Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

[drankin]

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.

Hmmm. Apparently that belief wasn't backed by enough evidence to convince the highest court in the country. I think it's fair to say with credibility that you are technically wrong. And that is going to be the standing fact for many generations to come. But, if one doesn't like that fact there is always Canada right next door...

 

[OrbitalPower]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

It was in completely in context with the line of discussion in the thread.



It clearly had to do with what I was replying to.

Really, local hunters from your state who can't take over city council does not really have anything to do with this topic. Its just anecdotal evidence on your part.

It isn't "nonsense" -- I'm very wary of people who advocate guns as a prerequisite for freedom and then advocate absolute tyranny -- and it had everything to do with the comment I was replying to.

Note, I was using the word nonsense not to get a warning for using a stronger word, which I wanted to use. The statement in bold has nothing to do with what were talking about.

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns. The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns, and declared they had the "right" to take people's guns away from them in given scenarios (such as being "disaffected with the revolution"). So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

What you believe is not what is true. Sorry, but people have had guns since the revolutionary war. Your trying to suddenly change the way things have been for hundres of years doesn't jive.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

 

[D H]

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

Nobody has said that. I, for one, gave up running several years ago. I blew out me knees one time too many.

Oh, you meant guns? It was the original framers of the Constitution who said that.

I don't believe the constitution gives people the right to own guns.

Believe what you want. You are, however, wrong. If you want to make that so, change the flippin' Constitution. The Constitution says how that can be done. And it isn't by having the courts decide that parts of the Constitution are outmoded. That is our job, not the courts'.

The founders themselves prohibited people from owning guns

The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

So, you wouldn't have the change the constitution at all to have strict regulation.

Scalia said that some regulation is OK. It is the outright ban that is not.

I can give you the names of plenty of historians and legal scholars who've written on the context of the issue, noting the second amendment is not an individual right, and they know a lot more about the issue than Penn & Teller.

I can name five right off the top of my head who say it is an individual right, and those five trump any of the legal scholars you can come up with.

 

[drankin]

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.

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.

So, if you don't like what the court decides it's irrelevant? It's very relevant, and will be relevant for a very long time. Can you site another case other than US v. Miller, regarding a sawed off shotgun being transported across state lines. A judgement that was imputed to a man and counsel that didn't even show up in court to contest their case? Talk about irrelevant.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I'd honestly like to see these opinions, because the US courts have said otherwise the entire time.

First of all, the courts have ruled up until now, in nearly every single decision, that the Second Amendment is NOT an individual right. Even here they say it is not an absolute right as I see it.

You don't know what you're talking about, although I guess they didn't cover that in the "Penn and Teller" program.

The absolutist view of the second amendment, that it protects an individual's right, has not been sustained a SINGLE TIME in US history, until now (and even here it is somewhat vague).

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."


Second, if the constitution did give people the right to own guns without restrictions, that is, if it says what you claim it says, the NRA could legally challenge every single gun law in the country, and people could own any gun they wanted to. They don't, because the precedent has generally been that it is not an absolute right and that is a right entirely tied up within the context of a militia.

Third, there are tons of scholars who note the context of the Second Amendment.

Some of them are Robert Spitzer, Joseph Story, Like Wills, Don Higginbotham, etc. etc.

Here is an expert from one of Spirzer's arguments:

Based on court rulings, historical interpretation, and the sense of those who drafted and debated the amendment, the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear. It provided for a citizen-based right to keep and bear arms when men were called into service in a government-regulated militia, keeping in mind that militias composed of self-armed men were the primary means of national defense in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The national government formed under the Constitution of 1787 was granted sweeping new powers, including not only the power to create and maintain a standing army (a power denied to the national government under the old Articles of Confederation), but also the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. Antifederalists already suspicious of new federal powers were deeply concerned that states would no longer retain militia authority, and so they sought this reassurance in the Bill of Rights.

The militia-based understanding of the Second Amendment has been uniformly endorsed in Supreme Court cases stretching back to the nineteenth century (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876; Presser v. Illinois, 1886; Miller v. Texas, 1894; U.S. v. Miller, 1939;Lewis v. U.S., 1980). The age of some of these cases has prompted some critics to dismiss them, but court cases do not come with expiration dates. In addition, more than forty lower federal court cases, and law review articles published as early as 1874, all embrace this meaning.

In recent decades, efforts have been mounted to impose an individual meaning on the Second Amendment—that is, to assert that the amendment protects an individual right to own guns, aside and apart from militia service. The effort dates to a law journal article published in 1960. Since then, the individualist movement has won adherents, and in 2001 a federal court (Fifth Circuit) for the first time accepted this view in U.S. v. Emerson. This view has now been endorsed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, representing a reversal of decades of Justice Department interpretation. But even supporters of the individualist view generally concede that it permits reasonable gun regulations."

"All of the debate during the First Congress “applied only to men acting in a militia capacity,” including debate over whether the amendment should include wording to codify the right of conscientious objectors to opt out of militia service for religious reasons; the relationship between militias, standing armies, and liberty; the need to subordinate the military to civilian authority; and the unreliability of the militia as compared with a professional army. There was no debate about the amendment serving as a basis for individual gun ownership detached from military service..."

 

[OrbitalPower]

The founders did not prohibit people from owning guns. They prohibited slaves, who were not people in the eyes of the founders, from having any rights. Guess what? We changed the Constitution to declare that all people are people.

The militia was generally defined as any able-bodied male over a certain age.

Second of all, this is clearly incorrect. The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed. So, quite clearly they obviously believed some people should be disarmed. They also wrote that anybody "disaffected with the revolution," i.e., remained neutral during a time of revolution, could be disarmed.

So why, if they believed it was an absolute right, why would they disarm political dissidents? And by the many Indians as well as blacks would have been forbidden from owning guns.

The names of the scholars have been provided.

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

 

[drankin]

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."

Uh, no, you are wrong. It was regarding a SAWED OFF SHOTGUN not being a useable, normal weapon for a militia. That was the case that didn't really have a fair decision because there was no DEFENSE to give an argument. A handgun WOULD be a useable weapon for a militia. The Miller case is a poor argument as Scalia pionted out.

 

[D H]

The founders even wrote bills like "the tory act" which declared all tories be disarmed.

Non sequiter. The Tory Act was passed by the Continental Congress in January 1776. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791.

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

Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

 

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. That's an even worse argument than I thought. I thought at least i'd get a gun cite article. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution, especially one that has been "judicially packed" by the likes of Reagan/Bush (a couple more know nothings on the constitution). These are the same peope who've upheld anti-free speech laws time and time again.

http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

 

[drankin]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

okay, good luck

 

[D H]

LOL. The Supreme Court is the last place I'd go for an accurate interpretation on of the constitution

Talking about LOL!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But I'll explain the true origins of the second amendment tomorrow, as most people clearly don't know, and statements from one Hammilton that prove he knew it was NOT an individual right.

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on their tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically referring to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[drankin]

I hope you don't mind but I did not feel like quoting all of the various posts I am intending to respond to.

So far as I have seen no one in this thread has stated that the right to own guns is absolute and no one in the thread has claimed that the right to own guns is a 'prerequisite to freedom' (correct me if I'm wrong). This pretty much turns a large chunk of your arguements in this thread so far into strawmen. I think we could have a much better discussion and it may move forward if we could drop these misrepresentations.


Concerning the idea that the right to gun ownership was solely for the purpose of a 'well regulated militia' and not an individual right do you really believe that the men of those times had no thought for the ability of it's citizens to hunt to put food on their tables? Or that perhaps the limitations of law enforcement may require a citizen to protect themselves? You can certainly argue whether or not these necessities apply today but can you honestly say that the right to individual ownership for these purposes was of no consideration in determining whether or not citizens had a right to own guns?

Now of course the actual wording is 'bear arms' so perhaps the drafters of the amendment were specifically referring to military grade weapons and took it for granted that citizens would own more basic guns for hunting and protection if need be. In this case the amendment really has nothing to do with gun ownership in general but only ownership of military grade weapons and the formation of armed militias, which could theoretically be a threat to the establishment and so a worrisome point that needed to be debated and clarified. But can it not be reinterpreted?

I don't think that the establishment clause was in the minds of the men who lived during a time when 'God' was invoked in government documents, in legally binding oathes, and the bible was common material in schools. Times change and so do our interpretations of the constitution.

So when weapons design improved, more deadly guns were more widely available, and fronteersmen were pushing the borders wasn't it necessary for citizens to have better guns to defend themselves with? Something not made for hunting? Eventually the US had a standing army and there was little to no need for the militias. No militias would mean no right to bear arms, no constitutional protection of the citizens' ability to bear arms. Unless we reinterpret the second amendment. Unless we interpret it to mean that the citizens themselves have the right to the ability to protect themselves with measures that would include the bearing of arms.

Do you not think that is a ligitimate way of interpreting it? Again we can debate whether or not this is an actual necessity today in which case, if it isn't, the constitution should be amended. But I'm focusing here on the legitimacy of this sort of interpretation as handed down by the current supreme court.

Basically, the court clarified that we had the right before the amendments and still have the right today. And, we also shall have the capacity to form a militia if so required to overthrow a tyrannical government.

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.

It has always been an individual right and will continue to be well into our future. And that is a good thing.

 

[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