Yet Another Dramatic Win for Gun Rights in the U.S.A.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Subo:

Resort to the SCOTUS is supposed to be the appropriate venue for a discusion of rights as embodied in the Constitution and the laws that the several states may pass; "peaceful redress of grievances" and all that. Resorting to that venue is not a betrayal of coservatism. Lemur had a great point about the whining tone lately -- fair enough -- as did PJ about the close nature of the vote.

ACIN/Beskar:

I hope to, and think I very likely will, live in a USA the protects most of my fundamental rights a large majority of the time. I do not forsee some imminent need for rebellion. Yet history is a cruel teacher, and that government that works well for centuries may someday work poorly. In such a case,

...it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

As to the difficulty of the task, you have it exactly reversed. FA-18s cannot hold ground and tactical nuclear weapons can only sterilize it. A tyranny can only continue to function until a "critical mass" of its citizenry demands change. A people united in the cause of freedom cannot be enslaved by tyranny, no mater how crafty -- they can only be killed. Kill them in job lots, kill them with bombs, blast them from their retreats in the hills, but you cannot blast the need for freedom from them -- only they themselves can attenuate it.

Our efforts in Iraq began to achieve a limited success only when the Iraqis themselves (however haltingly and fitfully) started to take up the cause. The same will (may?) be true in Afghanistan. Success on the battlefield can do no more than buy time for an different idea/way of doing things to prevail.

Our founders, in their collective wisdom -- and the issue was much discussed -- felt that the people were safer in their liberty, NOW MATTER HOW GOOD THE GOVERNANCE, if the tools to effect that final effort to maintain their own rights and freedoms were readily to hand. It is a foundational component of who we are.

Happy Independence Day to all who observe it, and best wishes to all of you, whether you celebrate this day or no.

[Centurion1]

*cries a little at the beauty of seamus' post*

Acin did you in fact read my post? Because that is what we like to call reading a sentence and stopping. I said it was a dream and he does not have the power. I was merely refuting the claim he has no desire to ban firearms. Which seems to be debated in this thread as ca illustrated immeadiately following my post.

Have you ever lost a long post...... the desire to retype it just isn't there yah know

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN/Beskar:

I hope to, and think I very likely will, live in a USA the protects most of my fundamental rights a large majority of the time. I do not forsee some imminent need for rebellion. Yet history is a cruel teacher, and that government that works well for centuries may someday work poorly. In such a case,



As to the difficulty of the task, you have it exactly reversed. FA-18s cannot hold ground and tactical nuclear weapons can only sterilize it. A tyranny can only continue to function until a "critical mass" of its citizenry demands change. A people united in the cause of freedom cannot be enslaved by tyranny, no mater how crafty -- they can only be killed. Kill them in job lots, kill them with bombs, blast them from their retreats in the hills, but you cannot blast the need for freedom from them -- only they themselves can attenuate it.

Our efforts in Iraq began to achieve a limited success only when the Iraqis themselves (however haltingly and fitfully) started to take up the cause. The same will (may?) be true in Afghanistan. Success on the battlefield can do no more than buy time for an different idea/way of doing things to prevail.

Our founders, in their collective wisdom -- and the issue was much discussed -- felt that the people were safer in their liberty, NOW MATTER HOW GOOD THE GOVERNANCE, if the tools to effect that final effort to maintain their own rights and freedoms were readily to hand. It is a foundational component of who we are.

Happy Independence Day to all who observe it, and best wishes to all of you, whether you celebrate this day or no.

I just want to point out that I am in favor of the right to bare arms, and have said that before in the thread. I simply recognize it as a right simply for the sake of having more liberty. I also want to say that is a very simplistic view of the tools for war which you have described. You don't need to hold the rebelling city if you firebomb the entire populace to death.

I want to clearly point out that our founding fathers were not a homogeneous group of people who felt and thought alike. You saying the Founding Fathers wanted us to have this right is like our grandchildren saying that we all had wanted health care reform because that was established. Many did not like the idea of a Bill of Rights at all, if you are going to present a point of view, choose a specific person like Thomas Jefferson not the "Founding Fathers" because there was not one issue they all agreed upon except "Let's become independent from England." and even then, that wasn't until the King declared them official traitors a few months into the fighting.

Also, your entire post smells of a nationalist coating to help slide down the throats of Americans who read this, but since it was July 4th, when you typed this, I will let that be.

Acin did you in fact read my post? Because that is what we like to call reading a sentence and stopping. I said it was a dream and he does not have the power. I was merely refuting the claim he has no desire to ban firearms. Which seems to be debated in this thread as ca illustrated immeadiately following my post.

Have you ever lost a long post...... the desire to retype it just isn't there yah know

I read more then just the one sentence. I didn't know your sole point was to refute the statement he was against banning guns. I apologize. Anyone who is honestly saying he doesn't want to ban guns is wrong, I agree with you and CR on that very much. I was attacking the crazy fervor that Lemur has been pointing out over the end of gun rights under Obama by highlighting your own statement that he cant and likely never will have the political clout and/or backing to attempt any sort of restriction on guns, especially after this court ruling. I just want to say to to pro gun interest groups, calm down, you take a major win that will be legal precedent for centuries and turn it into "well Obama is going to subvert the Constitution, override the SCOTUS and take away our guns anyway, any day now, because he wants to ban them!".

[Banquo's Ghost]

As to the difficulty of the task, you have it exactly reversed. FA-18s cannot hold ground and tactical nuclear weapons can only sterilize it. A tyranny can only continue to function until a "critical mass" of its citizenry demands change. A people united in the cause of freedom cannot be enslaved by tyranny, no mater how crafty -- they can only be killed. Kill them in job lots, kill them with bombs, blast them from their retreats in the hills, but you cannot blast the need for freedom from them -- only they themselves can attenuate it.

Our efforts in Iraq began to achieve a limited success only when the Iraqis themselves (however haltingly and fitfully) started to take up the cause. The same will (may?) be true in Afghanistan. Success on the battlefield can do no more than buy time for an different idea/way of doing things to prevail.

Our founders, in their collective wisdom -- and the issue was much discussed -- felt that the people were safer in their liberty, NOW MATTER HOW GOOD THE GOVERNANCE, if the tools to effect that final effort to maintain their own rights and freedoms were readily to hand. It is a foundational component of who we are.

Beautifully expressed.

However, whilst I do not dispute that the 2nd Amendment is a foundational component of the United States, let me note that one does not need to be armed to resist tyranny. Men have fought for their freedom by simply standing and refusing to be ruled just as much as through armed insurrection.

Freedom does not come from the barrel of a gun but through the desire of a man's heart. Guns do not guarantee anyone's freedom: only the refusal to be chained does that.

[Centurion1]

OK acin then no problem. And I'm not crazily pro guns I don't see a need for assault weapons really I think buying weapons should ever be easy and I don't really like the idea of peoplw carrying handguns (sure makes You nervous to approach one at night I'm sure) as well the NRA can get worked up. But its an interest groups and there are other groups that hurt the American people far more, like in my bitter opinion, Aaron. Damn social security and our ***** politicians

Also lol at the right to bare arms

[Lemur]

Freedom does not come from the barrel of a gun but through the desire of a man's heart. Guns do not guarantee anyone's freedom: only the refusal to be chained does that.

Hmm, this is worth exploring; certainly one of the reasons our founding fathers rebelled was their grounding in the English tradition of liberty and resisting tyranny. There have been much better-armed societies that endured much worse tyranny and never rebelled, much less successfully. Witness Eastern Europe under Soviet dominion; witness the average West African nation on any given day; witness Cuba; witness North Korea, etc, etc, etc.

Firearms are great, and they certainly make life a lot more interesting for an army bent on pacification, but it is the expectation of liberty that fuels the machine. Or something like that.

[Subotan]

Resort to the SCOTUS is supposed to be the appropriate venue for a discusion of rights as embodied in the Constitution and the laws that the several states may pass; "peaceful redress of grievances" and all that. Resorting to that venue is not a betrayal of coservatism. Lemur had a great point about the whining tone lately -- fair enough -- as did PJ about the close nature of the vote.

Fair enough. But it seems from across the Pond that the current direction of the Court is one that might be recognisably be called "judicial activism", something I'm aware that Conservatives love to rant on against as being a debilitating sickness of liberals.

[gaelic cowboy]

Freedom does not come from the barrel of a gun but through the desire of a man's heart. Guns do not guarantee anyone's freedom: only the refusal to be chained does that.

The altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fair enough. But it seems from across the Pond that the current direction of the Court is one that might be recognisably be called "judicial activism", something I'm aware that Conservatives love to rant on against as being a debilitating sickness of liberals.

Sadly, conservatives aren't immune to this inclination. I think they tred on that path less frequently, but cannot deny it entirely. The court's choice of which cases to hear -- however inactively adjudicated -- does itself represent some measure of "activism." Perfect purity on this issue isn't possible. On the whole, I'm pretty happy with Scalia, Antonin, and Roberts. Thomas can be a bit too "active" in his approach to decisions even though he's the most passive participant.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Our founders, in their collective wisdom -- and the issue was much discussed -- felt that the people were safer in their liberty, NOW MATTER HOW GOOD THE GOVERNANCE, if the tools to effect that final effort to maintain their own rights and freedoms were readily to hand. It is a foundational component of who we are.

It is a foundational component of America indeed.

That's why the right to be part of a militia (albeit a well regulated one), to be a citizen-soldier, must to be respected. This was deemed so necessary to America's freedom, it made it's way into an amendment.

At least, this was the historical interpretation of the ancients, the men that made America. Modern Americans read the 2nd as granting an individual right, without civic duty.


* why oh why did they have to write the amendment in the single most obscure and ambiguous sentence of the English language!? *

But it seems from across the Pond that the current direction of the Court is one that might be recognisably be called "judicial activism",

Well, yes and no.

When does judicial activism cross over into judicial adaptation to broadly shared political norms? America has shifted the past few decades towards the current interpretation of the 2nd. The SC has followed society, scholarship and politics regarding the 2nd, rather than interpreting the 2nd out of judicial activism ahead of society.

There has been a relentless drive for an interpretation of the 2nd as granting a simple individual right, including the direction of legal and historical scholarship has moved in. This has found its expression in the SC, not the other way round. 'Law professor' activism seems more apropriate here. Rather, 'law office' activism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When does judicial activism cross over into judicial adaptation to broadly shared political norms? America has shifted the past few decades towards the current interpretation of the 2nd. The SC has followed society, scholarship and politics regarding the 2nd, rather than interpreting the 2nd out of judicial activism ahead of society.

There has been a relentless drive for an interpretation of the 2nd as granting a simple individual right, including the direction of legal and historical scholarship has moved in. This has found its expression in the SC, not the other way round. 'Law professor' activism seems more apropriate here. Rather, 'law office' activism.

Their ruling in this matter was completely justified, as it is about time for the entirety of the Bill of Rights to be applied through selective incorporation unto the states. This ruling was not judicial activism in my opinion, since they clarified that this decision applies to absolute bans on firearms and not all restrictions that require safety measures or permits to own a gun. This was solely a case to incorporate the 2nd Amendment and nothing more, which is good.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also, here is a relevant article that I hope will spur some discussion.

Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

[rory_20_uk]

The article does better at pointing out how inappropriate the groupings are called in American politics more than anything else: to be liberal is to not restrict things. On this issue conservatives (keeping things the way they are) is the same as liberals as both should want freedom of guns.

A better term would be the conservative / liberal camp and the "safety camp" (contentious I know, but it seems that banning all guns is based on the concept of increased safety).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Louis:

Like all other such renderings, the specific phrasing was a political compromise. I suspect that some of those voting for it were voting for it with alternate interpretations.

The assessment of it as an individual right, and not only a community right, comes from a broader reading of the notes, writings etc. of those involved in the creation of the ammendment and of the Constitution as a whole.

It is still -- obviously -- a point that is under debate.

In my home commonwealth, I am a militianman -- so designated by the Virginia Constitution. This is true of all adult Virginians.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you look at the ideas and written as well as pictorial expressions from the time the constitution was written in it actually looks pretty unambiguous what the founders meant: every (male) citizen has the right (and perhaps, duty) to participate in a citizen militia. That's a recurring theme in Enlightened rhetoric/pamphlets: that to defend your country* is not the privilege of a small club wearing funny hats and dodgy shoes, but something that all citizens must be able to partake in; and the militia was seen as the preferred organisation for expressing such involvement.

[Captain Blackadder]

TSM:

I think you're loading way too many extra points onto Lemur's critique. At least in this thread, he has not come down as some kind of a gun control activist at all. He's said he thinks the Gun Lobby is over-dramatizing things, implying that he, the Lemury one, does NOT see any real threat to gun ownership and usage on the horizon. He didn't make a claim one way or another on gun control itself.

As a constitutionalist sorta fellow, I couldn't see how the 4 who voted against did so (doesn't connect for me, but I am a pro gun person), but that's me. I thought Lemur's point, of itself, was a good one. I am not a fan of the NRA's current "tone" with things, even though I support their agenda on 19 in 20.

Easy to see how they did it is the same arguement that many right wingers give for the 1st amendment the consitution only applies to the federal government and not the states.Also one could say that since the founders were most certainly influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which also stated that this right was only allowed in context with any current laws on gun ownership. The final one is that you could say that the 2nd amendment is clearly desinged to only apply to those in a militia and it does not cover handguns under that right as if the US wanted to include everyone they should have put it in like the British one which stated

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

Having arms and bearing arms being two entirely different things.

[Beskar]

Having arms and bearing arms being two entirely different things.

Indeed.

[Subotan]

Sadly, conservatives aren't immune to this inclination. I think they tred on that path less frequently, but cannot deny it entirely. The court's choice of which cases to hear -- however inactively adjudicated -- does itself represent some measure of "activism." Perfect purity on this issue isn't possible. On the whole, I'm pretty happy with Scalia, Antonin, and Roberts. Thomas can be a bit too "active" in his approach to decisions even though he's the most passive participant.

I don't deny that liberal judges are activist judges, but conservatives seem to deny that such tendencies afflict judges of their inclination. I would say that activism is determined by the willingness of the court to hear cases which are controversial, a la, DC vs Heller, Citizens United vs FEC, McDonald vs Chicago, and if seen by this definition, then the Roberts Court is certainly more activist than the Rehnquist Court.

When does judicial activism cross over into judicial adaptation to broadly shared political norms? America has shifted the past few decades towards the current interpretation of the 2nd. The SC has followed society, scholarship and politics regarding the 2nd, rather than interpreting the 2nd out of judicial activism ahead of society.

There has been a relentless drive for an interpretation of the 2nd as granting a simple individual right, including the direction of legal and historical scholarship has moved in. This has found its expression in the SC, not the other way round. 'Law professor' activism seems more apropriate here. Rather, 'law office' activism.

One particular quote that has been burned into my brain from my study of American Government was Scalia saying "The Constitution I interpret is not living, but dead.". Would you say that's an accurate description of the kind of the law professor activism you talk about?

Also, here is a relevant article that I hope will spur some discussion.

Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. ...
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Actually, the right to revolution exists in the Constitution of Saxony.

[Beskar]

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. ...
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Actually, that is false. It is the right for a successful revolution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yet another dramatic win for the 2nd Amendment purists; clearly this means that Obama is going to take all of our guns away any minute. (I have never seen an issue like this, where the people who are clearly winning every argument and challenge nurse such a large, illogical and persistent victim complex.)

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide.

Do we have more justification now, that the President has stated that he wants a massive gun ban and confiscation, similar to Australia?