Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Just what it says on the tin.

Moderators: justTripn, Elessar, dark_rain

User avatar
CX
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby CX » Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:44 am

Elessar wrote:http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Remember this guy? The guy that could be heard in 911 saying he was gonna shoot the guys? 'Castle Doctrine' saved his butt.

Funny thing is, I was in Pasadena, TX...

It's not just a place I drove through, it was where me and my buddy went to this TORN UP, SHITTY in-door shooting range :lol:

The "King's Castle" law has been extended to the property line in North Dakota. But I have to say I support the decision that was made there. Say what you will about Texas, there was no doubt that these guys were thieves -they had the loot in their hands - and I support the right to defend property as well as life. But then we used to hang people who stole horses and cattle and the like. The cops aren't going to get there in time.

Elessar wrote:One thing I've wondered about pro-gun folks like myself, Mitchell, would you support the idea of having to take a one-time class/exam like the one that most states have in place to get CCW, only, for any handgun ownership at all?

I'd support requiring firearm safety as part of the require school curriculum, but I wouldn't require a passing grade from the class for gun ownership. Really, you can't, because it's a constitutionally protected right. So all you can do is to insure that the information is given, even if it's ignored.

blacknblue
Site Admin
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby blacknblue » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:02 am

I would go with that. Since so few people now have the opportunity to learn from parents or grandparents, I think it would be a great idea to teach them about guns in school. Like the boy scouts used to do before it became Non-PC and the had to drop the marksman badge. It would be a lot better for kids to learn about guns under the controlled environment of a shooting range, with someone like a policeman or a soldier as an instructor, then for them to buy a gun someday on their own and try to figure it out by trial and error.

They have the right to figure it out by trial and error of course. But many people could not afford special training on their own, even if they wanted to get it. If we can subsidize driver's education, surely we could subsidize basic gun safety classes. Especially now, since THEY CAN'T TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US! :happyjump: :happyjump: :happyjump: :happyjump: :happyjump:

All the people in NYC and Chicago who wanted a gun but were too law abiding to buy one on the black market will be able to get one now. Thousands and thousands of new guns. I consider adding gun safety classes to the public school system to be an investment in the future.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.

User avatar
CX
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby CX » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:04 am

Elessar wrote:You know there's a huge difference here.

Actually, no there's not. Not only are they both Constitutionally protected rights, but you go on to point out how similiar they can actually be, if you really think about it.

The rest of this isn't directed at you BnB, or at anybody, but is just a general rant. If you want to say that freedom of speech is NEVER dangerous to Americans, go watch Heraldo's broadcast from the beaches of Somalia in the hour leading up to the Battle of Mogadishu and ask yourself if it got Americans killed. Freedom of Speech is not always harmless, even if the majority of the people saying that it's harmful are complete fascists.

And this is how you've made you point for me. The classic example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room comes to mind. Just as that isn't protected speech and will get you thrown in jail for the resulting injury or death of those panicking and rushing to get out of that crowded room, abusing the right to own a firearm by shooting someone without cause, be it murder, manslaughter, or an accident will also get you thrown in jail.

Just because a phrase like "guarantee the public safety" CAN be twisted into a circular belt of fascist strangulation doesn't mean it always is, either.

Doesn't mean that it never will be either. On the one hand, gun registration can help to catch a criminal. On the other, what if that information is somehow abused by the government?

A lot of people don't believe government should be entrusted with too much authority to stick its nose in your business, i.e., being granted any kind of recognition as a body that's allowed to "look out for you" or that anybody in it "knows what's best for" the public better than the public does. I'm not one of these people, because I think society is full of retards and degenerates that the normal public needs to be protected from.

I am one of those people who'd rather not have the government sticking its nose in people's business because it has historically abused that power. While some "help" actually is helpful, just as with everything else, there are limits.

In a sense the public isn't being protected "from itself" as some radical right separtist types think the Feds are trying to do, but from the other nutjobs in it.

Except that that all powerful government then has the right to define who the "nutjobs" are.

Besides, on a philosophical level, the fact that anyone even accedes to live under a government is a fundamental admission that you acknowledge its right to rule over you. I mean it's basically a surrender of one's personal sovereignty. If a person doesn't intend to surrender their autonomy or their sovereignty, they shouldn't be living in that country. As far as I'm concerned it's like going to a church you don't really believe in.

Again, within limits. I'm a citizen, and to be frank, we should all fear the possibility of becoming subjects.

D is right about the ammo though. Ammunition and firearms are different things. It would be completely legal to require a license to buy ammunition... unless you want to handload everything you shoot, which would probably be the reason that they didn't say anything about ammo, since everything was ball-ammo at the time and everyone did make their own rounds.

Except then you're the hypocrite, because by doing so you would be breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

User avatar
Elessar
Site Owner
Posts: 3467
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby Elessar » Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:36 am

CX wrote:
Elessar wrote:http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

Remember this guy? The guy that could be heard in 911 saying he was gonna shoot the guys? 'Castle Doctrine' saved his butt.

Funny thing is, I was in Pasadena, TX...

It's not just a place I drove through, it was where me and my buddy went to this TORN UP, SHITTY in-door shooting range :lol:

The "King's Castle" law has been extended to the property line in North Dakota. But I have to say I support the decision that was made there. Say what you will about Texas, there was no doubt that these guys were thieves -they had the loot in their hands - and I support the right to defend property as well as life. But then we used to hang people who stole horses and cattle and the like. The cops aren't going to get there in time.

Elessar wrote:One thing I've wondered about pro-gun folks like myself, Mitchell, would you support the idea of having to take a one-time class/exam like the one that most states have in place to get CCW, only, for any handgun ownership at all?

I'd support requiring firearm safety as part of the require school curriculum, but I wouldn't require a passing grade from the class for gun ownership. Really, you can't, because it's a constitutionally protected right. So all you can do is to insure that the information is given, even if it's ignored.


Actually there's a lot of arguments as to whether it would necessarily infringe that right. Some justices and constitutional law people argue that even if you outlaw, or even just heavily regulate, certain kinds of "Arms", it doesn't violate the 2A as long as you aren't categorically doing so for all Arms.

In other words, they argue that you are only infringing on the right if people aren't able to keep and bear any Arms, and that you wouldn't be infringing it if they are only not able to keep and bear certain Arms. So if they were to do so to handguns, they haven't violated the 2A if you can still unabatedly get rifles & shotguns. That's the argument. Worth considering, that is, whether the intention of the Amendment was to ensure the ownership of all and any Arms, or just the ownership of any Arms.
"I call shotgun!"
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron



Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me

User avatar
CX
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby CX » Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:54 am

Elessar wrote:Actually there's a lot of arguments as to whether it would necessarily infringe that right. Some justices and constitutional law people argue that even if you outlaw, or even just heavily regulate, certain kinds of "Arms", it doesn't violate the 2A as long as you aren't categorically doing so for all Arms.

In other words, they argue that you are only infringing on the right if people aren't able to keep and bear any Arms, and that you wouldn't be infringing it if they are only not able to keep and bear certain Arms. So if they were to do so to handguns, they haven't violated the 2A if you can still unabatedly get rifles & shotguns. That's the argument. Worth considering, that is, whether the intention of the Amendment was to ensure the ownership of all and any Arms, or just the ownership of any Arms.

Which again goes completely against the spirit of the second amendment. It's splitting hairs and sets the stage for a slippery slope. After all, someone could say that outlawing guns wouldn't be a violation because people could still have knives, bows & arrows, spears, etc, and that those things would qualify as "arms". The amendment doesn't define exactly what "arms" consist of, probably by design, because they knew technology would always be improving in the area.

User avatar
Elessar
Site Owner
Posts: 3467
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby Elessar » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:00 pm

CX wrote:
Elessar wrote:Actually there's a lot of arguments as to whether it would necessarily infringe that right. Some justices and constitutional law people argue that even if you outlaw, or even just heavily regulate, certain kinds of "Arms", it doesn't violate the 2A as long as you aren't categorically doing so for all Arms.

In other words, they argue that you are only infringing on the right if people aren't able to keep and bear any Arms, and that you wouldn't be infringing it if they are only not able to keep and bear certain Arms. So if they were to do so to handguns, they haven't violated the 2A if you can still unabatedly get rifles & shotguns. That's the argument. Worth considering, that is, whether the intention of the Amendment was to ensure the ownership of all and any Arms, or just the ownership of any Arms.


Which again goes completely against the spirit of the second amendment. It's splitting hairs and sets the stage for a slippery slope. After all, someone could say that outlawing guns wouldn't be a violation because people could still have knives, bows & arrows, spears, etc, and that those things would qualify as "arms". The amendment doesn't define exactly what "arms" consist of, probably by design, because they knew technology would always be improving in the area.


No, you misunderstood me, I'm saying that what that spirit of the law is is precisely the subject of that debate. You're stating what the spirit of the law is, stating your opinion of what it is. That's fine, but it isn't fact, any more than mine or anybody else's is fact. When a justice or somebody says that maybe limiting just SOME Arms is not infringing ALL Arms, that's exactly the discussion going on - what the spirit of the law is. It's not that the spirit of the law is a foregone conclusion and they're jumping off from there on ways to use the letter of the law to still regulate guns... it's precisely a debate about the spirit. We can form opinions with arguments and they can be well crafted, solid, defensible arguments using old correspondences or ancillary papers and opinions written by some of the framers, but given that they're all dead, we can't exactly turn around and specifically ask them.
"I call shotgun!"
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron



Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me

blacknblue
Site Admin
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby blacknblue » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:06 pm

Arms that wuold be appropriate for use if oen were called up for duty in a militia and needed to bring one's own weapons. Which means bowie knives, machetes, kukris, pistols, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, grenades, flame throwers, molotov cocktails, tanks, fight aircraft, battleships, ICBMs, etc.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.

User avatar
CX
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby CX » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:31 pm

Elessar wrote:No, you misunderstood me, I'm saying that what that spirit of the law is is precisely the subject of that debate.

And I'm saying that debate along those lines are designed simply to circumvent the Second Amendment. Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled wisely here and managed to get pistols included as "arms".

You're stating what the spirit of the law is, stating your opinion of what it is. That's fine, but it isn't fact, any more than mine or anybody else's is fact.

Yeah it is, and the Supreme Court has my back. It isn't rocket science, dude, it's pretty clear that any attempt to redefine "arms" in that amendment would be designed to limit firearms ownership depending on what's politically popular at the time. As detailed as pretty much all the other amendments are, the founding fathers very well could have defined "arms" as rifles or anything else, but they didn't, and that says a lot right there.

When a justice or somebody says that maybe limiting just SOME Arms is not infringing ALL Arms, that's exactly the discussion going on - what the spirit of the law is.

No, the spirit of the law is to guarantee the ability of the American citizen to defend themselves, under the justification that they might be called upon to serve in the militia, but as was pointed out, that's simply the official justification. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do you honestly think that redefining what "arms" means isn't infringing in anyway on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms? You don't see the potential there for abuse either? Come on, I thought you were smart! :tsktsk:

It's not that the spirit of the law is a foregone conclusion and they're jumping off from there on ways to use the letter of the law to still regulate guns... it's precisely a debate about the spirit.

It's an attempt to legally circumvent the law by redefining what the law means.

User avatar
Asso
Site Donor
Posts: 6336
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 am
Show On Map: No
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby Asso » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:39 pm

I'm glad you can debate in such a way.
Please, descend to my level. :?
Well yes. I continue to write. And on Fanfiction.Net, for those who want, it is possible to cast a glance at my latest efforts. We arrived to
The Ears of the Elves, chapter Forty-four


And here is the beginning of the whole story.
Image

But, I must say, you could also find something else on Fanfiction.net written by me. If you want.

User avatar
Elessar
Site Owner
Posts: 3467
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby Elessar » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:20 am

CX wrote:Come on, I thought you were smart! :tsktsk:


Elessar wrote:
...

1. Do not use personally inflammatory remarks against other posters

...




You're skatin on the wrong side of the pond with that one. Relax.
"I call shotgun!"
"I call nine millimeter." - John and Cameron



Favorites:
Vulcan For...
Your Mom n' Me

blacknblue
Site Admin
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby blacknblue » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:33 am

Chill El, he didn't mean it that way. i am sure of it. I would bet my last cup of coffee that he was teasing you.

But he is right you know. If the Founding Fathers had intended for the courts or the legislatures to dither around micro managing the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they would have said so. instead, they specifically said that any rights not baldly stated therein are reserved exclusively to the states or the people.

I.E., its none of the federal government's business.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.

blacknblue
Site Admin
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby blacknblue » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:51 am

Asso wrote:I'm glad you can debate in such a way.
Please, descend to my level. :?


It's simple enough, Asso. In America, by law, custom and tradition every soldier is a citizen and every citizen is a potential soldier. Even a fat old man like me, if war came to our soil, would be expected to pick up my shotgun and join the fight. If I didn't have a gun, and the government or my neighbor didn't have a spare I could use, I would be expected to grab a crossbow or whatever else i could get my hands on. In America, citizenship implies the willingness to fight and, if need be, die in defense. For men anyway.

One of the things that really pissed off the colonists and went a long way toward inciting them into war was the British crown's decision to confiscate their weapons. King George III was concerned about the possibility of a revolt, so he ordered his soldiers to keep order by whatever means necessary. I doubt that the order came down from him directly, but somebody in the chain of command thought it would be a dandy idea to disarm these pesky colonials. If they had no guns, they couldn't revolt. Right?

One of the more inspirational rabble rousers of the time, Patrick Henry, mentioned this in a speech on March 23, 1775:

...They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?...


They REALLY didn't like the idea of having their guns confiscated, you see. So after the war, when the Founding Fathers were writing our constitution, they tacked on a set of amendments to define some basic rights that specifically laid out a list of things that the federal government was NOT allowed to do. At the top of the list, the thing they considered most important, was freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Right below that, the next most important thing according to their standards, was the right of every citizen to retain possession of their own weapons, and forbidding the federal government from doing what the British crown had tried to do, disarm the people so that they would be helpless against tyranny.

That's what the debate is all about, Asso. Some people in American have forgotten who we are and where we came from. And some of us still remember. The ones who want to throw away our hard bought rights are acting in good faith from (usually) the highest possible motives, and I truly believe that their hearts are pure. But their positions are based on wishful thinking at best. People are inherently feral. We are all born wild animals, and we have to be tamed. Some of us, unfortunately, are allowed to grow up still feral. Those of us who are domesticated must retain some method of defending ourselves against the feral pack members who still roam our streets, or we will all go under.

Patrick Henry went on, later in that same speech, to say:

...What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!...


Not everyone feels that way of course.

But sadly, those who don't are even more likely to become fresh prey for they feral predators here. The feral ones here are quite without mercy.
"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.

User avatar
CX
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby CX » Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:01 am

Elessar wrote:
CX wrote:Come on, I thought you were smart! :tsktsk:


Elessar wrote:
...

1. Do not use personally inflammatory remarks against other posters

...




You're skatin on the wrong side of the pond with that one. Relax.

Ok, so no teasing or referencing your high IQ, whatever... :roll:

User avatar
Asso
Site Donor
Posts: 6336
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:13 am
Show On Map: No
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby Asso » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:01 am

Thanks for your elucidation, blacknblue.
Well yes. I continue to write. And on Fanfiction.Net, for those who want, it is possible to cast a glance at my latest efforts. We arrived to
The Ears of the Elves, chapter Forty-four


And here is the beginning of the whole story.
Image

But, I must say, you could also find something else on Fanfiction.net written by me. If you want.

blacknblue
Site Admin
Posts: 1679
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:54 am

Re: Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

Postby blacknblue » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm

"Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

-- Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute

I don't like to steal other people's words, but a comment in response to an article here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8H ... =firefox-a

struck me as saying what I wanted to say more perfectly than anything I could come up with.


It is just that the Supreme Court ruled to support an individuals right to own a weapon. They should, however, have explicitly struck down any kind of “regulation.”

A right is something you have. There is no higher authority. You have the right. You don’t have to ask the state, or get a permit, or license.

A privilege is something you have to ask a higher authority for permission for. You must get a permit. “Mommy can I go to the bathroom…”

Right vs. Privilege’s are like light vs. dark - polar opposites. I wish people could understand that. Especially since the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the state, to secure our rights. So why should we have to ask permission, or get a permit, from the State for our right? It makes no sense, is egregious, and needs to end.

In all reality, this is a quasi-win. The court needed to explicitly strike down any “permits” or regulation that changes the whole purpose of this right into a privilege- a privilege granted by the very entity (the government) that this right is supposed to protect us from.



Thank you sir. Well spoken,

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."


-Samual Adams


"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."



-James Madison
"Father of the American Constitution"
Federalist Paper 46


"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."



-Noah Webster

Also by Noah Webster:


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.



Noah Webster, 1787
"An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution"


And FINALLY I will shut up with this one.

You hear constantly that America is awash in blood. That we are the most murderous people on Earth. That to walk down a street in any American city is to take your life in your hands. If you believe the media, murderers and rapists lurk around every corner, and here only might is right.

Bullshit. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2005.


Please note that during that same period of time, The number of States which have enacted laws permitting any law abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon has been steadily climbing. The number of gun in America has also been steadily going up.


Weapon use

In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.




And finally (emphasis added):


During the 1987-1992 period, offenders fired their weapons in
17 percent of all non-fatal handgun crimes, missing the victim
four out of five times.
In 3 percent of the non-fatal crimes
committed with handguns, about 21,000 annually, the victim was
wounded. In addition, an average 11,100 were killed each
year.

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns.

In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms
were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with
weapons other than firearms. During the six-year period,
about one in three armed victims faced an armed offender.


"When the legends die, the dreams end. When the dreams end, there is no more greatness."
--Tecumseh
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion."
--King Solomon the Wise
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Unless the few are armed.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests