Get over it. That question has been settled. The Supreme Court has spoken. Heller says the militia clause is just one example of many why the RKBA is the law of the land. If you want to enjoy mental masturbation that is your privilege. At the time it was written the militia was every able bodied male living at home. Nothing to do with modern definition of a “militia”. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not, it is written, so be it.
GNW, ever study a little history? I don’t have the lust to post a deluge of commentary that so many of you are fond of, most of it skinned off the net any way. Check out Colonial Williamsburg Virginia and read about the powder magazine. Then tell me about a “well-regulated malitia”.
From 1803 thru 1897 legal scholars (i.e. those who taught future lawyers) taught that the 2nd Amendment belonged to all Americans, not just to a militia that Congress could legislate out of existence.
The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866: specifically protected the “freedmen’s” right to bear arms (i.e. the slaves from prior to the Civil War who were now free).
1941: The US congress passed the “Property Requisition Act” that allows the federal government to take property needed for national defense. It specifically forbids the federal government “to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of ANY firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport”, or “to impair or infringe in any manner on the right of any individual to keep and bear arms”.
1986 The Firearm Owners Protection Act reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.
2008 Heller v. D.C. case; the core holding of the majority in the case s that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
How much more history would you like? The Second Amendment is an individual right, not given by the US Constitution, but (as originally intended and written), a God given right to ALL people. We, as free people, have the right to protect ourselves.
Now, let’s talk about violent crime and concealed carry. In EVERY state in the US that adopted concealed carry as the law, violent crime has gone DOWN, not up. There has been no “wild west” as predicted, there have been no problems noted. In fact, ALL violent crime has decreased when concealed carry has been allowed. Why? Criminals are now afraid of who might actually be able to fight back! In other countries, firearm prohibition has lead to increases in violent crime. Take The UK and Australia as examples. Both have banned handguns, concealed carry, and most long guns for at least the last ten years. Prohibitionists would point to the dramatic decrease in gun related crime. While that is true, the rest of the story is that overall VIOLENT crime has increased dramatically as well. When guns are taken out of the equation, no one has them. But, this ban does not deter violent, criminal people from committing crime. They just find other weapons to use. But the law abiding citizens have little or nothing to defend themselves with.
To the argument (which will undoubtly come up) that the police are charged with protecting us, that “duty” of law enforcement has been tested in court and denied. The police actually have NO DUTY to protect the individual against crime. Their charge is to protect the community as a whole, NOT the individual.
To sum up the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is an individual right, not given by the Constitution, but guaranteed by it. It has been upheld numerous times in the history of this country by both the legislative and judicial branches of government. History has taught that prohibition of firearms and the right to protect ones self from violent crime has led to increased violent crime against the citizens. Those of us who choose to carry concealed have actually helped to decrease violent crime in the US. We have not added to it, nor have he held shoot outs in the streets or in our homes for lawless purposes. We have used our weapons to defend both ourselves, our families AND you, our neighbors. Those who have chosen not to own or carry a firearm are that much safer because of us who do. Think about THAT the next time you read or listen to a story of a violent crime. What might have happened had the victim had a firearm? Maybe a life would have been saved? Maybe a rape would have been deterred? Maybe a robbery would have been foiled? Maybe a massacre the likes of those we have read about all too often in recent history would have been stopped and young people would not have lost their lives.
To those who would choose NOT to carry or own firearms, I say so be it. That is your right. But along the same lines, it is my right to own and carry them for protection. Please afford me the same courtesy and respect my right. That is all any of us ask.
Too bad those in the left can NEVER understand a word you wrote.
Those attacking our right to bear arms are the ones slowly killing our country. We, the great unwashed (in their lights), are starting to wake up and the attackers are sore afraid of our having means to defend ourselves.
When the powers that be come for you, Mr. Moran, for writing something counter their political line, you will be begging for us gun owners to be on the ramparts defending your right to spout your inanities.
As to violent crime going down where guns are banned: STOP REPORTING THE GUN CRIMES! If it isn’t in the news or on a police blotter of some sort, it didn’t happen.
Detroit, MI, and Chicago, IL, learned that little ploy early on.
I wonder how much unreported crime is committed by illegal/unregistered weapons? There ARE numbers for crimes using legal/registered guns: virtually ZERO! But they ARE reported as object lessons.
Well informed post Magicman.. but you screwed up.. Your using logic, reason, facts and historic precendent to try and convince the left and that will just get you ridiculed.. Of course if you post links then they just quit posting on that topic and move on to the next and then bring up the same arguements again..
Sati. Go look up the UK firearm related incidents procedure and you’ll understand why their gun related crime seems to go down but is going up.. If a gun related death does not have a conviction then its not listed.. If they shooter is 16 or younger its not listed.. There are alot of number skewing factors that have to be considered in the manner that the UK tracks information.. Remember statistics are only as viable as the method used to tally them.. Magic is dead on and well informed on this topic.
For the counterpoint to Scalia’s majority opinion, see Steven’s dissent in DC v. Heller. Well written and well reasoned.
We are dealing with the construction of words and phrases by a couple of intelligent folks, and lots of interesting history, which doesn’t always lean in magic’s direction.
The 1939 Miller case assumed that the right to “keep and bear arms” existed within the framework of a “well regulated militia”, not for purely private, non military purposes. But that is so much water over the dam now.
Whence cometh divine authorship of second amendment rights? Is Tony Scalia God?
The point I would take from the cartoon is, it’s none of the governments business. Just as it’s none of their business what I post in these blogs due to my rights under one of those other pesky amendments (first is it??) bleeep that Bill of Rights.
Um Sait.. Those same sources your quoting are underfire for misquoting and directing target data to skew numbers..
In reference to you 5th post.. Apparently the more guns people have the less shootings there are and the lower the crime rate is.. It also seems to hold true in states with carry laws instead of strict laws restricting the carrying of firearms.. We’re not arguing with you because your right, just not in the manner that you think you are..
Those who felt the RKBA was only allowed to those in a militia said that right is a “collective” right. The other view, that the right is natural to each of us, feel the right is an “individual” right.
CK, did you ever actually read the dissent? Well written, thoughtful and since in a 5-4 minority of no legal impact.
-But- that was only in respect to whether or not to overturn the DC law. This is important– all 9 Justices held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. That question is now settled, unanimously. The RKBA is an individual right and has absolutely no connection to a modern militia.
Miller, for reasons not worth going into here, was seriously flawed and regardless has no significance since Heller.
Natural rights? If you don’t think they exist what is the basis behind much of ObamaCare?
Allow me to refresh your memory (from Stevens’ dissent):
“When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble [*141] and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden.14 And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at __, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 657, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right”.
FOOTNOTES
“14 The Court’s atomistic, word-by-word approach to construing the Amendment calls to mind the parable of the six blind men and the elephant, famously set in verse by John Godfrey Saxe. The Poems of John Godfrey Saxe 135-136 (1873). In the parable, each blind man approaches a single elephant; touching a different part of the elephant’s body in isolation, each concludes that he has learned its true nature. One touches the animal’s leg, and concludes that the elephant is like a tree; another touches the trunk and decides that the elephant is like a snake; and so on. Each of them, of course, has fundamentally failed to grasp the nature of the creature”.
“Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought [*142] and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Ante, at __, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 683.”
and
“Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms. When Madison prepared his first draft, and when that draft was debated and modified, it is reasonable to assume that all participants in the drafting process were fully aware of the other formulations that would have protected civilian use and possession of weapons and that their choice to craft the Amendment as they did represented a rejection of those alternative formulations.”
Sounds like the individual right is tied to military service, for the minority.
As I said, water over the dam.
Without preconceptions, (O Gawd) read the textual interpretations and reviews of the historical context by the contesting justices. I’m not anti-gun per se. I just think Stevens makes better sense.
All of the assasinations of US presidents or attempts on their lives, has been done with a gun. Also RFK and MLK have been killed with a gun. So I personally, think it’s a good idea to not be so cavalier regarding gun rights.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.
Its kind of funny.. Sati’s response instead of discussing is.. You DON’T AGREE or SEE THINGS MY WAY? Your a nut and I’m not listening (LALALALALA). Lets just hope he can keep his promise and not respond.. It’ll be pleasant..
Now as far as the data goes.. There are three end results than can be viewed from sati’s data which is too obscure and not detailed enough to be of any real use.. Either having a firearm assigned to every household lowers gun crime because they have a firearm assigned to each home and a lower gun related crime ration. Or Americans are just irresponsible with firearms despite the huge gap in populous and trend based data and should have their toys taken away until they grow up.. or if you commiting suicide it doesn’t matter cause you’ll find a way regardless of availability of fire arms.. (Because suicide rates are the same)
Pointless data over pointless debates with everyone knowing they’re never going to completely agree anyway because we’re humans and difference seems to be in ourn nature
I would like to see a “well-regulated militia” consisting a group of the “righty” posters here. Paintball fights and Soldier of Fortune mags won’t cut it. – PS Farce of the day : ANandy labeling anyone “looney left”
Has illustrated the point just fine.. People will find a way to injure, maim or kill someone else..
Societies have outlawed swords, spears, guns and every other conceivable weapon at one point in time or another.. Unless we keep everyone in seperate padded rooms people will find a new way to follow an old past time.. In retrospect someone would probably sneak rooms and suffocate someone with the padding.. ;)
But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Maybe we are not disagreeing. Once you accept the individual right in contradistinction only to a collective right the question then arises about limitations.
Scalia specifically mentioned: felons, mentally ill, time and place etc. Just like limitations on free speech include time and place.
The argument in his cartoon was re collective vs. individual. That has now been settled, once and for all.
I’m now living in TX. It’s not only legal, as it should be, to use deadly force to defend yourself, you can use it to defend you property as well. One only has to look at the general society at the time the constitution was written. How many homes had guns in them? While maybe it wasn’t 100%, I’m guessing it was bleeep near that. To assume somehow that the 2nd amendment implied that all these people, regardless of their militia status, would suddenly be expected to either throw away their guns or surrender them to the State, is utter nonsense.
I do think it interesting that the same people that so casually advocate the redistribution of wealth by taxation (willing to steal my money), are the same who would gladly give up their right to defend themselves against those who would harm or steal from them. Hmmm. I would prefer to go less quietly into the night.
Once again that same organization is being attacked for the method the data is collected.. What is considered a gun related crime, etc. If you collect data properly you can get the numbers to say anything.
First and foremost, as I said in my last post, I agree with you that violent crime went down. I do not dispute taht fact. But, violent crime is NOW on the uprise according to the data published on the BBC site I linked.
Second, you posted this yesterday “I will not be posting to NRA gun nuts again. Absolute waste of breath.”. Does that mean you are going back on this, or you don’t think I’m an NRA gun nut?
As for digging a hole, please see #1 of this post. I said, again, I agree with you that violent crime went down initially. But here are quotes taken directly from the statistics:
British Crime Survey:
Theft from the person up 25%
Risk of being a victim of crime up from 22% to 23%
The other statistics remained “stable”, yet in the BBC report, violent crime went up 5%, although the Home Office feels that is insignificant. Again, with a population of just under 60 million, how many of the 3 million more victims of crime feel they are insignificant?
My point stands……gun restriction (or prohibition) does not lower crime rates Violent crime is on the upswing in the UK and most firearms are banned. In the US, firearms are allowed and concealed carry is leagal in 40 states, and crime rates are going down nationwide……to the lowest level ever since the Department of Justice began collecting statistics.
Debate the point sir, or as you suggested, stop posting.
church- was trying to be civil and point out that your airplane references were solid, Billy MItchell also proved their worth in a different format. I guess you can’t accept any civil response, without blowing another gasket. Must be a warped head.
Its a heated topic, its understandable for people to be sensitive to what seems as oversighting their point of view..
Soon guns won’t be the favored methods.. I’m sure the plastic needler will replace it as the preferred tool of assassins.. Harder to detect, causes so much collaterial flesh damage that repair in hardly feasible.. Then we can have a new target..
Why must you feel the need to get nasty? We are having a discussion. Can it not be a disagreement in a gentlemenly way and not deteroiate into mud slinging? Is this your plan?
As for the links, again I will say it as plainly as I can. The BBC article shows VIOLENT crime went UP 5%. Is this not a true statistic?
In the link to the Home Office, I am talking about the “British Crime Survey” that is below what you speak of. It clearly states the two statistics I posted before. Are these not also true statistics?
Again, I read the report from the Home Office. They clearly state that the 5% increase in crime was “insignificant”, yet that represents a large number of incidents.
To your quote “If it does increase this year (still way below 1995 levels) what the hell has that got to do with a gun ban imposed in the 1990’s?”:
That IS my point. Vilent crime and firearm ownership have NO correlation. Gun banners tout that people will be more safe and less likely to be victims if guns are banned. Yet, in the UK violent crime is increasing (by 5% as stated by the Home Office) and the chance of being a victim has increased also. This directly refutes the concept of a safre society without firearms. My point, and the pooint of others who have posted is that people will commit violent crimes aginst their fellow citizens with or without firearms. The difference is that when law abiding citizens are allowed to own and carry firearms for their own self defense, criminal activity against the person decreases and has not risen in 10 years (here in the US). In fact, violent crime is at its lowest point EVER since statistics have been kept by the DOJ. So the argument that guns are a major part of violent crime is, by the statistics in both the US and the UK, invalid. Violent crime rates show no correlation to firearm ownership.
Do you not see that in the statistics? Do you not understand what I and others have been saying? Or do you choose not to see it?
Again, I respect your position that you do not wish to own or carry a firearm. That IS your right. Why though do you argue to take that right away from others? You still have not answered that quetion in any of your posts. What is your reasoning for not wanting anyone to own or carry a firearm? I am still curious to read your answer to that. And, should you respond, would you please attempt to refrain from telling me to “go play in traffic” or some other derogatory statement? I have not tried to degrade or intimidate you, and I only request the same in return.
fairportfan over 14 years ago
Roughly?
None.
GNWachs over 14 years ago
Get over it. That question has been settled. The Supreme Court has spoken. Heller says the militia clause is just one example of many why the RKBA is the law of the land. If you want to enjoy mental masturbation that is your privilege. At the time it was written the militia was every able bodied male living at home. Nothing to do with modern definition of a “militia”. Doesn’t matter if you agree or not, it is written, so be it.
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
GNW, ever study a little history? I don’t have the lust to post a deluge of commentary that so many of you are fond of, most of it skinned off the net any way. Check out Colonial Williamsburg Virginia and read about the powder magazine. Then tell me about a “well-regulated malitia”.
magicman7 Premium Member over 14 years ago
History lesson:
From 1803 thru 1897 legal scholars (i.e. those who taught future lawyers) taught that the 2nd Amendment belonged to all Americans, not just to a militia that Congress could legislate out of existence.
The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866: specifically protected the “freedmen’s” right to bear arms (i.e. the slaves from prior to the Civil War who were now free).
1941: The US congress passed the “Property Requisition Act” that allows the federal government to take property needed for national defense. It specifically forbids the federal government “to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of ANY firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport”, or “to impair or infringe in any manner on the right of any individual to keep and bear arms”.
1986 The Firearm Owners Protection Act reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.
2008 Heller v. D.C. case; the core holding of the majority in the case s that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
How much more history would you like? The Second Amendment is an individual right, not given by the US Constitution, but (as originally intended and written), a God given right to ALL people. We, as free people, have the right to protect ourselves.
Now, let’s talk about violent crime and concealed carry. In EVERY state in the US that adopted concealed carry as the law, violent crime has gone DOWN, not up. There has been no “wild west” as predicted, there have been no problems noted. In fact, ALL violent crime has decreased when concealed carry has been allowed. Why? Criminals are now afraid of who might actually be able to fight back! In other countries, firearm prohibition has lead to increases in violent crime. Take The UK and Australia as examples. Both have banned handguns, concealed carry, and most long guns for at least the last ten years. Prohibitionists would point to the dramatic decrease in gun related crime. While that is true, the rest of the story is that overall VIOLENT crime has increased dramatically as well. When guns are taken out of the equation, no one has them. But, this ban does not deter violent, criminal people from committing crime. They just find other weapons to use. But the law abiding citizens have little or nothing to defend themselves with.
To the argument (which will undoubtly come up) that the police are charged with protecting us, that “duty” of law enforcement has been tested in court and denied. The police actually have NO DUTY to protect the individual against crime. Their charge is to protect the community as a whole, NOT the individual.
To sum up the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is an individual right, not given by the Constitution, but guaranteed by it. It has been upheld numerous times in the history of this country by both the legislative and judicial branches of government. History has taught that prohibition of firearms and the right to protect ones self from violent crime has led to increased violent crime against the citizens. Those of us who choose to carry concealed have actually helped to decrease violent crime in the US. We have not added to it, nor have he held shoot outs in the streets or in our homes for lawless purposes. We have used our weapons to defend both ourselves, our families AND you, our neighbors. Those who have chosen not to own or carry a firearm are that much safer because of us who do. Think about THAT the next time you read or listen to a story of a violent crime. What might have happened had the victim had a firearm? Maybe a life would have been saved? Maybe a rape would have been deterred? Maybe a robbery would have been foiled? Maybe a massacre the likes of those we have read about all too often in recent history would have been stopped and young people would not have lost their lives.
To those who would choose NOT to carry or own firearms, I say so be it. That is your right. But along the same lines, it is my right to own and carry them for protection. Please afford me the same courtesy and respect my right. That is all any of us ask.
ynnek58 over 14 years ago
magicman7Genius_badge
we are not worthy – nice post!
willikiii over 14 years ago
I humbly bow before the genius ‘magicman7.’
Your posting is nothing but.
Too bad those in the left can NEVER understand a word you wrote.
Those attacking our right to bear arms are the ones slowly killing our country. We, the great unwashed (in their lights), are starting to wake up and the attackers are sore afraid of our having means to defend ourselves.
When the powers that be come for you, Mr. Moran, for writing something counter their political line, you will be begging for us gun owners to be on the ramparts defending your right to spout your inanities.
As to violent crime going down where guns are banned: STOP REPORTING THE GUN CRIMES! If it isn’t in the news or on a police blotter of some sort, it didn’t happen.
Detroit, MI, and Chicago, IL, learned that little ploy early on.
I wonder how much unreported crime is committed by illegal/unregistered weapons? There ARE numbers for crimes using legal/registered guns: virtually ZERO! But they ARE reported as object lessons.
Objective reporting, not bloody likely.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Well informed post Magicman.. but you screwed up.. Your using logic, reason, facts and historic precendent to try and convince the left and that will just get you ridiculed.. Of course if you post links then they just quit posting on that topic and move on to the next and then bring up the same arguements again..
Sati. Go look up the UK firearm related incidents procedure and you’ll understand why their gun related crime seems to go down but is going up.. If a gun related death does not have a conviction then its not listed.. If they shooter is 16 or younger its not listed.. There are alot of number skewing factors that have to be considered in the manner that the UK tracks information.. Remember statistics are only as viable as the method used to tally them.. Magic is dead on and well informed on this topic.
charliekane over 14 years ago
For the counterpoint to Scalia’s majority opinion, see Steven’s dissent in DC v. Heller. Well written and well reasoned.
We are dealing with the construction of words and phrases by a couple of intelligent folks, and lots of interesting history, which doesn’t always lean in magic’s direction.
The 1939 Miller case assumed that the right to “keep and bear arms” existed within the framework of a “well regulated militia”, not for purely private, non military purposes. But that is so much water over the dam now.
Whence cometh divine authorship of second amendment rights? Is Tony Scalia God?
tkryder over 14 years ago
The point I would take from the cartoon is, it’s none of the governments business. Just as it’s none of their business what I post in these blogs due to my rights under one of those other pesky amendments (first is it??) bleeep that Bill of Rights.
tkryder over 14 years ago
The censor bleeped D*arn???
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
… like I said a deluge. And same old claptrap from the wingnutz.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Um Sait.. Those same sources your quoting are underfire for misquoting and directing target data to skew numbers..
In reference to you 5th post.. Apparently the more guns people have the less shootings there are and the lower the crime rate is.. It also seems to hold true in states with carry laws instead of strict laws restricting the carrying of firearms.. We’re not arguing with you because your right, just not in the manner that you think you are..
GNWachs over 14 years ago
@CharlieKane/Hump et al
Excellent post by Magicman.
Those who felt the RKBA was only allowed to those in a militia said that right is a “collective” right. The other view, that the right is natural to each of us, feel the right is an “individual” right.
CK, did you ever actually read the dissent? Well written, thoughtful and since in a 5-4 minority of no legal impact.
-But- that was only in respect to whether or not to overturn the DC law. This is important– all 9 Justices held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. That question is now settled, unanimously. The RKBA is an individual right and has absolutely no connection to a modern militia.
Miller, for reasons not worth going into here, was seriously flawed and regardless has no significance since Heller.
Natural rights? If you don’t think they exist what is the basis behind much of ObamaCare?
GNWachs over 14 years ago
^ Is that a promise?
charliekane over 14 years ago
GN:
Yeah, I have. Have you?
Allow me to refresh your memory (from Stevens’ dissent):
“When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble [*141] and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden.14 And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at __, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 657, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right”.
FOOTNOTES
“14 The Court’s atomistic, word-by-word approach to construing the Amendment calls to mind the parable of the six blind men and the elephant, famously set in verse by John Godfrey Saxe. The Poems of John Godfrey Saxe 135-136 (1873). In the parable, each blind man approaches a single elephant; touching a different part of the elephant’s body in isolation, each concludes that he has learned its true nature. One touches the animal’s leg, and concludes that the elephant is like a tree; another touches the trunk and decides that the elephant is like a snake; and so on. Each of them, of course, has fundamentally failed to grasp the nature of the creature”.
“Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought [*142] and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Ante, at __, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 683.”
and
“Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms. When Madison prepared his first draft, and when that draft was debated and modified, it is reasonable to assume that all participants in the drafting process were fully aware of the other formulations that would have protected civilian use and possession of weapons and that their choice to craft the Amendment as they did represented a rejection of those alternative formulations.”
Sounds like the individual right is tied to military service, for the minority.
As I said, water over the dam.
Without preconceptions, (O Gawd) read the textual interpretations and reviews of the historical context by the contesting justices. I’m not anti-gun per se. I just think Stevens makes better sense.
deadheadzan over 14 years ago
All of the assasinations of US presidents or attempts on their lives, has been done with a gun. Also RFK and MLK have been killed with a gun. So I personally, think it’s a good idea to not be so cavalier regarding gun rights.
GNWachs over 14 years ago
Stevens dissent: 1st sentence
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Its kind of funny.. Sati’s response instead of discussing is.. You DON’T AGREE or SEE THINGS MY WAY? Your a nut and I’m not listening (LALALALALA). Lets just hope he can keep his promise and not respond.. It’ll be pleasant..
Now as far as the data goes.. There are three end results than can be viewed from sati’s data which is too obscure and not detailed enough to be of any real use.. Either having a firearm assigned to every household lowers gun crime because they have a firearm assigned to each home and a lower gun related crime ration. Or Americans are just irresponsible with firearms despite the huge gap in populous and trend based data and should have their toys taken away until they grow up.. or if you commiting suicide it doesn’t matter cause you’ll find a way regardless of availability of fire arms.. (Because suicide rates are the same)
Pointless data over pointless debates with everyone knowing they’re never going to completely agree anyway because we’re humans and difference seems to be in ourn nature
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Deadhead If you outlaw guns people will just find another way to kill people.. Its something that as a race we’re good at doing..
charliekane over 14 years ago
GN:
Second sentence:
But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
I would like to see a “well-regulated militia” consisting a group of the “righty” posters here. Paintball fights and Soldier of Fortune mags won’t cut it. – PS Farce of the day : ANandy labeling anyone “looney left”
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
church- you left off TWO gun attempts on Gerry Ford. Reagan-gun. Lincoln-gun. Mc Kinley-gun. JFK-gun. RFK(candidate)-gun. MLK-gun.
You may also have omitted the GHW effort by Iraq because that incident, and “maybe oil” was the reason we invaded Iraq, period.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
CHWR
Has illustrated the point just fine.. People will find a way to injure, maim or kill someone else..
Societies have outlawed swords, spears, guns and every other conceivable weapon at one point in time or another.. Unless we keep everyone in seperate padded rooms people will find a new way to follow an old past time.. In retrospect someone would probably sneak rooms and suffocate someone with the padding.. ;)
GNWachs over 14 years ago
charliekane said
To : GNW:
Second sentence:
But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Maybe we are not disagreeing. Once you accept the individual right in contradistinction only to a collective right the question then arises about limitations.
Scalia specifically mentioned: felons, mentally ill, time and place etc. Just like limitations on free speech include time and place.
The argument in his cartoon was re collective vs. individual. That has now been settled, once and for all.
HUMPHRIES over 14 years ago
richgrise … like, wow, look at the line waiting to serve and protect America’s freedom.
ynnek58 over 14 years ago
I’m now living in TX. It’s not only legal, as it should be, to use deadly force to defend yourself, you can use it to defend you property as well. One only has to look at the general society at the time the constitution was written. How many homes had guns in them? While maybe it wasn’t 100%, I’m guessing it was bleeep near that. To assume somehow that the 2nd amendment implied that all these people, regardless of their militia status, would suddenly be expected to either throw away their guns or surrender them to the State, is utter nonsense.
I do think it interesting that the same people that so casually advocate the redistribution of wealth by taxation (willing to steal my money), are the same who would gladly give up their right to defend themselves against those who would harm or steal from them. Hmmm. I would prefer to go less quietly into the night.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Sorry, Church. But guns DO get the job done better, and more accurately. Truck bombs and IEDs are a tad indiscriminating for assassinations.
Your post also points out that 9/11 was NOT a “new concept”. Thanks.
robyncharlie over 14 years ago
Give ‘em all guns and confine them in a compound in the Nevada desert. Then we won’t have to worry about the gun lovers any more.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Once again that same organization is being attacked for the method the data is collected.. What is considered a gun related crime, etc. If you collect data properly you can get the numbers to say anything.
magicman7 Premium Member over 14 years ago
satipera4
First and foremost, as I said in my last post, I agree with you that violent crime went down. I do not dispute taht fact. But, violent crime is NOW on the uprise according to the data published on the BBC site I linked. Second, you posted this yesterday “I will not be posting to NRA gun nuts again. Absolute waste of breath.”. Does that mean you are going back on this, or you don’t think I’m an NRA gun nut? As for digging a hole, please see #1 of this post. I said, again, I agree with you that violent crime went down initially. But here are quotes taken directly from the statistics:
British Crime Survey: Theft from the person up 25% Risk of being a victim of crime up from 22% to 23% The other statistics remained “stable”, yet in the BBC report, violent crime went up 5%, although the Home Office feels that is insignificant. Again, with a population of just under 60 million, how many of the 3 million more victims of crime feel they are insignificant? My point stands……gun restriction (or prohibition) does not lower crime rates Violent crime is on the upswing in the UK and most firearms are banned. In the US, firearms are allowed and concealed carry is leagal in 40 states, and crime rates are going down nationwide……to the lowest level ever since the Department of Justice began collecting statistics. Debate the point sir, or as you suggested, stop posting.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
church- was trying to be civil and point out that your airplane references were solid, Billy MItchell also proved their worth in a different format. I guess you can’t accept any civil response, without blowing another gasket. Must be a warped head.
WestTex13 over 14 years ago
Its a heated topic, its understandable for people to be sensitive to what seems as oversighting their point of view..
Soon guns won’t be the favored methods.. I’m sure the plastic needler will replace it as the preferred tool of assassins.. Harder to detect, causes so much collaterial flesh damage that repair in hardly feasible.. Then we can have a new target..
magicman7 Premium Member over 14 years ago
satipera4
Why must you feel the need to get nasty? We are having a discussion. Can it not be a disagreement in a gentlemenly way and not deteroiate into mud slinging? Is this your plan?
As for the links, again I will say it as plainly as I can. The BBC article shows VIOLENT crime went UP 5%. Is this not a true statistic? In the link to the Home Office, I am talking about the “British Crime Survey” that is below what you speak of. It clearly states the two statistics I posted before. Are these not also true statistics? Again, I read the report from the Home Office. They clearly state that the 5% increase in crime was “insignificant”, yet that represents a large number of incidents.
To your quote “If it does increase this year (still way below 1995 levels) what the hell has that got to do with a gun ban imposed in the 1990’s?”: That IS my point. Vilent crime and firearm ownership have NO correlation. Gun banners tout that people will be more safe and less likely to be victims if guns are banned. Yet, in the UK violent crime is increasing (by 5% as stated by the Home Office) and the chance of being a victim has increased also. This directly refutes the concept of a safre society without firearms. My point, and the pooint of others who have posted is that people will commit violent crimes aginst their fellow citizens with or without firearms. The difference is that when law abiding citizens are allowed to own and carry firearms for their own self defense, criminal activity against the person decreases and has not risen in 10 years (here in the US). In fact, violent crime is at its lowest point EVER since statistics have been kept by the DOJ. So the argument that guns are a major part of violent crime is, by the statistics in both the US and the UK, invalid. Violent crime rates show no correlation to firearm ownership. Do you not see that in the statistics? Do you not understand what I and others have been saying? Or do you choose not to see it? Again, I respect your position that you do not wish to own or carry a firearm. That IS your right. Why though do you argue to take that right away from others? You still have not answered that quetion in any of your posts. What is your reasoning for not wanting anyone to own or carry a firearm? I am still curious to read your answer to that. And, should you respond, would you please attempt to refrain from telling me to “go play in traffic” or some other derogatory statement? I have not tried to degrade or intimidate you, and I only request the same in return.