Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

  • News
  • Thread starter WheelsRCool
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Gun
In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, with a 5-4 ruling by the Court. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. The dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The ruling states that law-abiding, mentally competent Americans are now allowed to possess a handgun in their home anywhere in the US. This decision has been considered a significant one for Americans, particularly with the upcoming Presidential term and potential changes to the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that it is not their role to declare the Second Amendment extinct and that it is
  • #71
Actually, during World War I, it was the Progressives, the pre-cursors of today's "liberals," who were the most pro-war and nationalistic and staunchly against any protesting. Woodrow Wilson was a bigger fascist than Mussolini when you observe what he did. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

This is so ludicrous it's almost unfathomable anybody would utter it. There is comparison between Wilson and Mussolini.

First of all, Mussolini invented Fascism. He was the very definition of fascism; he defined it, and if you go over his society step by step, you see that he was not in any way a liberal democrat.

Wilson was not the most "pro-war" president in US history. He himself originally had reservations about getting into World War I. And while it is true he passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts that imprisoned pacifists, socialists, and isolationists, he did not brutalize them like Mussolini did.

Wilson ended up imprisoning many Socialists during the time, this is well known, as there was a lot of Socialist opposition. Mussolini, on the other hand, directly ordered his black shirted thugs to go around and murder the opposition.

For example, the brilliant socialist Matteotti, who stood up in the Italian Chamber of Deputies to denounce the establishment of dictatorship, was visited by Mussolini's goons one morning and shot to death. This happened to pretty much anybody who "stepped out of line," whereas, in America under Wilson, certain anti-war speech was deemed as aiding an abetting an enemy. So, it wasn't as arbitrary as Mussolini's action.

That's the difference between Fascism and a liberal democracy like America. For all its faults, America was nowhere near a Fascist dictatorship in World War I. And it's generally conservatives who claim anti-war speech is "anti-American" even to this day.

Second, Wilson was fighting for Democracy. In International Relations, which I've studied, they call it "Collective Security." Wilson didn't want to go to war unless all other options had failed[/i], and, of course, something like World War I was far more debatable than Iraq.

What Wilson tried to do was establish the League of Nations. This was understood to be a good idea as it was known that Europe had practically killed itself off by continued warfare. War was continual, in any place in Europe it was likely occurring in some form or another. Of course, his plan failed, but it was in a way a predecessor to the UN and there has been a fair amount of stability in Europe, and America, since the establishment of it. So, it was not a failed idea.

This is in complete contrast to the unilateralism (like what Bush seems to believe in), of Mussolini, who invaded Ethopia and so on for the most dubious of reason.

Lawerence Britt and other political scientists have outlined fascism, and it's generally extreme/militant nationalism, control and/or manipulation of the media by the government and corporation, the continued collusion of government and business, and so on. This is far more Reagan/Bush/Coolidge than Wilson or FDR, who actually weakened corporate power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
drankin said:
Wow! I wasn't aware of most of those quotes. I think you nailed the context of the 2nd Amendment.

That's funny, because I've provided documentation that shows the founders seem to have wanted to limit the power of the militia.

In any case, some of those quotes seem dubious. For example:

WheelsRCool said:
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

I've read the Federalist Papers as a young interested student, including Hamilton's portions (some of the most brilliant, imo), and I don't remember anything like that in there.

There are different versions of them published, so a page number alone is meaningless.

And what the hell does "184-8" mean? Did Hamilton use five pages to write that quote down or something?

Either he believed in the right of people to be properly armed so much he took five pages to write that quote, making the letters extraneously big, or that quote is a misquote. I'd like to see the real reference to this one, and what the heck is going on here, cause that probably should be flagged as another quote some gun advocate has made up.

An online text of the Federalist Papers with that in there should suffice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
chemisttree said:
Can you name one? Did Scalia miss one?


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Even the Miller opinion that you refer to was decided in error. That opinion ruled,
The justices did not know that such weapons indeed had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" since weapons of the identical type were in use at the time by the US Army. Had they known this, the opinion would have undoubtedly reflected it.

"The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based". --Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

And if you look at the Miller ruling, they interpreted the Second Amendment from a "well-regulated" militia standpoint. That is what I'm arguing, that it is to be interpreted under that framework. So, gun laws aren't unconstitutional.

We can play the quote game and history's mysteries all day here, or even fabricate quotes while citing charlatans like Goldberg to prove our points. In reality, applying modern context to the founders is actually quite ludicrous.

Or we can rationally argue about it, and it is not irrational to think the founders interpreted it to mean in the context of a militia, when so many judges and even some of their own statements (which are real ones, not made up ones) indicate this. I agree, though, that there many have been many anti-federalists who interpreted it as an individual right.

In response to the rather rational post of TheStatutoryApe, I agree there might be some middle ground between the collective right interpretation and the absolutist or individual right interpretation (if that's what he's saying).

Unfortunately, with all that's gone on I don't have time to completely reply to his post, but the problem is that we've basically tried that, with an emphasis being on the individual right, and yet gun homocide figures are still deplorable.

drankin said:
And the argument that we couldn't hold up against tanks & jets (posted by WarPh) from our own government is actually bogus IMO. There aren't enough military resources to hold down the current gun owning populous, especially if emergency militias were formed.

First of all, under what context would you support armed insurrection, which the founders actually quelled a few times?

Second, you forget that half the country are conservatives, with a libertarian element to them (the modern right-wing version, not the classical, socialist version of libertarianism, what I call true libertarianism), that seem to believe the problem of society is that Wal-Mart doesn't have the freedom it needs, and abortions. On the other hand, you have liberals, who seem to believe the corporations have too much control and the government has done to much for them.

It's split about 50-50, the country is very divided. So, likely you'd have a large counter-rebellion against an attempted libertarian/confederate/fascist takeover, as well as a communist or anarchist take over (the extremes of right and left, respectively).

Third, I don't agree that the government couldn't easily smash a revolution. This happens far more often than revolutions are successful, historically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
OrbitalPower said:
Third, I don't agree that the government couldn't easily smash a revolution. This happens far more often than revolutions are successful, historically.

I once believed that the usefulness of an armed citizenry against oppressive governments was no longer applicable. And then I remembered that a bunch of hash-smoking amateurs kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan. We're not doing very well over there either.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
militia as body of citizens armed to defend the nation or some part there of

SO how does that square with the assault gun or full automatic gun bans

any invading army WILL have modern guns
as will any government troops we need to rebel againts

SO should a modern militia be equipped with full auto guns, tanks, AAA ect
or they are in a no win lost cause if the other side has all that and more

hand guns would have a very limited role in any militia
most of the now banned, restricted , assault guns or full automatic guns
would be far more use to a real militia esp if it is to have any hope of winning
 
  • #76
I will address the other parts when I have some more time, I will respond to this for now:

OrbitalPower said:
This is so ludicrous it's almost unfathomable anybody would utter it. There is comparison between Wilson and Mussolini.

First of all, Mussolini invented Fascism. He was the very definition of fascism; he defined it, and if you go over his society step by step, you see that he was not in any way a liberal democrat.

He "officially" invented fascism, but the philosophical elements of fascism were around long before Mussolini gained power. And yes, fascism shares many things with liberal democrats.

Wilson was not the most "pro-war" president in US history. He himself originally had reservations about getting into World War I. And while it is true he passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts that imprisoned pacifists, socialists, and isolationists, he did not brutalize them like Mussolini did.

You are correct in that he was, to the dismay of many Progressives at the time, deemed "too soft" regarding the war.

That's the difference between Fascism and a liberal democracy like America. For all its faults, America was nowhere near a Fascist dictatorship in World War I. And it's generally conservatives who claim anti-war speech is "anti-American" even to this day.

No it isn't. For one, fascism is an incredibly difficult to define subject. The only thing that can really be said about it is that it is anti-free market capitalism, individual rights, and so forth. Many scholars have for years considered fascism a variant of socialism, but now some are beginning to wonder if socialism is really a variant of fascism.

Second, Wilson was fighting for Democracy. In International Relations, which I've studied, they call it "Collective Security." Wilson didn't want to go to war unless all other options had failed[/i], and, of course, something like World War I was far more debatable than Iraq.


No, he wasn't. Woodrow Wilson wrote many hostile things towards the ideas of individual liberties and the Constitution in his various writings. He was no friend of liberty. He believed that the government expansion of government power was a natural thing, and that the entire idea of democracy was a tired old, 19th century ideology. Most of the Progressives did. They believed the power of the State was how best to organize and shape society. One of the only ways to get such power is through a war, or the moral equivalent of war. With war, you can nationalize the economy, regulate prices and wages, and control people a lot more. Historically, the American Left seems to seek the equivalent of war, for example the extreme environmentalists saying we need to face global warming with the same tenacity we faced World War II.

What Wilson tried to do was establish the League of Nations. This was understood to be a good idea as it was known that Europe had practically killed itself off by continued warfare. War was continual, in any place in Europe it was likely occurring in some form or another. Of course, his plan failed, but it was in a way a predecessor to the UN and there has been a fair amount of stability in Europe, and America, since the establishment of it. So, it was not a failed idea.

The United Nations is a joke. The only reason why the Europeans have not warred with each other since then is because they don't have much military power and they were also united for much time against the Soviet Union. The League of Nations was a dangerous proposition that would have sacrificed America's national sovereignty. And I doubt the UN has much influence at all on America itself in terms of stability here between the various sections of the country.

This is in complete contrast to the unilateralism (like what Bush seems to believe in), of Mussolini, who invaded Ethopia and so on for the most dubious of reason.

Lawerence Britt and other political scientists have outlined fascism, and it's generally extreme/militant nationalism, control and/or manipulation of the media by the government and corporation, the continued collusion of government and business, and so on. This is far more Reagan/Bush/Coolidge than Wilson or FDR, who actually weakened corporate power.

Completely wrong. Fascism is not at all militaristic. Militarism and nationalism are but one aspect of certain fascist groups. During World War I, it was the Progressives who were the most militaristic and nationalistic for example. And I agree that the Progressives were one form of fascists, but nationalism and miltiarism are not what make fascism.

And you are also confusing patriotism with nationalism. Nationalism and patriotism are two separate things.

Regarding the collusion between business and the government, you are talking about the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. Collusion between business and government does not occur from libertarian/"Reagan conservative" policies. It can't. Embracing free-market capitalism and free-trade always has prevented it.

On the other hand, Leftwing/Democrat policies do result in such collusions, through the creation of big governmetn regulatory agencies and high taxes that allow big corporatiosn to develop artificial monopolies and small businesses get squashed. This is what happened in Mussolini's Italy. This is what happened in Nazi Germany. And it is what happened in much of America until Reagan finally came and put a stop to it.

To give you an example, look at the electronics and computer industry. There is constant, cutthroat competition. Monopolies are very, very difficult to form, for the most part. On the other hand, look at the drug industry. The drug industry is stringently regulated by the FDA. As such, the FDA and the drug industry protect each other, and the drug industry is controlled by a few very large and powerful corporations. To start a drug company to compete with those companies in America is very difficult, as you must have the capital and knowledge to develop the drug, then it must go through about ten to fifteen years of FDA testing. This makes potential competitors very few.

There is a reason why airlines lobby regulators for tougher regulation; it's to prevent small airlines from starting up and threatening their business (as Richard Branson did with the British airline).

There's a reason Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage.

It is the big government, regulatory policies of the Left that cause the collusion of business and government, not the pro-free enterprise, pro free-trade policies of the true Right or Libertarians.

And there are certain Big Government Republicans out there who violate this and are just as guilty as the Democrats and Leftists.

Remember, there is a big difference between being "pro-free enterprise" and "pro-business." Being pro-business can mean being anti-free enterprise, and being pro-free enterprise can mean being anti business.

It is because of Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher in England, that the unions lost a lot of their stranglehold over the economy, and Big Business and Wall Street were made a lot mroe accountable.

Reagan's de-regulation of the financial markets killed the monopoly that the Wall Street priviledged elite had had for years. Now, Wall Street is available to anyone willing to work hard. His de-regulation of the telecommunications industry, de-regulation of the trucking industry and airlines (which came before him), all opened up these industries to competition and thus improved them all a great deal.

The financial revolution that resulted from Reagan's policies are what also made companies end up getting restructed a lot and more debt-ladden, which made the corporate executives a lot more accountable to the shareholders.

The banks no longer could sit on their butts and relax, as they now had to compete. We have since seen the more explosive creation of wealth in the history of this country since the Reagan years. He was in no way, shape, or form, fascist. Both he, and Margaret Thatcher, moved America and the UK away from becoming more and more fascistic.

Fascism is, to define it very simply, when politicians try to create a "balance" between business and government. They did not like the laissez-faire capitalism and they did not like the pure socialism. This is the very platform the German National Socialist party ran on. And the people fell for it, because on paper it sounds good. In practice, it gives you the same result as pure socialism.

Bureaucracy is bureacracy. You can have the State directly own everything, or you can allow "capitalism," but regulate prices, wages, quotas, and all that heavily, which kills off small businesses, ruins the economy, and puts a bunch of corporate monopolies and oligopolies in charge of the economy, thus giving the same overall result as pure socialism.

That is the core definition of fascism. When politicians today talk about "the free-market, regulated in the public interest," or "balancing corporations and state," that's headed straight towards fascism.

And it is for these reasons why the Democratic party (and certain parts of the Republican party) tends to fascistic. They have wanted to nationalize healthcare. They want to nationalize the oil companies now even (both of which would give the government a LOT more power; one of the main checks on the pwoer of the U.S. government for many years was that it did not own the oil industry, as the U.S. oil industry uised to control the world price of oil for the most part).

But the modern Democratic party, despite its fascistic tendencies, are not warmongers. They DO, however, want the "moral equivalent" of war, which they have found in global warming. They see it as the perfect excuse to bring tremendous more State power over our lives. One look at California is all one needs to see that (Cali recently tried to enact legislation to control people's thermostats).

True conservatives are opposed to any large-scale war unless absolutely necessary, because they know that such a war means an expansion of the power of the State, as happened in World War I and World War II.

Going back to the European fascists, the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascista were very much in favor of a high minimum wage, price controls, strict regulation of Big Business, universal healthcare, love of the environment, high taxes/wealth confiscation, guaranteed jobs, gun control, abortion, pensions for the elderly, etc...there was nothing Bush/Reagan about them whatsoever.

The whole idea that the Republican party is "neo-fascist" is one of the greatest historical twists in existence. It comes about likely because of Republicans being known as the party that represents the "white establishment" (hilarious in that the Republican party was originally created to free the black slaves, and the KKK was originally the terrorist arm of the Democratic party), Republicans tend to be patriotic, which the Left confuse with nationalism, and Republicans tend to be religious Christians who do not like homosexuals (as the Nazis hated them).

But these are wrong comparisons, because Republicans, ones who actually adhere to the true Republican values and aren't elitists (which you find on both sides of the political isle), are not at all racist or prejudiced. They are not nationalistic, and only the really kooky ones want to outlaw homosexuality (these ones are usually religious believers to a level of cultishness).

Regarding FDR, FDR did not weaken corporate power by any means. First of all, FDR had his administration directly copy the policies of the German National Socialist Party (Nazis). He almost succeeded in giving himself equal powers comparable to what Hitler and Mussolini each had over their own economies. His National Industrial Recovery Act passed through both houses of Congress, but got shot down by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, he persisted with his National Industrial Recovery Administration, which used policies copied from the German Nazi party, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese fascists. His two books were given lavish praise by the German Nazi press and both Hitler and Mussolini wrote praisingly of FDR.

Woodrow Wilson similarly brought business right into bed with government, to nationalize industry for World War I.
 
  • #77
OrbitalPower said:
We can play the quote game and history's mysteries all day here, or even fabricate quotes while citing charlatans like Goldberg to prove our points. In reality, applying modern context to the founders is actually quite ludicrous.

Not at all. And Goldberg is no "charlatan." You should read him, or read some of the classical texts on economics and economic history.

Unfortunately, with all that's gone on I don't have time to completely reply to his post, but the problem is that we've basically tried that, with an emphasis being on the individual right, and yet gun homocide figures are still deplorable.

If you can figure out a way to stop people from illegally obtaining guns, I might agree with you somewhat in that. Gun homicides in America are deplorable a good degree because of our population in comparison to European nations, and our inner-city problems. Otherwise, there are very few cases of gun homicides in the huge swath of America between the East and West coast.

The fact that gun homicides in Switzerland are lower than what they are in America, but they have a higher per capita of gun ownership, also contributes to this.

Second, you forget that half the country are conservatives, with a libertarian element to them (the modern right-wing version, not the classical, socialist version of libertarianism, what I call true libertarianism)

The "modern, right-wing" version of Libertarianism is based on the concepts of the classical liberal, essentially the social liberalism of the Left and the classical economics of the Right. There is no such thing as a socialist Libertarian. Socialism is ardently against the concept of human and individual freedom, which is one of the core components for the Libertarians.

Socialism and fascism were considered the wave of the future in the early 20th century. Only those right-wing, idiotic, pesky conservatives were still stuck in the 19th century with their tired-old concepts of individual liberties, free-markets and capitalism, and so forth. With the Great Depression, most thought capitalism was coming due to its long-awaited demise.
 
  • #78
OrbitalPower said:
And if you look at the Miller ruling, they interpreted the Second Amendment from a "well-regulated" militia standpoint. That is what I'm arguing, that it is to be interpreted under that framework. So, gun laws aren't unconstitutional.

The Miller ruling isn't the best case to cite since Miller fled during the proceedings and his lawyers didn't even present a case. The Federal Government's case was based on the militia interpretation and thus the Court ruled in relation to that interpretation. The Court did not examine the nature of individual rights in depth and actually ruled that the weapon in that case was not useful to a militia when in fact it was being used by the US Army at the time. Thus, their finding was in error. Not the best case to base an argument upon.

Certainly gun laws aren't unconstitutional... just the ones that prevent an individual from owning a handgun or regulating it's storage in a manner to render it ineffective.

Or we can rationally argue about it, and it is not irrational to think the founders interpreted it to mean in the context of a militia, when so many judges and even some of their own statements (which are real ones, not made up ones) indicate this. I agree, though, that there many have been many anti-federalists who interpreted it as an individual right.

The founders definition of militia included all males of a particular age. The right was conveyed as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." rather than the right of members of the state militias.

My original comment was directed at the statement, "...the court has ruled numerous times on this issue..." I interpreted that to mean the Supreme Court rather than the 'courts' as you undoubtedly meant (judging from your recent posts).
 
  • #79
I have a question for opponents of private gun owership: How are you going to guarantee my safety? There is no way to eliminate guns and other weapons, which means that criminals will have weapons. This conclusion is unavoidable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I have a right to life. The State cannot guarantee my safety against, intruders, and events that might otherwise threaten my safety - events like riots - therefore I have a right to protect my life. And this right supercedes even the Bill of Rights. As by our own Delclaration of Independence, it is right that is self-evident.
 
  • #80
Ivan Seeking said:
I have a question for opponents of private gun owership: How are you going to guarantee my safety? There is no way to eliminate guns and other weapons, which means that criminals will have weapons. This conclusion is unavoidable.

I am not an opponent of private gun ownership, but you may have heard of such organizations as the police, courts, prisons, FBI, DEA, ATF, Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines? And that's without listing private security outfits... At no point in my life have I ever felt the slightest need to purchase a gun for self-defence, nor has anyone I know (with the exception of a couple of criminals). Maybe I've been fortunate to live in uncommonly safe areas, but this whole line of thought just seems beside the point. The wild west days are long gone.
 
  • #81
I meant to state, "The Supreme Court." I am sure lower courts have had different rulings here and there. But the Supreme Court has always upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

OrbitalPower said:
The courts have ruled the Second Amendment is not an individual right several times:
"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possesses a firearm."
-United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 1971
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_mis.html [Broken]

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

--U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,

A Supreme Court case yes, but you quoted it completely out of context. Here is the actual quote in its entirety:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.”

The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.

--Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The [Second] amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress, and not upon that of the States.
--Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252

Yes, the Supreme Court here ruled that the Second Amendment is only a limitation on the Federal government and commented no further on it. But it did not state anything against the Second Amendment as an individual right:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

--Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
—Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261

Not a Supreme Court case, and Miller is one of the most mis-cited court cases.

t is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
--Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535.


Franklin Miller was convicted of murder, on appeal, claimed his Second and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, upholding the conviction, reaffirmed Cruikshank v. U.S. and stated: "And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."

It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.
-- Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia."
—U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

In short, the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms and form private armies.

--Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

It is not sufficient to prove that the *weapon* in question was susceptible to military use. It is evident that Hale's weapons were of a military nature and possessed the capability of killing and maiming groups of persons. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her *possession* of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia.

--United States v. Wilbur Hale, 978 F.2d 1016.

Not a Supreme Court ruling/case.

An individual has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
--United States v. Pencak, 872 F. Supp. 410

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

This court is unaware of a single case which has upheld a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, outside of the context of a militia.
--Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.

"(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");

--Adams v. Williams (1972);

Not a Supreme Court case/ruling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
quadraphonics said:
I am not an opponent of private gun ownership, but you may have heard of such organizations as the police, courts, prisons, FBI, DEA, ATF, Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines? And that's without listing private security outfits... At no point in my life have I ever felt the slightest need to purchase a gun for self-defence, nor has anyone I know (with the exception of a couple of criminals). Maybe I've been fortunate to live in uncommonly safe areas, but this whole line of thought just seems beside the point. The wild west days are long gone.

Think of it this way: tell that to the people who went through Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew, or Katrina. Tell that to my friend who got both robbed at gunpoint and then later pistol-whipped getting off the L-train, in Philadelphia. Or to the business owners in the Rodney King riots.

Yes, we have all of those organizations, but when a natural disaster occurs, they may not be able to get to you to protect you. They may be too busy protecting their own families, as happened with much of the police forces during Hurricane Katrina. As for the military, they were unable to get into the city to help everyone because of the flooding.

Also, if someone is breaking into your home, the police may not be able to respond fast enough.

And also, take a look at the court case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales; there the Supreme Court ruled that there is no Constitutional right to police protection. It is a priviledge.

You are correct in that usually the police, military, firefighters, government agencies, etc...are all one needs to handle incidences, but this is not always the case. No one plans on a natural disaster.

Maybe it sounds a bit "far-out," but what happens if there's a major earthquake in say New York City and anarchy breaks out afterwards? What happens if an asteroid smacks into the country and causes anarchy to break out (it could happen someday)? When the infrastructure breaks down, which CAN happen in times of disaster, people want need to be able to protect themselves.
 
  • #83
WheelsRCool said:
Maybe it sounds a bit "far-out," but what happens if there's a major earthquake in say New York City and anarchy breaks out afterwards?
Instead of just declaring that the public bearing arms would help "settle the anarchy", wouldn't it be a little more productive to maybe analyse why a civilised, developed country in the western world would descend into anarchy following such a disaster (if, indeed, it would), and try and put something (education, etc..) in place which would stop this?
 
  • #84
cristo said:
Instead of just declaring that the public bearing arms would help "settle the anarchy", wouldn't it be a little more productive to maybe analyse why a civilised, developed country in the western world would descend into anarchy following such a disaster (if, indeed, it would), and try and put something (education, etc..) in place which would stop this?

I don't think this would be possible, as people get scared, emotions fly, people need food, supplies, etc...for their families; usually, in close communities, it seems people will band together though. During Katrina, neighbors banded together to protect their neighborhood from thugs, which did attack a few neighborhoods (and promptly got fired back upon).

Without firearms, even groups of people banning together to help could still be held at bay by a few thugs who are armed.

You can have three-hundred people, and four guys with guns, so if you really need to maintain control, you could point the gun at someone's child, tell them to come to you, and then tell anyone who tries to charge you, or if they try to "gang-charge" you, that the kid gets shot.

With guns, the people are citizens. Without them, they are subjects.
 
  • #85
WheelsRCool said:
You can have three-hundred people, and four guys with guns, so if you really need to maintain control, you could point the gun at someone's child, tell them to come to you, and then tell anyone who tries to charge you, or if they try to "gang-charge" you, that the kid gets shot.
Ok, well that's not the kind of "anarchy" I thought you had in mind. This sounds a lot similar to the "defend your home" argument; i.e. they would want to defend themselves from people wanting to injur them or intrude in their neighbourhood. I can see your point here.
 
  • #86
cristo said:
Instead of just declaring that the public bearing arms would help "settle the anarchy", wouldn't it be a little more productive to maybe analyse why a civilised, developed country in the western world would descend into anarchy following such a disaster (if, indeed, it would), and try and put something (education, etc..) in place which would stop this?
Civil institutions such as churches, colleges, community organizations and the like form a framework that produces leaders that in turn make society largely immune to anarchy. Corruption, starting in modern times with Huey Long but continuing especially into recent New Orleans government, rotted away the foundation of these institutions.
 
  • #87
OrbitalPower said:
Gun nuts talk about rebellion against the government to stop a vicious tyranny. Those countries did not end tyranny at all.

Show a case where the citizens stood up to their government and tyranny reduced and thus democide reduced.

World War II is incorrect because democide actually increased. And the American revolution was really governments fighting. The people were never represented in the US, a majority, and actually had to be drafted into fighting as well.

IF you google gun law statistics you will find that homicide rates are actually higher in states with strong restrictions on owning a handgun than states with lax gun control laws. Like it or not , owning a gun reduces criminal activity. And if the virginia tech students and faculty members were actually allowed to carry guns own campus , a dozen lives would have probably been saved.
 
  • #88
Benzoate said:
IF you google gun law statistics you will find that homicide rates are actually higher in states with strong restrictions on owning a handgun than states with lax gun control laws. Like it or not , owning a gun reduces criminal activity.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. It may well be that areas with a high level of crime are more likely to pass gun bans. Correlation does not imply causality.

This is not intended to be an argument pro- or anti- guns. Merely an attempt to get rid of sloppy thinking.
 
  • #89
Benzoate said:
And if the virginia tech students and faculty members were actually allowed to carry guns own campus , a dozen lives would have probably been saved.

Comments like this are just speculation and are, as such, pointless. This topic was discussed to death when the virginia tech shootings occurred, so we do not need to dredge back through it now.
 
  • #90
OrbitalPower said:
The founders passed gun control regulations all the time. What the heck are you talking about? If you look at how the added amendments came about, you can see that the second amendment was a comprimise. Blacks for example could never even own guns, because they were not technically citizens.

This is just more of that kooky, conservative reaction to man's problems: that they have to be handled with violence.

Tyrannies overthrown with guns only lead to more tyrannies, and the idea that guns solve any problems is insane.

I fundamentally agree with your last point. There is a fine dinstinction to be made, however. In at least Virginia (the only state where I've done enough research to be absolutely certain), Blacks were not barred from possessing and using guns; they were barred from bearing arms. I make this point not to disagree with your post, but rather to not allow that distinction to be lost in present-day context.
 
  • #91
cristo said:
Comments like this are just speculation and are, as such, pointless. This topic was discussed to death when the virginia tech shootings occurred, so we do not need to dredge back through it now.

You can call it speculation but I do carry on a regular basis and if I just happened to be in class nearby, I'd be doing my part to save some lives. But, if I'm not aloud to carry on that campus, there's not much I or anyone else can do. Nothing speculative about it.
 
  • #92
cristo said:
Comments like this are just speculation and are, as such, pointless. This topic was discussed to death when the virginia tech shootings occurred, so we do not need to dredge back through it now.

its not speculation. It is plain common sense to have an armed weapon at your side whether you are about to be mugged or whether you are about to be attacked as a student at university by a gunman bent on massacring all of the student population. Would you rather be under a desk, hiding from the gunman, waiting for campus police to arrive while you may be without a weapon, or would you rather take the chance of saving your own life and the lives of many others by shooting at the gunmen with your on weapon? A sane man would want the latter scenario if he values his own life.
 
  • #93
drankin said:
You can call it speculation ...
I call it speculation because it is speculation. Unless Benzoate went to Virginia Tech, was in college on the day in question, was in the specific classroom that the incident happened and was in a position in which had he been carrying a weapon he could have intercepted the gunman, then this will only ever be speculation. Furthermore, unless he is certain that he could have made a difference, and that he would have responded quick enough, then such a comment as "if the virginia tech students and faculty members were actually allowed to carry guns own campus , a dozen lives would have probably been saved." is nothing more than speculation.
 
  • #94
Vanadium 50 said:
The second sentence does not follow from the first. It may well be that areas with a high level of crime are more likely to pass gun bans. Correlation does not imply causality.

This is not intended to be an argument pro- or anti- guns. Merely an attempt to get rid of sloppy thinking.

Well if you eliminate the possession of guns as a variable, you are saying that not owning a weapon is not related to violence. Look at the crime levels of states with lax gun control laws and look at crime levels of states that have strict gun control laws.

I am curious, if you do not think that owning a gun does not have any affect on the crime level of that area, then what other factors do you think might influence crime rates?
 
  • #95
cristo said:
I call it speculation because it is speculation. Unless Benzoate went to Virginia Tech, was in college on the day in question, was in the specific classroom that the incident happened and was in a position in which had he been carrying a weapon he could have intercepted the gunman, then this will only ever be speculation. Furthermore, unless he is certain that he could have made a difference, and that he would have responded quick enough, then such a comment as "if the virginia tech students and faculty members were actually allowed to carry guns own campus , a dozen lives would have probably been saved." is nothing more than speculation.

So you are saying it is speculation that if law-abiding virginia tech students possessed a firearm and had a chance to take out a madman with a gun bent on slaughtering everyone around him, these law abiding citizens would merely speculate about whether they should used their guns to take out the madman or would they just sit around and wait for the police to come in a timely manner because the police can be everywhere at once to carryout their duty to protect the masses, even if there may be crime going on a 30 different places. I think that is a ridiculous premise. Rational people tend to outnumber irrational people. Its obvious that some rational student or faculty member could have had a chance to take out the mad gunmen if they were armed. I will tell you what speculation: It is speculation that we are certain that the police men would be on are beck and call and always ready to protect the armless citizens whenever a massacre occurs. It has already been proven many times that we cannot always rely on the police to protect us from mass murderers . Virginia Tech and Columbine are perfect examples of why we cannot always rely on the police /
 
Last edited:
  • #96
cristo said:
I call it speculation because it is speculation. Unless Benzoate went to Virginia Tech, was in college on the day in question, was in the specific classroom that the incident happened and was in a position in which had he been carrying a weapon he could have intercepted the gunman, then this will only ever be speculation. Furthermore, unless he is certain that he could have made a difference, and that he would have responded quick enough, then such a comment as "if the virginia tech students and faculty members were actually allowed to carry guns own campus , a dozen lives would have probably been saved." is nothing more than speculation.

Now you are being silly and making a non-point because of your bias. If there were people there that were armed it would make a difference. How could it not? Anyway, we would only go around and around on this.

Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed the individual right that most Americans already knew we had, we will see just how far our right to defend ourselves stretches. Can we only defend ourselves in our homes? Can we also protect ourselves at McDonalds? Work? School? Where can we and where can we not defend ourselves from a whacko with a gun?
 
  • #97
Benzoate said:
So you are saying it is speculation that if law-abiding virginia tech students possessed a firearm and had a chance to take out a madman with a gun bent on slaughtering everyone around him, these law abiding citizens would merely speculate about whether they should used their guns to take out the madman or would they just sit around and wait for the police to come in a timely manner because the police can be everywhere at once to carryout their duty to protect the masses, even if there may be crime going on a 30 different places.

No, I'm not: you're not reading what I'm writing! I'm merely saying that, unless you were in the room, you do not even know whether the students had a chance to "take out [the] madman," and thus in your saying that "a dozen lives would probably have been saved" you can only be speculating.


drankin said:
Now you are being silly and making a non-point because of your bias. If there were people there that were armed it would make a difference. How could it not? Anyway, we would only go around and around on this.
What I believe has no direct relevance here; I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in an argument, and not trying to give my own argument for or against anything. I agree that if people were armed it would have made a difference but, again, to assert that this difference would result in dozens of lives being saved is speculative.
 
  • #98
cristo said:
No, I'm not: you're not reading what I'm writing! I'm merely saying that, unless you were in the room, you do not even know whether the students had a chance to "take out [the] madman," and thus in your saying that "a dozen lives would probably have been saved" you can only be speculating.



What I believe has no direct relevance here; I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in an argument, and not trying to give my own argument for or against anything. I agree that if people were armed it would have made a difference but, again, to assert that this difference would result in dozens of lives being saved is speculative.

You are right, I cannot be sure what the motivates and actions of students with armed guns would people if they were trapped in a room alone with a mad gun man. But I rather take my chances with being in a room with people who had guns and a madman who had a gun than in alone a room were the madman was the only person who had a gun. Adults are rational beings. They should be have a right to carry a gun whenever danger presents itself; And we are never going to truly predict when a person unleashes a gun out on everyone. That is why it is better to be armed at all times than to lack the means to defend yourself.
 
  • #99
I see a day when we will be able to carry our guns into a college classroom (some states that is not a problem). But, before that person can he will have to jump through many hoops of training and certification.

I think it's fair that if you are among the public and armed that you have what satisfies the community to believe that it is safe for you to do so. Many pro-gun folks would disagree with me but it only makes sense that in order to carry into what is currently considered a "gun-free" zone that you should have stringent firearm training and certification that is comparable to a police officer. But, an average citizen should not be denied the ability to abtain that certification and training opportunity!
 
  • #100
drankin said:
I see a day when we will be able to carry our guns into a college classroom (some states that is not a problem). But, before that person can he will have to jump through many hoops of training and certification.

I think it's fair that if you are among the public and armed that you have what satisfies the community to believe that it is safe for you to do so. Many pro-gun folks would disagree with me but it only makes sense that in order to carry into what is currently considered a "gun-free" zone that you should have stringent firearm training and certification that is comparable to a police officer. But, an average citizen should not be denied the ability to abtain that certification and training opportunity!

I totally agree with you . A person should be able to demonstrate that they are able to used a potentially dangerous weapon responsibly , before they are able to acquire a weapon, just like a person who wants to drive a car on the road should be able to show some proof that the person attended driver ed classes and is able to show that they know the rules of the road and what road signs are trying to convey
 
  • #101
I do believe that guns form a deterrent to criminals. If Virgina Tech had allowed people to carry guns, I doubt the Virginia Tech shooting would have even happened there. Criminals are crazy, but not stupid in this sense. Likely Virgininia Tech would have been rather reknowned as one of the only universities that allows people to carry guns. The shooter thus would have opted for someplace else, I'd think.

If all universities allowed such carrying, it would thus be a large deterrent to criminals at universities anywhere. At my university, at this one university fast-food place, the people inside got held up at gunpoint one morning. Luckily, no one was hurt, but if said university had also allowed concealed carry, this might have been avoided altogether by the criminals.

If I myself was a criminal deciding to shoot up a mall, and had to choose between a mall in Kentucky or a mall in New York, I think I would choose the mall in New York :D
 
  • #102
drankin said:
This is a pretty huge decision for Americans. If you are a law-abiding (not a felon), mentally competent American you can now possesses a handgun in your home anywhere in the US. It goes without saying IMO, but it needed to be ruled definatively by the Supreme Court. A very important "do not cross" line for gun control advocates has been drawn.

Well, no. This decision was narrowly written to only apply to the Federal Government. It does not affect state laws. Those will have to be argued separately.
 
  • #103
WheelsRCool said:
He "officially" invented fascism, but the philosophical elements of fascism were around long before Mussolini gained power. And yes, fascism shares many things with liberal democrats.

Yet again, you failed to name any "similarities" between Mussolini and Liberal democrats. If you go down the line on what fascism supports: protection of the major, dominant economic institutions in a country (i.e. corporations), private property rights, blatant militarism, anti-union and so on, this is far closer to conservatives and Libertarians than it is to liberal democrats.

Mussolini came to power after he watched the conflict between business and the laboring classes. He stood idly by until it was clear the conservative factions we're going to win. When it was clear businesses were going to win, he organized the government to protect big corporations -- that's conservatism. The same thing is true in Nazi Germany. His enemies were the political left, and political scientists place Fascism on the far-right. Fascism is basically indistinguishable from conservatism at that level.

Again, this is in contrast to Wilson, who did nothing like this. He did not come to power in a coup backed by expatriates and rich property owners. So what are you talking about.

The only precurssor to Fascism is capitalism, with its emphasis on protecting the elite members of society, which is a right-wing ideology. Fascism wouldn't exist without an economic basis, and the economic basis is that of capitalism (not of socialism, which means worker controlled factories, which were outlawed in both Nazi Germany and in Fascist Italy).

WheelsRCool said:
You are correct in that he was, to the dismay of many Progressives at the time, deemed "too soft" regarding the war.

Which "progressives" are you talking about? The ones that split from the Republicans? I just told you that the socialist and the left, and the other real progressives, were opposed to the war. And they were.

No one knows what you mean when you talk about "true conservatives" or "true libertarians" or what have you; conservatives have also supported big government since their ideology was founded, politically, and philosophically.

And no one put you in charge of what a "true conservative" or a "true libertarian" is in the first place; plus, your characteristics aren't even in line with modern scholarship. You give no citations for any of your beliefs other than books written by journalists and commentators like Goldberg that is well outside of historical scholarship.

I already told you there were many reasons why World War I could have happened. It was generally a shift towards a more bipolar world, with Germany rising. Balance of Power theory predicts that states will act to prevent anyone state from developing a preponderance of power (Nye).

Wilson believed that the balance of power theory was evil, and caused wars, because it encouraged statesmen to treat nations like cheeses to be cut up for political purposes.

Fascists, on the other hand, loved war, and they glorified war. The glorification of war is the typical characteristic of fascism.

So again, we see yet another fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism, fascism and conservatism.

WheelsRCool said:
No it isn't. For one, fascism is an incredibly difficult to define subject. The only thing that can really be said about it is that it is anti-free market capitalism, individual rights, and so forth. Many scholars have for years considered fascism a variant of socialism, but now some are beginning to wonder if socialism is really a variant of fascism.

Scholars have said no such thing. Fascism is the opposite of socialism, closer to capitalism and conservatism. Hitler and Mussolini despised Marxist doctrine, and anybody advocating Marxism in their society was murdered (whereas the capitalism were from to run wild in Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy).

Furthermore, Fascism generally protects the very institutions Libertarians and conservatives favor, such as corporations and so on, while de-emphasizing things liberals believe strongly in, such as Civil Rights and Liberties, free-speech and so on.

Fascism is often said to be an "extension of capitalism" (economics for everybody) and the Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences defines fascism as follows:

"A political doctrine opposed to democracy and demanding submission to political leadership and authority. A key principle of fascism is the belief that the whole society has a shared destiny and purpose which can only be achieved by iron discipline, obedience to leadership and an all-powerful state. Fascism first developed in Italy, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943) and later influenced the development of German fascism in the Nazi movement led by Adolf Hitler (dictator of Germany from 1933-1945) . While fascism increases the power and role of the state in society and suppresses free trade unions and political opposition, it preserves private ownership and private property. "

Two things we learn from this definition:

#1. We learn that fascism is a belief that a society has a shared destiny and purpose, and we know that conservatives often dictate such a thing when they talk about America being a "Christian" nation and so on. Fascism wasn't so much of a change in structure as it was a change in how to protect a hierarchical society. A constructivist would point that out.

Conservatives believe in protecting the social order, by any means necessary (definition of conservative), liberals believe in advancing society, so that is a fundamental difference.

#2. Fascists believe in preserving the private ownership of property. There is nothing socialist or liberal about this concept. Liberals favor private property, only because they deem it a better form of living, but it should still be regulated (like what Thomas Jefferson advocated).

It is not an "absolute right" like it is to many capitalist economists and fascist dictators.

WheelsRCool said:
Woodrow Wilson wrote many hostile things towards the ideas of individual liberties and the Constitution in his various writings. He was no friend of liberty. He believed that the government expansion of government power was a natural thing, and that the entire idea of democracy was a tired old, 19th century ideology. Most of the Progressives did. They believed the power of the State was how best to organize and shape society. One of the only ways to get such power is through a war, or the moral equivalent of war. With war, you can nationalize the economy, regulate prices and wages, and control people a lot more. Historically, the American Left seems to seek the equivalent of war, for example the extreme environmentalists saying we need to face global warming with the same tenacity we faced World War II.

If I have to explain to you again why Wilson wasn't a fascist we're going to go round-and-round in circles here.

You give no quotes, historical evidence, or anything else that confirms Wilson was a fascist, or that he supported some abject tyranny of the state. You do not explain rationally how the "American left" has generally favored war when every historian knows that Socialists and so on were opposed war.

Who do you think was challenging even the idea of World War I AND World War II, but socialists (the American far left, hundreds of socialists were even in various low-level positions in government at the time)?

Why didn't America become fascist if Woodrow Wilson was a fascist? Who reversed it?

I'd say Coolidge was closer to fascism, who widened the gap between the rich and the poor and who's policies contributed to the great depression. Not to mention he attacked third world nations like Nicaragua under the rubric of national security, the same type of nonsense that fascists pull.
 
  • #104
WheelsRCool said:
Completely wrong. Fascism is not at all militaristic. Militarism and nationalism are but one aspect of certain fascist groups. During World War I, it was the Progressives who were the most militaristic and nationalistic for example. And I agree that the Progressives were one form of fascists, but nationalism and miltiarism are not what make fascism.

Fascism is indeed militaristic. The Fascists in Italy glorified War. Mussolini's son-in-law Count Ciano described the explosions of war as an aesthetic thrill, as having the beauty of a flower unfolding. So a glorification of war was apparent, and, as the definitions show, fascism was militaristic.

Political Scientists have studied numerous fascist societies, such as Italy, and other ones that have a connection to fascist governance (Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, and other US backed dictatorships), and a common theme is militarism.

WheelsRCool said:
And you are also confusing patriotism with nationalism. Nationalism and patriotism are two separate things.

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." --George Bernard Shaw.

Patriotism and nationalism are relatively close, and it's Republicans who spend hours trying to define what is and what isn't patriotic, to the point of it being basically nationalistic.

WheelsRCool said:
Regarding the collusion between business and the government, you are talking about the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. Collusion between business and government does not occur from libertarian/"Reagan conservative" policies. It can't. Embracing free-market capitalism and free-trade always has prevented it.

Again, ludicrous. The Nazis actually opened up trade to a greater degree than the Weimar Republican, and dealt directly with foreign corporations such as IBM.

The rest of your post is a bunch of Ron Paul like nonsense and conspiracy theories, without any scholarly reference appearing in there.

This is why I am concerned about some of the reasons for owning guns, because gun owners apparently think the fact that we have a central bank is reason enough to engage in an armed rebelling.

And as for yoru nonsense about the left supporting big business, it's insanity. FDR actually had to quell a fascist/capitalist takeover in the US (see the business plot to overthrow FDR, which was exposed by the great Smedley Butler, who also wrote War is a Racket).

A lot of his programs, like rural electrification and so on were for the benefit of the poor, and not for the benefit of the big corporations.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, is the biggest corporate-welfare proponent of all time, a complete protectionist, who was involved in numerous scandals like the S&L scandal and Iran contra. His wars against the third world mimic the Nazi attack on Poland or the Fascist attack on Ethopia, that these small countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua posed a threat to the US.

Even got so ridiculous he had tanks placed near the White House in case of a sneak attack from tiny, little Laos.

His disastrous "Third World Wars" costs the lives of tens-of-thousands, far greater terrorist atrocities than September 11th, through the backing of Rios Mott and so on, and millions of people indirectly, who starved because of the disastrous policies of the fascist capitalist dictatorship.

You claim the computer industry is not monopolistic. The computer industry is indeed monopolistic, has received billions in corporate welfare, and so on. Patents for example are very monopolistic, and they actually hurt the little guy. What patents do is allow a monopoly for a certain technique or a design, and if you have anything in a program that resembles it, you can be sued -- even though programming is more like mathematics and there is a lot of ways to approach something, for example, you could look at something and see it as a square, but you could also see it as a diamond, without any understand of the other person's design interpretation. So it's actually quite possible that you could code or design something and see it as a diamond, but be sued because it could also resemble a square.

Big corporations, who hold hundreds of Patents, and for companies like IBM it's in the thousands, can easily claim a certain part of your program violates this or that patents, forcing you to pay a royalty fee and forcing you out of business.

Microsoft and the way it handles its APIs is also monopolistic.

WheelsRCool said:
The "modern, right-wing" version of Libertarianism is based on the concepts of the classical liberal, essentially the social liberalism of the Left and the classical economics of the Right.

It isn't based on the concept of classical-liberalism. It's based on a distortion of their works, combined with Ayn Rand like lunacy and cultishness.

The classical-liberals were people like Adam Smith. No where did Smith advocate capitalism. In fact, the classical-liberals actually opposed the early precursors of fascism, such as "incorporations." (See the article "Why Libertarianism is Not Classical-Liberalism," available on JSTOR).

As Gavin Kennedy notes, author of Adam Smith's Lost Legacy, Smith was very sympathetic to the plight of the workers and laborers, and condemned the state protection of monopolies.

The Wealth of Nations can really be seen as an attack on the proprietors at the time. It was not a pro-capitalist document in any way.

The other classical-liberals were people like Rousseau, and other enlightenment figures, who also not only opposed capitalism, but private property as well.

The classical liberals TH Green and JS Mill, were liberals and Mill even became a Socialist.

However, there is no classical-liberal who ever made the transition to the conservative tyranny the Libertarian Party supports, what is really a capitalist dictatorship and has already been tried in America, and was a disaster.

WheelsRCool said:
There is no such thing as a socialist Libertarian. Socialism is ardently against the concept of human and individual freedom, which is one of the core components for the Libertarians.

There is indeed a libertarian-socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian-socialism

It's been around a lot longer than the American distorted Ayn Rand type of ultra-conservatism, which is against what the original libertarians stood for.

Plus, modern libertarian-socialists like Chomsky and Zinn are generally more well known around the world, and their work is more important than the few libertarian-economists scattered about in the US.
 
  • #105
Yet again, you failed to name any "similarities" between Mussolini and Liberal democrats.

I named multiple similarities; I'll re-state them here: The Nazis, for example, believed in free healthcare, guaranteed jobs, wealth confiscation, spending large sums on public education, removal of the church from public policy, love of the environment, declared war on smoking, supported abortion, enacted gun control, euthanasia, pensions for the elderly, and had strict racial quota systems at their universities. They hated the free-market and promised to dispense with the "Wal-Marts" of their day. Read the platform of the German National Socialist Party. They were world leaders in organic farming, Hitler being a vegetarian and Heinrich Himmler an animal rights activist.

They loved the environment and HATED industry and capitalism, because they saw this as destroying the Earth. They romantized the ideology of the country life, the German "Volk" or people (the car company Volkswagon get's it name from this; it means "The People's Car," and was ordered by Hitler to create an affordable car for the people").

Does any of that sound like the oil-drilling, cattle-ranching, lumber-cutting, anti-abortion, gun rights, anti-Social Security, etc...conservative Republicans?

The Catholic Church was one of the only conservative organizations that stood as a partial check on the power of the fascists in Italy.

Technically, the most hardcore, hardline, evagelical Christian conservative Republican (of which I am not by the way) is virtually the exact opposite of a fascist.

The Nazis also supported eugenics however, which is how to breed humans to be ideal; dogs are the greatest eugenics experiment ever conducted. Eugenics research with humans evolved to claiming that if the "weak" portion of the gene pool was not eliminated, then the human race would die off. America and the Nazis led the world in this research (you can see where this leads). The Jews were, in particular, proclaimed as a feeble-minded race of people, to be eliminated.

So were homosexuals. The Nazis wanted to (in their view) purify humanity and create a society of pure white, blonde, Aryans, with free healthcare, regulation of Big Business, and all that, and Hitler was their great leader, in the view of the German people.

If you go down the line on what fascism supports: protection of the major, dominant economic institutions in a country (i.e. corporations), private property rights, blatant militarism, anti-union and so on, this is far closer to conservatives and Libertarians than it is to liberal democrats.

Fascism does not actively seek to protect corporations. It seeks to regulate and control them in a way that will protect the consumers and workers. That is what makes it so appealing to the masses. Unfortunately, the adverse effect of this is to protect the corporations, due to the nature of government agencies.

Mussolini came to power after he watched the conflict between business and the laboring classes. He stood idly by until it was clear the conservative factions we're going to win. When it was clear businesses were going to win, he organized the government to protect big corporations -- that's conservatism.

Mussolini was a socialist, of the Marxist kind, but he decided to modify socialism into a new form that was more fit for the modern era, in his view. And no, that is not "conservativism." Conservatism is about as anti-Big Business as you can get. When Lyndon Johnson was running for President against the pro-free enterprise Barry Goldwater, Big Business rallied behiind Johnson. Big Business hates free-enterprise.

The same thing is true in Nazi Germany. His enemies were the political left, and political scientists place Fascism on the far-right. Fascism is basically indistinguishable from conservatism at that level.

Fascism is nothing of the sort. It is another variant of the Left and about as far from the Right as one can possibly go. There is nothing "conservative" about it.

Again, this is in contrast to Wilson, who did nothing like this. He did not come to power in a coup backed by expatriates and rich property owners. So what are you talking about.

The only precurssor to Fascism is capitalism, with its emphasis on protecting the elite members of society, which is a right-wing ideology. Fascism wouldn't exist without an economic basis, and the economic basis is that of capitalism (not of socialism, which means worker controlled factories, which were outlawed in both Nazi Germany and in Fascist Italy).

You have no understanding of capitalism or knowledge of the history of fascism. Capitalism does the furthest thing from protecting any priviledged elite. That is what socialism does. No dictator ever ruled by having a capitalist society. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Mihn, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and now Hugo Chavez, all have socialist/fascist economies. Capitalist societies, such as South Korea, Japan, the United States, Canada, etc...do not have a priviledged elite. CNBC even just did a special called "The Rise of the Super Rich" because the number of billionaires and mega-multimillionaires has ballooned. Fascism was about as anti-capitalist as you can get. It abhored capitalism and sought to destroy it:

"I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow...What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism." - Adolf Hitler, to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930 (see Paul M. Hayes, "Fascism," The Free Press, 1973).

"[In Mussolini] Socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do." - George Bernard Shaw, 1927 (see Alastair Hamilton, "The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, 1919 - 1945, Macmillan 1971).

"We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak...and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system." - Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian (from Strasser's "Thoughts on the Tasks of the Future," 1933).

Also, some of the most important fathers of National Socialism, such as Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle, are also acknowledged as fathers of socialism.

National Socialists stated that Hitler had created "the most modern socialist state in the world," - Stanley G. Payne, "A History of Fascism, 1914 - 1945, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.

In Mussolini's early days, many of his Marxist critics called his fascism, "more of a heresy from, than a mortal challenge to revolutionary Marxism," - Agursky's "The Third Rome," 1963.

Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street gangs swtiched back and forth between his National Socialist gangs and Communist gangs, uncertain of which they really belonged.

In his "Road to Serfdom," Hayek remarks how during the early 1930s, the propagandists of both socialism and fascism recognized the "relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice-versa," and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide if they were Marxist-socialists or fascist, but only that they hated "Western Civilization."

Trust me, fascism was no lover of capitalism and wanted no association with it. Capitalism was a symbol of Western Civilization, such as individualism, material prosperity, etc...all abhored by the fascists.

Another clue: Jews were legendary capitalists, and still are. Hitler hated Jews. What do you think is one reason why? Because according to him, Jews were everything despised by Germany: capitalist, Western Civilization, etc...

Which "progressives" are you talking about? The ones that split from the Republicans? I just told you that the socialist and the left, and the other real progressives, were opposed to the war. And they were.

You know, if you read Jonah Goldberg's book, he actually goes into much detail about this. Yes, there were a great many socialists who opposed the war. It is details such as this that make fascism so hard to define exactly. For example, Marxist socialism and Nazi fascism both result in the same type of society, ultimately, YET, they both abhored each other and hated each other with a passion.

No one knows what you mean when you talk about "true conservatives" or "true libertarians" or what have you; conservatives have also supported big government since their ideology was founded, politically, and philosophically.

Certain conservatives have, and these conservatives do not adhere to the free-enterprise, free-market, low taxation, limited government model. They are the elitist big government conservatives.

When I say a "true conservative," I mean the Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, kind.

Libertarians are identical to the conservatives in their economics beliefs, but can differ in terms of foreign policy and social policy (for example, a Libertarian will not mind homosexuals or abortion, whereas conservatives usually staunchly disagree with these; Libertarians usually are not religious like the conservatives).

Milton Friedman was a Libertarian, but his economics were adopted by Ronald Reagan.

And no one put you in charge of what a "true conservative" or a "true libertarian" is in the first place; plus, your characteristics aren't even in line with modern scholarship. You give no citations for any of your beliefs other than books written by journalists and commentators like Goldberg that is well outside of historical scholarship.

My views are well-within historical scholarship; read the following:

The Road to Serfdom by Fredrich Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman
A Monetary History of the United States by Milton Friedman
A History of Fascism - 1914-1945
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (he isn't just engaging in partisan hyperbole here, and what he says is stated in many other, lesser-known books, such as The Road to Serfdom
The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation Into the Prison of Modern Schooling
The Return of Sacred Architecture
In the Name of Eugenics by Daniel Kevles
Capitalism, Socialism, and DemocracyJoseph Schumpeter
Mein Kempf by Adolf Hitler

Find the works by Mussolini himself and read them. He was no lover of capitalism.

Fascists, on the other hand, loved war, and they glorified war. The glorification of war is the typical characteristic of fascism.

So again, we see yet another fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism, fascism and conservatism.

Fascists love the equivalent of war. War makes us all come together, hold hands, work together, etc...but fascists don't necessarily like the disastrous effects of war. So they seek to find the moral equivalent. Look to Al Gore and the push for us to tackle global warming as if it was worse than World War II, for example. The history of environmentalism and fascism go together like peas and carrots.

The Progressives were pro-war because they saw it as a way to start re-engineering America. You can't get people to give up certain freedoms that they normally take for granted unless you have a world war, or the equivalent.
 
<h2>What is the D.C. Gun Ban and why was it struck down by the Supreme Court?</h2><p>The D.C. Gun Ban was a law passed in 1976 that effectively banned private citizens from owning handguns in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down this law in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, stating that it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.</p><h2>How did the Supreme Court come to the decision to strike down the D.C. Gun Ban?</h2><p>The Supreme Court's decision was based on a close reading of the Second Amendment and its historical context. The Court determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not just a collective right for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. They also found that the D.C. Gun Ban was an unconstitutional infringement on this right.</p><h2>What impact did the Supreme Court's decision have on gun control laws in the United States?</h2><p>The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller had a significant impact on gun control laws in the United States. It established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense, which has been used to challenge and overturn other gun control laws across the country.</p><h2>Did the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller completely invalidate the D.C. Gun Ban?</h2><p>No, the Supreme Court's decision did not completely invalidate the D.C. Gun Ban. While the Court struck down the ban on handguns, it did not overturn all aspects of the law. For example, the ban on semi-automatic rifles and requirements for firearms to be registered with the D.C. government were not affected by the decision.</p><h2>What are the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision on future gun control laws?</h2><p>The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller has opened the door for challenges to other gun control laws in the future. It has also sparked debate and discussion about the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the balance between gun rights and public safety. The Court's decision will likely continue to be referenced in future cases involving gun control laws.</p>

What is the D.C. Gun Ban and why was it struck down by the Supreme Court?

The D.C. Gun Ban was a law passed in 1976 that effectively banned private citizens from owning handguns in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down this law in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, stating that it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.

How did the Supreme Court come to the decision to strike down the D.C. Gun Ban?

The Supreme Court's decision was based on a close reading of the Second Amendment and its historical context. The Court determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not just a collective right for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. They also found that the D.C. Gun Ban was an unconstitutional infringement on this right.

What impact did the Supreme Court's decision have on gun control laws in the United States?

The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller had a significant impact on gun control laws in the United States. It established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense, which has been used to challenge and overturn other gun control laws across the country.

Did the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller completely invalidate the D.C. Gun Ban?

No, the Supreme Court's decision did not completely invalidate the D.C. Gun Ban. While the Court struck down the ban on handguns, it did not overturn all aspects of the law. For example, the ban on semi-automatic rifles and requirements for firearms to be registered with the D.C. government were not affected by the decision.

What are the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision on future gun control laws?

The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller has opened the door for challenges to other gun control laws in the future. It has also sparked debate and discussion about the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the balance between gun rights and public safety. The Court's decision will likely continue to be referenced in future cases involving gun control laws.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
270
Views
26K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
5
Replies
147
Views
15K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
12
Views
959
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
70
Views
12K
Replies
271
Views
26K
Back
Top