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

[Lemur]

Yet another dramatic win (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/) 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 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/15/palin-warns-nra-obama-wants-ban-guns/).)


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.

[Vladimir]

Finally,

Now, if they could implement mandatory registration and training without the fear that the city would use it to confiscate firearms. I believe it was Chicago that required all gun owners to register their firearms then used that information to confiscate them.

Hopefully, even without mandatory safety courses, crime levels will decrease.

[drone]

In other news, researchers say the suicide rate for Cubs' fans could be going up. ~D

[Vladimir]

In other news, researchers say the suicide rate for Cubs' fans could be going up. ~D

They broke my heart!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I see the constitutional double standard by conservative justices here, but I will celebrate this victory anyway. We need to get guns in the hands of the people fast. Every law-abiding, mentally competant citizen should be trained to use firearms and carry one at all times. :daisy: statisticians will notice a marked decline in :daisy: nationwide. Governments will be less likely to take a heavy hand over minor traffic infractions, such as a $800 fee on a .02 cent overdue bill..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's been over a century. GET OVER IT.


Lemur:

I have to grant you that point. The continued "persecution complex" evidenced by a number of our 2nd ammendment types is a little silly. I'd love to hear more "we're happy with recent rulings and are working to maintain things as they are" and less of the "they're going to take my guns" stuff.

I am also happy with this ruling.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why does everything have to be about Obama with you, Lemur. :grin:

Anyway, you can blame the Clinton administration and the gun rights battles of the '90s for the extra vigilance of gun rights advocates. It was a traumatic period, and any Democratic administration in the future will rightly elicit distrust over the issue. Not to mention that the NRA is a pressure group. Their entire focus is on seeking out and eliminating threats to gun ownership, so citing them as some kind of example of a victim complex among gun owners is misplaced.

The truth is that the law is on our side, but the current administration is not. They may have tabled the issue, but their beliefs are fairly transparent.

This is a good day for the freedoms that make the United States a great place to live!

[Lemur]

You say "extra vigilance," I say "screaming, girlish persecution complex with no basis in political reality." The Clinton lesson works both ways; leftists learned (for the most part) that gun control was a losing argument which motivated their opponents and did nothing to galvanize their supporters. End of story for at least a generation.

As for the NRA, I guess they're subject to the age-old rule that no group ever wants the problem it fights to diminish, much less vanish.

[Devastatin Dave]

As for the NRA, I guess they're subject to the age-old rule that no group ever wants the problem it fights to diminish, much less vanish.

Like Democrats really want there to be dumb, poor, and lazy people so they continue to make government programs that allow people to be dumb, poor, and lazy... Right? ;)

[Lemur]

Like Democrats really want there to be dumb, poor, and lazy people so they continue to make government programs that allow people to be dumb, poor, and lazy... Right? ;)
Actually, I think the two political parties are too big and varied to make for a good analogy. A better one might be the NAACP (which resolutely refuses to accept that things are getting beter for black people), Operation Rescue (which carefully never mentions how the rate of abortion keeps going down in the U.S.) or any other issue-specific group.

[Centurion1]

Let's complain about old people groups next. I hate old people they are greedy and take my money for a failing system. And I will probably never see the cost repaid to me. But still they say that we want to take away their money....... yeah right politicians are afraid of pissing off the geezer demographic.

[Subotan]

God bless the Firearms Acts, 1968, 1988, and 1997.

[a completely inoffensive name]

****, I just took my AP Gov test that required me to know what in the Bill of Rights had been incorporated through due process, and now they add another on me as soon as the test is over. This ruling was expected though, the court has been and is continuing to lean on the conservative side. Even with Sotomayor and Kagen being put on there.

[Beskar]

Guns don't kill people, Republicans do.

[gaelic cowboy]

Guns don't kill people, Republicans do.

And loyalists

[Devastatin Dave]

Guns don't kill people, Republicans do.
Or if you ride in a car with Ted Kennedy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lemur, you claim that nobody will ever need to defend themselves against government ever again. Societies collapse, goverments overstep their bounds, economies go into depresssion. This is not the end of history, there will be mass killings, genocides, revolutions and blood in the streets again at some point. The only time that you will accept that the traditional understanding of the second amendment should be preserved is when there is a barrell pointed in your face by the government that you trust so much. We've seen the U.S. economy essentially collapse, most people couldn't have seen that coming. The polarization in the United states coupled with the downward spiraling influence of democratic republics should show you that Americans will most likely need their own arsenal at some point, whether it is to defend themselves from their own governemnt or the governments of nations that dwarf them and eclipse a bankrupt nation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur, you claim that nobody will ever need to defend themselves against government ever again. Societies collapse, goverments overstep their bounds, economies go into depresssion. This is not the end of history, there will be mass killings, genocides, revolutions and blood in the streets again at some point. The only time that you will accept that the traditional understanding of the second amendment should be preserved is when there is a barrell pointed in your face by the government that you trust so much. We've seen the U.S. economy essentially collapse, most people couldn't have seen that coming. The polarization in the United states coupled with the downward spiraling influence of democratic republics should show you that Americans will most likely need their own arsenal at some point, whether it is to defend themselves from their own governemnt or the governments of nations that dwarf them and eclipse a bankrupt nation.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I want private ownership of nuclear missiles. And of aircraft carriers.

[Beskar]

I want private ownership of nuclear missiles. And of aircraft carriers.

Imagine Microsoft firing their Nuclear Weapons at Apple, for bringing out a new iMac.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lemur, you claim that nobody will ever need to defend themselves against government ever again. Societies collapse, goverments overstep their bounds, economies go into depresssion. This is not the end of history, there will be mass killings, genocides, revolutions and blood in the streets again at some point. The only time that you will accept that the traditional understanding of the second amendment should be preserved is when there is a barrell pointed in your face by the government that you trust so much. We've seen the U.S. economy essentially collapse, most people couldn't have seen that coming. The polarization in the United states coupled with the downward spiraling influence of democratic republics should show you that Americans will most likely need their own arsenal at some point, whether it is to defend themselves from their own governemnt or the governments of nations that dwarf them and eclipse a bankrupt nation.

You claim your speculations are facts when they are not. The world is closer to peace then it ever has been before, history shows this through a decrease in blood being shed over smaller and smaller areas that are in conflict and your claim that there will be blood in the streets sooner or later is biased from the increased exposure that citizens get of violence in the news then from before. Your statement that most people couldn't have seen that economic collapse coming is false, many economists did see it but their opinions were disregarded due to political reasons since the degregulation that caused the crash was making a nice big bubble that floated everyone's wealth very nicely until it popped. That statement is also ignorant of the time when the United States economy did collapse in the 1930s where the government did not crumble nor did large areas turn into anarchy. The downward spiraling influence of democratic republics stem from their reduction in economic might compared to the Russian and Chinese totalitarian governments, this is because the totalitarian government cherry pick what aspects of the free market they want to accept and due to right wing movements in major democratic republics in the 1970s-late 1990s causing massive deregulations which weakened the financial structure of the western world.

Oh by the way, you want to talk about the people's firearms defending against government having a "barrell pointed in your face by the government that you trust so much"? Let's take a stroll down US history and see the how the US government futilely attempted to stick a gun in the face of US citizens from the 1770s until about 1920, you know the good ole times when everyone had a gun and people were much freer from tyranny because of it.
Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion)
Pullman Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike)
Great Railroad Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike)
Homestead Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike)
Battle of Blair Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)

Hmm, it looks like none of those attempts by the citizens of the United States ever succeeded in standing up to the government. Oh wait, i'm being silly those were too small scale for them to win. Maybe if we have entire states, lets say 11 or so united together against the Federal government, then we would totally win right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)

[Devastatin Dave]

The world is closer to peace then it ever has been before, history shows this through a decrease in blood being shed over smaller and smaller areas that are in conflict and your claim that there will be blood in the streets sooner or later is biased from the increased exposure that citizens get of violence in the news then from before. /URL]

I'd have to disagree. This of course is relatively speaking. If you mean at this very moment in history, like within the past month, sure, i can kind of see that. But if you look over the past century, more bloodshed by governments upon their enemies or their own citizens has occured than any other period in human history. To think that it won't happen again is quite pollyannish.
The scary part about this ruling is that we have 4 obviously illiterate judges sitting on the bench.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd have to disagree. This of course is relatively speaking. If you mean at this very moment in history, like within the past month, sure, i can kind of see that. But if you look over the past century, more bloodshed by governments upon their enemies or their own citizens has occured than any other period in human history. To think that it won't happen again is quite pollyannish.
The scary part about this ruling is that we have 4 obviously illiterate judges sitting on the bench.

I'm talking about the period since the end of the Cold War until today. The massive blood shed of the first 50 years of the 20th century created the foundations for progress by creating foundations such as the EU, UN and WTO. The end of the Cold War has sparked the beginnings of a new era of relative peace by having the vast majority of the world firmly linked together in a globalist economy whereas before the US and USSR and their many satellites were ready to send nukes flying due to their economic relations being slim to none. This is why China will never fight the US as long as they think they will eventually get their money back and as long as US citizens keep buying their stuff. Same goes for Russia, who supplies major amounts of natural gas. It will never do anything so blunt in Eastern Europe to jeopardize the demand for its natural gas so it picks on small areas that are relatively disconnected from Europe such as Georgia.

To think that ideology is stronger then greed is to ignore human history. Perhaps there will be another major war, there will probably always be war between two groups who don't have a strong enough economic relation to depend on each other and pacify them, but as long as there is people making lots of money, the status quo will not be changed and they will fight to make sure that pesky governments don't ruin their quarterly profits by killing citizens in another country who buy their product.

[PanzerJaeger]

You say "extra vigilance," I say "screaming, girlish persecution complex with no basis in political reality." The Clinton lesson works both ways; leftists learned (for the most part) that gun control was a losing argument which motivated their opponents and did nothing to galvanize their supporters. End of story for at least a generation.

Immature name calling aside, how do you know that? Was there a memo sent out through MSNBC to all the Leftist operatives that stated that gun control would not be on the agenda for a generation, or is that just something you came up with based on the current administration's decision to not push the issue for the time being? You seem to be implying that the NRA and/or gun rights activists are crazy for doing their jobs and not resting on their laurels.

Again, I cannot stress enough how traumatic the '90s were for gun owners. I still have pistols my dad bought during the era with restrictive clips, and I remember what a big deal it was to him when banned weapons returned to the market. For the first time since that era, we again have a Democratic administration dominated by social liberals. I'm not sure why anyone would expect a different response. :shrug:



As for the NRA, I guess they're subject to the age-old rule that no group ever wants the problem it fights to diminish, much less vanish.

Indeed. As a member of the NRA, I can vouch for that. Even during the Bush years, I was subject to a constant stream of donation requests warning of what would happen if the Democrats were to win in the next election.

[rory_20_uk]

Isn't there something concerning a militia in the second amendment? Not personal ownership per se, but as part of an organised grouping.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Lemur, you claim that nobody will ever need to defend themselves against government ever again.
I would be interested to see where I wrote, suggested, or implied any such thing.


The scary part about this ruling is that we have 4 obviously illiterate judges sitting on the bench.
Yes, it is not enough for your position to carry the day; those who disagree are evil and must be cast into darkness! If I could make you Caesar, DevDave, I would. The treason trials alone would be hilarious.


Was there a memo sent out through MSNBC to all the Leftist operatives that stated that gun control would not be on the agenda for a generation, or is that just something you came up with based on the current administration's decision to not push the issue for the time being?
What, you didn’t get the memo?

I’m sorry you’re “traumatized” by the Clinton years, but look to analogies in American politics, and you’ll see I’m not inventing this out of whole cloth. There’s a reason Social Security is now called “the third rail” of American politics—it did not start out that way. There are some issues which whole generations of politicians decide are not worth the fight. I predict, with some degree of confidence, that the only thing which might change the new normal on gun rights would be overreaching by 2nd Amendment advocates, such as the hyperventilating, hysterical, drama-queenish N.R.A.

(Exemplum gratum: Insisting that people on the terrorist watch list have no restrictions on gun purchases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050505211.html). That's just bad politics, that is. And it's an overreach by an organization drunk on its own success. If the N.R.A. had even the slightest realistic fear that guns would be taken away, they would never indulge in this sort of foolishness.)*

*And in fairness, the terrorist watch list is a horrible, dysfunctional thing, but that's hardly relevant to the politics of insisting that every person on it be allowed to purchase firearms without restriction. Two wrongs, in this instance, fail to make good politics or good policy.

[PanzerJaeger]

I predict, with some degree of confidence, that the only thing which might change the new normal on gun rights would be overreaching by 2nd Amendment advocates, such as the hyperventilating, hysterical, drama-queenish N.R.A.


So your entire thesis that the issue won't arise again for a generation is based on your own prediction, being an authority on the issue of course. If only the NRA had consulted with you first, maybe they wouldn't be so concerned with gun rights. :rolleyes:

[Lemur]

So your entire thesis that the issue won't arise again for a generation is based on your own prediction
Reading comprehension epic fail.


Isn't there something concerning a militia in the second amendment? Not personal ownership per se, but as part of an organised grouping.
Indeed, but there's no real cognate to the militias of the late 1700s; even the states' National Guards aren't quite the same, so the "well-regulated militia" part is hard to apply. That said, the "well-regulate militia" phrase is followed by an unambiguous "shall not be infringed," which is kinda hard to argue with. This is a part of why the 2nd amendment advocates have been winning court battle after court battle.

And for the record, I'm pro gun ownership. I would also like autobahns sans speed limits and legalized prostitution, as long as I'm pretending it's Christmas.

[PanzerJaeger]

Reading comprehension epic fail.

That is no less a pathetic excuse for a response than it was in the other thread.

You said:


leftists learned (for the most part) that gun control was a losing argument which motivated their opponents and did nothing to galvanize their supporters. End of story for at least a generation.

I simply asked where you came up with that assertion. If I failed to understand your response, please enlighten me.

Where did you come up with that assertion, as it appears that the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/)is still up and running? Can you give a specific date as to when gun rights will again become a valid political issue?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think Lemur is just messing with you PJ.

[Lemur]

Where did you come up with that assertion, as it appears that the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/)is still up and running? Can you give a specific date as to when gun rights will again become a valid political issue?
When's the last time the Brady Campaign won a court battle or a major piece of legislation? Do they need to shutter their offices for you to agree they are a spent force? By that standard, the Third Reich is an imminent threat, 'cause Stormfront exists. And there are people out there advocating for a flat earth. Should we fear them as well?

Look, if you're keen to feel the adrenaline rush of panic over how your guns are going to be taken away then by all means, do so. Far be it from me to deny another man his pleasure. But it's blindingly obvious that 2nd A has been carrying the day on every front, and it's clear that the Dems have backed off the issue.

Let's walk through it:

Do you deny that 2nd A is triumphing at the moment?
Do you deny that 2nd A was a major component in the Dems losing the congress in 1994?
Do you deny that gun owner fear has been a major rallying point in every national election since 1992? (To the dems' detriment and the repubs' benefit, too.)
Do you think the Dems are utterly stupid and keen on self-inflicted harm?
Do you see the Dems pushing for gun control at the national level?
Do you see any evidence that they're going to push for gun control on the national level?
Can you point to any concrete evidence of a new move to restrict gun ownership in any meaningful way?

As anybody who took logic 101 knows, you can't disprove a negative, so it's impossible for me to "prove," to a casual fascist's satisfaction, that the dems are off the gun control choo-choo train for the foreseeable future. But all evidence points in that direction. If that ain't enough for you, that's your issue, not mine.

[PanzerJaeger]

So there wasn’t a reading comprehension error at all. Your rather definitive (with extra italicized emphasis!) assertion that it would be at least a generation before leftists pushed gun control again was actually just based on a bunch of your own conjecture. Fair enough; I don’t know why we had to jump on the merry-go-round for that.

My only point is that I do not blame the NRA for not sharing your opinion and remaining vigilant during a time when the current administration consists of social liberals who believe in gun control but have tabled it out of political expediency. That is its purpose. Further, your childish hyperbole directed towards gun rights advocates is slightly misplaced. Where’s the panic?

Consider that the current Supreme Court decision would not have occurred if gun rights advocates adopted your “don’t worry about it guys” approach.

[Lemur]

So there wasn’t a reading comprehension error at all. Your rather definitive (with extra italicized emphasis!) assertion that it would be at least a generation before leftists pushed gun control again was actually just based on a bunch of your own conjecture. Fair enough; I don’t know why we had to jump on the merry-go-round for that.
Well, there's the fact that I enjoy your advanced case of last-word-itis, and cannot help but provoke it for my own amusement. Indeed, I predict that you will be completely unable to refrain from atempting to get the last word in after this post, even though it will contain nothing of substance. You seem to believe that mulishness and posting last = victory. If only we could apply such a lenient measure to our current wars ...

I note that you failed to address any of the, you know, actual events, trends and issues I raised, instead plesuring yourself with typographical snark. Whatever makes you happy, pardner, and far be it from me to remove you from the pleasurable frisson of outrage and loathing when you contemplate how the evil libruls are gonna take your guns away any minute now, all political evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. (I put the italics there just for you. Would it make you even happier if I bolded and underlined?)

[Lemur]

Separate post, as this one will contain substance, and not consist of me indulging in my own amusement with Panzer.

An interesting perspective on the gun ruling, which only reinforces the rather non-controversial assertions I've made thus far:


Democrats quietly cheer high court gun ruling (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39142.html)

When the Supreme Court extended the individual right to own a gun Monday, it handed Second Amendment advocates — many of whom are at home in the GOP — one of their most significant legal victories ever.

But who won the day in politics? The Democrats.

For them, the court’s groundbreaking decision couldn’t have been more beneficial to the cause in November. Now, Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners.

“It removes guns as a political issue because everyone now agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and everybody agrees that it’s subject to regulation,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the culture program at centrist think tank Third Way.

A House Democratic aide agreed that the court’s decision removed a potentially combustible element from the mix.

“The Supreme Court ruled here that you have a fundamental right to own and bear arms, and that means at the national level it’s harder — whether it’s Republicans or whether it’s the [National Rifle Association] — to throw that claim out: If Democrats are in charge. they’re going to come get your guns,” said the aide. “It pretty much took that off the table.”

The likely removal — or at least neutralization — of the gun issue this fall is of no small matter in the battle for the House and Senate. The Democratic majorities in both chambers were built, in part, on victories in pro-gun states and districts that had until recently been difficult terrain for Democratic candidates as a result of the national party’s position on gun control.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good. I can see that. We all need guns and we should all just shut up about it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I believe this case was important in many ways. Boom, now I have the last word so Lemur and PJ can rest now.

[Beskar]

Good. I can see that. We all need guns and we should all just shut up about it.

Indeed, how else am I going to get food on my table. I wished these things called "Supermarkets" existed, where you can buy your food thus I don't have to go out and hunt.

[Ironside]

Indeed, how else am I going to get food on my table. I wished these things called "Supermarkets" existed, where you can buy your food thus I don't have to go out and hunt.

It's for those days the way to the supermarket is blocked by rioters due to an economic crisis. :juggle2:

[rory_20_uk]

It does seem odd that Democrats always seem to try to stamp out guns when there are so many individuals poisoned by the lead who will vote for anyone else when the topic is mentioned.

Are any things related to tightening gun ownership also get the same levels of vitriol:

Registered gun ownership
Fingerprint free coating ban
Ban on plastic / ceramic weaponry
Ban on AP / HE / hollow point / dum dum bullets
Gun tagging
Increase quality of guns (increases accuracy and cost).

Nothing there prevents someone owning their arsenal of 20 guns for, uh, but it might help rates of detection and identify ownership more swiftly which reduces inconvenience for the law abiding and increases it for those who are not.

It seems to be that some think the Founding Fathers, a forward thinking collection of modernists would be dead against any developments over the next 300 or so years. Tends ot be the same individuals who are against most other developments in the world. I feel that this is one downside to having a written constitution. Technically all men should do 1 hour of longbow practice a week, but we've moved with the times.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems to be that some think the Founding Fathers, a forward thinking collection of modernists would be dead against any developments over the next 300 or so years. Tends ot be the same individuals who are against most other developments in the world. I feel that this is one downside to having a written constitution.

Didn't the Founding Fathers say that written constitutions need to be continually renewed to meet the needs of changing societies/technology etc?

What if some weapon comes out in the future that makes guns obsolete? You would think it would be in the spirit of the Founding Fathers to let people access these weapons, but constitutionally they would have no right.

Or what if we colonised America earlier and it was advanced enough to come up with the idea of a written constitution... every man today might have the right to own a crossbow, but not a gun, just because there was no such thing when the constitution was written.

[drone]

What if some weapon comes out in the future that makes guns obsolete? You would think it would be in the spirit of the Founding Fathers to let people access these weapons, but constitutionally they would have no right.

Or what if we colonised America earlier and it was advanced enough to come up with the idea of a written constitution... every man today might have the right to own a crossbow, but not a gun, just because there was no such thing when the constitution was written.
The 2nd Amendment does not mention guns or firearms.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yea isn't is about being aloud to keep and bear arms well most people are born with two so thats that covered eh

[Rhyfelwyr]

The 2nd Amendment does not mention guns or firearms.

Good point. :embarassed:

Although surely it is implied they are talking about guns, and that's how it's been in practice I would think. It's not legal to own all kinds of weapons is it (fancy knives and what not), or at least carry them?

[Vladimir]

I'm talking about the period since the end of the Cold War until today. The massive blood shed of the first 50 years of the 20th century created the foundations for progress by creating foundations such as the EU, UN and WTO. The end of the Cold War has sparked the beginnings of a new era of relative peace by having the vast majority of the world firmly linked together in a globalist economy whereas before the US and USSR and their many satellites were ready to send nukes flying due to their economic relations being slim to none. This is why China will never fight the US as long as they think they will eventually get their money back and as long as US citizens keep buying their stuff. Same goes for Russia, who supplies major amounts of natural gas. It will never do anything so blunt in Eastern Europe to jeopardize the demand for its natural gas so it picks on small areas that are relatively disconnected from Europe such as Georgia.

To think that ideology is stronger then greed is to ignore human history. Perhaps there will be another major war, there will probably always be war between two groups who don't have a strong enough economic relation to depend on each other and pacify them, but as long as there is people making lots of money, the status quo will not be changed and they will fight to make sure that pesky governments don't ruin their quarterly profits by killing citizens in another country who buy their product.

This is what I instantly thought of while reading your post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I

A bit OT of course.

[drone]

Although surely it is implied they are talking about guns, and that's how it's been in practice I would think. It's not legal to own all kinds of weapons is it (fancy knives and what not), or at least carry them?
For the most part, it is legal, some cities might still have bans on some martial arts style weapons, leftovers from the 80's hysteria. The 2nd Amendment uses the phrase "arms", which generally means personal weapons.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm talking about the period since the end of the Cold War until today. The massive blood shed of the first 50 years of the 20th century created the foundations for progress by creating foundations such as the EU, UN and WTO. The end of the Cold War has sparked the beginnings of a new era of relative peace by having the vast majority of the world firmly linked together in a globalist economy whereas before the US and USSR and their many satellites were ready to send nukes flying due to their economic relations being slim to none. This is why China will never fight the US as long as they think they will eventually get their money back and as long as US citizens keep buying their stuff. Same goes for Russia, who supplies major amounts of natural gas. It will never do anything so blunt in Eastern Europe to jeopardize the demand for its natural gas so it picks on small areas that are relatively disconnected from Europe such as Georgia.

To think that ideology is stronger then greed is to ignore human history. Perhaps there will be another major war, there will probably always be war between two groups who don't have a strong enough economic relation to depend on each other and pacify them, but as long as there is people making lots of money, the status quo will not be changed and they will fight to make sure that pesky governments don't ruin their quarterly profits by killing citizens in another country who buy their product.

A nice annecdote on this would be the absolute stink the India/Pakistan hostillities created a few years back big time CEO types were ringing there branch managers in India wanting explantions pronto. The Indian government never thought that they would have to worry about the opinion of outsiders, however a single telephone call from say Craig Barret put paid to that.

[PanzerJaeger]

It seems to be that some think the Founding Fathers, a forward thinking collection of modernists would be dead against any developments over the next 300 or so years. Tends ot be the same individuals who are against most other developments in the world. I feel that this is one downside to having a written constitution. Technically all men should do 1 hour of longbow practice a week, but we've moved with the times.

The Constitution, and more importantly, how it is interpreted, is actually far more malleable than strict constructionists would like to admit. If the vast majority of people in the nation agree that a concept is outdated or needs to be changed, new amendments can of course be added, but more usually, new interpretations of the existing verbiage are adopted. Look at the dramatic mutation of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the 10th Amendment, concerning state's rights. The Constitution certainly hasn't prevented American progress.

The reason we have gun rights in the United States is not because of a few people clinging to an outdated constitutional amendment, but because a significant portion of the population want the right preserved, and we’re willing to live with somewhat higher levels of gun related violence. The gun banners haven’t yet won the intellectual argument over here that they did in much of the rest of the world, which highlight’s the United State’s unique history and cultural values.

[Centurion1]

Beskar your comment was juvenile and rather foolish. Maybe i enjoy the ability to hunt my own food? Why should i be denied the right to kill my own food rather than buy meat at the supermarket? We do not all live in dense population city areas like yourself. Where I live I would say 40-55% of the population hunts. The county next to mine gets the opening day of deer season off because it is such an important day for peoples larders in rural areas.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is what I instantly thought of while reading your post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I

A bit OT of course.

I'm curious as to why you thought of WWI. WWI could have been prevented if there were stronger economic ties between the empires. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the major empires had all built large portions of their economic wealth over centuries of Mercantilism supplemented by colonialism, not by large scale free market interactions. I should catch myself and say that some at this point had already begun to accept free market interactions for a good length of time, but not all of them and for those that did, it wasn't enough to create a stronger bond between nations against hostility.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The reason we have gun rights in the United States is not because of a few people clinging to an outdated constitutional amendment, but because a significant portion of the population want the right preserved, and we’re willing to live with somewhat higher levels of gun related violence. The gun banners haven’t yet won the intellectual argument over here that they did in much of the rest of the world, which highlight’s the United State’s unique history and cultural values.

Or it highlights the anti-intellectual streak in American society that is slowly killing us.

[Centurion1]

Or it highlights the anti-intellectual streak in American society that is slowly killing us.

This is an intolerant and offensive comment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A nice annecdote on this would be the absolute stink the India/Pakistan hostillities created a few years back big time CEO types were ringing there branch managers in India wanting explantions pronto. The Indian government never thought that they would have to worry about the opinion of outsiders, however a single telephone call from say Craig Barret put paid to that.

Yes, exactly. I'm sure India would not enjoy it if all the call centers were uprooted from its country and put somewhere else because the corporations got scared that the Indian Parliament was going to attack Pakistan any day now. Once again, economic development promotes peace even over fundamental religious and ideological differences to the point of hatred.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is an intolerant and offensive comment.

I disagree. In case you didn't know I'm American, and I live in conservative town USA, and I get to hear every day how we shouldn't trust the "experts", or the "intellectuals" who are trying to suppress the hard working class with their "elitist" policies. When you ask Americans what they would value most in a President, intellectual genius or the intangible quality of "being able to sit and have a beer with him/her" and they choose the latter, means that America doesn't pride intelligence over character, which is why we had 8 years of Bush and failed, broken and flawed policies.

[Centurion1]

I disagree. In case you didn't know I'm American, and I live in conservative town USA, and I get to hear every day how we shouldn't trust the "experts", or the "intellectuals" who are trying to suppress the hard working class with their "elitist" policies. When you ask Americans what they would value most in a President, intellectual genius or the intangible quality of "being able to sit and have a beer with him/her" and they choose the latter, means that America doesn't pride intelligence over character, which is why we had 8 years of Bush and failed, broken and flawed policies.

Maybe the ability to sit down and someone and have a beer is in fact an important quality. I dont want an elitist aloof "intellectual genius", i would prefer someone who wants to understands peoples problems and associates with them. And i would hardly classify Obama as an intellectual genius. Character is the most important quality of a person and the sooner you realize that the better. If a guy is a scumbag I don't give a damn how smart he is he is still a scumbag. Give me a stupid decent person anyday. I live in a military town and since we all know the only thing military people are good for is taking orders, have no initiative, are incapable of working outside of the military, stupid, etc. and i do not hear statements like, "damn intellectuals they aint to be trusted." I hear Democrats are trying to crush our economy and if you term all democrats as being intellectuals then yeah your right on that but wrong on your whole outlook.

Anyway you said

Or it highlights the anti-intellectual streak in American society that is slowly killing us.

in reference to america wanting the ability to bear firearms. By innuendo you are saying people who own and support gun rights and anti-intellectual, which in your mind makes them dumb.

[Vladimir]

I'm curious as to why you thought of WWI. WWI could have been prevented if there were stronger economic ties between the empires. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the major empires had all built large portions of their economic wealth over centuries of Mercantilism supplemented by colonialism, not by large scale free market interactions. I should catch myself and say that some at this point had already begun to accept free market interactions for a good length of time, but not all of them and for those that did, it wasn't enough to create a stronger bond between nations against hostility.

It was your comments about how recent times were peaceful when compared to the first half of the 20th century. That's similar to what people thought after the Napoleonic wars. Then we had "the war to end all wars." I'd argue that the American gun culture was largely responsible for the relatively swift conclusion to the war after our entry. American snipers forced the Germans to change tactics; A relatively armature army was able to quickly engage in combat. These would not have been possible with out our gun culture.

The second amendment is not only a guarantor against tyranny but a tool by which we maintain our military readiness.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The second amendment is not only a guarantor against tyranny but a tool by which we maintain our military readiness.

This is very much in line with what the founders were thinking. They believed in a militia of pretty much every male in the community as a prime tool for defense (clergy, women, men under 16 or over 70 exempted). They also felt that this would be a final guarantor against tyranny.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe the ability to sit down and someone and have a beer is in fact an important quality. I dont want an elitist aloof "intellectual genius", i would prefer someone who wants to understands peoples problems and associates with them. And i would hardly classify Obama as an intellectual genius. Character is the most important quality of a person and the sooner you realize that the better. If a guy is a scumbag I don't give a damn how smart he is he is still a scumbag. Give me a stupid decent person anyday. I live in a military town and since we all know the only thing military people are good for is taking orders, have no initiative, are incapable of working outside of the military, stupid, etc. and i do not hear statements like, "damn intellectuals they aint to be trusted." I hear Democrats are trying to crush our economy and if you term all democrats as being intellectuals then yeah your right on that but wrong on your whole outlook.

No, it is not an important quality to be able and sit down with the president and have a beer with him. This is not like any other job, this man is charge of destroying the entire world at his damn whim if he wanted to. I want the most powerful man in the world to be as smart as they come, I want him to smarter then me, I don't want a hard working guy like my neighbor to be my ruler, my neighbor is an idiot who doesn't understand the nuances of the world and instead sees it in black and white. I'm not talking about the most important quality of a person, I'm talking about the most important quality of a president, this is why people who think like you are holding America back. Stop looking at the president as a person, and instead look at the president as a role, a role that can be filled by the qualified and incompetent alike should the people choose. Give you a stupid decent person any day? Alright, sounds like you enjoyed the Bush years.
If a guy is a scumbag I don't give a damn how smart he is he is still a scumbag.
This statement angers me, this sums up the entire anti-intellectual streak in America. If i can't relate to him or if he doesn't hold up to my ideal of the model person to live life by then he shouldn't be in charge over me. Nixon was a complete scumbag but also a complete genius along with Kissinger, and he is one of the most underrated presidents in American history. This man gave us the clean water act, created the Environmental Protection Agency, and successfully pitted China and the USSR, against each other over their differences in Communist thinking, started Detente, he then opened up relations with China when no one else had in decades. This was because he was smart, and he single handily made US citizens life better for it, his scumbag quality was what prompted the ingenious tactics in domestic and international politics he performed in order to get what he wanted. His brilliance made America safer then Reagan did, Reagan had character but not intellect and that's why his way of making America safer was by simply taunting the USSR to attack and building more nukes and the impractical "Star Wars" program pushing America into the debt crisis we have today.

I live in a military town and since we all know the only thing military people are good for is taking orders, have no initiative, are incapable of working outside of the military, stupid, etc. and i do not hear statements like, "damn intellectuals they aint to be trusted." I hear Democrats are trying to crush our economy and if you term all democrats as being intellectuals then yeah your right on that but wrong on your whole outlook.
I have no idea what you are even trying to say right here.




Anyway you said


in reference to america wanting the ability to bear firearms. By innuendo you are saying people who own and support gun rights and anti-intellectual, which in your mind makes them dumb.

Actually, that isn't what i was saying. Maybe if you prided intellect a bit more, you could recognize the nuances of what I said. I said, the main motivation behind people's support for guns could easily just as well stem from an anti-intellectual streak in American culture then from fundamental beliefs in a specific interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm actually pro gun. But I simply recognize that gun ownership is for all intents and purposes only practical in the real world for self defense against intruders on your property. Hunting, and defense against tyranny are flawed arguments and those purposes are no longer applicable.

[PanzerJaeger]

Or it highlights the anti-intellectual streak in American society that is slowly killing us.


Valuing the right to own a gun is not an anti-intellectual position. In fact, private gun ownership represents a more mature relationship between the government and the people than is present in some other countries.

(I do agree with your broader point about anti-intellectualism damaging the country. I just don't think it applies to this situation.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

It was your comments about how recent times were peaceful when compared to the first half of the 20th century. That's similar to what people thought after the Napoleonic wars. Then we had "the war to end all wars." I'd argue that the American gun culture was largely responsible for the relatively swift conclusion to the war after our entry. American snipers forced the Germans to change tactics; A relatively armature army was able to quickly engage in combat. These would not have been possible with out our gun culture.

People back then were ignorant of their government's actions in the world around them or they thought that Europe was the only part of the world worth paying attention to (AKA Europe might as well be the world since we are the best). After the Napoleonic Wars, there were many, many wars that were waged across the world as part of rebellions, insurrections against colonialism and as part of new colonialism in other regions of the world including Africa. There might have been a dip in fighting in Europe itself, but that means nothing. They stopped fighting each other because they were too busy raping the human and natural resources of the rest of the world at the point of a gun. Hardly comparable to today.

[Vladimir]

People back then were ignorant of their government's actions in the world around them or they thought that Europe was the only part of the world worth paying attention to (AKA Europe might as well be the world since we are the best). After the Napoleonic Wars, there were many, many wars that were waged across the world as part of rebellions, insurrections against colonialism and as part of new colonialism in other regions of the world including Africa. There might have been a dip in fighting in Europe itself, but that means nothing. They stopped fighting each other because they were too busy raping the human and natural resources of the rest of the world at the point of a gun. Hardly comparable to today.

You're right. It's not relevant to today. It's relative to one's perception of the world. A perception you demonstrated by your post.

Now that we're down to "raping human and natural resources" I'll bow out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Valuing the right to own a gun is not an anti-intellectual position. In fact, private gun ownership represents a more mature relationship between the government and the people than is present in some other countries.

(I do agree with your broader point about anti-intellectualism damaging the country. I just don't think it applies to this situation.)

No, it is not an anti-intellectual position. Except when your reasoning behind owning a gun is "To make sure the evil government doesn't take my land and money and take away my freedoms!". Then it is anti-intellectual since that kind of reason is propagated by those who don't understand the realities of modern day citizens-gov relationships and instead are just fearful over a nonexistent threat.

I disagree that it represents a more mature relationship between government and people, at least in the US's case. If the US citizens were saying we would like our guns because we feel it is a freedom of ours to be had and the government consented because it was not in the business of suppressing its people then yes, it would represent maturity. But that is not America. In America we have the government attempting to help its population stop killing themselves and the citizens are saying we would like our guns because we want to be ready to burn down the capital and execute the tyrants when they try to take away our freedoms. Word of warning, if all of government conspired to take away our freedoms, I'm sure it would easily find its nukes, stealth bombers, tanks and knowledge of the geographical area more then enough to disable any rebellion.

[Beskar]

Beskar your comment was juvenile and rather foolish. Maybe i enjoy the ability to hunt my own food? Why should i be denied the right to kill my own food rather than buy meat at the supermarket? We do not all live in dense population city areas like yourself. Where I live I would say 40-55% of the population hunts. The county next to mine gets the opening day of deer season off because it is such an important day for peoples larders in rural areas.

But why would you need hundreds of gunstores around the Bronx then?

Farmers can just get the ol' hunting rifle, same for game, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But why would you need hundreds of gunstores around the Bronx then?

Farmers can just get the ol' hunting rifle, same for game, etc.

It's a flawed argument. He is not coming from a place of reasoning, but of irrational backlash against what he perceives to be a threat to his way of life. It's why he is saying you are foolish and I'm offensive.

[Centurion1]

Beskar I agree that guns should have stricter purchasing and screening laws. I and my family do not own handguns or anything beyond a hunting weapon. We do not have our weapons for violence towards human beings we have weapons, that can yes be used for violence but were designed to be used as hunting implements. And we enjoy hunting, should that be taken away from us?

To acin ill respond when I'm at home and can properly type.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, it is not an anti-intellectual position. Except when your reasoning behind owning a gun is "To make sure the evil government doesn't take my land and money and take away my freedoms!". Then it is anti-intellectual since that kind of reason is propagated by those who don't understand the realities of modern day citizens-gov relationships and instead are just fearful over a nonexistent threat.

I disagree that it represents a more mature relationship between government and people, at least in the US's case. If the US citizens were saying we would like our guns because we feel it is a freedom of ours to be had and the government consented because it was not in the business of suppressing its people then yes, it would represent maturity. But that is not America. In America we have the government attempting to help its population stop killing themselves and the citizens are saying we would like our guns because we want to be ready to burn down the capital and execute the tyrants when they try to take away our freedoms. Word of warning, if all of government conspired to take away our freedoms, I'm sure it would easily find its nukes, stealth bombers, tanks and knowledge of the geographical area more then enough to disable any rebellion.Excellent.

If I may put an amendment to the post: It is not the private ownership of firearms that protects Americans from tyranny. It is civilian control over the military. This is the real ownership, control, of arms in the US political constellation.

It always surprises me to see militant groups, who forever think a Washington takeover is imminent, drive around with 'support the troops' bumper stickers. Who, or what, exactly, do these people think a government deploys to install a tyranny - pencil pushers? It is not their little hunting rifle that protects them, it is their civilian control over America's standing army. By, yes, the reviled people's representatives in Washington.



Speaking of which, ever since the US has opted for a standing army, I think the interpretation of the 2nd has needed adaptation.


More in general, the current SC interpretation, roughly: 'no infringement of the right to bear arms without any further consideration of the full meaning of the amenendment', strikes me as incomprehensible. If one is going to opt for an extremely limited interpretation of the 2nd, then I'd rather read the amendment as 'right to enlist in the armed forces'. Strange as that interpretation may sound at first glance.

[ajaxfetish]

But why would you need hundreds of gunstores around the Bronx then?

Farmers can just get the ol' hunting rifle, same for game, etc.
Perhaps there are other uses for guns, beyond hunting? Also, you always like to run with the question of 'need,' when it's not about need. Why do we need hundreds of Apple stores? Or hundreds of Starbucks? Shouldn't the government ban these?

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps there are other uses for guns, beyond hunting? Also, you always like to run with the question of 'need,' when it's not about need. Why do we need hundreds of Apple stores? Or hundreds of Starbucks? Shouldn't the government ban these?

Ajax

It's no different then when conservatives strike down liberals for saying using electricity and the internet should be rights for all citizens on the basis that you don't "need" either, so the government shouldn't be in the business of establishing or protecting such "rights".

[ajaxfetish]

It's no different then when conservatives strike down liberals for saying using electricity and the internet should be rights for all citizens on the basis that you don't "need" either, so the government shouldn't be in the business of establishing or protecting such "rights".
Are you arguing that constitutional protections aren't important, or that electricity and internet rights should be established by constitutional amendment, or something else? I don't quite understand. Also, are you defending a right to the availability of electricity and internet, or a right to their provision?

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Are you arguing that constitutional protections aren't important, or that electricity and internet rights should be established by constitutional amendment, or something else? I don't quite understand. Also, are you defending a right to the availability of electricity and internet, or a right to their provision?

Ajax

I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy. Not on your part, but the majority of people I have talked to who argued against the "it's not needed" point about guns (conservatives) brought up the same point on provision of electricity and internet. Either we agree that it is allowable to have things simply because we want them and not because they are needed or we need to get rid of everything that isn't truly needed, including the right to electricity, internet and guns.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy. Not on your part, but the majority of people I have talked to who argued against the "it's not needed" point about guns (conservatives) brought up the same point on provision of electricity and internet. Either we agree that it is allowable to have things simply because we want them and not because they are needed or we need to get rid of everything that isn't truly needed, including the right to electricity, internet and guns.
Ah, I see, my brain just wasn't firing on all cylinders.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah, I see, my brain just wasn't firing on all cylinders.

Ajax

It was a bit off topic, but I wanted to touch upon the subject of "need" when we are talking about rights to have. Perhaps I should have made a separate thread for that.

[Subotan]

I won't comment further, as I am quite enjoying this discussion, but:


Maybe the ability to sit down and someone and have a beer is in fact an important quality.
Yes, in a decent, typical human being. But Presidents and other heads of government are not typical human beings, and I would much rather have a sharp but aloof Conservative Prime Minister then a dim but nice Labour/Lib Dem one. That is why I like Ken Clarke but dislike Ed Balls and Diane Abbot.

[Centurion1]

Acin I do not understand why you presume to say that withdrawal of firearms would not affect my way of life? Hunting is a major part of my life and has helped to define me as a person (obviously an anti_intellectual). You do not know me or my lifestyle. I missed the first half of the school day on the opening of deer season this year, my families dog is breed and used for hunting as well as companionship. Hunting is an important part of my life but you advocate the removal of my right to hunt by taking away the implements by which I hunt. *note: I realize that you have said your pro gun rights. Should we remove the internet from the use of the public? It causes injury to people if there was no internet then, for example the craigslist killer would never have been able to kill those young women. So by that logic we should ban the internet. Or cars because cars kill people as well, right?

So tighten screening of weapon purchase, but don't try to control a tool. Because, I hate to say this incredibly cliched statement, guns don't kill people, people do.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Acin I do not understand why you presume to say that withdrawal of firearms would not affect my way of life? Hunting is a major part of my life and has helped to define me as a person (obviously an anti_intellectual). You do not know me or my lifestyle. I missed the first half of the school day on the opening of deer season this year, my families dog is breed and used for hunting as well as companionship. Hunting is an important part of my life but you advocate the removal of my right to hunt by taking away the implements by which I hunt. *note: I realize that you have said your pro gun rights. Should we remove the internet from the use of the public? It causes injury to people if there was no internet then, for example the craigslist killer would never have been able to kill those young women. So by that logic we should ban the internet. Or cars because cars kill people as well, right?

So tighten screening of weapon purchase, but don't try to control a tool. Because, I hate to say this incredibly cliched statement, guns don't kill people, people do.

I do not recall saying it would not affect your way of life. I seem to remember saying the exact opposite, and concluded that is why you came from an emotional instead of reasoned stance. I fully understand how hunting is important in your life, and I was not advocating to take away the guns, I was arguing with you about anti-intellectualism in America. You sparked the conversation by calling my original comment offensive and as far I was aware we were still debating about character vs. intellect in our presidents and whether or not there is an anti-intellectual streak in American culture that is or is not killing America. I do not recall advocating against guns because they have killed people, if I was go about that logic I would be as you have already said, advocating banning cars in favor of bicycles first. I think what I have said may have been misinterpreted.

[Beskar]

Perhaps there are other uses for guns, beyond hunting? Also, you always like to run with the question of 'need,' when it's not about need. Why do we need hundreds of Apple stores? Or hundreds of Starbucks? Shouldn't the government ban these?

Ajax

Are these products, tools for lethal force?

I don't know many gangsters running around with cups of Starbucks coffee, to take down members of rival clans.

But a bunch of gun-stores in gangland selling cheap pistols to bing-bing another person... yeah.


Because, I hate to say this incredibly cliched statement, guns don't kill people, people do.

So giving people easy access to guns won't have any side effects then?

[ajaxfetish]

Are these products, tools for lethal force?

I don't know many gangsters running around with cups of Starbucks coffee, to take down members of rival clans.

But a bunch of gun-stores in gangland selling cheap pistols to bing-bing another person... yeah.
Good, so it's not a matter of you don't need them so you can't have them. Instead, you're saying they're dangerous, so you shouldn't have them, is that accurate? And of course that brings us back to all the questions of whether the benefits outweigh the harm, and about whether firearm bans would affect criminals such as your gangland folks or just law-abiding citizens. And ultimately, the only way any of that matters is if it sways public opinion enough to result in a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the right is protected, and the majority of us feel it should continue to be.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Good, so it's not a matter of you don't need them so you can't have them. Instead, you're saying they're dangerous, so you shouldn't have them, is that accurate? And of course that brings us back to all the questions of whether the benefits outweigh the harm, and about whether firearm bans would affect criminals such as your gangland folks or just law-abiding citizens. And ultimately, the only way any of that matters is if it sways public opinion enough to result in a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the right is protected, and the majority of us feel it should continue to be.

Guns are tools for killing, that is their only purpose. There is no reason to have guns beyond what is required/needed. As such, farmers who need to shoot predators, or armed forces, where such weapons are needed should be allowed them and it should pretty much be restricted to these areas, with strict regulation. There is no need for waton sale of them, as they serve absolutely no purpose what so ever.

On the other hand, Apple products, Internet, Starbucks, other examples, etc, serve purposes which are nothing to do with removing life from the planet. Therefore, there is no objection to their existence. You could try to bring up knifes, but they have purposes in cutting things, from meat, boxes, and other things. It is not like knives sole purpose is to kill other living things.

Pretty easy concept to understand. The whole loony "to fite tha powar!" is simply that, loony.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Guns are tools for killing, that is their only purpose. There is no reason to have guns beyond what is required/needed. As such, farmers who need to shoot predators, or armed forces, where such weapons are needed should be allowed them and it should pretty much be restricted to these areas, with strict regulation. There is no need for waton sale of them, as they serve absolutely no purpose what so ever.

On the other hand, Apple products, Internet, Starbucks, other examples, etc, serve purposes which are nothing to do with removing life from the planet. Therefore, there is no objection to their existence. You could try to bring up knifes, but they have purposes in cutting things, from meat, boxes, and other things. It is not like knives sole purpose is to kill other living things.

Pretty easy concept to understand. The whole loony "to fite tha powar!" is simply that, loony.


This may be the most succinct summary of the "gun ban" position I have read in some time, Beskar. Thanks for your brevity and clarity.

I disagree utterly...which you will find unsurprising...but I do appreciate concision.

[Vladimir]

This may be the most succinct summary of the "gun ban" position I have read in some time, Beskar. Thanks for your brevity and clarity.

I disagree utterly...which you will find unsurprising...but I do appreciate concision.

It also sounds like your typical college kid rant. Who determines where such weapons are needed? "Absolutely no purpose what so ever"? I guess he is the one who decides the fate of us all. Not tyranical at all, that.

[drone]

On the other hand, Apple products, Internet, Starbucks, other examples, etc, serve purposes which are nothing to do with removing life from the planet. Therefore, there is no objection to their existence. You could try to bring up knifes, but they have purposes in cutting things, from meat, boxes, and other things. It is not like knives sole purpose is to kill other living things.
You've obviously never been driving behind an idiot with his iPhone. ~;)

[gaelic cowboy]

It also sounds like your typical college kid rant. Who determines where such weapons are needed? "Absolutely no purpose what so ever"? I guess he is the one who decides the fate of us all. Not tyranical at all, that.

You could take that the other way and say who is the government to limit my right to a nuclear weapon then

[Vladimir]

You could take that the other way and say who is the government to limit my right to a nuclear weapon then

Or to have sex with your own children. They're you're children after all, right?

Fortunately reason often comes into play.

[gaelic cowboy]

Or to have sex with your own children. They're you're children after all, right?

Fortunately reason often comes into play.


Yes indeed Reason indeed this is very thing we should use to limit gun ownership.

[Vladimir]

Yes indeed Reason indeed this is very thing we should use to limit gun ownership.

We do. Problem solved.

http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/gun_ownership_by_convicted_felons

Another win for gun rights!

[Centurion1]

Guns have no purpose besides killing human beings.........

what was my 12 gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot designed for beskar? Birdshot would have a hard time even killing someone. It was designed to hunt animals and for no other purpose. Your argument is flawed by an inability to admit that guns can serve a purpose beyond killing people. They are a tool like an other object.

[Slyspy]

He said that guns have no purpose other than killing, which is the absolute truth. He didn't specify what they would be killing.

[Beskar]

This may be the most succinct summary of the "gun ban" position I have read in some time, Beskar. Thanks for your brevity and clarity.

I disagree utterly...which you will find unsurprising...but I do appreciate concision.

Not a complete outright banning, just mainly a large scale ban for the safety of the population. Even studies in America saw that even the sight of a gun triggers violence and aggressive tendencies in individuals. (From the association for its use)

I don't have problems with sanctioned militias having guns, go through gun training and safety, with the end of the day, all guns are registered, marked and sealed tight at night. Same could be extended to "Hunting Clubs", with people having the ability to own the rifle, but when transporting it outside the permitted zones, having it dismantled or disabled in some way. As for farms, guns do have a use with foxes attacking the chickens amongst other things, so farmers could apply for licence, registration and a permit to keep the weapons on the farm.

This way, all those with legitimate reasons to actually possess a firearm have them. Centurion1 can shoot his birds, people have their regulated miltia if the Chinese decide to attack, the farm is clear of vermin, etc. Legitimate reasons to possess such a weapon. (This is also actually done in the UK as well.)

Owning guns outside these instances, other than disabled ones for decorative use, seem entirely pointless, unless you are intending them for non-sanctioned illegal use, such as slaughtering your fellow men and women.

[PanzerJaeger]

He said that guns have no purpose other than killing, which is the absolute truth.

That simply is not true. Guns have the same purpose as footballs and hockey sticks where I am from.... sports equipment.

[Vladimir]

That simply is not true. Guns have the same purpose as footballs and hockey sticks where I am from.... sports equipment.

And making girls HOT!!!

But no, if someone thinks teh guns are just for killing they're just for reproduction.

[Beskar]

That simply is not true. Guns have the same purpose as footballs and hockey sticks where I am from.... sports equipment.

At sanctioned rifle clubs, with match rifles. Not in the middle of an urban centre.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And making girls HOT!!!

But no, if someone thinks teh guns are just for killing they're just for reproduction.

But tell that to the birds Centurion shot. ~;)

And for what it's worth I agree with Beskar here: allowing guns is one thing but it would be completely ridiculous to suggest that aforementioned gun stores around the Bronx are purely for “recreational purposes” and there's nothing wrong with participating in organised hunts (where guns are accounted for). Hunting, sports, etc. is simply a matter of getting a licence/participating in some club; for the rest guns serve no real purpose other than to kill and maim. Which is why it is a very good idea to impose strict regulation on them; and on the people who should be allowed to have one.

[PanzerJaeger]

At sanctioned rifle clubs, with match rifles. Not in the middle of an urban centre.

What about pistols? I got 3rd place last year at the local range(in the middle of the city) shooting in the stock pistol competition with my H&K.:grin:

What about skeet shooting? What about collecting? I have about 100 guns and only use 4 of them to "kill things".

[drone]

And for what it's worth I agree with Beskar here: allowing guns is one thing but it would be completely ridiculous to suggest that aforementioned gun stores around the Bronx are purely for “recreational purposes” and there's nothing wrong with participating in organised hunts (where guns are accounted for). Hunting, sports, etc. is simply a matter of getting a licence/participating in some club; for the rest guns serve no real purpose other than to kill and maim. Which is why it is a very good idea to impose strict regulation on them; and on the people who should be allowed to have one.
I'm fairly certain there are very few, if any, gun stores around the Bronx.

[Lemur]

Which is why it is a very good idea to impose strict regulation on them; and on the people who should be allowed to have one.
Interestingly, nobody in the U.S.A. debate (with the exception of a few extremists) is arguing that gun ownership should not be restricted. Even the N.R.A. agrees that people with violent crime convictions should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Indeed, in the latest supreme court ruling, the reasoning was that gun rights should be reognized and regulated.

That said, I don't see anyone mentioning the real purpose of firearms: to be shot by chicks in bikinis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C917QJH9GNM

[Beskar]

Interestingly, nobody in the U.S.A. debate (with the exception of a few extremists) is arguing that gun ownership should not be restricted. Even the N.R.A. agrees that people with violent crime convictions should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Indeed, in the latest supreme court ruling, the reasoning was that gun rights should be reognized and regulated.

That said, I don't see anyone mentioning the real purpose of firearms: to be shot by chicks in bikinis.

All those guns in that video should be illegal to general public. They are not hunting rifles, they are not gun sport weapons, not even for farmers.

[drone]

All those guns in that video should be illegal to general public. They are not hunting rifles, they are not gun sport weapons, not even for farmers.
The shotgun is legal to the general public, and is a sport weapon. :inquisitive: All the other firearms in that video are highly restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act), since they are automatic weapons (except maybe the AK, I think it was a full auto version, but she looked too scared to go rock'n'roll so I couldn't tell).

[PanzerJaeger]

All those guns in that video should be illegal to general public. They are not hunting rifles, they are not gun sport weapons, not even for farmers.

Not really. I own an AK for sport shooting.

[Centurion1]

Beskar do you know anything about the items you so dearly wish to ban? Every gun is not a rifle.

And there are not hundreds of gun stores in the Bronx in fact there are very very few in any city This is not gta

Tellos do you eat meat?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Tellos do you eat meat?

Yes. I also eat fish, shellfish, and veg. But my appetite for food is not really relevant to this thread, I would think. Nor do we suggest to ban hunting (with or without rifles, with or without handguns) in case that is what you got all worked up about [again].

[a completely inoffensive name]

If this thread is simply coming down to an argument over what uses a gun has, then this thread is pointless. If your point is we should have guns because they are also used for sport, then that is a seriously flimsy argument. If you are saying that we shouldn't have guns because they have no use, then you obviously need to get the hell out of the capitalistic country you live in. This is all pointless drivel, semantics and tiny details being used to justify grander points of gun ownership. Discuss the philosophical implications of restricting a right because it in itself poses a danger to the public. Don't turn every gun argument into a diagnosis of the tool. It's as if we were having an argument over a ban on using hands for anything else besides driving while operating a car and its going like this:

"What are the purposes of using your hands while driving other then driving? It serves no purpose then then one's own crazy satisfaction at going against "the man", meanwhile many people die every day."
"(John Locke from LOST enters the thread) DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO, BIG GOV! I NEED NO PURPOSE TO DO WHAT I WANT!"

[Beskar]

coffee =/= guns. Pointless to even compare it.

Banning the use of your hands other than operating vehicle while driving would be a closer argument. (Yes, you should get at least fined for not following this as well.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

coffee =/= guns. Pointless to even compare it.

Banning the use of your hands other than operating vehicle while driving would be a closer argument. (Yes, you should get at least fined for not following this as well.)


Alright I shall use your better analogy.

edit: Seriously, though the point isn't the analogy, the point is in the main paragraph. The analogy was a quick attempt to point out how pointless the argument has gotten. Let's discuss philosophical implications please.

[Xiahou]

(Exemplum gratum: Insisting that people on the terrorist watch list have no restrictions on gun purchases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050505211.html). That's just bad politics, that is. And it's an overreach by an organization drunk on its own success. If the N.R.A. had even the slightest realistic fear that guns would be taken away, they would never indulge in this sort of foolishness.)*

*And in fairness, the terrorist watch list is a horrible, dysfunctional thing, but that's hardly relevant to the politics of insisting that every person on it be allowed to purchase firearms without restriction. Two wrongs, in this instance, fail to make good politics or good policy.You would support taking away people's Constitutional rights based on a watchlist? Do you know how easy it is to get on a watchlist? There's no due process at all. Stopping people from boarding privately owned planes until the government sorts out who they really are is one thing. But stripping citizens of their rights should involve at the very least some finding of fact don't you think?

You've said many times that you think the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. Why would you pick this out as an example of unreasonable overreaching? Would you feel the same if Lieberman proposed a bill to suspend Fifth Amendment protections to someone on the watch list?

Edit: Oh, and in response to your ridiculing of people who still think the 2A is a political issue that still needs vigorous support.... How did Sotomayor vote on this case? The 2A is a winner right now, but it's only 1 SCOTUS appointment away from being a loser. I don't think the NRA should declare victory and pack it in just yet.

[Slyspy]

That simply is not true. Guns have the same purpose as footballs and hockey sticks where I am from.... sports equipment.

Sadly the gun is simply designed to kill. You can also make a sport of the skills involved in using the weapon. The hockey stick, on the other hand, is designed for sporting use from the start. Likewise the football.

[Lemur]

You would support taking away people's Constitutional rights based on a watchlist?
Hence my "two wrongs" point. I think the NRA should have worked with the Feds to find some sort of commonsese solution, not a straight-up stonewall, which they believe they can do because, as I have pointed out previously, they appear to be drunk on success and power.


Would you feel the same if Lieberman proposed a bill to suspend Fifth Amendment protections to someone on the watch list?
As we all know, Joe Lieberman manages to be on the wrong side of pretty much everything, so I would be suspicious if he proposed ice cream for cancer patients.

I find your gross simplification of my position amusing, but not terribly illuminating. If I did believe the things you ascribe to me, what a terrible person I would be! However, my point about the watchlist was political. Did I say it was bad from a constitutional perspective? No. Did I say it was bad lawmaking? No. I said it was bad politics. I think the NRA could have approached the whole terror watchlist/gun buying thing with a great deal more finesse, could they have been bothered to do so.


Oh, and in response to your ridiculing of people who still think the 2A is a political issue that still needs vigorous support
If by "vigorous support" you mean "constant apocalyptic panic-mongering" and "neverending persecution complex more suitable to emo girls than full-grown men," then yes, I think the NRA's rhetorical posture is absurd and worthy of mockery. When you're winning every fight it is self-evidently ridiculous to keep playing the victim card. As Seamus very sensibly proposed, they should be couching their arguments in more of a, "We're grateful for our current string of wins, and we'd like to consolidate in the following manner," but I guess when panic, anger and emotion are working, why would you drop them?

-edit-

A free taste of just how political, partisan and apocalyptic the panic sisters at the NRA have been:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/nra1.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/nra2.jpg

[Vladimir]

As we all know, Joe Lieberman manages to be on the wrong side of pretty much everything, so I would be suspicious if he proposed ice cream for cancer patients.

Huh. I wondered who thought of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/cdc-officials-announce-free-ice-cream-for-everyone,17611/

Now I know.

[Beskar]

A couple of those points on that list are very good. For example, point 2, 8 and 9.

[Xiahou]

Hence my "two wrongs" point. I think the NRA should have worked with the Feds to find some sort of commonsese solution, not a straight-up stonewall, which they believe they can do because, as I have pointed out previously, they appear to be drunk on success and power.You seemed to be listing the two wrongs as 1) the watchlist itself and 2) opposing a gun ban on anyone who is on said watchlist. I didn't see how the second one was a wrong. If I now understand you correctly, you don't think it is either. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lemur]

You seemed to be listing the two wrongs as 1) the watchlist itself and 2) opposing a gun ban on anyone who is on said watchlist. I didn't see how the second one was a wrong. If I now understand you correctly, you don't think it is either. Thanks for the clarification.

However, my point about the watchlist was political. Did I say it was bad from a constitutional perspective? No. Did I say it was bad lawmaking? No. I said it was bad politics. I think the NRA could have approached the whole terror watchlist/gun buying thing with a great deal more finesse, could they have been bothered to do so.
I think the NRA is in a classic position of overreach-in-victory, but apparently for some Orgahs they can do no wrong, 'cause they're, you know, vigilant. And advocating. Which can only be a good thing, as PETA and Code Pink would be happy to agree.

-edit-

To expand on that analogy:

I'm of an age that I can remember when PETA was a respectable organization. And let's be frank; the welfare of animals is a legitimate cause. No animal should be subjected to wanton cruelty, and there are a multitude of ways in which our society could treat them better at no real cost to time, convenience or economics. So there's no reason for a group like PETA to go off the rails into loony absolutism. Except that they did.

Likewise, I fear the NRA, which advocates for a legitimate, admirable cause, is showing signs of PETAfication. Their absolute alignment with the Republican party is not a good thing, no matter how you look at it; their panic-mongering in the middle of a string of victories is unbalanced and counterproductive; their hysterical tone is more appropriate to a fringe group than the second-most-powerful lobbying operation on the Hill.

At no point have I suggested that the NRA should stop advocating, fold up their tents and go home. That's a straw argument spilling from the mouth of a straw man who lives in a straw condo in a straw apartment complex. Rather, I think 2nd A advocates should not be such hysterical, apocalyptic pre-teens with such an advanced case of Manichean dualism. Consolidate victories; secure them; coopt the moderates and establish the new normal. Don't keep crying that the sky is falling and that the black man in the White House is gonna take your ARs away, when any fool can see that is not so.

[PanzerJaeger]

Rather, I think 2nd A advocates should not be such hysterical, apocalyptic pre-teens with such an advanced case of Manichean dualism. Consolidate victories; secure them; coopt the moderates and establish the new normal. Don't keep crying that the sky is falling and that the black man in the White House is gonna take your ARs away, when any fool can see that is not so.

Yes, there is absolutely no reason (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm) for gun rights advocates to be worried about the current ‘black man’ in the White House. I am curious, why did you choose to describe him as a 'black man' instead of the 'president' or 'Obama'? Another not so subtle dig at gun owners?

Anyway, some nuggets from the ‘black man’s’ record on gun rights.


FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008


2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007


Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004



Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test July 2, 1998

Honestly Lemur, your continued hysterical, pre-teen, emo, baby girl whining about the NRA doing its job against the ‘black man’ in the White House is starting to sound like reactionary defensiveness against an organization that is rightly distrustful of your favorite politician.

[Beskar]

Obama's response to Mr. Keynes was correct though. There is no reason to possess Assualt Rifles as their only purpose comes under illict actions.

For "home defense", whats wrong with a pistol or a rifle opposed to going Rambo?

[PanzerJaeger]

Obama's response to Mr. Keynes was correct though. There is no reason to possess Assualt Rifles as their only purpose comes under illict actions.

For "home defense", whats wrong with a pistol or a rifle opposed to going Rambo?

I would wager 99% of assault rifles in this country were bought for, and are used at, the range. There is no reason to do a lot of things people do - they're called hobbies.

But regardless, if you are pro-gun bans, that's fine. My point was that Lemur's hyperbole against gun rights activists for not simply taking his word on the 'fact' that gun rights will not be pushed again for a generation is completely misplaced. The man in the White House obviously believes in gun bans and restrictions, has supported them multiple times on the record, and has nominated at least one and probably two gun-banners to the Supreme Court. What is politically expedient today can change abruptly tomorrow, and it is the NRA's sole purpose to guard against changing political currents.

I'm also wondering if Lemur knows anything about the NRA. This was the organization where Charleton Hesston famously declared that the feds could take his rifle out of his "cold, dead hands" and that printed an add calling federal agents "jack booted thugs" back in the day. It is far less vitriolic and far more mainstream than it ever has been, which has paid off in membership and fundraising. The NRA used to be solely composed of Dale Gribble types (apologies for the King of the Hill reference). Today, the demographics have completely shifted. I think they're doing alright without his advice.

[Subotan]

@PJ

So why can't Assault Rifles be kept at such ranges then?

[PanzerJaeger]

@PJ

So why can't Assault Rifles be kept at such ranges then?

Well they have to be cleaned, modified, adjusted, and fixed for a start. Such activities can sometimes take quite a while and require special tools and ranges charge by the hour. Why shouldn't they be taken home?

[a completely inoffensive name]

As we all know, Joe Lieberman manages to be on the wrong side of pretty much everything, so I would be suspicious if he proposed ice cream for cancer patients.


This statement is the most truthful thing I have read in the Backroom. And I've seen someone post 1+1=2.

Also, thanks everyone for discussing a more important aspect of the gun issue. Now I can jump in and get into a good intellectual conversation again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Obama's response to Mr. Keynes was correct though. There is no reason to possess Assualt Rifles as their only purpose comes under illict actions.

For "home defense", whats wrong with a pistol or a rifle opposed to going Rambo?


The ultimate purpose of personal arms is not only the defense of self but the ability to break government tyranny. Pistols are not a prime tool for such. The ammendment says "Keep and bear arms," it does NOT specify firearms only, pistols only, etc. We have the right to own any weapon we can purchase with our own pelf (aside from nukes, which fall under the non-prolif treaty as ratified by the Senate -- though I suppose the SCOTUS could rule that this ratification doesn't hold v the 2nd ammendment).

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the NRA is in a classic position of overreach-in-victory, but apparently for some Orgahs they can do no wrong, 'cause they're, you know, vigilant. And advocating. Which can only be a good thing, as PETA and Code Pink would be happy to agree.

-edit-

To expand on that analogy:

I'm of an age that I can remember when PETA was a respectable organization. And let's be frank; the welfare of animals is a legitimate cause. No animal should be subjected to wanton cruelty, and there are a multitude of ways in which our society could treat them better at no real cost to time, convenience or economics. So there's no reason for a group like PETA to go off the rails into loony absolutism. Except that they did.

Likewise, I fear the NRA, which advocates for a legitimate, admirable cause, is showing signs of PETAfication. Their absolute alignment with the Republican party is not a good thing, no matter how you look at it; their panic-mongering in the middle of a string of victories is unbalanced and counterproductive; their hysterical tone is more appropriate to a fringe group than the second-most-powerful lobbying operation on the Hill.

At no point have I suggested that the NRA should stop advocating, fold up their tents and go home. That's a straw argument spilling from the mouth of a straw man who lives in a straw condo in a straw apartment complex. Rather, I think 2nd A advocates should not be such hysterical, apocalyptic pre-teens with such an advanced case of Manichean dualism. Consolidate victories; secure them; coopt the moderates and establish the new normal. Don't keep crying that the sky is falling and that the black man in the White House is gonna take your ARs away, when any fool can see that is not so.

Lemur you are completely right about how NRA has acted, how they should have and how they have essentially devolved. However, I just want to say that while they should have worked with the government in their earlier days, all interest groups go through this "PETAfication" you call it. It's part of the natural progression of an interest group. When the issue that an interest group has been more or less settled, interest in the groups leaves which you have pointed out earlier is why they keep going off about the apocalypse coming soon for gun owners. But if it is not being presented in the news, then the average and more moderate citizens nevertheless continue to drop out as illegal immigration, health care, war etc...all begin to be talked about and gun rights are pushed away in the media spotlight. Inevitably this will create a scenario where only the most die hard, an thus most extreme believers in gun rights stick in the interest groups, causing a radicalization of the policies and rhetoric promoted by the group. Some experience it harder then others, depending on the popularity in its peak, but as you pointed out with PETA this happens with all interest groups, left and right, at some point. So I would not blame them for being more extreme as it is the natural way interest groups go.


Yes, there is absolutely no reason (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm) for gun rights advocates to be worried about the current ‘black man’ in the White House. I am curious, why did you choose to describe him as a 'black man' instead of the 'president' or 'Obama'? Another not so subtle dig at gun owners?

Anyway, some nuggets from the ‘black man’s’ record on gun rights.

Honestly Lemur, your continued hysterical, pre-teen, emo, pussy girl whining about the NRA doing its job against the ‘black man’ in the White House is starting to sound like reactionary defensiveness against an organization that is rightly distrustful of your favorite politician.

You are arguing that these gun right advocates are not over reacting because as long as there is a person in power who does not think the same way they do, automatically their right is threatened to be taken away? This seems to be exactly what Lemur was talking about about how crazy gun advocate groups has become. There will be people who disagree with you in power, deal with it. Unless Obama specifically puts forward a bill to reduce gun rights, there is no threat. And since Lemur and others have pointed out numerous items that the Democrats will not risk hurting their popularity over gun rights, you can be assured that gun rights will be the very last thing Obama talks about after every other controversial topic except probably abortion, if that at all.

Also, nice job on the insults.


I would wager 99% of assault rifles in this country were bought for, and are used at, the range. There is no reason to do a lot of things people do - they're called hobbies.

But regardless, if you are pro-gun bans, that's fine. My point was that Lemur's hyperbole against gun rights activists for not simply taking his word on the 'fact' that gun rights will not be pushed again for a generation is completely misplaced. The man in the White House obviously believes in gun bans and restrictions, has supported them multiple times on the record, and has nominated at least one and probably two gun-banners to the Supreme Court. What is politically expedient today can change abruptly tomorrow, and it is the NRA's sole purpose to guard against changing political currents.

I'm also wondering if Lemur knows anything about the NRA. This was the organization where Charleton Hesston famously declared that the feds could take his rifle out of his "cold, dead hands" and that printed an add calling federal agents "jack booted thugs" back in the day. It is far less vitriolic and far more mainstream than it ever has been, which has paid off in membership and fundraising. The NRA used to be solely composed of Dale Gribble types (apologies for the King of the Hill reference). Today, the demographics have completely shifted.

The bold portion is exactly what the problem is I just described in my earlier paragraph. According to your logic, as long as someone who I disagree with is in charge I must keep pumping my rhetoric about our socialist, fascist, communist government attempting to ban my fast food from me and take away my freedom to choose what I eat. It doesn't matter if that is not on the minds of any government official right now, some think it should be taxed or banned and so I must keep "vigilant" with my mud flinging, because as we all know, politicians have woken up and said to themselves "Damn the public opinion polls, I'm going to talk about an issue, even if it hurts my reelection chances.".

I'm wondering if you know anything about the NRA, PJ. The NRA has been around for over 100 years. The ebb and flow of the popularity of conservative thought in America over the years along with the rise and fall of gun rights in the national spotlight over the same time period will culminate in numerous periods of craziness and likewise numerous periods of moderation in their rhetoric when certain conditions have been satisfied as I detailed in my first paragraph in this post.

[PanzerJaeger]

You are arguing that these gun right advocates are not over reacting because as long as there is a person in power who does not think the same way they do, automatically their right is threatened to be taken away?

Well, technically, Lemur has yet to present any real proof of overreach at all. Is there any evidence to suggest that their rhetoric against the administration or their position on the no-fly list has hurt the organization's support?

But the answer to your question is essentially 'yes', when the person in power is the president. Under the last Democratic administration, gun rights were taken away. I bleieve the old saying goes 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...' The current Democratic president doesn't just 'think differently' than gun rights activists, he has a legislative record of banning guns - essentially demonstrating his willingness to impose his 'different opinion' on the citizenry. As president, he has nominated one(two?) judge for the Supreme Court who is hostile to gun rights.

So yes, I do not see anything unusual with a pressure group charged with defending gun rights keeping the... pressure... on. Abortion rights groups certainly made a lot of noise during the Bush Administration.


Also, nice job on the insults.

I thought they were a little lackadaisical, but thanks. I do my best to respond in kind.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, technically, Lemur has yet to present any real proof of overreach at all. Is there any evidence to suggest that their rhetoric against the administration or their position on the no-fly list has hurt the organization's support?

But the answer to your question is essentially 'yes', when the person in power is the president. Under the last Democratic administration, gun rights were taken away. I bleieve the old saying goes 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...' The current Democratic president doesn't just 'think differently' than gun rights activists, he has a legislative record of banning guns - essentially demonstrating his willingness to impose his 'different opinion' on the citizenry. As president, he has nominated one(two?) judge for the Supreme Court who is hostile to gun rights.

So yes, I do not see anything unusual with a pressure group charged with defending gun rights keeping the... pressure... on. Abortion rights groups certainly made a lot of noise during the Bush Administration.


Under the last Democratic administration, gun rights were taken away because the American people genuinely felt that perhaps there might be too little attention on gun safety after a spree of violent acts took place in America including the Oklahoma City Bombing and Columbine, which made the complete ubiquity of guns a danger due to the seemingly rise in violent or disturbed people acting out (cue Jack Thompson declaring video games as the source of this acting out).

I don't see anything unusual either with interest group doing their job no matter what the ideology of the administration is, as long as they are truthful. Saying the apocalypse for gun owners is coming is a lie and disingenuous. When gun rights are actively being challenge in Congress over a bill, then yes such rhetoric is expected and might even be truthful depending on the content of the bill, but not when the issue has not even been brought up at all by the administration. Then such rhetoric is not rallying in nature but subversive toward the government in general which is beyond what that special interest group should be doing.

[Lemur]

I thought they were a little lackadaisical, but thanks. I do my best to respond in kind.
Actually, by resorting to personal attacks, profanity, and as many racial euphemisms as you could cram down your gullet, you lost, while also illustrating the actual meaning of "play the ball, not the man." Sorry you had to go out on an own-goal like that. Amazing, though, the gusto with which you went into your black man routine (I won't repeat your distasteful slurs here, especially since the BR mods have protected you by editing them out). But man! You really got into that, like a starving man finally getting his hands on some food.

Here's yet another analysis that is congruent with mine. But then I suppose The Economist is part of the librul conspiracy of people who think the Dems have backed off gun control.


Guns and the Supreme Court (http://www.economist.com/node/16481571)

The uninfringed

[F]ive of the nine justices on the Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that the right to bear arms set out in the second amendment really did apply to individuals and not just to the “well regulated militia” in the arguably ambiguous sentence that ends by saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Now, almost exactly two years later, and again by five votes to four, the court has ruled, in McDonald v Chicago, that this right must be acknowledged by state and local governments and not only by the federal one.

The two findings, taken together, represent a big step forward for the gun lobby. Heller ruled that the second amendment should be construed as a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defence within the home. It struck down a handgun ban in Washington, DC, as unconstitutional. But because the capital is an enclave of the federal government, the ruling did not resolve the status of similar bans elsewhere. [...]

In an average year more than 100,000 Americans are shot by guns, more than 30,000 fatally. And yet support for stricter gun controls is declining—from 59% in 1994 to 40% last April, according to a CBS News poll last April. Gun-control regulations tend to be popular in cities and unpopular, often deeply so, in rural areas.

For that reason, the Democrats may be pleased that the Supreme Court has at last entrenched the second amendment so firmly. This makes it harder for Republicans to scare voters into believing that a Democratic president intends to take their guns away. The sale of guns surged after Mr Obama’s election, perhaps because the clingers believed they had to stock up while they still could. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, who faces a tough re-election battle in Nevada in November, was quick to give the McDonald ruling a warm welcome. “The right to bear arms”, he said, “is one of the essential freedoms on which our country was founded.” And it will be earning money for lawyers for years to come.

[Tuuvi]

Actually, by resorting to personal attacks, profanity, and as many racial euphemisms as you could cram down your gullet, you lost, while also illustrating the actual meaning of "play the ball, not the man." Sorry you had to go out on an own-goal like that. Amazing, though, the gusto with which you went into your black man routine (I won't repeat your distasteful slurs here, especially since the BR mods have protected you by editing them out). But man! You really got into that, like a starving man finally getting his hands on some food.

Here's yet another analysis that is congruent with mine. But then I suppose The Economist is part of the librul conspiracy of people who think the Dems have backed off gun control.


Guns and the Supreme Court (http://www.economist.com/node/16481571)

The uninfringed

[F]ive of the nine justices on the Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that the right to bear arms set out in the second amendment really did apply to individuals and not just to the “well regulated militia” in the arguably ambiguous sentence that ends by saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Now, almost exactly two years later, and again by five votes to four, the court has ruled, in McDonald v Chicago, that this right must be acknowledged by state and local governments and not only by the federal one.

The two findings, taken together, represent a big step forward for the gun lobby. Heller ruled that the second amendment should be construed as a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defence within the home. It struck down a handgun ban in Washington, DC, as unconstitutional. But because the capital is an enclave of the federal government, the ruling did not resolve the status of similar bans elsewhere. [...]


This article has me confused. Doesn't the constitution apply to the state and local governments as well as the federal governments? The article makes it sound like some aspects of the constitution only apply to the federal government unless ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court.

Also I want to put my two cents into the gun control debate. To me it is a question of whether or not gun control is worth the increased restriction of personal freedom (as some posters pointed out earlier). I believe the answer is no. Banning guns will not result in a decrease in violent crime. If someone decides they want to kill another person and no guns are available, they will find another way to commit the murder. Gangs will resort to obtaining firearms illegally. I admit that a ban on guns may reduce more spontaneous murders, but again these crimes can still be committed by other means. Accidental shootings can be prevented by knowing how to handle a gun properly and by locking them up away from children. There are only a few instances of crime that I think a gun ban would significantly reduce:

School shootings and similar events

Robberies

Hostage situations

School shootings are rare and do not happen very often.

In the case of Robberies and hostage situations, the intent is not to kill, but rather to coerce, using the gun as a threat. More often then not no one gets hurt in these situations. The best way to prevent these crimes would be an improved justice system, not a nation-wide ban on guns.

[Crazed Rabbit]

AMERICA, **** YEAH! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZdJRDpLHbw)

I hope you choke on the constitution with a big helping of crow, Daley, you fat statist!

The best news I've read after being out of the loop since Sunday night.

Pity that slime can't be eradicated without a fight.

Lemur (I haven't read anything but the OP);
The idea that Obama is going to push a national gun ban is silly. But in certain spots, like Chicago, Daley and his toadies are going to go down fighting and impose the harshest gun laws they think they can get away with. They've already passed a new law making owning a gun a very difficult process and subject to the whims of politicians (who have given themselves the right to own and carry guns, which they deny to the citizens). Continual fighting against those laws will be necessary to let people be free.

Also, in some spots in Wisconsin (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GUNS_WISCONSIN?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US), you may no be able to carry concealed without worrying about going to jail (Though the police may still strive to make the life of anyone they catch hell).

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

This article has me confused. Doesn't the constitution apply to the state and local governments as well as the federal governments? The article makes it sound like some aspects of the constitution only apply to the federal government unless ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court.

Your second sentence is exactly right. The Constitution and the protections of the Bill of Rights have always applied to the Federal government. However, for centuries it was thought and held that these protections in the Constitution only applied to the Federal and not to the state and local governments. Technically, for the first 140ish years of the country, the Federal government could not infringe on your right to free speech, but the state government could certainly silence you. During the Reconstruction Era in the aftermath of the Civil War (late 1860s), the 14th Amendment was passed which included a part called the "Due Process Clause"

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

This clause specifically was meant to tackle the issue of slave states who allowed slavery in their land to no longer deprive slaves anymore of freedoms under their own laws, instead of having Congress challenge every racist state law and in the process start overreaching its boundaries.

However, in 1925, the Supreme Court case of Gitlow vs. New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York) sparked the beginning of what is called "selective incorporation", in which individual portions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated" unto the states, according to Supreme Court rulings. Gitlow vs. New York was the first of many "selective incorporation" cases and the Supreme Court rules that the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment be incorporated (basically enforced upon) the state governments as well under the 14th amendment's "Due Process Clause".

Up until the Supreme Court ruling we have been talking about in this thread, the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear arms has not been incorporated, meaning that the states did not have to abide by it, which is why Chicago had a total ban on firearms. Now this case is among the other cases such as Gitlow vs. New York of "selective incorporation" in that no state government can deny the use of firearms through the "Due Process Clause" of the 14th Amendment.

For a complete list of the Bill of Rights detailing which have been incorporated unto the states and which have not and the cases which determined the incorporations, click on this sentence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

[Lemur]

But in certain spots, like Chicago, Daley and his toadies are going to go down fighting and impose the harshest gun laws they think they can get away with. They've already passed a new law making owning a gun a very difficult process and subject to the whims of politicians (who have given themselves the right to own and carry guns, which they deny to the citizens).
Hmm, I see what you mean (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070106403.html).


Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say would be the strictest ordinance in the United States to regulate such weapons.

The measure, which draws from ordinances across the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. [...]

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said the mayor, who was accompanied by activists, city officials, and parents whose teenage son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

There's definitely a rural/urban divide going on, as described in The Economist.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In the interest of further discussion...

Is the analogy between national laws regarding safety belts and airbags and national legislation on gun restriction valid here?

Since the passage of federal regulations mandating airbags, the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle, child safety seats, and a tougher across the board effort to minimize drunk driving correlate strongly with a reduction in traffic fatalities (though the percentage of fatalities attributed to drunkeness remains about the same).

Would federal regulations regarding gun safety have an analogous effect?

[PanzerJaeger]

Under the last Democratic administration, gun rights were taken away because the American people genuinely felt that perhaps there might be too little attention on gun safety after a spree of violent acts took place in America including the Oklahoma City Bombing and Columbine, which made the complete ubiquity of guns a danger due to the seemingly rise in violent or disturbed people acting out (cue Jack Thompson declaring video games as the source of this acting out).

Not really. The Assault Weapons Ban was a big contributor to the GOP's famed congressional sweep in '94, so it is hard to say "the people" were behind such legislation. Regardless, the reasons for the ban aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.

It is really quite simple. Gun rights were curtailed under the last Democratic administration. The next Democratic president has a legislative history of supporting gun bans. The NRA, charged with defending gun rights, makes noise. Something would be amiss if they weren't distrustful of the Prez..



Actually, by resorting to personal attacks, profanity, and as many racial euphemisms as you could cram down your gullet, you lost, while also illustrating the actual meaning of "play the ball, not the man." Sorry you had to go out on an own-goal like that. Amazing, though, the gusto with which you went into your black man routine (I won't repeat your distasteful slurs here, especially since the BR mods have protected you by editing them out). But man! You really got into that, like a starving man finally getting his hands on some food.

Innocence abused! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Amazingly, profoundly, epic reading comprehension fail. (And I'm not just lying to get out of answering a question like you were.)

Tell me Lemur, how many racial slurs did I use? Or did I miss the memo that said it is only ok for you to call him black while making subtle accusations of racism, but not the rest of us? Certainly I would have been roundly punished for such an egregious breach of forum rules. Now I know in your world anyone, including apparently the NRA, who isn't still crushing on O must have some sort of racist agenda, but I've got a cookie for you if you can name just one of these slurs.

[Lemur]

It is really quite simple. Gun rights were curtailed under the last Democratic administration. The next Democratic president has a legislative history of supporting gun bans. The NRA, charged with defending gun rights, makes noise.
Wow, when you reason it out, and completely ignore the polls, everything that's happened during and after the Clinton admin, and the current political reality ... it makes so much sense!


(And I'm not just lying to get out of answering a question like you were.)
Nice, blatant accusation of lying. Classy. And copying my phrasing in a unsubtle attempt at point-scoring. Just sad, man.


Or did I miss the memo that said it is only ok for you to call him black while making subtle accusations of racism, but not the rest of us?
You seem to believe that my using the word "black" not only means that I was accusing the NRA of racism (which is reading a lot into a little), but that it opens up the flood gates for you to race-bait as you like. And as I said, you pursued the race-baiting with gusto. And now you're mentioning it in every post, which is a sure sign that you think you've found your winning stroke of rhetoric.

I have noticed this about your posting style; you will latch on to a single point, and regardless of input from the outside world, if you think it's a winner, you will keep repeating it with minimal variation in every post from then on. Witness your bromantic obsession with Andrew Sullivan.

Vary your tune, friend. You repeating yourself does not = win.


I've got a cookie for you if you can name just one of these slurs.
Unlike you, I might get in some trouble for race-baiting, so I decline. You know what you wrote; I know what you wrote.

Now why don't you got back to pleasuring yourself to the latest panic memo from the NRA. I hear Beck has a special on how liberals are going to take away the guns and re-institute the Third Reich (although, given your political proclivities, you might not mind the last part).

[Tellos Athenaios]

In the interest of further discussion...

Is the analogy between national laws regarding safety belts and airbags and national legislation on gun restriction valid here?

Since the passage of federal regulations mandating airbags, the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle, child safety seats, and a tougher across the board effort to minimize drunk driving correlate strongly with a reduction in traffic fatalities (though the percentage of fatalities attributed to drunkeness remains about the same).

Would federal regulations regarding gun safety have an analogous effect?

It's a kind of common sense: the less people get to use guns, the less guns are used, the less there probability will be of gun-related fatalities, incidents or crime; and the stats sort themselves out. That still leaves the issue whether or not you consider that a price worth paying (restrictions on an individual's ability to do what he/she wants if that includes guns or human lives depending on how you look at it).

Incidentally consider the use of harsh chemicals or drugs. These are (no longer) bought and sold in a container which any curious toddler can open by mistake (a special “child lock” is often in place) for some good reasons. I would not at all be surprised if there's actual legislation that mandates this “child lock”.

Also: the cynic in me finds it mildly ironic but still rather more disturbing that the national gun club (NRA) is complaining in a leaflet about the fact that some politician had the nerve to suggest such a “child lock” should be mandated on all guns... in a country where it is not possible to get simple drugs unless on doctor's orders (as in medicine) that are bought and sold over the counter in pharmacies here without prescription! It doesn't restrict a grown adult with normal motor capabilities at all... ?

[PanzerJaeger]

You seem to believe that my using the word "black" not only means that I was accusing the NRA of racism (which is reading a lot into a little),

Well what did you mean by it? What other possible implication could you be making by saying they did not like the 'black man in the White House'? I asked you once and you refused to answer. Please correct my misinterpretation.

I've noticed something about your posting style, as well. You like to throw out such subtle implications, like injecting vague accusations of racism in this thread(I believe you have referred to them as 'throwaway lines), and then get flustered and angry when you're called out on them.


Unlike you, I might get in some trouble for race-baiting, so I decline. You know what you wrote; I know what you wrote.

Nope. Sorry. I'm going to have to call your bluff on this one. You accused me of making multiple racist slurs against the President. That is as powerful a charge as it is completely and utterly baseless. (Not to mention the fact that you seem to be completely ignoring or ignorant to the rhetorical device I was using in response to your calling yet another group of people racist for not liking your celebrity crush.)

Also, you seem to be nurturing some sort of victim complex where the mods are somehow partial to me and allow me to make racist comments. I don't know what planet you're living on, but nothing could be farther from the truth. My relationships with the various mods range from neutral to openly hostile. We don't hang out on weekends, and they certainly do not cut me any slack on anything regarding race.


Now why don't you got back to pleasuring yourself to the latest panic memo from the NRA. I hear Beck has a special on how liberals are going to take away the guns and re-institute the Third Reich (although, given your political proclivities, you might not mind the last part).

I'd call you a flamer for that entirely non-substantive string of insults, but you might take it as a slur against gay people. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Would federal regulations regarding gun safety have an analogous effect?

Absolutely, but as Tellos said, is it worth the price?

Consider the fact that around 100,000 are shot in America each year. While it sounds like a big number, divided by an assumed population of 400,000,000, it only comes out to .00025%. Those numbers take into account all incidents and have been falling. Taking into account only the roughly 30,000 gun related deaths each year, it comes out to .000075% of the population.

Is stripping away a right worth saving some fraction of those people, especially considering a large percentage of them were involved in illegal activities?

[Beskar]

Well what did you mean by it? What other possible implication could you be making by saying they did not like the 'black man in the White House'? I asked you once and you refused to answer. Please correct my misinterpretation.

Have to admit Lemur, I read it exactly the same way. I thought you was implying racism, as most of the typical anti-Obama rherotic is actually racist, such as the ol' "If Obama gets elected, he will paint the Whitehouse Black!" (etc).

However, there is the term "the Man in the Whitehouse" in reference to the President. Lemur might have added the 'Black' part onto the saying harmlessly and unintentionally making us assume he was playing the race card.

[Tuuvi]

In the interest of further discussion...

Is the analogy between national laws regarding safety belts and airbags and national legislation on gun restriction valid here?

Since the passage of federal regulations mandating airbags, the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle, child safety seats, and a tougher across the board effort to minimize drunk driving correlate strongly with a reduction in traffic fatalities (though the percentage of fatalities attributed to drunkeness remains about the same).

Would federal regulations regarding gun safety have an analogous effect?

I don't really think so, as I said before I think that if guns are banned people will either find other ways to murder people or obtain guns illegaly.

It's a different situation from regulating the use of seat belts, etc. With seat belts, you can either wear them and be safer as result, or you can choose not to and suffer the consequences. With fire arms it is not so clear cut. There are alternative methods to causing violence and harm.

[Ironside]

Absolutely, but as Tellos said, is it worth the price?

Consider the fact that around 100,000 are shot in America each year. While it sounds like a big number, divided by an assumed population of 400,000,000, it only comes out to .00025%. Those numbers take into account all incidents and have been falling. Taking into account only the roughly 30,000 gun related deaths each year, it comes out to .000075% of the population.

Is stripping away a right worth saving some fraction of those people, especially considering a large percentage of them were involved in illegal activities?

1/4 of the US population is illegal immigrants outside any offiicial count? :inquisitive: Official number is about 310 millions, so I am curious where those other 90 millions come from.

Fict wise, firearm related murders/capita is considerble higher in the US compared to the rest of the western world. While not directly related to firearm ownage, your gun culture are simply more aggressive. My estimation with more restrictive gun use would be some decrease in gun violence and a higher probability of a culture shift with time giving it a higher effect eventually. That's based on the effect laws usually have. If that's an acceptable price that the average american is willing to pay, so be it.

For the "if they don't use guns, they use knives" argument used in this thread, while true, it's significantly harder to kill someone with a knife and requires more mental fortitude to use. End result would be less murders.


The ultimate purpose of personal arms is not only the defense of self but the ability to break government tyranny. Pistols are not a prime tool for such. The ammendment says "Keep and bear arms," it does NOT specify firearms only, pistols only, etc. We have the right to own any weapon we can purchase with our own pelf (aside from nukes, which fall under the non-prolif treaty as ratified by the Senate -- though I suppose the SCOTUS could rule that this ratification doesn't hold v the 2nd ammendment).

The ironic part about the second ammendment being a guard against goverment tyranny nowadays is that it's more probable for being used for tyranny. Why? Simple, the basic rule of tyranny is to control the military and be able to use it against it's own population. What's the political alignment of the US military on average? Pro-gun,pro-second ammendment Republicans. So in a civil war, who would the military join? So basically the second amendment is more for the group that will always oppose or neglect it the most.

I'm not even sure if the minor scenario were it could be useful, (by possibly creating a civil war in a severe opposition crackdown or a nazi style situation. Hey, it still is an improvement. Or being the tip on scale during a civil war, but as noted above it can also backfire into a the minority controls through guns situation) outweights the risks of it creating a civil war in the first place. Gun+riots were suggested here (significant civil war fuel) and the play with the "'Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants"-rethoric.

[Beskar]

The ironic part about the second ammendment being a guard against goverment tyranny nowadays is that it's more probable for being used for tyranny. Why? Simple, the basic rule of tyranny is to control the military and be able to use it against it's own population. What's the political alignment of the US military on average? Pro-gun,pro-second ammendment Republicans. So in a civil war, who would the military join? So basically the second amendment is more for the group that will always oppose or neglect it the most.

So the Republicans will stage a Military Coup and turn the USA into a Junta? Sounds plausible, in the efforts to protect against "socialism" and thus bring in the Fourth Reich.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PJ, Lemur:

Lay off it about the "who's a racist" stuff. Find other ways to prod one another. Thanks.

[Centurion1]

As for whether obama wishes to ban firearms, hell yes he does. But for now its just one of his dreams. He doesn't have the power to do it, but ftr the man would do it in a snap if he could.

As for ironsides comments regarding the military and who they would join....... besides insulted its wrong. The average us soldier would do what he was told by the officer corp. The officer corp would side with the legitimate federal government, I would put money on it. This isn't flipping burma for gods sake.

As for why they are all republican guns righters...... I think that's a negative reflection on leftists. 17% of the us military is from texas, over 60% of the entire military is from the nal south.

[Ironside]

So the Republicans will stage a Military Coup and turn the USA into a Junta? Sounds plausible, in the efforts to protect against "socialism" and thus bring in the Fourth Reich.

To be fair, it's still a very unlikely scenario. And the aftermarch would contain a struggle between returning democracy or keep up the junta for "safety" reasons.
It's just more probable than that a Democratic leader would be able to use the military against thier own population, outside unpredictable extreme scenarios (that could happen witth either party in power), where an armed civilian population can be vastly more destructive than an unarmed.


As for ironsides comments regarding the military and who they would join....... besides insulted its wrong. The average us soldier would do what he was told by the officer corp. The officer corp would side with the legitimate federal government, I would put money on it. This isn't flipping burma for gods sake.

Exactly! The Burmanese military is kept from interacting with the people and the US military also has the tradition that following orders is not a proper defense if the action is wrong enough. IIRC you're planning to join the military, correct? Would you gun down your neightbours if ordered to it?

A violent secessionist movement could probably happen with most of the military staying with the goverment, but that is unlikely unless the secessionist movement feels that they can win or are incredibly fustrated (aka a modern peasant rebellion). But it's far from certain that it would be an improvement with armed civilians, certainly not short term.


As for why they are all republican guns righters...... I think that's a negative reflection on leftists. 17% of the us military is from texas, over 60% of the entire military is from the nal south.

While I was being a bit overgeneralising, it has to do a lot with simple demographics. A conservative gun using military family has simply higher odds of thier children joining the military, than a liberal innercity family that never sees a gun except in the hands of a greedy man.
They certainly are a group that doesn't vote as the "average american".

[CountArach]

As for whether obama wishes to ban firearms, hell yes he does. But for now its just one of his dreams. He doesn't have the power to do it, but ftr the man would do it in a snap if he could.
Proof? Evidence? You can't just go around making blithe assertions such as this.

[Meneldil]

Hell yes you can. It's well known by now that Obame is trying to destroy teh amerikan wayz!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hell yes you can. It's well known by now that Obame is trying to destroy teh amerikan wayz!

I don't see why these sorts of comments are any better than those of the reactionaries in the NRA.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Proof? Evidence? You can't just go around making blithe assertions such as this.

Gee, how about some of Obama's statements throughout the years:

"I believe the DC gun ban is Constitutional, and will not be overturned."

That was a total ban on handguns, and he said it was constitutional. In addition to being wrong on that, there are other instances of supporting gun bans: (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html)


He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Let's complain about old people groups next. I hate old people they are greedy and take my money for a failing system. And I will probably never see the cost repaid to me. But still they say that we want to take away their money....... yeah right politicians are afraid of pissing off the geezer demographic.

That is true though. Politicians got no balls, and they to afraid to offend the group that sadly, in this case, votes to often.


Or if you ride in a car with Ted Kennedy.

:yes: :laugh:


Not really. I own an AK for sport shooting.

AK-47 is a gun meant for killing humans. Not hunting. Assault rifles should be banned. You don't need a AK-47 for hunting. Go use a shotgun or a normal rifle like me and any other normal hunter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.....AK-47 is a gun meant for killing humans. Not hunting. Assault rifles should be banned. You don't need a AK-47 for hunting. Go use a shotgun or a normal rifle like me and any other normal hunter.

I'd argue that AK-47s were designed more for supressive fire than killing per se, but that's being really picky. It is a tool for killing human beings and/or to play a role in a process designed to kill other armed human beings.

Which is PRECISELY why we should be able to own and use them at need. Your .22 varmint rifle will avail you little against a tyrannical government if the other safeties (posse comitatus, rule of law, tradition of independence, civilian control of military, etc.) ever come up short.

[Beskar]

Which is PRECISELY why we should be able to own and use them at need. Your .22 varmint rifle will avail you little against a tyrannical government if the other safeties (posse comitatus, rule of law, tradition of independence, civilian control of military, etc.) ever come up short.

Bad argument, if the government is so evil, they can just bomb you to death, before you can even use your AK-47.

Also, all totalarian regimes are backed by the populace, at least inititially. Also, would you give up your life to play Rambo and get shot?

Louis mentioned it, Civillian control of the military will be the only thing to prevent military abuse.

[PanzerJaeger]

AK-47 is a gun meant for killing humans. Not hunting. Assault rifles should be banned. You don't need a AK-47 for hunting. Go use a shotgun or a normal rifle like me and any other normal hunter.

I don't think you understand what sport shooting is, do you? I love my AK. It is one of the most enjoyable and inexpensive full size rifles to shoot. In my possession it has never and will never kill anything. Even girls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFD38Y-GZHQ&feature=related) can do it without killing humans.

In any event, if we're banning things we don't like yet don't fully understand, may I add 'asinine comments' to the list as well?



Bad argument, if the government is so evil, they can just bomb you to death, before you can even use your AK-47.


Tell that to the Taliban. ~:)

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'd argue that AK-47s were designed more for supressive fire than killing per se, but that's being really picky. It is a tool for killing human beings and/or to play a role in a process designed to kill other armed human beings.

Which is PRECISELY why we should be able to own and use them at need. Your .22 varmint rifle will avail you little against a tyrannical government if the other safeties (posse comitatus, rule of law, tradition of independence, civilian control of military, etc.) ever come up short.


AK-47 .VS. F/A 18. Who you think is going to win?

You don't need a AK-47. Give me one logical reason besides this stupid Conservative theory of the government gone bad. You won't be able to give me one.



Logic just left the window here.

[PanzerJaeger]

You don’t need to play violent video games that glorify war and killing. They have been shown to increase violent tendencies in those that play them. They serve no purpose.

Nobody needs alcohol either. It has been a menace to society, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. It serves no purpose.

In fact, anything that people enjoy but serves no purpose and has the potential to cause harm if used irresponsibly should be banned. Because banning things is a lot easier than coming up with equitable solutions.

[Beskar]

Tell that to the Taliban. ~:)

Hence the "government is so evil". People won't give up their tv, computer games and mc donalds to try to stage a revolution.

They only stage a revolution when life is unbearable. The fact is, if America ever went totalitarian, the whole "fite tha powa" will fail, because life will carry on with its Disney, Mc Donalds, Games, Fun Fairs, etc. They will probably celebrate it. The totalitarian regime will be brought in with cheering, not with bloodshed. Infact, American government is quite authoritarian anyway.


You don’t need to play violent video games that glorify war and killing. They have been shown to increase violent tendencies in those that play them. They serve no purpose.

That is incorrect, there is only links to desensitization. Television and other media have the same effect as well. Direct links to violence is incorrect and flawed, under the branch of 'psuedo-psychology' given by the press, not in academic circles.

[Subotan]

There's definitely a rural/urban divide going on, as described in The Economist.
Interesting how conservatives rail against the power of the federal government, how it is too mighty and interfering into decent American's lives and the how the states are slowly being stripped away of their rights...

But yet when an opportunity presents itself for the conservatives to use the federal government to advance their agenda, even when it directly contradicts the wishes of elected state and local officials, that pro-gun activists take the Federal government and run with it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow, when you reason it out, and completely ignore the polls, everything that's happened during and after the Clinton admin, and the current political reality ... it makes so much sense!

I was planning on posting earlier, but Lemur said in one sentence what I was going to write a paragraph about.


As for whether obama wishes to ban firearms, hell yes he does. But for now its just one of his dreams. He doesn't have the power to do it, but ftr the man would do it in a snap if he could.

This is called missing the point. The point is, he doesn't have the power. We all know his politics and ideology, no one except those just saying the opposite of the pro gun people are saying that he wouldn't like to ban guns. Obama has more then enough majority in the House of Reps and he is borderline supermajority in the Senate, since Ted Kennedy and now Byrd died. Critics left and right are saying the Republicans will probably get a boost in seats in both this next election cycle. If Obama doesn't even dare to tackle the issue now, why are you worried he will in the future without his supermajority?


That is incorrect, there is only links to desensitization. Television and other media have the same effect as well. Direct links to violence is incorrect and flawed, under the branch of 'psuedo-psychology' given by the press, not in academic circles.

Beskar is right here, once again what I was planning on writing a paragraph about was done very briefly by someone else. I hope PJ isn't Jack Thompson in real life.

[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. :bow:

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!? :wall: *


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 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-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).

~:smoking:

[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 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-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 (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/) 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 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/15/palin-warns-nra-obama-wants-ban-guns/).)
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?