BS: DC Gun Ban Banned

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.