Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

D H

The phrase well-regulated in the 2nd amendment does not mean "well-regulated by Congress". The framer's very begrudgingly gave Congress the ability to maintain a standing army. The 2nd amendment added a check on this ability. The framers wanted to give the people the means to rebel against the government they had just created. The 2nd amendment gives the people two rights: The right to bear arms and the right to use those arms against the government in a well-regulated (but private) militia. Even Scalia acknowledged that these might be outdated ideas. If you think that this amendment is outdated, fine. Change the Constitution.

OrbitalPower

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.

OrbitalPower

lol. I watched their whole episode on gun control. They never quote the numerous historians out there that explain the context of the second amendment.

These are the same guys who claimed second hand smoke does no damage despite the thousands of pages of medical evidence to the contrary that has been around for years.

WarPhalange

You would have a point if anybody ever did any overthrowing. People these days are content in simply having guns. Take away all their other rights, but let them have guns and they'll be happy. Happy enough not to ever use them, making the whole thing pointless.

EDIT: By the way, I'd like to see people rebel against tanks and jet fighters with their pea shooters.

OrbitalPower

Another ahistorical opinion.

Courts go back and forth all the time, such as on the issue of free-speech. It has actually been through judicial decisions that we've gotten more free-speech, at times, there were less.

Guns are pretty easy to get already in most states, so it will be interesting to see how this does not solve any problems.

OrbitalPower

Yes.

I live in a state of hunters. Most of these guys couldn't take over a local city council meeting, let alone destroy the US government. Knowing their accuracy, they'd probably shoot themselves before they shot anybody else.

This is just the thing though, gun nuts claim guns will check tyranny, but the gun nuts themselves are usually the ones that support the most tyranny, both at home and abroad.

mheslep

Exactly. The last proposed amendment was thirty years ago in '78 (DC Voting - rejected). Even though society is larger and changing faster than ever before, the amendment process has been nearly forgotten , a consequence of jurists who hold a 'living document' philosophy.

mheslep

Then go 'see' how the pea shooters did in the Hungarian Revolution 1956, for the VC in Vietnam, and in the Iraqi insurrection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...ing_a_tank.jpg

mheslep

Quick, somebody get the straight jackets out to descendent's of the US Civil war, German and Japanese tyrants caused by WWII, etc.

OrbitalPower

Your history is confused. The Civil War was fought to keep the Union together. It's been proven numerous times. The conditions improved for many slaves but the economic conditions were also tyrannical.

World War II wasn't to "stop tyranny," either, and the countries that fought the Nazis, the allies, esp. the US and Russia, went on to kill millions of people in Indochina and in the case of Russia in their own country, obviously, far more than the Nazis killed.

OrbitalPower

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.

mheslep

I don't say otherwise, as the free / slave state issue plainly caused the disunion. It is clear that the civil war stopped the confederate tyranny of slavery and it was "overthrown with guns".

If that is true then the phrase means nothing and no war to 'stop tyranny' has ever taken place. You are temporizing.

WarPhalange

Vietnam got firebombed and Iraq is a total crap hole. What's your point? That these people live in defiance, because they don't even have a roof over their head?

But hell, Jesse Ventura said it best: "Give me 9 snipers and I'll paralyze the nation"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7uJNjRkbAtg at 6:50

The point being that people with guns aren't willing to use them, meaning that they are completely pointless. These people touting guns as freedom are useless.

Cyrus

Bla bla bla, waa waa waa. Tax paying citizens have their right to own a gun, like anyone else in any other state.

Cyrus

The right to own a gun isnt to "solve any problems", you miss the point ENTIRELY.

Cyrus

You know, you sure do have a lot of opinions that have nada, zip, zilch, to do with the topic of this thread. What does the opinion of guns nuts supporting tyranny at home and abroad --whatever the hell that means, have to do with this discussion.

Instead of having any rational talk, you are just throwing nonsense after nonsense about things that have no relation.

Lets make this stupidly simple:

q: do the people of DC pay taxes like anyone else?
A: YES.

q: Do people in any other state have the RIGHTS of the constitution?
a: YES.

q: Do the TAX PAYING citizens of DC have these same rights as anyone else?
a: YES.

q: Does everyone else get to have guns
a: YES.

So, explain to me why the people of DC, normal TAX PAYING CITIZENS cant have guns? Do they get only partial rights under the US constitution?


You dont like guns, we all get that. Then you have to change the constitution for EVERYONE, not just states and the district here and there.

Vanadium 50

How can you say this? Did you even read the decision? Out of ~157 pages, approximately 156 was devoted to the relationship between the first half of the sentence and the second.

Personally, I found the Breyer dissent most troubling - he argues that enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and that the government is justified in regulating them into irrelevance if it serves a compelling state interest. I think that's a very slippery slope Mr. Justice Breyer is standing on.