Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Larkinn]

If that is a nuke's only purpose then you would have to concede the point that a nuke can not possibly be used for anything else.

What? Since when did that enter into the definition of purpose? Thats an ignorant and asinine definition to say that what somethings purpose is means that it can't be used for anything else. I'm pretty sure, whether you believe in evolution or God, that your dicks purpose isn't to be stuck into a sheep, but we will all concede that its possible.

How did a nuclear weapon come to have the purpose of killing (as you maintain)?

Why was it made, why is it made, and what is it most useful for.

For your argument to be true nuclear bombs, guns, cars would have had to appear out of thin air and been given a purpose by some other power that we have no control over.

Not quite, no.

Unless of course it is your position that as a general rule we build things with no idea as to what we're gonna use them for and later some higher power tells us what there suppossed to be used for.

Again, not quite, no.

Of course I would oppose people haveing nukes. Not because of a nukes purpose, because an inanimate object doesn't have a purpose until I give it one.

Then tell me why you would oppose it.

Man you're a slippery one. Can't evem stick with your own argument for more tham a post. I said as a general rule people should be free to do things that don't adverselyu effect others. To which you inexplcabbly replied the VT shooter effected others. Guess I should have just responded with, DUH. Or kindly explain how you saying his actions effected others invalidates me saying people should not be regulated from doings things until their actions adversely effect others.

One of the enabling causes of shooting people was having access to firearms .

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by Larkinn
Might be a good idea to wait until the opinion comes out to decide who the winners and losers are.

Absolutely. Nothing has been said or done to indicate what and how the Supreme Court will rule at all. I suspect they will rule that a nebulous right exists but that the power to regulate is supreme. In other words they will play lip service to the 2nd Amendment.

And in the end, reasonable regulation is a must. One can have a right and that right does not have to be without bounds. The Government has a responsibility to protect the citizenry after all.

So lets wait and see exactly how the court rules and if it even matters.

Honestly, this decision doesn't matter. If the court rules that it is an individual right, then down goes the ban and folks can now legally do as they likely have done illegally. Meaning, I would be willing to wager that there is a large amount of illegal guns in DC. Some are being held by otherwise law abiding citizens who will not accept a government that arbitrarily decrees that the second amendment doesn't apply "in this case".

I understand that some rights must be regulated. But I disagree that the Government has any responsibility to protect the citizenry beyond "providing for the common defense" and generic law enforcement.

If you want the right to bare arms, wear a vest.

And if someone breaks into your house and kills your entire family, you die. Just like the 8 year old who picks up the loaded legal gun and plays with it.

By the way, is a nuke an arm? Do we all get one of those as well?

K...so guns don't kill people, people do. Then I guess you wouldn't mind taking away all of the guns that the US troops in Iraq have? After all, they aren't killing people so they are probably just weighing them down.

Weak.

Again, cars are integral to our economy, guns aren't.

Not counting how many people are saved by going to hospitals for cancer treatments, surgery, doctor checkups, etc, etc.

Not counting how many people are saved by ambulances.

Try again.

Privately owned automobiles can be banned in favor of mass transit. The roads are thus utilized more efficiently for Trucking, Military Movement, Emergency Services, etc.

Guns are for trained soldiers and educated hunters. But, criminals like them as well. Just what is a peace loving American to do?

Guns, and any personal weapons for that matter, are for citizens. Peace loving Americans need to arm up, train up, and stand up; for themselves.

then i guess for the sake of this argument you will have to lump me in as one of those nuts.

What is your specific argument as to why some types of guns need to be regulated more than others?

I didn't read all ten pages. Did this question get answered?

 

[Larkinn]

Weak.

Stunning argument

Privately owned automobiles can be banned in favor of mass transit. The roads are thus utilized more efficiently for Trucking, Military Movement, Emergency Services, etc.

Unless you were to completely and totally change the lifestyle of Americans this simply wouldn't work. Trillions of dollars would have to be spent moving folks in from rural areas closer to cities, building mass transportation, and reconfiguing the American landscape.

Guns, and any personal weapons for that matter, are for citizens. Peace loving Americans need to arm up, train up, and stand up; for themselves.

Yes...Peace loving Americans need to know how to kill other Americans. I don't really consider shooting someone peaceful...dunno just a thought.

 

[Bern80]

What? Since when did that enter into the definition of purpose? Thats an ignorant and asinine definition to say that what somethings purpose is means that it can't be used for anything else. I'm pretty sure, whether you believe in evolution or God, that your dicks purpose isn't to be stuck into a sheep, but we will all concede that its possible.

Because you are attributing characteristcs to inanimate objects that, in of themselves, they can't possibly have. It's conceivable had we not learned the negative effects of nuclear radionation we would be using nuclear bombs in mining applications. But thinking about it some more, we're both right. The intent of the nuclear bomb was to kill people. That's where you're right. Where I'm right is a PERSON had to give it that purpose. A PERSON designed it for that purpose. A PERSON could just as easily have decided to use it for scientific reseearch that has nothing to do with killing people. What if what we call a toothbrush had originally been designed as the best way to clean grout? Would you still be able to say that brush's purpose is to clean teeth? What if we walked or biked everywhere and we only had cars for entertainment like racing? Would you still be able to say a car was designed for the purpose of being a convenient way to get from point A to B? Of course you couldn't. Again the point is a PERSON decided THE application in which to use all of those things.

Why was it made, why is it made, and what is it most useful for.

In all cases you would have to ask the PERSON who originally thought it up. But hey you go ahead and ask the inanimate bomb what its purpose is. Please come back and tell me to quit holding my breath at some point.

Not quite, no.



Again, not quite, no.

If you say no then that means you must take the position that people DO in fact invent, creat and build things with a purpose in mind. Thus the objects purpose is derived from whoever created it.

Then tell me why you would oppose it.

Tell me why you care.

One of the enabling causes of shooting people was having access to firearms .

So then by extension your argument is because this happened guns should be banned because the repurcsions of them in the wrong hands are just too severe. Which goes back to RGS's argument as to why you don't apply the same standard to cars which have a much higher fatality rate per capita. Or how bout America's number one killer, heart disease. Usually caused by poor health, bad diet, obesity, etc.. We should of course then legislate that people must be healthy according to you.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally Posted by pegwinn
Weak.

Stunning argument

Succinct

Originally Posted by pegwinn
Privately owned automobiles can be banned in favor of mass transit. The roads are thus utilized more efficiently for Trucking, Military Movement, Emergency Services, etc.

Unless you were to completely and totally change the lifestyle of Americans this simply wouldn't work. Trillions of dollars would have to be spent moving folks in from rural areas closer to cities, building mass transportation, and reconfiguing the American landscape.

You are apparently willing to consign folks to death by not allowing them to possess weapons IAW their Constitutional Rights. At least I am not trying to kill em. Hell, the bark humping nature nazi's ought to give me a medal.

And, the economic boom from the mass transit rebuilding (a lot of it is already there) would offset the inconvenience. As an alternative we could build the infrastructure and simply tax the POV's out of business. Eventually a POV (not for business use such as a farm truck) would become a status symbol. Visit Japan sometime to see how it works.

Originally Posted by pegwinn
Guns, and any personal weapons for that matter, are for citizens. Peace loving Americans need to arm up, train up, and stand up; for themselves.

Yes...Peace loving Americans need to know how to kill other Americans. I don't really consider shooting someone peaceful...dunno just a thought.

I didn't say it was "peaceful" I said "Peace Loving". I am a peaceable guy unless provoked. I love peace.

The police are not your personal security detachments. They exist to serve all of society. You, and only you, must assume responsibility for your safety and that of your loved ones.

When we can eliminate criminals getting guns I might be willing to support regulation. When we are 100% double sure that the .gov will never, ever, become a tyranny then I might be willing to support bans.

Just a thought or two.

 

[CSM]

I was specifically talking schools, but if you want to talk about Grey, I'll raise you half a dozen postal workers going ballistic and a few dozen serial killers? You wanna play that game, I'm keen..

You were talking schools...missed that finer point. Sorry.

On a side note, I have no desire to "compare scores" between the US and NZ.

The bottom line: if you shoot at me you better bring lots of ammo and a radio to call backup; you will need it.

There are plenty of gun laws on the books and they have not made one bit of difference.

 

[CSM]

I never mentioned Scotland in my post. And you mention a couple of relatively minor incidents compared to the likes of Columbine and Virginia Tech, and we've not even mentioned the ones where four or five people have died. If you want me to goolge a list, I'll be more than happy to, but don't say I didn't warn you...

Ok...I just have to ask ...when does a minor incident turn into a major incident? Obviously the number of casualties has to be higher than 16. Hmmm...I guess as long as the number of firearm caused deaths remain in the "minor" category, gun ownership is ok.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See my previous response.

This deep into the thread, that's impractical.

If you trust that your neighbor will be responsible with, as you said, a semi-auto rifle, why do you not trust that he will be similarly responsible with a full-auto rifle?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strawman. It is up to the person for sure re what the gun does, but the express design structure of a gun is to kill things.

So... if I don't use my gun to kill things, am I using it improperly?

 

[Thomas O'Reilly]

Hello all. I tend to think gun laws should be stricter.

 

[pegwinn]

Hello all. I tend to think gun laws should be stricter.

Why?

 

[eots]

Gun Owners Fooled By Mammoth Supreme Court Hoax

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 20, 2008

Comments made by justices in an ongoing landmark case have been heralded as a "victory" for the individual right to bear arms by the media and embraced by self-proclaimed conservatives, but in reality gun owners are the victim of a mammoth hoax and the second amendment is being destroyed.

As Gun Owners of America point out today in a USA Today op-ed, the second amendment is the very bedrock of America and shouldn’t even be the subject of a Supreme Court debate.

Individual Right to Bear Arms Wins Favor in Court Argument, the headline from the New York Law Journal, was typical of the media output after most of the nine Supreme Court justices hinted that the right to bear arms is a "general right."

However, the case is likely to conclude with the introduction of several new regulations on hand gun ownership at the very least, and, if the government gets its way, a total ban on handguns.

The outcome will set the precedent for gun laws nationwide.

The NY Law Journal writes:

Justice Kennedy’s comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.

Counting Justice Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices were ready to recognize some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms that is only loosely tethered, if at all, to the functioning of militias. What kind of regulation of that individual right will be allowed by those justices is uncertain.

[…]

When the arguments were over, gun-control advocates seemed less pessimistic than before the session began, though they did not predict victory.

Joshua Horwitz, director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, who filed a brief in the case and watched the arguments, conceded he cannot count five votes for a strictly militia-rights view of the Second Amendment that would allow for almost unlimited regulation of firearms. But he could conceive of five justices adopting an individual-rights view that will mean "a lot of regulations will be OK. The outcome is not necessarily poor for us."

In a USA Today op-ed piece, Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, attorneys for Gun Owners of America, outline how thee second amendment was intended to apply to individuals and that it’s pre-eminent reason was for the purposes of defense against a tyrannical state or invading army.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Entrusting the nation’s sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government’s military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment’s "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment’s "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals’ test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

Click here to listen to Alex Jones and Gun Owners’ President Larry Pratt discuss the case.

The case, DC v. Heller, stems from proceedings filed by lawyers for security guard Mr Dick Anthony Heller, which state that the District’s categorical restrictions are so broad that they cannot comply with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.

An amicus curiae brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, on behalf of the Bush administration and the government, says that federal gun control measures should not be limited and proposes that a court may determine that a full scale ban on almost all self-defense firearms may be upheld as constitutional if it constitutes a “reasonable” restriction of constitutional rights.

Lawyer Alan Gura, opposing the law and representing Mr Heller said "We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times in the nation’s capital."

Read the transcript of yesterday’s argument.

Read briefs in D.C. v. Heller.




Advocates of the ban and the representatives of the District of Columbia have attempted to argue that the history and context of the second amendment applies to the rights of militias and not to individuals.

However, there are thousands of quotes from the founding fathers that pour water on this weak argument. The founders said over and over that when a government seeks to take away individual weapons it constitutes tyranny and that government must be removed.

Here are a few choice quotes:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

[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 Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
—John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Furthermore, even if you argue that the second amendment applies to militias, the very definition of the militia, according to the founders and their contemporaries, is THE PEOPLE:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Last month a majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House issued a brief in which they urged the Supreme Court to uphold it’s previous ruling that the District’s handgun ban violates the second amendment.

The brief asked the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision and allow the precedent of applying a stricter standard of review for gun control cases to stand.

In a separate letter, other representatives, including Congressman Ron Paul, called for the Clement/Bush administration brief to be withdrawn as it sets a precedent for further erosion of individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Citing Constitutional concerns the letter stated:

“If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a “reasonable” limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale.”

Essentially the government is saying "You have the right to bear arms, unless we say so."

Where there is individual ownership of weapons there is liberty, where there is not there is tyranny because powerful organizations and governments will have a monopoly on it. The latest developments in this case are not a "victory" for the second amendment, on the contrary, they constitute its very undoing.


http://www.infowars.com/?p=920

 

[Diuretic]

This deep into the thread, that's impractical.

If you trust that your neighbor will be responsible with, as you said, a semi-auto rifle, why do you not trust that he will be similarly responsible with a full-auto rifle?

Sometimes it's not useful to pull apart the analogy, simply take it on face value and go from there. I did respond to another similar question that I would have a better chance against someone with a bolt-action rifle rather than a fully automatic weapon. That was my point. In other words I do believe that a fully-automatic weapon should be prohibited from civilian use/possession. That is, some weapons are capable of so much damage that they should not be permitted in civilian life, that there's no reasonable justification for permitting civilian access. Civilian law-enforcement needs access to such weapons (primarily CT groups rather than regular units), but outside of civilian law enforcement, no justification.

 

[Bern80]

Sometimes it's not useful to pull apart the analogy, simply take it on face value and go from there. I did respond to another similar question that I would have a better chance against someone with a bolt-action rifle rather than a fully automatic weapon. That was my point. In other words I do believe that a fully-automatic weapon should be prohibited from civilian use/possession. That is, some weapons are capable of so much damage that they should not be permitted in civilian life, that there's no reasonable justification for permitting civilian access. Civilian law-enforcement needs access to such weapons (primarily CT groups rather than regular units), but outside of civilian law enforcement, no justification.

But that is simply incorrect. Why does everyone on the other side of this issue feel this overwhelming need to disassociate guns from people? There is only one way an automatic rifle can cause damage. That's by a PERSON acting on it.

You can call it cliche or whatever you want, but this is a simple basic fact: A weapon is as dangerous as the PERSON using it.

Which is why it makes absolutely no sense to regulate guns and ignore human behavior when it is the behavior you're really worried about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sometimes it's not useful to pull apart the analogy, simply take it on face value and go from there.

I did take it on face value.
You said you trusted your neigbor with guns.
I wonder why you dont trust him with an automatic rifle when you trust him with a semi-automatic rifle.

I did respond to another similar question that I would have a better chance against someone with a bolt-action rifle rather than a fully automatic weapon. That was my point.

If you trust your neighbor with the bolt-action rifle, what's the difference?

In other words I do believe that a fully-automatic weapon should be prohibited from civilian use/possession. That is, some weapons are capable of so much damage that they should not be permitted in civilian life that there's no reasonable justification for permitting civilian access.

If the right to have a gun is based on the need to kill people, what argument is there that any given firearm should be banned because it might be "too effective" at killing people?

I mean, if the police have them, why shouldnt the law abiding have them?

 

[Diuretic]

But that is simply incorrect. Why does everyone on the other side of this issue feel this overwhelming need to disassociate guns from people? There is only one way an automatic rifle can cause damage. That's by a PERSON acting on it.

You can call it cliche or whatever you want, but this is a simple basic fact: A weapon is as dangerous as the PERSON using it.

Which is why it makes absolutely no sense to regulate guns and ignore human behavior when it is the behavior you're really worried about.

I want a fully qualified military person who is not just well trained but is rational and following legal orders to be operating that automatic. I don't want a civilian operating that automatic. No, let me qualify that. If a civilian wants to operate a fully automatic weapon then they should be permitted to do so, on a suitable range, using weaponry that belongs to a corporate body and is stored and maintained properly. No problem. But as for private ownership and use outside of those conditions, no, there's no reasonable justification for it. You present me with reasonable justification beyond a rhetorical claim and we'll pursue it.

 

[manifold]

If a civilian wants to operate a fully automatic weapon then they should be permitted to do so, on a suitable range, using weaponry that belongs to a corporate body and is stored and maintained properly. No problem. But as for private ownership and use outside of those conditions, no, there's no reasonable justification for it. You present me with reasonable justification beyond a rhetorical claim and we'll pursue it.

Military conflict?

 

[Diuretic]

I did take it on face value.
You said you trusted your neigbor with guns.
I wonder why you dont trust him with an automatic rifle when you trust him with a semi-automatic rifle.


If you trust your neighbor with the bolt-action rifle, what's the difference?

I've answered that point.

If the right to have a gun is based on the need to kill people, what argument is there that any given firearm should be banned because it might be "too effective" at killing people?

I mean, if the police have them, why shouldnt the law abiding have them?

I don't know if I said that the right to have a gun is based on the need to kill people. That need may arise for a civilian (and let me make it clear that in this discussion, a "civilian" includes a civilian police officer) to do so but I would think the two main reasons are (a) sporting shooting and (b) hunting animals. For me (a) and (b) are sufficient reasons for someone to be permitted to own/use firearms. I also agree that personal protection as in ccw is a valid reason. But in that instance the justification is a just in case justification which causes me no problems.

Not all police officers will need to be equipped routinely with automatic weapons. Counter-terrorist units do need them as a matter of course. In a CT situation domestic police will be first responders, therefore they need to be properly armed. But a civilian non-police officer has no need for such a weapon.

 

[manifold]

...I would think the two main reasons are (a) sporting shooting and (b) hunting animals. For me (a) and (b) are sufficient reasons for someone to be permitted to own/use firearms.

Do you honestly believe that the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights to protect an individual's freedom to shoot skeet and the odd animal?

If so, then you really don't believe in the right to bear arms, which is certainly your prerogative. Just at least be honest about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've answered that point.

Not so much, but OK.

I don't know if I said that the right to have a gun is based on the need to kill people.

Perhaps not, but that's where it comes from -- the right to self-defense.
Any other use is ancillary.

Not all police officers will need to be equipped routinely with automatic weapons.

But, police departments DO have them, and as such, private citizens should, if they chose, be able to have them as well.
After all, if they need them to protect us, we clearly need them to protect ourselves.