BS: DC Gun Ban Banned

Subject: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:41 AM

Just saw on MSNBC that the Supreme Court has overturned the Washington DC gun ban law. Thank you to those five justices that got it right!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Silas
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:50 AM

Does that mean that you are now free to shoot each other?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:54 AM

Ha, ha, ha...good one! Obviously you haven't read the second amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:55 AM

Do gangs count as 'well regulated militia'?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:58 AM

Yeah, GUESTJoe, gangs are militia. Whatta maroon!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,guest Betsy
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:00 AM

Joe / Moderator can you move this non - music thread please

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Silas
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:02 AM

Mate, I havent even read the first amendment - I am quite happy for you gun obsessed people to blow each others (what passes for) brains out.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:05 AM

It's no wonder that life expectancy is going down.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bernard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:06 AM

I'll sleep better tonight...!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban
Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:18:30 AM
By MARK SHERMAN

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:11 AM

What's new about that?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

D.C. Attorney General: All Guns Must Be Registered

The Supreme Court has struck down D.C.'s longtime ban on handguns, with a 5-4 ruling. Ruling can be read here. The question for city officials is: What now? In a recent interview (before the court ruled), Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles was asked what would happen if the city lost the case.

He said that residents will not be able to buy a handgun and bring it to the city immediately following the high court's ruling. There will be a period of continued legal arguments before a lower court judge to hash out specifics around the high court's opinion, Nickles said.
In the meantime, Nickles said, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns. (The city has gun regulations already on the books, which have been largely moot because of the gun ban, but those rules likely would be updated and revised, he said.)

"All handguns have to be registered," Nickles said.

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 18 or older and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

Nickles said he did not expect the court to undo the ban on semi-automatic weapons.

One major question, he said, was whether the court would undo the city's trigger lock requirement that all shotguns in homes remain unloaded with locks on the triggers. If the court overturns that provision, Nickles said, the mayor's office likely would propose new legislation to the D.C. Council that would require that guns remain unloaded in the home expect in the case of self-defense.

Handguns would only be allowed in the home, Nickles added, with residents banned from carrying them on the streets or into other buildings.

For those folks who already own guns--against current law--Nickles said the city would offer an amnesty program in which they could come forward and register the gun, assuming it had not been used in a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

Beardedbruce, you must be wrong. I have just read here that they did it so we are free to shoot each other; turn gangs into militia; blow our (what passes for) brains out; lower life expectancy; and to sleep better. But if you're wrong, so am I.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:45 AM

And now there will be years of litigation while states defend their gun laws or see them overturned, etc. Oh, well, I suppose all those congresspeople need to have "protection" whilst in the Capitol!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:53 AM

There are enough handguns available in DC now to equip a small army...sadly, they are mostly in the hands of criminal or those studying to BE criminals.

I sure do wonder what legally increasing the totals will accomplish.

You don't really think all those illegal gun owners are gonna run right down and register, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:56 AM

There is a lot of discussion in the Court's opinion (read the whole thing here), but the decision itself is pretty narrow. What it actually says is that the portion of the DC gun ban that applies to handguns kept in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. In various parts of the discussion, they say that gun licensing (including of guns kept in the home) and bans on concealed carry are perfectly ok.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:00 PM

You are correct BillD, illegal gun owners probably will not register their guns, and they deserve to have them confiscated if they flout the regulations, and they deserve prosecution if they use them in an illegal manner. We need proper enforcement of reasonable gun ownership laws at all levels. I think this is basically what the SC decision calls for.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:01 PM

Here's the Syllabus (summary) of the decision:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

You can read all 153 pages at the US Supreme Court's website ("Recent Decisions; District of Columbia v. Heller").

As this is written, in DC you now can carry a handgun in your house if you have a license to do so. Upstairs, in the kitchen -- but not outside your property. ("...the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.")

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:03 PM

"concealed carry" is not now, and never has been, protected by the US Constitution..."ownership" is

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:53 PM

The word "Concealed" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment. Therefore, under the 9th amendment, concealed is permitted.

You people who think gun owners are all crackpots are not seeing the whole picture. The fact is, there are plenty of guns in DC and they are mostly in the hands of the bad guys. Lifting that ban only levels the field so honest people have the same option. It does not mean that if all hands have guns that we will all shoot each other, That's stupid.

The State of Maine has over 10,000 concealed permits out there, and I have never heard of anyone using his gun to shoot anyone.
If you can pass a background check, which you must to get a permit, you are not apt to use your gun in committing a crime.

15 years ago, Florida had a crime wave of armed thugs using guns against unarmed victims. It got to where foreigners stopped coming to Florida; I even knew a retired state trooper who would not venture south of Gainsborough!
Then, Florida passed a right to carry law and the crime rate tanked. Why? because the bad guys could no longer know who was a mark and who might shoot back.

We live in a violent society. No question about it, but disarming the honest while the crooks are allowed to run rampant is just plain stupid.

A sword, in its scabbard, keeps another so.

Besides, it's all England's fault. The excesses of the King's government that tried to disarm the colonists to make them easier to control only made them worse. Great Britain is indirectly responsible for the second amendment.

As the Jews say about the holocaust, "Never again".

By the way, I really resent the implication that gun owners are of inferior intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:57 PM

"...they deserve to have them confiscated if they flout the regulations, and they deserve prosecution if they use them in an illegal manner."

Indeed...and we discover this 'flouting' and 'illegal use' right after they shoot someone. And we prosecute them and confiscate the guns IF we ever find them.

I am SO encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:24 PM

So, BillD, you think that we should take action against a person if they have something we think is dangerous, and they should not have? Even when they have not used it against us?

Seems like when Bush tried that in Iraq, you were not exactly in favor of it...

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

What Kendall said is exactly the point I tried to make regarding home invasions in Canada on a recent thread.

Essentially, denying the right of self-defense is criminal in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." -- 3 English Statutes at Large, 441 (1689): 1 William & Mary, c.2, section 7.

Only Protestants, and no one else, could have arms in England under the laws of William and Mary. But then, under the 1671 Game Act of James II, regions that were home to Protestants were disarmed.

I sometimes wonder if the British have actually read their own Bill of Rights....

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 02:48 PM

It's interesting to see how the US Supreme Court really works.

All decisions are political.

There are four committed Liberals: Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens. They will always support the standard Liberal agenda such as affirmative action and gun control.

There are four traditionalists who never get far from the original intent of the Constitution. They are Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia. Fans of The Court once said that Scalia was the most brilliant thinker but he now has equals in Roberts and Alito.   

That leaves Kennedy. He is the least impressive member of The Court, but he is sorely responsible for the 5 to 4 decisions. He sided with Ginsburg, and we got the dreadful Kelo Decision. He sided here with Scalia this time, and we got some support for gun ownership and the right to defend ourselves.

Amazing that wishy-washy Kennedy can change his mind and the entire country is affected.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 02:53 PM

I love your choice of words - "Liberal" and "Traditionalists". It leaves no doubt which of them are "The Evil Ones".

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:06 PM


There are four traditionalists who never get far from the original intent of the Constitution.

More a matter of opinion and should be stated as so. If not, where've you been hiding yourself? The Supremes just might want to talk with you since you seem to "know" the "original intent" and they've been struggling with it for...well, years and years.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

Yes Kat - The original intent is so easy to determine since we're talking about devices that didn't exist back in the 1770's........

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:19 PM

and internet did not exist, so the first amendment can't be used there, I guess...

You need to think about the "unintended consequences" of your logic.


Freedom of speech and freedom of the press certainly do not include electronically transmitted or amplified speech, since that was not in existance in 1770. And blogs or discussion threads? Not a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM

Correct - and that's why a current Supreme Court needs to establish guidelines for a modern era.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:25 PM

Jeez, you people can read the whole decision if you want to do so instead of simply shooting from the hip:

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
                                 --DC v Heller, Opinion, p. 8

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:25 PM

its all based on how you read and define the following, isn`t it

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:26 PM

needs to establish the original intent of the writers, and apply it to the present.

Slight difference in what they should be doing, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:29 PM

Excuse me, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified by the Senate and House, but by the various States back around 1789. The original work still exists (it's in the National Archives) and if you will READ THE DAMNED OPINION you'd find what they based their decision upon.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Rapaire,

It is a long tradition, ensconced firmly by precedent on Mudcat, that one should NEVER look at the actual source for information, but rely on interpretation and partisen paraphrasing to support one's opinions. And we are nothing here if not traditional.


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

It is very easy to determine the original intent of the Second Anendment. Simply read the other stetements by the people who wrote the Constitution. They make it quite clear that private ownwership of guns is protected.

About the internet. Fee speech is protected. Like guns, the standard is "with reasonable restrictions". The telephone, computer, internet, satellite communications, newspapers, books, radio and television are just vehicles. It is the speech itself that is protected.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

What a bunch of absolute horseshit! Read and define this. Denying the right of self-defense is criminal in itself.

Refute and dispute and argue and debate... if you deny the right to self-defense, you are a criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:36 PM

Mess with me and I'll do my best to ignore you. If I can't ignore you I'll leave. If I can't leave and can't ignore you and you're doing your best to hurt me or mine, I'll hurt you, perhaps fatally.

You can take my money and possessions; things can be replaced. But touch my person or that of someone entitled to my protection and you're going down.

No, I don't need a gun to do that either. Everything is a weapon if you want it to be and have the will to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:43 PM

Rapaire,

In medeval Europe, farming tools were kept in sheds at the fields, while the farmers lived in the towns ( Poland/Baltic states c. 1200-1600)) If the tools were stolen or destroyed, the farmer was unable to work his crop, and his family starved. (same idea with fishing boats, of course)

The penalty for theft of tools, or destruction of them was execution: If one destroys the means by which someone supports their family, one has attacked that family.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:52 PM

"They hang horse thieves round thses parts."

That kinda thang?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

if the horse is needed to earn a living, and the theft removes your access to the horse, that theft of property is an attack on your ability to feed your family.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 03:59 PM

Let's see. The government taxes the hell out of your business until it fails. Does that mean we can find a tall tree and a short rope and take a few government bureaucrats out?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:02 PM

That is what happens, eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:09 PM

Sounds like a good idea in some cases!

(Actually, people either vote with their feet ["...the rates were gettin' higher/And I could no longer pay..."] or revolt.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Def Shepard
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:29 PM

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

opps did we miss this bit, Rapaire? :-D how typical..owe the threats of violence now, now :-D

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:36 PM

I wouldn't know as I wasn't there. But the Supremes use what is now the definitive edition of the Constitution, so you can take it up with them.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:39 PM

Any man who is not willing to fight to protect his wife, friends and children does not deserve them.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 04:42 PM

Say now... there is a different take on the situation... very personal, but germain.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

Can you imagine what an invader would face if they tried to take over our country? We have an Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force and a Coast Guard to protect us. We also have 200 million guns in civilian hands. Bring it on!

Now, what would have happened in Iraq if they had had a 2nd amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 05:44 PM

They'd all be running around with bolt action rifles and revolvers, the American troops wouldn't have had to deal with all of those nasty AK47's.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:27 PM

This thing ain't over... D.C. will enact a bunch of laws that restrict how and where guns my be used or kept and they will be tested in the courts and eventually the Supreme CDourt makeup will shift away from the "activist" conservative court that we now have and communities will one day be able to have greater control of their own citizebns behavior...

I mean, lets face it... We have plenty of gun control... The Constituion didn't spifically say that x-felons shouldn't be able to own guns but many states forbid them to own guns and I don't hear the NRA crying to have those laws overturned...

So we have gun control now... And it is acceptable on the whole...

I would love to see manditory handgun registration along with manditory waiting periods to purchase and manditiory training required to own handguns... I'm not tooo sure how the Supremem Court would rule on these but I have a feeling that D.C. will be sniffing around these subjects...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 06:30 PM

Frankly, I don't think most people would object to the kinds of controls you would like to see, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:05 PM

I, for one, would like to see more "People control".
The idea that any whacko can buy a gun with no background check is lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:10 PM

Personally, I don't care whether handguns are legal or not. I don't like 'em. A handgun has to be used to be a deterrent. I'd rather just scare hell out of 'em. That's why I much prefer my pump-action shotgun over any handgun.

In the unlikely event that I'll actually have to use it for protection someday, I figure the sound of the action being worked will probably scare hell out of whoever needs shooting without my having to fire a shot. It's a sound that can't be mistaken for anything else and what it says, if translated into English, is, "Get ready to hear a VERY LOUD BANG! (Assuming your head is still on your shoulders by the time the soundwaves get to your ears, that is.)"

And in the even more unlikely event that it actually does come down to pulling the trigger, it's hard as hell to miss a human being with a shotgun. Just ask Mr. Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:33 PM

I've just had to renew my concealed carry permit. There is a 30 day waiting period from the time I did the paperwork until I call the Sheriff's Office back, pick up the approval, take it to the county offices for photography, etc. A course of instruction -- either locally or in the military or otherwise -- is a requirement, as is a criminal background check (fingerprints, etc.).

I think this should be mandatory for the purchase or use of any handgun.

Mind you, I rarely carry a concealed weapon. The last time was when I was living in Indiana, over ten years back.

Bee-Dubya, I have a side-by-side double barrel 12 gauge. Crude, but effective.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:39 PM

"...you think that we should take action against a person if they have something we think is dangerous, and they should not have?"

bruce, bruce, bruce! Do NOT put words in my mouth or construct straw men. That is nowhere near what I said.
HOWEVER ...I made the point that most of the guns in DC WERE illegal. Therefore, I of course think we should 'take action' against any illegal guns and their owners we might chance upon (fat chance) ...before they do something to us.


Are you EVER going to give up that technique of suggesting that folks are using bad reasoning by imagining stuff they never claimed?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

I whole-heartedly support a national program, with standardized instruction and testing, including psychological testing, for anyone wishing to own a firearm. An initial forty hours of classroom instruction followed by twenty hours of practical work on the range and learning to maintain firearms. The license would be valid in all fifty states and all US territories. It would NOT permit concealed carry; that would be another thing, not would it permit you to carry a firearm onto an aircraft, into a school, etc. The license would renewable every ten years. Possessing a firearm, any firearm, outside of your home without a license would result in a mandatory minimum of five years in the slammer, no parole. The issuance of the license would be mandatory to anyone completing the course of instruction with a minimum score of 75%; anything lower requires a repeat of the whole course. You would retested every time you wanted to renew the license.

But that's too sensible and the time for such a thing probably passed in 1959....

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 09:24 PM

well, Rapaire, those in charge probably know how many new jails they'd need to build if your eminently sensible ideas were adopted.

Budget, man...budget!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:08 PM

Was it not Wellington who said of his troops "I don't know what they do to the enemy but by God they scare me"?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:52 PM

And the NRA lawsuits have already started...some filing prepared in anticipation of today's ruling. They will be challenging all sorts of states' law. Seems to me California has some reasonable restrictions which the NRA will now go after:

California requires mandatory background checks on all firearm purchasers, limits handgun purchases to one a month, prohibits the manufacture and sale of guns that have not passed certain safety tests, requires handgun purchasers to obtain a safety certificate after passing a written test and performing a safe handling demonstration, imposes a 10-day waiting period on purchases, maintains records of handgun purchases and prohibits the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines, among other restrictions, according to the Legal Community Against Violence.

from HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:19 PM

The way I understand the ruling, there are specific provisions for background checks and other kinds of limitations.

                         One of the really strange things that has dogged this issue for a very long time is the concept of an "assualt rife." They could probably legally ban assault rifles, even under this ruling, but nobody can seem to agree on just what an assault rifle is.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:51 PM

Isn't is amazing how the political divide runs right down the middle of every branch of the government expect (or maybe including) the Presidency? BB makes the statement (11:10 AM) that the Supreme Court says we have the right to own guns (for self-defense and hunting, says The Bruce). I will correct that. The US Constitution declares that the right exists. 56% of the current Supreme Court just happen to get around to declaring that the words of the 2nd Amendment mean exactly what they say, that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


The Constitution was written in the English language for English speaking people to read and understand. It was not written in a secret language. It was not written in a coded language nor was it written by folks who had re-defined the language to fit an agenda of esoterics. It was written in the common language of the common people, in plain English so that those who chose to adopt it as the Supreme Law of the land could understand what it was all about. Two hundred and seventeen years later we have nearly half the country that insists that those words couldn't possibly mean what they say. We have 44% of the Supreme Court that doesn't understand what that plain English means. Amazing! I have to believe that some, in fact, a large majority of the naysayers don't WANT to believe what those words mean. Why? Freedom is not for the timid or those who have a slave mentality. It frightens them. They don't want to think about ever having to defend their lives or the lives of loved ones or even their neighbors and friends. They live in a fantasy world. Of course certain opportunists are just delighted with that condition. They are easy prey for the robbers, murderers or the power-mongers. Truth is that freedom is wasted on them, if they are not willing to fight for their rights. They want someone else, like the government, the police, Big Brother to protect them, tell them what to do and what to think. Such a narrow majority.

In the "Good Old Days" of the Aristocracy the common man was not permitted to own a sword or later on, a firearm. Only a freeman or a member of the Royal family had such a right. If you were found armed, any member of the aristocracy could kill you on the spot. You were obviously guilty of insurrection, being armed. Of course you could also be killed by the aristocracy for polishing your boots. If you polished your boots then you were pretending to a station that was not yours. You see, only the aristocracy rode mounted ( with a few exceptions) and their boots were always clean because they did not walk in the filthy rodes along with the commoners. Oh, how did those colonists become so high minded as to think that they were the equal of any member of the aristocracy?

I think most Democrats are really closet aristocrats. They believe they know better than the other guy, what is best for him. They want to run his life, micro-manage every aspect of his being. The other portion of the Democrats want to BE managed. They don't want the burden and responsibility of thinking for themselves. Let George do it.

I hope the good citizens of Washington DC enjoy their righteous freedom and arm themselves. The criminals in that fair city never disarmed. They break laws. That's what makes them criminals. They aren't about to obey the gun laws while disobeying all the other laws. Rest well tonight DCer's. It was 56%. That is such a narrow margin and with Obama (who aristocratically looks down his nose at those folk who cling to their religion and their guns) waiting in the wings things will probably CHANGE again.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:48 AM

See what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:50 AM

PS, is everything else that was right in seventeen-hundred-and-frozen-to-death still right or do we actually have the capacity to learn?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:14 AM

This one thing I find totally incomprehensible about Americans. Why do you want to own a gun? Owning a gun means you intend to kill someone or something. Why? Is it some misplaced macho thing because you have small dicks?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 04:40 AM

Maybe it is just something about the perverse who want to equate things with their peckers. Sorry, I can't be responsible for the way your mind works---or doesn't work, for that matter. Why do people want insurance? Because their privy member is too short? Makes about as much sense as your statement. People who want to kill generally find a way to do it, even if they have to pack explosives around their bodies (little weenies and all) and blow themselves and everybody around them to smithereens. SOME PEOPLE like living and the protection a firearm affords. Yeah, and some of us like to kill things like game animals. Are you squeamish? You want someone else to do your killing for you? I pity you. And as for seventeen hundred and something, some things, like the truth, never go out of style. It worked then and it works now.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 05:06 AM

Hmmm...seems I've hit a sensitive spot, there. Guns for protection? You mean against the other people who are carrying guns for protection? People in the UK don't carry guns for protection (unless they're gang members) we have a police force that does that. My son's one of them. Actually, he's a member of the Armed Response Unit - he has to go out and face the dick-heads who go around brandishing guns ("I was only protecting myself, officer").

As for using guns to hunt game; I have a dog for that.

Are people in the US so stupid that they still haven't learned the lesson from the mass killings by disturbed youngsters? And don't give me the crap about it's people who kill, not guns - how many people would they have been able to take out with their bare hands?

And you call me perverse!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:30 AM

Now children, play nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:41 AM

I'm not the one with the gun!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:53 AM

Of course you don't understand. You are not a citizen of the United States. Slag puts up a very well thought out dissertation, and your only response is to talk about someone's pecker. And you take such an arrogant approach. Thought ever occur to you that it was that cultural arrogance from your leaders that played a large role in the creation of the culture of the US? Do you get that one of the main reasons that our culture contains a desire to keep and bear arms rests squarely with the government of your country? It is a cultural piece that will never go away, because it was a very important part of the formation of our country to escape the repression of yours. Kendall points out very correctly that should anyone attempt to attack and take over this country, they would contend with military, the police, and an armed populace.

I will take issue with Slag on one piece of his post. He indicates that the Democrats are anti gun. That is just a little to general and political for me. The facts are that many Dems, as well as many of their labor supporters, have come to see that the people they purport to represent are gun owners. There is much rethinking going on in the party, as they are determined that the Repubs not be allowed to use these wedge issues any longer. Hell, the Pennsylvania AFLCIO, with support from many in the party, has an annual Skeet/Trap shoot. The Lieutenant Governor of Michigan, John Cherry, had an annual shooting event/fundraiser for years.

I have said it many times. I don't care that you lot on the other side of the pond don't get it. You didn't get 200+ years ago. This is a part of who we are. You really don't understand. Ask Bill Sables if, when he toured the US by car if he felt unsafe at any time other than in large urban areas. And then I am sure he felt no less safe than he would in London these days. Ask him if he saw folks brandishing weapons in the streets and shooting at each other. Ask him if he even heard a gun report. This is just an element of our culture that was borne of revolution from an arrogant King and culture. It has evolved into a right that has expressed itself in hunting and tradition, including the right to defend ones hearth and home from invaders, foreign or domestic, whether they be criminals or anyone who threatens our families. It is simply a part of us. We may not all agree, as in the case of my good friend Bill D, but that too is a part of the culture that was created in the revolution against yours. The idea of free speech, and free assembly to protest and put forth ideas also was smelted of the same ore. Those ideas actually make our country vital. The debate is why we still have many remnants from the 1700's, as well as many new ones. Ours is a living document that will change what needs changing and keep what needs keeping.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:02 AM

BillD,

You stated:

"Indeed...and we discover this 'flouting' and 'illegal use' right after they shoot someone. And we prosecute them and confiscate the guns IF we ever find them.

I am SO encouraged. "




I will then state, in reference to Iraq ( and probably Iran)

Indeed...and we discover this 'flouting' and 'illegal use' right after they use a WMD. And we prosecute them and confiscate the WMD IF we ever find them.

I am SO encouraged. "


Do you see my point? Your comment implies that it would be desireable to take some action BEFORE the use of the illegal weapons- Yet I do not recall that viewpoint in a case that was far more dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:05 AM

The problem with wording of the 2nd Ammendment isn't as much the right to bear arms but the way it is tied to maintaining a militia... This is why 4 justices interpreted the wording diffently from the the other 5...

The wording is not at all clear as the Founder's intent...

Now if we take the Constitution and look at it from a historical perspective it gets even more difficult to apply the 2nd ammendment to today... First of all, handguns were rare back then... Most were kept on fancy boxes and used for dueling or occasional sport shooting... And they were loaded from the barrel... The militias of the day used muzzle loading rifles... This was the reality of the times in which this document was written... When we try to figure out how the Founding Fathers would have us live and bahave in our modern world we need to try to think like they would think if they were still with us...

Keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson wrote that it was his opinion that the Constitution was not a document that would stand the test of time and that from time to time we would need to ammmend it to keep it relevant... It is my opinion that Jefferson would give us no greater than a B- or C+ in keeping the document modern...

I think it was Tolstoy that siad that governemnt is like the caboose of the train and I guess that is why we have been slow to make the changes necessary to keep the Constitution relevant to our times and that is problematic in that we have become so polorized that it is no longer possible to ammend the Constitution to keep it modern and we therefore are slaves to our own past and, as a result, are in danger of being consumed by dogmatism...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:07 AM

More: the US Bill of Rights never disarmed people because of their religion, as the English one had and does (unless it's been revoked?).

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:11 AM

Just to keep the anti-gun side happy, DC will be able to effectively prohibit any resident from getting a firearm, anyway.

There are NO licensed gun dealers (FFL) in the District. Since residents cannot get a gun except by purchasing it from a FFL dealer and having it shipped to a LOCAL FFL holder ( within the District), there is no way to acquire a gun. I would not trust the so-called "amnesty" program, to register guns that had previously been illegal.

And the DC government can control any gun dealers by use of the zoning laws ( ie, prohibit them from having a place of business.)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:13 AM

Errr... arrogance coming from an American? You think you can go around the world killing people with impunity, imprisoning them illegally and torturing them. Now THAT'S arrogance!(Oh, and foisting your crap food and revolting television onto us!)

No, I don't get your desire to carry guns - I can only assume that it's some deep-seated inferiority complex that makes you feel so insecure all the time. Why are you so afraid? Do you really think that someone is going to try to attack and take over your country? Who the hell would want to live there amongst such a bunch of paranoids?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:15 AM

Wrong, Bobert. It is very clear. It is in plain English. It does not differentiate based on the type of weapons. That, I believe, was by intent. The founders were very aware that weapons would evolve and develope. The type of "arms" were not the relevant distinction. They simply said that "the people" have the "right" to "keep and bear arms". The Supreme Court has very correctly determined that the basic right is clear. All this balderdash that others put on it, such as making the distinction between handguns and long guns, is simply them trying to put their rationales on the language. It is not there.

This whole debate revolves around folks with an agenda trying to accomplish something in the courts that they cannot accomplish politically. If they could, they would simply take it to the ballot or to an amendment. The Supreme Court has taken a big step in ending these types of moves. Want to get rid of handguns? Take it to the people, sponsor an amendment. Can't get it done? Right, because most average folks don't support the notion of giving up this basic right.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:17 AM

Errr.....but it's really nice talking to you! :)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:26 AM

uuhhh..... leveller ....... We are not afraid. We kicked your arse out of here a long time ago (twice in fact), and played a large part in the victories against those that attacked your shores in a World War. We aren't afraid, or insecure. And last I checked, it was your country that imposed its wishes on cultures around the world that then kicked them out. How many examples do you want? It is your country that has been condemned by Amnesty International and many other organizations for you actions in the North of Ireland.

As to the food, these companies are not forcing you lot to buy it, are they? If you are pissed off that the food is there, then you need to attack your own people instead of us. They are buying it and embracing it. But in your arrogance, you refuse to accept that it is your people doing this. It must be those low life Yanks, no?

As to the TV, it seems to me that these days it is your country that is exporting this trash. That means that it is your culture that is the root of this explosion.

Take a look in the mirror, old chap. And ask Bill Sables, Giok MacKenzie, or any of the Shellbacks about my country. They enjoyed it, and its people, a great deal. And we loved having them. Can't wait to see Andrew and Carole again. By the by, they didn't see or hear any guns going off either. And I am very excited about the time I will get to visit your country. I am sure I will be treated very well, and enjoy the company and song of many friends, old and new. But don't come around with this tripe you are spreading. Makes for good tomatoes, but not very good conversation and discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:30 AM

Errr.....but it's really nice talking to you! :)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:38 AM

You think you can go around the world killing people with impunity, imprisoning them illegally and torturing them. Now THAT'S arrogance!

Danged right it is! Let's see: the US was responsible for 800 years of Irish repression, including pitch-capping and the Penal Laws; the Highland Clearances; the removal of the Acadians; St. Brice's Day; Bolton; Glencoe; Waxhaw; Peterloo; Amritsar; Croke Park; Qissa Khwani bazaar; Miami Showband; Milltown; Greysteel; Cherry Valley. And let's not forget the wonderful human rights supporter Cecil Rhodes...and those who taught such nice things as giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. It was the Americans who created drawing and quartering, boiling alive, gibbeting, the Little Close, and the Bowstring.

And that's just a few things the US is responsible for....

As for television and food -- don't watch it and don't eat it and it will soon go away.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:42 AM

"The debate is why we still have many remnants from the 1700's, as well as many new ones. Ours is a living document that will change what needs changing and keep what needs keeping.

That is indeed the way it should be, Mick. You will not be surprised that I don't agree that those changes HAVE kept up with changing times.
It was very interesting last night to watch Keith Olbermann say almost exactly what I have been saying for several years, albeit a bit more forcefully and eloquently. (well, he's paid to be entertaining about his opinions).

Once more: Whatever your feelings about guns themselves, the 2nd amendment was written by folks who had no idea of what technology would do with firearms in 250 years, nor what society would evolve into. In 1789, there were no drive-by shootings, car hi-jackings or "Saturday night specials". Firearms were almost totally used for hunting and self-defense...and, of course, to overwhelm the Native Americans. The weapons available were stuff like **flintlocks**, which required some serious practice to operate, and were not cheap and available on street corners...etc.
As Keith Olbermann pointed out, Justice Scalia ignored the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment and the obvious intent of the founders to provide that "IN ORDER to maintain a militia", the people needed to be able to provide or obtain firearms. The concept of how "militias" are raised & maintained & armed has changed in 250 years! If you are part of one today, you do not bring odds & ends of firearms you may own...they provide standardized weapons and training.
   I would bet that the folks who wrote good old Amendment #2 would be aghast at what society & firearms are like today, and would NEVER have allowed such a short, semi-ambiguous phrase to define our practices. They had only what they knew....but we know more now, and should be willing, as you, Mick, point out, to "change what needs changing".
A better definition of "militia" is needed, as well as who is allowed to be in one. Also, as you further note, the situation is not the same in many rural areas as it is in the inner cities, and states should HAVE the right to tailor restrictions as Wash DC did until yesterday, to address local situations.
   ...and, I seriously would LOVE to see Rapaire's idea about the consequences of violating firearms laws taken under advisement.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:50 AM

BillD,

You state " I would bet that the folks who wrote good old Amendment #2 would be aghast at what society & firearms are like today, and would NEVER have allowed such a short, semi-ambiguous phrase to define our practices. They had only what they knew....but we know more now, and should be willing, as you, Mick, point out, to "change what needs changing". "

AAnd their thoughts about the internet, where false statements can go around the world beore it is even known that they are being said? Perhaps they would have changed freedom of speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, etc...

There is a process for change- but I have noted no effort to use it on the second amendment- just the use of local laws to limit what has now been determined to be a basic right. Feel free to advocate changing the Bill of Rights- just don't complain when someone you don't agree with changes the parts that YOU feel are "basic rights".

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

I won't even answer that, Bruce....one more "straw man" which brings in irrelevant 'what ifs' to ignore the real issue.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: MarkS
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

Rapaire

Take a pill and keep your blood pressure down!

This fellow just can't see the world around him. It's hard to
look around when you have your nose so far in the air.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

I am a bit confused by that post, Bruce. My point is that these folks seem to have all the arguments about what it means, doesn't mean, and how technology is so different and couldn't have been anticipated. I point out that if they believe it needs changing, then they should take their case to the electorate. But they won't, because "that dog don't hunt" as they say.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

BillD stated that the founding fathers did not know what would be developed in terms of arms, and thus the 2nd amendment needed to be modified.

I merely pointed out that they did not know what would be devloped in terms of speech, etc, either: It seems that they night well have distinguished between a person standing up and making a speech ( and being subjected to disagreements, corrections et al that all listening would hear) and the posting of a blog on the internet, with it's instannt world-wide distribution.

But Bill says that is different, from what I read in his comment.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:29 AM

Got it. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:38 AM

Washington Post:

Deadly Consequences -- But the Right Call

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17

Few landmark Supreme Court rulings have been so widely predicted as yesterday's decision striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The mere fact that the court agreed to hear the case was a pretty good indication that the justices were itching to make some kind of big statement about the Second Amendment. Questions from the bench during oral arguments in March left little doubt as to which way the wind was blowing.

This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I'd desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it's probably right.

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

I realize that the now-defunct D.C. law was unusually comprehensive and restrictive and thus, in the legal sense, offered a bull's-eye for the pro-gun lobby. I also know that the law was easy to attack on grounds of efficacy: Given all the handgun killings in the city, was the ban really having any beneficial impact?


But come on, it's not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse -- and it's not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.

I'd like to be able to thunder about the injustice committed by an activist, archconservative Supreme Court that seeks to return our jurisprudence to the 18th century. I will, almost certainly, about some future outrage. But this time, I can't.

The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.

I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.

And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.

More broadly, I've always had trouble believing that a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. I don't mean to sound like some kind of backwoods survivalist, but I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns.

Did they believe in assault weapons? Of course not. Would they be appalled that drug gangs are often better armed than the police? Of course they would, and surely they'd want to do something about it.

I believe the Constitution is a living document that has to be seen in light of the times. I believe the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, was right to infer an implicit right to privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out. I think the idea that the Founders' "original intent" should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet.

But I also believe that if the Constitution says yes, you can't just blithely pretend it says no. Yesterday's decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment's guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it -- not ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,concerned
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:51 AM

I heard that when the decision was read, it created pandemonium in the court. Justice Scalia had to fire two warning shots to settle people down.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:07 AM

Big Mick says "Wrong, Bobert"...

No, not so, good buddy... There is no wrong or right here... This comes down to ***opinions***... It's not like 1+1=2... Four justices see it my way... Five your way... These are opinions... BTW, all 5 justices that agree with your ***opinion*** were appointed by Republican presidents...

Kinda funny, ain't it???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:08 AM

A pretty damned good piece of writing by Mr. Robinson. And it hits the major points very well. And this from a man who wishes it were not so.

I must take issue with one of the predicates he puts forth:
The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

This just isn't borne out by the experience. Washington DC is one of the prime examples. London is another. New York is another. Very restrictive gun laws have had no positive effect in lowering violent crime. Urban areas with liberalized possession/conceal carry laws have much lower violent crime rates.

This leads me to a thesis grounded in my left wing views. I believe that the root of the American murder rate lies in its worship of capital above the value of the working class. Hang with me on this, now. It is the desire for wealth, and the cornering of that wealth that creates a desperation as the gap widens, for a piece of that wealth. This is one of the reasons why large urban cities with mass poverty are the highest violent crime areas, in spite of their restrictive laws. Solve hopelessness and you solve the crime problem. Give kids a fair shake at the future and they don't turn to guns. Further evidence of this lies in the fact that in rural and suburban working class areas, where legal gun ownership is much more of a norm, suffers statistically from a very low violent crime rate. Although, with the further centralizing of wealth that we are seeing now, I think this will go up. And it will go up because of the ever widening circle of ripples from the stone first cast by the Reagan administration, that recreated the cult of worship of the capitalist "job creators". The belief that they lie at the foundation of our wonderful society is folly. What made the 20th century the American Century, was the creation of a larger middle class with rights and voice, that had the ability to create a decent lifestyle for more and more people. That is what created the marketplace and lifestyle. We did not eliminate all hopelessness, and we had many failures (racism, sexism, etc). But we let the capitalists back in the door after several decades of reforms that were getting us there. And they did it by playing these wedge cards, such as the issue of guns. We let them divide us over it.

The issue of guns in the hands of legal owners who use them responsibly for a variety of reasons, including self defense, has no bearing on the violence we see in the cities, and increasingly in the suburbs and rural areas. If that were not the case we would have seen violent crime there for years. The problem lies in a system which allows the number of billionaires to rise geometrically, worships it on TV, while millions have to choose between gas, food, and the prescription drugs. Violence is caused by hopelessness on one end of the economic spectrum, and the greedy protecting their ill gotten gains on the other. What lies in between are decent human beings trying to get along.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

It is STILL irrelevant to the issue at hand. If all you want to do is argue basic constitutional law & theory and how to maintain 'democracy' etc....that is one thing. It is quite another to debate the details of possible variations in one amendment with hypothetical musings about possible abuses of another. In theory, ALL aspects of those amendments are subject to change, given enough need and the will of enough people and states.
I will debate attempts to alter 'freedom of speech' rules separately.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th...you would not have wanted the discussion of your right to own guns be linked to the prohibition OR allowing of liquor, would you?

The very fact that such entities as The Washington Post and many well-known pundits agree with me indicate that it IS a serious issue and not a silly whim of a few wimps who are afraid of guns.

But, that relates to one of my points....even IF freedom to own guns makes YOU more comfortable about personal security, it won't help the millions who are NOT capable, psychologically, emotionally or physically to own & operate firearms. If proper restriction on BOTH ownership and types of weapons and ammunition were in place and enforced, we wimps would not fear the idiots so much.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:15 AM

I used the word "wrong" because under our system of governance, the majority rules. They told you what the language means. They eliminated all this hypothesizing about what the founders would have done if they only knew where weapons would go. And the point is still that they tried to enshrine rights that were timeless. That is why they spoke of "arms" instead of "long arms" of "muskets". They weren't trying to say that you could always own a long arm or musket, they were saying that people would always have the right to bear arms. The reason was very clear. It was because they had just freed themselves from a tyrannical country that enforced its will on its "subjects" by force of arms, while denying the masses the same arms. The founders were determined that the government would always have to be mindful that its citizens were armed as well. And they also knew that the time may come when the citizens might have to rise up as a militia and fight off enemies, foreign and domestic.

I will say it again. I think that it is time to get past this issue and move on to what is really germaine. And that is the taking over of our country by the new tyrants ... those that hoarde the wealth in obscene amounts while folks struggle to pay for prescriptions, food, utilities, and gasoline.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:37 AM

Hey, theleveller, you can confront your miscreants and home invaders with pike, or mace or battleaxe or dirk, but I prefer a bit of distance between me and those threatening harm to me and my family.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:42 PM

I've got a couple or so of guns at home, but I'd prefer to confront a home invader with either my nightstick or my small sword.

Fewer holes in the furniture and walls, a lot less noise, and both are more effective at close quarters if you know how to use them. And the small sword is much more elegant than a shotgun. And I'd probably have to replace the bloody carpet....

But then again, I'm a fairly decent shot with pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun and once upon a time with a full-auto job. That means that if I can see it I can hit it (100 yards, an empty Coke can, 8 rounds from an M-1 rifle, bounced the can into the air with the first shot and hit it seven more times before it fell to earth).

No, I don't carry a gun to work. No, my life doesn't revolve around them, and gun talk bores me to tears ("Yeah, but with the Leupold on a .308 using a handload of 65 grains of Red Dot and a boat-tail of 180 grains you can achieve and MOA of...zzzzzzzzzz").

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:49 PM

I accept that definition, Mick...

As Bill pointed out with the 18th and 21st ammendments, times change and so do laws and interpretations of laws change...

And I whole-heartedly agree that it is time to get beyond this issue but the Repubs force it on us every election cycle... I agree with Eugene Robinson in his abservation that the Republican dominated Supreme Court was just lookin' for a fight so they could make their big statement... I see yesterday's decision as politically motivated but that's the way things are these days...

The next round will be more interesting as D.C. will most certainly deal with "gun control" rateher that banning... Banning as always been a "red meat" issue for the Repubs and, yeah, I am gald that the Obama and the Dems are smart enough to not advocate it because it does allow for reasonable gun control discussion...

Face it, everyone believes in gun control at some level... That's why we don't put loaded guns in baby cribs... Yes, that is the extreme but it does illisstrae that we do universally accept some control... The next stage in D.C. will be about just how much control...

I'd be willing to bet that within 5 years D.C. will have enacted some other control measures that will also find their way to the S.Court...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:50 PM

Same here, Rap. Despite the fact that I defend the right to keep and bear arms, I rarely carry. There has to be a reason. But my right to do so must not be infringed.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 12:58 PM

Bobert, wachu mean "we don't put guns in baby cribs"?? You don't??? You some kinda liberal pinko??

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:12 PM

"Very restrictive gun laws have had no positive effect in lowering violent crime. "

Not a lot, when someone can go to a gun show 2 states away, use fake I.D., and buy batches and re-sell them illegally. That's no reason not to limit purchases as best we can. (Gun shows ARE common ways to get around waiting periods).

Even totally legal purchases in one state can fairly easily be diverted to illegal sales, just as 'legal' semi-auto guns are fairly easily converted to full auto.

If I saw gun advocates leading campaigns to seriously address these issues, I wouldn't be quite so concerned, but the prevailing 'wisdom' seems to be that ANY restriction just starts up down the slippery slope to restricting us to BB guns.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM

and, that was 100! Don't know that I ever hit that accidently before!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

Doesn't fly, Bill. Your example is a use of demgoguery, and just reflects your "feeling". The data is out there with regard to violent crime rates. Further, while the problem is there, you are ignoring that every single one of us that advocates for preservation of the right to keep and bear arms are also advocates for enforcing strictly the laws with regard to gun ownership/purchase. That makes your comment about "gun advocates" suspect. You know full well that I have always said that training requirements need to be enhanced, as well as background check technology. I have also said that loopholes should be closed that allow felons to buy weapons.

I have the right to own weapons. It is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. It is one of our most basic freedoms and "shall not be infringed". In your post you question the sincerity of gun owners motives when you say, "If I saw gun advocates leading campaigns to seriously address these issues, I wouldn't be quite so concerned, but the prevailing 'wisdom' seems to be that ANY restriction just starts up down the slippery slope to restricting us to BB guns". I wuuld question the sincerity of folks that challenge the slippery slope predicate, when they attempt to act as though they aren't interested in taking away my right.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

As fir defending myself, I ain't got the kinda neigbors that I'm all that concerned about but ever since I ran into mama bear while huntin' mushrooms I carry my .410/.22 over under with me when I go into the woods... Not that it a sure thing that that little rifle would save me froma pissed off bear but it beat a blank... lol...

As for the loophole that allows gun buyers to escape background checks at gun shows this is an area where we can tighten up "gun control" without infringing of law abiding citizens from purchasing and owning guns... Of course, the NRA will pitch a fit and try to make it sound as if background checks and banning are one of the same but that's just the way the NRA is been for some time...

Speaking of which, I know I have mentioned that I used to be a crd carrying NRA member and involved in a shoot club but that was a long, long time ago when there were never any politics discussed... Just gun safety... And shootin'... An' going to meets an' having fun...

Too bad that the NRA decided that it would rather be into politics instead of being a non-poilitical organization... The NRA misssed their calling because the NRA that I knew would have been all over being an organization where folks would be referred to take their gun safety courses that one day will be required to own, at the very least, a handgun... They could have been the good guys... Just like when I was a member...

But somewhere along the way soemthing went very wrong with the NRA and that is too bad for everyone... Especially in the times we are going thru when gun safety is hardly discussed... All we hear from the NRA is that the "liberals want to take your guns away"???

Must be some money ionvolved... Seems that is what motivates people these days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:22 PM

Actually Bill, I can walk into any legit gun store and walk out with a gun. There's no waiting period with the so-called "Instant Check" (unless the computers are down or something).

I can agree with the one-gun-a-month rule. How many can you shoot at a time, anyway? I'd make certain exceptions -- purchasing several at a time for a bona-fide shooting club or buying a matched set of pistols, for example -- but these would be just that, exception, and would use up one or more of the twelve guns you could buy in a year.

IF rational gun laws were in effect and IF they were equitably applied I wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately....

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:38 PM

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: theleveller - PM
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:14 AM

"Owning a gun means you intend to kill someone or something. Why? Is it some misplaced macho thing because you have small dicks?"

Oh my goodness! Small dick? Hope you have great luck trying to fuck a bunch of young thugs that break into your home in the wee hours with your big dick.

Big dick? hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

Owning a gun can also mean that you intend to participate in the Olympics.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM

Mick..my post you quoted was supposed to indicate that I wanted to see gun advocates **LEADING** campaigns to toughen and enforce the rules...not just agreeing with the principle.

I have said before that I have NO illusions about 'taking away your rights'. I am trying very hard to be realistic about this, while taking pompous asses like Wayne LaPiere with a grain of salt! I have watched and listened to discussions all day on NPR, CNN, etc...and there are many, many folks who make some of the same points I do.

Guns are a serious problem....and what I see is a lot more 'defending of rights' than attempts to close loopholes and DO that education you tout. A member of the DC city council was interviewed today, and he said succinctly that the new situation would 1)make it possible to own and register pistols in DC and 2) although those would be sold only to "law abiding citizens" it would increase the number of pistols available to be stolen, used carelessly and used in suicides. He stated that HE had the statistics that showed how many more handguns were involved in crimes and accidents than EVER in legitimate self-defense.
There was a longish discussion about employment of trigger locks, about unloading guns and locking them away from children and how really 'safe' handling makes them almost useless in possible home-invasion scenarios. He also said they would comply with the law, and that actually, very little needed to changed in order to comply with the court ruling.

I have not taken this doubtful position suddenly or capriciously...and the fact that 4 of 5 Justices voted against lifting the ban tells me that learned men still disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:44 PM

Very interesting. A lot of the same tired rhetoric expressed by the usual culprits in other threads dealing with virtually the same topic but here and there a good discussion has emerged and some thoughtful and though out comments from both, of rather, the many sides of this issue.

I contemplated the argument that the founders could not have foreseen the technological changes in firearms. I have to agree with this in part. And disagree with it in part.

For all the cosmetic changes hand guns and long rifles have gone through the basic mechanics are pretty much the same as they were at the time of the American Revolution. It might surprize some to learn that there were repeating and automatic firing weapons around in that day too. Not as successful as those of today but then again just about everything mechanical form those days has been improved. Faster, more farther and higher. It's the faster and more aspects that concerns most folks. That and better over all functionality.

But the REAL arena of weaponry improvement is in the sole hand of the Federal Government. Here the development is nothing short of awesome. The biggest daddy is, of course the atomic arsenal. A million people armed with submachine guns don't stand a chance. If the Founders felt that we might need our personal weapons to take back the country, should it fall into the hands of deceivers, the corrupt and unscrupulous (which many feel it already has fallen), they certainly did not foresee the tremendous technical strides in the mega-arsenal our government wields today. Truly the citizens' firearms ARE for personal protection and recreation.

I hate it when anyone abuses the right to keep and bear arms. He provides the enemies of this right propaganda against the righteous citizen who behaves in a responsible manner. I hate crime period. And I hold special contempt for those who commit crimes with a firearm or some weaponry that puts the victim at a decided disadvantage. Where a firearm is present in the hand of the intended victim of a crime it is often a different story. The crime is thwarted and the perpetrator is captured or put to flight. A fighting chance, that's all I ask.

I have to give Big Mick thanks because he called me on dragging partisan politics into my earlier posts. I have known and hunted with life long friends who were/are gun toting Democrats. I fell into one of the things I really hate and that is type-casting, stereotyping. Mea culpa and thanks for pointing that out Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:49 PM

Those idiot justices got it wrong. Now we will see more gun deaths than before.
There will be more handguns on the street available to criminals and jerks who don't
know how to use them.

The Supreme Idiots misinterpreted the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM

There are quite a number of vehicles around here with the bumper sticker "I'm a gun-toting Democrat."

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

Frank, you are one of the voices here that I respect the most. But on this issue, it is my opinion that you are wrong. Did you read the thread? I understand you are upset, but your post seems to indicate that you haven't read the arguments. Your usual style is to respond to the discussion.

With sincere respect,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM

Big Mick, here's my take. There are gun collectors. I see that they feel that if they didn't have the right to own those guns, their right would be infringed. Nevertheless, this ruling will make it easy for bad folks to get ahold of these weapons.

The idea that a handgun is necessary for self-defense isn't correct.

The arguments presented state that certain conditions should be placed on people who own guns. The Supreme Court did not stipulate these conditions. The net effect is that those criminals who want them will get them from those who own them.

The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta has put gun violence on its list of
serious diseases. This was not done capriciously.

The Founding Fathers did not have to contend with handguns, automatic weapons or modern forms of weaponry. The ownership of guns were for the protection against foreign invaders through an militia. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

There are certain counties and states where it is legal to carry concealed weapons.
The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail. I'm not sure where DC is on this.

In fact, there are some places such as Kennesaw, Georgia where it is illegal
to own a gun. This is the height of stupidity.

Washinton DC has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Watch it grow higher
with this latest ruling.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM

There was an anti-gun advocate on NPR who was making the case that the ruling will actually make it easier for authorities to regulate firearms, because the NRA will no longer be able to make the "slippery slope" argument (i.e. if I let you take my machine gun, the next thing you'll want is my fouling piece). If it's already been determined that they can't take the fellow's shotgun, it weakens the argument to let the individual keep the machine gun.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 07:50 PM

I am far from being a Constitutional lawyer (not qualified - my parents were married), but it seems to me that the Court has totally thrown out the "militia clause". The decision says The Amendment's prefatory clause [the militia clause] announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now, if the purpose of the "keep and bear arms" clause is directly related to the militia, how can the Court possibly separate the two? Understand, I don't own a firearm and have never seen a reason to have one in my home, but I could care less if Mick, Rapaire or any other law-abiding and trained individual wants to own and carry one. That's not the point. If this Court can throw out part of a sentence in the guiding document of our nation, even if they then try to weasel-word their way out of admitting what they did, what's next?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM

They didn't throw it out. They defined that one was the operative and one was the prefatory. That is pretty standard constitutional and contract law. It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:14 PM

Well, art, the biggest problem is that the Supreme Court has become an arm of the Republican Party and, like it or not, has become politicized... 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents...

Herein lies the problem with this very "activist" court... These justices don't seem to interested in precidence... They seem to think they are like this appointed-for-life ultimate legislative body...

Yes, I undertand your problems with them ignoring half the 2nd ammmendment and its historical significance... I have problems with that, too... So did the minority justices... It is, IMO, a debatable part of ther decision... The majority ignored it as if it was a radiation pit because had they not then they would have to explain their decision...

I'll tell ya' what... Scalia and Thomas are two of the most partisan justices this country has ever had... I respected Eral Warren becuase he had the courage to do what he thought was the right thing to do... These two guys are like rubber stamps... If the Republican Party decided that all left handed people should be rounded up and put in concentration camps these two morons would go along with it...

As for Roberts and Alito??? They are Scalia/Thomas's in training to be morons...

This was a terriby flawed decision that says to communities everywhere, "You cannot impose standards in your own community"... That's the bottom line here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:26 PM

But it would seem that by doing so they have invalidated the opinion held by many people for many years (200+ in some cases) that the two clauses have equal weight. In fact, the 1939 case (Miller) seemed to give greater weight to the militia clause, when it said "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." and, referring to calling out the militia, "it is With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." And yes, I'm aware that yesterday's decision also said that Miller really had nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:28 PM

I have no disagreement with the partisan nature of the justices, but in this decision they worked along strict language lines. First they defined the structure, then they interpreted the language using original intent based on those criteria. What you folks wanted them to do was to legislate from the bench instead of interpret.

If you believe this was such a faulty decision, with such far reaching impact, then take it to the electorate. If your opinion is correct, you surely could be successful.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 08:40 PM

IMHO, what they did was legislate from the bench, and have effectively rewritten the Constitution to have the Second Amendment simply say "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It should be remembered that all this decision does is overturn the part of the DC law that forbids intact, unlocked handguns in private homes. I anticipate that the NRA and others will now bring other suits aimed at having all other restrictions eliminated. Hopefully, these will get to the level of the Supreme after President Obama has had a chance to appoint a justice or two.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:05 PM

That's the way I see it as well, art... They ignored precidnece of the Miller case and legislated from the bench, much the way they did in Bush v. Gore...

And I agree that it would be refreshing to have a Supreme Court that wasn't so intent on being legislators and just do the friggin' job...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:48 PM

Well, at least Barak Obama like it.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:00 PM

Mick...what do you mean by this statement?

"It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes."

Stare decisis is a pretty important concept, but it's hard to get stuff included in it. Abortion rights 'should' be, but they keep hammering...trying to overturn Roe V. Wade. Why should THIS new reading of the 'militia' clause be favored?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 10:29 PM

BillD---if 'stare decisis' is so all-fired important, Blacks might still be in segregated schools. Surely you don't mean for that to be? Seems to me that 'stare' is only applicable when it helps liberals' causes, else it's wrong to overturn a prior decision. If a decision is unconstitutional, no matter from which side, it is required to be reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Slag
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:27 AM

artbroooks and co. Why is the Second Amendment in there at all? You have to ask yourself that question. It is the "Bill of Rights"! Who's rights? The Federal Government? No! The Bill of Rights exists to protect "We the People" FROM the Federal Government. It exist to make sure that the people control the government, not one party, not a power bloc, not a madman. There was much debate as to whether to make what is now the Second Amendment the First. It was/is that important. In the end, the First Amendment held supremacy because it was the ability to speak freely, even if said speech was offensive, that gave rise to freedom. The First Amendment though, would have no force and no meaning without the Second Amendment which protects the First. It is to the PEOPLE that these and the following Amendments apply.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM

To Slag: so? There is no disagreement on that.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:40 AM

Well, if we take the right to bear arms and couple it with the the rights to form militias to protect "We the people form the federal governemnt" I'd say we have a purdy steep hill to climb... Think Ruby Ridge or Branch Dividian here...

A couple million handguns in the hands of "the people" ain't jack compared to the might of the US military so I think that we should be able to own our own nuclear devices... Yeah, now that would level the playing field...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:53 AM

Well, Bobert - since the size of the standing army when the Bill of Rights was signed (1791) was well under 1,000, it seems to me that the Second Amendment, militia clause and all, was there to create an army to defend the nation, not to defend the nation from the government. Of course, not being a Constitutional lawyer, I may be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:56 AM

Well, I dono, art... Slag just might be on to somethin' here... Given the mood agsint tyranny they might have figurated that their own governemnt could get as bad as King George...

("King George", Bobertz???)

Opps, my Fruedian slip is showin'...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM

Well, Slag, the Supremes just SAID that the "right to keep and bear arms" belongs to the people as individuals, as does the right to free speech, etc. (although the right to peacefully assemble DOES require more than one person).

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM

JotSC..(I went to bed right after posting...we on the SunRISE coast have this problem answering later replies..*grin*)

Anyway...It was not *ME* who was suggesting Stare be applied...it was (or seemed to be), Mick. *I* was asking why the 5-4 decision on guns should be enshrined when things like many years of Roe V. Wade are not. Obviously, nothing is exempt from change if enough people can get a new amendment pushed thru...Stare decisis only gives guidance to jurists when looking at various attempts to get a favorable decision which is opposed to a long-standing & workable ruling already in place...like Roe...

If it is any more use to "liberals causes" ..(how DO you manage to make that sound like "perverts causes"?)...it is because the more 'zealous' conservatives seem to think that certain issues should be decided according to some arcane 'moral' rule which they are sure they have infallible access to.
Those sneaky 'liberals' feel that sane, practical and fair analysis of issues would often allow folks to live according to their own conscience, rather than rules imposed from 'on high' and interpreted BY conservatives....again, like Roe. Starewould limit specious attempts to run the lives of others according to personal whims.
Now...whether gun laws and the 2nd amendment are important enough to warrant such consideration is what we are debating! I am arguing for a practical solution that deals with the situation today, against what I see as claims that there is a 'definitive right' based on the situations which existed 250 years ago, and which is guaranteed forever and immune from alteration. I am not trying to 'run anyone else's life'....I am just trying to find ways to better preserve my own, knowing that there are legions of idiots out there who have no respect for mine! I am in favor of ways to REDUCE the threat, rather than ways to meet the threat head-on....much like the silly "mutually assured destruction" solution to nuclear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 02:27 PM

BillD, I apologize if I attributed that thought to you erroneously.

My point, whenever I watch a judicial hearing, 'stare decisis' is brought up as settled law most always by the Dems. But it should cut both ways whether the issue emanates from the left or the right.

I'm not sure how you conflate my use of "liberals' causes" with "perverts (sic) causes", but that's your problem more than mine. I suppose it's because the written word is not as nuanced as the spoken word in person.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 06:20 PM

Well John, it 'may' be that Democrats/Liberals do have a few more causes about which they'd like to see a basic position 'settled' ...as in 'no longer attacked' by those who wish to, as I said above, impose personal moral/ethical systems on the populace in general. (Stuff like being free of prayer at neutral, public events)
I dunno, though...conservatives too seem like THEY would like to get their beliefs labeled as untouchable. Each group has a list....differently flavored, but emotionally charged.

As to my sensitivity about phrases like "liberal causes": I have heard that and similar language used in contexts SO often where the speaker or author was coloring the word 'liberal' with opprobrium similar to how he would refer to "communists" or "atheists". It is when the phrase is tossed in as if 'everyone ought to know' what THEY believe!
If *I* read too much into YOUR post, I also apologize. It certainly is hard to sort out nuances in print...thus my probably excessive use of bold and other HTML stuff to try to 'sound' like I would speak.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 07:33 PM

I'm with you, BIll, of the way the conservatives turned "liberal" into some evil label...

Problem is that while folks weren't really paying attention to those who spent millions on think tanks and marketing the old liberals are now very much more conservative than those who claim to be conservative...

Willaim Buckley was a "conservative" and I respected him for his core principles and values...

But as Buckley held fast to those principles radical Republicans took control of the country behind the usual flag burning, gay rights and abortion banner and then have fone about doing things that true conservatives absolutely don't do, like nation building, hugh deficits and corruption at all levels of government... These, folks, are not---I repeat, "not" --- conservative ideals... These fall somewhere between radical and illegeal, not to mention short sighted...

Yeah, the partisan radical Republicans will continue to throw the "liberal" label around as if it still has mojo but the mojo has been squeezed completely out of if... Personally, I find it amusing that these people haven't figured out that their shot has passed and they failed miserably yet they still think they can scare people with the "L" word... Hahahaha...

Sorry for the minor thread drift and now back to...

...the subject at hand...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:21 PM

BillD, for every detestable adjective you tell me that conservatives use about liberals, I'll give give you a detestable adjective used the other way...Nazi, Fascist, evil. But that contest gets us nowhere.

When I was growing up there were many things that needed changing, primarily to do with Race and Sex (what is now call erroneously called Gender). These are problems that we've come along way in repairing.

Almost every other thing that liberals want to change are, to my mind, based on the selfishness of the generation that came of age about 1965 +/-.

BillD, I was going to flesh this out, telling you why I believe this, but I found myself writing an essay nearly a page long and counting. I may over the next few weeks really turn it into an essay. Then I'll really drive Joe Offer wild when I post it! LOL If I do so write, I'll PM you...no, not with the essay, but the with the option to read it if you're interested.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:44 PM

The difference, John, is that the term "liberal" itself was demonized... Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that terms like "nazi, fascist, evil" have been used wrongly by some to depict conservatives but the term "conservative" was never demonized so that folks who thought they were *safe* as thinking they were conservatives were in all actuality very safe...

Not so the "liberal" who had no other place to hide as the conservative PR plummeled them to death with a barrage of PR that pretty much drove the word "liberal" outta an conversation that wasn't a slam against people who didn't agree with conservatives...

The "liberals" didn't do this to the "conservatives"... This was done 100% by the "conservatives" (and their high priced PR firms) to the "liberals"...

This is a major difference, John, that if you are going to write an essay that you need to keep in mind... It's easy to sit on your side and bemoan the fact that you may have been called a nazi because you always had a safe place in thinking yourself a "conservative" but it's much different for those of us who once considered ourselves "liberal" only to find that our one safe place has been bombed into the Stone Age by rich conservatives and their PR firms...

Just think about it for awhile... Try to see it from our side...

I mean, to this very day those of us who once thought ourselves
"liberals" cringe when we are so labeled... That is just how complete the hatchet job was by the conservatives...

But, my hat is off to them... They are very good at assasination... Very good...

George Bush is a master... All he has to do to whip a crowd into a frenzy is do is "Volvo driving, tree huggin', pin head" act and all the so-called conservatives start salivating, just like Pavlov's dog... Problem is that he has convinced way too many people that education = commie and in doing so we have a majot brain drain going on where folks (with brains) don't wnat to work in the US...

Hmmmmmmmmm????

But what about Stroker Ace??? He sho nuff looked good last week in the Halliburton/Budweiser/BlackWater 500, didn't he???

(BTW, John... This isn't directed at you personally... It just a rant that came about from the flow of this thread...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM

I am a liberal. I believe in gun control, but could care less if most people own and carry guns.
I am a liberal. I believe in a strong military, but not in attacking nations that have done nothing to the US (like Iraq).
I am a liberal. I abhor the idea of abortion, but I acknowledge that it is sometimes the only real alternative - and when and why are not my decision to make.
I am a liberal. I do not believe that what happens in someone else's bed is any of my business.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone has the right to worship, or not worship, any god or God (or goddess/Goddess) or any combination, as long as that worship doesn't interfere with my right to do the same.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone should pay their own way in life, but those who need a helping hand should get one - and everyone has a responsibility to assist.
I am a liberal. I believe in protecting those who need it and slamming those who harm others.
I am a liberal. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that I have a right to have an opinion on somebody else's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 10:46 PM

I am a liberal...but I am selling my Volvo. (can't get it past emissions inspection.)(1985)(darn!)

I am a liberal, but I understand WHICH trees need hugging!


Bobert has it right, John...it is not the OTHER words extremists from both sides sometimes call each other, it is that "liberal" itself gets used as if that's all you need to say to demonize someone...that's why I reacted earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 12:18 AM

Artbrooks, I am not a liberal, and I agree in principle with each of your points, but I suspect that further discussion might show some divergence in the manner we think some or all should be implemented. We could be very close though.
                     ------------------------

Bobert (and BillD) - I think I disagree with your point about how liberals use the word 'conservative'. I believe that much of your side considers my side a-priori evil and heartless. Not only that, if you (generalized you) want to make us seem really, truly bad you use the term 'Neo-Conservative'; I feel that the use that term brands a conservative as irredeemable. So you might, as you say, want to try to see it from our side.

If you cringe when the term 'liberal' is used, pick one you like better--if it makes sense to me I'll use it. I could use 'progressive', but that has always seem to me to be one step away from a Socialist since my youth during the Henry Wallace era.

If I do write an essay, it will be one in the style I normally use here at Mudcat, but with more detail. If you want to read it privately, I'll make it available to you as to BillD. If you then care to respond, I'll read what you have to say, and perhaps respond.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:19 AM

John, my point is that - at least until the recent attempt to redefine the word by people who needed a label to place on the things they disagreed with - "liberal" has always meant a person who decides for himself on each individual issue, and gives everyone else the same privilege. Webster defines LIBERAL as "...tolerant of views differing from one's own; broadminded; favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual..." Liberals, by definition, cover a very wide range of perspectives on different topics and one should expect them to be close to conservatives on some things and close to progressives on others.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 06:55 AM

Artbrooks, I just read your first post, at the top of this thread, and though, I'm not exactly know as a liberal, nor conservative on all matters, I not only agree with you, you have my respect as well! I think that is one of most intelligent posts I've seen in here (except mine, of course,smirk) but i just wanted to give you a 'hats off'!!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 08:39 AM

I would agree that the "porgressives" have taken a page outta the conservative play book in somewhat demonizing the term "neo-con" because we have been able to link it with a very unpopular war...

But, at least to this "progressive", I don't think we have made much of a dent in the term "conservative"... Of course, the so-called conservatives have dented it up purdy well with wreckless policies... lol...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM

Mick I must respectfully and vociferously disagree with you when you said:

"They didn't throw it out. They defined that one was the operative and one was the prefatory. That is pretty standard constitutional and contract law. It is not invalidating anything, just giving the appropriate weight and defininition for settled law, which is what this becomes."

This does not balance the two parts of the Amendment legally in any way. The "militia"
part of the law was not given equal weight which would be the same as applying the same value to the First Amendment which would ignore the first statement about "Congress
shall make no law with the respect to religion" and cite the second part of the Amendment as primary.

What the Supreme Court did in their decision was to enable gun-runners to operate
without governmental control in Washington DC and I submit to you that this is an
ideological view that opens up the acceptance of an invasion of Iran. Micheal Moore adequately addressed this issue in "Bowling For Columbine" when he connected the gun violence at the School with the embracing of the Military Industrial Complex. What the Court has done is open the door for the acceptance of gun violence and enabled more to occur at other public schools in the future.

It's about time that gun-owners recognized their culpability in the gun crimes that are growing daily with the prison system in the US today. They do not have the authority nor the inclination to police themselves in the use of firearms. The handgun sales will increase and the weapons will be available for criminals in the future.

Alito and Scalia have made a serious error which will have disastrous consequences for
the safety of the American public.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 01:47 PM

the end

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:24 PM

The Court has spoken, for better or (most likely) for worse. Meanwhile, back in the real world.

http://www.washingtonpost.c

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 08 - 02:49 PM

Thanks, Mike in DC, for the Authur Kellerman piece... I find it increduluos that adults with the combined college education as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts son't have the combined common sense as a box of animal crackers...

It has long been known that one's chances of being killed or having a relative killed by a handgun is much greater if there is a handgun in the home that if there isn't... But there is no high dollar lobby out there to spread that message...

The Supreme Court is at a tipping point where with one more knothead rightwing idealogue and the country can kiss Row off and then they will set their sight on Brown...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:57 AM

Just seen this thread kind of by accident.

It's weird for me as an English person. When you all talk so casually about something that can kill a person so easily, I have to admit it sends a shiver down my spine. It's downright petrifying, especially how normal you all make it seem. I suppose it must be normal to you. You'd probably find the idea of walking unarmed through the dodgy bits of my home city weird. To me that's normal. It helps to know the majority of the thugs and criminals over here are also unarmed.

So do all you seemingly lovely, tolerant, easygoing US Mudcat types all carry guns?

And I don't get that bit a few posts back about how it's somehow my fault because of something the rulers of my country/oppressors of my ancestors did 400 years ago.

Do you ever actually use them? Or are they just "for show"?

I spent five weeks camping in your Deep South - only had a gun pointed at me once, thankfully - but it was one of my scariest ever holidays, mainly because of what I'd heard about the prevalence of guns and what I'd heard about some of your population's reputation for using them first and asking questions later. The image you've lumbered yourselves with - as much as the reality - caused my fear. The first night in my tent I don't think I slept a wink.

It didn't help that I watched "Deliverance" in my motel room the night before...

Beautiful country, mind you.

And some of the people I met were lovely, despite the strange tendency of some of them to be a little too upfront about their religious and political views. My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat, but that's for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:00 AM

"My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat..."


                Especially someone who is carrying a gun, what?

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:33 AM

My mother always taught me you should get to know someone before you ram your ideology down their throat..."


                Especially someone who is carrying a gun, what?

Ha ha ha! Abso-friggin-lutely!

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:41 AM

Me above

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:46 AM

"..So do all you seemingly lovely, tolerant, easygoing US Mudcat types all carry guns? "

Read the thread again...carefully. Some of us are as opposed to liberal gun laws as YOU are.

This country is huge...and for the first 200+ years that it was settled by "those from across the pond", guns were useful in everyday life for many on the 'frontier'. Sadly, owning guns got to be a habit, then a hobby, then a hazard...
There are still perfectly understandable reasons for 'some' to own certain types of firearms. If I lived in a rural area or near a wilderness area (not a lot of those in Great Britain anymore), I might acquire a gun. I know a man who supplements his menu with deer he finds in his own yard! But owning a handgun, just because you fear others who do, in urban areas, is a sad situation.

   The situation now has grown out of easy control...there are SO many illegal guns...especially handguns...in the possession of people who cannot be trusted, that is is easy to argue for 'self-defense' as a reason for allowing legal ownership. Some of us contend that VERY restrictive gun laws would gradually improve the situation, but since the history and lobbyist pressures are as they are, I doubt that we have much chance of getting such regulation.

I have decided to take my chances....so far, so good...*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:57 AM

"Some of us are as opposed to liberal gun laws as YOU are."

Not to impolite, but that statement seems to be obtuse by design.

The right of a private citizen to own and carry a firearm is in the US Constitution. Laws are made by legislative bodies and are subject to change at will. Constitutional mandates are permanent unless that document is amended.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:27 PM

Unfortunately, friend Spleen Cringe, you are the victim of false impressions, just as many of us Irish are with regard to "Enlish" or "Brits". The fact that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that they all do. In fact, most of the people you meet do not even own a gun. The danger of being the victim of violent crime is no actually less these days in the United States than it is in Canada, Great Britain, or Australia. This is also born out internally in the States. There is an inverse relationship between crime rates and gun control laws here in the States. In States with more liber "conceal/Carry" laws, the violent crime rate is much lower than in States where they have the most restrictive laws. The more time you spend in this country, the more you will find that our people are not wild eyed maniacs with weapons, but generally a friendly, welcoming people just as they are in your country. Those that own weapons legally, for the most part, are law abiding folks that keep their guns safe and do not walk around toting them or ever even using them for the purpose that you are worried about. We surely have criminals and ignorant types that want to brandish them. But you have those too.

I understand, on an intellectual level, why you would not understand our obsession with guns. I would only say to you that this right goes back to our earliest days, that it was born of the idea that a populace should never be seen as unarmed and helpless against criminals or governments, that it has developed into a part of who many of us are, that most of us simply look on this as a part of our heritage and never use these for the things you fear, and that I doubt that it will change.

And to answer the question you posed, yes, I have weapons. I only rarely "carry" and then only when I feel the need. Handguns are not my most preferred weapon of protection except in very specific circumstances which happen very rarely, and now that I have retired probably won't happen again. But I will keep them well maintained, in good order, secured against accidental usage or theft, and I go and shoot to stay competent and for relaxation.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

"...that statement seems to be obtuse by design."

?? Obtuse, pdq? The man suggested that most Americans like and keep firearms....*I* said that many of us do not. Seems clear & simple to me.

THEN you state the obvious...as if it told us something. In fact, several of the Supreme Court justices have grave doubts about the true intention of the founders when writing the 2nd amendment. Many other quite well-intentioned and intelligent Americans also doubt 1)that the founders meant it the way you indicate, and 2) that if they did, it needs to be re-thought & revised.

We all KNOW that it takes a complex process to either overturn a decision about a challenge to an interpretation of the Constitution, or to revise and clarify the document itself. You seem to assume that stating how a majority of the court thinks right now...(NOT a majority of citizens)... settles the discussion.

I am quite aware that split decisions on the court are still favoring the gun lobby...I do reserve my right to question their wisdom.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:58 PM

By using the phrase "liberal gun laws" you imply that you and your friends have the right to control gun ownership by statute.

Nice try, but some of us will not let that go by unchallenged.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:31 PM

oh, LORD! "liberal" means, in this case, 'generous' and 'open'...not 'those favored by *gasp* LIBERALS'! The gun laws in the USA are, currently 'liberal'...which means, interestingly, approved by many 'conservatives'. It means, to me, that WAY too many people can own guns.

...and do not forget - many aspects of gun ownership ARE controlled by statute! Even in DC, there are many, many restrictions on who may own a gun, how it can be registered, where it must be kept, how it can be acquired...etc. All I want is a court ruling that tightens the statutes as much as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: DC Gun Ban Banned
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM

The US Constitution has always been interpreted as allowing for "reasonable restrictions" on this issue and many others.

Local and state legislators can never ban guns without being in violation of the US Constitution.

Such laws may stand for a long time because people are unwilling to mount a challenge, but they are still unconstitutional. That is the heart of this Supreme Court decision.