-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/supreme-court-overturns-dc-handgun-ban.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
I suggest a Glock. Very nice hand gun.
We have two. I have a 12mm. My wife has a 9mm.
As well as a shotgun and a rifle.
Everybody should have at least one of all three.
And know how to use, clean and store same.
"For a price I will do almost anything, except pull the trigger, for that I need a really good cause." Operation Mindcrime
I'm not seeing that the gun ban has lowered the crime rate in DC. Perhaps somebody can cite something more concrete than just my perception. It'd be nice if neighboring states (I'm talking to YOU, Virginia) would do something to interrupt the flow of illegal weapons into the District.
Assuming population growth during the past 35 years was normal, the handgun deaths remained remarkably steady and probably declined on a per capita basis.
There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
This site shows a decrease in the city residents (but an increase in the greater metropolitan area).
Wikipedia also refers to a 50 year decline in DC's population that only reversed itself since 2000.
So the best that can be said is that the handgun ban had little to no effect (aside from removing constitutional rights).
San Francisco may name sewage treatment plant after Bush...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/america/...
And, CNN's Michael Ware seems to have had a raging minaret for Lara Logan's fertile crescent...
Just remember if you are in California that you will have to ask the person that hates gays and lesbians (so much that they would hurt them) to wait at least 10 days before they kick in your door. I'm sure that they'll be happy to pencil that in on their calendar so they know when you have a fighting chance.
However, I do believe in strict lisencing for handguns and severe punishment under the law if you are negligent. I find it amazing that we have stricter laws for negligence with an automobile than we do for guns.
I do agree with you on most of your points but, law makers seem to go overboard and make it a political issue rather than actually thinking about how the citizen will be affected by their collective posturing. I have lost my trust in the present Congress, not to mention the SCOTUS. We won't even mention the Executive Branch until after January 20th when hopefully, this country will have wizened up enough to realize what Bush has done to this country with his minions. I holding my breath that Bush's other shoe doesn't drop and he gets us into yet another war going for the trifecta in one president's tenure.
Guns for Frequent Flyers!
You think anybody who wants to kill themselves is going to hesitate to have five of his brothers charge the cockpit shooting?
You think they'd be stopped before they hit the pilots, a hydraulic line or the skin of the aircraft?
EVERYBODY should be able to bring guns on airplanes.
The S. Court says it's our right.
Do it, man! Do it!
I know some people disagree with the court's ruling, but people should stop making things up just because they don't like how it went.
The Court explicitly did not ban restrictions on sales, possession, and gun-free areas: they simply struck down a unilateral ban. So restrictions on felons owning guns, gun-free zones in schools, etc etc etc: all intact.
Then the court is being anti second amendment or, more likely, they're afraid of getting their own worthless asses shot off in the country clubs.
That's unconstitutional!
My constitutional rights don't stop with I enter a courthouse, school or church.
I should be able to pack heat wherever I want!
However, everyone should go back and read the second amendment. It gives people the right to bear arms for national security purposes. No where does it mention personal security. That is a myth. The Supreme Court made a grave error today.
Chief Justice Roberts is a threat to our "personal security."
Or like California put burdensome rules around ammon and gun purchases.
In regards to personal possession. Guns should be kept at home so in an emergency a militia can be formed quickly.
I suspect the Democratic party is going to have to figure out some new boogyman to attack now that they won't be able to use scary guns as a fear tactic. Those mylar balloons are pretty frightening... Maybe that California ban can go nationwide.
Your comments about what people "need" are in direct conflict with a free nation. It's not your place to decide.
No, it doesn't. Improper/unsafe/illegal *use* of a gun creates a threat to other people's lives, but simple ownership (not to mention responsible use) does not. Just as the KKK's 1st Amendment right to speak does not create a threat to a black American's right to life, but inciting others to violence against him (irresponsible and unsafe use of speech) does.
And as for the militia reading of the amendment: 1/2 of the constitutional scholars in the country disagree with the other half as to whether a militia is necessary for the right to exist, so you can't just wave your hand and pretend there is no good faith disagreement. Also, I find it interesting that this is one right that people want to *limit* to a narrow ruling, whereas we usually look to the Constitution to protect our rights, not limit them.
And I am not "lumping" anything: you specifically want to limit gun rights to membership in a militia: you are by definition trying to take away and limit others' individual freedoms. Just because you think it's ok/right/"safer" to do so doesn't mean you're not doing what you're doing. At least have the courage of your convictions and defend it as what it is: the removal of a right.
And by the way, potentially hazardous things like cars are used to transport people. A gun dispels lead at high speeds for the purpose of killing someone. To say that it has anyother purpose is to completely misunderstand what a gun is.
Based on your arguement perhaps we should have a lawless, chaotic society with no safety codes, no safety regulations of any kind. The wild west....where does it stop?
You can still have laws and regulation and keep the constitution and freedom in tact. What about my freedom to live in a country free of hand gun violence? Why is your right to arm everyone supercede my right to the persuit of happiness. Do you live in an urban area?? Do you have a clue what it's like out there?
Now you're simply lying, both about my arguments and the effects of this ruling, and this shows the desperation in your post. The entire point is that *regulation* and limitations (such as safety codes, ownership limitation, gun-free zones) are legal (and today's decision explicitly rejects the Wild West scenario you're trying to scare people with).
The rest of your post is equally laughable: You don't have a right to live in a country free of violence: if you did, people could sue the police for not protecting them, and this has been rejected.
And I'm not trying to arm everybody, as you know (why do anti-gun zealots act like 2nd amendment rights force people to buy guns?). You're just trying to paint me as pushing guns on people in order to distract from actual arguments, like the idiotic idea that what other people buy should be controlled by what makes you happy.
And if you define your pursuit of happiness as the limitation of what others can do, you're in the wrong country: Christianists could define their pursuit of happiness as a gay-free society, or a society where no one could own anti-Christian materials, but they (and you) don't get to make that decision for others.
"and today's decision explicitly rejects the Wild West scenario you're trying to scare people with)."
I hope you are correct on this issue. But I believe it ties the hands of mayors in high crime areas. We will have to agree to disagree here.
And your airy dismissal of what makes a right inalienable is not the issue here: The Constitution is. You know, the thing we've been fighting for these last 8 years? So what, we just ignore it now that you don't like what it says? That makes us no better than them, Mark.
You disagree that the ruling explicitly protected restrictions on guns? Go read it if you don't believe me, but there is nothing to disagree on here; the text of the decision says what it says: Restrictions and regulation are completely permissible; outright bans are not. That doesn't tie any mayor's hands.
You are right on one point - I don't have to hunt. I can just divorce myself from the food supply like you and not have to think of what died every time I go to the meat counter. Not for me. If I consume it - it dies by my hand so I never lose respect for what nature provided me and my family.
Also, ordinary citizens don't commit gun crimes. Criminals with guns do. Since there are 9 guns for every citizen out there (one short IMHO) getting a gun illegally isn't all that hard to do. So that part of your argument ring hollow especially since we already have guns on the street where anyone can get them. The only thing anti gun legislation does is hinder law abiding citizens from buying one - it does NOT keep them out of the hands of criminals.
So let's look at those stats. The number of people that hurt themselves with guns is miniscule compared to those that hurt themselves or other in cars. If you are concerned about public safety then walk everywhere and don't step in front of a speeding DeSoto. Also "gun" crime might go down in countries that have outlawed guns - but does the "overall" crime rate? Folks can get skinned with a butterknife if the criminal is determined.
Or, wait. No?
Maybe, in fact, every single bit of evidence goes to show that outright bans of goods/services that people want invariably lead to a black market, with illegal possession being the only kind of possession, the wrong people have them and the right people don't, and the government loses any ability to regulate or control the market whatsoever.
But--nice try, though.
One quibble tho: "THe problem with our society is that we don't care enough about each other to remove the weapons that are on our streets." You need to stop defining gun owners (and those that want gun ownership legal) as people who don't care about each other. That's extremely simplified and really insulting rhetoric, just like the Republicans' "anyone who opposes wiretapping hates America" bs is insulting. Don't fall into that trap.
Not just gun owners. Most people in general don't care about one another.
The police can't control the amount on the street. If they could have they would have. Apparently you think there is a correlation between legal ownership and illegal possession. There isn't.
Regarding the butterknife. Just pointing to how you parsed the words. Let me ask again does the overall crime rate go down when guns are outlawed?
them in the first place... How successful has the law been in taking guns
away from criminals? Not at all.
Also, I truly care about other citizens and so do many other gun owners. So quit trying to paint us as misanthropes. We aren't like you - that does not make us less.
Okay, I'll try again. Has violent crime in gun-free societies gone down? I would wager it hasn't.
I'm a Obamacan, myself, and I'm glad that the decision went this way. The Bushies violate our 4th Amendment rights and claim it makes us safer; the gun banners do the same dance with the 2nd.
SCOTUS explicitly left in place reasonable restrictions on sales and possessions and gun-free areas: what it did do was restore the right to own a gun in places that had unilaterally banned them. Good for them.
Thank God for the Federalist Society and their anti-Constitution position!
I find it amazing that the term "red neck" is an acceptable slur. Are you referring to all people who live in the South or small towns or just people who hunt? Are people who hunt in NH and VT red necks too?
Oh, and I have NO PROBLEM with people that own long-arms for hunting, as long as they eat what they kill. Not all hunters are rednecks, not all rednecks are hunters! Handguns and assault rifles have but one purpose - kill humans.
BTW, I am teaching my children firearm safety, and target practice using a BB gun.
Would you aim for the head, or chest of a mother bear protecting her babies?
There is a fair amount of discussion out here in Montana regarding the relative merits of rifles/handguns/pepper spray. As I said in my post, I don't want to shoot any bears. I don't seek out situations where I might provoke a bear encounter. I do want to travel in bear country with my kids. When I am hiking by myself, I am as careful as possible (and carry pepper spray). When I am hunting, I carry pepper spray in addition to my rifle.
Just so we're all clear what I'm talking about, here is a link describing a griz killed on the highway very near where I hunt regularly. I don't know about you, but I'm in awe of such creatures (and have the deepest respect for them):
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/grizzly_bea...
If smart people were getting guns, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned.
It's all hillbillies and gang bangers.
(h/t ThinkProgress)
Is it November yet?
I thought the Republicans were the ones that campaigned on fear. "We are screwed"? Why? Because of these innocent people who will shoot themselves? Why will this happen, exactly?
Legislating from the bench would mean creating a right where no exists. Last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment was real. Written down and everything.
"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."
Historical narrative???? what the hell does that mean. Sounds like a pretty lame interpretaion of the second amendment to me.
Scalia is simply wrong.
No, what it sounds like is that you are not familiar, in the slightest, with how court cases deal with interpretation of constitutional and statutory law: courts routinely examine the understanding of words and laws at the time of writing, not to mention legislative records and debates which contributed to the construction of the final text. So, actually, you are "simply wrong" if you think that historical analysis has no place in judicial review.
Please don't insult my intelligence, we can have discourse without personal attacks.
2) Pointing out that you showed no familiarity with how courts weigh evidence (and what they weigh) isn't a personal attack. A personal attack might be found in your attempt to portray my support for this ruling as supporting a society tantamount to anarchy, when you said to me on this thread: "Based on your arguement perhaps we should have a lawless, chaotic society with no safety codes, no safety regulations of any kind." Of course I said nothing of the kind, and explicitly said the reverse, but it didn't stop you from typing it.
Yup--explicitly stating that restrictions such as these are still legit sounds like *giant* steps towards anarchy. [sigh]
You have got to be kidding me. Surely you're joking.
Having banned handguns, semi-automatic rifles, replica guns, toy guns, and pellet guns, Britain has now been reduced to calling for increased KNIFE control to "combat their skyrocketing crime rate."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...>
Don't you find it interesting that societies with strict gun laws have low murder rates? That's all I am saying. I am not judging it, it's just a glaring correlation.
I think before, and after I type. Why the personal attacks? I am not going to take your gun away. You can sleep with it and love it, buy an arsenal...then perhaps you will be in a happy place. To each their own.
Have a great weekend.
Peace-
Mark :-)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/sp...
With or without the permit you cannot carry a gun near a school or airport or government building, nor any place that has a posted sign, but if you have a permit you are in MUCH deeper shit for having done so. With or without a permit you can buy a gun from a private person instantly, and buy a long gun anywhere in state instantly. With the permit you can buy a handgun from a dealer with a shorter waiting period, as if you have been 'pre-approved.' I fact the CWP issuing process includes a more rigorous background check than one done within a week for the standard purchase.
The permit process could and probably should be more rigorous, but it is what we have. I as a responsible gun owner took it to support the process of training and certification, such as it is, because that is the way it should be. I am not afraid of the "government" getting my info to 'take my guns' because THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION. Jeez. I am paranoid about different, real things. (Pun.)
Guns are dangerous. Guns are also here and here to stay. It's been several centuries now. We need to deal with that responsibly. We have a whole generation that having gotten most of their 'training' from TV and movies think a piece of drywall will stop a bullet, or a trash can, that you can just point it at someone and hit them and that's that and they can recover with no scars, a spleen, and no permanent disability. Guns are waved around at people like it's a new sign language - YOU NEVER POINT A GUN AT SOMEONE (you don't intend on shooting.) EVER. It IS the responsibility of the Government, for regulation of private militia or whatever, to provide safety training and information for everyone at risk of gun violence. (This means everyone.) This is never discussed in association within the classic 'gun control' debate and it is extremely wrong to not do so.
All people have learned lately is that If the pen-raised quail you want to slaughter flies back toward the people it thinks it's safe near and ends up near your lawyer friend you know is there, you are not supposed to point your shotgun at him lest you shoot him in the face. Even if you had had a snootful beforehand, as you knew you shouldn't have had either. This is F*cking criminal negligence, but typical of an administration that doesn't teach proper condom use either. Guns and sex are here to stay - let's deal with them and educate the citizenry about them, eh?
The DC ban seems to have really gone just too far. And not just to the five Nazi Supremes either. When it was written they knew they had done something radical and that it would be challenged. It was LAZY, and CHEAP. There is no lazy and cheap way around the problem of gun violence and gun safety and personal protection real needs and rights. It's a balance. Sorry. No quick-fix.
And when whatever new regulations do emerge from this universal ban striking, let's hope it gets into the public debate and folk learn more about gun safety and legal use and real consequences. Otherwise we're left with things like what the very liberal and PC pundit Gun-Ban proponent Carl Rowan did. When he was confronted with what he thought was a burglary, he used his previously unregistered and at-the-time completely illegal pistol to brandish, not identify the target, shoot without aiming and NOT while his life was threatened and NOT as a last resort. He wounded someone trespassing in his yard. He obviously did not know how to use his gun nor have the experience with it nor knowledge of it because he had it all on the 'Down Low.' Plus he was a complete idiot and hypocrite and, of course got off with no punishment whatsoever and made a lame apology.
Is this what we want? No. is a universal ban what we want? No - we never could have had it. What we need is real regulation and safety training and decent and fair law enforcement, that's what.
For heavens sakes - even the people that hate guns should attend a safety class. It should also be a part of every elementary school education.
And one can't oppose the Bushies for ignoring and trampling constitutional rights while doing the same. You can't have it both ways.
What a pile of steaming hot horseshit!
That said, upon really looking at this decision yesterday, I have come to the conclusion that the correct decision was made because now the NRA cannot use the slippery slope case anymore for not having regulations......Your gun will not be taken away as a result of yesterdays ruling....but we can regulate the crap out it. And that is a good thing.
PS: Crime will rise in DC. I guarantee it.
Have you not considered that the two best examples in the last century of comprehensive, effective gun control were Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia?
Has it not occurred to you that of all the examples of genocide in the twentieth century (and there were many), not ONE of them was carried out against an armed populace?
Seriously, that is the most nonsensical argument I have ever heard. The GOP is reluctant to declare martial law because a couple of gun nuts would pose some kind of threat? When the GOP does declare martial law (which the FBI says they will be doing soon), it's the redneck gun owners that they are counting on to slaughter us liberals (and from what I read on the Freepers website, they can not wait to kill me and my family with their legal guns).
Not to mention the premise that Hitler used gun laws to disarm the populace is an American myth made up by the far, far right!
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
It was the pre-Nazi government that passed the gun laws in Germany. The Nazi's didn't get around to updating that law until 1938, years after they had already gain total control over the government. The Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box. Gun ownership was NOT widespread in Germany and the largest majority of Germans LOVED the Nazis!
I imagine you'd have said the same thing about the might of the British Empire.
"The Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box."
Granted. My point is not that the Nazis needed a disarmed populace to ascend to power. My point is that the first thing a genocidal regime does when it ascends to power is disarm the populace. And guess what follows? Genocide. Ask the Jews if they'd rather have been armed.
The Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box.
As will the new Progressive Movement. And rather than the jews being the ones in the gas chambers it will be people who don't agree with global warming.
I posted earlier that there is a strong love of guns in this country. Through our media outlets, the entertainment that is provided is extremely violent. In addition, our news media uses fear to sell their products. "Our top story tonight, 3 killed in a domestic violence homicide!!!" If you look at the media in places like Canada and Europe, their entertainment and media is much more prevalent with providing stories that are good natured. We really need to work on how we can change the mindset of people in this country to stop being afraid of each other and start being nicer.
NEVER ONCE did I feel a need to own or carry a handgun. Never once was I mugged.
You know how I did that? By NOT being an ASSHOLE to the rest of my neighbors. Instead of slinking in fear past the homeboys on the corner, I'd say hello, and good evening, how you guys doing? Show them respect due to a fellow human being. I even stopped to chat with one guy who wanted to know about my two-way radio (ham). I showed him how I had the local police precinct loaded in there, so I could keep tabs on what they were up to. They had never seen a white guy with a radio that wasn't a cop.
You know who really was the biggest threat to my safety? Rookie cops. 20-somethings given a gun and told that everyone out there is their enemy. I had far more to fear from them than the guys on the corner.
Now that I live in rural Vermont I have even less need for a gun. I don't feel the need to see every person as a threat, when a stranger did come to my door at 1 AM in the dead of winter, I let them in, because he was nearly frozen to death and was no threat.
I fully believe that guns should be heavily regulated by population density. Towns in Vermont have signs that say, Town DIstrict - No Rifles - Buckshot only. Larger places, like Burlington are even more regulated. I feel that NO city should allow handgun ownership, except for rare circumstances, like diamond company employees. I don't even want the cops to have guns...
Stallin.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
The Founding Fathers.
Stallin wanted to get rid of what the founding fathers wished to protect.
This city boy can and WILL survive...