Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment NOT about militias

[Ratatosk]

Also, it's funny you should mention drug law: the reason armed robbers and murderers tend to get back onto the street so quickly has a lot do with overzealous drug prosecutions filling up prison space. Laws against violent crime and illegal weapon possession would have a much stronger preventive effect if people actually had to serve their sentences.

[Bob Blaylock]

I was raised here in the U.S. and A., but the insistence that we're the world's only and most free-est free country requires an act of patriotic self-love that I'm afraid might make me go blind.

The fact is that for all the problems that we do have, we are the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth; and the people of this nation enjoy the greatest freedoms and the best standards of living.

We certainly did not get to be this way by letting the puny nations of Europe, nor the cowards to the north of us, tell us how to run our own nation.

Other nations, presuming to tell us how to run ours, do so out of ignorance and jealousy. Perhaps they seek to raise themselves up by dragging us down to their level.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The comparison with Prohibition or drug law is pretty far-fetched: I have friends who brew their own beer and friends who grow their own... well, you know. But I don't think people smithing guns in their bathtubs would become commonplace if gun laws became stricter. Plus, there's a strong scent of straw around the notion that anyone's suggesting an outright ban.

If I may return to "well-regulated": The Second Amendent would seem to be saying that it is beneficial if those responsible for defending the nation are well-trained in the use of firearms. This has been institutionalized into something called "boot camp." Going to the store and buying an AK-47 does not qualify anyone as a member of a "well-regulated militia."

My own opinion (not that anyone asked) is that, for starters, firearm ownership should require training at least as rigorous as that for driving a motor vehicle, and a similar licensing system.


Funny you should mention a bathtub... Behold:
A sub-machine gun made pretty much from plumbing parts. (http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/BSP_Schematics.pdf)

Only reason it isn't happening is because it's easier to get 'em in other ways.

...and you can return to the, "well regulated militia." As a member of the Indiana State Sedentary Militia, and being well enough regulated for the State of Indiana to allow me to carry a firearm in public, I have no problem with it. :D

....

a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court may become upset with you, though, for not paying any attention to them (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf).

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The fact is that for all the problems that we do have, we are the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth; and the people of this nation enjoy the greatest freedoms and the best standards of living.

We certainly did not get to be this way by letting the puny nations of Europe, nor the cowards to the north of us, tell us how to run our own nation.

Other nations, presuming to tell us how to run ours, do so out of ignorance and jealousy. Perhaps they seek to raise themselves up by dragging us down to their level.


I CALL TROLL!

(Am I first? Did I win??)

[EagleEye]

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

This is an absurd statement on its face. What you're saying here is the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the government to arm... themselves? If the "militia" is NOT the private citizen, then it is, by default, the government.

If it meant "Everyone should have the right to bear arms", then there is semantically and syntactically no need for the militia clause. The insertion of such a clause specifically limits the People owning guns to those within the well-regulated militia, at least in any sensible reading.

You are really REALLY missing the whole definition of a Militia, as opposed to a "military".

A militia is basically a lose organization of private citizens that carry and maintain their own weaponry, and when called upon, bring said weaponry to battle. The national guard WAS based on this idea, but the private citizens couldn't afford or maintain things like an F16, for example... back in the day of the revolution, there was the "military" (with generals and such), who were often joined by "militiamen" from the local towns they were fighting at... these militiamen wore no uniforms, and carried their own weapons in to battle... whereas the military personnel were outfitted and geared by the government.

Please learn the difference... learn that MILITIA is the average US citizen... who does not take orders from some Captain or General.

[EagleEye]

The Court could announce that the sky was pink, it wouldn't change reality.

Ohhhh, I see... you're right, because you're right, because they're wrong, because you're right?

Very clear now...

The sentence is about militias. The clause, which establishes "well-regulated militias" as "necessary" in fact seems to actively exclude private, unregulated gun ownership (because it is not "well-regulated", and has nothing to do with militias), and if you'd read it as you would any normal English sentence, that would become clear. The first clause establishes the conditions for bearing arms, quite clearly.

It really is baffling that someone can claim, as the OP does, that a sentence which includes the words "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" isn't actually about militias at all. I don't understand the weird distortive lens that is the pro-gun lobby, at all.

You scare me with your lack of understanding on this topic...

Let's say I wanted to FORM a "well regulated militia"...

"Hmmm... "

*looks around*

"Hey, anyone got a gun around here? You need one to join my militia... No one? Hmmm... It'll be well regulated! I have the plan for everything right here, including little badges to give people in different ranks!"

"Anyone?"

"Man, I guess I can't form my well-regulated militia because no one has guns... which means I can't stand up to the oppressive government that denied us all that right to bear arms by breaking its own rules, because some idiots decided the 2nd amendment should be read one way instead of the only LOGICAL WAY POSSIBLE"

Get it now? If you don't, you fail at life, logic, and liberty.

[Ratatosk]

Hi

I CALL TROLL!

(Am I first? Did I win??)

The fact is that for all the problems that we do have, we are the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth; and the people of this nation enjoy the greatest freedoms and the best standards of living.

We certainly did not get to be this way by letting the puny nations of Europe, nor the cowards to the north of us, tell us how to run our own nation.

Other nations, presuming to tell us how to run ours, do so out of ignorance and jealousy. Perhaps they seek to raise themselves up by dragging us down to their level.

Most powerful: Not gonna argue with that. We're certainly paying the bills for it (and our grandkids will be too).

Most prosperous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States
If there's any category that proves this to be true (per-capita GDP, standard of living, lifespan, infant mortality, literacy, scholastic performance, etc.), I'd honestly feel very proud to be able to cite it. Please let me know what that category is.

And as for freedoms: in terms of the freedom to own arms, we may be the most free...no, actually, the Swiss have every bit the freedom we do there. And our freedom to partake in "leisure-time substances"? Damn you, Amsterdam! And our freedom to worship or not worship as we see fit? Sure, just don't try to run for public office without blathering on and on about just how "faith-based" you are.

"The puny nations of Europe and the cowards to the north of us" is kind of a troll-ish thing to say. Or maybe more of a Dr. Doom or Magneto-ish thing to say.

[EagleEye]

Stepping out of the semantic realm and into the constitutional/legal realm, I agree. Hence the mechanism to amend the Constitution. So far the only amendment in respect to gun ownership happened immediately and was meant to protect it (or so the latest SCOTUS ruling says).

Further amendments are always possible. Lobby your Senators and Representatives if you wish that to happen.

Let us all keep in mind that the constitution does not grant rights to the citizens, but instead restricts the government from taking away rights. There is not one single GRANTED right within the constitution, only things that say "government can't take this away from you".

Such is the case with gun ownership. By default, we have the freedom to bear arms, the "bill of rights" (as confusing as that name may be) says that the government can't take that away... The reason does not matter.

[Ratatosk]

Hi




Funny you should mention a bathtub... Behold:
A sub-machine gun made pretty much from plumbing parts. (http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/BSP_Schematics.pdf)

Only reason it isn't happening is because it's easier to get 'em in other ways.

...and you can return to the, "well regulated militia." As a member of the Indiana State Sedentary Militia, and being well enough regulated for the State of Indiana to allow me to carry a firearm in public, I have no problem with it. :D

....

a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court may become upset with you, though, for not paying any attention to them (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf).

The other four justices must not have been paying any attention to the arguments about the second amendment either, then. Or maybe they just had a different opinion, much like I do. Anyway, I'm kind of honored that they'd be so put out by my not paying attention. :cool:

[EagleEye]

Whew!
And to be sure, this distinction seems utterly anachronistic in the modern age. And Scalia's majority even acknowledges the anachronism in pages 55 to 56 of the decision, which I think is worth reprinting:

It may well be true that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause ["a well-regulated militia being necessary"] and the protected right ["to keep and bear arms"] cannot change our interpretation of the right.


Yeah, ask the USSR how well they did against the small arms groups of fighters in Afghanistan. Recall how well the US did against the small arms fighters in Viet Nam. Count how many US troops have died in Iraq to small home-made bombs... Or how about that awesome movie "Red Dawn", eh?

Just because you're on the short end of the technology stick doesn't mean you can't put up a good fight.

[EagleEye]

Seeing as DC's firearms murder rate is higher now than when the ban went into effect 30 years ago I doubt it will make things worse.

It's probably been said over and over, but it bears repeating...

An armed society is a polite society.

Damn near every school shooting, mass shooting, etc... (like at Von Maur here in Omaha) was in a "gun free zone". Criminals, by their very definition, violate laws. Gun laws mean nothing to these people, nor to the people who are intent on taking their own lives after having killed as many people as they can on their way out... You can have all the laws in the world to restrict guns, but that leaves only the law-abiding citizens disarmed... making them far more likely to be victimized.

Just how brazen do you think a criminal would be if he thought that the next house he burglarized may have a gun-toting NRA member in it? How courageous would would-be shooter be if he thought that maybe one of the 200 nearby people in the mall he was about to shoot up, might be carrying a gun and be standing 30 to 50 feet from him, perpendicular to his line of fire, and a ripe target, and thus being able to prevent numerous other deaths at the hand of the murderer?

Maybe like this specific instance... (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html)

[EagleEye]

I suppose one of the things the furriners find odd about all this is the extreme weight given to a 220-year-old (or whatever) constitution. What a bunch of politicians thought was a good idea that long ago doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant when discussing what's a good idea now.

Rolfe.

Yeah, I mean a 220 year old idea being held up as sacred and right? Pshaw I say! Next we'll have people defending things like having QUEENS and other such nonsense!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The other four justices must not have been paying any attention to the arguments about the second amendment either, then. Or maybe they just had a different opinion, much like I do. Anyway, I'm kind of honored that they'd be so put out by my not paying attention. :cool:


I'm still slogging through the Majority Decision, so I've not gotten to the Minority Decision, yet. I'm sure it'll be interesting.

[EagleEye]

The only people using them are criminals.

Yeah, because they're useless to law-abiding citizens, because every place of business, government office, and marketplace, says "no guns allowed on here"... so why even bother?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yeah, because they're useless to law-abiding citizens, because every place of business, government office, and marketplace, says "no guns allowed on here"... so why even bother?


One of the enormous cans of Campbell's Chunky Annelid Stew that this decision may have opened up is that, now that keeping and bearing arms is an individual civil right, all those, "no gun," signs may be at about the same level of legality as the old, "No Negros," signs.

The exciting bits are going to be determining what passes for, "reasonable control," when it comes to things like movie theaters, stores, and government offices.

Mayor Daily has already sworn to fight the decision at any cost. I wonder whose money he's planning on spending!

[Quad4_72]

Hi




One of the enormous cans of Campbell's Chunky Annelid Stew that this decision may have opened up is that, now that keeping and bearing arms is an individual civil right, all those, "no gun," signs may be at about the same level of legality as the old, "No Negros," signs.

The exciting bits are going to be determining what passes for, "reasonable control," when it comes to things like movie theaters, stores, and government offices.

Mayor Daily has already sworn to fight the decision at any cost. I wonder whose money he's planning on spending!

Keep in mind, people still have their right to private property. If they do not want guns in their place of business, that is their decision. Remember, it is not ILLEGAL to carry into a place that has a no gun sign unless it is a federal building, school, bar, or anywhere else deemed illegal by state law. If it is for example a movie theater that has a no gun sign, the most the establishment can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse to do so, you are only charged with tresspassing (I carry concealed, so no one sees mine anyways). But of course this varies from state to state.

[volatile]

This is an absurd statement on its face. What you're saying here is the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the government to arm... themselves? If the "militia" is NOT the private citizen, then it is, by default, the government.

Errrm, not at all. Yours is a government of the people, right? :rolleyes:

You are really REALLY missing the whole definition of a Militia, as opposed to a "military".

And you are fialing to realise that there is a difference between a militia and a disperse collection of gun-owning individuals.

A militia is basically a lose organization of private citizens that carry and maintain their own weaponry, and when called upon, bring said weaponry to battle.

When called upon? By whom? Would that be the same government you're also proposing the militia is intended to fight against?

I'm really confused by all the muddy ideology on this issue- it's half rabid patriotism, and half rabid fear of your own government. It amuses me to end to think that the exact same people who propose that gun ownership is a defence against tyranny are so often the same people who back every action of the American government without question, and who, were there an armed uprising against the democratically-elected government of the Unitied States (i.e, I suppose, a terrorist movement), would be the first to fall in line behind the government.

[volatile]

What's the difference between a population of gun-owning citizens, and a militia? It seems to me that a militia, rather than being a collection of pre-armed civilians, is a collection of civilians armed for a purpose, especially when such a militia is described as being "well-regulated" (and even, and perhaps even moreso, if you take well-regulated to mean "disciplined" or "prepared" or "well-functioning").

Dictionary.com is helpful here.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

In this definition, I concede, there needs to be ownership of private guns. However, I don't really imagine that the founding fathers, or the average American citizen, would care for armed paramilitary groups roaming the country enforcing laws vigilante-stylem, and I presume there are laws already in place to prevent this happening.

What exactly am I missing? What is it about a militia, in any of the defined senses 1-3 above, that requires individual gun ownership and not guns to be supplied by the government when such forces are required?

If the amendment simply stated "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed", then the arguments for individual ownership would be stronger. Given the militia qualification, there seems to be an understanding of a more formalised system of gun ownership...

[Kestrel]

It's probably been said over and over, but it bears repeating...

An armed society is a polite society.

People living in fear are often excruciatingly polite.

[a_unique_person]

Hi




Yeah! Doesn't everyone know that, in English, putting a dependent clause in front of the independent clause in complex sentences gives the dependent clause the most importance?

....

Oh...

no...

wait.... (http://www.english.uiuc.edu/cws/wworkshop/writer_resources/grammar_handbook/dependent_independent_clauses.htm)

I see, even though it specifically mentions militias, it actually has nothing to do with militias. Probably has more to do with cricket or ice hockey.

[WildCat]

Why is a law passed 200 years ago still regarded as relevant today? So what if it made sense to have armed militia in the 1700s, why should that dictate whether people can carry guns on the 21st century?
Tell me Andy, at what point does a law expire in the UK? 20 years? 50? 100?

Rhetorical questions I know, because the amendments are treated as if they were handed down by God himself...........;)
Handed down from god? No. But it is the law until the law is changed. And right now, there is not enough public support to change the law.

What astounds me is how many here think that judges should have the power to decide whether or not a law is a good one, and keep it or throw it out as they see fit. That's not how things work in a democracy. The job of the judges is to interpret what the law means, not whether or not it is a good law.

[WildCat]

Here is a clip of the world's most exciting cricketer, playing the world's most amazing shot - switching from a right-handed position to a left-handed position and still hitting the ball over the ropes for six
A-NZgd-goj4
That reminded me of the clip on this page, where a switch-pitcher faces a switch-hitter. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200806202968278

[WildCat]

Only a supreme court could come up with this.




[/b][/i]
Oh look, another person who thinks a constitutional amendment was needed so that the National Guard could bear arms.

[rwguinn]

Tell me Andy, at what point does a law expire in the UK? 20 years? 50? 100?


Handed down from god? No. But it is the law until the law is changed. And right now, there is not enough public support to change the law.

What astounds me is how many here think that judges should have the power to decide whether or not a law is a good one, and keep it or throw it out as they see fit. That's not how things work in a democracy. The job of the judges is to interpret what the law means, not whether or not it is a good law.
Don't the Brits still reference that Magna Carta thing sometimes? How old is that?

[WildCat]

Plus, there's a strong scent of straw around the notion that anyone's suggesting an outright ban.
Straw? The ban in DC was real, and already on the books. As it is here in Chicago.

[Matthew Best]

Geez, that baseball clip was boring.

[WildCat]

Hi




One of the enormous cans of Campbell's Chunky Annelid Stew that this decision may have opened up is that, now that keeping and bearing arms is an individual civil right, all those, "no gun," signs may be at about the same level of legality as the old, "No Negros," signs.
No. It was not illegal for a private business to have a "No Negos" sign on their door until lwas were passed to that effect. Likewise, lacking a law making it illegal for a private business to disallow guns (and I don't see that happening) they are free to disallow them.

Mayor Daily has already sworn to fight the decision at any cost. I wonder whose money he's planning on spending!
Won't cost him a dime, it will cost me. We have our fancy new 10.5% sales tax to line the city lawyers' pockets.

[Ratatosk]

It's probably been said over and over, but it bears repeating...

An armed society is a polite society.

Damn near every school shooting, mass shooting, etc... (like at Von Maur here in Omaha) was in a "gun free zone". Criminals, by their very definition, violate laws. Gun laws mean nothing to these people, nor to the people who are intent on taking their own lives after having killed as many people as they can on their way out... You can have all the laws in the world to restrict guns, but that leaves only the law-abiding citizens disarmed... making them far more likely to be victimized.

Just how brazen do you think a criminal would be if he thought that the next house he burglarized may have a gun-toting NRA member in it? How courageous would would-be shooter be if he thought that maybe one of the 200 nearby people in the mall he was about to shoot up, might be carrying a gun and be standing 30 to 50 feet from him, perpendicular to his line of fire, and a ripe target, and thus being able to prevent numerous other deaths at the hand of the murderer?

Maybe like this specific instance... (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html)

EagleEye, I think it's worth distinguishing between rigorously-trained firearms owners and those who aren't. I'm not denying that lives were likely saved in that case. But let's follow the logic of "if everyone had guns, there'd be less killing" for a moment with a thought experiment:

One guy, let's call him "A," opens fire. Another person, B, sees him and returns fire. Person C, also armed, sees Person B shooting and in the confusion (something that is known to surround violent incidents) takes him for the perpetrator, and opens fire as well. Then persons D and E, both armed but unsure of who started all this, open fire on whomever they perceive to be the perpetrator(s). We'll presume that not every one of these persons is sufficiently tactically trained to hit their targets with 100% accuracy (under pressure, extremely few people can), nor cool-headed enough to establish a clear range of fire in which there's no danger of "collateral damage."

Question: Would the presence of more firearms "save lives?"

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Keep in mind, people still have their right to private property. If they do not want guns in their place of business, that is their decision. Remember, it is not ILLEGAL to carry into a place that has a no gun sign unless it is a federal building, school, bar, or anywhere else deemed illegal by state law. If it is for example a movie theater that has a no gun sign, the most the establishment can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse to do so, you are only charged with tresspassing (I carry concealed, so no one sees mine anyways). But of course this varies from state to state.


People have a similar right, as well, to serve only those persons they wish, right?

If that denial of service is based on the rejected customer's exercise of a civil right, then that denial is pretty much found to be illegal.

I've no wish to impose on anyone when I carry, so if someone posts a, "no guns," sign, then the firearm stays locked up in the vehicle or locked up at home, depending...

but then again, unlike Ms. Parks, I'd have been happy in the back of the bus.

:D I do believe that I'd enjoy getting the A.C.L.U. to test the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, though. :D

[WildCat]

One guy, let's call him "A," opens fire. Another person, B, sees him and returns fire. Person C, also armed, sees Person B shooting and in the confusion (something that is known to surround violent incidents) takes him for the perpetrator, and opens fire as well. Then persons D and E, both armed but unsure of who started all this, open fire on whomever they perceive to be the perpetrator(s). We'll presume that not every one of these persons is sufficiently tactically trained to hit their targets with 100% accuracy (under pressure, extremely few people can), nor cool-headed enough to establish a clear range of fire in which there's no danger of "collateral damage."
That's a nice little strawman you've built there, but in real-life in states which have issued hundreds of thousands concealed carry permits it has yet to happen.

[Ratatosk]

And while I like Heinlein, I'd very much appreciate any evidence you could provide that "an armed society is a polite society."

Japan, under very strict gun and sword control laws since late 16th century, is a very polite society.

Would you seriously contend that Americans, by virtue of having pistols in our nightstands, are more polite than Japanese?

[WildCat]

People have a similar right, as well, to serve only those persons they wish, right?
No, because laws have been passed specifying how businesses open to the public must behave.

If that denial of service is based on the rejected customer's exercise of a civil right, then that denial is pretty much found to be illegal.
No, only the government can violate a civil right. A private businees can't.

[WildCat]

Would you seriously contend that Americans, by virtue of having pistols in our nightstands, are more polite than Japanese?
We're certainly more polite than the British are, which is a much better comparison culturally.

eta: for example, at the Cubs/Sox game yesterday no fences were necessary to keep the fans of each team apart, and no riot police were on hand. I suspect the situation was the same for the Yankees/Mets game in NYC.

[Ratatosk]

That's a nice little strawman you've built there, but in real-life in states which have issued hundreds of thousands concealed carry permits it has yet to happen.

So would you say that if, for example, three times as many people had carry permits, this scenario would become A) more likely, or B) less likely?

[Ratatosk]

We're certainly more polite than the British are, which is a much better comparison culturally.

You're honestly trying to say Americans are more polite, on average, than the British? Really?

[WildCat]

So would you say that if, for example, three times as many people had carry permits, this scenario would become A) more likely, or B) less likely?
Start a thread when something like that actually happens. Anti-gun activists have been trotting out that scenario ever since states started allowing concealed carry 15 years ago, and it hasn't happened.

[Leif Roar]

Tell me Andy, at what point does a law expire in the UK? 20 years? 50? 100?

I don't know about the UK legal system, but in Norway at least there is the concept of "sleeping laws" -- laws that are technically still on the books, but which have gone out of use and are no longer enforced. Acts prohibited by such sleeping laws end up being theoretically illegal, but not criminalized. (One of the more well known of these is paragraph 142 of the criminal code which criminalises blasphemy.)

There's no set limit on when a law expires, but in reality it does happens that laws just goes out of use and are no longer considered part of the code.

Of course, a constitution has a rather unique position in the legal code, and I have difficulty seeing that any part of that could ever come to be considered sleeping. (Unused or irrelevant, yes, but not sleeping as such.)

[Ratatosk]

We're certainly more polite than the British are, which is a much better comparison culturally.

eta: for example, at the Cubs/Sox game yesterday no fences were necessary to keep the fans of each team apart, and no riot police were on hand. I suspect the situation was the same for the Yankees/Mets game in NYC.

So soccer hooligans are representative of the politeness of British people as a whole? Because they <gasp> beat each other up? Because, you know, people never do that to each other here in our polite American society...:rolleyes:

You're welcome to try to use assault statistics to show the British as less polite than us, but you're not going to get very far.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I see, even though it specifically mentions militias, it actually has nothing to do with militias. Probably has more to do with cricket or ice hockey.


It has everything to do with the militia.

Do you know who, "the militia," is?

Federal and state laws don't always agree on the specifics, but, in essence, YOU are the militia. I am the militia.

"The People," are the militia.

As for the, "well organized," part; Back when a standing army was seen as an open invitation to governmental tyranny, "well organized," meant that you had your own firearm, a cartridge box, twenty rounds of ammunition, a belt, scabbard, and bayonet, and that you'd do your duty when called.

Recently, there's been a drift towards thinking of, "the military," and, "the police," as a class of people, separate from, and having duties and responsibilities and powers beyond that of , "the citizens."

It ain't so.

A standing military will secure any kind of state. If you want a free state, it takes the effort of everyone in the state.

It's about the militia because that, "well regulated militia," and, "the people," mean the same thing: Us, and every Jack and Jill of us.

(Gonna be interesting how they apply that, "the people," now, too. The Minority Opinion raises an interesting point about convicted felons still being members of, "the people.")

[rwguinn]

So soccer hooligans are representative of the politeness of British people as a whole? Because they <gasp> beat each other up? Because, you know, people never do that to each other here in our polite American society...:rolleyes:

You're welcome to try to use assault statistics to show the British as less polite than us, but you're not going to get very far.

And drug dealers and idiots in metropolitan areas, Idiot survivalists, and such are representative of US citizens as a whole? look at what you anti-'muricans are saying.
Jesus on a pogo stick!
if the shoe fits, wear the son of a gun, ok?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

What's the difference between a population of gun-owning citizens, and a militia? It seems to me that a militia, rather than being a collection of pre-armed civilians, is a collection of civilians armed for a purpose, especially when such a militia is described as being "well-regulated" (and even, and perhaps even moreso, if you take well-regulated to mean "disciplined" or "prepared" or "well-functioning").

Dictionary.com is helpful here.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

In this definition, I concede, there needs to be ownership of private guns. However, I don't really imagine that the founding fathers, or the average American citizen, would care for armed paramilitary groups roaming the country enforcing laws vigilante-stylem, and I presume there are laws already in place to prevent this happening.

What exactly am I missing? What is it about a militia, in any of the defined senses 1-3 above, that requires individual gun ownership and not guns to be supplied by the government when such forces are required?

If the amendment simply stated "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed", then the arguments for individual ownership would be stronger. Given the militia qualification, there seems to be an understanding of a more formalised system of gun ownership...


Well - first of all, dictionaries don't define words; They reflect the current usage of the word.

Second, in #s 2 and 3, of whom does that, "body of citizen soldiers," and that, "all able-bodied males [NOTE: Indiana state is all persons, not just males] considered by law eligible for military service," consist?

See above.

So: "What's the difference between a population of gun-owning citizens, and a militia?"

Absolutely nothing, specially if you take, "well regulated," to mean, "prepared."

[WildCat]

You're welcome to try to use assault statistics to show the British as less polite than us, but you're not going to get very far.
I think you'll find that you're far more likely to be assaulted in the UK than in the US.

eta: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

[Ratatosk]

And drug dealers and idiots in metropolitan areas, Idiot survivalists, and such are representative of US citizens as a whole? look at what you anti-'muricans are saying.
Jesus on a pogo stick!
if the shoe fits, wear the son of a gun, ok?

Actually, we're saying the same thing: the behavior of one small subset of a society doesn't say anything about the general "politeness" of that society. That's why the the example of soccer hooligans is a silly proof of British society's "impoliteness."

And please, please tell me you're not calling me Anti-American because I feel that, as a rule, British and Japanese tend to be politer than we are. Yes, I'm American, I'm just very uncomfortable with the blind insistence that we are the free-est, most prosperous, most polite and all-around bestest society in absolutely every way and it's Anti-American to question that.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

No, because laws have been passed specifying how businesses open to the public must behave.


Exactly what I'm saying. This decision could open a veritable floodgate of litigation.

No, only the government can violate a civil right. A private businees can't.


So, being required to sit int the back of a privately owned bus, separate from everyone else, isn't a violation of my civil rights? Not being allowed to dine at the same lunch counter as everyone else isn't a violation of my civil rights?

How is not being allowed into a movie theater or the utilities building to pay my electric bill like everyone else not a similar violation of my civil rights?

[Pope130]

I don't know about the UK legal system, but in Norway at least there is the concept of "sleeping laws" -- laws that are technically still on the books, but which have gone out of use and are no longer enforced.

In the US the common term is "Blue Law". There are quite a few on the books, and some of them make interesting reading. There is a law here in Oregon, for example, that an operator of a motorized carriage, on approaching an intersection must stop his vehicle, get out and check that the crossing is clear before proceeding.

In the Constitution the notable blue law is the third ammendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." It hasn't come up lately, but still the law.

[WildCat]

Hi




Exactly what I'm saying. This decision could open a veritable floodgate of litigation.
What does litigation have to do with what I posted?

So, being required to sit int the back of a privately owned bus, separate from everyone else, isn't a violation of my civil rights? Not being allowed to dine at the same lunch counter as everyone else isn't a violation of my civil rights?
Only because laws have been passed, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are no such laws requiring private businesses to allow guns on the premises.

How is not being allowed into a movie theater or the utilities building to pay my electric bill like everyone else not a similar violation of my civil rights?
You do realize this court ruling was about what you can have in your home, and not out in public don't you? The SCOTUS did not rule guns had to be allowed out in public.

[Ratatosk]

I think you'll find that you're far more likely to be assaulted in the UK than in the US.

eta: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

Fair enough; I hadn't seen those stats. But we're still a long way from proving that "an armed society is a polite society."

[Ratatosk]

If I could throw out a quick not-at-all formal survey:

If you consider yourself pro-gun rights, would you feel that a training program, similar to driver's licensing, required before a person would be allowed to purchase any firearm, would be unconstitutional?

ETA: Maybe I'll leave constitutionality to the Supreme court and just ask: would you consider it a good idea?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Actually, we're saying the same thing: the behavior of one small subset of a society doesn't say anything about the general "politeness" of that society. That's why the the example of soccer hooligans is a silly proof of British society's "impoliteness."

... clip ...


A such, one, (being a pompous ass, using, "one," for, "I") have to wonder, why is the careless, stupid and criminal behavior of three to five percent of the gun-using population indicative of all of us? :p

[Ratatosk]

Hi

A such, one, (being a pompous ass, using, "one," for, "I") have to wonder, why is the careless, stupid and criminal behavior of three to five percent of the gun-using population indicative of all of us? :p

I don't lose any sleep over how that careless, stupid behavior reflects on America as a society. I'm a lot more concerned about how that careless, stupid behavior might put a slug in me or someone I care about, :( and what is the best possible way to prevent that.

I'm saying very honestly that if there IS a good proven correlation between larger numbers of guns and smaller numbers of gun injuries, I hope someone will point me to it.

[Kestrel]

Fair enough; I hadn't seen those stats. But we're still a long way from proving that "an armed society is a polite society."

A good resource for comparing crime between countries is the International Crime Victim Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf).

[Ratatosk]

A good resource for comparing crime between countries is the International Crime Victim Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf).

From p.84 of that report: "The comparatively more serious nature of assaults and threats in the U.S.A. and some cities in developing countries seem related to greater availability of handguns." Not ironclad proof, but a pretty reasonable assertion, I'd say.

[Kestrel]

In the US the common term is "Blue Law". There are quite a few on the books, and some of them make interesting reading. There is a law here in Oregon, for example, that an operator of a motorized carriage, on approaching an intersection must stop his vehicle, get out and check that the crossing is clear before proceeding.

In the Constitution the notable blue law is the third ammendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." It hasn't come up lately, but still the law.

The term Blue Law actually refers to prohibitions designed to keep the Sabbath holy or enforce other religious rules. For example, requiring shops or movie theaters to be closed on Sunday. They are on the books in many states, but seldom enforced because they were clearly designed to force all citizens to conform to the beliefs of a dominant religion.

[Quad4_72]

Hi




People have a similar right, as well, to serve only those persons they wish, right?

If that denial of service is based on the rejected customer's exercise of a civil right, then that denial is pretty much found to be illegal.

I've no wish to impose on anyone when I carry, so if someone posts a, "no guns," sign, then the firearm stays locked up in the vehicle or locked up at home, depending...

but then again, unlike Ms. Parks, I'd have been happy in the back of the bus.

:D I do believe that I'd enjoy getting the A.C.L.U. to test the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, though. :D

Well hey, I am with ya and think no gun signs are the most ridiculous things ever invented. Like a criminal is REALLY going to see that sign and just simply turn around. Every bank has a no gun sign on it, as do jewelery stores, schools, etc. So if you want to make those signs unconstitutional, more power to ya :)

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I don't lose any sleep over how that careless, stupid behavior reflects on America as a society. I'm a lot more concerned about how that careless, stupid behavior might put a slug in me or someone I care about, :( and what is the best possible way to prevent that.

I'm saying very honestly that if there IS a good proven correlation between larger numbers of guns and smaller numbers of gun injuries, I hope someone will point me to it.


...and I'm saying, equivalently honestly, that the non-jackassulating ninety-five to ninety-seven percent of firearms owners aren't the ones that will put said slug in you or someone you care about, and the remaining three to five percent won't care enough about the law to be limited in their possession of firearms, anyhow.

As long as guns exist, you're going to have two groups of gun owners out there: Those that use guns to break the law and those that use guns to support and defend the law.

There are something like 362 million gun owners in the US, of which something like 347 million and I fall into the latter category.

[Kestrel]

Hi




...and I'm saying, equivalently honestly, that the non-jackassulating ninety-five to ninety-seven percent of firearms owners aren't the ones that will put said slug in you or someone you care about, and the remaining three to five percent won't care enough about the law to be limited in their possession of firearms, anyhow.

As long as guns exist, you're going to have two groups of gun owners out there: Those that use guns to break the law and those that use guns to support and defend the law.

There are something like 362 million gun owners in the US, of which something like 347 million and I fall into the latter category.

I worry about some of the law abiding gun owners. Not because they are likely to commit crimes, but because they are careless when handling firearms.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

And you are fialing to realise that there is a difference between a militia and a disperse collection of gun-owning individuals.


Uhhh... you mean like the Minutemen, the Sons of Liberty and all those riflemen that General Washington told the Continental Army to defend at any cost?

When called upon? By whom? Would that be the same government you're also proposing the militia is intended to fight against?

I'm really confused by all the muddy ideology on this issue- it's half rabid patriotism, and half rabid fear of your own government. It amuses me to end to think that the exact same people who propose that gun ownership is a defence against tyranny are so often the same people who back every action of the American government without question, and who, were there an armed uprising against the democratically-elected government of the Unitied States (i.e, I suppose, a terrorist movement), would be the first to fall in line behind the government.


Can a shovel be used to build a dam, keeping water away from your crops, and dig an irrigation ditch, delivering water to your crops, depending on different needs?

A gun's just a tool.

Why can't it be used to defeat a tyrant, defend against further tyranny, and defend a proper rule of law and order, depending on different needs?

[Leif Roar]

Those that use guns to break the law and those that use guns to support and defend the law.

And those that use guns to do both and those that use guns to do neither. (Target shooting and hunting is legal, but neither can really be said to be "supporting and defending the law.") Then there are the people who migrate between categories, or where it's not obvious which category they fit in.

Not that it matters, as it's a false dilemma in the first place. The question isn't whether the majority of gun users are law abiding or not, or how how great a percentage of gun owners are law abiding. Rather, the question is whether the advantages and benefits of private firearm ownership make up for the disadvantages and problems caused by it and at what level of restrictions we achieve the optimal balance between the two.

To put in slightly differently: I don't care if 99.9% of all private owners of nuclear weapons would turn out to be law-abiding, responsible owners, but neither do I care if 95% of all private owners of Nerf weapons are hardened criminals.

So where do firearms lie? That, there is no easy answer to.

[Leif Roar]

Can a shovel be used to build a dam, keeping water away from your crops,

Yep.

and dig an irrigation ditch, delivering water to your crops, [SNIP]

No, you'll need a spade for that.

A gun's just a tool.

That's fascetious. A gun is a specialised tool, intended for a limited set of tasks. As such it's good for some tasks, and useless at other tasks.

Why can't it be used to defeat a tyrant,

Because the tyrant will have artillery. On the modern battlefield, an irregular militia armed only with civil firearms is not an effective tool and has no hope of disposing a tyrant. You'd be trying to dig a trench with a shovel.

[Chaos]

*snip*

You know, following your line of reasoning, we might just as well not bother making murder illegal - after all, there will always be murderers, no matter how illegal murder is, so why bother?

And how about rape? Illegal, but still happening. Robbery? The same. Burglary? Also. Fraud? Too. And so on...

I wonder why there are any laws at all, as they are totally pointless, assuming your line of reasoning is correct.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I worry about some of the law abiding gun owners. Not because they are likely to commit crimes, but because they are careless when handling firearms.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/images/wisqars2.gif (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm)From our friends over at WISQARSTM
(Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm)
1999 - 2005, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34

Year | Number of Deaths | Population*** | Crude Rate | Age-Adjusted Rate**
1999 | 824 | 279,040,181 | 0.30 | 0.29
2000 | 776 | 281,421,906 | 0.28 | 0.27
2001 | 802 | 285,226,284 | 0.28 | 0.28
2002 | 762 | 288,125,973 | 0.26 | 0.26
2003 | 730 | 290,796,023 | 0.25 | 0.25
2004 | 649 | 293,638,158 | 0.22 | 0.22
2005 | 789 | 296,507,061 | 0.27 | 0.26
Total | 5,332 | 2,014,755,586 | 0.26 |

(Adjusted for the fact that only about a quarter of the population has firearms:
About ONE accidental firearm death per 100,000 population.)

Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2001 - 2006, United States
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases

Year | Number of injuries | Population | Crude Rate | Age-Adjusted Rate**
2001 | 17,696 | 285,226,284 | 6.20 | 6.08
2002 | 17,579 | 288,125,973 | 6.10 | 6.03
2003 | 18,941 | 290,796,023 | 6.51 | 6.44
2004 | 16,555 | 293,638,158 | 5.64 | 5.62
2005 | 15,388 | 296,507,061 | 5.19 | 5.08
2006 | 14,678 | 299,398,484 | 4.90 | 4.84
Total: | 100,837 | 1,753,691,983 | 5.75 | 5.68

(Adjusted for the fact that only about a quarter of the population has firearms:
About ELEVEN accidental firearm injuries per 100,000 population.)

Contrast with:

1999 - 2005, United States
Unintentional Struck by or against Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: W20-W22,W50-W52

Year | Number of Deaths | Population*** | Crude Rate | Age-Adjusted Rate**
1999 | 894 | 279,040,181 | 0.32 | 0.32
2000 | 938 | 281,421,906 | 0.33 | 0.33
2001 | 898 | 285,226,284 | 0.31 | 0.31
2002 | 890 | 288,125,973 | 0.31 | 0.31
2003 | 848 | 290,796,023 | 0.29 | 0.29
2004 | 846 | 293,638,158 | 0.29 | 0.28
2005 | 880 | 296,507,061 | 0.30 | 0.29
Total | 6,194 | 2,014,755,586 | 0.31 |

Unintentional Struck By/Against Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2001 - 2006, United States
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases

Year | Number of injuries | Population | Crude Rate | Age-Adjusted Rate**
2001 | 4,610,361 | 285,226,284 | 1,616.39 | 1,615.87
2002 | 4,490,051 | 288,125,973 | 1,558.36 | 1,562.38
2003 | 4,422,252 | 290,796,023 | 1,520.74 | 1,528.91
2004 | 4,430,171 | 293,638,158 | 1,508.72 | 1,521.14
2005 | 4,336,688 | 296,507,061 | 1,462.59 | 1,478.71
2006 | 4,663,517 | 299,398,484 | 1,557.63 | 1,579.87
Total: | 26,953,041 | 1,753,691,983 | 1,536.93 | 1,547.95

Reports for All Ages include those of unknown age.
* Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution.
** Standard Population is 2000, all races, both sexes.
*** Population estimates are aggregated for multi-year reports to produce rates.

Finally, from the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm)

A COMPARISON OF RISK
Accidental Deaths - United States - 1999-2003

Type | 5 Yr. Average | General Populationb Risk Per Year | Risk Based on Exposure or Other Measures
Motor Vehicle5 | 36,676 | 1 out of 7,700 | 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles c,d
Poisoning 9 | 15,206 | 1 out of 18,700
Work Related 7 | 5,800 | 1 out of 49,000 | 4.3 deaths per 100,000 workers
Large Trucks 5 | 5,150 | 1 out of 55,000 | 2.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Pedestrian 5 | 4,846 | 1 out of 58,000 |
Drowning 9 | 3,409 | 1 out of 83,500 |
Fires 9 | 3,312 | 1 out of 86,000 |
Motorcycles 5 | 3,112 | 1 out of 91,500 | 31.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
Railroads 3 | 931 | 1 out of 306,000 | 1.3 deaths per million train miles
Firearms 9 | 779 | 1 out of 366,000 |

Are you sure you're worrying about the right stuff?

[Bob Blaylock]

If I could throw out a quick not-at-all formal survey:

If you consider yourself pro-gun rights, would you feel that a training program, similar to driver's licensing, required before a person would be allowed to purchase any firearm, would be unconstitutional?

For a part of our nation's history, “literacy tests” were used to deny Negros the right to vote. In order to vote, you had to be able to pass such a test, which was specifically crafted to be more difficult for a Negro to pass than for persons of other ethnicities.

I think there's an important point to be expanded out of this. If you require someone to be able to pass any sort of test, before that person is allowed to exercise a particular civil right, then whoever designs or administers that test has undue power to skew the test against groups that he dislikes, in order to deny them that right.

So no, I absolutely would not agree with allowing government to require one to pass any sort of test before one is allowed to exercise one's rights under the Second Amendment. Of all the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights, this is the one right that the government as a whole has shown the greatest propensity to openly violate.

I do agree, however, that it is a very good idea for people to be educated in the safe and proper handling and use of firearms. I think such education could very easily be fit into the basic public education curriculum. I took JROTC in high school, and firearm training was part of that. But even without JROTC, I see it as very simple to work marksmanship in as part of the physical education curriculum, and the social studies curriculum could easily include discussion of the appropriate uses of firearms and other weapons for self-defense.

Rather than offer an optional firearm training program which people could choose to take, and then letting Big Brother have the excuse of being able to require passage of that program before people can exercise their Second Amendment rights; I see it as much better to offer appropriate training in a manner that the vast majority of people will receive it, and require Big Brother to assume that every adult has received such training and is competent to handle firearms, until such time as any given adult has proven otherwise (this proof taking the form of being convicted of a felony that involves the misuse of firearms).

[Kestrel]

Are you sure you're worrying about the right stuff?

Actually yes.

I know several people that have been injured in firearms accidents. And one dude I used to work with accidently killed a 16 year old kid while cleaning his gun at hunting camp. All of these accidents were due to not following the basic firearms safety rules.

The upshot is that I am absolutely not going hunting with Dick Cheney.

BTW - It's nice to see someone who knows how to query the CDC database.

[Kestrel]

For a part of our nation's history, “literacy tests” were used to deny Negros the right to vote. In order to vote, you had to be able to pass such a test, which was specifically crafted to be more difficult for a Negro to pass than for persons of other ethnicities.

The test wasn't designed to be more difficult for certain ethnic groups to pass, it was designed to be almost impossible to pass. The trick was that election judges were allowed to waive the requirement and did so for white people but not black people.

I think there's an important point to be expanded out of this. If you require someone to be able to pass any sort of test, before that person is allowed to exercise a particular civil right, then whoever designs or administers that test has undue power to skew the test against groups that he dislikes, in order to deny them that right.

So no, I absolutely would not agree with allowing government to require one to pass any sort of test before one is allowed to exercise one's rights under the Second Amendment. Of all the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights, this is the one right that the government as a whole has shown the greatest propensity to openly violate.

If the only requirement was to attend a three hour class that covered basic firearms safety and certain relevant laws, would you still object?

[Bob Blaylock]

I think there's an important point to be expanded out of this. If you require someone to be able to pass any sort of test, before that person is allowed to exercise a particular civil right, then whoever designs or administers that test has undue power to skew the test against groups that he dislikes, in order to deny them that right.

So no, I absolutely would not agree with allowing government to require one to pass any sort of test before one is allowed to exercise one's rights under the Second Amendment. Of all the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights, this is the one right that the government as a whole has shown the greatest propensity to openly violate.If the only requirement was to attend a three hour class that covered basic firearms safety and certain relevant laws, would you still object?


Who is going to offer the class? Who is going to determine when and where these classes are offered, and what hoops one must jump through to get into the class? Who is going to judge who passes the class and who does not?

I see far too much potential here for such a requirement to be abused — similar to the way “literacy tests” were abused in the past — in order to unjustly deny the relevant rights to too many.

As I said before, of all the rights affirmed in the Constitution, this is the one by far that government has already demonstrated the greatest propensity to violate, and therefore the one that government can least be trusted with any power over. I simply do not trust any level of government to have any power to determine who may or may not exercise the rights affirmed by the Second Amendment, and under what circumstances. Our government has very solidly proven itself unworthy of this trust.


Short of a criminal conviction, for a felony that specifically involves the use of a firearm to violate someone else's rights, every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, and no level of government has or should ever be allowed the power to deny this right or to impose conditions which must be met in order to exercise this right.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Actually yes.

I know several people that have been injured in firearms accidents. And one dude I used to work with accidently killed a 16 year old kid while cleaning his gun at hunting camp. All of these accidents were due to not following the basic firearms safety rules.

The upshot is that I am absolutely not going hunting with Dick Cheney.

BTW - It's nice to see someone who knows how to query the CDC database.


...and I knew an entire family, killed by carbon-mon poisoning when the heating and cooling repairman didn't put the chimney on their new gas water heater correctly, as well as... mmm... about 16 families, now, that have lost members to car accidents, more that half of them drunk drivers.

Saying that something is bad because you can cause injury and death in its negligent use is kind of...

well....

Be negligent in a wet bathroom, and what happens? Are we going to ban bathrooms? If we're going to ban things that people use to negligently destroy each others' lives, aren't there nine things above firearms on the list?

If someone kills a 16 YO kid while cleaning a firearm, arrest, try and punish HIM.

Don't punish me.

[rwguinn]

Actually yes.

I know several people that have been injured in firearms accidents. And one dude I used to work with accidently killed a 16 year old kid while cleaning his gun at hunting camp. All of these accidents were due to not following the basic firearms safety rules.

The upshot is that I am absolutely not going hunting with Dick Cheney.

BTW - It's nice to see someone who knows how to query the CDC database.
If you are negligent handling your vehicle, you get punished.
Anyone who thinks that a firearm "Accidentally goes off during cleaning" is a simpleton.
You cannot clean a loaded firearm. period. It's a cover story for negligence or suicide...

and I won't go hunting with him (Cheney) either. Situational awareness is important.

[jdp]

Who is going to offer the class? Who is going to determine when and where these classes are offered, and what hoops one must jump through to get into the class? Who is going to judge who passes the class and who does not?

I see far too much potential here for such a requirement to be abused — similar to the way “literacy tests” were abused in the past — in order to unjustly deny the relevant rights to too many.


I see your concern but surely there is a public safety concern that people know how to safely handle a firearm. A private citizen could go through the same training that LEOs go through, something that could be waived if they are a LEO or have gone through military training for instance.


Short of a criminal conviction, for a felony that specifically involves the use of a firearm to violate someone else's rights, every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, and no level of government has or should ever be allowed the power to deny this right or to impose conditions which must be met in order to exercise this right.

When you say impose a condition do you also mean something like registration? I can't see any constitutional problem with registration for example. I think large marches and such in many places require a permit which would be effectively the same thing. So long as the permit requirement serves a practical purpose and doesn't unduly burden their ability to exercise their right to free speech there doesn't seem to be a problem with it likewise a registration requirement proabably would be up held.

[marksman]

Leave it to a_u_p to read no farther than the headline (which is inaccurate) before jumping to a conclusion.

From the Court's opinion (and the dissent), it is clear the Second Amendment has much to do with "militia" as the term is used in the Second Amendment. What the majority and minority opinions debated (in large part), however, is what the word "militia" meant when used in the drafting of that Amendment in 1789.

But don't let ignorance of the opinion (which you could read and which is linked in this thread) stop you. Please, keep opining.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

What does litigation have to do with what I posted?


Well - since my original post was three paragraphs, each of which was about the arenas newly opened to litigation by the SCOTUS decision, and your response was about laws being passed, I figured that you might be talking about why the laws CAME to be passed: Litigation.

If I'm incorrect in assuming that you were answering MY post, please excuse me.

Only because laws have been passed, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are no such laws requiring private businesses to allow guns on the premises.


See above.

You do realize this court ruling was about what you can have in your home, and not out in public don't you? The SCOTUS did not rule guns had to be allowed out in public.


Yes, Heller's specific suit was to be allowed to possess a handgun and use it in his own defense in his own home.

The opinion also says:
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

I'm saying, and have been since the start of this sub-thread, that, can-of-worms-wise, things are likely to get very interesting, litigiously speaking, when some of these things DO come before them.

As for me, I'm happy here in the back of the bus.

[Ratatosk]

For a part of our nation's history, “literacy tests” were used to deny Negros the right to vote. In order to vote, you had to be able to pass such a test, which was specifically crafted to be more difficult for a Negro to pass than for persons of other ethnicities.

I think there's an important point to be expanded out of this. If you require someone to be able to pass any sort of test, before that person is allowed to exercise a particular civil right, then whoever designs or administers that test has undue power to skew the test against groups that he dislikes, in order to deny them that right.

Rather than offer an optional firearm training program which people could choose to take, and then letting Big Brother have the excuse of being able to require passage of that program before people can exercise their Second Amendment rights; I see it as much better to offer appropriate training in a manner that the vast majority of people will receive it, and require Big Brother to assume that every adult has received such training and is competent to handle firearms, until such time as any given adult has proven otherwise (this proof taking the form of being convicted of a felony that involves the misuse of firearms).

Thanks for responding to this. But I'm not at all convinced by this comparison...

Literacy tests and poll taxes were intentionally designed for the purpose of denying a sector of the population the right to vote. Is the same thing true of, say, driver's licensing? That it's rife with Big Brother discriminating against certain sectors of the population?

Rights such as free speech are a whole different can of worms from firearm ownership. If I am undereducated and misspeak, my words are very unlikely to kill somebody. If I exercise my right to pray as I wish, my prayers are extremely unlikely to kill anyone.

ETA: I don't mean to sharpshoot your argument (appropriate expression to use here), but when you say "convicted of a felony involving the use of firearms" would be the only limiting factor, what about, say, mental illness? Prior record of violent crime not involving firearms?

[EagleEye]

Because the tyrant will have artillery. On the modern battlefield, an irregular militia armed only with civil firearms is not an effective tool and has no hope of disposing a tyrant. You'd be trying to dig a trench with a shovel.

The US had fighters, B52 bombers, a huge navy presence off the coast, and the most advanced weaponry of the time... and we still lost in Viet Nam.

[EagleEye]

Actually yes.

I know several people that have been injured in firearms accidents. And one dude I used to work with accidently killed a 16 year old kid while cleaning his gun at hunting camp. All of these accidents were due to not following the basic firearms safety rules.

The upshot is that I am absolutely not going hunting with Dick Cheney.

BTW - It's nice to see someone who knows how to query the CDC database.

BZZZZZT PARTY FOUL!

Anecdotal evidence.

[Leif Roar]

The US had fighters, B52 bombers, a huge navy presence off the coast, and the most advanced weaponry of the time... and we still lost in Viet Nam.

And neither the VietCong nor the NVA based their fighting ability on civilian firearms.
The NVA was of course regular army units. Although less well equipped than the US, it still had artillery, armour, flak and other 'big guns'. The VietCong made use of AK-47s, machineguns, RPG-7s, fragmentation grenades, 80 mm mortars and other "non-civilian" weapons.

As long as we're talking about civilian weapons (handguns, shotguns, non-automatic rifles[1]) the whole "defence against tyranny" argument is moot. We would have to extend the debate to also cover military smallarms, at the least, before that would be a relevant argument. Nobody really seem interested in doing that. Military weapons are tightly controlled, and pretty much everybody seems to accept that as, if not necessary, at least desireable.


[1] While there are battlefield uses for all of these, in the great picture they're neglible as military hardware.

[Jon_Stripe]

Thank you, SCOTUS!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1116844e60fc01caf2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1035)

Nice.

Demigorgon:
"Nice to see there's still a bit of sanity left in this world."

A-men broduh.

[Bob Blaylock]

When you say impose a condition do you also mean something like registration? I can't see any constitutional problem with registration for example. I think large marches and such in many places require a permit which would be effectively the same thing. So long as the permit requirement serves a practical purpose and doesn't unduly burden their ability to exercise their right to free speech there doesn't seem to be a problem with it likewise a registration requirement proabably would be up held.


Back in the 1980s or 1990, New Jersey passed a law requiring certain firearms that were fraudulently classified as “assault weapons” to be registered. A few years later, they passed another law banning these firearms; and the data from the registrations were used to track down and confiscate these guns from the formerly-law abiding citizens who had legally acquired them, and who stupidly complied with the registration law.

A similar sequence occurred here in California as well.

Registration of firearms serves no legitimate purpose. The only thing that it accomplishes is to provide government with a database that it can later use to track down and confiscate these weapons from those who were foolish enough to register them.



Literacy tests and poll taxes were intentionally designed for the purpose of denying a sector of the population the right to vote. Is the same thing true of, say, driver's licensing? That it's rife with Big Brother discriminating against certain sectors of the population?


Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right. As a consequence, government has considerable authority to impose reasonable restrictions and conditions on the exercise of this privilege.

Owning and bearing arms is not a privilege. It is a right. The Constitution says so. There is no comparison between the two.

Further, the privilege of driving a car has never been so intensely under attack as the right to keep and bears arms has been. We're dealing with a society in which every level of government proven that it cannot be trusted to recognize and uphold this right. Under no circumstances can I agree to giving any level of government any additional power which it might misuse in order to violate the Second Amendment.

Any concept of government-based testing, permitting, registration, or whatever; to which one might be compelled as a condition of exercising one's Second Amendment rights, is something that government can be counted on eventually to abuse in order to violate these rights. There are too many proven instances of these exact abuses having already taken place.


ETA: I don't mean to sharpshoot your argument (appropriate expression to use here), but when you say "convicted of a felony involving the use of firearms" would be the only limiting factor, what about, say, mental illness? Prior record of violent crime not involving firearms?


If someone is mentally ill, to the point that he is provably dangerous to himself or to others, then there are procedures for having him confined to a mental institution until he can be determined to no longer pose such a danger.

If someone has a proven record of persistent violent criminal behavior, then there ought to be (and in many cases there are) legal procedures for removing him permanently from society. (I.e. “Three Strikes”*laws.)

The solution is not to let dangerous people go free, and then require anyone to prove that he isn't dangerous as a condition of allowing him to exercise any basic Constitutional right; the solution is to keep those who have proven themselves to be dangerous locked up and away from the rest of us.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And neither the VietCong nor the NVA based their fighting ability on civilian firearms.
The NVA was of course regular army units. Although less well equipped than the US, it still had artillery, armour, flak and other 'big guns'. The VietCong made use of AK-47s, machineguns, RPG-7s, fragmentation grenades, 80 mm mortars and other "non-civilian" weapons.

The standard issue was the SKS, actually, a semi-automatic, with the AK47 a close second (just counting the equipment caches I blew up, anyhow).

Also - the NVA pursued the conflict with stuff they carried south of the DMZ on their bicycles. Nothing bigger than the occasional 157mm barrsage rocket that they would fire from bamboo launch racks.

As long as we're talking about civilian weapons (handguns, shotguns, non-automatic rifles[1]) the whole "defence against tyranny" argument is moot. We would have to extend the debate to also cover military smallarms, at the least, before that would be a relevant argument. Nobody really seem interested in doing that. Military weapons are tightly controlled, and pretty much everybody seems to accept that as, if not necessary, at least desireable.

[1] While there are battlefield uses for all of these, in the great picture they're neglible as military hardware.


1) The only reason it's moot is because it doesn't need to be tested.

2) What makes you think that the armed civilians of the United States don't have machine guns and sub-machine guns??

3) I'm sure that the instructors at the sniper schools might argue with you about the negligibility of bolt-action rifles as military hardware.
The M24 Sniper Rifle (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifles/m24.htm)

...and the rifle I have in my closet is as accurate as that, but slightly more delicate.
the Savage 10FPXP-LEA (http://www.savagearms.com/10fpxplea.htm)

[Freddy]

For a part of our nation's history, “literacy tests” were used to deny Negros the right to vote. In order to vote, you had to be able to pass such a test, which was specifically crafted to be more difficult for a Negro to pass than for persons of other ethnicities.

I think there's an important point to be expanded out of this. If you require someone to be able to pass any sort of test, before that person is allowed to exercise a particular civil right, then whoever designs or administers that test has undue power to skew the test against groups that he dislikes, in order to deny them that right.

So no, I absolutely would not agree with allowing government to require one to pass any sort of test before one is allowed to exercise one's rights under the Second Amendment. Of all the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights, this is the one right that the government as a whole has shown the greatest propensity to openly violate.

I do agree, however, that it is a very good idea for people to be educated in the safe and proper handling and use of firearms. I think such education could very easily be fit into the basic public education curriculum. I took JROTC in high school, and firearm training was part of that. But even without JROTC, I see it as very simple to work marksmanship in as part of the physical education curriculum, and the social studies curriculum could easily include discussion of the appropriate uses of firearms and other weapons for self-defense.

Rather than offer an optional firearm training program which people could choose to take, and then letting Big Brother have the excuse of being able to require passage of that program before people can exercise their Second Amendment rights; I see it as much better to offer appropriate training in a manner that the vast majority of people will receive it, and require Big Brother to assume that every adult has received such training and is competent to handle firearms, until such time as any given adult has proven otherwise (this proof taking the form of being convicted of a felony that involves the misuse of firearms).


I'll start by saying that I agree with this ruling. It takes a very contorted reading to see the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing anything other than an individual right. In fact, the court was unanimous on that point. The first clause of the amendment is an ablative absolute, and it means "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary...the right of the people...shall not be infringed." The first clause gives one reason why the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Regarding taking a test/requiring training, I presume that any hoops you have to go through would have to pass muster as not constituting an "undue burden" on someone wishing to legally possess a firearm, something similar to the legal test that restrictions on abortion must pass. So if a city passed a law requiring taking a safety class, but then never offered any such classes, this would be ruled unconstitutional because it would be a way of circumventing the 2nd amendment.

You are right that there is potential for abuse here, but that can be dealt with through the courts, just as it is with laws regulating abortion. As Scalia said, if you have been convicted of a crime or judged by a court to be mentally ill to the point of being a danger to yourself or others, then you can be denied the right to own a gun, because you would have had the due process to which you are entitled before any of your rights can be taken away.

[Ratatosk]

BZZZZZT PARTY FOUL!

Anecdotal evidence.

"Anecdotal evidence"??? So you believe the evidence that people are regularly killed in firearms accidents (leaving aside murders and assaults) is only anecdotal, much like the evidence for bigfoot or UFO abductions?

[EagleEye]

"Anecdotal evidence"??? So you believe the evidence that people are regularly killed in firearms accidents (leaving aside murders and assaults) is only anecdotal, much like the evidence for bigfoot or UFO abductions?

It absolutely is anecdotal when you use instances of something happening to you, or someone you know, to back up your claims. It is not real statistical data.

You should perhaps read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence) on why anecdotes are not facts or statistics.

ETA: Not to be disrespectful or dismissive of the fact that people you know have been hurt or killed... It's just that such things can't be used in proper debate.

[Ratatosk]

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right. As a consequence, government has considerable authority to impose reasonable restrictions and conditions on the exercise of this privilege.

Owning and bearing arms is not a privilege. It is a right. The Constitution says so. There is no comparison between the two.

I may be belaboring this drivers' license thing, but to my mind it's a good comparison to put some things in perspective:

Driving is a privilege: yes, by law, it is. So the government could take away your "privilege" of driving to work, driving to the store, visiting friends/family in your car, etc., since, hey, it's only a privilege which government in its kindness allows me to have, not a right. If, hypothetically, our government were to institute a system like in say China, where gov't permission was required to travel from state to state by car, that would be okay, right? After all, driving is a privilege, not a right; it's not in the Constitution.

But the idea that government could limit firearm ownership to those who have demonstrated proper skill and knowledge is unacceptable? Which of these would be of greater impact upon civil liberties?


Further, the privilege of driving a car has never been so intensely under attack as the right to keep and bears arms has been. We're dealing with a society in which every level of government proven that it cannot be trusted to recognize and uphold this right. Under no circumstances can I agree to giving any level of government any additional power which it might misuse in order to violate the Second Amendment.

Gun ownership has been "under attack" -- personally I'd use the word "regulated" instead -- mainly because there is widespread popular support for such measures, especially in cities. This has not been something the government snuck through without asking the populace; it's frequently been a plank in candidates' campaign platforms, and citizens concerned about public safety have frequently voted for those candidates.

That said, I think the D.C. ban was probably an overreach, a knee-jerk reaction where more moderate measures could have been more effective.


If someone has a proven record of persistent violent criminal behavior, then there ought to be (and in many cases there are) legal procedures for removing him permanently from society. (I.e. “Three Strikes”*laws.)

The solution is not to let dangerous people go free, and then require anyone to prove that he isn't dangerous as a condition of allowing him to exercise any basic Constitutional right; the solution is to keep those who have proven themselves to be dangerous locked up and away from the rest of us.

I just have to hope nobody I know is on the receiving end of the second or third strike if that person's allowed to buy a firearm.

I'm with you on your second point here, about not letting them go free in the first place. Although I think "three strikes" laws have been counterproductive:
by putting away large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders, they've used up prison space that could be used by violent offenders serving their full sentences.

[Ratatosk]

BZZZZZT PARTY FOUL!

Anecdotal evidence.

It absolutely is anecdotal when you use instances of something happening to you, or someone you know, to back up your claims. It is not real statistical data.

You should perhaps read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence) on why anecdotes are not facts or statistics.

ETA: Not to be disrespectful or dismissive of the fact that people you know have been hurt or killed... It's just that such things can't be used in proper debate.

Anecdotes are not statistics, but if they happen to be true then they can well be facts. I'm guessing Kestrel could produce police reports or hospital records documenting the injuries he mentioned if he had the time or need, but if you're saying it's possible he's lying -- well, it is possible, I admit that.

The other definiton on Wiki was using one incident, or a small sampling, to draw a conclusion that does not follow (this is a paraphrase). I didn't see that he drew any conclusion, except that, since some people he knew had been injured in firearms accidents, these accidents were indeed something he was justified in worrying about.

I know one person who shot himself while cleaning a handgun. This is both an anecdote and a fact. The conclusion I draw is that when handling handguns, one should take every possible precaution. Is this an argument from anecdotal evidence, and thus invalid?

[rwguinn]

I may be belaboring this drivers' license thing, but to my mind it's a good comparison to put some things in perspective:

Driving is a privilege: yes, by law, it is. So the government could take away your "privilege" of driving to work, driving to the store, visiting friends/family in your car, etc., since, hey, it's only a privilege which government in its kindness allows me to have, not a right. If, hypothetically, our government were to institute a system like in say China, where gov't permission was required to travel from state to state by car, that would be okay, right? After all, driving is a privilege, not a right; it's not in the Constitution.
BZZZZZZT. Nope. Freedom of movement is a Right, and the government cannot arbitrarily limit it. see wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) ruling in Corfield v. Coryell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States), 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States), 75 U.S. 168 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."75 U.S. 168 (1868) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States), 79 U.S. 418 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States), 83 U.S. 36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) (1873) and United States v. Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States), 106 U.S. 629 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States) (1883).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think the thing around here is people saying, "we should support this law/ratify this amendment, because I know a guy who...".

The problem with, "I know this guy who..." arguments is that someone knows SOMEONE who's been run ragged by SOMEdamnTHING.

No one is saying it isn't a tragedy, but basing a philosophy that's going to change the way some minority lives due to a single, statistically insignificant, if tragic, incident is generally not a good idea.

Oh - and - I think the cars/guns is a valid argument... at least here in Indiana, it is.

I can buy a car without a license. As long as I don't go out on public streets, I need neither driver's license nor car tags.

As soon as I drive off my own property, owned or leased, I need both.

Similarly, I can purchase a firearm without a license, and as long as I don't operate it off of my own property, I don't need a license to use it.

As soon as I step foot off my own property, owned or leased, I need a carry license to do so (two kinds in Indiana: Target and hunting, and personal protection, and they come in four-year and lifetime flavors).

The fact that one is a right (ummm... well NOW, for sure, anyhow...) and the other a granted privilege isn't important ot me because I think that both activities should be subject to reasonable control if pursued out with other folks.

As to what, "reasonable control," means - the city folks and I tend to disagree.

I do think that a demonstrated knowledge of the safe use of firearms in general, and enough control to hit an adult-human-being-sized target is a good idea, just as I feel that a demonstrated knowledge of the rules of the road and safe motor vehicle operation is a good idea.

So, yes, I think I would support a move to require training and testing to obtain a carry license, but only if, as with drivers' licenses, the state made facilities available throughout the state for the testing.

....

But, then again, I think that Indiana should have state-subsidized shooting ranges, open to the public and required for police, in every county!

Yeah. That ain't gonna happen.

[CaptainManacles]

I'm appalled that someone has to explain why anecdotal evidence is weak on a skeptics forum.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I'm appalled that someone has to explain why anecdotal evidence is weak on a skeptics forum.


Some folks haven't been exposed to the tools used by debaters, either, but still know that, "post hoc ergo propter hoc," and, "Ad Hominem," arguments aren't good thinking. You don't have to know the names and applications to try to think through them to the facts.

F'r'instance: One of the reasons I came over here was to try to shake the cobwebs out of my brain. One of the hardest things in the world is to recognize one's own blind spots... errr... MY own blind spots.

Give 'em time. They'll come around.

[Ratatosk]

BZZZZZZT. Nope. Freedom of movement is a Right, and the government cannot arbitrarily limit it. see wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)

Thanks for pulling up that citation, which I think just strengthens the parallel. Freedom of movement (i.e. driving a motor vehicle) is a right, then, but a potentially dangerous one which we allow government to limit for the sake of public safety. And there's no great outcry over the tyranny of it all.

But the question of regulating firearms quickly spirals into a "libs and American-haters want to take away all our guns" vs. "cons want kids to carry guns to school in their lunchboxes," and so arguments like this go all the way up to the Supreme Court rather than state and local legislatures conducting reasonable debate and passing reasonable laws.

[WildCat]

But, then again, I think that Indiana should have state-subsidized shooting ranges, open to the public and required for police, in every county!
Don't know where you live, but there is a free gun range in Kingsbury Fish & Wildlife Area in LaPorte County. I used to go there a lot, it was never crowded either.

[Ratatosk]

*snip*

Oh - and - I think the cars/guns is a valid argument... at least here in Indiana, it is.

I can buy a car without a license. As long as I don't go out on public streets, I need neither driver's license nor car tags.

As soon as I drive off my own property, owned or leased, I need both.

Similarly, I can purchase a firearm without a license, and as long as I don't operate it off of my own property, I don't need a license to use it.

As soon as I step foot off my own property, owned or leased, I need a carry license to do so (two kinds in Indiana: Target and hunting, and personal protection, and they come in four-year and lifetime flavors).

The fact that one is a right (ummm... well NOW, for sure, anyhow...) and the other a granted privilege isn't important ot me because I think that both activities should be subject to reasonable control if pursued out with other folks.

As to what, "reasonable control," means - the city folks and I tend to disagree.

I do think that a demonstrated knowledge of the safe use of firearms in general, and enough control to hit an adult-human-being-sized target is a good idea, just as I feel that a demonstrated knowledge of the rules of the road and safe motor vehicle operation is a good idea.

So, yes, I think I would support a move to require training and testing to obtain a carry license, but only if, as with drivers' licenses, the state made facilities available throughout the state for the testing.

....

But, then again, I think that Indiana should have state-subsidized shooting ranges, open to the public and required for police, in every county!

Yeah. That ain't gonna happen.

I think I count as one of the "city folks" you mentioned then, because I'd draw the line at needing a license in order to purchase and own.

Not for any overarching philosophical reason, but just because I think it'd be a more effective replacement for waiting periods and such. A dangerously careless or mentally unstable person is still likely to be careless or mentally unstable 48 hours later, and expecting the seller to make this judgment is asking too much; an instructor in a training course would be a much better screen.

[Ratatosk]

WildCat, just noticed that you're in Chicago. So you've got front-row seats for the next round of this big hubbub.

[rwguinn]

Thanks for pulling up that citation, which I think just strengthens the parallel. Freedom of movement (i.e. driving a motor vehicle) is a right, then, but a potentially dangerous one which we allow government to limit for the sake of public safety. And there's no great outcry over the tyranny of it all.

But the question of regulating firearms quickly spirals into a "libs and American-haters want to take away all our guns" vs. "cons want kids to carry guns to school in their lunchboxes," and so arguments like this go all the way up to the Supreme Court rather than state and local legislatures conducting reasonable debate and passing reasonable laws.

BZZZZT!
Wrong again.
Freedom of movement is a Right. Operating a motor vehicle is a privelege. Even if your license to drive is revoked, you still have freedom to go elsewhere.
A privelege may be withdrawn/suspended by Statute. Your state can pass a law requiring, say, insurance for operators. You don't have it, you lose the privelege.
Rights can be revoked only by trial. Right to freedom, right of movement, right to keep and bear arms--all can be lost by committing a felony and being convicted.
Your driver's license can be suspended/confiscated by simply refusing to take a sobriety test, or by refusing to purchase insurance.

[Andronicus]

The upshot is that I am absolutely not going hunting with Dick Cheney.



Whether I had a firearm at home or not, I would still feel safer hunting with Dick Cheney than riding in a car driven by a Kennedy.

[Kestrel]

Anecdotes are not statistics, but if they happen to be true then they can well be facts. I'm guessing Kestrel could produce police reports or hospital records documenting the injuries he mentioned if he had the time or need, but if you're saying it's possible he's lying -- well, it is possible, I admit that.

Eagle Eye's claim seemed to be that we should just ignore firearms accidents because there are more deaths from other causes. It's like stating that we shouldn't bother trying to prevent airplane crashes because automobile crashes kill far more people.

[EagleEye]

Eagle Eye's claim seemed to be that we should just ignore firearms accidents because there are more deaths from other causes. It's like stating that we shouldn't bother trying to prevent airplane crashes because automobile crashes kill far more people.

Not at all! I'm shocked you'd actually think that, to be honest.

The guy was using personal experiences to support his argument, which is a logical no-no.

[Kestrel]

Not at all! I'm shocked you'd actually think that, to be honest.

The guy was using personal experiences to support his argument, which is a logical no-no.

Sorry about the mistake, I should have said Gagglegnash was making that argument.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

If you'll remember, please, the stats were dug up in response to your comment:
I worry about some of the law abiding gun owners. Not because they are likely to commit crimes, but because they are careless when handling firearms.


I was not suggesting that anyone ignore deaths. I'm suggesting that people are careless with lots and lots of things, and that carelessness causes lots more deaths with... well... cars, for instance.

The problem isn't guns; It's carelessness!

How do you pass laws against carelessness?

So, while I am sorry you've had such a hard time with irresponsible and careless firearm owners, I'd have to mention that it's YOU having such a hard time with irresponsible and careless firearm owners. Against that are very close to 75 million firearm owners who have NOT caused a firearm injury or death during your lifetime.

[Kestrel]

So, while I am sorry you've had such a hard time with irresponsible and careless firearm owners, I'd have to mention that it's YOU having such a hard time with irresponsible and careless firearm owners. Against that are very close to 75 million firearm owners who have NOT caused a firearm injury or death during your lifetime.

So have you ever known anyone who was killed or injured by a firearm?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

So have you ever known anyone who was killed or injured by a firearm?


Not accidentally killed, but killed, and two minor injuries: One, holding his hand over the muzzle while trying to clear the pistol, the other from playing, "quick-draw," out of boredom.

This out of... oh my... how many gun owners do I know... maybe a hundred.

I've had a few blockheaded mistakes with firearms in my life, so far. I will probably have others. Thing is: I make a concerted effort to to follow ALL the rules of gun handling, so if I screw one up, maybe two, no one gets hurt because the other rules cover your butt. Uhhh... MY butt.

I'm also aware of the cute li'l boy in the house, so all my firearms, other than the one or two I'm currently using, are locked up and locked down, and the keys hang around my neck. The ones I'm using are in my possession at all times so little fingers can't wander into something dangerous.

In this, I'm about average. As I said, about 75 million gun owners, nationwide, that have never caused accidental death or injury.

[luchog]

Strange, I thought it said "A well regulated Militia,"
I'm getting tired of hearing this "militia" crap from ignorant people, particularly ignorant non-Americans, who don't understand who the militia is.

First, the "militia" clause is a dependent, preperatory clause. It is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Its presence is only to provide an introduction or justification for the independent clause which follows it.

Second, the "militia" is not simply the Reservers/National Guard/State Guard organizations. There are two classes of militia: the organizied and the disorganzed.

US Code, Title 10 Section 311 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html):

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Emphasis added.

Insistence that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Reserves, National Guard, or State Guard is specious and based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice; and requires a tortuous distortion of English grammar not supported by current or contemporary English standards.

It would also make the 2nd Amendment unique, completely and totally unlike all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which are entirely and clearly individual rights, and have invariably been interpreted as such.

It also ignores the oft-neglected 9th and 10th Amendments.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

As an added note, many (most?) State Constitutions specify the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.

[luchog]

Handguns have no place in a large urban centre though IMO.
The only people using them are criminals.
The number of people in urban centers who have had their lives saved by the presence of legally owned and carried handguns, including two friends of mine, would put the lie to those statements. As would the fact that all police officers carry handguns, urban or otherwise.

[Drudgewire]

The number of people in urban centers who have had their lives saved by the presence of legally owned and carried handguns, including two friends of mine, would put the lie to those statements. As would the fact that all police officers carry handguns, urban or otherwise.

As would the fact that criminals using guns is the main reason I carry one. :confused:

[luchog]

Dictionary.com is helpful here.

No, it's not, since the legal definition of "militia" as specified in US law is what applies here, not some vague collection of dictionary definitions, as long as the term is explicitly defined in the appropriate section of law. And "militia" is explicitly defined in the appropriate section of law. No other definitions apply.

But I'll address the obvious errors and fallacies in the comments below, anyway.


1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

This is gibberish. If militias were only the organized forces operated by the government -- aka Reserves, National Guard, and State Guard, then it would be the government enlisting them, and the government owning the weapons. To say that the 2nd Amendment grants the government the right to own weapons is patently ludicrious.

And as many times as you have made this argument, you have never once defined what the "collective" is, how it can own or possess anything, or how it can have rights. Until you do that, your statments are meaningless gibberish.

Furthermore, there are no "collective" rights, only individual rights. "The People" is a legal term referring to all individual citizens of the US, not some nebulous and undefined "collective".

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.

Again, meaningless nonsense. What is "of the people, collectively", as opposed to individual people.
[qote]
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

In this definition, there need not be any private gun ownership, only gun ownership of the people, collectively.
[/quote]
Again, nonsense. And self-contradictory nonsense. If it refers to all able-bodied males eligible for military service, then it's those same able-bodied males who have the right, individually, to own guns. What the hell is a "collecive ownership"? Is that like a time-share? Do a group of them take turns with the firearms on a weekly or monthly basis? Do they have a custody schedule worked out?


4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

In this definition, I concede, there needs to be ownership of private guns. However, I don't really imagine that the founding fathers, or the average American citizen, would care for armed paramilitary groups roaming the country enforcing laws vigilante-stylem, and I presume there are laws already in place to prevent this happening.

This is a much more recent definition, and not relevant to the discussion.

What exactly am I missing? What is it about a militia, in any of the defined senses 1-3 above, that requires individual gun ownership and not guns to be supplied by the government when such forces are required?

What it is is specified in US Code Title 10, section 311; and the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

If the amendment simply stated "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed", then the arguments for individual ownership would be stronger. Given the militia qualification, there seems to be an understanding of a more formalised system of gun ownership...
But that is exactly what it says. Minus the irrelevant preferatory clause, it says specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that is too vague for you to understand?

[luchog]

There are a lot of things in this post that are wrong.

"Blue Laws" do not refer to all outdated laws. They refer to laws specificially related to legislating morality. Obscenity laws, prohibitions on the sale of alcohol during certain days or in certain regions, blasphemy laws, Sunday closing laws, etc. Laws which are typically religiously motivated, and intended to enforce a particular religious view of morality and propriety.

In the Constitution the notable blue law is the third ammendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." It hasn't come up lately, but still the law.

Actually, with the existence of State Guard organizations, and their overall lack of funding, this is not necessarily entirely outdated. I would agree, however, that it is something of an archaism.

[luchog]

If you consider yourself pro-gun rights, would you feel that a training program, similar to driver's licensing, required before a person would be allowed to purchase any firearm, would be unconstitutional?

ETA: Maybe I'll leave constitutionality to the Supreme court and just ask: would you consider it a good idea?
I don't think it would either be unconstitutional or a bad idea.

I don't necessarily think that a full proficiency test should be required; but some sort of basic firearm safety certification exam, similar to the written portion of the driver licensing test, would be a very good idea.

My state requires firearm safety training for anyone under 18 who is applying for a hunting license, and I don't see why it shouldn't be extended to anyone seeking to own a firearm. Even if not for all firearm ownership, then at least as part of the requiremnt for a CWP, maybe with exemptions for those who have prior law-enforcement or military training.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

<--- Prior military.

[Drudgewire]

I took a safety course and then went and took a course with a written and shooting test at the end in order to get my concealed carry license.

I wish every gun owner at least took a basic safety course, but I'm not too keen on it being a requirement. It enables a governing body to exclude people from a basic right we currently have (the second most important one according our founding fathers).

Then again maybe I've been spoiled by living in such a gun-friendly state. I'll never forget going to Wal-Mart and asking where I go to register the gun I'd just bought from a friend. He laughed and laughed. :D

[luchog]

Because the tyrant will have artillery. On the modern battlefield, an irregular militia armed only with civil firearms is not an effective tool and has no hope of disposing a tyrant. You'd be trying to dig a trench with a shovel.
This is a specious argument, since this has always been the case.

At the start of the American Revolution, the Minutemen and the various informal groups of men fighting against the British were armed with average hunting rifles and pistols. Muskets and such. The British troops had cannon demin-cannon, and carronade artillery; as well as the lighter culverin, demi-culverin, and related small pieces which were the battlefield equivalent of modern heavy machine guns.

What allowed the American colonists to effectively resist the British wasn't equivalence in arms, but guerilla tactics. The same thing that allowed the lightly-armed Viet Cong to effectively resist the far more heavily equipped US forces.

[marksman]

a basic right we currently have (the second most important one according our founding fathers).
They weren't ranked in order of importance, and the first amendment actually lists six separate rights:

No Establishment of Religion
Free Exercise of Religion
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Press
Right to Peaceably Assemble
Right to Petition Government

The Second Amendment actually contains two rights: The Right to Bear Arms and The Right to Keep Arms. How those two differ has not yet been determined by the Supreme Court.

[Drudgewire]

They weren't ranked in order of importance, and the first amendment actually lists six separate rights:

No Establishment of Religion
Free Exercise of Religion
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Press
Right to Peaceably Assemble
Right to Petition Government

The Second Amendment actually contains two rights: The Right to Bear Arms and The Right to Keep Arms. How those two differ has not yet been determined by the Supreme Court.

I was being silly with the "second most important" comment. And I sure didn't expect someone to call me out on all the rights in the 1st that quickly. Good job. :)

[luchog]

If you are negligent handling your vehicle, you get punished.


Anyone who thinks that a firearm "Accidentally goes off during cleaning" is a simpleton.
You cannot clean a loaded firearm. period. It's a cover story for negligence or suicide..
Anyone who doesn't obviously has never handled firearms before. Okay, "while cleaning" is probably not entirely accurate; but "while handling" is definitely a situation where accidents occur.

Although not a problem for most firearms, most types of firearms that have an auto-loading action, as well certain types of firearms with an external hammer, can go off accidentally if dropped or roughly mishandled.

A mistake made while unloading a firearm for cleaning can also result in a similar accident.

Large amounts of wear on the trigger and firing mechanism can increase the chance of an accident.

Assuming "murder" when hearing "accident" is based purely on prejudice, not on evidence. If you have to assume that the reality is worse than the report, the more accurate assumption is "negligence".

[luchog]

Thanks for pulling up that citation, which I think just strengthens the parallel. Freedom of movement (i.e. driving a motor vehicle) is a right, then, but a potentially dangerous one which we allow government to limit for the sake of public safety. And there's no great outcry over the tyranny of it all.

Nope, still wrong. Freedom of movement is a right. Driving a motorized vehicle on a public road is a privilege which inherently poses a moderate risk of harm to others. If you can't drive a car, you can still walk, ride a bicycle, take the bus, etc. Prohibiting you from driving a car because you haven't passed an arbitrary test does not infringe your freedom of movement, it just means that you have to use a method of transportation that poses a lower risk to others.

Keeping and carrying firearms is a right, there are no alternative forms of exercise of that right that reduce the already low risk of harm to others.

[Drudgewire]

Anyone who doesn't obviously has never handled firearms before. Okay, "while cleaning" is probably not entirely accurate; but "while handling" is definitely a situation where accidents occur.

My gun buddy on our board of directors is ex-military, and travels the globe to hunt. He attends gun shows put on by the manufacturers and has his CWP. He keeps them in a locked safe and is fanatical about safety.

A few months ago he went to clean his 1911. In a split second of brain-farting, he assumed it was unloaded and pulled the trigger which you have to do to remove the slide. The gun went off. Thankfully he was well-trained enough with guns that making sure it's never pointed at him is second-nature, but for the next few seconds he said he looked around the different areas of the room as he heard the "ping" of ricochets all around him.

The bullet hole was later found in his pool table... by his wife... after he'd searched the room for hours trying to find it. :D

So yeah, cleaning accidents are very real. That story always serves to remind me that every second I handle a gun, every rule of safety must always be followed (especially important when I carry my Glock, since there's always one in the chamber and the gun has no external safety).

[Ratatosk]

Nope, still wrong. Freedom of movement is a right. Driving a motorized vehicle on a public road is a privilege which inherently poses a moderate risk of harm to others. If you can't drive a car, you can still walk, ride a bicycle, take the bus, etc. Prohibiting you from driving a car because you haven't passed an arbitrary test does not infringe your freedom of movement, it just means that you have to use a method of transportation that poses a lower risk to others.

Keeping and carrying firearms is a right, there are no alternative forms of exercise of that right that reduce the already low risk of harm to others.

I do understand this, and I didn't mean to suggest there was a legal equivalency between the two. My post that led to this back-and-forth was:

"If I could throw out a quick not-at-all formal survey:

If you consider yourself pro-gun rights, would you feel that a training program, similar to driver's licensing, required before a person would be allowed to purchase any firearm, would be unconstitutional?

ETA: Maybe I'll leave constitutionality to the Supreme court and just ask: would you consider it a good idea?"

Where constitutionality is concerned, I understand that the two are not equivalent, but I'm still interested in the "would you consider it a good idea" part.

I also agree that calling keeping and bearing arms a collective rather than an individual right doesn't bear up to scrutiny. However, as regards the question of whether mandatory training courses would be unconstitutional...

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vWVZgViiJI0J:www.firearmsandliberty .com/papers-shade/TheRightToKeepandBearArms.PDF+meaning+of+%22keep+a nd+bear+arms%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

The author is a certified NRA Instructor on Basic Pistol and Personal Protection, and in this paper he says,

"Here, as can be clearly seen, a well-regulated militia is composed of ordinary citizens who are trained to arms." (p.8)

and he quotes, with seeming approval, another author's statement that
"The well-regulated clause of the second amendment suggests that the citizen soldier must retain not only the right to keep and bear arms, but [B]must be proficient in their use. (ThatEvery Man Be Armed, 78)" [again, bolding mine] (p.8)

This, to me, suggests that a mandatory training course for any would-be firearm owner would be both constitutional and reasonable. Note: this last part is my opinion, and I'm not attributing it to anyone else but me. Just would like to hear what other people think.

[Ratatosk]

I don't think it would either be unconstitutional or a bad idea.

I don't necessarily think that a full proficiency test should be required; but some sort of basic firearm safety certification exam, similar to the written portion of the driver licensing test, would be a very good idea.

My state requires firearm safety training for anyone under 18 who is applying for a hunting license, and I don't see why it shouldn't be extended to anyone seeking to own a firearm. Even if not for all firearm ownership, then at least as part of the requiremnt for a CWP, maybe with exemptions for those who have prior law-enforcement or military training.

Luchog, I didn't read this response before I posted my (long) post above. So you answered my question before I asked it.

[rwguinn]

My gun buddy on our board of directors is ex-military, and travels the globe to hunt. He attends gun shows put on by the manufacturers and has his CWP. He keeps them in a locked safe and is fanatical about safety.

A few months ago he went to clean his 1911. In a split second of brain-farting, he assumed it was unloaded and pulled the trigger which you have to do to remove the slide. The gun went off. Thankfully he was well-trained enough with guns that making sure it's never pointed at him is second-nature, but for the next few seconds he said he looked around the different areas of the room as he heard the "ping" of ricochets all around him.

The bullet hole was later found in his pool table... by his wife... after he'd searched the room for hours trying to find it. :D

So yeah, cleaning accidents are very real. That story always serves to remind me that every second I handle a gun, every rule of safety must always be followed (especially important when I carry my Glock, since there's always one in the chamber and the gun has no external safety).
As I said--neglegence.
When picking up a firearm, the first thing to do is assure yourself it is unloaded. To pull the trigger first is neglegent. "Assume that the damn thing can load itself when you aren't looking"
You cannot clean it with the breech obstructed (Muzzle loaders excepted)
And FYI- I was a certified instructor in Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, and self protection, as well as a Hunter Ed Instructor--for years.