News Interpreting the 2nd Amendment: Literalism and Intent in Gun Laws

[vertices]

Did you look at the wikipedia link that I posted on this earlier? Countries with higher suicide rates include:
...

Seriously, do you have any facts to back up your opinions or do you just make them up?

EDIT TO ADD: It is instructive to note that according to wikipedia Belize has a lower suicide rate than the United Kingdom

yes you are most certainly right. I was clearly looking at the wrong table - apologies for this.

I will try and look for further studies over the next few days...

 

[vertices]

And I assure you, murder is not socially acceptable, despite the fact that we're well armed.

I wasn't saying that Americans think it is.

You seem to believe that if only Americans could see things your way, could come see how your lifestyle is, we'd be so much better off! And of course reasonably well traveled people would clearly agree with you, and if only we would see the light we'd realize our way of life causes damage to society. Can you see how that comes off as arrogant?

I have been to Europe, was in England for a summer in fact. Plus my step-father is British so I've had plenty of exposure to a non-American point of view. Do I want my culture to
change because of that experience? No, I don't

yes, I do realize that does come across as arrogant - poor choice of words.

I'm not saying you should change your culture (its not my place to say that and I have no interest in doing so), but I do strongly believe in the universality of human nature - if I had children, I would never want them to grow up thinking they need guns to feel physically and emotionally secure (I do think it'd be a bit twisted to instil this in them) because that would contribute to an already misanthropic culture, in which people do not trust each other and expect bad things to happen to them.

 

[vertices]

Clearly, you don't - otherwise you would not have said "any rational government..." Our constitution has a very real, clear, and rational reason for the 2nd amendment. You're just selectively ignoring it.

Yes, I can understand the need for an armed citizenry to overthrow any tyranny, should they seize control of the democratic institutions.

But there is plenty of evidence that democracy can also be restored/won through non-violent means: examples off the top of my head include Gandi's India, Apartheid South Africa, and Martin Luther King's pre-civil rights America...

 

[lisab]

I wasn't saying that Americans think it is.



yes, I do realize that does come across as arrogant - poor choice of words.

I'm not saying you should change your culture (its not my place to say that and I have no interest in doing so), but I do strongly believe in the universality of human nature - if I had children, I would never want them to grow up thinking they need guns to feel physically and emotionally secure (I do think it'd be a bit twisted to instil this in them) because that would contribute to an already misanthropic culture, in which people do not trust each other and expect bad things to happen to them.

I'm not a gun owner, I see no reason to own a gun. I don't see personal safety as a big factor in my life...in other words, it's not something I think about. Right now my front door is unlocked, and I'm home alone.

But I do think there is a segment of our population that is overly paranoid, and they *believe* they need a gun for protection. Is their paranoia caused by the fact that there are a lot of guns in the country? I really don't know, it probably doesn't help. I think that kind of paranoia is uncommon, though.

 

[russ_watters]

In my layman opinion, the arguments last year (or the year before - context: DC gun law) that the second clause in the 2nd Amendment is not predicated upon the first, is at least grammatical overreach.

Really long thread, really fast, but just my $.02:

I consider the 2nd amendment poorly worded, with a similar but much worse flaw of verbosity than the 1st amendment. In addition, the technology of weapons and warfare has changed vastly in the 200+ years since it was written, which requires clarification (I'd like to buy an M-1 tank...), so IMO, it requires amendment to clarify and update it.

But it is considered by many to be so sacred, that any attempt to touch it, no matter the particulars of the law or amendment, is avoided. As a result, we get laws written to challenge it and justices who have to draw too much on personal opinion to properly review such laws.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, I can understand the need for an armed citizenry to overthrow any tyranny, should they seize control of the democratic institutions.

But there is plenty of evidence that democracy can also be restored/won through non-violent means: examples off the top of my head include Gandi's India, Apartheid South Africa, and Martin Luther King's pre-civil rights America...

Irrelevant. Your last example is just wrong, Dr. King did not overthrow the government, so it's a poor example.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not saying you should change your culture (its not my place to say that and I have no interest in doing so), but I do strongly believe in the universality of human nature

Okay...?? (Not sure what this feel good statement is supposed to mean)

- if I had children, I would never want them to grow up thinking they need guns to feel physically and emotionally secure (I do think it'd be a bit twisted to instil this in them) because that would contribute to an already misanthropic culture, in which people do not trust each other and expect bad things to happen to them.

Okay...?? (No one said they need a gun to feel emotionally secure, other than you.) And I think its worse to have blatant ignorance and fear of guns.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not a gun owner, I see no reason to own a gun. I don't see personal safety as a big factor in my life...in other words, it's not something I think about. Right now my front door is unlocked, and I'm home alone.

But I do think there is a segment of our population that is overly paranoid, and they *believe* they need a gun for protection. Is their paranoia caused by the fact that there are a lot of guns in the country? I really don't know, it probably doesn't help. I think that kind of paranoia is uncommon, though.

I have my weapons specifically for what the founders intended. Plus having them is great to piss off liberal hippies. All one has to do is try buying a gun to realize some of the asinine state regulations that exist.

 

[BobG]

Just out of curiosity, why were the founding fathers so scared that the government might try to take their rifles and muskets?

Granted, for many of that time, losing their gun meant more than losing a means of self defense. It also meant they couldn't hunt.

Still, I don't know of any attempt to limit the colonists' private ownership of guns. The only guns the British were concerned about were the cannon owned by local militias and then only towards the beginning of the Revolutionary War, when the British began to realize they had a problem. They placed an embargo against powder, which would affect both cannon and privately owned guns, but the only actual guns they tried to confiscate were the cannon.

 

[turbo]

I'm not a gun owner, I see no reason to own a gun. I don't see personal safety as a big factor in my life...in other words, it's not something I think about. Right now my front door is unlocked, and I'm home alone.

I have quite a few guns. I have sold many, many guns over the years, and I like to buy quality pieces when they come up. I like target shooting, plinking, and hunting, too, so I stay in practice with little effort.

I have two loaded semi-automatic pistols cached in the house - hidden from visitors, but within easy reach if my wife or I need them. There is a practical reason for this. The most common crime around here is B+E, and people looking for money for drugs, or to raid your home looking for prescription drugs are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They make really stupid misjudgments and take risks, which places their victims and themselves at risk. Our little town has no police department, and the nearest Sheriff office and State Trooper barracks are a good 20 minutes away from here assuming optimum response. I'm not going to call 911 and sit around hoping the cops arrive in time, or that a dangerous situation resolves, should one arise.

People assume that quiet rural areas are safe, but that is deceptive. In the next small town to the north (pop ~1200 with through-the-roof unemployment), there have been break-ins, assaults and a fatal shooting in the last year or two involving illicit sales of prescription pain-killers. A couple of days ago in the tiny town of Amity, a father, his 10 year old son, and a visiting friend were all stabbed to death. Again, prescription pain-killers were involved, though details are still sketchy and the perpetrator has not been found. A non-descript older pickup truck was stolen from the scene of the murders, but that is not real helpful since everybody around the area drives pickups and lots of them are old and banged-up. It would never be noticed.

Just yesterday, a young man was sentenced to 2 consecutive 50-year prison terms for the machete attack of a man and his 10 year old daughter two years ago. Both survived, but with severe injuries and ongoing psychological problems. The attack was a follow-up visit after a previous burglary left the perp and his brother facing burglary and theft charges. It seems that they thought that removing witnesses might be a good idea.

 

[turbo]

Just out of curiosity, why were the founding fathers so scared that the government might try to take their rifles and muskets?

They were not scared. They were shrewd. They knew that a diffuse well-armed populace made it very difficult for the better-trained and better-equipped English army to take and hold the colonies once the revolt started. With their armies stationed in the Canadian provinces, they were still a threat to the new US. The War of 1812 proved the founders right.

The 2nd amendment was intended to ensure that the populace would be armed as a home-guard. At a time when news traveled slowly and armies traveled much more slowly, an armed citizenry was a valuable asset. A local militia could mobilize and act before before news of an invasion/assault on remote areas of the country ever reached Federal authorities.

 

[BobG]

You missed the point. Was there even a threat to local gun ownership?

Owning a car is pretty darn imortant nowadays, but I don't see anyone getting riled up about protecting car ownership with a Constitutional amendment. (And, frankly, given the current economy, a person faces a bigger threat of having their car repossessed than of having their guns confiscated.)

The threat the amendment protects you from is some indication of exactly what is meant by the amendment.

 

[Cyrus]

You missed the point. Was there even a threat to local gun ownership?

Owning a car is pretty darn imortant nowadays, but I don't see anyone getting riled up about protecting car ownership with a Constitutional amendment. (And, frankly, given the current economy, a person faces a bigger threat of having their car repossessed than of having their guns confiscated.)

The threat the amendment protects you from is some indication of exactly what is meant by the amendment.

I could argue the same thing about horses or slaves, back in their day. But there is no provisions made for those things from an economic basis.

 

[BobG]

I could argue the same thing about horses or slaves, back in their day. But there is no provisions made for those things from an economic basis.

Argue what? That there weren't any provisions for those things because there wasn't a threat?

That's my point. There was no threat to private ownership of guns. It would have been as unthinkable to ban or confiscate private guns as it would be to ban or confiscate everyone's horses.

There was a threat to the cannon of local militia as soon the British began to worry about rebellion.

 

[turbo]

You missed the point. Was there even a threat to local gun ownership?

Owning a car is pretty darn imortant nowadays, but I don't see anyone getting riled up about protecting car ownership with a Constitutional amendment. (And, frankly, given the current economy, a person faces a bigger threat of having their car repossessed than of having their guns confiscated.)

The threat the amendment protects you from is some indication of exactly what is meant by the amendment.

Was there a current threat? Probably not from the founders or from the politicians that followed them soon after. My feeling was that they wanted to codify the right to bear arms to make sure that there wouldn't be a future threat. A representative democracy is a shaky thing with very slow travel of information, goods, armies, etc, and there were probably some pretty interesting conversations leading to the bill of rights. Brainstorming ideas like "how did we manage to defeat the most powerful military force in the world?" might have been right at the top of the list. Next would be "how do we maintain an ability to do the same if attacked?"

As I explained earlier, militia-training and forced militia-service for the colonists proved to be England's undoing. I have researched some soldiers from the colonial/Rev War eras quite extensively, and the militia-men were no slouches. One such was Lt. John Bridge. He fought in campaigns to take forts from the French in Nova Scotia and in the Hudson Valley, despite the fact that he lived in Massachusetts. The NS campaign was undertaken with the leadership and militia-men of what is now Maine (a part of Mass back then, to our eternal shame). So when the regular army units of the crown hit our shores, their idea of standing in ranks in open areas and firing volleys at one another didn't work too well. Many of the militia-men were used to rough-and-tumble fighting, using cover strategically, etc, and could think on their feet. That was a valuable military advantage and it is likely that our founding fathers realized why, and codified the right to bear arms in order to preserve it for the future.

Edit: When the militia were sent into battle in the French and Indian Wars, they were not facing foes that stood in ranks and fired volleys at one another's troops. That was an outmoded continental mode of warfare that was particularly unsuited for rough terrain, wooded battle-sites, etc. The colonial militia learned flexibility and exploitation of terrain that no amount of marching and drilling (English-style) could ever entrain in soldiers.

 

[Al68]

The federal registration requirement only applies to certain types of weapons, like fully automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. There is no such requirement for most guns.

This is only true of private-purchase weapons that can fly under the radar.

If you buy a modern (post 1898) gun of any kind from a dealer, the purchase is registered in his FFL records, and he has to conduct an FBI background check on you before transferring the weapon. The serial number of the weapon and the reference number of the background check result are recorded on his paperwork, as well as the buyers name, address, and signature, as well as the type of ID produced to confirm identity. Those stay in his files.

Yes, that's all true. But by "no such requirement", I meant a requirement that a gun be registered in the name of the current owner. The purchase records you refer to are only required for dealers, not for individuals possessing, owning, or transferring a gun.

There is no federal requirement that a non-NFA weapon be registered in the name of the current owner, or that any non-FFL holder keep any record of any transfer of ownership.

 

[BobG]

Brainstorming ideas like "how did we manage to defeat the most powerful military force in the world?" might have been right at the top of the list. Next would be "how do we maintain an ability to do the same if attacked?"

Considering that most of the founding fathers were familiar with world events, the first question shouldn't have been too hard to answer. The British were conducting wars all over the world and they weren't able to focus their military might solely on the US. (In fact, the British depended on quite a few colonial militia still loyal to the king to fill out their ranks.)

They answered the second question by disbanding the entire federal army and leaving themselves vulnerable if some other world power managed to ship all of their military might across the Atlantic.

The states still believed the best defense of their state's independence was their state militias rather than an army under the command of a federal government.

But was there even a threat before the revolution from the British government or colonial loyalists to private gun ownership?

 

[turbo]

Yes, that's all true. But by "no such requirement", I meant a requirement that a gun be registered in the name of the current owner. The purchase records you refer to are only required for dealers, not for individuals possessing, owning, or transferring a gun.

There is no federal requirement that a non-NFA weapon be registered in the name of the current owner, or that any non-FFL holder keep any record of any transfer of ownership.

I had hoped that I covered all that sufficiently. I sold almost all of my collection of Winchester rifles and carbines privately (over time and in increments that would keep me out of the definition of "dealer" with the Feds) and have bought all of my pistols, rifles, and shotgun privately, with the exception of a sweet Ruger Model 1 single-shot in .45-70 that a shop-keeper friend of mine offered me at a steal. Except for that one carbine, all my guns are off-paper. Not because I don't want guns registered in my name, but because I have an extensive network of private contacts, and sometimes people want to sell a gun or two to raise cash.

I traded a Winchester M 94 .38-55 rifle with a short magazine for a brand-new Glock Model 20 in 10mm Auto in a factory case with a loading tool, 3 magazines, and original papers. I paid about $300 for the Winchester a few years back. I done good. Here, jobs are scarce, and they don't usually pay too well, so if you have feelers out, you can get good private deals when somebody's well pump gives out, people get divorced, they need a new vehicle or expensive repairs on their current one. Keep a pocketful of cash handy and keep out the word that you are interested and deals turn up.

There is a constant drum-beat about how private sales at gun-shows are fueling the flow of unregistered guns to criminals. The truth is that most of the "private" collectors here in Maine have severely over-priced everything that they own and they rarely sell much volume at gun shows. The guys carrying the modern, concealable stuff of interest to criminals are FFL holders, not private collectors. Nobody collects cheap semi-auto handguns.

 

[Al68]

The primary requirements are on manufacturers which have been decided to fall under the commerce clause. If you procure such a firearm as requires registering it will already be registered by the manufacturer. If you are in possession of an unregistered weapon of the sort outlined in the NFA then it is not a big leap to assume that it must be a black market item actionable under the commerce clause.

That's still circular logic, since there would exist no black market were it not for the law in question. It's like justifying a ban on eggs because if there were a ban on eggs, any eggs would then be black market items.

Even then, the item would have to be involved in commerce across state lines to be covered by the interstate commerce clause.

But the NFA is ostensibly a (hefty) tax imposition, authorized by the power to levy taxes, which is why it is enforced by the Treasury Department (BATF). But the actual requirement imposed is possession of the required NFA tax stamp, other evidence that the tax was paid isn't good enough. And they only issue the tax stamp after registration and background check (couple months). And the stamp is non-transferable.

So the law is ostensible justified by the taxing authority, but the law requires possession of a tax stamp which cannot be obtained by merely paying a tax.

 

[Al68]

I had hoped that I covered all that sufficiently.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on this issue. The context of my post was whether it was a crime to be in possession of a gun that's not registered to you.

I also don't worry about whether or not my guns are "off-paper", since as a practical matter, unlike universal registration, that can't be used for any ill purpose, anyway. As you know, dealer records only show who bought the gun from the dealer, not necessarily who currently legally owns it. So those records don't provide any way to establish that a particular person currently owns a particular gun.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just out of curiosity, why were the founding fathers so scared that the government might try to take their rifles and muskets?

Granted, for many of that time, losing their gun meant more than losing a means of self defense. It also meant they couldn't hunt.

Still, I don't know of any attempt to limit the colonists' private ownership of guns. The only guns the British were concerned about were the cannon owned by local militias and then only towards the beginning of the Revolutionary War, when the British began to realize they had a problem. They placed an embargo against powder, which would affect both cannon and privately owned guns, but the only actual guns they tried to confiscate were the cannon.

The constitution was originally seen as a contract between the states and the federal government. The anti-federalists were concerned that a strong centralized government would commit abuses similar to the English colonial government and that if the federal government had a standing army while restricting the ability of the states to organize militias this could lead to infringements on state sovereignty without the ability of the states to defend themselves. The Bill of Rights was specifically to the purpose of assuaging the concerns of the anti-federalists. To that effect the second amendment recognized the rights of states to organize militias and recognized a "right to bear arms" as important to this end. Of course were the federal government capable of restricting the ownership of arms it would hamper the ability of the state to form militias so the recognition of a personal right to bear arms is necessary.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on this issue. The context of my post was whether it was a crime to be in possession of a gun that's not registered to you.

I also don't worry about whether or not my guns are "off-paper", since as a practical matter, unlike universal registration, that can't be used for any ill purpose, anyway. As you know, dealer records only show who bought the gun from the dealer, not necessarily who currently legally owns it. So those records don't provide any way to establish that a particular person currently owns a particular gun.

The dealer records and FFL books offer a starting point to what might be a broken paper trail. Still, if you are the listed buyer of a number of guns that have been linked to criminal activity, it's likely that the BATF might be showing up at your door. Straw-purchasers can make a few bucks here and there helping others keep their names off the BATF records, but if they end up selling to less-than-law-abiding citizens and the guns are linked to crimes, someone will be looking for them.

 

[drankin]

I don't know how it works in other states but in Washington, as a private seller, I can sell my guns to anyone provided I have no knowledge that they are a felon. All I'm required to do is document the sale. The only reason to involve an FFL is if it crosses state lines.

 

[vertices]

Irrelevant.

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

Your last example is just wrong, Dr. King did not overthrow the government, so it's a poor example.

I wasn't saying he did (read what I wrote).

 

[Char. Limit]

Turbo-1, in one of your earlier posts, you mentioned that Britain was the greatest military power at the time. Now, not hijacking the thread (I doubt this has the potential for much discussion anyway, and if it does, I'll form a separate thread for it), but I believe that 20 years earlier AND 20 years later than 1775, France was holding that position. Now, certainly Britain was the greatest naval power by far, and this is why they could control such an extensive empire. But on pure military force, you couldn't beat France, I believe.

But I might be wrong. Maybe they were in a slump at the time. I just am certain that 20 years both earlier and later, they were the dominant force.

 

[turbo]

But I might be wrong. Maybe they were in a slump at the time. I just am certain that 20 years both earlier and later, they were the dominant force.

France was definitely in a slump here at the time of the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution. England had taken control of much of what was formerly French territory, and fought to control vital waterways like the Hudson river valley and the St. Lawrence.

France saw the colonists, in part, as a proxy army in their struggles with England as shown by the large numbers of high-quality Charleville muskets supplied to colonial militias. Those are even more desirable than the Brown Bess muskets to some collectors, since they often feature colonial militia markings, including regiment numbers. They were quite rugged, and the first official US muskets were based on this pattern.

 

[drankin]

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

Can you provide a historical example?

 

[vertices]

Can you provide a historical example?

I did - Gandi's India.

 

[Cyrus]

I did - Gandi's India.

Considering it took him nearly 30 years to accomplish this, not really a viable solution - unless you like being mowed down by gunfire year after year.

 

[Cyrus]

You implied that a "well armed citizenry" is pretty much the only way to overthrow an illegitimate government. I simply counterargued that this is not necessarily true.

No, I said a well armed citizenry was intended by the founders to overthrow a government, or expel an outside government. The fact that Ghandi used other means is of no bearing here.


Sigh...I'm getting tired of arguing things that should be self evident.

 

[vertices]

Considering it took him nearly 30 years to accomplish this, not really a viable solution - unless you like being mowed down by gunfire year after year.

It's not a viable solution because it takes a relatively long time to accomplish? An armed struggle would have left India in a state of anarchy - democracy is never granted, it is won and it takes time to win it.

Btw can you provide evidence to back up the bit in bold - I think you are quite wrong on that (as far as I am aware there was only one such massacre in Amritsar).

No, I said a well armed citizenry was intended by the founders to overthrow a government, or expel an outside government. The fact that Ghandi used other means is of no bearing here.

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

Your (and dare I say, the founding fathers') ardent belief that private citizens must own muskets and dualing pistols, as this is the only 'viable' way to overthrow the government, flies in the face of hard empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the discourse (which is quite belligerent in tone) surrounding the 2nd amendment gives ammunition (no pun intended) to a number of thoroughly Anti-American and anti-democratic lunatics in the teabagger movement, who want to secede from the union because Obama apparently isn't "their" president - this shows that a non-violent approach to solving crises in democracy is always the best approach as its entirely in the spirit of democratic ideals.

 

[BobG]

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

Only about 40-45% of the colonists supported the American Revolution - which was about twice as many as remained loyal to the British Crown. The rest just tried to making a living on their farms or in their stores.

That's not meant to trivialize support for the American Revolution, either. You need more active supporters than the other side has, not a majority of the population. And even if you have less supporters, you can still try.

But resorting to an armed struggle without inspiring others that your fight is legitimate is a good way to lose. You'll alienate people who were once neutral and increase the number of people that decide to support the other side.

 

[Cyrus]

It's not a viable solution because it takes a relatively long time to accomplish? An armed struggle would have left India in a state of anarchy - democracy is never granted, it is won and it takes time to win it.

<shrug> Okay. Not really relevant here...

Btw can you provide evidence to back up the bit in bold - I think you are quite wrong on that (as far as I am aware there was only one such massacre in Amritsar).

I was basing it on movie Ghandi, I think there were a few scenes of famous events where this happened. Anyways, I'll take it back if its not true - it's not really the main point here anyways. The point was that it took a very, very, long time.

The problem is that illegitimate governments invariably have atleast some support in the population (eg. Shah's Iran, Sadam's Iraq, Idi Amin's Uganda) - what if you only have a minority of people wanting to overthrow the government? That's why I raised the example of MLK - the pre-civil rights American government was by definition undemocratic and illegitimate - could civil rights supporters (the minority) have overthrown the government if they had resorted to an armed struggle (without attempting to inspire others with their message)?

It was "undemocratic" and "illegitimate"? Umm...no. That doesn't even make sense. And what does it matter what they did or didn't decide to do? You are under a the false impression that just because you can peacefully protest the government you don't need to have the 2nd amendment, the same way you are under the false notion that banning guns reduces crime rates.

Your (and dare I say, the founding fathers') ardent belief that private citizens must own muskets and dualing pistols, as this is the only 'viable' way to overthrow the government, flies in the face of hard empirical evidence.

Not really, as they overthrew a government, namely, yours, using weapons. I don't know why you choose to ignore history. Your "evidence" comes hundreds of years after the creation of the constitution. Do you honestly think they had a magic crystal ball to look into the future and predict these later world events (absurd)? Besides, the founders never said it was the only viable way. They were much smarter than you give them credit, because they included the ability to have an armed uprising, if we Americans so choose. That does not mean that we here in the US grab our arms and start armed revolutions every time something doesn't go our way. I don't know why you have this false impression, perhaps if you were more well traveled, you'd understand.

Furthermore, the discourse (which is quite belligerent in tone) surrounding the 2nd amendment gives ammunition (no pun intended) to a number of thoroughly Anti-American and anti-democratic lunatics in the teabagger movement, who want to secede from the union because Obama apparently isn't "their" president - this shows that a non-violent approach to solving crises in democracy is always the best approach as its entirely in the spirit of democratic ideals.

Who cares what tea baggers have to say? Why is this relevant? Stop arguing straw men. And, BTW, this does not show why non-violent approaches to solving problems in democracy is always the best approach. ---------------------------------
The 2nd amendment gives us (US Citizens) the right to bear arms. End of story. Finito. Fine.

In case you have not noticed, everyone here has relentlessly and mercilessly shot down your argument. So, I'll lend you a helping hand: if you want to make a case for gun regulation, you need to do so from a constitutional stand point -not by arguing irrelevant (and incorrect) safety figures, or tea part movement rhetoric. And, going back to the OP, not by trying to pawn it off to poor sentence structure by the founders.

 

[turbo]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

 

[Cyrus]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

Woo hoo! I can't wait to see the look on that DONKEY Mayor Daleys face!

[PLAIN]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6756/pict0282w.jpg

A nice celebratory picture of my Glock and the constitution!

Hopefully this trend will reverse Commiefornias crazy gun laws too.

 

[Cyrus]

From SCOTUS itself!

If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

Nice slap in the face to Mayor DONKEY!

 

[turbo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_guns;_ylt=AlA2bePqgLndiJTno1eX6u6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtNTZobGxxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjI4L3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfZ3VucwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzEyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdXN0aWNlc2V4dGU-

I didn't link the AP story earlier, because it had been picked up by Huffington Post.

 

[drankin]

Today, SCOTUS has voted (narrowly) that the 2nd amendment is binding on state governments, as well as the federal government. While they did not explicitly strike down Chicago's ban, that decision will change the tone in the lower courts, where Chicago's handgun ban will certainly be struck down.

I'm speechless, this is fantastic. And right before Independence Day!

 

[turbo]

I'm speechless, this is fantastic. And right before Independence Day!

And about time.

The laws that we have in place at the federal level are sufficient, if they are only enforced. Massachusetts has some very restrictive laws, as does NYC. Perhaps the rights of the citizenry can be restored in some of these cases.

 

[Cyrus]

And about time.

The laws that we have in place at the federal level are sufficient, if they are only enforced. Massachusetts has some very restrictive laws, as does NYC. Perhaps the rights of the citizenry can be restored in some of these cases.

Judge sotoymayor was very disappointing in the way she voted. What is scary is that 4 judges (worthless) voted against it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Judge sotoymayor was very disappointing in the way she voted.

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

 

[Cyrus]

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

She voted against it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

She voted against it.

I was really focusing on the disappointment part

 

[Cyrus]

I was really focusing on the disappointment part

She is supposed to uphold the constitution, she failed. She voted exactly as I'd expect from a liberal judge.

 

[turbo]

Can you clarify this? I'm mystified

I have to agree with Cy on this one. The notion that states and cities can restrict personal freedoms granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is disturbing.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Oh my god this isn't hard. How is Judge Sotomayor disappointed in the way she voted. No lectures on the morality of the case or whether states rights trump the constitution etc.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh my god this isn't hard. How is Judge Sotomayor disappointed in the way she voted. No lectures on the morality of the case or whether states rights trump the constitution etc.

No no no no no. Reread what I wrote. I'm disappointed in how she voted.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No no no no no. Reread what I wrote. I'm disappointed in how she voted.

Oh, I thought it said 'disappointed' not 'disappointing'. My bad

 

[Cyrus]

pEP9G2v-_LA&feature=player_embedded... him a constitution to go read. F'in scumbag.

 

[drankin]

pEP9G2v-_LA&feature=player_embedded...heir home and we all survived without injury.