Supreme Court gun ruling comment

[Morganite]

Leaving aside the actual issue for the moment, I found this bit from the dissent rather... odd.

(From the Des Moines Register)

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Given that the entire Bill of Rights is restrictions on the tools available to elected officials, is that really so hard to believe?

-Morgan.

[Wiregeek]

that just reveals that John Paul Stevens is an enemy of the people.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Bob Schroeck]

100% behind the ruling here. Stevens clearly doesn't understand that the Founding Fathers were making a choice not to limit the tools available to the
common citizens with which to regulate the elected officials.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[DHBirr]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although I can't prove it (I agree with it, though). But you know, it would've sounded kind of funny if the U.S. Supreme Court had openly stated, "The American people need to keep and bear arms in case they feel it necessary to overthrow the American government."
Or, to use the words H. Beam Piper put in the mouth of one of his characters, "Great Satan, aren't [your people armed]? ... Then your democracy's a farce, and the people are only free on sufferance. If their ballots aren't secured by arms, they're worthless." (Space Viking, 1963)
And, come to think of it, my current sig carries something of the same message.
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Valles]

I'm always torn when this issue comes up. Not so much as between 'for and agin' 'em' as between two facts. First, there's the fact that a mob of civilians with guns is going present exactly the same level of inconvenience to a real military unit as they would without. None worth mentioning. Second, though, there's the fact that regulation of arms doesn't actually increase the public safety in the slightest. (look at that japanese blogger with the knife in recent times, frex, or however many gangs)
So it's a total non-issue on both sides, and it's easier not to bother.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[ordnance11]

[i]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.[/i]

That's the version that was ratified by the states. Given that the only organized militia is either the National
Guard or the Army Reserve, you can make a case that only those enrolled in those bodies have the right to bear arms.

What the Supreme Court had done is make the right to bear arms an individual right rather than a collective right. Which to me is mighty strange.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Morganite]

But the question is, is the first part of that a modifier of the second, or a rationale for it?

Though I'm sure someone could come up with an argument that, for there to be a well regulated militia, everyone has to have the right to bear arms.

In any case, isn't clearing up fuzzy situations and edge cases like this one of the things the Supreme Court is for? '.'

I'm not clear on what the difference between the right to bear arms being an individual right or a collective right is, therefore I have no idea what'd be strange about it. '.'

First, there's the fact that a mob of civilians with guns is going present exactly the same level of inconvenience to a real military unit as they would without.

In most scenarios I've seen where the issue actually came up, there ended up being regular military on both sides. A coordinated group of civilians with guns becomes noticably more dangerous...

-Morgan.

[Bob Schroeck]

Given that militias of any stripe at the time the Constitution was written were composed solely of private individuals who provided their own weapons, it's
pretty clear that it was the ability to provide those weapons that was being protected.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

On the other hand, Bob, at the time the Constitution was framed, there was a lot LESS difference between the arms available to Joe Schmoe, and the arms
available to General Wipe-em-out.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

Hmm? Gun rights? Really now... I got some interesting arguments about that.

Let's take a trip back to the roaring twenties. Did we have any gun control laws back then? Our issues were primarily with Chicago gangsters and their
like. And they could probably pay people in the government to look the other way anyhow.

Back then, you could order a good, high-powered hunting rifle through a mail-order catalogue. A ten year old who could read and write could do this, even back
then. Now, did we have problems with kids shooting up their schools, or each other for that matter? Sure, there was the isolated incident or two, but nothing
that made national headlines.

Nowadays, if some kid shoots another in a fit of mis-placed anger, it's suddenly splashed accross headlines all over the news. The trouble is that this
phenomenom is nothing new. There's always people who will go out and kill another person for whatever logical or illogical reason. The weapon itself does
not matter.

Does a gun give a sense of empowerment? Hell yeah, it does. It kinda scares me every time a load up a pistol and an M-16 for when I go out to do my watch
standing. By accepting that ammunition and loading it into the weaponsissued to me I become empowered with the ability to take life.

Does a gun make a man or a woman dangerous? Yes.

Does a gun make someone into a killer? No. Not until they have killed someone.

Does a gun make people evil and corupt? Hell no. No matter what you have, you can kill a person, so it does not make one evil.

You can kill people with your own bare hands simply by overwhelming the victim and choking the life out of them. Only the weakest and frail of humans lack this
ability. And yet we do not see the government limiting the use of our hands, now do we? I bet if certain political groups could get away with it, they would. I
don't know who, but I know there's crazy people like that out there.

I don't care what others may think. In Iraq, of all places, civilian families are alotted a single AK-47 and a clip of amunition. Yet here in the US, the
idea of owning an 'assault rifle' is veiwed as a distinct sign of paranoia by some. When I become a civilian once more and I have a family, I will not
simply trust the local police to protect my home because they do not live there.

I will be the one that lives there.

And I will make sure that my home is armed and that my wife and my children know how to effectively use the weapons in our home. This is the right that was
granted by our founding fathers. They had seen homes pillaged by thieves, the women and children raped and murdered. And they knew that sometimes this was
perpetrated by soldiers of all people! They understood the need to have an armed home. And I bet you that those women and children knew how to load and fire a
musket and flintlock.

These times are no different. We still have murderers, rapists, and thieves in our midsts (perhaps more now than ever!) and to make matters even worse there
are the threats of enemies of our country, both foreign and domestic. Just imagine a USA where most of the citizens carried firearms and knew how to spot
suspicious behavior. That is what -I- call Homeland Defense. Paranoid, a bit? Maybe. But no worse than the current administration's campaigns against
terror here at home. And this way you aren't stepping on the graves of our founding fathers to do it.

Hell, it'd probably even level the playing field. Are you gonna make a nuisance of yourself in a country where the women can stare you down through the
sights of a gun? Probably not unless you're stupid. And soon after implementing such a protocol I'd expect a rapid drop-off of stupidity genes in the
American genepool.

Oh, and in case any of you are wondering where I got some of these wonderful arguments from? Check this out!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882646/posts

[Fidoohki]

The only real disappointing thing about the ruling is that it was 5-4 and not 9-0.

Everything else was right on target..so to speak

[Epsilon]

Just a question for those of you who support no gun control legislation:

At what point do "arms" stop being protected by the constitution?

Rifles?

Handguns?

Automatic weapons?

Gernades?

Rocket Propelled Gernades?

Mortars?

Artillery?

Patriot Missles?

ICBMs?

I mean, obviously there must be SOME point where people aren't allowed to have weapons. I'm just curious where everyone draws the lines.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Sweno]

I draw the line between Grenades and RPGs, but then again I may be showing my foreign roots.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy

[khagler]

Epsilon wrote:

---

Just a question for those of you who support no gun control legislation:




At what point do "arms" stop being protected by the constitution?




Rifles?


Handguns?


Automatic weapons?


Gernades?


Rocket Propelled Gernades?


Mortars?


Artillery?


Patriot Missles?


ICBMs?




I mean, obviously there must be SOME point where people aren't allowed to have weapons. I'm just curious where everyone draws the lines.




-----------------


Epsilon

Who says there must? I've seen the argument that since the word "bear" is in there it should only protect things that could actually be
carried by a person, but this isn't really born out by either the comments of the framers or historical reality. Did you know that there were quite a few
privately owned warships in the US back then?

[M Fnord]

Who says there must?

Common sense? A general desire to not play Car Wars: the LARP when going to or from work/the bar/the grocery store/the movies?

Did you know that there were quite a few privately owned warships in the US back then?

Yeah, and there's always been mercenaries too. Doesn't mean these are concepts necessarily worth cherishing and protecting.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[khagler]

M Fnord wrote:

---

Common sense? A general desire to not play Car Wars: the LARP when going to or from work/the bar/the grocery store/the movies?

Ah yes, the old "if people were allowed to go around armed there would be constant shootouts over parking spaces" argument. It's been trotted
out every time a state liberalizes concealed carry laws starting with Florida some 20 years ago. Not surprisingly, such dire consequences never come to pass,
and (also not surprisingly) that never stops the same people from making them the next time.

But since we're talking about armed and armored vehicles now, and not concealed pistols, you have a great chance to prove me wrong. All you have to do
is come up with a single case where a privately owned armored vehicle (yes, there are such things in the US) has been involved in a crime. Heck, you can even
throw in traffic accidents! Take all the time you need...

Yeah, and there's always been mercenaries too. Doesn't mean these are concepts necessarily worth cherishing and protecting.

Good luck with that! Mercenaries are incredibly common in the US. There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them. In LA you can't go a day
without seeing several (well, unless you never leave your home ;-). Personally, I'd rather have them than the cops.

[M Fnord]

Ah yes, the old "if people were allowed to go around armed there would be constant shootouts over parking spaces" argument. It's been trotted out every time a state liberalizes concealed carry laws starting with Florida some 20 years ago. Not surprisingly, such dire consequences never come to pass, and (also not surprisingly) that never stops the same people from making them the next time.

Allow me to teach you the fine art of compromise. I'll agree to your "liberalized" carry laws on a national scale, if you agree to state-mandated and funded treatment for people with serious psychological disorders. If I'm gonna get my ass killed by some random, it's not going to be by some good & righteous American who couldn't afford his meds but could afford a .22 thinking I'm one of the alien Jews who rule the world.

But since we're talking about armed and armored vehicles now, and not concealed pistols, you have a great chance to prove me wrong. All you have to do is come up with a single case where a privately owned armored vehicle (yes, there are such things in the US) has been involved in a crime. Heck, you can even throw in traffic accidents! Take all the time you need...

Here you go, you manly Internet libertarian you.

Personally, I'd rather have them than the cops.

Uh huh. Y'know, there was this Italian guy a while back, you probably never heard of him, fella by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli. He had a lot of interesting shit to say about mercenaries, but the key thing was you can't trust 'em any further than you can throw 'em. Untrustworthy thugs in peace, backstabbing thugs in war, willing to sell their grandmas into slavery if the price is right. Bad juju all round, y'know what I mean?
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Epsilon]

khagler wrote:

Who says there must?

Nobody, but I'm curious.

Do you think private citizens shoudl have access to thermonuclear weapons? Do you think your government shoudl track and register them and impede the
production and distrobution of thermonuclear weapons?

------------------

Epsilon

[nocarename]

Epsilon wrote:

---

khagler wrote:

Who says there must?

Nobody, but I'm curious.




Do you think private citizens shoudl have access to thermonuclear weapons? Do you think your government shoudl track and register them and impede the
production and distrobution of thermonuclear weapons?




------------------


Epsilon

No to access, yes to impeding production. But, I'm from that country in the northern third of North America. Peace, Order and Good Government are the
official goals, not Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In some ways it's a more conservative target.

[Wiregeek]

If I'm gonna get my ass killed by some random

It is a carved-in-stone certainty that noone would ever be so gauche as to acquire and use a weapon illegally. That would be unthinkable!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5437033

Kennesaw, Georgia. Mandatory gun ownership since 1981 - since amended to allow for conscientious objectors, and people unable to legally own a weapon for other reasons.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_15729634

I have, to my satisfaction, proven that widespread gun ownership will not have a salutatory effect on crime.

It is my belief that the only class of people that should be categorically restricted from ownership of guns are the 'ruling class', whomsoever they may be.

I do, however, concur that anyone with extreme mental disorders should not be allowed to own a weapon.

I find your fearmongering quite offensive, Fnord, I expected better from you.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[M Fnord]

It is a carved-in-stone certainty that noone would ever be so gauche as to acquire and use a weapon illegally. That would be unthinkable!

:rolleyes I could buy a car illegally given enough cash and the right people to ask, and yet we manage to regulate the fuck out of those. I'm also kinda banking on the idea that a hot pistol is significantly cheaper than psych meds for some poor wackaloon that's on the street.

Look, you really wanna know my thoughts on yaoi stance on gun control? I'm in favor of regulation. I want at minimum the same kind of controls on gun licensing as we currently have for people who drive cars, and I want the enforcement of those regs to have some fucking teeth. Also, no military-grade heavy weapons period unless they've been demilled.

Beyond that, I honestly do not give a flying fuck what kind of guns you own or how many you own as long as you're not that part of the population screaming about how liberals are aliens controlling the UN. You can have enough guns to refight all the battles of Ypres for all I care, just so long as I don't have to worry about Jesus telling you I'm the fucking Antichrist and Must Be Stopped. That's it.

...okay, there's the bit about wanting to see the NRA leadership lowered slowly into a lava pit, but that's more a personal gripe than a major policy decision.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Bob Schroeck]

Yeah, regardless of my stand on gun control -- in which, basically, I take the second amendment to mean the populace should be sufficiently armed to take down the government at any time necessary, in the proper American tradition -- I agree that the NRA leadership are major loons and are not helping anyone.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Wiregeek]

that part of the population screaming about how liberals are aliens controlling the UN.

This still doesn't make any sense, except that you're throwing up the straw man of mental illness to try and push a gun control agenda. Either that, or you're trying to state that 'rabid' Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and that, well, that's a paddlin'

...okay, there's the bit about wanting to see the NRA leadership lowered slowly into a lava pit, but that's more a personal gripe than a major policy decision.

And I actually agree with you there- these idiots have forgotten what their job is.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Wiregeek]

What makes you think that J. Random Nutbar is going to _be_ a licensed gun owner, anyway? Cho Seung-Hui (delicious V-Tech tragedy, easily avoided, even) would
have either sidestepped, ignored, or simply _complied_ with your License to Own.. and shot up his school anyway.

most guns used for criminal acts are already illegally owned, already.. what inspires you to think that making it easier to have an _illegal_ gun vs. a legal
gun, is going to change that?
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[M Fnord]

What makes you think that J. Random Nutbar is going to _be_ a licensed gun owner, anyway?

It's kinda funny how you latched onto the crazy people thing and took exactly the wrong path from it. I was winding up Mr. Manly Internet Libertarian upthread by agreeing to open season on gun restrictions in exchange for government intervention to make crazy people less crazy. That's it.

I'm not getting into this debate with you, Geek. I said my bit, and beyond that I really don't give a fuck. If you wanna continue to get your 2nd Amendment shorts in a knot, fine, you can do it without me.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"