US Supreme Court uphold 2nd Amendment

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Not exactly, argatoga. As a member of a militia, one can be called to service so they are "citizen soldiers" much like today's National Guard. The US had no standing army at the time of the Constitution's drafting and there was no plan to form one or a standing Navy at the time. Not everyone with a firearm was a member of the militia.

Ah OK, I always thought of them as just organized civilian combatants.

[teeb]

Okay, so purely on the subject of the District of Colombia's ban (and ignoring my pinko commie views on the subject) :

The District of Colombia is an urban area. It's Washington DC, basically. I don't know how many of you carry pistols around with you (concealed or otherwise) out in the streets...(I bet that thought makes the Secret Service people near the white house happy!)

More to the point, someone who actually knows about guns (Blind_Io) suggests here that it's better to have a shotgun for home defence than a pistol. Indeed, a representative of the District gives much the same argument - that homeowners can still have a shotgun or rifle to defend their homes with. And very few people are going to walk around the streets with a shotgun or a rifle.


As for the actual Constitution, here's the exact wording again :

Originally Posted by Constitution of the USA

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.

Many people read it as meaning that the people have the right to guns (or if you suffer from Spoonerisms, you've got the right to arm bears).

I would probably read it as saying the militia have the right to guns - then you have to define what the militia encompasses. Some people will argue that that is meant to mean 'citizen armies' such as the Army Reserves or National Guard, others will take it to mean 'everyone, in the time of emergencies'.

I guess in this regard the phrasing is a little bit ambiguous. It's a bit like how almost any political group can find a Bible quote to match their opinion - even if the original Bible quote means nothing of the sort. I'm thinking of how Jehovah's Witnesses won't take blood transfusions.

So, in summary, I don't know. However I'd welcome the Supreme Court deciding one way another, in clear English, what the Constitution means. And I think that walking around in the middle of a city, with a pistol, shotgun, or rifle, is a bit daft.

[Blind_Io]

While it's true that (in my opinion) the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun, what about protecting your person? As you say, one can't walk around with a shotgun all the time, so is a person's home the only place they are entitled to defend themselves?

I really don't see the Constitution as being ambiguous, it was only written two hundred years ago in plain English, it's not as though they decided to write it in Latin. The Constitution is also very concise, something the Bible does not share.

Let's break down the language of the Amendment:

A well regulated Militia,

This is a premise, a clause. A Militia or military force.

, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This insert, encased within commas is modifying the last noun, "militia" This is stating a property of the militia, in this case, that it is necessary to secure the borders of the states.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

The right, not the privilege - of the people, the general citizenry, not the military. - to keep and bear, to own, carry and use - Arms, a proper noun, that must be important. Arms meaning weapons, including fireArms.

shall not be infringed.

Well that is pretty self explanatory, that right shall not be infringed. There are no clauses, no exceptions, that is the way it is. Period.

[klutch]

That self defence argument goes out the window with the social contract you have. You're not seriously going to try to argue for vigilante justice, are you blind?

Second; arguing semantics won't get you anywhere. Even the framers of the Constitution implied context for interpretation. So look at context: the tyrrany argument fails to hold in how governmental and military structure has developed - your Consitution allows no right to rebellion against a government with power imposed by the governed (which you have). You also have a standing army now, in place of militias; the intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent a standing army from forming - a militia in opposition to an army acting at the behest of the representative government has no rights in the form of the amendment.

[jayhawk]

Eh, what Blind_Io said.

[jetsetter]

I applaud the US Supreme Court's decision. Now we have to get started on California's firearm laws.........

I'm sure if the Canadian or British legal documents contained the right to bear arms that they would not be in favor of firearm bans.

[klutch]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

Eh, what Blind_Io said.

You lazy son of a bi...




Don't get me wrong here, I'm not in favour of an outright ban. I want to see far heavier restrictions on handguns; when you consider 85% of all firearm related deaths in the US are caused by handguns, I think there's a problem. I'm not saying banning handguns would reduce gun-related deaths by 85%, but it would be a damn good start.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by klutch

You lazy son of a bi...




Don't get me wrong here, I'm not in favour of an outright ban. I want to see far heavier restrictions on handguns; when you consider 85% of all firearm related deaths in the US are caused by handguns, I think there's a problem. I'm not saying banning handguns would reduce gun-related deaths by 85%, but it would be a damn good start.

Are there statistics that show how many of those handguns were legally obtained. The problem with banning guns is that you only limit what law abiding citizens can buy, criminals who already have a record get them illegally already.

[Blind_Io]

Welcome - All Potential Victims Have Been Disarmed for Your Convenience.

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I'm sure if the Canadian or British legal documents contained the right to bear arms that they would not be in favor of firearm bans.

We have no form of written constitution so in essence we are not guaranteed a right to anything at all.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Peter3hg

We have no form of written constitution so in essence we are not guaranteed a right to anything at all.

That explains a few things.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Peter3hg

We have no form of written constitution so in essence we are not guaranteed a right to anything at all.

Exactly, that's why we have it. The American founding father's wanted a clearly written contract between the people and the government outlining what either side could do. The government couldn't just do whatever it wanted, it had to abide by the contract with the people (The American Constitution).

[cvrefugee]

When I move out (eventually) I'll definitely be buying a nice handgun or shotgun for home protection. I'm glad we still have the right to do so!

[Crazyjeeper]

Originally Posted by klutch

Second; arguing semantics won't get you anywhere. Even the framers of the Constitution implied context for interpretation. So look at context: the tyrrany argument fails to hold in how governmental and military structure has developed - your Consitution allows no right to rebellion against a government with power imposed by the governed (which you have). You also have a standing army now, in place of militias; the intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent a standing army from forming - a militia in opposition to an army acting at the behest of the representative government has no rights in the form of the amendment.

Could you please clarify the bold statement?

[nist7]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

I applaud the US Supreme Court's decision. Now we have to get started on California's firearm laws.........

The title and the article is grossly misleading since an official ruling has not been issued yet. Yesterday was only a day for the justices to hear arguments from the plaintiff and the defendant.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...lMarch2008.htm

A transcript can be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/07-290.pdf

But from what was said yesterday, it is not surprising that a Conservative bench would go for individual gun rights. This will truly be a huge mark that the Conservatives will make upon the legal interpretation of the Constitution, especially as controversial as the 2nd Amendment. If the court rules in favor of Heller, Obama/Clinton/Democrats won't be happy.

From the International Herald Tribune:

The court is expected to issue a ruling before its term ends in June, ensuring that its decision will be injected into the 2008 presidential campaign. About 300 members of Congress - including the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, but not the Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - signed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Heller's position.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...ica/scotus.php

[RoamingGnome]

I don't, never did and unlikely will own a firearm of any sort. Don't see anything wrong with anyone owning one (or a boatload for that matter) for whatever purpose. It's a device. We have laws against murder and such, and since shooting requires someone to actually pull the trigger that's plenty sufficient. As such the 2nd Amendment is written in the constitution, it is rather clear too and until it is officially repelled it must be respected. Thumbs up to SC for (hopefully) seeing things right.

[Cobol74]

Has not Bush packed the court with Right Wingers so the answer is a foregone conclusion?

[TomCat]

Not only should they ban guns, but they should ban trigger fingers. Thats right, chop 'em off at birth.

[/sarcasm]

[Blind_Io]

If laws actually did anything to reduce crime all you would have to do is make using a gun in a crime illegal. Owning or carrying a gun is not the problem, crime is a problem. Criminalizing guns does not reduce robberies, murders, or any other current crime.

[vegasrebel29]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

If laws actually did anything to reduce crime all you would have to do is make using a gun in a crime illegal. Owning or carrying a gun is not the problem, crime is a problem. Criminalizing guns does not reduce robberies, murders, or any other current crime.

Technically, you're wrong.

Eliminating guns reduces the amount of crimes purveyed with guns marginally, while ensuring the locality's crime rate shoots up like Amy Winehouse.

Also, I was going to say YAY NO PLATITUDES until I spoke one myself.