Gun crazy?
The DC Gun Law ruling is of profound importance - it enshrines the indvidual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.
The US Constitution says "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".
Errr, what does that mean?
Now we know. Or at least five individuals decided they knew (the majority side in the court) and that is that.
For the first time, the court has ruled that it means individuals - settling the matter for at least a generation and probably longer.
You can disagree with the majority view, but you cannot escape from it if you live in the United States.
So what effect on the political debate? I suspect not much, but for a look at Obama's potential difficulties this is useful.
Meanwhile on a lighter note...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I've always thought that the bigger question was if it is constitutional to require licenses or other things to limit who got guns.
As an American, I believe in the right to bear arms, but I think as it is, there needs to be better regulation as to who gets a gun, seeing how so many mentally unstable people are getting them.
Anyway, back to the main point of the article. I think that the DC ban on handguns and the tight regulation of rifles was going too far, especially in the nations capital, the home of the constitution! I personally don't see how the constitution isn't clear in the matter of the right to bear arms, so I think the ruling was in general a good one.
Complain about this comment
Bob Barr just released a statement expressing his support of the Heller Decision - calling it “One of Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty”. See it at [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Hi Justin - as a Brit living in Wyoming where there are 4 guns for every person in the State, and the violent crime rate is far less than rural england, I aplaud this decision. All our rights in UK have been diluted or cancelled out by various laws that we have few left now. This underlines the right of the individual for self determination and personal responsibility.
Complain about this comment
At least I get to keep my guns, I'm still
waiting to hear about my religion.
Complain about this comment
I am very relieved that the DC handgun ban was overturned! As a single female, I believe it is very important to be able to own guns for protection. On two different occasions someone has tried to come in my house unannounced. Having a couple of pistols and a shotgun atleast gives me the peace of mind to know that if someone were to get in, I would be able to protect myself.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Webb: The facts have been documented again and again--those states where handgun ownership is legal and widespread experience much LOWER levels of violent crime.
I don't own a handgun. I don't need a handgun, with the bucolic life we live, but many of my friends do actually need to carry for their own protection.
A friend's father survived an armed holdup in which he was severely wounded, because he was able to return fire. He was a grocer, ambushed in his home's driveway because the criminals believed he carried cash from the store. He would be dead, were it not for the revolver he carried, and knew how to use. One bandit was wounded, and both are still in prison as a result.
DC's reputation for violent crime is well-earned, because only the lawless were carrying guns! Let's see what happens when the law-abiding are allowed to defend themselves. I predict, with confidence, that the violent crime rate will drop in coming years, especially if the courts begin adding years to sentences because a gun was used in the commission of a felony. The laws are already on the books, and are effective, if the courts will enforce them.
The local proverb says it all: 'Real gun control is the ability to hit where you aim!'
Bless the Supreme Court, they got this one right.
Complain about this comment
As all the restrictions and bans in the UK have totally failed to check an ever upward trend in gun crime, perhaps the Supreme Court has a point. The trouble is that most people think with their emotions on this issue and don’t bother with the facts. High levels of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens does not result in high levels of gun crime.
Try looking up Kennesaw, Georgia on Google.
Complain about this comment
The Supreme Court's slip opinion on this matter, in its opening paragraph, reads that the District of Columbia's law required gun owners to keep their weapons "dissembled." This can't be what was meant, since it means that the firearms were to be kept "hidden under a false appearance."
Complain about this comment
YES
Complain about this comment
Justin, I think this was a precarious decision by the group we call "The Supremes" on these shores. While gun-rights supporters are popping champagne corks, many of the rest of us are hoping we won't be shot by what will surely be more (legal) gun owners.
I predict there will be an uptick in "accidental" shootings as well as more incidents of deaths from children accessing their parents' firearms.
I've long believed in the original language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment - that guns are intended to be for a "well-regulated Militia", that is, for military purposes. But as I've read other blog posts on this site and others, I've come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment needs to be revisited. The original framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the large number of firearms in the U.S., nor the enormous industry it has become. I'm sure they also would pale at some of the more egregious acts of gun violence over here as well.
One of the more controversial aspects of gun use is "self-defense". With xenophobia running rampant over here, many ordinary folks want to be able to just blow away anyone that scares them. The self-defense plea, already overused in my opinion, is going to be overworked to the point of collapse now. I'm an African American and racist whites over here that fear guys like me (even though I'm college-educated, that's irrelevant in their minds) like the "security" offered by firearms. If someone scowls or reaches in a manner that causes them to panic, there WILL be a shooting, perhaps a fatal one. Watch for that "I was shooting in self-defense" alibi from the States over the next 10 years, it will be used often.
If gun bans are now illegal, then the only alternative will be to make the process for obtaining guns much more strenuous so as to discourage it. Or to more narrowly define when guns may be carried, such as for specific occupations.
Also, it's sad that a country that has so much potential in the fields of science, technology and medicine has so large a number of people that just have a visceral need to be able to blow someone else away. Such individuals gave "Bush 43" a second term and, by extension, the Supreme Court that we must, unfortunately live with. I have never been a fan of Scalia, an incredibly arrogant "jurist", and never will.
Complain about this comment
D.C. v. Heller was brought on by the overreaching of gun control advocates in attempting to prohibit people from defending themselves in their homes. I am not surprised by the ruling that the people do have the right to defend themselves in their homes, and even though I am an advocate of gun controls, I am not too much bothered by the ruling, as is, for example, one of my senators, Feinstein, who is known as an advocate of gun control legislation.
The Supreme Court did not rule out gun control legislation, and the more interesting question for me is what forms of regulation will be acceptable following this ruling.
Complain about this comment
We all await the dire predictions from abroad that all of the US will now become "The Wild West", awash with guns, with people shooting one another over the last celery stick in the salad bar.
The Brady Campaign will declare victory for those opposed to gun ownership and request massive donations to keep up the success.
Time will tell, as time has told over the last 2 decades, that allowing honest, law-abiding citizens the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms does not increase crime and violence.
Complain about this comment
Wow! I told myself to stay out of this discussion but I can't. I have been torn on the subject of gun control for a long time.
Wyomingpat, oklahomagirl oldsouth: I have to agree with all three of you. I grew up around guns, living in the rural Southwest. As a young woman I often traveled the desert alone and I carried a gun for rattlesnakes, both the two legged and the other kind. I never had to use it but I was glad I had it.
However, one thing that worries me is that children have gotten their hands on a gun and have killed school mates. Use of guns by gang members in some urban areas has increased. I don't know what the answer is but I do not think that a national gun ban will ever happen in the USA, at least not in my lifetime.
Complain about this comment
I like guns. I used to be a member of the NRA. When I was a kid I got a number of NRA marksmanship medals. I used to own a rifle and I had a shooting range on my property.
But...
As much as I like and am rather fascinated by guns, I don't *need* a gun the way some folks seem to.
When I was a kid, the NRA was all about responsible gun ownership and usage. They emphasized training in how to shoot and how to safely transport and store guns.
But the NRA have got nuttier and more extreme over the last few decades.
What finished me with the NRA was when they opposed putting chemical tags into commercial explosives... Which would have made it easier for law enforcement to backtrack terrorists from bomb residue. And the NRA opposed that!?
The pro-gun lobby has the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do" and I think that is true...
The difference is that I'd like to point out that a lot of people in this country are killing people with guns and the only solution that the gun-lobby suggests is to arm the victims. Great!
The problem in this country is that people own guns for really strange reasons. They seem to buy them because of some underlying feeling of inadequacy or because they are reserving the right to violently overthrow their local town government if they get too many parking tickets. Or massacre their boss if he dis's them at work.
I am struck by the fact that countries like Sweden, Switzerland, and Israel that have universal military service for men and where reservists are usually required to have fully automatic military assault rifles in their homes have such low levels of gun violence.
And in the US one rarely hears about military vet's going on shooting sprees although as a group they are certainly into guns and hunting.
So, yeah; "Guns don't kill people, people do."
We aren't going to get rid of the guns, so now what do we do about those darn people.
I don't know what the answer is but requiring really rigorous training for gun owners might be a good idea... And, for damn sure, we should hold gun owners responsible for their mistakes.
We had a hunter up in Maine a few years ago shoot a housewife hanging out the laundry. I don't think he was allowed to have her stuffed and mounted but, apart from that, he got off with a wrist slap.
And somewhere in the midwest, a homeowner shot a Japanese exchange student who mistakenly knocked on his door looking for a Halloween party that was being held down the street.
The Japanese student was unarmed... And this was not a high crime neighborhood. But the home owner answers the door with a gun in his hand and shoots some kid... Why? Because he was a stranger? Because he was oriental? And, again, he got off with a slap on the wrist. I don't think they even took his gun permit away.
My feeling is that, if you own a gun, you should be held responsible for what you do with it. If your home is invaded and you shoot the bad guys... You should get applauded and be given the keys to the city.
But if you shoot your wife with it or threaten your neighbor because his radio's too loud... Or shoot some tourist who knocks on your door... Then you should go to jail.
Complain about this comment
So the citizens of the "capitol of the free world" can carry a gun but not cast a vote in the presidential election! And are more eager to fight for their right to a gun than to vote Most people in the rest of the would find that a bit wierd, which is more important, a gun or a vote? To the Americans it is obviously a gun, to most of Europe it's the vote, no wonder America's foreign policy is so messed up!
Complain about this comment
At times life in the UK can be very frustrating - high petrol prices, congested roads, surveillance society, high taxes, no proper constitution, a Government that can and does run roughshod over our freedoms and liberty, but on two subjects at least - guns and healthcare - we definitely live on the more civilised side of the Atlantic Ocean.
The decision on guns was predictable, but sad. How many Americans will die as a result of the insane idea that everyone should all be allowed to carry weapons which have no other function than to kill and maim?
Complain about this comment
The responses which lean against the USSC decision seem to be way overblown.
The decision does very little, if anything, in the area of "gun control".
The USSC decision did only two things:
1. It formalized what the large majority of Americans have always assumed: that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own guns, and is not limited only to the National Guard and Reserves.
2. It affirmed that "reasonable" gun control laws and regulations are permissible if valid rationale can be articulated. In this affirmation, it held that absolute bans are not "reasonable".
Item 2. above is a "full employment" ruling for lawyers, as there will be massive litigation about what "reasonable" actually means. Similar litigation has been going on for many decades and will continue for many more.
Complain about this comment
Its a tragic situation when people a "applaud the decision" and "Bless the Supreme Court" for maintaining the right to bear arms. America is gone my friends, long gone straight down the pan. Too late now, but how can the right to bear arms lead to peace, my rootin' tootin' cowboy friends? I mean just for a second, forget Clint Eastwood, if you can, and think. No guns = no gun crime. If you think it is right that people should bear arms, do not complain how terribly terrible it is when a raging lunatic, no doubt middle class, white and messed in the head from listening to too much Metallica stampedes a University bearing arms killing innocent people. It is not rocket science. Until the next University. Here's to you OldSouth...
Complain about this comment
illiniwathcer, #10, considering that the
long rifle was invented in Pennsylvania,
I think that it would be hard to make the
case that the framers of the constitution
intended to restrict private ownership
of firearms in any way.
In fact, firearms were as essential a tool
for survival in 18th century as the dishwasher
is today. And, if anybody comes to take
my dishwasher away, I'm moving to another
country.
Complain about this comment
I agree with SalemDesign - the two incidents he mentions mean that the penalties for bad gun usage must be escalated. Slaps on the wrist simply send a message that "undesirables" can be indiscriminately taken out with a wink from the state. That's not what the U.S. is supposed to be about, is it?
Complain about this comment
I am an American and personally do not carry a gun. Having been raised in a community that eschews guns, I still find them frightening, mysterious, and overwhelming. However, I do believe that American individuals should have the right to bear arms and I do agree that there are many wonderful, law-abiding citizens in this country who do own guns and do not feel an urge to blow someone else away. This type of thinking and accusing is irrational and inaccurate. It's important to remember that firing a gun is a choice. Holding or owning a gun obviously doesn't somehow make someone a killer. The person has to CHOOSE to be a killer.
My sister, who lives in NYC, was mugged at gunpoint (to her head) in Washington D.C. very recently. Clearly this ban on guns in the capital hasn't protected innocent American citizens. I don't know that having a gun with her would have helped in that situation, but other situations may allow for self defense. Furthermore, it seems only reasonable that a citizen should be allowed a fighting chance, even if he/she doesn't succeed. It's not rational to think that you can wait for the police to arrive.
Lastly, the right for an individual to bear arms is vital so that citizens can protect themselves in disasters (think of the plundering after Hurricane Katrina) and also so that they can protect themselves from abuses of their own government.
While I maintain my position that citizens should have the right to bear arms, there should be background checks and maybe even mental health clearance for this privilege. And while I feel that this should be protected as an individual right, I personally don't intent to buy or start carrying a gun anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
What you all and most Americans miss is this has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection but everything to do with protecting ones self and community from excesses of the federal government.
The bear arms bit is always quoted but the right to form a militia is rarely done so.
Being a member of an enactment society I have seen how the Feds hate this and always have agents at rehearsals, 'cos you can bet if the people in these societies have old weapons they will have new, and generally are of a like mind. This is in essence a militia, and under this amendment we as a people are allowed to form.
I do not wish to induce or incite anything here, but make sure that if our weapons were taken from us the potential for a government like the UK has, or even in an extreme worse case like Zimbabwe has that is oppressive, restrictive and excessive could form without any concern that its population could, if needs be, remove it.
Complain about this comment
"For the first time, the court has ruled that it means individuals - settling the matter for at least a generation and probably longer."
Yes and it took the wrong decision!!! This is bull!!! The constitution clearly states "a well regulated milissia"! That clearly means millitary means only-its so obvious!!! What were the justices smoking!! This sucks!! Now more people will own guns, more people will accidently, accidently on purpose, or just flat out dilibrately kill others, more victoms will suffer, and perhaps worst of all the US's reputation abroad will slide ever and ever closer to the point of no return!!! This isn't fair!! If the second amendment said something governing capitle punishment or the drinking age for instance, then guns would've been banned years ago!!!
The UK did it a decade ago for goodness sake!! And though they are experiencing a temperorary spike in gun crime at the moment, I'm sure things will settle down soon!!! Please don't be foolled UK citizens that our gun laws are the better solution to gun crime!!!
Complain about this comment
No doubt, gun owners should be responsible. Common sense really should come into play at some point. Guns should be kept out of reach of small children.
And here's an off the wall idea - why not teach gun safety in school? Kids could then grow up knowing how to properly and safely handle a gun and have respect for it. That would also cut down on people being anti-guns just because they have never been around them and don't know the facts.
Complain about this comment
I too believe the Framers of the Constitution meant that arms should be available for the well regulated militia. They could never have envisaged the easy availability and low cost of guns in our day.
We will see more classroom shooting sprees, more children injured in gun accidents. Those Americans I know who advocate gun ownership are most frightening in the extremity of their passion on the subject. Let them get on with it.
Complain about this comment
It is important not to impose foreign cookie-cutter views about American culture. Each society is built upon specific tenants. This does not mean that all cultures are static, however if one does not understand a countries socio-political history (where its roots are), it is almost impossible to understand why a society is structured in a certain way.
The Framers did not fully contemplate affirmative rights within the American Constitutional system. Following the American Revolution – a revolt against the excessive interferences of the British Crown in everyday life—the framers desired to protect negative rights to ensure that government was as small as possible to mitigate governmental interference with individual liberty.
As Sunstein writes a negative rights focused constitution, “is best understood as a bulwark of liberty, properly conceived; and a constitution that protects “positive” rights can be no such bulwark, because it requires government action, rather than creating a wall of immunity around individual citizens.”
Therefore, in the United States, there is absolutely NO requirement under the FEDERAL CONSITUTION for police to protect individuals. This is famously exemplified in the tragic DeShaney case- where a child was beaten by his 'guardian' and social services was not held liable for failing to protect him.
In short, American gun laws come in a history steeped -for better or for worse- in a negative rights based society. Private rights trump public entitlements and it seems that is why the court rulled that guns are a protected private right.
Complain about this comment
God bless America!
Back home in my neck of the woods the second amendment might as well be another divine commandment.
In my home state of Oregon my sister keeps an AK-47 by her bed, and I keep a pistol in my truck, you could even drive around with one in the chamber if you want,
Go down to California way and that's all illegal, my sister's rifle and my 15 round clips are banned as 'assault weapons' there.
I was worried that the Supreme Court would make the wrong decision like when they let the big companies abuse the eminent domain clause of the constitution to steal private land to build strip malls.
I'm relieved that we're not going to go down the road of a totalitarian police state.
Because the second amendment wasn't upheld today, we would soon be loosing the first.
Complain about this comment
laughingdevil (#15) is mistaken when he asserts that residents of the District of Columbia cannot vote in presidential elections. D.C. in fact has three electoral votes, which is the same number that they would have if they were a state.
Complain about this comment
Justin writes "and that is that." Perhaps for now, but should a Democrat be returned to The White House and a vacancy occurs on the Court, an individual who matches the dissenting minority view could be installed, after all, it was only one Justice who made this decision possible. As some conservatives want Roe v Wade overturned, it is just as likely that this ruling can be voided - eventually.
Although unsuccessful for FDR, it might be possible to add more justices to the Court, which in (many) years past was done, but perhaps like FDR, that would be opposed by both parties. We seem to be stuck at nine, so an appointment by a new Democratic President would likely be the best that can be done.
Complain about this comment
Illiniwatcher points out about accidental shootings. Yes training is an issue. Moving here from the UK I find that drivers here do not have a clue which is why there are so many accidents on the roads - way higher than Europe. That does not mean ban driving. It means better training.
There are so many facilities here for training in firearms - often nearly free. Local Sheriffs offices and police depts often have training courses. As an ex Royal Marine I went for 2 local courses initially to ensure my own and others safety. I then went for a course at one of the leading centres - Frontsight in Nevada. Safety is of the highest importance. A minimum of 18 hours training is required to get a "carry" permit but that is only just a start.
Complain about this comment
I'm shocked and saddened.
The law that made the District of Columbia one of the safest cities in the nation, if not the world, has been dismantled.
I predict a sudden wave of violence on the streets as criminals with guns begin to prey on law-abiding citizens.
Oh, wait, silly me, that's already happened.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who keeps a gun must really love their fellow human!
Complain about this comment
salemdesign:
I find your comments on the mark, as usual. I agree to some of what you said. With gun ownership comes responsibility and accountability. Perhaps in some places people have gotten away with shooting others and had no real consequences. (Can we mention a certain VP?)
However, in my part of the US, recently, a well respected school teacher was sentenced to a prison term for shooting a fellow hiker even though the teacher claimed he did this in self defense.
The other man, supposedly encouraged his two unleashed dogs to attack the teacher and people familiar with this man testified that they had been menaced in the past by this person. The jury found that deadly force was not warranted and found the teacher guilty of murder.
Complain about this comment
I think that the Supreme Court made the right decision in interpreting the constitution.
People should be allowed to carry guns, but only weapons that are from the era that the constitution was written.
I'm sure that the number of killings would drop across the country, just think:
There would be few drive by musket shootings or depressed students having to carry a brace of pistols to kill class mates.
And shootings during rainy weather would probably dramatically fall.
I think it's hard for Brits and many Europeans to understand the gun culture of the US. There are many strict laws and it has never really been indicative of the said societies.
Where as it has been part of the American Psyche eversince the War of Independence (or English Civil War 2), and then further enhanced by the migration in to frontiers and the wild west.
Complain about this comment
Guns have only one purpose - to kill. Of course crime can be carried out without guns, but as well as making it easier to defend yourself, they also make it a lot easier for a potential perpetrator to carry out a crime. If someone carries out a robbery with a firearm, the chance of fatalities is much higher than if the robbery was being carried out with a less lethal weapon.
It would be nice to be able to let good people have guns and prevent bad people from obtaining them. Unfortunately, this is an impossiblity. Easy access to firearms means that criminals will get their hands on them.
Statistics seem to vary considerably about gun deaths in the US, but regardless of what the real numbers are, it is a solid fact that if guns did not exist in society, gun crime would not exist either.
The US is too saturated with guns to be able to ban them completely. If this step was taken, innocent law abiding citizens would hand in their guns, but most criminals wouldn't lose any sleep over keeping their guns, even if it was against the law. This gives some truth to the saying about "ban guns and only the criminals will have them." The constitutional right to bear arms has dug a big hole for the American people, and it's not easy to see a way out.
I'm thankful I live in a country where, although I do not have access to a firearm, neither does the guy who has something against me. I'm glad I don't feel that I need a firearm to protect myself - if I wake up some night and my home is being burgled, my baseball bat is all I should need for protection.
Complain about this comment
The debate on 'gun control' in America is so vehemently fought, buy so many people, so few of whom are informed about history...
The flash point event that sparked the American Revolution was an attempt by British Army Regulars to confiscate the weapons store of the Colonial Militia at Concord. Understanding this makes the language of the Second Amendment understandable. Militias are the right of a free people, and no government has the right to confiscate the people's weapons; to do so violates their right to form militias.
When the Amendments to the Constitution were written, the Constitution was not yet the 'Law of the Land', and many States feared an attempt by the Federalist Party to use that document to create a new monarchy. To prevent this, the States counted on their militias to balance the power of the Continental Army.
If the Federal Government had not guaranteed the States their militias. America would still be under the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to allow the States to defend themselves from tyranny by the Federal Government.
This, incidentally, is also why the Constitution establishes a standing Navy, but not a standing Army. A Navy defends a Nation, but cannot be used to suppress that Nation. In a nation of citizens armed with military-quality weapons (which is what the American Citizen of 179- had hanging over their fireplace) what purpose can a standing Army serve other than suppression of the people?
Sadly, this does mean that America must pay for it's freedom with the blood of innocents.
Thomas Jefferson warned America that freedom would be expensive, and it's one of America's tasks to re-visit this question every generation or so to decide if the price is one that is still worth paying.
Complain about this comment
kframe19, I hate to disappoint you, but
Washington, D.C. is not "one of the safest
cities in the nation." It is, in fact, about
the 18th most violent.
It must be completely unlivable. According
to city-data.com, in 2006 it had a crime rate
of 669.5, compared to San Jose, a city
which I feel comfortable frequenting, which
has a crime index of 259.1.
I remember DC as being the pits since
my early days on the east coast. What
else can you say about a town where the
mayor was arrested for smoking crack,
and was re-elected anyway?
Complain about this comment
The Court's decision is wrong. I hope it is eventually overturned by another court, as other mistaken decisions have been.
The tangled wording of the Second Amendment leaves it amenable to multiple interpretations. But, it is obvious that the language about a "well regulated militia" was included for a reason. If the Framers wanted only to recognize and guarantee a right to own guns, they would not have included extraneous language about state militias.
At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, militia members were typically expected to bring their own weapons when called to militia duty. If the Bill of Rights was drafted today, I have no doubt that it would contain no reference to an alleged right to bear arms. Guns would be treated much as we treat cars and driving, i.e., as a privilege.
Obvious differences exist between hunters in sparsely populated areas owning rifles and people in dense urban areas owning weapons whose only purpose is the death of other people. As it is forced to allow its citizens to own guns, I hope the District of Columbia employs severe and innovative regulations to control their use and restrict their possession.
Remember, no one has ever been murdered by a gun that pulled its own trigger.
Complain about this comment
#36: What right to form militias? The people do not have the right to form militias. Nor should they.
The attempt to seize arsenals at Lexington and Concord may have been the ocassion of the first conflict of the revolution, but it is disingenuous, if not deliberate distortion, to frame those attempted seizures as the impetus for the revolution.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Webb: You opined, 'Errr, what does that mean?'
It means this:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HellerOpinion.pdf
This is a copy of the opinion--and the heading syllabus explains the clear language and meaning of the Constitution in clear language.
It is not mysterious--not open to spinning or parsing. The Founders used plain, clear language, and were unequivocal.
God bless the memory of the Founding Fathers, who knew that only a written Constitution, with a Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the people's right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the reservation of powers to the states and people, would prevent tyranny from overtaking us.
We live in a free country because of their sacrifices and wisdom, and may we ever remember them, and defend the freedoms they put in place for us.
Complain about this comment
Very few American gun owners (and I'm not one) will ever give up his gun voluntarily. Indeed, a few would even engage in a gun battle to preserve what they see as their constitutional right to possess one. This decision simply stops the government from trying to seize these weapons and in the process saves us from some ugly confrontations. I think we have too many handguns, but I agree with the decision for pragmatic reasons.
Complain about this comment
re: #34 copperCrashBandicoot
"People should be allowed to carry guns, but only weapons that are from the era that the constitution was written."
And, of course you accept that your free speech right to such advocacy exists only for your unaided voice, a goose-quill pen and parchment, and a manual printing press.
Complain about this comment
justcorbly -
The people do not have the right to form a militia, the States have that right.
And I'm not claiming that the skirmish at Concord was the reason for the Revolution, I'm saying that it is the reason for the Second Amendment.
The Constitution was not the document that America's 'Founding Fathers' chose as the basis for the government of the American Nation - the Articles of Confederation were (adopted 1777). The Constitution was put forward by the Federalist Party almost a decade after the founding of America (adopted 1788).
The adoption of the Constitution was not a universal decision, and it started a battle over State's Rights that continues to this day, although most of that battle was decided in 1865.
The Constitution and it's Amendments must be understood in the context of the political reality that surrounded its creation and ratification.
Complain about this comment
#40 oldsouth
Well said.
I have asked myself the question regarding how far we could trust our government if our rights were not clearly stated and supported by our constitution. Also, how free we would remain if we had no means of defending ourselves. We have seen how our rights have been flouted with impunity by this administration.
Someone mentioned what is happening in Zimbabwe. Can we, as Americans think we will continue to be immune from tyranny if we do not remain vigilant in protecting the rights of all our citizens.
Complain about this comment
The Los Angeles Times currently has a front-page story about a body shop owner who confronted two youths who were spray-painting graffiti on the side of his business. One of them shot him.
Okay, so with the Supreme Court's ruling on citizens carrying firearms, gun rights owners allege this would not have happened, because the body shop owner would have, theoretically, produced his own weapon, pointed it at the youths who had their own already, and the youths would have simply gotten in their car and driven away, leaving the body shop owner unhurt. Is that correct, gun rights supporters?
Right.
Here's the problem. Suppose the youths - who apparently have no understanding of responsibility for their actions - decided to shoot the body shop owner ANYWAY? (this is not as far-fetched as it seems.) And suppose the body shop owner decided - in a moment of hesitation about whether to shoot a minor - didn't shoot back?
In one scenario you would, theoretically, have one person - the body shop owner - shot anyway, despite having a gun, and in the other there would up to three people shot - the body shop owner and the two youths. Who's to say that all three wouldn't have wound up dead?
Merely putting firearms in the hands of citizens - particularly those who are undereducated or emotionally unstable and with a prejudice - isn't going to protect them from criminals who already have their own. Without psychological testing and training appropriate to a citizen's mental toughness, all you have is more crazy folk with guns.
How, gun rights supporters, would you counter this? What's your solution for someone that hesitates to fire on provocation, for whatever reason? Does having a weapon automatically make you impervious to attack from individuals with a death wish?
I am hoping that I won't be the victim of an "accidental" shooting, whether it's because someone mistakes a gesture of mine for something else (I am a college-educated professional but for fearful folks with a prejudice that's irrelevant), or because I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a vigilante is carrying out some form of "justice".
I have to believe that the intense desire of some folks to carry weapons is a sort of backwards retribution. "There," they protest, "If a gang member can shoot someone and get away with it, I should have the same rights." They all want the right to stand up in a courtroom, claim they were firing in self-defense, and get off scot-free.
With any device that is capable of killing efficiently - be it a firearm, motor vehicle, or chemical - must come great responsibility. Individuals using firearms for "protection" - particularly those without training - must be prosecuted and imprisoned. Here in the States we require driver's training from age 16 for anyone getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Surely gun rights advocates would not suggest making the acquisition of a firearm as simple as walking into a department store?
Complain about this comment
Hello, copperCrashBandicoot:
Usual lib arrogance, combined with usual lib ignorance...nothing new here.
Yes, Europe has stringent gun laws, and a history of despotism almost unmatched in history...wonder why?
The Nazis decided not to invade little Switzerland in 1939/40. Why? Because each Swiss household held guns, and people who know how to handle them, and the Germans knew they would take too many casualties.
The Russians never conquered the Finns entirely. Why? Same reason as the Swiss.
The Finnish army and militias fought the Red Army to a standstill.
They are still free, and the only nation that ever repaid its war debt to the US.
Complain about this comment
#34: And presumably the 1st Amendment should only protect speech and publishing methods that were available at the time (personal spoken words and mechanical printing presses, but not TV, telephone, internet, etc)?
And the right not to have property arbitrarily seized should only apply to items that were available at the founding?
And the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches should only apply to methods of searching that were available in the 18th Century (so unrestricted wire-taps, infra-red surveillance, etc at ok)?
#23: "
Yes and it took the wrong decision!!! This is bull!!! The constitution clearly states "a well regulated milissia"! That clearly means millitary means only-its so obvious!!! "
No, if that was what it meant, it would have said "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the states to retain a militia shall not be infringed".
But what it actually says is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is presumably the same "people" (i.e. All individual citizens) as having a right to free speech, trial by jury, etc.
For a long time I (like most other non-Americans, and a fair number of Americans too) thought the idea of a "right" to bear arms was stupid, and obviously responsible for America's high gun-crime rate.
But since taking an active interest in the subject, the more I have researched gun crime/control issues in the US and elsewhere, the clearer it has become that:
1) Banning guns doesn't get rid of guns. It just means that the people least likely to misuse them are punished, while those most likely to misuse them retain them.
2) Gun bans may make it harder for criminals to get guns, but those determined can still do so quite easily, while less determined can still easily find other ways to rob, murder or main their victims.
3) The small number of crimes prevented as a result of some criminals being unable to get guns is outweighed by the number that succeed because the victim was less able to defend themselves.
4) The rate of gun (and other) crime has more to do with culture and economic circumstances than gun laws. A hundred years ago, in practical terms, the UK and US had essentially similar gun laws, and the US still had a higher crime rate than the UK. If all US gun-murders simply didn't happen (and the murder didn't find some other means to kill his victim), the US would still have a higher murder rate than the UK.
4a) Prior to this ruling, DC had basically similar gun-laws to the UK, and had the worst gun-crime in the US. Conversely, some of the most well-armed US states/regions have the least gun crime.
4b) One could argue that in a very violent society, law-abiding citizens need to be allowed weapons to protect themselves. And in a peaceful society, it doesn't matter if they do.
5) Historically, many early US gun-control laws (and other weapon-control laws in other countries) were designed to target blacks, other ethnic minorities, and/or poor/working-class people. In many cases deliberately to make them dependent on (or vulnerable to) the dominant group/class.
6) When you consider the 20th century as a whole, and take into account state-sponsored killings, Europe has a far worse total murder rate than the US. (A widespread right to bear arms would not have meant immunity to state - or criminal – oppression, but it could have been a substantial deterrent to acts by rational perpetrators, and given the victims a fighting chance against those who would attack them anyway.
Complain about this comment
Sooooo let's say the amendment was this.
"A well educated electorate being necessary to the function of a democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Some on the left would tell you that only College educated citizens would qualify (the well educated part). Some would tell you that only people that are registed to vote would qualify (the electorate part).
I would read this and say that all of THE PEOPLE have this right (the people part).
Burma is a good example of 'gun control', i.e. a state of affairs where firearms are a legal monopoly of the government forces. One side has good intentions and the other side has loaded rifles.
If you really want to look at statistics then start counting the numbers of people killed by their govt. agents.
Complain about this comment
One of the things I find mildly amusing about the entire gun issue, is that many posters from the UK seem to find the 2nd Amendment and its defined right to bear arms so alien.
In the UK, there has historically been a tension between the powers of the crown and the rights of the subjects. There has been an equivalent tension in the US between the powers of the government and the rights of the citizens. In the UK, many rights have been secured from encroachment by the crown, even the right to bear arms.
The primary difference between the rights of British "subjects" and the rights of US "citizens" is how the "us versus them" has been historically defined. In the US, "us" is the people, "them" is the government; therefore, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the people from excesses of government. In the UK, "them" is the crown, based on a long history of pretty much authoritarian rule. Parliament, historically, was intended to represent the interests of the subjects in opposition to the crown, when necessary; thus, most of the guarantees of "subject" rights are guarantees only that they can not be infringed by the crown, but there are few provisions in place to prevent Parliament from taking away rights that the crown has historically acknowledged to exist for the subjects.
By way of an admittedly imperfect analogy, it is almost as if in the US, we had constitutional protections in place to prevent Presidential excesses, but no protections against Congressional excesses.
It is interesting to note that the USSC decision makes reference to the right of British subjects to bear arms as one of the justifications for the right of Americans to do so.
Complain about this comment
I've never blogged on this site before but this is a great discussion.
First #21 during hurricane katrina the American media grossly exaggerated the looting down there. Basically you had people starving and drowning like they were in some third world country and the biggest story was about a few opportunists. This goes to show you how slanted and racially motivated our country is even in a disaster beacuse of course the people shown on television doing the looting were black men. If you talk to the victims of Katrina(some of which are now my neighbors since their neighbor hoods are being regentrified or ethnically cleansed so to speak) and watch Spike Lees documentary from HBO called When the Levees Broke" that New Orleans police officers (white) were doing the majority oflooting. The problem in America is that when we say criminals we are not thinking about the company, governmental, legislative crooks. We think about minorities and other ethincities.
When you buy an AK-47 I mean who is that for, why do you need it? You are in essence saying that you would be willing and eager to kill.
Generally when you are talking about human flesh and bone a little pop gun or even a taser will put someone out of the game for a while until you can call the police. I don't understand people who feel that calling the police means that somehow they are a failure as an American man. You don't have to take care of it yourself!
An Ak-47 is going to knock some ones organs into kingdom come! Really!
The whole idea is pretty deraged. I live in Georgia but I was raised in the north. When I was growing up I was'nt allowed to even have a water gun or to point my finger at someone cowboy style. It was drilled into my head that guns kill and not to glorify them in any way. I realise that
was extreme but then again so is Georgia. I went to my local Wal mart recently with a friend to by a Be Be gun for his kid. I asked the attendent just out of curiousity what ID I would need to buy a gun and he said just your license. Even though I'm pretty educated about the failures of gun control and I've seen Michael Moores 'Bowling for Columbine( whatever side of the aisle you're on just go see it) I was shocked. I mean I could be totally mental. Just my license and I could purchace high powered assault weapons without any sort of extensive background check.
What gets me is that many of our guns and religion southern people are also evangelical born again Christains. Murder is one of Jesus's pet peeves kind of a big deal in the Bible. As a Christain you just can't pick and choose big sins and little sins.
Also the Baltimore-Washington DC area is so violent and that I would think hand gun regualtion would be an advantage to everyone involved. If you go one block from all of the monuments you're in a dangerous, dark place where again the hunters only prey is human life.
Complain about this comment
The court has updated its slip opinion since my posting of earlier today, and has corrected its mistake. The wording is now "disassembled," which makes more sense in context, though I would not want to leave my firearm stored disassembled, given how that reduces its immediate usefulness.
Complain about this comment
"You can disagree with the majority view, but you cannot escape from it if you live in the United States."
Yeah, rub it in why don't you! No offence, Justin, but I think most people know that already.
God!! Its so enviable that UK law makers still have some sense in them!!
Complain about this comment
The other thing that I wanted to say is that I think that we are getting too easily distracted. It is not that this isn't an inportant issue.
I don't want to be in fear of my neighbors gun and I don't want my neighbor to buy a gun because of the color of my skin. Just for now I won't be borrowing any sugar.
But this is an election year and we Americans have to keep our eye on the ball. The issues that matter to me right now are high gas and food prices, unemployment and our poor health care system. I can easily see how gun control can be a very polarizing issue a north versus south if you will or even a working class vs upper class.
However I don't want the right to use this as an opportuntiy to corale peoples hatred and fears. In 2004 it was the Gays. The people who voted for Bush based on their fears just saw their worst fears realized last week In Cali and it was'nt armageddon. Nor is this in the big scheme of things in my opinion.
What will be will be but the things that can be changed like our health care, educational systems are the issues that people should be up in arms about.
Complain about this comment
I am a little disappointed by this decision but not surprised, and sympathetic to both sides.
When a kid could ride a bike anywhere, a single-shot .22 slung over ones shoulder made a great companion for an afternoon shooting down into the rural town dump at paint cans and old appliances, or at targets set against an earthen berm. While those freewheeling, unsupervised (and not very 'green') days are largely gone, there are other opportunities for kids to learn gun safety and marksmanship at local clubs or to hunt in safe rural settings. I agree with some posters that those are good basic life lessons to learn. Today’s kids however, also need to overcome any dangerous fantasies they may have taken to heart from extremely violent ‘first person shooter’ video games, which lax parents seem to leave open for many who are far too young or immature.
The idea that we all need lethal protection is exaggerated. For such a stalwart nation (thinking of our outward self-image) we are often driven by fearful inward perceptions. Fear has also been a key element of recent politics and used to justify abrogation of other constitutional rights.
One fear-based argument for bigger SUV's was safety, that seemed to make sense in simple terms of mass but ignored the engineering facts of energy absorbing structures that give equal or better crash ratings to a number of vehicles that weigh less. This 'auto arms race' was fueled by a Republican (Reagan or Bush) secretary of Transportation who echoed the big-is-safer argument, helping US automakers dig their own pitfalls as fuel prices rose.
All the 2nd amendment patriotic justifications have kept guns accessible to criminals and crazy people. I do not think that less regulation is the right answer for guns or drugs, and I think we are addicted to both here in the USA.
The totalitarian takeover argument is brought up to prevent any restriction on gun ownership (for example, USA recently failed another attempt to require on-the-spot background checks at gun shows, leaving the door open for ANYONE to walk in and buy a gun). I believe that all of our professional military personnel, sworn to uphold the constitution, would never allow the 'new world order' 'black UN helicopter' takeover fantasies raised by Liddy, etc. ; I trust in our citizen-soldiers, rather than feeling the need for a cache of assault rifles under the back porch.
Having a simple gun (handgun or shotgun) in the home for protection can make sense on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis; but so do neighborhood watches and other community-policing efforts that should be the first lines of crime fighting before the individual homeowner thinks loaded guns in the house are the only or best solution. My dad did once load and take a pistol to help a single neighbor investigate a door found open (must have left it ajar in the morning, it turned out) and another had some of his sporting guns stolen when he was away from home for a few hours. No one I know has experienced a break-in while at home.
Having a gun on your person might make you feel safer but I question the recent growth of this in rational terms for most areas of the USA. I worked in big Eastern cities including Washington for several years and lived downtown for a time as well; there were a few occasions where I was extra alert and moved purposefully when on foot or driving deliveries, but never a time that I felt unsafe unarmed. I can see that someone other than a man in his 20’s would feel less safe. The average crime statistics for the cities were at that time basedon the worst crime being concentrated into selected neighborhoods, so overall the cities were not that unsafe, but there were a few places you avoided or were alert and swift if you had to traverse.
Would a year of basic martial arts training to emphasize situational awareness and cool-headedness be a better path for many than a few classes and a concealed carry permit? Driving habits suggest that more of us could use the former than the latter.
Complain about this comment
Apparently it is legal for Americans to own guns but not for Europeans. That makes perfect sense to me. Where's the problem?
Complain about this comment
#43: The Constitution was not put forth by the Federalist Party. No such party existed in 1787. Political parties were a product of the conflict within Washington's cabinet.
The Constitution was drafted at a convention in Philadelphia, attended by ddelegates from across the political specctrum. James Madison, for example, was one of the convention's most important and most creative members. It is difficult to imagine the Constitution existing without him. Madison was firmly in Jerfferson's camp and would go on to become a leading anti-Federalist.
That said, I agree that it is important to understand the context in which the Constitution was written. We have no obligation to slavishly follow language written more than two centuries ago by wealthy white men who lived in a culture completely unlike ours.
That's the underlying reason why this decision is wrong. The role of guns -- especially weapons the Framers could not have imagined used in environments they could not have predicted -- is dramatically different today. I find it inconceivable that the Framers, if writing today, would have incorporated a guarantee of the right to own a weapon within the Bill of Rights. More likely, they would have restricted that right.
This Court has condemned thousands of people to death by its slavish adherence to an outmoded and dangerous clause.
Complain about this comment
Christianleft
I understand what you are saying. Where I live the word 'criminal' is mostly interpreted as someone Hispanic. There is stereotyping everywhere and who really believes anything produced by our media?
The whole Katrina thing was awful. I have a great uncle and some close friends who managed to survive it. Their stories never reached the media.
I think what needs to be put into prospective is that the so called 'right to bear arms' is not a license to kill. I've lived a long time. I know people who are still alive because they were armed when someone tried to harm them. Sadly, I know someone who died during a home invasion even though he was armed. He probably prevented harm to his wife and children and knowing him he would have willing given his life for them.
This whole issue is one that is so emotionally charged. How can we justify taking the life of another? But we can ask ourselves this: How far would I go to protect those I love? What would I do to protect myself?
Complain about this comment
Re: #20 illiniwatcher
I actually don't think that either the Japanese student or the housewife were shot because they were "undesirables".
But certainly feel that both shooters were criminally negligent and should have paid some price for their actions.
Complain about this comment
Iapetus (#47): Thank you, and good food for thought!! However I feel I must take you to task on point #4, in which you explain that "The rate of gun (and other) crime has more to do with culture and economic circumstances than gun laws. A hundred years ago, in practical terms, the
UK and US had essentially similar gun laws, and the US still had a higher crime rate than the UK. If all US gun-murders simply didn't happen (and the murderer didn't find some other means to kill his victim), the US would still have a higher murder rate than the UK."
While yes it certainly does to some extent, I doubt that the reason that the US's crime and murder rates of recent years have made the UK look like a Utopian society by comparison are due to the fact that in general the US is more poor, or has a drastically differen't popular entertainment culture than that of the UK. Rather I think it is simply due to the simple but sad fact that the US has about 5 times the population than that of the UK. More people equals more crime and murder victoms. So guns aside, even if-lets hope-your latter scinario did come true, I fear that unfortionately the US's crime and murder rate would still be higher-though I hope not much-than that of the UK, simply because of the population difference. Now certainly 100 years ago the UK was the world's super power, therefore far richer than the US, and so perhaps then the argument of economic circumstances would've stood stronger, but now I'm not so sure. And while Hollywood certainly doesn't do our society any favors by pushing violent films/TV programs down our throats all the time, unfortionately they have permeated throughout the rest of the world somewhat, including the UK, and with the UK public I would guess recieveing them pretty well due to Hollywood's continued exporting of such entertainment there, I would guess that the same types of shows/movies would have a simillar impact on UK citizens as US ones. And lets not forget that 100 years ago film didn't exist, so the culture argument would I suspect be a difficult one to make then, just as the economic circumstances one is I think somewhat of a more difficult one to make today.
Complain about this comment
#53 christianleft
my comment #57 was on your earlier post
Again, I hear you! There are so many more things that we need to be concerned with this election cycle. I think that the gun control issue makes everyone in this country just a little bit crazy.
Hey! If you want to borrow some brown sugar from me, you are welcome. I keep it in the freezer so it doesn't dry out!
Seriously, I find it so sad that we can't work better together as a nation to heal the hurt in us and in the world.
Let's keep ourselves focused on what needs to be done to make things right in our world
Complain about this comment
illiniwatcher, #45, I agree that private
ownership of guns is not always effective.
But, there are cases where it is.
Here is an example: I happen to live in
a high crime area which is overrun by
gangs (and is actually the headquarters
of one of them.)
The most common circumstance is for
members of one gang to shoot at people
from a car. The targets don't even have
to be gang members. In theory, there
are supposed to be opposing groups of
gangs that target each other, but innocent
victims often get shot, either by mistake,
or because some hotshot gang member
wants to make a name for himself.
Who knows what their warped motivations
are? In fact, about 99% of them already
have criminal records and face jail time
if the cops stop them with guns in their
vehicles. But, law and order has broken
down so completely, that thousands of
gang members are on the loose in my
town, even though the police know who
they are, and I blame the Democrats
and the ACLU for this.
Now, I do not happen to carry a weapon.
I do not see how I could possibly defend
myself against one of these shootings.
But, if I did not live in a gated apartment
complex in which I felt secure, I would
procure a firearm for self-defence.
At least I would have a way of defending
myself and my loved ones until the police
arrive. And, I feel confident that with
an alarm system and a firearm (with
which I am competently trained.)
If you feel so strongly about crime, why
don't you write your congressmen and
insist that they pass laws to round up
these gangs which are prowling our
streets, and send them away to concentration
camps to rot? (There is no prison which
is big enough.)
Until then, I will reserve the right to defend
myself, and BTW, that right is not yours to
take away from me.
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#29), if FDR couldn't pack the Supreme Court with a solid majority in Congress, nobody can.
Complain about this comment
oh america, your friends are shot at work, your children are shot at school, you can die just going to the corner store, all this while the weapons industry rubs their hands and counts the money. Blood stains the grass in your parks and on your footpaths and STILL you debate your rights.
I live in my nations capital and i have never seen a gun here or anywhere else except on the hips of the police. Sure, we have violence of all kinds here like most other countries but not so we need to protect our OWN HOMES with weapons! Australians just don't need guns for personal protection at all.
america i grieve for you. A country born of revolution, proud and free, democratic (to a degree) waving your guns in the air and debating your civil rights. So very sad.
Complain about this comment
Re: #33 aquarizonagal
What you describe does sound like a miscarriage of justice.
In NY a few years ago, a woman whose abusive husband had been released from jail (without her being being warned) shot and killed him when he broke into her house. I believe she was charged and the killing was not considered justifiable... Personally, I'd have given her a ticker tape parade.
As I said if a gun owner shoots and kills a burgler or home invader I have no problem with it... Or you kill your abusive ex-spouse.
But you better be right. If you shoot the Comcast guy then you should be in deep doo doo.
[And don't get me started on people who have dangerous dogs like pit bulls... :) ]
As I said, I like guns but I think that a lot of folks who buy them for rather flaky reasons. Somewhere else on this thread somebody says his sister sleeps with an AK-47 by her bed and he drives around with a gun in his truck...
Why? Where do these people live that they feel so threatened?
I have lived 52 years in various urban areas and I have worked in 12 different countries and I have never felt any need to carry a gun or sleep with it by my bed. (Well, I was a bit nervous in South Africa)
If you work on the night shift at a 7Eleven you ought to be issued with a flack jacket, grenades, and an M-16 but if you live in most part of this country the "need" for a gun is, basically, in your head (along with some other loose hardware).
Complain about this comment
christianleft
I have to add that health care and education are two huge things for me, as well. Maybe I am wrong but the economy and the price of gasoline always seem to be manipulated during key election cycles to make people afraid.
I will paraphrase something: 'Fear is a mind-killer and a little death. I will face my fear. I will face my fear and allow it to pass through me. When fear has passed, only I will remain.' Politicians have been using fear to manipulate us for too long. We must face our worst fears. We must work together to make our country better.
Complain about this comment
peterm99 #49: writes '"It is interesting to note that the USSC decision makes reference to the right of British subjects to bear arms as one of the justifications for the right of Americans to do so."
But why? British citizens don't have a right to bare arms. They were stripped of that right-rightfully so in my opinion-12 years ago after that school shooting. So why would the supreme court refference UK gun laws? They've got none to compare ours to. Its not as if they are trying to say, '"But UK citizens can do it, so US one's should be allowed to do so as well!" I don't understand. Will you elaborate? Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#56
True, before 1792 the group putting forward the Constitution were know as 'Hamiltonians' after their most prominent member. They didn't become 'Federalists' until sometime between 1792 and 1794, around the same time Jefferson's group began being called 'Democrats' . However, they were the same group of people.
The point being: the States in the early American Confederation were resistant to allowing a strong central government control over them. The retention of a State's militia was a strongly persuasive argument in the battle over ratification of the Constitution.
The division between supporters of the Articles and supporters of the Constitution tended to fall along economic lines, with the business-oriented North supporting Federalist (ok, Hamiltonian) ideals and the more agricultural states supporting Democrat (Jeffersonian) ideals.
Complain about this comment
I cannot be the only person to see the irony in some of the comments here; on one hand Americans want to keep the right to bear arms to protect themselves from their democratic Government, and on the other they will happily support illegal wars to spread democracy around the world.
Although I would suggest that their are far too many guns in the US for it to be near impossible to ban them outright; however I would hope that there are strict (and even stricter in the future) training regimes required before owning a gun. My Father taught my brother and I to fire a shotgun at an early age pheasant hunting in Northumberland, yet I would never dream of carrying a gun around with me now, whether the bad guy has one or not.
The UK system may not be perfect (far from it) but at least when the criminal minority are the only people carrying guns in the street (and usually only the streets of London and Manchester with there imported US gang culture) the police can tell who the bad guys are without hesitation.
Complain about this comment
#61gunsandreligion
Wow! I hear you! You should be able to defend yourself and those you love.
Complain about this comment
#63, ozbloke1, it is really sad. It's not
the country I grew up in. If I didn't have
family and friends here I would emigrate
to Australia, it sounds like such a nice place.
Complain about this comment
salemdesign
South Africa was a little scary for me,as well!
I worked for years in some places where as they say 'even angels fear to tread.' However, a can of Aquanet hair spray, a large flash light and some self defense tactics I learned from an ex-marine gave me some, no-doubt, spurious confidence. I did survive!
Hey! I'll go for the ticker tape parade for the abused wife.
Complain about this comment
I feel very sorry for my friends in the UK. There is nothing more fun that cracking open the bolt of your AK-47 and shooting a few targets at the end of the day. I hope you get your rights back at some point. Shooting is an enjoyable sport.
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions (#66), the opinion refers to British law (Parliament, Blackstone, Johnson) because our common law originates in England, and the principles embodied therein were not discarded when the colonies became independent. It is common when interpreting the U. S. Constitution and other old documents to consider it in the context of the times in order to understand the original intent of the founders. This is more conservative (which the law is, generally) than applying whatever modern meaning one chooses. The way that historical documents and events from Britain are used in deciding questions of American law should be clear from a reading of the original opinion.
Complain about this comment
re: #66 NoRashDecisions
In most rulings, the USSC justifies its decisions by precedent, history, intent, etc. In this particular case, the language of Brit subject rights, the language thereof, the history of the meanings of those rights (in this case, writings of Brit law back to the 1600s), etc. were among many historical precedents used to explain the intent of the language of the US 2nd amendment.
Contrary to your statement, you still, even today, are protected from your queen attempting to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms. It is not your sovereign, but your Parliament, that deprived you of those rights.
Referring back to my post (#49), you (Brits collectively) don't have the same protection against the encroachment of your rights as we Americans, because you were insufficiently inclusive in the definition of "them".
Complain about this comment
>>" The retention of a State's militia was a strongly persuasive argument in the battle over ratification of the Constitution."
Even if accurate, that has no bearing on today's reality. We should not be constrained by 18th century practicalities. The Framers wrote for he society they lived in then. We live in a different country. The court's decision and the Second Amendment are wrong for our times.
Complain about this comment
Interestingly enough Mexico has the strictest gun laws in North America...even stricter than the UK-West (Canada)...and yet the murders, robberies and other assorted weapons related violence persists in Mexico.
If owning a gun became criminal in the U.S. only the only change would be that the criminal enterprises selling guns would prosper...the price of a weapon would go up, the voluntary registrations and waiting periods, background checks and screens would be eliminated as would the safety classes and licensed target ranges...but I would still own weapons, and carry them when I chose...that's the practical side of this argument.
As a Constitutional matter, a 'militia' is by definition a group of armed civilian warriors whose right to gun ownership is both symbolic of freedom and a cautionary warning to those who would abuse their privilege to govern. It must always be on the mind of those governing that their contituents volunteer to be governed and are armed.
Complain about this comment
#68andfreedom
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Complain about this comment
It's certainly fair to say that the Second Amendment has caused a disproportionate number of people to suffer pain and death, but the debate about desperately needs to be held in context. The Right to bear arms is accorded the people not for their personal protection. It is not to protect life or property. It is not to defend oneself from criminals, nor wild animals, nor even from the government.
The language of the amendment is very clear:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..." state, not nation, not individual, "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms..." not just possess arms, but to bear arms, "... shall not be infringed." Infringe: to encroach upon.
The Second Amendment exists to ensure the independence of the States of the United States from their Federal Government. It is crucial that this understanding be kept foremost in the mind when the Second Amendment is under discussion. To bring into the discussion crime, or hunting, or any other subject is to talk about something other than the amendment itself and the right that it conveys.
It's in the Constitution because the States had just completed a bitter and costly war to free themselves from a central authority, and there was real fear that a Federal American government would simply assume the place of the Monarchy that had just been evicted.
Complain about this comment
And Justin as it regards your "...on a lighter note..." I reckon that Barack would kiss more than my baby if it meant he could get get my vote.
Complain about this comment
#66. NoRashDecisions "British citizens don't have a right to bare arms."
And the fashion police are going to make sure they cover up! :)
On a more serious note, the wording "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
DC simply overstepped the mark by refusing to licence Mr Heller, but the above indicates that the decision does not give blanket permission for everyone and anyone to buy firearms, the purpose for which must also be lawful.
Complain about this comment
bilkarns (#76) seems to imply that this decision means that citizens may form private militias to protect themselves from their government. The opinion clearly does not permit this, however. The decision is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms individually, for lawful purposes, explicitly including the right to defend themselves in their homes. Very little on the subject of gun control is actually changed by this decision, because very few jurisdictions (notably San Francisco and the District of Columbia) have attempted outright bans.
There have been and will continue to be groups of gun nuts who fantasize about citizen militias (e.g. Posse Comitatus), but they get very little from this decision which they did not already have.
Complain about this comment
re: #78 joshkin2001
Your argument is not correct.
From the decision itself:
"The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States . . ."
Complain about this comment
While I think the second amendment is written to be too broad, the meaning is pretty clear. If it really needs to be modified, the congress should do it.
I am much more alarmed by the idea that the city of Washington DC thinks they can change it to suit the city's purposes. It would be rather like the city of London invalidating the magna carta because it makes collecting property taxes too difficult. One would hope the city would at least appeal to the national government to address the issue.
Complain about this comment
The comments of people who are literally saying they are panicked that there will be a lot more shootings are clearly either posturing or they just don't even know what the laws are currently.
The immediate effect of this ruling is relatively small because only a very small number of states and cities have any significant restrictions on gun ownership. In over 40 of the 50 states it is relatively simple to get a concealed carry permit let alone just keep a gun at home.
Sure it is an important decision long term because it will make it very difficult for people in the future to restrict gun ownership in the US but again, except for a very small handful of cities most restrictions have already been lifted prior to this ruling.
Complain about this comment
Enjoy your totalitarian state England. Enjoy being watched everywhere you go. Also enjoy cutting your steaks with spoons.
Complain about this comment
RE: #63, ozbloke1
May I kindly remind you (and everyone for the matter) that the culture of America is completely different than that of Europeans and especially Australians. We have one of the most heterogeneous cultures in the world. We are also the 3rd most populated country in the world. Therefore, we will have more crime. I mean, when you have 300+ million people in one country you are bound to have a few people who do not get along.
Australia has what, 20.5 million people? Almost all being descended from the UK. You obviously will have more homogenous cultural mores, traditions, values, etc. I understand you have your own problems. But c'mon, my state (Florida) has almost as many people as your entire country.
My point is, that its easy to sit in your office across the Atlantic or Pacific and make fun of barbaric Americans; but in all honesty, until you've grown up here you cannot fully understand the issue at hand.
Complain about this comment
Again christianleft spot on.
all the way.
You got my vote.
Complain about this comment
US are only guarenteed the right to bear arms to defend against the state.
A lot of you must be worried and the justices must be worried too.
(or they are trying to raise the gun issue at this time ,Great insight Lefty.
In the UK given the poll tax riots, the student grant riots and anti globalisation riots, i'm not supprised the gov doesn't want us all armed.
Complain about this comment
"illiniwathcer, #10, considering that the
long rifle was invented in Pennsylvania,
I think that it would be hard to make the
case that the framers of the constitution
intended to restrict private ownership
of firearms in any way.
In fact, firearms were as essential a tool
for survival in 18th century as the dishwasher
is today. And, if anybody comes to take
my dishwasher away, I'm moving to another
country."
this was a handgun ban.
Hunting rifles I am sure they believed in they all shot and hunter.
But a pistol is different.
Hard to hide a 4 ft rifle.
Complain about this comment
So how do I phrase this so the Mods don't cut it.
In the UK the smokeing of Hashish was reduced in terms of how Offensive it is considered by the law.
Guns are Illegal.
In the US you go to jail for smoking(even if you have a state user card).(did i condone anything here mods?)
but you can buy a gun and shoot at the river across from the campsite and when your bullets ricochet into the camp site you will get a slap on the wrist and not loose your gun right and certainly will not go to jail.
peaceful hippies to jail
stupid gun owners nothing.
(not all gun owners are this dumb ,but some are.)
Complain about this comment
Christianleft, when watching" bowling for colenbine" did you notice the reporter said that the shooter had in his diary the words
"
"I wish I could steel a plane and fly it into the trade towers"
this was before 9/11.
I suggest that Bin laden saw this report and thought"now there's an Idea.
Check it out all you, hire the film and watch it.
The seeds for 9/11 started here.
Complain about this comment
Christianleft.
Popgun? White cops looted the most? Tasers?
Ok what exactly is a pop gun? There aren't too many rifle rounds smaller than the 7.62x39 mm that the AK fires. I guess you mean that 5.56mm that we shoot out of the AR-15 (M-16). Maybe you meant a handgun?
It's clear that your understanding of firearms balistics is all but non-existant.
Also, tasers do NOT knock people out. The type of device you could buy is hand held. A nice base ball bat would be far more deadly.
The reason you see Black people looting in New Orleans is because NO was 70% black. It's why if you saw looting in San Antonio they would most likely be Hispanic and if you saw looting in Portland they would most likely be white.
How is self defense murder? No offense but you have a lot of assumptions that are just flat wrong.
Complain about this comment
jacksforge, #89, the DC regulations not
only banned handguns, but required that
other arms be unloaded and dissassembled,
or secured with a trigger lock.
Complain about this comment
jacksforge, by the way, I suggest that
you actually come here before you assert
that one goes to jail for smoking...
I know that it's hard to understand a country
where the largest cash crop is illegal, but
enforcement varies from state to state.
It's a large, heterogeneous country.
Complain about this comment
I am an American and strongly defend the right of free speech about the right to bear arms. There are many advantages to bearing arms—just look at the case of Neil Entwistle. Unarmed, he was unable to protect his child from his malevolent American wife. Now he will spend a lifetime in jail! This should be a lesson to all of us.
Complain about this comment
ozbloke1 (#63): You're not the only one, trust me, you're not the only one!!! Although I must disagree with you on our debating of our "civil rights", as you put it. "Civil rights" are rights which were hard fought for, and won to ensure the equal treatment of basicly non-white males over the years, not the rights to ensure the ability to own guns. We are still furvantly debating the right to own guns, as you have pointed out so elliquently in your post!! O, and I would describe our system of government as "Democratic" (all be it the most complicated democricy on earth by far!!) We aren't as "democratic" as Australia, though, as we don't have more than 2 main parties to choose from, where as Australia has 3, but nevertheless, I would classify us as "democratic".
andfreedom (#68) wonders: "on one hand Americans want to keep the right to bear arms to protect themselves from their democratic Government, and on the other they will happily support illegal wars to spread democracy around the world."
I think those who are n favor of the "right" to bare arms (myself not being one of them) are rather saying when they make the case for protection against their government, that somehow they think that if the government tryed to mess with their lives (I.E. restrict freedoms, enforce laws etc), that somehow having a gun would deter the government from doing so, or at least make them think twice. Now I don't agree with this in the least!! I think it is stupid immature way to think!! But I think that that is what those people mean when they say things like that. And prey tell, please, where on this thread, or indeed other commentary on other blog posts, did American posters declare that they would be happy to support illegal wars to "spread democracy" around the world? Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe, if my memory surves me correctly, that any American even mentioned the Iraq war, much less that they supported it!!
And with regards to your UK gun law mention, so the few criminals in the UK who own guns do so soly because of US imported "gang culture" huh? Its not because, say, heaven forbid, they chose to have them for one reason or another and be criminals for one reason or another and who were not influenced by our culture, is it? I mean I seriously doubt that gangs were introduced to the UK only after they iniciated, and started springing up in the US!! Gang history is as long as criminality itself. But forget the fact that they very well might've chosen this path on their own, its all the US gang culture's fault!! If they hadn't existed, crime as we know it wouldn't!! There would be no need for police or millitaries! Also, surely gangs originated somewhere outside the US, making your case even harder to prove?
Complain about this comment
To #24 and any other who suggested teaching gun control in schools:
What kind of country is it that is teaching children how to use guns carefully, but cannot bear to educate them properly about sex?
No doubt there will be some people looking to the Constitution to tell everyone what is the more fundamental right...
Complain about this comment
#64 SalemDesign
You had a question about the AK47.
Well it is a gun so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a live chicken. There are an estimated 70 million of them in the world.
That being said it could be quite a bit cheaper to buy an AK-47 or SKS than a nice Winchester bolt action rifle. The two previous rifles will be easeir to take care of and be more forgiving to the user.
Sometimes you just want a gun you can throw in the back of the truck and not worry about. Think cattle rancher worried about new born calves.
This all being said there are VERY FEW murders commited in the US every year with rifles that are considered ASSAULT RIFLES.
Lets just put it in perspective.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death for the US
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Diabetes: 75,119
Alzheimer's disease: 71,599
Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
Septicemia: 34,136
Suicides: 32,637
Chronic liver disease: 27,530
Hypertension: 24,902
Accidental poisoning: 23,618
Parkinsons: 19,544
Homicides: 18,124
Homicides with firearems(all):12,352
Accidental drowning: 3,582
Accidental exposure to fire: 3,197
Complications of medical care: 2,653
Homicides committed with rifles:725
Homicides committed with assault rifles: 145
So there you have it. You chance of being killed with an AK-47 are 1 in 2 million. Your chance of dying while tripping down some stairs, 1 in 15,000.
Complain about this comment
I think it is wise for every American adult to have a gun if for no other reason than that the Redcoads might try to come back. Aren't adult men in Switzerland required to own a firearm and know how to use it? I don't hear any of you Euros who would emasculate the United States EVER talk about that.
If you come to America could you get shot? It's just a chance you'd have to take and everyone knows it. Judging by the number of people who come here from around the world, it doesn't seem to scare a whole lot of them off.
Complain about this comment
joe_young90, stairs should be illegal, or
regulated, or ... something.
Complain about this comment
#68 Ozbloke1 wrote:
"oh america, your friends are shot at work, your children are shot at school, you can die just going to the corner store, all this while the weapons industry rubs their hands and counts the money. Blood stains the grass in your parks and on your footpaths and STILL you debate your rights."
I have never had a friend shot at work. My child has never been shot at anywhere. I could in fact die anywhere, not just the corner store, just like you.
You also seem to say that there is nothing in Australia worth protecting with a weapon. I would disagree. I believe my family and friends are worth protecting.
I guess 10-year-old aboriginal girls don't merit consideration in Australia either.
Complain about this comment
Jack's forge #91 you do know that the World Trade Center had previouly been attacked in the early 90's (I forget what year) by terrorists? It was already a terrorist target because of symbolism and strategic location no doubt. I hope you aren't suggesting that the an the seeds of an operation as complex and diabolical as 9/11 were planted by a documentary? Come on be for real.
Joe_young90 yes NO was majority black but not true nessasarily of the police force. Let me ask you something did you ever hear any news braodcasts on police(white or black) looting? No you did not but every five minutes the same clip showing a few black guys stealing a plasma rolled again and again reinforcing peoples sterotypes. There was also the story that women and children were being raped; we now know that very little if any of these things happened. They were exaggerations to play on people fears of "well you know how they are " to prove to you why you should be frightened of your neighbor. I know that these things happened because I have friends, family and neighbors who were eye witnesses. Yes a taser at the right setting could stop a persons heart. But I'm not promoting any sort of weapon baseball bat, hand gun or pop gun(LOL).
As I said before I'm really not into weapontry and do not particularly care to be schooled this art.... I live in the south and I have a rural family many of whom have a small arsenal. If I wanted to know I'd know. The difference from them and amny Americans is that my family members are hunters and farmers, they eat what they kill. They are also trained outdoorspersons. It is awesome that you know this info. I'm glad for you. To each his own. I stand by pop gun by the way; its what we call my grandmother's gun. All I need to know about her pop gun is that it has bullets and could possibly end your life. Nothing else is really that important(besides the fact that she has alzheimers and the state should'nt have allowed her to purchase a gun).
Aquarizonagal and joe_young 90 #92 I agree with you that a person has a right to self defense. No one has all of the answers on this issue...
I still believe that there should be some sort of regulation to protect the innocent.
(Aquarizonagal I don't think the mod's posted one of your comments about brown sugar in the freezer. Cute.)
Complain about this comment
#75 justcorbly wrote:
"Even if accurate, that has no bearing on today's reality. We should not be constrained by 18th century practicalities."
WOW !!!! Just WOW !!!!
So your advice is to just ignore the constitution. Amazing?
If you don't follow the constituion then it is worthless. There are ways to change it if we feel "constrained".
Complain about this comment
Just one more thing joe_young90 about #92 though this is sort of off the point in NY in the summer of 1968 there was this huge rolling black out. My mother, grandmother, aunt, cousins were in the South Bronx at the time and can tell you that it was the police some black many white that were rolling their cars up to liquor stores and supermarkets in full uniform and blantanly stealing booze, food, money whatever. It isn't white or black but that was a predominantly and notoriously black neighborhood and these were majority white cops not only looting but allowing complete lawlessness in the citizentry. The white and more influential areas however were realitively safe because of get this police protection. So who then will protect minorites from the police? That's the question forty years later.
Complain about this comment
#102 Christianleft
I actually did see a report of police looting a Walmart in NO after Katrina. Just do a search on a popular video sharing site for police looting katrina.
I really have a VERY LOW opinion of Louisiana law enforcement in general. That goes for any skin color.
Complain about this comment
Didn't a loony in Scotland blow away a lot of school kids and then kill himself around 1996? Doesn't seem like gun control in the UK worked very well to stop mass murder there? And then there was that kindly old country doctor in the UK who didn't need a gun at all. I think his weapon of choice for mass murder was a hypodermic needle.
Complain about this comment
r.e.joe_young90 *101
...no, i hav'nt had my kids shot at school or friends at work either and 10 year old aboriginal children are the most vunerable citizens in our society, are at great risk and their treatement is one of white australia's greatest shame.
However, i wouldn't advocate arming australian people to protect them. We have our police and the courts to do this and as slow and difficult this might seem, in the end the actions of a civil society must prevail.
Blood, weapons, shooting and killing to protect our own families and friends must surely tell us something is terribly wrong.
I am more than willing to learn from an american voice as media must only give me a limited viewpoint(thanks to iamanamericanguy and norashdecisions) but i tell ya something, dosn't look good from here.
Complain about this comment
...actually,joe_young90, the treatement of those kids is the shame of all australians, white or black.
Complain about this comment
Senator McCain is quoted as saying that "today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right - sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly". As a US citizen, I am startled that free speech and assembly are "sacred," since "sacred" connects these items to "holiness," hence to religion. The United States still has separation of church and state, does it not?
Complain about this comment
Ozbloke #63, thanks for the heartfelt tone of you post directed towards America. Puts me in mind of the Australian-American memorial at the garden in Adelaide. I did not get as far north as Canberra when visiting your country but left with wonderful memories.
Complain about this comment
#107 ozbloke1
I see nothing wrong with owning a weapon for self protection or to protect others.
I honestly don't feel like I will ever be a victim of violent crime. That being said I don't think my house will ever burn down or that I will die any time soon. That being said I pay good money for fire and life insurance and have a coupble of fire extenguishers in my house.
I know from my study of human history and behavior that there are some truly evil people on this planet. People that care nothing for their fellow man.
Why did the Australian lead UN peacekeeping force take weapons into East Timor? Obviously to protect a new government from those that would use violent means to enforce their will on the country. Those weapons were needed and although there was bloodshed the outcome was far better than if you had never gone in with a military force.
So yes sometimes things do go terribly wrong. I would just rather be able to deal with the problem than simply be a victim.
America's problems with violence have almost nothing to do with guns but rather our culture and society. Once we fix those the problem with guns will disappear.
Complain about this comment
thanks for your kind remarks bluejay60. i work at the australian war memorial and so am reminded of the close co-operation between the u.s and aust. for nearly 100 years in various theaters of conflict.
I am also reminded however of the need for guns(until the day we can lay them in the ground) and the terrible damage they can do not only to the human body but also to the human heart and mind....to all concerned.
We here in australia have had our fill of our own gunslaughter and shootouts too, but i still argue that guns be left ih the hands of the professionals.
joe_young90, thanks for your comments and insights as well and well done on understanding some of aust's issues and activities in our little corner of the world. Cheers mate!
Complain about this comment
Imanamericanguy, in the U.S. we do have a heterogeneous population, but you really aren't telling the entire story of why crime is what it is here. It is no secret that we have the highest rates of violence of any industrialized country. We have high crime rates in inner cities because we have huge socioeconomic disparities and institutionalized racism. It's as simple as that. The way that you combat crime, like gang crime and gun crime, is to provide people with well paying jobs and decent educations (not more guns). We have the largest wage disparity in the Western world. It's basically a class issue, which we here in America also don't like to discuss. The Euro countries and Canada do have smaller populations than us, but they also have something we don't have: They have economic safety nets for their citizens, like universal health care, affordable education through college, old age pensions, and other services that we in America continue to describe as "communist," "socialist," "Maoist," and "Stalinist." And yes, I read those last 2 on a website this morning. Universal health care is apparently "Stalinist." Americans are the most uneducated of everybody in the industrialized countries - there's no question about that. Either that, or the right wing does a great job of brainwashing them. Maybe both. Our education system is abysmal, and many folks simply want to abolish it altogether because "the government" pays for it! The U.S. S.Ct. decision today makes me want to leave the U.S. because I support everything this country is not - I support a government that provides services to its citizens, doesn't pay 10B$ a month for endless "war," and doesn't shred its constitution, like we have ours. I've never been so ashamed to be an American.
Complain about this comment
It seems like the prevelant point of view by the advocates for gun ownership seems to be that crime statistics fall when both criminals and non-criminals own guns.
So... Are they going to be handing out guns to tourists who come from countries, like the UK, where no one is allowed to carry guns (and where, not-so-coincidentally, the homicide by gun rate is 3000% less than in the US)? Or perhaps an armed escort?
I mean, if you're only going to the States on a two week holiday, half of that is going to be spent waiting for your background check.
Complain about this comment
As so often, this is an issue that is more politically polarised than well-argued. And opinion and anecdote I find it peculiar that so many appear to believe that individuals in the US require guns so as to defend themselves at some time in the future against an elected government. Isn't that usually called either an insurrection or a revolution?
And again, the old argument of 'democracy' v. 'monarchy' crops up in a discussion of the 'rights' of a citizen. While the proper term for a British citizen is n 'a subject' it is naive to imagine that British citizens are 'subject' to a monarch, or, practically, have been in even the most minimal way for well over a century, and, it could be argued, not since 1688.
Where comparisons of the right to bear arms between the two countries fall down in this discussion is the simple fact that precedents in American law can be derived from English law, but only where there is no other, and when it predates the independence of the US. Any 'right to bear arms' in the UK dating from before that has long been superseded by legislation enacted by an elected parliament.
Firearms began to be restricted in the UK in 1920, because of the number of weapons left around after WW1 and automatic weapons restricted to collectors first in 1938 or thereabouts. The 'Dunblane' and 'Hungerford' shootings are irrelevant, since in both cases it was a failure of regulation that allowed them to occur, not the availability of the weapons.
Similarly, the oft-quoted example of the Swiss having arms in their homes is not a matter of an individual right to do so, only their requirement to do so as part of 'a well-regulated militia'.
It seems to me that given the historical circumstances, surely the original intention was that individuals should be allowed to bear arms for the purpose of forming an organised militia rather than an army (not a population of armed unorganised individuals) if required to repel another English invasion?
There also appears to be a problem with statistics quoted here, let alone anecdotal opinion. According to the New York Times, 29,569 people were killed and 64,389 injured by firearms in the USA in 2004; according to a Parliamentary Answer in 2007, in the UK in 2006 210 people were killed by firearms. (That figure also includes murder, accidental death and suicide.) I couldn't find a recent figure for firearms injuries, but in the late nineties it was about half the number of those killed.
To maintain a proper perspective, the population of Great Britain is approximately one-fifth that of the USA. There is a lot of concern here about the use of guns, and the number of young people killed by them this year, but even if the number of those deaths continues through the year at its early (we think appalling) rate, the total would not come to more than 20 or 30 at the most.
Complain about this comment
I lived in the US for the past 2 years and I found it really hard to come to terms with the fact that I my room-mate could be some nutter with a closet full of weapons!! No wonder we read about people going on shooting sprees!
Also, the fact that people over there are so passionate about keeping their gun rights is bizarre! No training or anything given with the weapon ... people keep saying that gun owners should act responsibly but there is no system in place to ensure this.
I am not a "gun hater" or anything ... I served for 3 years my National army and enjoyed learning about and shooting guns. I must stress that the amount of time you spend being trained at how to clean/maintain/hold/store your gun is huge before you are allowed anywhere near a shooting range. I would never have a gun in my house ... the place for them is in the armed forces. Without proper training you will more than likely end up killing/injuring someone you know rather than an intruder.
Complain about this comment
fordie1000
Your room-mate could be an axe murderer too. Would you also ban axes? Kitchen knives?
The thing about a gun is that it is a great equalizer. A 100 pound woman can defend herself against a 250 pound man. The criminals will never have a problem acquiring a gun. Opponents of gun ownership would disarm their victims. This is NEVER going to happen in the United States. It's been talked about forever. Around 1970, a very popular Senator from Maryland, Joseph Tydings came out in favor of gun control. That was the end of his political career. It is hard for Europeans to understand that ownership of a gun for hunting and protection goes back to the earliest beginnings of life among European settlers in North America and is an inseparable part of American culture. And no, I myself do not and never have owned a gun. But I would not give up my right to so that I could have one if I felt threatened.
Complain about this comment
Re: #98 joe_young90
Yeah, I know AK47's are inexpensive. And I gather the ammo was cheap until the DOD started buying it all and shipping it to Afghanistan.
My issue wasn't that the person kept and *AK47* by their bed... It was that they felt the *need* to keep *any* gun by their bed.
By your statistics, death by any kind of gun in the US is quite far down the list...
Heart Disease is number one on your list... Do you keep a defibrillator by your bed?
Complain about this comment
Re #59 NoRashDecisions wrote:
When I mentioned culture, I didn't mean Holywoon (or rap music, or any of the other such things that periodically get blamed for all of society's ills).
As you rightly point out, these are younger than the disparities in crime rates, and have since spread to the UK and most of the rest of the world.
Rather, I meant general cultural attitudes about government and society and how people should relate to them.
Now, I haven't visited America myself, but from reading about it and its politics (from multiple perspectives), and from talking to numerous Americans on blogs and internet forums, I would say that as a general rule, Americans, compared to Britons, are more individualistic, more willing to sieze opportunities to make money, more distrusting of authority, and more sceptical that the government can solve their problems.
Now, this isn't meant as a criticism - in fact, I rather admire the Americans for those attitudes. However, I think they also have an unfortunate side effect of making a larger numer of people willing to resort to violence or other crime to get what they want.
Another issue may be the "melting-pot" nature of much of America. Again, this is not a criticism - the melting pot creates a vibrant culture that can draw on the best of all its contributors. But at the same time, it also can (and does) risk importing some of the less pleasant aspects of the donor cultures. Plus, with a greater diversity of peoples living together, it may be harder to build a unifying identity, and there are more potential fault-lines for (those who are so inclined) to exploit or use to excuse prejudice.
In contrast, consider Japan (which I have visited), which (at present) is an extremely peaceful, law-abiding, clean, well-ordered, polite (and ethnically-homogenous society).
(A couple of examples: underpassages wit hflower arrangements in glass cases, where the UK would have graffiti, and public transport that is punctual to a few seconds).
On the other hand, it can also be stiflingly conformist, supposedly often very racist (although I never experienced that myself), and still periodically produces nutters who go on killing sprees (just with knives rather than guns).
Complain about this comment
#88: (jacksforge) wrote:
"US are only guarenteed the right to bear arms to defend against the state."
That's nonsense. The Second Amendment and the Court's decision say no such thing. Taking up arms against the government is called rebellion, and the Bill of Rights does not protect that.
As I've said before, this decision is wrong, as wrong as the Dred Scott decision. And, like Dred Scott, it will be be overturned by a more civilized court.
Complain about this comment
In the rural parts of America, isolated farms, etc., ther are two staples prevalent throughout: guns and dogs.
When strangers approach in the night, the dogs bark and the guns come out. Without that protection, the rural farmers would be literally helpless, alone in the middle of the countryside.
Crime in these rural settings is relatively rare because criminals are well aware of the risks. Death is a real occupational hazard to burglers out there. Gun ownership keeps those peaceful settings peaceful.
Complain about this comment
illiniwatcher,
Your opinion of your fellow Americans is exactly why many people cannot stand the political left in this country. The idea that everyone (except of course the liberal left) is a gun toting freak that would like nothing better than to blow someone away on a whim is just one example. Everyone (except of course the liberal left) is so stupid that big brother must take care of them and make sure no hurts themselves. This type of elitism is what cost Kerry the election and will end up costing Obama the election.
to the militia crowd,
To claim that the second amendment was granted solely for militias is to misunderstand the bill of rights. The bill of rights was a list of INDIVIDUAL freedoms that cannot be infringed upon.
Thus the second amendment grants the individual right to bear arms.
Complain about this comment
On a related note, did anyone think McCain's response was a bit over done? He sounded like Bush the way he immediately used an unrelated court decision to make a political punch at Obama. Sounding like an angry GOP candidate is not a good idea for him for obvious reasons.....
Complain about this comment
The thing that gets me about this debate is that it goes completely past what has just happened. The Supreme Court has ruled on gun control, while everyone here is debating whether people in the US should be able to have a gun. They're not the same thing. Even if you have pretty strict gun control like having a background check, cooling off period, longer application process, no massive machine guns without a particular need (god knows what that could be) etc, then you can still own guns legally. So what's the problem?
The way you hear it here it's as if people were trying to ban guns. That will obviously not happen as the US is oddly addicted to them. What americans need to remember though is that, fine, have your guns, but you have to accept that every now and then you'll get a Columbine or Virginia Tech.
Complain about this comment
Even though it was a 5-4 decision, it is unlikely to be reversed by a future court. It is extremely rare that Supreme Court decisions are reversed for being "wrongly decided." Much more common are decisions arising out of circumstances not considered in earlier cases, which modify the earlier rulings in ways that can either strengthen or weaken them. Thus, the interesting question at this point is not whether some future Supreme Court will reverse this ruling, but what firearms regulations will be permitted by this and future Courts in light of this ruling.
Complain about this comment
DC is certainly not Wyoming..
in this trigger happy nation no ruling like this could have been worse.
SE DC will officially turn in an open gang war.
Recent shootings in that area made the police establish a worthless checkpoint scheme, what will they do now?
Complain about this comment
stephen_h222 (#124), rampage killings are not unique to the United States. These have also occurred in Australia, Canada, and the UK.
Complain about this comment
The poster who distinguished between gun protection and gun control made a good point. Any gun legislation seems to rile people up at the mere thought of making sure that you get a background check to buy a gun - consider that home and car loans don't kill people, but we don't have NRA-like groups protesting the very concept of credit checks.
D.C. tried to ban handguns. Granted that was extreme compared to background checks, short wait periods, and other typical efforts to keep gun purchases sane and legal. Even under this unusual ban, homeowners could have loaded up shotguns, rifles, etc. to defend themselves at home if they truly felt it necessary. The D.C. mothers interviewed on the radio were pleased with the ban and dismayed at the USSC decision.
Now the ban is overturned, and hopefully the city will move on to crack down on dealers (and with Federal help cut off the sources of many D.C. guns in neighboring states), require background checks, keep up the military style checkpoints to disarm gangs, etc.
The death toll from our mythological, unfettered liberterian gun policies is not confined to the USA. 100,000s of US-purchased guns enter Mexico every year (and BBC reports the weekly assasinations of their top police officials). Many of those US guns were purchased at shows (still the no background check loophole there) or from private dealers.
On two sides of the political spectrum we rationalize using and flirt with legalizing drugs that support criminal industries and subvert our southern neighbors, and we fight even the simplest, practical efforts to make sure only sane law-abiding people buy guns, and thus add part of the drug cartels death toll to our domestic toll.
Complain about this comment
Christian left,
the documenteory (which I thought was great had a clip of all the news hounds standing outside giving their little bit.
one said that (not exact words) they have just found a diary of one of the boys . in it he talks of hatred or revenge and says he wish's he could hijack a plane and fly it into the trade towers.
this is the news journalist.
and yes I know of the first bombing I was in new york working for a removals company and the lads all said quick turn round and take us down to the trade towers,there's been a bomb. but then I was working with the newyork Irish lads .
they wanted a look.
of course the job got done no quicker and we say nothing.
the trade towers were always a target,yes. so why are we going to replace the target with a new one:)seems strange to me.
but seriously watch it again wait for the reporters out side in the carpark, and tell me you do not hear the same thing as a discription of 9/11.
think before , NO ONE thought of flying an air liner into a building.
Except a little boy in colombine.
I don't give a damn who came up with it unless there is some thing to be learned.
And there is.
chance yes , but some one like Bin who hates the states would watch any news of how they screw up, any disaster, and if he saw that broadcast he say a vision. He was crazy enough to get on the case.
and even if not we should have hired the colimebine killer as a consultant before he went mad because he guessed what none of us guessed.
keep up the good posts I like them .
Complain about this comment
I think it is wise for every American adult to have a gun if for no other reason than that the Redcoads might try to come back. Aren't adult men in Switzerland required to own a firearm and know how to use it? I don't hear any of you Euros who would emasculate the United States EVER talk about that.
yea check your news better M erronious. the Swiss are having a problem.
suicide too easy with all those guns.
BBC did a story on that a few months ago, but hell there's so much better things to discuss.
or read, maybe thats why you remain Ignorent.
PS I LOVE VENISON. oh but you can use a bow for that.but then you could use a gun and I would say go ahead.
I ain't confused bout guns just don think they need little hidee hide guns in the city.
Old days you check your piece at the gates,Oh no that way the movies.
Complain about this comment
"Bare" Arms????Surely it should be "bear arms"? Only a little point maybe but it is important!!
Complain about this comment
#113 CorduroyMonkey
No idea what you are smoking.
America is the second most educated country when it comes to college degrees. In fact the US has the best Universities in the world. It is part of the reason why so many foreigners want an education here.
Do a little reasearch and you will find US universities at the top of the list.
Complain about this comment
Re: #121 ruralhills
I don't have any problem with a farmer or a rancher having a rifle or a shotgun or two.
The law that was struck down was an inner city ordinance... Why not leave it to the voters of your state or city to decide what sort of gun laws they want to have.
And just in passing... I had a friend who owned a farm up in Vermont (i.e. rural America)... Who owned a gun and felt he needed it.
Do you know why? 'Cause every hunting season he had to defend his property from drunken hunters who couldn't figure out which part of "Posted No Hunting" they didn't understand.
Complain about this comment
re: #128 bluejay60
"D.C. tried to ban handguns. . . homeowners could have loaded up shotguns, rifles, etc. to defend themselves at home. . ."
NO! DC banned all handguns, and made it illegal to possess a functional rifle, shotgun, etc. in the home as well.
Many people posting here apparently have no understanding of what the decision actually was. The decision does very little, if anything, in the area of "gun control".
The USSC decision did only two things:
1. It formalized what the large majority of Americans have always assumed: that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own guns, and is not limited only to the National Guard and Reserves.
2. It affirmed that "reasonable" gun control laws and regulations are permissible if valid rationale can be articulated. In this affirmation, it held that absolute bans are not "reasonable".
Complain about this comment
A lesson to me in the danger of 'skimming' the news. I was sure this was a handgun only ban. I see now upon re-reading, functional = not disassembled, for non-handguns.
Thanks Peter.
Happy birthday Noble.
Complain about this comment
The human race has been going on murderous rampages for thousands of years before fire arms came into play.
If you look at the recent past in some African countries you will see that where fire arms weren't readily available, they used what they had: machetes.
Violence and aggression are part of human nature, and that's why people need to defend themselves. A few words on pieces of paper won't change that.
Complain about this comment
re: #135 bluejay60
" . . . functional = not disassembled . . . "
The law was quite comprehensive - they had to be either disassembled, or locked away in a gun safe, or have a trigger lock installed. The instant the rifle or shotgun was taken out of the gun safe, or if it was re-assembled, or if the trigger lock was removed, it was at that instant illegal to possess, even if these were done in response to an attacker breaking in the door.
There were some verbal mumblings along the lines of "we'd never prosecute anyone for defending themselves" but, according to some statements, weapons were in fact confiscated (permanently) in exactly those situations after the cops finally showed up to investigate the attempted break-in.
So, for all practical purposes, the DC ban was a total ban on _all_ usable firearms at all times.
Complain about this comment
The difference in the UK is that we always seem to follow the government's guidance on what they think is good for us. The 2 big shooting events/crimes were as a result of the failure to implement existing laws and regs. So we make new laws. It seems that when ever "the majority" does not like something they want new laws to forbid it. Both the gun ban and the hunting ban were forced through the Lords using the Parliament Act which was intended for times o\f national emergency. This is not democracy, it is popularism. We seem to forget that only the law abiding abide by the law. Criminals by their nature break it. Banning guns or knives or anything else only removes them from the hands of the law abiding. Kind of makes sense. So as a boy I and all my friends had knives which we took to school - most of my boyhood activities are now either criminal or against health and safety regs!
Were not the US founding fathers incredibly visionary in creating the constitution and the means to protect it?
Complain about this comment
Interesting how many people on the right romantacize the idea of the "average man" in the same way the Communists and Socialists do with the so-called "proletariat".
Hard-working and honest all of them. With a pure heart absent of any ill intentions.
And yet the reality is almost opposite to all this when you see the number of suicides, family fights, friends turning on friends, lovers turning on each other, road rage, or just rage because you looked at me the wrong way.
This reality is about to get much worse with this Supreme Court decision and, in the end, we will come to a complete circle and go back to a time when everyone was for themselves.
We will in essence devolved from an advanced industrialiazed nation to one resembling the fractured and corrupt societies of third world countries and the warlords that run them.
It''s bad enough to have religious freaks trying to prevent our children from understanding the basics of evolution and biology and in that way dumbing down our country and helping it to implode.
Now we have to worry about most everyone being armed most everywhere risking the further loss of more American minds needed to keep the US part of the advanced nations in the world.
While we keep a lookout on our science curriculum and of each other the rest of the industrialized nations will replace the US in the fields of scientific and social progress this country used to pioneer.
Bye-bye US of A, I hardly knew ye.
Complain about this comment
good samaritan watch out the erronious will be on you for talk like that.:)
and all so true.
good Sam
"Interesting how many people on the right romantacize the idea of the "average man" in the same way the Communists and Socialists do with the so-called "proletariat".
Hard-working and honest all of them. With a pure heart absent of any ill intentions. "
I also find it amusing that a revolutionary country for the people etc. hates communists so much.it's the same concept,at a different time.
America and russia should be buddies till death but history prevails.
Complain about this comment
... it is even more interesting that Good Samaritan and Jacksforge are able to conflate Communism, a faith that Man is God and mankind an end, with America Revolutionary ideals embracing the individual as an end with government, his servant.
Complain about this comment
jacksforge #130
"yea check your news better M erronious. the Swiss are having a problem.
suicide too easy with all those guns."
Yeah, with socialized medicine, accumulating enough pills at one time to kill yourself on an overdose are too hard to come by. And it's so hard climbing the Matterhorn to jump off. What's a Swiss to do without a gun to kill himself. He just can't find another way. Take away their guns and there will be no more suicides in Switzerland. They'll just be forced to live out their miserable lives as yodeling Euros.
Complain about this comment
Gary A Hill (#73) and peterm99 (#74): Yes, and that is precisely my point Why would the Supreme Court refference out-of-date English laws? I honestly don't understand. The UK has (rightfully so) adopted their laws (be they regarding guns/self defence or otherwise) to fit the changing times and we, in my opinion, despritly need to follow sute!! So why, if the laws which the Supreme Court refference such non-existant laws anymore? What good does it do? I mean its not as if the Supreme Court is trying to make the case that UK citizens get to do X, Y, and Z, and so therefore US citizens should get to do so as well, So why refference it at all?
David Cunard (#80): I don't understand your joke refferencing my post at #66. British citizens don't have the right to bare arms because some citizens missused that "right" during the Dunblane shootings! Isn't it true that one gets a minimum of 5 years in prison for just owning a gun in the UK? Never mind using it, just owning one lands someone in prison, right? So how exactly is that funny? I don't understand.
I'm not being sarcastic-I'm serious!!
Complain about this comment
re: #143 NoRashDecisions
A large part of the 2nd Amendment issue revolves around what the intent was at the time of its inclusion into the Bill of Rights. The only way to do that in a systematic and objective manner is to assess the origins of the concept of a right to keep and bear arms from historical sources and to determine via contemporaneous writings what the understanding of that concept was at the time of adoption and thereby to infer the actual intent.
The origins of the concept as written can be traced back to the late 1600s when the right was established in England to protect the populace from the caprices of autocratic monarchy. As someone has previously mentioned, when the US gained independence, they adhered to the basic principles of the English legal system and its legal writing and precedents, including basic rights of the people, rather than starting a new legal system from zero. Therefore, for all practical purposes, when the Constitution was adopted in 1787, the population of the US had the same rights as the British population at the time (of course, we threw in a few extra rights for good measure, but that's beside the point here). At that time, the British population had the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the English Bill of Rights in 1689.
Obviously, since independence, the status of the two legal systems have diverged. What the Brits have done with their legal system _since_ US independence has no bearing on anything here anymore: referring to the state of current British law serves no purpose whatever in trying to infer the meaning of anything in the Constitution.
re: Cunard's little jest in post #80 - if you look up the definition of "bare" (as opposed to bear) in the dictionary, it will become obvious.
Complain about this comment
Homicide rate per 100,000 in USA (with guns) in 2001
3.98
In UK in 2002
0.15
How can there even be a debate? There is less gun crime in Britain because fewer people have guns.
The Supreme Court could hardly have decided the other way- can you imagine the uproar? There would be so many 'illegal' guns not handed in there would be no point in having the law at all!
Complain about this comment
I had intended to stay out, but after reading some of the comments, I thought I should comment.
The 2nd Amendment was a direct response to one of the Intolerable Acts, specifically the seizure of firearms from Crown citizens.
At that time, it was legal to own them. The colonial governors fearing resistance to their OTHER violations of Crown Law, sought to seize private weapons.
It was NOT a response to the invasion of Redcoats as has been stated.
It was amended to the Constitution, written 11 years AFTER the Revolution, to ensure that the Government would not be able to repeat the act of seizure.
Secondly, the wording is very specific. "a well regulated militia".
The Militia Act of 1791 (amended several times, but still in effect) stated that the militia was all able bodied males 16-55 years of age. It most certainly was NOT the standing military, but rather the citizenry of the states.
The 2nd Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from restricting the membership of militia from owning weapons.
Gun control laws have been on the books for some time. When enforced, they work well. When they are not, they're useless.
Oh, one other point, the long rifle was not invented in Pennsylvania per se, it was adapted there from a combination of German hunting rifles, and french fusils.
TF
Complain about this comment
TFrederick (#146), I can't find anything in the Intolerable Acts specifically relating to the seizure of firearms, but apparently General Thomas Gage, then Governor of Massachusetts, thought it prudent to do so in connection with his trying to enforce the Acts. That's an interesting bit of history which you have introduced into the discussion.
As for your remarks concerning the "militia," this is, of course, where all the controversy has been centered for many decades in discussions of the meaning of the second amendment. The Supreme Court gets the last word (that counts), however, and the recent opinion addresses the question for the first time and settles it by making a distinction between the "prefatory" clause (regarding the militia) and the "operative" clause. The second amendment has been interpreted to mean that the people, generally, have an individual right to possess operable firearms which is not dependent on their actual service in a militia. This is now settled law, and whatever people may think the "militia" clause meant, the Court's opinion is the only one that matters.
Complain about this comment
Many quotations from our founding fathers embrace us in society today.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Complain about this comment
I think most people posting here have missed a key point to the court ruling, that being that the majority found a HISTORICAL basis for the individual right.
Having researched the history of the 2nd amendment, I came to that conclusion years before the court decided to look at the case. Take some time to look at what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it.
Look to the Federalist papers and other writtings during that era and I think you will find that a majority of them meant an individual right when the amendment was written.
I realize that many europeans have a hard time understanding why some of us americans fight so hard for this one right, as outdated as some of even my fellow americans may feel it is. The easiest, and strongest answer is that when you give up one right, the government will begin to feel free to take any other.
I live in a state that recognizes and practices the right to carry and LAWFULLY use firearms. The state also has laws on the book that punish the misuse of those weapons. I also live where at night, we may have 2 county Sheriffs deputies covering the whole county. Your first defense is often yourself, and many of the criminals you may encounter are not locals, but come from outside the community.
I will finish off with an old saying my father was fond of, 'An armed society is a polite society'.
Complain about this comment
149 nice well put , but if america did not have the guns and instaed spent that money on police wages would you not be safer?
I agree if you say no.
but only because OUR cops are so bent.
Complain about this comment
jacksforge,
Have any idea how big, population wise, America is?
More police is a fine concept, however, the Supreme Court ruled years ago that the police cannot be held responsible if you are a victim of a crime. There is no obligation to protect anyone from crime in other words.
I feel uncomfortable about asking a man or woman who may barely make enough of a wage to put their lives on the line for me if I won't take at least some responsibility for my own protection.
I read BBC on-line as much as possible and i'm pretty aware of the serious crime problems the UK is going through right now. I guess gun bans really do work, for the criminal element that is.
Complain about this comment
Forgot to tell you jacksforge.
I like, respect and admire most cops. My parents were both involved in law enforcement, and I grew up knowing good cops. 'Bent' cops never seemed to last long in the honest company I knew.
Complain about this comment
#130 jacksforge,
"yea check your news better M erronious. the Swiss are having a problem.
suicide too easy with all those guns.
BBC did a story on that a few months ago,"
People who want to kill themselves always find a way. Look at Japan, which has extremely tight restrictions on firearms within the country. They have a disproportionately high suicide rate.
How do they do it? Jumping off buildings or in front of subway trains, etc.
People are creative.
#150 jacksforge,
"149 nice well put , but if america did not have the guns and instaed spent that money on police wages would you not be safer?
I agree if you say no.
but only because OUR cops are so bent."
Unfortunately, police cannot arrive on the scene instantaneously. Once we develop teleporters, however, the situation will change. Until then, those 10-15 minutes will be an eternity as you and your family are being robbed.
Complain about this comment
One good reason for Americans to have guns is that we never know when the Redcoats might try to return. I have a hunch the next time they come it will be in disguise. Now what do you supppose they will be disguised as? Forgers? :-)
Complain about this comment
301 million.
wow did the supreme court tell the cops to stop trying.
did they say people you are the law now?
forget the cops.
if cops are so popular how come they fail to get tax revenue increases approved by the peopel.,here in Oregon.
If the cops are so good how come they arrest people for protesting illegal destruction of buildings. as in New Orleans where two are charged with terrorism because they used a device that makes it hard for cops to remove them.
the last thing the cop need is a gun happy jerk shooting him as he follows a perp around a building.
british gun crime still WAY less than america but every enent is big because we still do not like armed idiots out there.
people jump under trains etc.
yea, but that was not what I was answering. he asked if the swiss were obliged to own and know how to use their gun.
I said they may reconsider
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4755143.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5355582.stm
Marcus your pathetic.
I'd forge your money its one of the easiest. except one thing that would stop me.
it is illegal tender. even the supreme court said the money Must be in some way identifiable to the blind, which american money is not.
the most advanced society , with the most concern for peoples rights and the blind have to rely on people no to rip them off.
which is not good enough by even your courts standards.
yet despite this they continue to introduce money with no blind accessibility.
Phantom of inferno.
Where do you guys get your names from.?
check the links.
they have slow response times in the UK to.
And i have lived in both. and well. I thought the brits were crazy until I met more yanks.
All you nationalistic peopel are idiots.
Oh and btw, I still KNOW american cops are bent.
screw you if you think other wise.
the reason I say they are bent is because they " don't break the code"
Read 2000ad they had a character,judge dread, now he saw a crime no matter who commits it.
not so with american police. only a little more so with UK police.
Check out Who killed the electric car.
there is a great sceen where the cops force the protesters away from a demonstration so GM could take perfectly good working cars in order to destroy them.
They had payed leases on them until the company decided to bury the EV project.
they took these cars back despite owners liking them and crushed them.
the owners had offered to buy them out right. but all along the cops are there for business.
cops putting pepper spray on towels and dabbing protesters eyes. because they sat and did not move when told to.
Your cops are thugs.
If they do not stand up and call out the bad apples then the barrel goes rotten.
hell I got a step bro in law who's a sheriff.He's a nice enough guy.
I would not trust him to make the right decision.
He's not racist, just not racially aware.
I agree with others that say they are underpaid.
but then they are overpaid if they are not preventing crime.
Your cops are little more than corp. protection rackets.
Some do it to be fair, many do it because they think they are tough, some want to give back, others want to control.
Either way I will not trust cops until I see a reason to. and being threatened in a court room is not a good way to get me to think good of the poLICE.
I don't give a damn what you say because you could be just like MA , a self serving idiot with blinkers on to all other problems.
I'll treat cops like humans when they behave like it.
american cops do not. british cops do,on the whole.
they do not bristle , they do not look at all , like they are criminals .
Watch cops. wow and they put that on TV. those cops are often(not always) total thugs.
Love it stick with it. but don't tell me to agre with you until you can show more honesty in the US system.
OH and they are racist .
like i said just look at the prison statistics.
Complain about this comment
Regarding post 155
It's so nice to know that jackforge knows so much about everything! Give him an excuse and he'll let you know how 'bent', racist, etc. that cops are. Sounds like someone who's probably been on the wrong side of the law and isn't really aware that;
a) Cops don't make laws, they enforce them.
b) Cops don't decide revenue increases. State legislators and the voters, in some states, do.
c) Last time I checked, it seemed to me that cops bleed red too. Our citizens seem to think that once a man/woman puts on a badge they become something less than human. That would give me a bad attitude.
The focus of this post was a decision by the high court to recognize something that most THINKING americans knew, The right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not collective right in america. I am way to mature to worry about anyone that will try to make it a racial, anti-government, anti-corporate rant. Don't like cops? Don't call 'em when you need help. Don't like the country? Don't come here or leave it. We won't stop you.
Myself, i'll stay and enjoy the freedoms that I believed in enough to serve in the military for, and keep my gun handy in case one of those BRAVE, HONORABLE, and COURAGEOUS police officers you hate so much needs a bit of assistance. Have a nice life!!
Complain about this comment
To Phantomofinferno
I don't feel unsafe now, never really have. I've lived around and owned guns most of my life, and feel perfectly safe walking around unarmed 90 percent of the time.
What I worry about is the attempts to take away or marginalize all of the rights guaranteed in our constitution, and like it or not, the second amendment is one of them. There is no proof that disarming any citizen of any country makes anyone but the criminal safer. I believe if you are going to have a weapon of any kind in your home, that you have an obligation to make sure that weapon is stored properly, and if someone else is harmed by your neglect, be prepared to face criminal or civil charges.
Call me a dinosaur, but I do not believe the constitution is a 'living document' to be interpreted or changed when convenient. There is a process written in to the constitution itself to change it, but you do so at your own risk.
Iv'e read post on this subject that would have you believe that gun owners in america are a group of beer drinking, wife beating, racist white guys just dying to shoot anyone. It doesn't quite match the reality I know. I know people of just about every race that own and shoot guns, and we view a day at the range as someone else who may spend a day on the golf course. To make it seem like anything else just makes us less likely to listen to the other sides views on the subject.
Complain about this comment
i'll have that nicelife. and point you to past letters where I have said I am fine with people owning guns.
I have one rule in my shop . guns are off the body in a box.
no one should be fire welding with a gun it the back pocket.
and no one else should have to worry that the OTHER idiot isnot as safe with their weapon.
those military trained respect that and understand that any pointing loaded or unloaded is not allowed.
And you may feel great about cops , but i have yet to meet anyone that thinks they are much more than unconstitutional tax collector, these days.
where they cannot respond to crimes because that does not raise money for them.
Traffic fines do.
as for cops enforceing laws that is an old and easy one to counter.
some would think there are three laws in america. no foreigners and no drugs and don't speed.
There is little else they show concern over.
keep you guns and keep them safe and don't allow anyone to get them ,or use them that might harm themselves or other. or face the punishment.
I agree with that.
In the above letter I told of being threatened by a cop ., in the court room. the Judge said it was OK and you all think i should "respect cops".
No I was smoking an american spirit hand rolled cigarette.
which he realised once he pulled me. not the Joint he jumped on his bike to follow me for.
It is a little hidden fact that american cop on the whole are not very bright.
some , but not so many. infact a guy sued NY because they would not let him in saying he was over qualified. he had a degree.
Complain about this comment
I think i'll give you one last post jacksforge.
To base your opinion of any profession or group of people based on the actions of one individual, or based on what Billy Bob the village idiot, or based on what you see on TV, or based on the infamous 'some guy in NY' is about the most childish, ignorant arguement for a stand that I have ever seen.
Find someone to help you locate a web sight for a big city police department, say Seattle, and have that person help you go to the recruiting section. Have them explain the qualifications for a basic rookie police officer. If you understand it, you may be surprised.
Whether you like them or not, cops are going to be around. That's because thinking people know there is always a need for someone to locate the occasional lost child,
bust a pedophile or 2, and sort through the bloody car crash and try to make sense of why the idiot thatwas driving drunk lived and everyone else died.
Not so bright? Sir, you aren't good enough to carry a good cops hat to a dog fight.
Complain about this comment
I find it funny you will give me one last post.
that is not your call.
your US cops have little respect. and are lackeys of big business.
Go get your gun.
Big deal.
I'd give some respect if you were talking about the fire fighters, but cops, man they are just donut jockeys.
I trust the FBI before the city cops.
Complain about this comment
And here's number two big shot.
I have all the proof I need.
I have lived here in tte US less time and seen more stupid police work with my own eyes than in a life time abroad.
Including communist Bulgaria.
And Thatchers UK.
Night and if you don't like it go back to where YOU came from.
And leave it . it may be you that is ruining america.
Bud
Complain about this comment
I think the 'people kill people' has some truth in it. Switzerland has militia and members keep them at home, it's a question of culture. America was not founded peacefully, and this influences the culture. On a slightly oblique note, why aren't gang members thought of in the same way as cowboys? I think the job descriptions would be very similar.
Complain about this comment
I am a Brit with permanent residence in the United States. I welcome the Supreme Court's decision on gun ownership.
We own guns which we enjoy shooting for recreation and for land maintenance. If only the criminals have guns (as in the UK) law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.
Dialing 911 (999 in the UK) could be the last thing you do if your home is invaded by armed criminals.
Our office in the UK was burgled some years ago. When the police arrived they were about to arrest me because, wait for it, I had an umbrella in my hand.
The burglars were coming in through the window. When I dialed 999 the dispatcher told me not to put myself in any danger. I said, 'They're coming in NOW!'
Law-abiding citizens need to be able to defend themselves against the brazen violence of criminals emboldened by the well-meaning but delusional activities of do-gooders.
Enough said.
Complain about this comment
While I am in favour of the freedom of the individual (which may, in some cases, include the right to own a weapon) I fail to see why anyone would need to own an assault rifle or AK-47. These are designed to do nothing less than kill people. A handgun would be an acceptable substitute, if you are REALLY afraid for your life... A news item just today reported how teen shot and killed his mother, and injured his father, after an argument regarding a video game. If a gun wasn't available, he wouldn't have been able to do that.
I rest my case.
Complain about this comment
That's quite the debate! I like that Americans seem to think their second amendment is more of a commandment, but no problem, it's your country, and you can run it however you want. I don't think america's crime problems are related to the availability of guns, anyway. I think all the problems in America stem from greed. If a greedy crack addict needs money for a fix, he'll shoot someone and rob them. That's simply a fact of life. If you want to eliminate gun crime, then decriminalize drugs. Most crime in the western world is fueled by the illegal drug trade. The people who sell want to keep making their money. The addicts have no choice but to commit crime to feed their addiction. Just think about it. If the government provided crack free of charge to addicts, how often would an addict need to execute a convenience store clerk for $50 for a bag of rocks? Just give people free drugs. They're going to use them anyway, and at least if they're free no one needs to die, and criminal gangs won't get rich. You'd be in control of the supply, you'd know who is using. The only way to win a war is to take over whatever it is you are at war against. You want to win a war on drugs, then take over the drug trade. With less crack addicted criminals roaming the streets, less people would be held up at gun point, so less people would need guns to defend themselves. That's what this is all about, right? Self defense? Well, be pro-active, defend yourself by getting rid of the root cause of most crime. Decriminalize drugs. maybe you think everyone would become a junkie, but I ask, are you all alcoholics and smokers!? Some people don't even use sugar or coffee, so decriminalization isn't a precursor to mass addiction. Necessity is the mother of invention. Addicts need a fix, the drugs are illegal and expensive, so they have to assault, murder, and rob to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
Let's face it, it probably isn't a good idea to let the vast majority of people, (who haven't already shot someone), own a gun. But then I don't believe in God, so they wouldn't listen to me anyway.
Complain about this comment
A lot of people find this American gun issue to be strange and confusing. Disregarding of the effects of gun laws on violent crime (an issue that is far from clear), let's look at what gun laws mean.
They mean that people aren't allowed to own guns. Fine, but the question is, on whose authority?
As always, where Europeans ask only "what ought to be?" Americans ask the additional question: "who ought to make it so?" The framers of the constitution knew too well what it could mean to have a malevolent government confiscating weapons from its citizens, and I as an American was ambivalent on this issue until I realized that although gun ownership ought to be discouraged, I would not be willing allow police the authority to insist that I not be armed.
Complain about this comment
165 TowersofDub
thats another nail hit squarely on the head.
or well said that man.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS