Supremes Affirm Right To Own Guns

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sometimes people need killing.

 

[jackell99]

Other writings

Ok, have any of you who believe the government should control a private citizen's access to weapons ever actually read anything written by the framers of the bill of rights? Or for that matter anything about how exactly this country came into being?
The reason for government sponsored gun control is not for the safety of its citizens, but for the stability, and security, of the government.
Remember, the framers of our constitution understood better than most the axiom that "People should not have to fear their government, but government should always fear its people."
This country was specifically designed so that the true power was retained by the citizens. But as we have "progressed" to a system of professional politicians and bureaucrats they have realized that unarmed citizens can offer little resistance, even in large numbers.
Without an individual right to gun ownership, there would be no United States of America.
Good Day

 

[xssve]

Bad people always chase out good people. The bad people bring their poverty with them. Theyre impoverished because theyre antisocial and stupid.

Here comes JB, there goes the Neighborhood.

You don't suppose their being impoverished might have anything to do with their being "antisocial and stupid"?

You can furnish citations for this hypothesis of yours?

 

[jackell99]

Here comes JB, there goes the Neighborhood.

You don't suppose their being impoverished might have anything to do with their being "antisocial and stupid"?

You can furnish citations for this hypothesis of yours?

Maybe the fact that every civilization in history to date has been destroyed by barbarians?

 

[xssve]

Possibly, and very ungrateful it is too, considering how well "barbarians" are typically treated by civilization.

 

[jackell99]

Possibly, and very ungrateful it is too, considering how well "barbarians" are typically treated by civilization.

Does the idea that they are mistreated by the mainstream somehow prove your theory that they are not bad people?
By that logic should we in turn release all of our violent prisoners as well?

 

[xssve]

A curious twist of logic, I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. So the impoverished are in the same class as violent criminals? If so, this would of course entirely justify all the ill treatment, no?

I'm gonna have to see some twins studies on that.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Soviet Era Condom

Correllation is not causation. Poverty was endemic in the Great Depression, but there was no massive crime rate increase. Poverty is endemic in places like rural China, but there is no massive murder rate. Many other examples could be cited. ."

This is really off the thread here and I really should just let it go.... Besides it is not at all relevant to whether or not the District of Columbia can OR SHOULD ban handguns....

But since you chose to go on about it, lets get the facts straight....Murder rates, as near as I can find out, sky rocketed during the depression...

(http://www-tc.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch12.pdf)..

Regretfully, it seems overall crime rate data is either unavailable or unreliable for the first half of the century. But crime rates AND murder rates went down during the Clinton years when the economy was not just coincidently doing well. I know you wish it were not so , but it is.

And China? Well unlike the poor people in America, those folks do NOT have access to weapons. Curious you should choose this example when suggesting that guns are either unrelated to homicide or actually deter it somehow. Not your strongest argument, here.... sort of like the Swiss Army one....

That leads us back to culture. In the US, certain cultures are associated with poverty. In particular, the culture of the underclass. That same culture is associated with high crime rates…."

There is hardly a week goes by here that some member of the Rush Limbaugh/Borg Collective hereabouts does not accuse the "usual suspects" of being Commie class- baiting Socialists... while I personally only consider myself a Liberal.

So you must appreciate the irony when I tell you that I honestly cannot recall the last time, if ever, I talked about some social issue in terms of "underclass".... Silly, naive me, I always think of people, some with money, some without.. And this "underclass" stuff just smacks to me of Marxist think....

Roxanne....Do you have a secret you wish to share with the class?

That leads us back to culture. In the US, certain cultures are associated with poverty. In particular, the culture of the underclass. That same culture is associated with high crime rates. Which correlation is more likely to be causal? I've already falsified your hypothesis regarding poverty = crime, so we are left with culture. ."

Oh yeah... you smashed my hypothesis completely, albeit using facts which are flat wrong or wholly irrelevant. The Depression and China, that was your argument, wasn't it?

I acknowledge that if one is determined to kill another, a gun is better than a knife or other implement. It is also true that the US underclass has created its own "gun culture." However, do you doubt that if guns disappeared tomorrow a substitute would be found, perhaps a "blade culture?"."

Uhhh Actually I do doubt it, Uma Thurman, not withstanding. When the 82nd Airborne issues samurai swords to the troops, I will give your argument a second look but this is just silly on the face of it. (And Roxanne? I am not sure how to break this to you, but "Kill Bill" was only a movie, and a farcical one at that...Sorry)

Mortality rates among the participants in that culture might drop a bit, but how many more innocent people would suffer and die ........

WTF???? Your "mortality rates" are actually called "homicides" vs. attempted homicides. If mortality rates drop, how is it more people die?

Oh wait.... I understand.... This is the class thing again.... Without guns, the underclass would suddenly only turn their swords on the innocent upper class..

smirk.

Okay enough of all this.... Roxanne, you are free to believe that gun ownership is some basic tenet of freedom and no other justification is required. I do not share that opinion, but I honestly respect it.

The fascists and the soviets effectively eliminated crime (private, free enterprise crime) by the simple expedient of punishing anybody and everybody they wanted to without any regard for due process. That is an option we could adopt here but I hope you and I would agree that maintaining our rights to due process is a basic tenet of our freedom even if it is not the most effective approach to controlling or eliminating crime. We do agree on that, don't we? Protecting the innocent from prosecution is more important than punishing the guilty? Isn't it?

And so that is why I can appreciate a similar assertion to gun ownership. But let us not pretend that reducing access to guns in this country will somehow NOT reduce gun deaths, because it intuitively must.

Reducing the poverty and social inequities are, in my opinion, the MOST effective way to reduce crime overall. Reducing and limiting access to guns simply reduces the "mortality" associated with crime. But that, in my view, is.. or would be... a good thing.

Absent successful efforts to reduce poverty, if we wish to reduce homicides in this country, we are forced to choose between forgoing "due process" and the "right" to bear arms. I choose disarmament of the general populace and limiting access to weapons to a well regulated militia.

The current administration and frequently their appointees to the supreme court apparently favor eliminating due process. Hence our difference of opinion.

-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Okay enough of all this.... Roxanne, you are free to believe that gun ownership is some basic tenet of freedom and no other justification is required. I do not share that opinion, but I honestly respect it.

Clearly we disagree on basic premises, so there is no point in further debate. However, I appreciate your commitment to maintaining standards of civility in a contentious debate on an important philosophical and public policy issue(including effectively dissing ad hominem statements with amusing sarcasm - "stinky poo-poo head" indeed ).

 

[freshface]

There were also the small matters:

the (Royal) French Navy assisting the rebels

the Native Americans fighting on both sides

the British citizens (and voters) who thought that it was an unjust and unnecessary war

Without their assistance and the mind-boggling incompetence of British Generalship, the US could easily have lost. That would have been the wrong result.

Og

And a few others:

The French supplying the rebel Navy with support and ports on the European continent.

France supplying the rebels despite the British blockade.

General von Stueben of Prussia training the Continental Army in manever and drill.

The Marquis de Lafayette teaching George Washington how to be a general

The successes at Lexington and Concord notwithstanding, the rebels were getting their clocks cleaned because they didn't understand concepts like fire for effect and maneuver.

We don't need tanks. A scoped 30.06 will keep the local gendarmes at bay until we can organize and confiscate the contents of local armories.

The Founders insured and underlined the eternal vigilance necessary to prevent a ruling body from becoming too full of itself and imposing upon the people edicts they did not want.

I have been advocating Revolution for forty years, for ten years running, I ended each program with, "Up the Revolution!"

Go ahead, start drafting our kids again. See what that gets you. I qualified as a Marksman a long time ago, wonder if I can still shoot accurately at a distance, damned bifocals anyway.

Amicus..

I'll ask it again. Do you really think that an armed populace is the reason the US military avoids going after its own people? I find it pretty insullting that the same people can say "We support the troops" one day, but think nothing of saying "My guns protect me from the troops" the next.

Ami, if you're serious about seeing a need to confiscate the contents of the local armories, you're crazier than I thought. And if you really think that the rule of the gun is better than the rule of law, I invite you to visit Somalia to see how well that works.

Those edicts you talk about are otherwise known as laws. The Founders also understood the balance of powers and the tendencies of the majority to tyranize the minority. Lucky for us that we have a system of government that protects us and allows us to peacefully turn out that ruling body if they forget what they are supposed to be doing.

 

[Liar]

And a few others:

The French supplying the rebel Navy with support and ports on the European continent.

France supplying the rebels despite the British blockade.

General von Stueben of Prussia training the Continental Army in manever and drill.

The Marquis de Lafayette teaching George Washington how to be a general

The successes at Lexington and Concord notwithstanding, the rebels were getting their clocks cleaned because they didn't understand concepts like fire for effect and maneuver.

Now, that's beginning to look like a well regulated militia. Instead of a bunch of dudes with guns.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Clearly we disagree on basic premises, so there is no point in further debate. However, I appreciate your commitment to maintaining standards of civility in a contentious debate on an important philosophical and public policy issue(including effectively dissing ad hominem statements with amusing sarcasm - "stinky poo-poo head" indeed ).

We simply have to quit meeting like this. People will begin to talk and I have a reputation to maintain as do you, Roxanne.



-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

And a few others:

The French supplying the rebel Navy with support and ports on the European continent.

France supplying the rebels despite the British blockade.

General von Stueben of Prussia training the Continental Army in manever and drill.

The Marquis de Lafayette teaching George Washington how to be a general

The successes at Lexington and Concord notwithstanding, the rebels were getting their clocks cleaned because they didn't understand concepts like fire for effect and maneuver.




I'll ask it again. Do you really think that an armed populace is the reason the US military avoids going after its own people? I find it pretty insullting that the same people can say "We support the troops" one day, but think nothing of saying "My guns protect me from the troops" the next.

Ami, if you're serious about seeing a need to confiscate the contents of the local armories, you're crazier than I thought. And if you really think that the rule of the gun is better than the rule of law, I invite you to visit Somalia to see how well that works.

Those edicts you talk about are otherwise known as laws. The Founders also understood the balance of powers and the tendencies of the majority to tyranize the minority. Lucky for us that we have a system of government that protects us and allows us to peacefully turn out that ruling body if they forget what they are supposed to be doing.

And Ami? What she said!



-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And a few others:

The French supplying the rebel Navy with support and ports on the European continent.

France supplying the rebels despite the British blockade.

General von Stueben of Prussia training the Continental Army in manever and drill.

The Marquis de Lafayette teaching George Washington how to be a general

The successes at Lexington and Concord notwithstanding, the rebels were getting their clocks cleaned because they didn't understand concepts like fire for effect and maneuver.




I'll ask it again. Do you really think that an armed populace is the reason the US military avoids going after its own people? I find it pretty insullting that the same people can say "We support the troops" one day, but think nothing of saying "My guns protect me from the troops" the next.

Ami, if you're serious about seeing a need to confiscate the contents of the local armories, you're crazier than I thought. And if you really think that the rule of the gun is better than the rule of law, I invite you to visit Somalia to see how well that works.

Those edicts you talk about are otherwise known as laws. The Founders also understood the balance of powers and the tendencies of the majority to tyranize the minority. Lucky for us that we have a system of government that protects us and allows us to peacefully turn out that ruling body if they forget what they are supposed to be doing.

The defeat of the British in the former American colonies was a victory with many fathers, including the ones you mention (although Lafayette was a 22 year old kid who decidedly did not teach GW how to be a general). As in most conflicts a prerequisite for victory was will. One contributor to that was the inspiration at a critical moment of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord - the classic conception of a citizen militia. The Minutemen also won an important victory on April 19, 1775, not on those village greens, but on the road back to Boston, where they inflicted tremendous losses on the Redcoats.

As for whether an armed citizenry forms any kind of bulwark against tyrranny, a broader historical horizon is needed. The Founders' perceptions and attitudes were shaped by their survey of 2,000 years of history, not just an assessment of the world as was at that moment. It is true that the notion of US citizens armed with 30.06 deer rifles and AR 15s taking on the US military at this moment is absurd, for a variety of reasons. Among them, we have more or less the government we want (albeit a welfare state, not the limited government established by the Founders), and there is no deep sense of alienation or injustice in the population at large. Even minority groups who are kinda pissed want reform, not revolution, with tiny, irrelevant exceptions.

But 100 years from now, or 300 years, who's to say? The military may be weak and disaffected, real tyranny may have descended, a "long train of abuses" may have occurred that the population at large finds insufferable, and off we go.

BTW, here's a curious contradiction: The same people who scoff at the notion of an armed US citizenry ever effecting a change in government, accept as a given the ability of "little brown people" in other places to defeat powerful imperialists with nothing but AK 47s and punji sticks (plus perhaps a few Stinger missiles, courtesy the CIA).

~~~

Beyond all that, there is an important attitude reflected in the insistence by most Americans that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (few favor prohibition even though many favor regulation). It's the sense that free men have a right to be armed whether they exercise it or not, whereas serfs do not. You may scoff, but taking that historical long view suggests that, over the millennia, this has proven to be fundamentally correct.

In conclusion, you can take my guns when you peel my cold, dead fingers from their smoking barrels . . . (That felt good. )

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ok, have any of you who believe the government should control a private citizen's access to weapons ever actually read anything written by the framers of the bill of rights? Or for that matter anything about how exactly this country came into being?
The reason for government sponsored gun control is not for the safety of its citizens, but for the stability, and security, of the government.
Remember, the framers of our constitution understood better than most the axiom that "People should not have to fear their government, but government should always fear its people."
This country was specifically designed so that the true power was retained by the citizens. But as we have "progressed" to a system of professional politicians and bureaucrats they have realized that unarmed citizens can offer little resistance, even in large numbers.
Without an individual right to gun ownership, there would be no United States of America.
Good Day

This guy's right. The "well-regulated militia" the framers had in mind were the Minute Men. The founding fathers wanted the guns exactly in the hands of the people. No doubt in my mind that's exactly what they meant.

Edited to add: Oops. I see Rox has already beaten me to it...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This guy's right. The "well-regulated militia" the framers had in mind were the Minute Men. The founding fathers wanted the guns exactly in the hands of the people. No doubt in my mind that's exactly what they meant.

Of course, things have changed a bit since then...

Not the thing that matters - the nature of man: that mixed bag of nobility, folly, foible, weaknesses and strengths. That part the Founders got exactly right, and their getting it right has been the foundation of the most stable, free and prosperous nation in the history of humankind.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

This guy's right. The "well-regulated militia" the framers had in mind were the Minute Men. The founding fathers wanted the guns exactly in the hands of the people. No doubt in my mind that's exactly what they meant.

Of course, things have changed a bit since then...

That is exactly my issue with the entire discussion. While it is lovely to philosophize about what they did or did not mean when they wrote the Amendment, how is that remotely relevant to the discussion of whether or not unfettered access should be allowed to the public 300 years later. It's a case of missing the forest for the trees.

This is only being debated in the courts because nobody at the top levels of government wants to tackle the heated political debate. This issue should be dealt with in Washington, by your elected officials and not by the appointed judiciary. If their is a demonstrable need to change the laws regulating handguns, in my opinion their is, then the second amendment may need to be rewritten if the courts all going to uphold it and force progressive laws to be scrapped.

 

[xssve]

Just to be clear, there is very much a positive correlation between economics and violent crime, but it has much less to do with actually being poor as it has to do with a psychological condition known as "perception of inequality".

The crime rate in the Fifties and Sixties did not rise because of "liberal values" or permissiveness, it rose because of television - and it wasn't violent cop shows, it was Leave it to Beaver.

With the usual irony, it's the whole right wing winner/loser dichotomy revolving around conspicuous consumption coupled with a gross decline in economic opportunity that caused the murder rate in the late Eighties to spike to levels that exceeded the murder rate in the great depression.

See the German Volk movement, and the concept of "Lebensraum", a concept which our friend jakell99 is no doubt familiar with.

 

[Pure]

nice thing

about objectivist training

RA have not read the 150-page plus decision, but I'm quite familiar with what it does and does not say. Are you hinting that I'm under the illusion it prohibits any government regulation of firearms? I am not. It is slightly ambiguous as to where exactly the line is crossed between reasonable regulation and the individual right to "keep and bear arms," but that is the nature of such things. What is not ambiguous is the affirmation of that individual right.

pure: one can tell about ambiguities and nuances of a text one has not even read, debate its strengths and weaknesses, etc.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Not the thing that matters - the nature of man: that mixed bag of nobility, folly, foible, weaknesses and strengths. That part the Founders got exactly right, and their getting it right has been the foundation of the most stable, free and prosperous nation in the history of humankind.

Well, we've been around 230 years. There've been Chinese dynasties that have lasted longer than that.

No, I really think things have changed since the Constitution was drawn up. The arms the founding fathers envisioned the citizenry keeping were not assault rifles and artillery.

Which makes me wonder: how do they justify the ban on citizens owning artillery in light of the Constitution's guarantee?

 

[Weird Harold]

This guy's right. The "well-regulated militia" the framers had in mind were the Minute Men. The founding fathers wanted the guns exactly in the hands of the people. No doubt in my mind that's exactly what they meant.

An 18th century Militia was all of the able-bodied males acting in concert for the benefit of the community. That doesn't necessarily mean acting against the government, it also included the functions of a volunteer fire department. search and rescue, disaster relief and police functions as well as the ability to resist "police functions" and oppression when necessary.

The Minute Men are the best known example of what the Founding Fathers meant by a militia, but I think there is a better, post-Constitution, example of the kind of "militia" the Founding Fathers intended -- although it's kind of a double edged example.

Committees Of Vigilance, aka Vigilantes have an unsavory reputation because of the excesses and violation of civil rights some committees engaged in -- notably in San Francisco -- but there were many other committees around the country at various times that served the actual avowed purpose of bringing law and order to places where the government could not or wouldd not do so.

There are times when an 18th century style militia can and should be activated -- with or without weapons -- to do the things an 18th century Militia routinely did.

The closest analog today inthe US to an 18th Century Militia is probably Neighborhood Watch programs -- and althoughofficially discouraged, in some Neighborhoods the "Watch" should be armed.

 

[oggbashan]

...Which makes me wonder: how do they justify the ban on citizens owning artillery in light of the Constitution's guarantee?

The Swiss can purchase government surplus artillery and ammunition. They encourage private ownership of anti-aircraft weaponry.

The Australians could after 1918 and 1945. During the mid-50s the Australian government didn't think it was advisable but didn't start to ban private ownership until a 1961 arms amnesty produced several large artillery pieces and fully operational tanks. One of my distant relations turned in 10 12-inch Naval Guns with armour-piercing shells and charges.

In the UK after 1918 the only qualifications to buy war-surplus artillery were that you were intending to export them, OR you were a gentleman intending to use the artillery on your own estates. Grouse shooting with howitzers? Small arms were sold without those qualifications. A SMLE with 300 rounds cost ten shillings (now 50 pence or about a dollar); a Vickers machinegun with 25 belts was five pounds (about 10 dollars); hand grenades about 20 for a pound...

The arms sold to the public after 1918 became useful after Dunkirk. They helped rearm the British Army and the Home Guard. One of our local Home Guard units was formed with an artillery section of six French 75mm guns. They soon lost them to the Regular Army and had to rely on several 19th century 68 pounder cannon. They demonstrated that a 68 pounder would smash most tanks at short range.

Our local re-enactors have to have deactivated rifles and machine guns but can have fully operational artillery - with no shells. Most have the capability to manufacture shells if they wanted to.

UK laws ban short arms and insist on registration of firearms. Black powder weapons are still exempt. Anyone, not insane or a convicted criminal, can get a shotgun licence.

One of our local stately homes lost some dozen pieces artillery in a robbery last year. They have probably been sold as scrap but most were fully operational cannon.

Og

 

[Weird Harold]

Which makes me wonder: how do they justify the ban on citizens owning artillery in light of the Constitution's guarantee?

That's simple: Have you ever tried to "bear" an artillery piece? It's something that gnerally requires several "bearers" to carry around.

Seriously, there is no "ban" on private citizens owning artillery and a good many military collectors do own (functional) artillery of many vintages. There are licensing requirements in some jurisditions,

Other than cost, It's probably actually easier to buy an artillery piece than it is a pistol in most places.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Careful there, you are treading on grounds that could easily make you look like a moral relativist, a nihilist even. Oh woe.

From my morally absolute perspective, violence is always evil. It may sometimes be nessecary, but that doesn't stop it from being evil. And by proxy, tools crafted for the purpose of violence are definitely not neutral. A weapon is a tool for attack. It is designed to do harm and end lives. Point hollow end of gun at person. Pull trigger. Presto. That's the essence of a gun. Don't tell me it's neutral.

I missed this in the crossfire.

I gave an example in the post you're responding to: Poland sewing it's frontiers with landmines in August 1939 . The moral relativism - misguided moral equivalence - comes with equating a Polish soldier on Sept. 1 using a machinegun to blow away a line of invading German stormtroopers with said strormtroopers using the same weapon to mow down Polish troopers. The gun itself is just a lump of steel; it's the actions of the humans who wield it that possess a moral dimension. The distinguishing factor is the initiation of force vs. the use of force - the former is always immoral, the latter may not be.

 

[amicus]

Ok, have any of you who believe the government should control a private citizen's access to weapons ever actually read anything written by the framers of the bill of rights? Or for that matter anything about how exactly this country came into being?
The reason for government sponsored gun control is not for the safety of its citizens, but for the stability, and security, of the government.
Remember, the framers of our constitution understood better than most the axiom that "People should not have to fear their government, but government should always fear its people."
This country was specifically designed so that the true power was retained by the citizens. But as we have "progressed" to a system of professional politicians and bureaucrats they have realized that unarmed citizens can offer little resistance, even in large numbers.
Without an individual right to gun ownership, there would be no United States of America.
Good Day

~~~

I don't recognize your screen name so I will take this opportunity to welcome you to the forum and trust you are thick skinned enough to withstand the barbs.

You probably can observe that the detractors to reason on this little venue are those who profess no absolute ethics and morals, no objective right and wrong, no truth that man is capable of observing.

That is mainly a facade and a sham as they 'absolutely' profess the righteousness of their basic assumptions and viciously attack anyone who notes that.

Many are Europeans or Euro wannabees and cozy up to 'social democracy', a cowardly way of saying socialism.

They have no great love of individual rights except insofar as it involves their private parts and then they become most possessive and protective of privates property, (those things associated with their privates).

Chuckles...

Great entertainment, this, welcome...

Amicus...