not making guns illegal stops the problem, but I resent the kind of libertarianism that points to prohibition as the biggest disaster in American history. I respect the prohibitionists in many ways-- as did Gandhi-- many of them were progressives. While banning alcohol may have been misguided their efforts certainly haven't been as destructive as the free market or militarism-- which most libertarians are pretty ok with. I applaud those who try to keep communities safer by pushing for anti-gun laws. Maybe it's only one piece of the puzzle but hey its a start.
Personally perception, I don't care about whether or not making guns illegal stops the problem, but I resent the kind of libertarianism that points to prohibition as the biggest disaster in American history. I respect the prohibitionists in many ways-- as did Gandhi-- many of them were progressives. While banning alcohol may have been misguided their efforts certainly haven't been as destructive as the free market or militarism-- which most libertarians are pretty ok with. I applaud those who try to keep communities safer by pushing for anti-gun laws. Maybe it's only one piece of the puzzle but hey its a start.
Sun827:"Prohibition has never worked."
That's the nail that needs to be constantly hit on its head. Alcohol prohibition was lesson one, drug prohibition lesson two. I too am a Texan and am pleased with the court's decision. To answer Ladybug's quesstion "Can somebody explain how owning guns keeps crime low??"...an individual is far less likely to commit a crime against someone who may be armed than someone who is not. It's that simple. I would love to see a decrease in violence of all types, but eliminating drug prohibition would do a whole lot more towards ending violent crime than stricter gun laws could ever hope to do.
If the guns of citizens are taken away, who will still have guns? And where have those who will be left with weapons come down on social issues in our time? Never forget that there is no equality between the armed and unarmed.
So, leftk, does the regulation of the illegal gun market work as well as the regulation of the illegal drug market? I sure hope so.
ladybug: Vigilantism?
Can't think of another reason why flooding an area with weapons would help reduce violence.
Excellent point, Samson!!
The 2nd ammendment has everything to do with protecting people from the tyranny of government. This is a key component of democracy and it is currently very weak. People have litte collective power to fight against the tyrrany of the government.
Banning handguns and assault rifles is a way to protect communities. It does not threaten democracy, if anything it promotes it by keeping people safe(when coupled with regulation of the illegal gun market). The telecommunications act threatens the collective power of the people-- this is why we need to protect ourselves against government! But it takes a lot more than guns.
I repeat . . . .
Gun laws only prevent law-abiding people from owning guns.
Criminals by definition don't obey laws. Thus criminals have guns.
Leave the constitution alone . . .
The Bill of Rights was written for a purpose and everyone here should respect that purpose . . . You are certainly using it by having your say.
Ladybug:
I personally don't think owning guns keeps crime low. I think eliminating the root causes of crime -- poverty and social injustice -- keeps crime low.
However, I also don't think banning guns keeps crime low.
Samson:
Yeah, tell me about it. Too bad the second amendment is the only one the conservatives care about.