Shoot 'Em if You Got 'Em!

YEEEEE HAW!!!!

While I agree (to a certain extent) with the ruling, this is just further evidence of the lack of intellectual honesty of the Scalia faction. Everywhere they decry judicial activism and then they go and invent a new and expansive "plain meaning" of the Amendment. It's total hypocritical bullshit, and I hope everyone out there who calls themselves a constitutional originalist realizes it.

Why do you say that? Not trying to pick a fight or anything but could you elaborate on why you believe this to be the case in this, well case.

The plain language of the document does not say that the right to own a particular type of firearm in a particular type of setting with a particular type of regulation cannot be abridged. Yet, that's what Scalia found in the language of the document, as well as through the "intent of the Framers".

It's nonsense. Look, I think pretty much the only way the Second Amendment makes sense is if it's an individual right. That said, all individual rights are subject to reasonable regulation. If Scalia were an honest jurist, he'd just say that these regulations are not reasonable. Instead, he goes through his tortured logic to produce a result not consistent with his reasoning.

In other words, at least with the "liberal" justices, they recognize that they're expanding rights or re-interpreting rights or whathaveyou. Scalia does the same thing and then claims he's not. This is not the first time he's done it, and it won't be the last.

He also said this tho.

From what I have read so far he is only saying that the prohibition in DC was unconstitutional, he has made it clear however that gun regulations are constitutional, only that prohibitions are not.

Not all regulations, though.

Really? The Framers contemplated trigger locks?

(Actually, I have no idea whether trigger locks were around then. Regardless, my point stands.)

Wow... this isn't going to be pretty.

Ok, so this was written back before we had a functional, national military - any man could be called into service, so they needed a weapon. Fine. We now have a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - we call them the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Amendment outdated.

People had to hunt for food. Need a rifle. Some people still do. Fine. Could use a bow and arrow, but a rifle is potentially more lethal and will provide a faster, more humane death for the animal. Show me how a .50 caliber Desert Eagle, Glock 9mm or AR15 assault rifle IN CIVILIAN HANDS fits this purpose.

Tell me why it is so wrong to register your guns or require a permit to own one? You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to fish. Hell, you need a license to marry! If you use the First Amendment excuse, wouldn't you want the government to know that you are armed and ready to be called to defend your state?

How many guns is enough? You can only shoot one rifle at a time. Sure, you can shoot two hand guns at once, but does one person need 10?

who made any argument against registration or gun permits?

the military is not a militia. as a matter of fact, by many arguments, the military is exactly what the second amendment was designed to counteract.

as for 'how many guns is enough', well, how many guns is too many? who is hurt, if someone wants a gun collection to go on the wall of their hunting lodge or parlor? certainly, a lot of people get butthurt about it, but that's a completely different issue.

This is my first posting to Current Events in at least a couple of years, and hopefully one or three posts will be all for the next couple of years.

The way I look at it, however the Court arrived at the decision, our lawmakers have had much worse things to worry about than preventing conscientious, careful citizens from owning weapons, particularly to possess them in their own homes. The reason that this kind of intrusive legislation has been so prevalent is that law-abiding citizens are the easiest people to victimize and oppress.

I have never seen anything wrong with allowing someone to possess a weapon, or other potentially dangerous devices, when their safe use can be reasonably ensured. (Please don't tell me I just said everyone should be allowed to have a box of grenades in his closet.) I said reasonably, not perfectly. If you can't trust your neighbor to store and use a firearm responsibly, why would you trust the same neighbor to, say, try not to run people over with his Muni bus?

Or, my alternative argument, can the government please stay the fuck out of my house.

Just out of curiosity whats the problem with owning 1 gun or 1,000?

this, to me, is the crux of the problem with most gun legislation. it seems that most gun legislation is aimed specifically at reducing the rights of legal gun owners--people who are vanishingly less likely to actually cause problems with their guns than criminal, illegal gun owners. they harder anti-gun activists fight for this sort of legislation, the harder gun activists will fight back, since they believe--and are supported by the evidence, in the case of DC--that such regulations disarm normal citizens without affecting the rate of crimes involving guns.

I more or less agree with your argument (the ruling is at least partially disingenuous), but by the same token, I'm delighted to have something nudge lawmakers and law enforcement away from fucking with people who are safely and responsibly minding their own business and who (as the vast majority of people do) try to act in a way that safeguards the welfare of their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Nobody has to own or use a weapon irresponsibly. That's obvious, but what so many people overlook (and will continue to overlook) is that most people actively try personally not to be irresponsible.

No goddamn problem at all if you come by them legally and use them legally. Last time I checked, we have people who can enforce those caveats, and more.

Anyway, as someone who used to own a half dozen handguns (I'm down to three now), there are only so many $300, $500, or $1000 hunks of metal that most people can afford to have sitting around looking pretty.

It's not like the founding fathers didn't have a concept of a standing army. It's that they were explicitly against it. The idea behind state militias was that they could defend states rights, so that we would not only be safe from external threats, but also threats from our own government. Like, say your state decides that marijuana has medicinal benefits, but the federal government keeps raiding your farms. In the mind of the framers of the Constitution, the state could organize its militia to fight off the tyranny of the federal government. The idea is not so much to protect the state as it is to protect freedom.

Firearms were also necessary for self-defense, considering the fact that police forces did not exist at the time. I would say they are still necessary for self-defense in certain areas, particularly minority neighborhoods where police tend to be slow to respond.

I have nothing against registration, background checks, etc. And as far as I can tell, this ruling does not affect such things. It merely says that gun ownership is an individual right, and that while regulation is acceptible, prohibition is not.

Why does it matter? If you can only shoot one rifle at a time, why are 5 rifles any more dangerous? You can only use one golf club at a time, so why not restrict golfers to a 9 iron and a putter?

And, just to fuck with y'all, Obama is now Saving the Children:

WTFBBQ.

Fuck that: Dude, save me so I can have some children first.

...

This should be an interesting case study over the next few years. D.C. has been riddled with crime and murder for a long time now. Obviously the vast majority of gun crimes committed has been by people illegally possessing these guns.

I look forward to finding out how this effects crime in general, and gun violence in particular over the next several years.

Kind of like how the world didn't implode when gays started to get married in Massachusetts.

I'm not against owning guns, I just question "civilian" ownership.

I actually enjoy target shooting. I don't own them because I'm a hot headed asshole who would probably shoot someone that pissed me off. Plus, I'm bi-polar so I might use it on myself. A close friend of the family helps support his nieces and nephews because his brother used his legally purchased shotgun to murder his wife - while the children were in the room. My close friend, who is currently renting me a room while my divorce is finalizing, has an arsenal in a gun safe the size of refrigerator. Before he goes on vacation, he checks to see what the laws are for carrying a handgun.

My feelings on the subject are admittedly very personally biased. We have systems in place that theoretically should eliminate the need for the amendment - local, county and state police for "protection of state". National Guard to support them in emergencies.

I understand (sort of) hunting for food (sport hunting is cruel, but that is another thread). It's a more financially practical, healthier and more animal friendly way to provide meat for your family.

I just don't understand why people feel the need to stockpile guns "because it's my Second Amendment right". I have the constitutional right to walk into my family's synagogue and call everyone there a bunch of thieving Jews, but it doesn't mean I should.

Meh. I'm babbling and going to lose here.

Yay. I feel safe owning the gun I have yet to buy.

even if you disregard the need to protect your freedom from the state (which many people view to be the point of the second amendment), state-sponsored armed forces such as the police are--and must be, in order to preserve the level of freedom we currently enjoy--pretty bad at preventing crime, except inasmuch as catching a criminal can prevent them from committing further crimes.

unless we want to have cops on every street corner, flying around in black helicopters, spying on your email, and tapping your phone calls at will, the state cannot guarantee your personal safety. and even then, we'd need some method of tightly controlling the police forces, lest they themselves abuse the people they're nominally protecting. there are only two people who have any direct input on your personal safety: you, and the person who wishes to attack you.

in this era and place, guns are an effective method of protecting oneself. tasers, pepper spray, and the like are also available, but some feel that these methods are of lesser effectiveness than a gun.

wanting to get rid of all guns is, i suppose a reasonable stance from a certain point of view. that point of view necessarily does not include consideration for protection from the state, however, which is one reason i don't subscribe to it.

Exactly. For the most part (there are always exceptions, of course) the folks who pursue taking the fire arms courses and then take the necessary steps to acquire a license for a hand gun/muzzle loader/shot gun are typically the guys, AND gals, who are hunters, ex military or just the average person who is interested in having a LEGAL gun collection. This battle has been prevalent in my personal life because, for one, I grew up right out side of DC and my father is a hunter. This issue has always, and will always be a hot topic in this area (oh, and don't EVEN get me started on Baltimore!)

are you suggesting that a topic related to gun control might get heated? you know who else suggested that? Hitler.

Would you like to explain how this agrees with your position here?
Because you seemed pretty keen to dissociate yourself from it there.

Did it come up yet that many guns used in crimes start out as legally purchased guns? Not used by their original owner, but by someone who stole the gun from the legal owner and proceeded to use it. I don't have a source other than personal experiance (luckily, my uncle's gun was recovered and returned to him before it could be used for a crime).

It's completely unclear to me why citizens want to possess handguns specifically.

I understand why criminals want to possess handguns, but to argue that the risk of encountering a criminal with a handgun who may shoot you warrants handgun ownership is just silly; unless you harbor fantasies about living in the Wild West.

I have heard the long-standing argument that many gun owners do not trust their government and therefore want to ensure that their government will think cautiously about doing something evil if they and their brethren are known to have guns. This argument carried some weight when citizens and the "militia" were evenly equipped, which hasn't been the case for decades. If your government were going to undertake something that threatened you or your family, it's unlikely that your handgun would be of much use in dissuading their efforts or modifying the outcome.

The thinking needs to evolve here and I agree with Subrosa; I think the Scalia faction had the explicit desire to satisfy a political agenda and segment of the populace and were prepared to bastardize the interpretation of Constitution and a State's independent responsibility to protect its citizens, just to prove their point. Another form of judicial activism, albeit much more dangerous.