News Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers of the Constitution successfully ended arm uprising against an overly strong and overly centralized government 6 years before writing the Constitution. An interim overly weak and overly decentralized government had failed miserably. The framers very reluctantly gave the new stronger and centralized government the ability to raise a standing army. The framers fully realized that the might well have just created the very beast they had overcome 6 years earlier. It would have been hypocritical on the part of the framers to say that, while they had just held an armed uprising against a strong centralized government, we don't want anyone holding an armed uprising against this new strong centralized government. The framers were not hypocrites. They wanted to give the people the ability to hold an armed uprising against their newly created beast, and hence the Second Amendment.

The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind was not the Maryland National Guard. A militia tightly regulated by the government can hardly hold an armed uprising against the government, afterall. The well-regulated militia the framers had in mind is a group of citizens who have armed themselves, trained themselves, regulated themselves, and plotted against the wicked government all by themselves. In short, all of those gun nuts in Michigan and Idaho and elsewhere.

Yes and no, I think.
Since the militias were more or less the US military the amendment essentially decentralizes the country's military power by (theoretically) guaranteeing all citizens the right to bear arms and form militias. This way there is not a certain group of people with a monopoly on that power (again theoretically) and that power can not be leveraged against the people. So it is supposed to prevent the "beast" from being born in the first place. With a standing army in place this safeguard is effectively removed. So now one can make the argument that it gives the people the ability to protect themselves from their government but, by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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. Not to mention all the state guard military resources that would most likely defect from an illegal federal tyranny. It can't happen. And the fact that we the general public are armed helps to insure that. I grew up with the military and know the folks and families that make up our forces. If our government were to attempt an obvious tyranny, the military would not necessarily go along. Every enlisted person has to speak this oath: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm" and a good percentage of those take it very seriously. The first sentence being to defend the Constitution.

I agree. Though to me it's not so much about beating the military as it is at least having some sort of means to defend ourselves.

 

[D H]

by my interpretation, it might be more accurate to consider a standing army to be a violation of this constitutional safeguard.

The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The standing army is a part of the original Constitution. It even predates the Second Amendment. Something that is explicitly and clearly specified in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional -- unless overturned by an amendment, that is. Slavery was explicitly and clearly sanctioned in the original Constitution, so it took a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery.

Sorry I had thought that originally a standing army was supposed to be prohibited during time of peace. Apparently that was a condition that was suggested but didn't make it in.
The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Specifically...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?

 

[cristo]

Show me the names of these "five scholars" that "automatically outweigh" anything else ever written by any other scholar.

Ouch.. you stepped into that one!

 

[D H]

The constitution makes congress responsible for maintaining a navy and raising of armies. With regard to the army it seems to state that in the event one is raised it is not to last for more than two years. Am I misinterpreting that? Or is there something else I am missing?

The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The framers were well-read, and one of the best sellers among the intellectual crowd at that time was "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Smith recognized that a standing army was a sign of a technologically advanced nation. The framers had just fought a war against a technologically advanced nation and did not want to be at such a severe disadvantage the next time around. While the framers didn't quite like the idea of a professional standing army, they did see the value of one. What they truly despised was the idea of a professional standing army that was accountable only to the king (or President). The two year limitation in the Constitution does not limit a standing army to a two year term (that is not a standing army). It forces Congress to get directly involved in the army by holding the army's purse strings.

I'm assuming that the 2 year term is technically for the 'budget' which means it must be decided on, at least once every two years what to do with the army. From what I have been reading it looks like the framers were skeptical about keeping a standing army and this was a compromise. After the revolutionary war they almost disbanded the army but finally came up with a plan exceptable to everyone. Then they started to see the potential benefits when the militias were failing in their battles against the native americans.

 

[WheelsRCool]

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.

The Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. It wouldn't have made sense to put a collective right smack in the middle of it. The Bill of Rights was added to be a check on the government and the Jeffersonian Democrats (Thomas Jefferson and so forth) would not even sign the Constitution without the Bill of rights being added.

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

That statement shows an incredibly high level of ignorance. "Conservatives" do not believe that everything must be solved with "violence;" one of the prime reasons "conservatives" and libertarians believe in the right of humans to own firearms is so people can protect themselves.

Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

Perhaps you should take a look at Australia, who has just seen a surge in the number of crimes there now that the government has forced the citizens to turn in their firearms. Or Hurricane Katrina, when anarchy broke out and there were roving gangs going around, armed, and robbing people. It wasn't the police that brought this area back under control; it was law-abiding, gun-owning civilians. Or the Rodney King riots, in which case some of the only businesses that weren't burned were by ones owned by gun owners.

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

The majority of gun crimes occur in the big cities and come from illegally obtained handguns.

There was a guy who started shooting in a mall in Chicago recently, I believe. And of course the people there were innocent victims. When the same thing happened in Utah, someone pulled out their gun and shot the person.

Guns do not cause violence. People do. The right to own guns is to PREVENT violence from occurring. Sicne you cannot protect criminals from obtaining guns on the black market, people need to be able to protect themselves. And during times when society breaks down, like hurricanes, earthquakes, riots, whatever, the people need to be able to protect themselves.[/quote]

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

Guns solve plenty of problems. They help supplement the police force in hard times.

And BTW, police protection is not a right. Look up the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

 

[cristo]

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

 

[drankin]

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans. That is like saying domestic cats are harmless and thus so are lions!

I see a lot of "as fact" statements in your post. I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

Until you can contest his opinion with facts, I find his opinion more convincing than yours.

 

[mheslep]

It does have to do with the thread. I was replying to people who made the statement that runs were a prerequisite to freedom.

As of your post, no one in this thread has made such a claim.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.

In recent years the court has underwent conservative "judicial packing" with people like "justice" Roberts and so on, so I regard what they say as irrelevant. The kind of people that would have upheld restrictions on anti-war speech during the two great wars.

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.

Quite obviously, I don't base my beliefs on what Justice Roberts and sexual offenders like Clarence Thomas believe.

That was just a smear job conducted to try and ruin his reputation.

I'd take a real scholar any day of the weak.

Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

The court also decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second Amendment unless there is "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"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

 

[mheslep]

High gun ownership in Switzerland is a commonly known and measurable fact, as all able Swiss males are required to perform military service, and

each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]

-wiki

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[6]

- based on http://www.ssn.ethz.ch/info_dienst/medien/nzz/documents/2004/07/20040718Zivilewaffen.pdf

However, your statement:

But the Swiss are a completely different people to the Americans.

is not.
So given your next statement:

I'm afraid that, until you give some statistical evidence, all your points will remain as opinion.

I ask you to do the same regards your domestic cat and Lion.

 

[drankin]

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.



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.



That was just a smear job conducted to try and ruin his reputation.



Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.



Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"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

Wow! I wasn't aware of most of those quotes. I think you nailed the context of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[cristo]

Until you can contest his opinion with facts, I find his opinion more convincing than yours.

Firstly, of course you are going to agree with an opinion that echoes your own . Secondly, one should not have to counter opinion, since this will just escalate into an "I'm right, you're wrong" type argument. As per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 , citations of sources must be made for all factual comments.

High gun ownership in Switzerland is a commonly known and measurable fact

I don't disagree with that.

However, your statement:is not. So given your next statement:
I ask you to do the same regards your domestic cat and Lion.

Is it not quite obvious that those comments were meant to be light hearted?

I should point out that I am not interested in entering into this debate again, and that there have been a plethora of such threads in the past. Unless there is something new to be said on this topic, then I don't see it having much of a lifetime.

 

[drankin]

Firstly, of course you are going to agree with an opinion that echoes your own . Secondly, one should not have to counter opinion, since this will just escalate into an "I'm right, you're wrong" type argument. As per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 , citations of sources must be made for all factual comments.


I don't disagree with that.


Is it not quite obvious that those comments were meant to be light hearted?

I should point out that I am not interested in entering into this debate again, and that there have been a plethora of such threads in the past. Unless there is something new to be said on this topic, then I don't see it having much of a lifetime.

Nothing new. I agree, any debate is a rehash of old stuff. Other than the Supreme Court confirming what most Americans already assumed was an individual right, the rest is simply personal opinion.

One of the most important things that distinguishes the US from just about every country on the planet is our right of the law abiding citizen to be armed.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Quoting myself here, just to add a bit:

Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

Well black markets are just a fact of life. If you look at the old Soviet union, one of the reasons it was able to survive as long as it did was because the entire economy got converted into one big black market.

Then there's the issue of these "gun-free" zones. If all that is needed to ban guns is to hang a "No guns permitted" sign out, then why does the White House have all that security? Why not just give them batons and hang a few "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signs up? :D

The politicians obviously don't trust the "no gun" laws to stop people from having guns, so they make sure they are surrounded by security and themselves armed (Senators can carry guns in areas that are outlawed for normal citizens).

Perhaps you should take a look at Australia, who has just seen a surge in the number of crimes there now that the government has forced the citizens to turn in their firearms.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html

Or Hurricane Katrina, when anarchy broke out and there were roving gangs going around, armed, and robbing people. It wasn't the police that brought this area back under control; it was law-abiding, gun-owning civilians. Or the Rodney King riots, in which case some of the only businesses that weren't burned were by ones owned by gun owners.

http://www.gunowners.org/no02.htm

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

The majority of gun crimes occur in the big cities and come from illegally obtained handguns.

When crime was reduced significantly in New York City, it accounted for a large portion of the total crime rate in the nation I believe, this coming from what was written in Freakonomics.

There was a guy who started shooting in a mall in Chicago recently, I believe. And of course the people there were innocent victims. When the same thing happened in Utah, someone pulled out their gun and shot the person.

The Chicago shooting was a recent news story, I believe the Utah shooting I am thinking of is written about in John R. Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime

 

[chemisttree]

Actually, the court has ruled numerous times on this issue all under the clear interpretation that the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to own guns, such as US v. Miller.

Can you name one? Did Scalia miss one?

Held
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possesses a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

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

Even the Miller opinion that you refer to was decided in error. That opinion ruled,

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

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.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights. It wouldn't have made sense to put a collective right smack in the middle of it. The Bill of Rights was added to be a check on the government and the Jeffersonian Democrats (Thomas Jefferson and so forth) would not even sign the Constitution without the Bill of rights being added.

The Bill of Rights was designed to tell the government what it could not do, as the constitution was a means of prescribing how the government would work, and what it would do. The Anti-Federalists you are talking about were worried about some parts in the Constitution. In the case of the Second Amendment, the offending part was the "Militia Clause," which states that Congress can call up the militia in order to suppress insurrection and rebellions. And they actually ordered the suppression of rebellions a few times as well. (So it's interesting for gun owners to say we need guns in fight government oppression like what "the founders would have wanted").

This makes perfect sense as a militia interpretation of the constitution, and that is why, in Federalist #46, Madison says said that militias are simply a "military force" that are conducted by "state governments."

That is also why, as Spitzer notes, the founders talked about the Second Amendment "applied only to men acting in a militia capacity." That is also why Samuel Adams said that the militia is to be regulated by civil power, and so on. What matters is the context in which they were speaking and the constitutional debates.

That statement shows an incredibly high level of ignorance…
Gun control doesn't work. Period. All of the cities in America that have stringent gun control laws have the highest crime and murder rates. D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the nation. You need to remember economics. If you outlaw something, like liquor, drugs, guns, whatever, BLACK MARKETS form. As is the case with guns. Thus you end up disarming the citizens, whereas the criminals remain armed.

This is a false analogy. It’s easy to get guns in the US, and the statistics show that a majority of the guns used in crimes have changed hands at least once in their life, meaning that they were originally purchased legally. That comparison is fallacious because it’s easy enough to go to another state and sneak in a gun if it’s illegal for you to get one in your own state, which it usually isn’t.

In the United States, it is far easier to get guns than in any other industrialized country, and in the US we have more guns per capita than the in all of the other industrialized countries I believe, and yet we have a gun homicide level per 100,000 that is simply off the charts.

There is also the fact that Switzerland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the U.S., yet they have a far LOWER crime and homicide rate.

Switzerland has the second highest handgun homicide rate out of all industrialized countries as well. But this is another one of your "false analogies": in Switzerland, the people who own guns are highly trained by the military.

I know people who live in Switzerland, and they've told me that, usually, every Swiss citizen is required to accomplish their military duty by 19, for a duration of four months. As a gift, every soldier is required to keep the weapon they receive in the Army.

Americans are not forced to serve in the army, and thus, are completely untrained in the use of firearms. That's probably why some statistics show that it's actually more dangerous to have a gun in some places, than to not have one (as you're 20 times more likely to shoot yourself or have your kids get into them, than to use them to prevent a robbery in the first place).

So there is no comparison between the two countries, and Switzerland has a lot of gun control and restrictions on what people can own as well, anyway.

It's more accurate to compare it to a country where people are not forced into the military, voluntary enlistment, and here we see that in those cases the United States has the greatest gun homocide rate of any industrialized country out there.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The Court has never, ever ruled that gun ownership is not an individual right.

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

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,

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

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

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
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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

"(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);

Many legal scholars, including some prominent liberals I believe, have come out acknowledging that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Such as? You only provide links to charlatans like John Lock and other quacks, as well as a host of non-scholars on the issue and a link to NewsMax.

Poor argument, because by that decision, all handguns, machine guns, assault rifles, etc...which are necesary for a militia, should be perfectly legal.

And the Founding Fathers were very supportive of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right:

The founding fathers did no such thing. Most of those quotes are not from the Constitutional debates and are thus meaningless. The founding fathers differed on many things, were almost never in unison on any given issue, and many may have changed their minds. And some of those quotes don't even seem real in the first place.

For example, it's easy to state the founding fathers supported the separation of religion and government, and yet, it's well known they cited from the Bible, had prayer meetings, etc. in public buildings. So what is the true interpretation there?

Second, many of the founders explicitly stated that they were talking about in the context of militias during the debates, such as the Madison and Adams quote above. Hamilton also made it clear, and was openly for gun control:

"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia..."

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."


http://www.constitution.org/js/js_322.htm

 

[OrbitalPower]

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.

 

[OrbitalPower]

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:

"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.

 

[OrbitalPower]

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[ray b]

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

 

[WheelsRCool]

I will address the other parts when I have some more time, I will respond to this for now:

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.

 

[WheelsRCool]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

 

[WheelsRCool]

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.

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

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.

 

[WheelsRCool]

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.

 

[cristo]

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?

 

[WheelsRCool]

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.

 

[cristo]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[Benzoate]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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.

 

[cristo]

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.

 

[TVP45]

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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Benzoate]

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.

 

[cristo]

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.

 

[Benzoate]

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?

 

[Benzoate]

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 /

 

[drankin]

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?

 

[cristo]

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.

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.

 

[Benzoate]

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.

 

[drankin]

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!

 

[Benzoate]

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