NationStates Jolt Archive

Regardless of your views on 2nd amendment rights, the below article is very interesting, and is definitely worth reading.. your thoughts???


D.C.'s gun ban gets its day in court
Justices' decision may set precedent in interpreting the 2nd amendment


By Robert Barnes

updated 2:39 a.m. CT, Sun., March. 16, 2008
Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''

The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service.
"The case has been structured so that they have to confront the threshold question," said Robert A. Levy, the wealthy libertarian lawyer who has spent five years and his own money to bring District of Columbia v. Heller to the Supreme Court. "I think they have to come to grips with that."
The stakes are obviously high for the District, which passed the nation's strictest gun-control law in 1976, just after residents were granted the authority to govern themselves. It virtually bans the private possession of handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.
The law's challengers -- security guard Dick Anthony Heller is the named party in the suit -- say the measure has been an abysmal failure at cutting crime or stanching the city's homicide rate, and a success only in depriving the law-abiding of a ready weapon for protection. The District contends that banning handguns is a logical decision in an urban setting, where more guns would result in more killings.
The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right and that, even if it does, the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia.
Bold breaks
The case could be a revealing test of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Roberts came to the bench saying justices should decide cases as narrowly as possible, but last year he was part of a slim majority that made bold breaks with the court's jurisprudence in cases both recent and old, on issues such as school integration and abortion.
Clues to the justices' interpretations of the Second Amendment are scant and cryptic, and Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that the last time the court considered the issue -- in 1939 -- it "sidestepped" the fundamental questions.
That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.
"It is very rare that the justices write on a clean slate," she said. "In some ways, it gives them great freedom."
Levy and lawyers Alan Gura and Clark Neily were able to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year to do what no other federal appeals court had ever done: strike down a local gun-control ordinance on Second Amendment grounds.
The amendment says that "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,'' and all but one of the circuits that had considered the issue previously had interpreted it as providing a gun-ownership right related only to military service.
But Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative icon, wrote for a 2 to 1 panel that the amendment provides an individual right just as other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," he wrote, the District may not ban them.
The Supreme Court's endorsement of an individual right would be a monumental change in federal jurisprudence, but perhaps not surprising. Even a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars -- "against my political instincts," in the words of Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe -- have endorsed the individual-right view.
But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions, and whether the justices are ready to decide on the reasonableness of the District's ban could be the crucial question of the case.
The city received an unlikely lifeline from the Bush administration, which told the court that the amendment provides an individual right but that the appeals court erred in deciding that the District's ban was automatically unconstitutional.
"If adopted by this court," Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in the government's brief, "such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."
Clement said that the District's law may well be unconstitutional, but that the case should be returned to lower courts for "application of a proper standard of review" and to permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion."
Gun rights supporters were furious about the government's position, and Vice President Cheney went so far as to join a friend-of-the-court brief that specifically rejects the administration's view. Levy said returning the case to lower courts would be a "death knell," and his team has urged the court to apply "strict scrutiny" to any government action that would restrict gun ownership.
'Take prohibition off the table'
Said Gura: "What we want to do is take prohibition off the table."
The case is complicated by the District's secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia.
The challengers have received a broad array of political support, signs of the strength of the gun rights movement: More than 31 states and a majority of the House and Senate have signed friend-of-the-court briefs.
Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain signed on, while Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton did not. Both Democrats have looked for a middle ground, saying they believe the Second Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions.
That position would seem popular. A Washington Post poll shows that 72 percent of the public believes the Constitution provides an individual right, but respondents were evenly split on whether it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership.
Nearly 60 percent said they would support the kind of law in question.
But nationally, it is hard to find many laws as restrictive as the one in the District, partly because of the gun rights lobby's vigilance. More than 40 state constitutions have gun ownership guarantees. Maryland's is one of the few that does not.
As a result, it is difficult to know what gun-control legislation across the country would be at risk even if the Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Levy said the next targets will be handgun laws in Chicago and New York City, although the court has never held that the Second Amendment is applicable to states. And one legal theory is that the provision is a restriction only against the federal government.
Both sides agree that the court's decision could send a powerful message beyond the District.
Tribe, whose support of the individual right is often cited by gun rights supporters, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal recently that said the District's law could still be upheld and urged the court to decide the case narrowly.
But he acknowledged in an interview that the justices might "jump at the opportunity" to write broadly when they finally have a chance to put their mark "on a part of the Constitution that isn't already paved over with layer upon layer of judicial precedent."
Polling director Jon Cohen and researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

This decision will definitely change the face of gun control debates.

bumpity bump bump

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.

I'm hoping for the Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling, that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.

I don't know what you might beleive, but most gun owners are responsible induviduals who don't abuse the right to own thier own weapon. The very vast majority of firearms are owned mostly for sporting purposes such as target shooting and hunting; we don't all run around shooting at each other for no damn reason; we use them for self defense as a last resort; I live in an area where gun owners are prevailent; most people keep their weapons locked in a cabint or a room with any ammunition kept away from them. Its my experiance that the only people who are prone to use firearms in an irresponsible way are either somehow mentally deficient or already prone to violent or criminal behavior.

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional,

Nobody thinks private gun ownership is unconstitutional. The issue is whether prohibiting (or severely restricting) private gun ownership is unconstitutional.

Good, maybe Mr "I have a time machine that lets me know what the framers mean" Antonin Scalia can tell us what they meant by the wording of the Second Amendment, backed up by his pal Justice Ruckus, I mean Justice Thomas.

I still don't understand why a bunch of politicians 220 years ago know better how to run a country than todays politicians. Sorry if it offends people, but the almost religions reverence of the constitution is one big wtf to me.

I've been following this case for quite awhile now. This can either be significant or not, depending on how the Supreme Court words their decision. Either way, this case will frame Gun Control debates and laws in the United States for years to come.

As far as the actual case goes, I don't see how the SC can rule RKBA anything but an individual right. They almost seem to answer that in the question they wrote (a rarity). The real question will be how much restriction can be put on this right. But I doubt the SC will answer that.

Whether or not the ban is right, or just, is entirely irrelevant. Even if you genuinely believe nobody should own a gun...

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.


I'm not saying the alternative is better, but surely even the most die-hard anti-gunster recognizes things like smuggling rings and the black market? A ban doesn't do anything but make it harder for the law-abiding citizens to obtain one. Anyone can if they have the right connections, so any attempt to ban it pointless.

I still don't understand why a bunch of politicians 220 years ago know better how to run a country than todays politicians. Sorry if it offends people, but the almost religions reverence of the constitution is one big wtf to me.

I don't think there is any assumption that they were better rulers, just that whatever they intended when they wrote it should hold today, if people decide they don't like what was written, we can always change it.

I have a bad feeling about whatever ruling they will make. Likely, they will make it appear on the face that they are upholding gun ownership as an individual right, but then slip in some backdoor provision in the manner of regulation of interstate commerce or necessary and proper clause that may be interpreted however the hell one wants to.

I hope this and the many other injustices placed upon lawful gun-owners by clueless politicians in the name of so-called "common sense" legislation is overturned, much like the "Assault weapons ban" of 1994. It will be a great day for the law-abiding when the DC gun ban, the gun control act of 1968, the national firearms act of 1934 and the Illinois firearms owners ID card act are all removed from public law.
The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.

The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.

Exactly. Which is why the Supreme Court will most likely infringe further upon it, one way or another.

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.
You can rule it unconstitutional but it will not stop me from exercising my god-given right to self-defense.

Exactly. Which is why the Supreme Court will most likely infringe further upon it, one way or another.

Unfortunately, we cannot elect the SC. Only then can the wishes of the people be respected.

Why are the gun nuts unable to see that America has a disproportionately high amount of gun-violence when compared to the rest of the civilized world? You need a license to drive a car, fly a plane, sell alcohol... why not license gun owners? If they are so damned responsible with their guns, taking some wort of exam and facing a real background check shouldn't be too hard. When you look at countries with rational gun laws (and by rational I mean strict), their violent crime rates are significantly lower than our own.

Unfortunately, we cannot elect the SC. Only then can the wishes of the people be respected.

Well, unfortunately we have plenty of elected officials who then proceed to limit and restrict various rights due to their self-interest as part of the Federal government. I don't think we would see much of an improvement, unfortunately.

Why are the gun nuts unable to see that America has a disproportionately high amount of gun-violence when compared to the rest of the civilized world? You need a license to drive a car, fly a plane, sell alcohol... why not license gun owners? If they are so damned responsible with their guns, taking some wort of exam and facing a real background check shouldn't be too hard. When you look at countries with rational gun laws (and by rational I mean strict), their violent crime rates are significantly lower than our own.

Anyone who buys a gun has to pass a backround check. And people that sell guns commerically must have a license. Please get your facts from someplace besides VPI or the Brady bunch.

The background check is a joke (VA tech shooter passed it), and I think the license should be for buying, not selling. The licensing period should take time, as well.

The background check is a joke (VA tech shooter passed it), and I think the license should be for buying, not selling. The licensing period should take time, as well.

At the time, there was no reason the VT killer shouldn't have passed the check. He had no felonies.

I still don't understand why a bunch of politicians 220 years ago know better how to run a country than todays politicians. Sorry if it offends people, but the almost religions reverence of the constitution is one big wtf to me.

Regardless, it's the law of the land. There's a procedure for altering the Constitution. ANd there's a very good reason why it isn't easy.

The Virginna Tech killer didn't break a signle law until he brought his guns into the Gun free Zone at VT.

The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.

And at which point are you going to start exorcising this protection? It appears from my observations that the only thing that might get American's up enough to use there guns to protect their rights is if an attempt is made to remove their guns. Everything else seems to be accepted, which seems some what pointless to me!

The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.
So when are you going to start stockpiling high explosive, thermite, anti-tank guns, anti-tank/ship/aircraft missiles, high/low calibre sniper weapons, submachine guns, combat/transport aircraft, combat/transport vehicles, munitions, chemicals/machines to create/maintain all of the above and experienced guerilla fighters (or their writings) to train the people?

So Americans will use arms to defend themselves against the evil Federal Reserve Free Mason conspiracy, but will willingly allow class oppression?

So Americans will use arms to defend themselves against the evil Federal Reserve Free Mason conspiracy, but will willingly allow class oppression?

:rolleyes:

The Virginna Tech killer didn't break a signle law until he brought his guns into the Gun free Zone at VT.

He had however been judged (I don't remember the exact circumstances but I believe there was a court involved) mentally unstable. But since he ticked the box saying 'I'm not crazy' he was allowed to own firearms.

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.
That doesn't really make any sense. Plenty of people interpret the Second Amendment differently, but no one takes it to mean private gun ownership is banned.

So Americans will use arms to defend themselves against the evil Federal Reserve Free Mason conspiracy, but will willingly allow class oppression?

But of course. What would whitey be using guns for if not to keep the brother down?

I hope they don't make a decision in favor of gun control...

Good, maybe Mr "I have a time machine that lets me know what the framers mean" Antonin Scalia can tell us what they meant by the wording of the Second Amendment, backed up by his pal Justice Ruckus, I mean Justice Thomas.

When he resigns/dies, I will be having a big old party.

When he resigns/dies, I will be having a big old party.
It won't matter. You know in the second and third Star Wars movies, where ghost Obi-Wan Kenobi appears to Luke and gives him advice? The Supreme Court works the same way.

It won't matter. You know in the second and third Star Wars movies, where ghost Obi-Wan Kenobi appears to Luke and gives him advice? The Supreme Court works the same way.


Except Sculia will probably have horns and maybe demonic wings.

:rolleyes:

Seconded.

You can rule it unconstitutional but it will not stop me from exercising my god-given right to self-defense.


You wanna cite the Bible verse (or Koran if youre Muslim) that tells you to have a gun?


In fact, I can recall several Bible verses, in the NT, usually the ones in red letters, telling you NOT to defend yourself, but to...how does that hippy put it? Turn the other cheeck?

He had however been judged (I don't remember the exact circumstances but I believe there was a court involved) mentally unstable. But since he ticked the box saying 'I'm not crazy' he was allowed to own firearms.

That was due to a failure of the state of VA to report his being adjudicated mentally incompetent, not the background check. If the state of VA had reported it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System like they should have, then Cho would not have been able to purchase the firearms. Just two weeks after the shooting, the governor of VA issued an executive order that closed that reporting gap. The Federal Government also passed legislation (H.R. 2640) that improved state reporting to the NICS system (that both the Brady Bunch and the NRA supported).

That was due to a failure of the state of VA to report his being adjudicated mentally incompetent, not the background check. If the state of VA had reported it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System like they should have, then Cho would not have been able to purchase the firearms. Just two weeks after the shooting, the governor of VA issued an executive order that closed that reporting gap. The Federal Government also passed legislation (H.R. 2640) that improved state reporting to the NICS system (that both the Brady Bunch and the NRA supported).


This is true.

However, the NIU shooter got his gun 100% legally. No amount of control will stop all the crazies. Nor would a ban. Its a cultural problem, and guns are just a scapegoat. This is why I usually dont discuss gun control too much. I dont usually discuss the band aid, I discuss the gaping, bloody wound.


I support private ownership of firearms with STRICT controls.

Seconded.

Thirded.

So Americans will use arms to defend themselves against the evil Federal Reserve Free Mason conspiracy, but will willingly allow class oppression?

There are pro-gun people on the radical left here, too. What do you think Malcolm X meant when he said "by any means necessary"?

There are pro-gun people on the radical left here, too. What do you think Malcolm X meant when he said "by any means necessary"?

[/thread]

That was due to a failure of the state of VA to report his being adjudicated mentally incompetent, not the background check. If the state of VA had reported it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System like they should have, then Cho would not have been able to purchase the firearms. Just two weeks after the shooting, the governor of VA issued an executive order that closed that reporting gap. The Federal Government also passed legislation (H.R. 2640) that improved state reporting to the NICS system (that both the Brady Bunch and the NRA supported).

With all that pontification, answer me this. Did he or did he not obtain the gun legally?

When you look at countries with rational gun laws (and by rational I mean strict), their violent crime rates are significantly lower than our own.

Irrelevant. There are both countries with strict gun control but high violent crime rates (i.e., South Africa) as well as countries without strict gun control but very low levels of crime (i.e., Switzerland and Finland). Instead of scapegoating guns, let's address the underlying causes of gun violence. Guns do not cause crime. Certain social factors do (or rather, make crime more likely).

With all that pontification, answer me this. Did he or did he not obtain the gun legally?

No, because he lied on the ATF form 4473 (question 11F).

No, because he lied on the ATF form 4473 (question 11F).

OK then, on to second question. Did this in fact prevent him from getting a gun?

OK then, on to second question. Did this in fact prevent him from getting a gun?

Obviously not.

Obviously not.

ok then, so it would appear that gun control schemes are insufficient to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns, correct?

The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.
Amok, and why the fuck didn't you guys do anything in 2000?

I think what you really mean by "the American people" is "Republican voters". But there we go.

Amok, and why the fuck didn't you guys do anything in 2000?

I think what you really mean by "the American people" is "Republican voters". But there we go.
Some of "us" tried something in 1860.
It didn't work out.

ok then, so it would appear that gun control schemes are insufficient to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have guns, correct?

I have already pointed out that the gap in reporting (that would have stopped Cho's purchase) was closed, both by the Governor of the state of VA and by Congress. Now, there are going to be people that slip through the system, because no system is perfect. But to say that the current gun control laws are insufficient is not the answer. Enforcement of the laws we already have would probably do more to curb this type of violence.

there are going to be people that slip through the system.

OK, now, here is where I ask you, do you think more people will "slip through the system" and there will be more people who have guns that should not have guns in a looser gun control regime, or a very tight gun control regime?

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Amok, and why the fuck didn't you guys do anything in 2000?

I think what you really mean by "the American people" is "Republican voters". But there we go.

Why would we have done something in 2000? Bush won the votes he needed in the electoral college, even though he didn't win the popular vote. And it's not like 2000 was the first time this happened. It happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888 as well.

OK, now, here is where I ask you, do you think more people will "slip through the system" and there will be more people who have guns that should not have guns in a looser gun control regime, or a very tight gun control regime?

There MAY be some more that slip through with the laws we have now, versus tightening the laws, but first I think we should try better enforcement of the laws we already have.

Some of "us" tried something in 1860.
It didn't work out.
This was for the best.
Why would we have done something in 2000? Bush won the votes he needed in the electoral college, even though he didn't win the popular vote. And it's not like 2000 was the first time this happened. It happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888 as well.
The voter abuse in Florida was pretty widespread - police roadblocks in predominately black areas and not helping out the Haitian community in their own language were the two biggies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1102806.stm

But of course. What would whitey be using guns for if not to keep the brother down?

Interestingly enough, some of the first real gun control laws in the United States were made in the Jim Crow south to prevent blacks from arming themselves.

There MAY be some more that slip through with the laws we have now, versus tightening the laws, but first I think we should try better enforcement of the laws we already have.
This I'd actually agree with. More laws treated in a half-arsed manner are inferior to the current laws being genuinely enforced.

This was for the best.

The voter abuse in Florida was pretty widespread - police roadblocks in predominately black areas and not helping out the Haitian community in their own language were the two biggies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1102806.stm

Was there ever any proof of these allegations, and if so, was anything done through the legal system to rectify the situation?

Some of "us" tried something in 1860.
It didn't work out.

*SNORE*

*SNORE*

You know, we haven't had a good ACW thread in a while. It might be time to get another one up.

Good, maybe Mr "I have a time machine that lets me know what the framers mean" Antonin Scalia can tell us what they meant by the wording of the Second Amendment, backed up by his pal Justice Ruckus, I mean Justice Thomas.

Woo! It only took 8 posts to get to a variant of "Justice Thomas is a race-traitor!" That's gotta be a record. :p

Interestingly enough, some of the first real gun control laws in the United States were made in the Jim Crow south to prevent blacks from arming themselves.

That's kind of funny; I didn't know that.
Generally, if I use the word, "whitey," you can assume nothing that follows reflects any actual knowledge on my part.

Why are the gun nuts unable to see that America has a disproportionately high amount of gun-violence when compared to the rest of the civilized world? You need a license to drive a car, fly a plane, sell alcohol... why not license gun owners? If they are so damned responsible with their guns, taking some wort of exam and facing a real background check shouldn't be too hard. When you look at countries with rational gun laws (and by rational I mean strict), their violent crime rates are significantly lower than our own.

People do need a license to get guns in many states. In NJ it is regulated that you must pass a strict background check to get a purchasing permit. They have to register each weapon when you purchase them. Handguns require a special permit and everything is documented down to the ballistics. The United States is actually 24th when it comes to violent crime compared with the rest of the world. I could dig up the link for that info if you'd like.

I could buy a gun illegally with greater ease. The prices can be premium, but you'll get what you want. I choose to keep my purchases legal as I don't like to run afoul of the law. You have drug crews with AK's, Macks, and Uzis. They sure as hell didn't go through the government for them.

*SNORE*

Awww...he looks so cute when he's sleeping. :)

*snaps photos* :p

You can rule it unconstitutional but it will not stop me from exercising my god-given right to self-defense.


Most gun use isn't done in self-defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,[16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.[17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.


The second amendment isn`t about the right to hunt deer or ducks, it`s about protecting the american people from a government gone amuck.

The government has been running amuck since 9/11, and notice we've done fuck-all about it. Our only response was basically "Please, sir. May I have some more?"

You know, we haven't had a good ACW thread in a while. It might be time to get another one up.

Oh God No! :headbang:

ACW threads are like Firearms threads. In the end, nobody is listening, and everyone is just repeating themselves over and over.

Most gun use isn't done in self-defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html


There have been many studies regarding defensive firearms use, and they have all come to different conclusions. This study is on the low end of the spectrum. I have seen studies that say there are over 2 million defensive gun uses in the United States.

EDIT: And I found this nice little tidbit...

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all

There have been many studies regarding defensive firearms use, and they have all come to different conclusions. This study is on the low end of the spectrum. I have seen studies that say there are over 2 million defensive gun uses in the United States.

EDIT: And I found this nice little tidbit...

1) I'm aware that there are other studies. The study I cited mentions that fact.

2) Yet, even with the lesser chance of being injured by using a gun for self-defense, it still isn't that common. Thank you for completely missing the point. Or did you just ignore it?

1) I'm aware that there are other studies. The study I cited mentions that fact.

2) Yet, even with the lesser chance of being injured by using a gun for self-defense, it still isn't that common. Thank you for completely missing the point. Or did you just ignore it?

And this study is somehow better then those...how?

The point is we don't know how many times firearms are used in self defense because users are not likely to come forward. As many uses go unreported, users are concerned about legal liability.

But lets say that this study is the golden fleece. For the sake of argument. 80,000 defensive gun uses occur in a year. That is still thousands of lives potentially saved. I consider that quite noteworthy.

Woo! It only took 8 posts to get to a variant of "Justice Thomas is a race-traitor!" That's gotta be a record. :pI'm not saying he is a race-traitor, I'm saying he is a self-hating black man, which is ironic considering he was put in the position to replace Thurgood Marshall as the "minority voice" on the bench.

This decision will definitely change the face of gun control debates.

I couldn't agree more. For gun control proponents, the big experiment that was D.C. was an utter failure. By outright banning guns period, the city has the largest number of gun crimes in the nation. When you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

I couldn't agree more. For gun control proponents, the big experiment that was D.C. was an utter failure. By outright banning guns period, the city has the largest number of gun crimes in the nation. When you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them.

I tend to disagree with this. I feel that the SC will play politics with this. I think that the SC will affirm the lower courts ruling, but will not make a definitive statement about the actual constitutionality of Gun Control as it exists in the US. It would be a victory for the gun rights groups, to be sure, but it won't be a Gettysburg by a long shot.

If you cannot trust someone with a gun, they should not be on the streets. Logically speaking, criminals go the path of least resistance. This equates to bringing guns to gun-free zones (such as a certain college campus in Virginia or a mall) and completely ignoring gun laws by purchasing under the counter. Sometimes legal gun-owners go crazy but they tend to go to the same areas above as well.

Criminals owning firearms despite not being *allowed* is a constant. Simultaneously the law-abiding cannot defend themselves where the law prohibits them from carrying, but the not the criminals since they do not follow the law. Thus we are presented with a situation where the good jump through hoops and circles to own a firearm and be allowed to use one to defend themselves (who are of good merit since they have yet to become violent criminals), and the evil do not.

Is this Justice? Delegating one's own personal protection as a matter of the state, and ONLY of the state as well as punishing the good? Such a proposition is absolutely ludicrous but time and time again I am seeing the same argument in real life and on this board.

I'm not a strict interpreter of the Constitution either, but I do agree with many of the principles it is founded upon. Laws may be subject to change, but principles are not.

Nobody thinks private gun ownership is unconstitutional. The issue is whether prohibiting (or severely restricting) private gun ownership is unconstitutional.
And that's just it ... "infringed" has already happened.

The United States is actually 24th when it comes to violent crime compared with the rest of the world.

Well, you know, we were probably 23rd before we invaded Iraq...

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.

Not so much. The 2nd. Amendment is the final tool for overthrow of tyranny. An armed man is a citizen, but an unarmed man can only be a subject. The Constitution places no restrictions on private citizens, only on government. Between amendment 2, 9, 10, and the state constitutions, you cannot show that there is no right to civilian gun ownership. All of the founding fathers wrote that the right to own and carry firearms was the right that maintained all others, written and unwritten, reserved to the people.

Translation of the second amendment into modern English: "Because a well-equipped population of citizen-soldiers is necessary for the continued existence of a free nation, the rights of all citizens to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form."

There are pro-gun people on the radical left here, too. What do you think Malcolm X meant when he said "by any means necessary"?

Others of us ask about the social and economic causes of crime. We ask "why is it that some people feel the need to shoot up a school?" We figure that if half as much effort was put into addressing mental illness, crime, poverty, and education as is put into the pro-/anti-gun control fight, something might actually get resolved.

Some of us also turn to basic property rights.

I've been in law enforcement since 2002. That said, here's a few noted quips about gun control:

1. Gun control means using both hands.

2. What do you call and unarmed citizen? A victim.

3. My home is protected by Smith & Wesson.

To all who believe that doing away with a citizen's right to own a gun will somehow lower the crime rate, I've got news for you...it WON'T! The reason is that the normal citizen buys a firearm outright at a store. This entails filling out the proper paperwork and showing I.D. Your average criminal goes to the street and buys a gun off of "T-Dog", which is unmarked and no I.D. is required. It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of brains to figure out that banning firearms in the U.S. won't keep criminals from getting their hands on one. If you're affraid of domestic issues and a husband or wife killing their spouse with a gun, then you best ban all sharp and blunt obtects as well because the leading weapon used, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, for 83% of domestic homicides is a friggin knife or blunt object! Have a nice day :sniper:

UPDATE:

DC v Heller is being heard right now. The SC will release audio tapes (lulz for oldliness), which will be broadcast on CSPAN right after the arguments conclude. It looks like I've finally found a use for channel 16 asides from PMQ.

UPDATE:

DC v Heller is being heard right now. The SC will release audio tapes (lulz for oldliness), which will be broadcast on CSPAN right after the arguments conclude. It looks like I've finally found a use for channel 16 asides from PMQ.

The Supreme court needs to update to Blu-Ray!

Send them telegrams with all due haste!

Click Stand;13536697']The Supreme court needs to update to Blu-Ray!

Send them telegrams with all due haste!

I plan on visiting them personally. I booked my ticket on the 3:00 Zepplin.

Well, the time has come. The most important Supreme Court case in decades is now being heard by the Supreme Court.

For those who need a little background, the case centers around whether the total ban on handgun ownership by private citizens in Washington DC is constituational or not. Two lower courts have said no, and the city of Washington DC is appealing to the Supreme Court accordingly.

Here's a wiki link with most of the briefs either side has filed:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Here's a link to the liveblog covering the Supreme Court right now.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

And here's a link to the Wikipedia article on the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

<SNIP>

There's already a thread on this...

This is an historic day!

May right and sense prevail, and this abominable connivance which has allowed such trampling on the face of liberty be expunged forever from the corpus of our laws.

The sooner weak-kneed and stammering fear of guns can be expelled from the public discourse on crime, and cast into the trash heap of red herrings where it belongs, the sooner we can deal with the real causes of crime and build a better and safer -and freer - society.

It would do America some good if they ruled that private gun ownership was unconstitutional, but I somehow doubt that they will.

How is this. In every country where guns have been banned the still have problems with guns but now no one can protect themselves.

It is high time we overturn this infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

Go Heller! Booooo DC. :D

Does anyone know how the orals went? Who seemed to lean in what direction?

Not so much. The 2nd. Amendment is the final tool for overthrow of tyranny. An armed man is a citizen, but an unarmed man can only be a subject. The Constitution places no restrictions on private citizens, only on government. Between amendment 2, 9, 10, and the state constitutions, you cannot show that there is no right to civilian gun ownership. All of the founding fathers wrote that the right to own and carry firearms was the right that maintained all others, written and unwritten, reserved to the people.

Translation of the second amendment into modern English: "Because a well-equipped population of citizen-soldiers is necessary for the continued existence of a free nation, the rights of all citizens to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form."

Um. I think you are right that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and carry firearms, but you added some language there at the end that isn't in the Amendment. The right to bear arms is no more an absolute right than the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. There are traditional and reasonable limits on that right, just as there are limits on freedom of speech.

EDIT: For those that are interested, here is a pdf transcript (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf) of the oral argument.

Um. I think you are right that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and carry firearms, but you added some language there at the end that isn't in the Amendment. The right to bear arms is no more an absolute right than the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. There are traditional and reasonable limits on that right, just as there are limits on freedom of speech.

Indeed. Most gunowners don't object to background checks to screen out violent felons, or insane people. The thing is, though, that so many governments in the US are treating the rights affirmed in the 2nd Amendment as a privilege, rather then a right. Speech can be restricted (Fire in theatre, etc), and who can get guns can be restricted. But how far can you reasonably restrict 2nd Amendment rights before they become infringed? That is the question that I hope the Supreme Court will answer. Unfortunately, I think I may be hoping in vain.

I'm hoping the court correctly reads the opening phrase of the amendment as an aside, and immaterial to the meaning of the amendment.

Unfortunately, we cannot elect the SC. Only then can the wishes of the people be respected.
The USSC isn't about the wishes of the people. It's about the rule of law.

This was for the best.

The voter abuse in Florida was pretty widespread - police roadblocks in predominately black areas and not helping out the Haitian community in their own language were the two biggies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1102806.stm
Your link from 2001 only alleges offenses. After a thorough investigation, not a single person was named that had their voting rights abused.

The USSC isn't about the wishes of the people. It's about the rule of law.
And a good thing, too.

I'm amazed this distinction doesn't make people realise what a bad idea electing judges is generally.

I'm hoping the court correctly reads the opening phrase of the amendment as an aside, and immaterial to the meaning of the amendment.

What makes you think that it is either an aside or immaterial? Do you have some means of contacting the authors that we're unfamiliar with?

The USSC isn't about the wishes of the people. It's about the rule of law.

The people wish to have judges that apply the rule of law correctly.

I'm hoping the court correctly reads the opening phrase of the amendment as an aside, and immaterial to the meaning of the amendment.

That would be a most strange thing for the Court to do -- given that none of the parties arguing proferred such a strained view of the Second Amendment. They all knew better. ;)

That would be a most strange thing for the Court to do -- given that none of the parties arguing proferred such a strained view of the Second Amendment. They all knew better. ;)

So CT, what did you think of the arguments overall? A general consensus among the gun blogs is that they weren't exactly up to par. Gura was a newbie so that's understandable but the SG and DC were both veterans.

What do you think the outcome will be?

What makes you think that it is either an aside or immaterial? Do you have some means of contacting the authors that we're unfamiliar with?
That argument's already been had.
That would be a most strange thing for the Court to do -- given that none of the parties arguing proferred such a strained view of the Second Amendment. They all knew better. ;)
I can still hope.

So CT, what did you think of the arguments overall? A general consensus among the gun blogs is that they weren't exactly up to par. Gura was a newbie so that's understandable but the SG and DC were both veterans.

Having read them and not listened to them, I wasn't that impressed by any of the presenters. But it is easy to judge from the sidelines.

One thing I did notice was a bizarre argument that Justice Scalia was making that, regardless of the ruling on individual rights, a ban on machine guns would be constitutional because machine guns are not in common use. Um, but why are machine guns not in common use ... could it be their legal status has an influence? :headbang: (Mr. Gura seemed to pick and try to run with this argument.)

What do you think the outcome will be?

I'm not sure. I think the Court will come down on the side of an individual right. And that probably means the complete handgun ban will be ruled unconstitutional. As to the trigger lock and other provisions, I'm not at all sure.

But it is very difficult to read the "tea leaves" as it were and predict what the Court will do. As Justice Breyer humorously pointed out, one can't assume that just because a Justice's question implies something or assumes something that the Justice actually believes in that implication or assumption. (If that sentence made sense. :p)

The USSC isn't about the wishes of the people. It's about the rule of law.

Exactly right, jurisprudence is anti-democratic elitism and should be abolished.

Exactly right, jurisprudence is anti-democratic elitism and should be abolished.

Indeed, we should all take note from Comrade Stalin's show trials.

Indeed, we should all take note from Comrade Stalin's show trials.

How were they 'show' trials, Zinoviev, Bukharin and the rest were all found guilty of treason. Your propaganda is just because you support the elitist model where only the rich can afford 'justice' and even then the law is in favour of bourgeois rights and freedom and the repression of working people is enshrined in both precedent and statute.

In the United States of America, for example, a country of 252 million inhabitants (in 1996), the richest country in the world, which consumes 60% of the world resources, how many people are in prison? What is the situation in the US, a country not threatened by any war and where there are no deep social changes affecting economic stability?

In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Home page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ) . The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8%, and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.

As far as the Soviet labour camps were concerned, it is true that the regime was harsh and difficult for the prisoners, but what is the situation today in the prisons of the US, which are rife with violence, drugs, prostitution, sexual slavery (290,000 rapes a year in US prisons). Nobody feels safe in US prisons! And this today, and in a society richer than ever before!

How were they 'show' trials, Zinoviev, Bukharin and the rest were all found guilty of treason. Your propaganda is just because you support the elitist model where only the rich can afford 'justice' and even then the law is in favour of bourgeois rights and freedom and the repression of working people is enshrined in both precedent and statute.

Blah blah blah bourgeoisie propaganda blah blah blah *insert revisionist history*


In the United States of America, for example, a country of 252 million inhabitants (in 1996), the richest country in the world, which consumes 60% of the world resources, how many people are in prison? What is the situation in the US, a country not threatened by any war and where there are no deep social changes affecting economic stability?

In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Home page, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ) . The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8%, and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.

As far as the Soviet labour camps were concerned, it is true that the regime was harsh and difficult for the prisoners, but what is the situation today in the prisons of the US, which are rife with violence, drugs, prostitution, sexual slavery (290,000 rapes a year in US prisons). Nobody feels safe in US prisons! And this today, and in a society richer than ever before!



No one denied that there are serious socio-econimic issues involved in the US that influence justice.

Im just pointing out that a Stalinist has no right to talk about "justice"

How were they 'show' trials, Zinoviev, Bukharin and the rest were all found guilty of treason. Your propaganda is just because you support the elitist model where only the rich can afford 'justice' and even then the law is in favour of bourgeois rights and freedom and the repression of working people is enshrined in both precedent and statute.

No, Andaras. We support a system where the facts of the matter are actually taken into account, and the law is upheld, regardless of station, or of the government's wish for people to be euther convicted or acquitted.

The system we have is not perfect, but at least there is the attempt. Zinoviev, Bukharin and the rest were found guilty because the state chose to find them so - regardless of the facts of the matter.

Do we have a problem isn the US, with overimprisonment, equality of representation, and social problems not being addressed? Most assuredly. But when the US government tried, not so long ago, to create show trials of it's chosen scapegraces, it was told you may not.

Vive la differance.

No, Andaras. We support a system where the facts of the matter are actually taken into account, and the law is upheld, regardless of station, or of the government's wish for people to be euther convicted or acquitted.

The system we have is not perfect, but at least there is the attempt. Zinoviev, Bukharin and the rest were found guilty because the state chose to find them so - regardless of the facts of the matter.

Do we have a problem isn the US, with overimprisonment, equality of representation, and social problems not being addressed? Most assuredly. But when the US government tried, not so long ago, to create show trials of it's chosen scapegraces, it was told you may not.

Vive la differance.
Where's your proof of your slanders against comrade Stalin's name?

The law, just like politics, religion, ideology etc, are always a representation of the material conditions of the day, and are used to justify the socio-economic system of the day. Thus bourgeois jurisprudence is a legal system written by rich men, amended by rich men, interpreted by rich men, and enforced by rich men.

Where's your proof of your slanders against comrade Stalin's name?

the USSR's own records?

Sigh. Yet another thread hyjacked by Andaras and co.

Where's your proof of your slanders against comrade Stalin's name?



Any real historical source would do.

the USSR's own records?
Such was the product of extremely well paid fabrication, appeared in the bourgeois press in the 1960s, always presented as true facts ascertained through the application of scientific method.

Behind these fabrications lurked the western secret services, mainly the CIA and MI5. The impact of the mass media on public opinion is so great that the figures are even today believed to be true by large sections of the population of Western countries.

This shameful situation has worsened. In the Soviet Union itself, where Solzhenitsyn and other well-known ‘critics’ such as Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev could find nobody to support their many fantasies, a significant change took place in 1990. In the new ‘free press’ opened up under Gorbachev, everything opposed to socialism was hailed as positive, with disastrous results. Unprecedented speculative inflation began to take place in the numbers of those who were alleged to have died or been imprisoned under socialism, now all mixed up into a single group of tens of millions of ‘victims’ of the communists.

The hysteria of Gorbachev’s new free press brought to the fore the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. At the same time Gorbachev opened up the archives of the Central Committee to historical research, a demand of the free press. The opening up of the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is really the central issue in this tangled tale, this for two reasons: partly because in the archives can be found the facts that can shed light on the truth. But even more important is the fact that those speculating wildly on the number of people killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union had all been claiming for years that the day the archives were opened up the figures they were citing would be confirmed. Every one of these speculators in the dead and incarcerated claimed that this would be the case: Conquest, Sakharov, Medvedev, and all the rest. But when the archives were opened up and research reports based on the actual documents began to be published a very strange thing happened. Suddenly both Gorbachev’s free press nor the speculators in dead and incarcerated completely lost interest in the archives.

The results of the research carried out on the archives of the Central Committee by Russian historians Zemskov, Dougin and Xlevnjuk, which began to appear in scientific journals as from 1990, went entirely unremarked. The reports containing the results of this historical research went completely against the inflationary current as regards the numbers who were being claimed by the ‘free press’ to have died or been incarcerated. Therefore their contents remained unpublicised. The reports were published in low-circulation scientific journals practically unknown to the public at large. Reports of the results of scientific research could hardly compete with the press hysteria, so the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn continued to gain the support of many sectors of the former Soviet Union’s population. In the West also, the reports of the Russian researchers on the penal system under Stalin were totally ignored on the front pages of newspapers, and by TV news broadcasts. Why?

Any real historical source would do.

But I thought Stalin's personal journals were real sources...

:(:confused::(

The proof came out in 1988. Zinoviev et al's trial records were opened to piblic scrutiny for the first time, showing that they were not permitted to defend themselves, were tortured into giving false confessions, and that the results had been preordained from Stalin's office. All of this, incidentally, being quite utterly in violation of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - a document bearing the signatures of, among others, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, and Josef Stalin.

Shortly after, the convictions were quashed.

That argument's already been had.


Then you'll be able to provide me with the evidence.

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita):

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people


Enough said?

Such was the product of extremely well paid fabrication, appeared in the bourgeois press in the 1960s, always presented as true facts ascertained through the application of scientific method.

Behind these fabrications lurked the western secret services, mainly the CIA and MI5. The impact of the mass media on public opinion is so great that the figures are even today believed to be true by large sections of the population of Western countries.

This shameful situation has worsened. In the Soviet Union itself, where Solzhenitsyn and other well-known ‘critics’ such as Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev could find nobody to support their many fantasies, a significant change took place in 1990. In the new ‘free press’ opened up under Gorbachev, everything opposed to socialism was hailed as positive, with disastrous results. Unprecedented speculative inflation began to take place in the numbers of those who were alleged to have died or been imprisoned under socialism, now all mixed up into a single group of tens of millions of ‘victims’ of the communists.

The hysteria of Gorbachev’s new free press brought to the fore the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. At the same time Gorbachev opened up the archives of the Central Committee to historical research, a demand of the free press. The opening up of the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is really the central issue in this tangled tale, this for two reasons: partly because in the archives can be found the facts that can shed light on the truth. But even more important is the fact that those speculating wildly on the number of people killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union had all been claiming for years that the day the archives were opened up the figures they were citing would be confirmed. Every one of these speculators in the dead and incarcerated claimed that this would be the case: Conquest, Sakharov, Medvedev, and all the rest. But when the archives were opened up and research reports based on the actual documents began to be published a very strange thing happened. Suddenly both Gorbachev’s free press nor the speculators in dead and incarcerated completely lost interest in the archives.

The results of the research carried out on the archives of the Central Committee by Russian historians Zemskov, Dougin and Xlevnjuk, which began to appear in scientific journals as from 1990, went entirely unremarked. The reports containing the results of this historical research went completely against the inflationary current as regards the numbers who were being claimed by the ‘free press’ to have died or been incarcerated. Therefore their contents remained unpublicised. The reports were published in low-circulation scientific journals practically unknown to the public at large. Reports of the results of scientific research could hardly compete with the press hysteria, so the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn continued to gain the support of many sectors of the former Soviet Union’s population. In the West also, the reports of the Russian researchers on the penal system under Stalin were totally ignored on the front pages of newspapers, and by TV news broadcasts. Why?

Blah blah blah bourgeois propaganda blah blah blah

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country:

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people


Enough said?

Not really. South Africa has quite strong restriction on Firearms, yet rates highest. Switzerland probably has the highest gun ownership rate on earth, but isn't even on the list.

Gun ownership is not the problem. Our culture and access to illegal guns are the more important aspects.

Blah blah blah bourgeois propaganda blah blah blah
More inane one-liners because you can't answer my statement?

I thought as much.

Not really. South Africa has quite strong restriction on Firearms, yet rates highest. Switzerland probably has the highest gun ownership rate on earth, but isn't even on the list.

Gun ownership is not the problem. Our culture and access to illegal guns are the more important aspects.

Moreso, this thread is about the 2nd Amendment. Weather you agree with it or not, it's there. And it's meaning it being decided.

More inane one-liners because you can't answer my statement?

I thought as much.

No Andaras, everyone can answer your statements, its just, why bother? We know exactly what you are going to say:

"That belief is the result of bourgeois propaganda and right wing lies based on stories fabricated by the CIA and other members of the bourgeois to smear the name of socialism."


Then, you'll parrot more pro-Stalin crap from one of your revisionist historians, and the same thing will happen again.

I would like to review those pieces you mention, Andaras (History is my career, after all). Can you give me the names of the journals and publicaton dates?

Is Andaras a satire?

Is Andaras a satire?

apparently not. but would be pretty good at it i imagine.

Is Andaras a satire?

No.

Not really. South Africa has quite strong restriction on Firearms, yet rates highest.
Strong restriction with no enforcement = trouble.

Switzerland probably has the highest gun ownership rate on earth, but isn't even on the list.
It has the highest gun ownership because individuals have to serve a mandatory service in the militia:

Switzerland has the largest militia army in the world (220,000 including reserves). Military service for Swiss men is obligatory according to the Federal Constitution, and includes 18 or 21 weeks of basic training (depending on troop category) as well as annual 3-week-refresher courses until a number of service days which increases with rank (260 days for privates) is reached.

Also the Swiss have greater gun control than most would think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Carrying_guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Conditions_for_getting_a_Carrying_Permit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Transporting_guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Buying_ammunition

A lot different then the US??

Gun ownership is not the problem. Our culture and access to illegal guns are the more important aspects.
Criminals have access to stolen guns. Far too many guns are stolen annually in the US due to careless owners.

Florida has some of the most liberal gun laws in the US, and in 2006, the murder rate by firearms increased by 42% and was up again by another 19.7% for the first 6 months of 2007, as was robbery with a firearm by 27.2%, and aggravated assault with a firearm by 8.9%.

Robbery by firearm was up in 2006 by 20%, and aggravated assault by firearm was up 5.8%.

Firearms stolen first 6 months of 2007 = $4,367,816
Firearms stolen on 2006 = $7,967,751

Murder in Florida with firearms has increased 47.4% since 2001

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/download/pdf/firearms_2006.pdf

And at which point are you going to start exorcising this protection? It appears from my observations that the only thing that might get American's up enough to use there guns to protect their rights is if an attempt is made to remove their guns. Everything else seems to be accepted, which seems some what pointless to me!

Well, that was (sorta) the original idea. If that right were infringed, you'd know the time for a new revolution was here. it's a shame that so much else has been eroded already, but greed has brought america low.

Not really. South Africa has quite strong restriction on Firearms, yet rates highest. Switzerland probably has the highest gun ownership rate on earth, but isn't even on the list.

Gun ownership is not the problem. Our culture and access to illegal guns are the more important aspects.

I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more.
So changing American gun culture must be the answer then.

Is Andaras a satire?

That's the only logical explanation.

So changing American gun culture must be the answer then.
That and getting rid of the illegal guns. :D


* queue Mission Impossible theme.....

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita):

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people


Enough said?
Not at all. Being murdered with a gun isn't any worse than being murdered by any other means. I'd much rather look at violent crime or murder rates geenrally to see if gun ownership had a positive or negaitve effect on those.

After all, a society with some guns will feature more gun crime than a society with no guns, but if that society with no guns has more murders and violent crime overall, is it still better?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Thank you.

Strong restriction with no enforcement = trouble.

Except that they do enforce it. Therefore, your argument = fail

Except that they do enforce it. Therefore, your argument = fail

American culture and even in some states laws push forward the idea of aggressive 'self-defense' which pervade the idea that gun crime is acceptable.

American culture and even in some states laws push forward the idea of aggressive 'self-defense' which pervade the idea that gun crime is acceptable.

Um...Self-defense is not criminal.

Um...Self-defense is not criminal.

'Self-defense' as in going and gunning some hapless guy down for coming onto your property. Either way self-defense is what the police are for.

'Self-defense' as in going and gunning some hapless guy down for coming onto your property. Either way self-defense is what the police are for.

So if someone is robbing myself, you are basically saying that I should not defend my home.

Yea...now I know you are a crack addict.

Except that they do enforce it. Therefore, your argument = fail
Your supporting documentation would determine that?

'Self-defense' as in going and gunning some hapless guy down for coming onto your property. Either way self-defense is what the police are for.

It's kinda silly to rely on the police for self defense. Police can't be there all the time. You are responsible for yourself.

Either way self-defense is what the police are for.

Illogical statement is illogical.

'Self-defense' as in going and gunning some hapless guy down for coming onto your property. Either way self-defense is what the police are for.

1. Police are under no legal obligation to protect you. There is no requirement for a police officer to go into harms way to prevent harm to a citizen, whether on duty or off.

2. Police response times are terrible. All they can usually do is collect evidence and call the coroner. This is even assuming you manage to call the cops in the midst of being the victim of armed robbery, murder, rape etc.

3. If the police do it, it's police defense, not self-defense. Where do police get their powers, anyway? We delegate OUR authority to THEM. THEY serve the PEOPLE at the will of the PEOPLE. How could we give them the power to do something we are not permitted to do ourselves?

4. Violent crime rates are highest in the areas with the MOST firearms restrictions. Kind of counter-intuitive, isn't it? And most of these crimes stem from gang conflict, not regular citizens going bonkers and blowing away their neighbors.

4. Violent crime rates are highest in the areas with the MOST firearms restrictions.
Proof please.

Proof please.

Although the URLs seem to be misleading, the information presented has citations.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

www.gunfacts.info