Supreme Court Holds Right to Bear Arms Applies to Individuals 2221
Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.
Re:Who Goes to the Store for Guns? (Score:3, Interesting)
Flea markets are much, much better. No waiting while a background check is performed and absolutely no registration afterward!
My state has no registration regardless.
Gun Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
There are tons of arguments against guns, such as safety in the home or availability to criminals. But in my mind it comes down to just one thing -
The availability of guns to the general public is the last safeguard against tyrrany. It becomes much easier to fight an oppressive government if you have the weapons to do it with.
And let me preempt a few arguments right here - a few of you might ask how a bunch of rag-tag resisters can fight against the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world?
For your answer, take one look at Iraq.
Kansas (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, but soon you /can/ get an automatic weapon in Kansas. Starting on 1 July this year, Kansas residents may own automatic weapons, silencers, and sawed-off shotguns.
Among others (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't done a comparison, but I wonder if they are the same 5 and 4? If so, maybe we should clean out the court and start again.
Re:Crime rate high? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:fuck yes (Score:1, Interesting)
Go, McCain: let's see Fred Thompson as McCain's first nominee.
Re:Your rights online? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is obviously not belonging to "Your Rights Online".
The second amendment obviously covers online munitions as well, which are known to include cryptography and intrusion detection systems.
Lesson from prohibition (Score:2, Interesting)
They knew they couldn't just outlaw alcohol because they didn't have the authority to, so they made a constitutional amendment to do it. Back then, they understood how the constitution worked.
Now, the Supreme Court *almost* put itself in a position to decide if the Constitution was "constitutional" or not. What the heck would have happened if the Constitution was not "constitutional," I'm afraid to know. In fact, that is pretty darn scary.
Now we might even debate if an inalienable right cold be taken away by a Constitutional amendment, but it is, once again, pretty darn scary that everyone just thought they could blatantly ignore the Constitution and get away with it.
Re:It's about damn time (Score:4, Interesting)
First hand experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not annoying - that's helpful, isn't it?
When one party gets into power and abuses stuff, you can use your first amendment. When the other party gets into power and abuses stuff, you can use your second amendment. At least in theory.
I'm happy. The Supreme Court has been making some good decisions lately (ex: Guantanamo).
Re:Oh great... (Score:1, Interesting)
History does seem to show that an armed populous is safer from government subjugation and (in all too many cases) class/ethnic cleansing. But it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is something significantly different about American culture that gives us a propensity toward violent gun-facilitated crime. It may well be a good thing that we've got guns, and that means the nutjobs in Washington couldn't as easily send the army or blackwater into Detroit to round up all the Arab Americans there as they could if there were no guns in private hands, but I think it's hard to escape the conclusion that - in some way - we suck compared to most other developed countries.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because so many American men are obese - can't see their dick, let alone get laid, so they buy a gun and get a stupidly huge truck to compensate. But that's just, like, me opinion, man.
Re:Gun Rights (Score:4, Interesting)
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking. If the Iraqi insurgents were using the sort of guns available to American citizens they'd have lost a long time ago. Your government isn't daft - they give you just enough to make you think you have some power.
Mind you, I'm British, I know I have no power over my government. They're probably watching me on a CCTV camera somewhere as I type this.
Re:fuck yes (Score:3, Interesting)
"Arms" obviously means weapons. And "infringed" pretty blatantly screams that they can't stop the people from keeping and bearing arms. Twisting it to mean otherwise is being dishonest and grasping at straws.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere did the Court say that there was an unlimited right to bear arms. They specifically said:
"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Perhaps one of the most likely to be overlooked lines comes at the end of page 57, where Scalia writes: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Moreover, he then continues to write: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep an carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'."
Further, interestingly, at page 64, Scalia appears to leave open the possibility for attaching summary judgment offenses to the discharge and/or loading of firearms, so long as those penalties are minor.
In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that 'were in common use at the time'. However, this appears to extend to 'classes' of weapons, rather than specific designs (for example, semi-automatic and automatic firearms were not around until the middle of the 19th century, and would therefore certainly not have been 'in common use at the time' and would likely be prohibited), so essentially limits the second amendment to pistols and rifles; I am unsure how this would apply to things like submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles which likely did not even exist as 'classes' at the time; they don't really say, except to say that "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -M-16s and the like- may be banned..." which does imply in fact that assault rifles as a class do not survive the 'in common use' test.
Fairly interestingly is the Court's statement at page 59, that "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." This interestingly folds back into its prior decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana of earlier this week that 'what the public thinks' is becoming a relevant constitutional test. I'm not sure, and they don't elaborate, on how this would come into conflict with the 'in common use' test. For example, imagine the American public decided that automatic grenade launchers were the best method of hunting- would they then also be allowed? If that is not true, I'm not really sure what Scalia's purpose for pointing out that Americans like handguns happens to be. It seems like he's saying that weapons which are overwhelmingly used for a lawful purpose are to be given more legal defense than those which are not.
At page 61, the court overturns the requirement that 'firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times'; as this apparently invalidates their core lawful purpose, it is unconstitutional. However, the Court appears to say, that were a self-defense exception included it would be acceptable. How this would work is sort of confusing. The District's statute says, essentially, that every handgun should be kept unloaded and dissassembled or trigger locked unless the firearm is kept at a place of business or being used for lawful recreational purposes. It is unclear exactly what self-defense exemption the Court would prefer; i.e., whether such an exemption would require that firearms be able to be kept loaded and ready to fi
Allows limit of type of arms (Score:2, Interesting)
In section 3, United States v. Miller is upheld, and supports its limit of the right to bear arms to those "in common use at the time".
Limitations on the possession of arms not in common use ensures that the arms in common use when gun control legislation began are the only arms that will ever be allowed. Thus, as the government gets more and more advanced weapons to use against the people, the people's arms will become less and less effective.
While the ruling does overturn D.C.'s handgun ban, it does not do enough to preserve the right granted by the 2nd amendment. "In common use at the time" must be explicitly defined to include the arms issued to US military and law enforcement.
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed. One of the thing that depresses me most about the current Supreme Court is that the justices on either side of the conservative/liberal divide seem to rule according to their ideological preferences instead of sound judicial principles. In today's ruling Scalia states that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." This makes sense to me, but then how at the same time does he think the Constitution allows completely unlimited suspension of habeas corpus by the executive branch? Many times the liberal justices provide just as tortured logic, as they did when they allowed eminent domain for private purposes.
All these 5-4 rulings are the result of the justices ruling with their hearts instead of their minds.
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
"India didn't gain their independence through guns."
Not really a fair comparison IMO. England seen India as not having value enough to hold on to any longer. And it just so happened that when Gandhi came along, it was an out for all involved. The English could have pushed the issue with force if it wanted to. Then guns would have been needed. I'm not totally discounting Gandhi's place in history or his courage, however it seems to be left out that he benefited from the situation as well.
Gun RIGHTS! (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a liberal, let me correct that, a proud liberal.
I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization.
I believe that taxes should be levied on "wealth" not "income." Everything else is just class warfare against the poor and middle class.
I believe in free speech. EVERY FUCKING WHERE, not, bullshit "free speech zones." The U.S.A. IS a free speech zone.
I believe that the 2nd amendment was a proud declaration of freedom. As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The 2nd amendment is intended to protect the sheep.
Something I don't get about Breyer's dissent (Score:3, Interesting)
In the debate about this issue, there are usually many citations of things written in colonial times, which help to understand what the founders probably meant by the words. And that's fine.
But Breyer cites laws that were passed in the 1780s, such as a New York City law in 1784 that prohibited certain uses of gunpowder, as showing that such prohibitions wouldn't be incompatible with the 2nd amendment. Why does that make sense? The 2nd amendment was passed after that, presumably invalidating such laws. No?
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Indians gained their independence by the grace of a first-world, free-press, gun-weilding populace in Britain, who were shocked at the treatment of the Indians at the hands of their own government. Were there controls on free speech and firearms ownership, the British could have done whatever they wanted with the protesters in India, up to and including wholesale slaughter. Only the political inconvenience of doing this prevented the Indians from being cut down at the hands of their oppressors.
I don't see any need to "follow the lead" of countries with higher per capita crime rates than my own, especially when such action results in a diminishing of my rights. Furthermore, it's very disingenuous of you to suggest that "right to privacy" for telephones exists solely overseas. Telephone wiretaps require warrants and due process to be performed. I suspect strongly that these vaunted "european nations" would just as swiftly tap your phone had they the belief it was necessary.
I always ask gun control advocates the following.. (Score:1, Interesting)
If you believe that gun ownership does not deter crime, put your money where your mouth is and plant a sign in your front yard that this is "gun-free" household.
I have yet to see one do it.
Re:It's about damn time (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the fact that it doesn't say "guns", just "arms"? I want my personal nuclear weapons!
I've actually schemed in the past that it might be interesting to have a legal framework for private ownership of arms (up to and including nuclear weapons) modeled after the mandatory car insurance laws in some states. That is, it's legal to own any sort of weapon so long as you have adequate insurance/funds to cover potential damages. Like other forms of insurance, you can lower the insurance rates by having adequate safeguards against accidental misuse (armed guards, remote monitoring, location in remote areas, etc.).
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Right, because POWs have always gotten trials (Score:5, Interesting)
Your statements seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with torturing our enemies, and I, like many, many U.S. citizens, have an extreme problem with that. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to uphold the ideals of our Consitution. How can we talk about liberty, while we deny it to others? How can we expect countries to follow our example, become "free" and "democracies", when our example is kidnapping and torture?
I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:
The dissenting argument is that these evils are being perpetrated to protect us. The president claims he has to stomp all over our civil liberties, tap our phones, read our mail, torture our enemies, and dispose of due process to save American lives. I'll leave you with another quote, by Patrick Henry:
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Guns do not make a revolution. Pepole do.
America has a gun for every citizen. Somalia does too. One is a war zone. The other isn't.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
The people can only overthrow a tyrannical government if they have weapons which enable them to do so.
Yes, yes. I'm sure the AR-16 (or any weapons for that matter) I have stashed in my basement will deter any US military and/or Police force that comes knocking. I'm sure that will be 30 seconds well spent.
The notion that a civilian force could "overthrow a tyrannical government" in the US today is quaint at best.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's part of why we need a right to own guns. Not because we're planning for a civil war, but because lots of people who disagree with you already own them.
Re:Crime rate high? (Score:3, Interesting)
In Florida they actually got rid of rental car plates because criminals were waiting till people left the airport in a rental (knowing they were probably unarmed tourists) and then ran them off the road and robbed them. So sometimes criminals do have ways of figuring out who is likely to be unarmed and do target them.
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Attack the nearest army base ? Or the treasury office ? Or the FBI bureau ? March on the white house to storm it ? Or what exactly ?
What is the point of those "freedom protecting" guns all the US people are supposedly so fond of ?
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is semantics.
The real issue there (Roe v Wade) was whether a young fetus is a "person" (granted full rights), or not a "person."
a) if someone is a person, you cannot use "privacy" as an excuse for terminating them. For example, I cannot invite you to my private home then kill you, then say the government cannot violate my privacy.
b) if something is not a person, you have the right to medical privacy such that a state could not, for example, make it illegal for you to remove a cancer tumor or an ingrown nail, or whatever.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:1, Interesting)
Wonder who they got them from though, I know of few ghetto gun-smiths
New Zealand is calling (Score:3, Interesting)
The day the Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, you'll wish you had emigrated.
Fixed that for you.
I live in the Washington, D.C. area and went to an soiree at the New Zealand embassy earlier this week, meant to introduce the country to Americans potentially interested in moving there. They're crying out for IT people, and they certainly made it seem nice there. I thought it was interesting that the room was full of smart, capable people who found NZ's ideas intriguing and wanted to subscribe to their newsletter. Food for thought.
Re:Oh great... (Score:1, Interesting)
Where does it say "well armed"? It says "well regulated".
Oh for pete's sake (Score:4, Interesting)
hopelessly outgunned... (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking behind the 2nd amendment is "in case of tyranny, take up arms, overthrow the government", right?
So let me get this straight: Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?
So unless 2nd amendment advocates are going to actually advocate private ownership of stinger missiles and anti-tank weapons and what-not, it makes no sense at all.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dissenting Opinions Worth a Careful Read (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter what side of this issue you are on, the dissenting opinions are worth a careful read. They highlight and document in detail the errors made in the Majority decision, the most blatant of which being a complete misquote of a supreme court precedent used to support their opinion:
Majority, page 47: "We (the supreme court, in 1876, in United States v. Cruikshank) describe the right protected by the Second Amendment as 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'."
The actual precedent set in 1876 was in fact the /exact opposite/:
Stevens, J., Dissent, page 39: "The Court wrote, as to counts 2 and 10 of respondents' indictment: 'The right there specified (in the indictment that they were overturning) is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" This is NOT (emphasis added) a right granted by the Constitution.' ... 'This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the NATIONAL (emphasis added) government.'"
Justice Stevens continues: "The Cruikshank Court explained that the defective indictment contained such language, but the court did not itself describe the right, or endorse the indictment's description of the right."
There are many other such contradictions in the ruling that merit serious reading. No matter what side of the fence you are on, it seems this ruling is based on very shaky grounds and dubious interpretations of precedents.
The accusations that one should expect more "intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges", attacking the dissenters are completely unfounded and could only have come from someone who didn't bother to read their well-referenced and well-argued opinions.
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
An exageration? Not really. I seem to recall the US DoJ deciding the best way of dealing with a pack of armed bank robbers was to blast the top few floors of a tower block into oblivion. Notice I said armed bank robbers. Those are the sorts of weapons you have access to. Didn't do a damn thing for the robbers, when the bombs started dropping.
In Britain, the Iranian Embassy hostage crisis was resolved by sending in the SAS. These are NOT guys you want to mess with, no matter HOW good you think you are on the shooting range. Concussion grenades and SMGs by some of the most highly trained commandos versus whatever .45's or shotguns you might have... I'm sorry, but it's going to be one-sided.
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
That was what lead to my idea. I know that used to be common. The only gun I've ever touched personally was a pellet gun, and I never fired it.
That's the problem, we have all the guns of some other countries (doesn't Canada have higher gun ownership per capita?) and all the gun education of Japan (who, IIRC, completely bans them). It's that combination that I think is the problem.
Re:hopelessly outgunned... (Score:5, Interesting)
From a discussion elsewhere [metafilter.com]:
Re:Right, because POWs have always gotten trials (Score:2, Interesting)
To borrow from another quote, "war is Hell." Like it or not, we're in a state of war. The "police action" technicality is a convenience purported by those who want decisive action, but want to keep it from being too decisive (and coincidentally reap the political capital that follows).
Two points to ponder (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The police are usually historians. They are not there to protect us.
2. The Second Amendment is the reset button on the constitution. You hope the processes all run & terminate cleanly, but sometimes . . .
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Be reasonable and do some research first (Score:4, Interesting)
I was agreeing with you all the way until your unfortunate last paragraph. As a law professor, you should be ashamed of that one. Make it "alleged unlawful combatant and alleged POW" and then read the Huzaifa Parhat case.
In case you need a refresher, an appeals court found that Huzaifa Parhat, a Uighur from China, was not an "enemy combatant." The court ordered the military to release him, transfer him to another prison or hold a new hearing.
Only after this decision did the the US military finally realize, after holding the 17 Uighurs in Guantanamo for 6 years, that the only "enemy" of these people is actually China, not the US. The Uighurs were generally turned over to the US military by bounty hunters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so we can't even argue that we captured them on the field of battle and could presume that they were combatants.
Re:The 2nd Amendment Is Bunk (Score:2, Interesting)
The rest of your comment is such obvious fallacious nonsense that I'm not going to bother ripping it to pieces, because anyone reading it who can't tell for themself isn't interested in making sense, anyway.
Nice way to chicken your way out, sissy. More like you can't even begin to scratch it.
Re:Kill the drug trade... (Score:3, Interesting)
The drug lords wouldn't like that ... the War On Drugs being what keeps drug prices in the U.S. artificially high in the first place.
I contend that the real powers behind said War On Drugs are in fact the drug lords, thereby protecting their inflated pricing structure and revenue stream.
Legalize and tax all these recreational chemicals, and that whole power structure goes away... and U.S. pharmaceuticals could open up a whole new line of business, with SAFER recreational drugs for those so-inclined, perhaps even including research into new, safer, and better rec-drugs (research which kids now effectively do anyway, under extremely hazardous conditions).
I'd bet that (just as with the alcohol and tobacco industries) with legalized rec-drugs, there's more money to be made every year, and more tax dollars to collect thereby, than the entire WoD has made or spent during its entire sordid history. But that money would no longer be concentrated in a few hands, as it is now.
Sounds a lot like the RIAA, don't it!
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, I am quite liberal and used to be very much for gun control. The past eight years of torture, wiretapping, and suspension of Habeas Corpus made me realize that the 2nd amendment is not just an issue of rednecks and their right to hunt.
I feel the Bush administration shows what can happen when the gov't no longer regards the people it serves. Governments need to fear their citizens, even if only a little bit. An armed populace may be the ultimate check and balance.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's worse than that. We have the guns, and we have utter ignorance about the reality of using them. People are growing up with a video-game-level sense of consequence. Every kid should help haul a just-shot deer in from a pickup truck to hang in the garage (yum! venison!). Why? Because there's nothing quite like seeing a big ol' entry and exit wound right through a rib cage of a mammal that's about your size... to really bring home the violence of it. The irreversability of it. The consequence of it. Kids used to grow up with a solid sense of all of that. Now they're clueless... not just about how to safely use them and how to decide not to... but I mean they don't even understand the physics and physiological issues at hand. They like burgers, but never see the meat being harvested. They like mowing down bad guys in a game, and can't extrapolate that to reality.
I recommend junior high school target shooting classes. Start with archery. Move to pellet guns. Plink knock-down targets with
Re:Actuall Information (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm happy to change my views on the world (as noted in the first post with the suicide thing), but not on someones opinion.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a reason the US military shifted to weapons that do *NOT* have full auto .. but at most a 3 round burst.
Any round fired after the 3rd successive round has a massive decreasing chance of actually being on target.
Granted .. if you don't care .. or your target is a 50X50 square of people, those statics don't mean a hell of a lot. But normally, against single or non-massed targets, 'full auto' is just another way to say 'miss a hell of a lot'.
Re:Crime rate high? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Remember; when you are being approached your gun is in your holster - his is already out, who do you think gets to shoot first?"
You have the element of surprise. Am I really reaching to get my money/wallet? What is my other hand doing while they are watching the hand going for the wallet? What if it's a nice shiny clasp with a twenty showing? Are they already distracted by the bill or will 'dropping it' towards them as I pull it out/hand it over distract them for the split second it takes to draw and fire in a planned fashion? Why would I even do that if all indications and instincts point to simple robbery? How about a little reading or training on the subject before spouting off scenarios you clearly haven't thought through?
Re:hopelessly outgunned... (Score:3, Interesting)
So let me get this straight: Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?
Hell yes! What, do you mean "go up against" as in the Rebels send their list of grievances to the government, and the two parties agree to meet on opposite ends of a field, and once the Sun reaches its zenith they open fire? Well that would be stupid, but fortunately there are other ways of doing things. Ways that have, over the course of the last sixty years, proven that they can be extremely effective. Not always, but asymmetrical warfare can in many situations actually give the advantage to the guerrilla force.
All that artillery, missiles, and helicopters don't mean much when your enemy is blended into the civilian populace of a large city. Look how much good that does us in Iraq!
Oh sure, we have the fire power to just level Baghdad, but we aren't doing that, because wiping out the population isn't the goal, and in fact is counter-productive because every survivor would just hate us even more and the whole country would be our enemy. It would be the same here, only more so! Sure you would think this tyrannical government that we're rebelling against wouldn't have qualms against killing civilians -- but "qualms" don't enter into it. Every civilian death would just turn more of the people against the government, until everyone is against them and they have no power left regardless of how many bombs they have.
Also another lesson from Iraq, about what being told to attack your own people does to the soldiers. When the Army was told to invade the slums and fight the Madhi Army, not only did many of them refuse to fight, many of them joined with the militia and handed them their Army-issued weapons! Weapons that, strictly and demonstratively speaking, the militia didn't need to fight the Iraqi Army to a standstill, but still grant the militia even more power. Now, in Rebellious America, what do you think is going to happen when they ask the Air Force to bomb the people of Topeka into submission?
So unless 2nd amendment advocates are going to actually advocate private ownership of stinger missiles and anti-tank weapons and what-not, it makes no sense at all.
No, this notion that you can't overthrow a government unless you have arms that match theirs is what makes no sense. The world has changed, indeed, but one of the biggest changes is that it's not as much about hardware any more.
Small arms are sufficient for protecting ourselves from minor threats, and they are sufficient to serve as the beginning of an effective armed rebellion. Rifles would be more than enough to mount the raid on the National Guard Depot to get the Stingers and explosives that would proceed to prove -- again -- that a tank is nothing but a big target when you park it in a city.
Re:Oh great... (Score:1, Interesting)
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." --Mahatma Gandhi
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry about the blockquotes, or lack thereof - I normally post text only.
Regarding your last point, I would argue very much so that ak-47's and M-16's should be allowed - they are the standard arm for any modern soldier or militiaman. They are common. And they are not "especially destructive" - one of the problems with the current version of the M-16, the M-4 Carbine, is that it isn't lethal ENOUGH. And the AK-47 has notoriously poor accuracy and range. One of the reasons that assault weapons are proclaimed to be extraordinarily lethal is their use against *unarmed* citizenry, which certainly skews the results
If I were calling up a militia in 1776, I'd expect the men to show up with rifles, knives, and possibly pistols and perhaps grenades. That would be the basic arms for a militiaman to be effective in their role. If I were to call one up today, I'd expect an assault rifle, semi-automatic handgun, knife/bayonet, and grenades. That would be the minimum armament for a militiaman in their role. I would not expect militiamen in 1776 to show up with cannonade or missiles (although there were many in private hands - rich private hands), nor would I expect a modern day militiaman to show up with stingers, etc.
I do believe you are correct in pointing out that Scalia is somewhat contradictory; but when looking at the context, I believe it becomes clearer. He brings up the point about M-16's to counter the reductio ad absurdem argument that "If 2A is an individual right, then machineguns are allowed; since we don't want machineguns allowed, therefore it is not an individual right". He is saying that it may be argued that M-16's are not covered under the understanding of "militia" arms, but that has nothing to do with whether the 2A is an individual right. But the statement on Page 8 is clear as a bell - we cannot limit a right using the sole excuse that technology has changed.
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Interesting)
At first you need to crack down on political correctness.
Your typical murderer:
- is not of Asian or European descent
- is not female
- is older than ten but younger than 40 years
- has not graduated from high school
- is no member of any organized Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Wicca, Scientology or Jedi religious community.
- has had no regular employment for more than a year
- is not unbeknownst to local police concerning violence and petty crimes
- has a connection to substance abuse and/or drug trafficking.
- shows obvious signs of personal neglect.
Anyone living in your city can visually identify the people belonging to the most notorious group of possible murderers. Within less than 100 milliseconds even in a low-light environment.
Simply put, these are the people you would instinctively avoid on the street rather than to walk past them.
Control these obvious targets and your police can devote much more time to real crime solving: the remaining 20 percent or so of violent offenders that do not fit the pattern. But most other murderers and their victims know each other by first name, so the police has a fair chance of solving the crime.
Political correctness and misguided human rights activism is one of the main reasons that the police can not perform their duties like they need to. That said, depraved policemen like those who attacked Rodney King bear a lot of guilt on this development as well.
Black or Hispanic young men often complain about being stopped by police for 'driving while black', ie. doing nothing suspicious at all. But that's an unfortunate result of politically inconvenient realities.
Truly random stop and search operations will not yield significant results because the face of crime is not random. It is male, between 15 and 35, with poor education and a dark skin complexion. Changing search procedures or whining about inequal treatment will not change this empirical fact that everyone can observe in our jails and courthouses.
Note that I did not talk about possible reasons behind this situation. If this is a consequence of social inequality, social exclusion or pure chance should be of no interest to law enforcement. Teachers and welfare professionals should care about that, while the police keeps them from being murdered.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
So those of us who are less than (media stereotype of) perfect should be ashamed of our bodies?
You know, bodies are bodies, they are not purely for your vicarious titillation, to fuel your sexual fantasies. Some of us are fond of ours because they process our food and give us useful limbs.
It's a sad state of affairs when people assume that the human body is vulgar in certain cases simply because it does not conform to stereotypes of youthful beauty.
If you want to look at artificially-perfect bodies, you can buy a special magazine or DVD.
That's my encroaching mid-life crisis for today. Time for my pills...
Re:First hand experience (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you question. The US Constitution doesn't grant or create any rights. That was true before there was a Bill of Rights, and is no less true afterward. It merely recognizes them. That's a great distinction. We believe that people have certain inalienable rights. And our Constitution recognizes those. And per the 9th Amendment, its specific recognition of a very small subset of our rights does not imply that we do not have more. Notwithstanding that the Supremes historically don't like the 9th Amendment and would prefer to find asinine things like 'penumbras' of other rights.
We the people are sovereign, we hold all power, and we have all rights. My rights don't come from a piece of paper, a court, or Congress, or my neighbors.
Regarding the right to keep and bear arms: there are those, such as I, who would argue that a free person has that right, regardless of the existence of the 2nd amendment. An unfree person does not have that right. A free person has a right to the means necessary to protect his or or liberty, life and property from all enemies, foreign or domestic. The question is not whether we have the right. The question is to what extent can that right be regulated, and that is a good question. And now, the Supreme Court has finally set us on the path of answering THAT question, not debating over whether we have a fundamental right or not.
To the point of not needing guns: we need arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that we need to overthrow our government now or at any foreseeable time, or even that we could. I am saying that as free people we have the right to the means to do so, even if the need seems implausibly remote, and a good way to continue to ensure that implausibility is to continue to let free people arm themselves. A people stripped of their fundamental right to protect their liberty, by force of arms if necessary, can only be stripped of more rights. The fact that we retain the right to arms, that we remain vigilant and cognizant of our fundamental rights as free people, is a strong indicator that we retain our other equally important rights.
Larry
Re:seatbelt argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thought experiment:
You're an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, living peacefully in the US in 1942. The government comes for you. Do you a) go peacefully, or b) defend yourself with your guns?
Re:Absurd logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that is implying that owning and using a gun properly is illegal or against the law in of itself. No..that is not true. What my statement implied is that people that are law abiding, do not use their guns in illegal manners...criminals do. With this ruling, law abiding citizens can now legally own a gun, and legally protect themselves from criminals that are using their guns illegally.
Guns by themselves don't kill anyone....
When you pry it from my cold dead hands... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hopelessly outgunned... (Score:3, Interesting)
But how do we get from the "secret police rounding up dissidents" stage to the "armed uprising" stage?
Oh man, read a little, will ya? Malaparte, Trotsky, Mao, heck even Lenin. The way to do it is by creating even more discontent. The way to do _that_ is to start provoking the police/military so that they overreact, and begin killing/disappearing innocents and radicalizing the otherwise-passive masses.
This kind of a strategy cannot work, however, if the masses can't be armed. The Russian revolution only "succeeded" because of the (armed) army desertors and mutinous sailors (who, in turn, got crushed by the emerging Red army a shor few months later, but that's another story).
US Constitution a dead letter anyway... (Score:2, Interesting)