Justices agree on right to own guns

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: God_Mercenary My pastime? I try to maintain a proficient shot, but I'm not exactly a gun nut. I certainly do care how many americans die, but many more would die if the government decides to exercize the power we give it against us.

Given the reality, GM, that's a pretty absurd question. As I keep pointing out, the U.S. is already awash in guns and we're already among the deadliest civilized nations on earth... the no.1, per capita deadliest among the 36 wealthiest nations, the vast majority of whom have strict gun control.

How on earth do you imagine gun control is possibly going to make it any worse?

And I forgot to mention early... I'm not opposed to keeping guns for self defense. I own a .40 cal Baretta for just that purpose. What I'm opposed to is America's gun lunacy that demands you have a RIGHT to own as many guns as you like that are as obscenely deadly as you like.

As to self defense, explain to me your Right to defend your family against something far more dangerous than a potential intruder... injury and disease. Do you have an inherent RIGHT to healthcare? Good lord, why not?? That's far more important than a gun. How about defending yourself and you family against the elements? Do you have a RIGHT to shelter? No? Again, why on earth not? How about a RIGHT to defend yourself and your family against hunger? No? How about a RIGHT to transportation? That's certainly as important as the right to speech or assembly.

No, I'm afraid the RIGHT to bear arms isn't about self defense... it's about what the Courts have said it's about for the last 70 years. It's the POLITICAL right for a citizen to keep arms necessary for, and to bear them in, a well-regulated citizen militia, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.


.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . Who says they do? Gun loons made a big deal about how gun crime in Texas dropped 30% in the '90s after Texas passed liberal carry laws... or something to that affect. What they failed to mention was that gun crime also dropped 30% nationwide! Then there's the futility of passing gun control in one state that borders another that has next to none. But more than anything there's this simple fact... among the world's wealthy, democratic nations, nearly all of whom - unlike the United States - maintain strict gun control, the U.S. is the most violent civilized nation on earth. Proud of that distinction, are ya?

That is a very interesting and scary statistic. I support the 2nd Amendment, but think something needs to be done. Amendments don't create absolute rights. Freedom of religion doesn't allow for human sacrifice. Freedom of speech doesn't allow for threats or calling fire in a crowded theater.

However you never know what the future will bring, so it is good to preserve some measure firearm protection.

There is also the argument, which I support, that by "arms" in the 2nd amendment they were referring to rifles or longer arms of that equivalent. I like that interpretation. Non-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns are what I believe should be protected. I believe for the public's safety full automatic rifles, aka machinegun, and concealed weapons aka handguns, should be limited. One can easily protect one's property with a non-automatic machine gun or shotgun.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Thanatos Why not invent a better taser? The capacity for electrified darts could be increased, and I've also seen some schemes involving laser ionized air columns or electrified water.

Oddly, ( or perhaps not ) I fear the Taser more than the gun, preceisely because it's non-lethal, and the authoritarian police officer carrying it I believe would be far more likely to employ it in a situation where force is not actually required. Hell, we're already seeing those stories in the news.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart What ever you say, Milton.

Well hey, I'm not surprised that you can rationalize away every contention I make, clearly, you're not dealing with the questions asked.


Every day I come in here hoping you will have answer the meaty question I asked, only to find that that's the one you edited out of the post before responding.


How sad.


What a pathetic excuse for debate skills.

[PubliusInfinitu]

ROFL...

The right to bear arms precedes the Bill O'Rights and the founding of the United States.

With life comes the inalienable right to life and the sacred duty to defend that life adn the inherent right to pursue the fulfillment of that life...

All the SCOTUS is determining is whether or not the Unconstitutional ban on Fire Arms is constitutional or not... They are not deciding if there is a right to own and use a firearm.

As a free sovereign I am entitled to own a fire arm through my inalienable right to my life and my responsibility to defend that life and the lives and rights of my nieghbor. I do not seek the permission of any government to do so and no government can take responsibility for my life.

The DC courts have plainly stated that the DC government is not responsible for the protection of every person; that their duty is the general potection of "the people." Thus the government has clearly stated that it is not taking responsibility for the life of ANYONE... thus the responsibility for protecting their lives rests upon THEM and them alone. Thus, it is their right to utilize equipment suitable for just that.

Leftist arguments to the contrary are spurious screeds which can only lead directly to tyranny... their goal is to disarm 'the people' so that 'the people' are less likely to rise up and hold them accountable for the catastrophe which results from their policies.

The simple fact is that where law abiding citizens are armed, violent crime falls dramatically. This of course based upon nothing more than the natural laws of nature; particularly that natural tendency for all things to take the path of least resistance.

It is easier to hold up a unarmed person than an armed person and its no more complex than that.

[PubliusInfinitu]

Quote by: GHook93 That is a very interesting and scary statistic. I support the 2nd Amendment, but think something needs to be done. Amendments don't create absolute rights. Freedom of religion doesn't allow for human sacrifice. Freedom of speech doesn't allow for threats or calling fire in a crowded theater. However you never know what the future will bring, so it is good to preserve some measure firearm protection. There is also the argument, which I support, that by "arms" in the 2nd amendment they were referring to rifles or longer arms of that equivalent. I like that interpretation. Non-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns are what I believe should be protected. I believe for the public's safety full automatic rifles, aka machinegun, and concealed weapons aka handguns, should be limited. One can easily protect one's property with a non-automatic machine gun or shotgun.

ROFLMNAO....

Well Britain banned Guns and as a result is realizing massive spikes in violent crime...

Beyond that, the secular progressives of Britain are now prosecuting any subject which they find has resisted a violent attack.

What we see here is very simply, the secular responseto the right to life and the sacred duty to defend that life. In effect the government of Britain cannot defend the life of every subject, but they reject the right of the individual to defend their own life. Thus in Britain the concept of "the right to life" is on it's last leg. While the immutable right will always remain, the protections of government for those exercisig their right will no longer be enjoyed.

What they seem to be incapable fo grasping is that in taking this position, the government now becomes the usurper of individual rights... thus it becomes the duty of every person in Britain to dispatch that government and to replace it with a valid, non-leftist government.

Sadly, one has to look MIGHTY hard to find someone bright enough to understand that, at this point, but that will change and change quickly when in the natural course, liberalism morphs into communism.

[GHook93]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu ROFLMNAO.... Well Britain banned Guns and as a result is realizing massive spikes in violent crime... Beyond that, the secular progressives of Britain are now prosecuting any subject which they find has resisted a violent attack. What we see here is very simply, the secular responseto the right to life and the sacred duty to defend that life. In effect the government of Britain cannot defend the life of every subject, but they reject the right of the individual to defend their own life. Thus in Britain the concept of "the right to life" is on it's last leg. While the immutable right will always remain, the protections of government for those exercisig their right will no longer be enjoyed. What they seem to be incapable fo grasping is that in taking this position, the government now becomes the usurper of individual rights... thus it becomes the duty of every person in Britain to dispatch that government and to replace it with a valid, non-leftist government. Sadly, one has to look MIGHTY hard to find someone bright enough to understand that, at this point, but that will change and change quickly when in the natural course, liberalism morphs into communism.

I admit I go back on forth on this one. On one hand I think the founding fathers were clear that they wanted gun ownership being the one of the pinnacles of American society. On the other hand I think guns have gotten a hell of a lot more dangerous since then. The technology advancements were probably incomprehensible at the time. I also see the high murder and armed robbery rate. I see Columbie and Virginia Tech.

I think the right to gun ownership is important and I am more of a mindset of preserving the constitution rather than ignore it, but its protection of the 2nd amendment seems to be hurting us greatly. That is why I am for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Note this could be because NIU is rather close to me and I even know some teachers there.

[PubliusInfinitu]

Quote by: GHook93 I admit I go back on forth on this one. On one hand I think the founding fathers were clear that they wanted gun ownership being the one of the pinnacles of American society. On the other hand I think guns have gotten a hell of a lot more dangerous since then. The technology advancements were probably incomprehensible at the time. I also see the high murder and armed robbery rate. I see Columbie and Virginia Tech. I think the right to gun ownership is important and I am more of a mindset of preserving the constitution rather than ignore it, but its protection of the 2nd amendment seems to be hurting us greatly. That is why I am for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Note this could be because NIU is rather close to me and I even know some teachers there.

Well, what you don't seem to be grasping here, is the principle...

You were born with an inalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; furthermore, with that right comes the sacred duty to defend that life and right (along with the life and rights of your neighbors) as well as the means to exercise the pursuit of the fulfillment thereof, from usurpation by those determined to do so...

Now these days many people have been indoctrinated to believe that rights are a function of government fiat... Meaning you may be under the impression that you get your rights from the government; that rights are those things you 'get to do'... with no further obligation required on your part.

But here's the thing... for a right to be valid, it must bring responsibility; meaning that through your own actions, you perpetually maintain the viability of the right itself.

Thus where there is no responsibility, there can be no right. Thus, where you set aside your responsibility to defend your life and those of your neighbors, you set aside the right.

Is it your intention to set aside your inalienable right to your life?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well hey, I'm not surprised that you can rationalize away every contention I make, clearly, you're not dealing with the questions asked.

What contentions have you made, Milton? What is your 'Meaty' question, and when have you responded to any of my points? All I ever see is sardonic, one line denials.

#258 Nope, no argument here.

#255 No, just a declaration that I'm "wrong", with no evidence.

#250 nope, just one sentence of name calling.

#240 Nope, just a single sentence opaque nonsense red herring.

#236 "Re gister Communists, not handguns" Clever... I'll take it under advisement, although it strikes me as a tad unconstitutional. Oh, and another reference to answering your "Meaty question"... which I did - again - in #239.

#230 Nope, but a great line... "Bad debate is when one side doesn't "get' what the other side is saying." And you obviously have not only no idea, but no interest in what we're saying. You're like a religious fanatic... the other side is going to hell, period, no matter what they say or do, so you can't be bothered to even respond.

#228 Not yet... just another one liner.

#226 Yes! Praise jeezuz, at last, an argument.

...um... sort of. Let's see, there's reference to the 2nd Amendment which I've already proven many times over does not, according to the 70 yr old Supreme Court precedent, mean what you desperately want it to mean.

A one liner, "It's called Law". Yes, Milton, it's called Law.

Then there's this red herring... "Well, like I say, you're going to have a Hell of time defending an institution that allowed all the manufacture, and sales to occur for the last 200 plus years if it is found to be illegal."

That's just false, Milton. No one ever found the manufacter or sales of firearms to be illegal. You're telling a lie to create yet another red herring. All the court did was determine that we don't have an individual right to own firearms. No one made firearms illegal. Is that what you call intellectual honesty?

And finally, your BIG question. Comparing guns to automobiles. As I've said several times since, your comparison is disingenuous and I have explained why several times. You need me to answer it again? My answer will be the same... based on the amounts of time we use each of tthem, automobiles are tens of thousands of times safer than guns, and on top of that, automobiles are an invaluable pillar of America's economy and social structure.

.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu ROFLMNAO....

No.

Well Britain banned Guns and as a result is realizing massive spikes in violent crime...

Please post data. And post a line connecting guns to a rise in crime.

What they seem to be incapable fo grasping is that in taking this position, the government now becomes the usurper of individual rights... thus it becomes the duty of every person in Britain to dispatch that government and to replace it with a valid, non-leftist government.

Or you could vote them out of office.

Sadly, one has to look MIGHTY hard to find someone bright enough to understand that,

50%ish of a populous is hard to find?

but that will change and change quickly when in the natural course, liberalism morphs into communism.

-_-;
The red scare was so, like, 1950s.

And the liberals are far from being communist.

"1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed"

"b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"

please do tell how one becomes the other.

As a free sovereign I am entitled to own a fire arm through my inalienable right to my life and my responsibility to defend that life and the lives and rights of my nieghbor. I do not seek the permission of any government to do so and no government can take responsibility for my life.

But I think you'll agree government has a right to control the method of how you defend you're life.

Otherwise people will just say they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves (countries say it all the time).

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GHook I admit I go back on forth on this one. On one hand I think the founding fathers were clear that they wanted gun ownership being the one of the pinnacles of American society.

What they were clear about was that they wanted the defense of the country in the hands of "the people", meaning well regulated civilian militias, rather than a full-time standing army, which they equated with old world aristocracies and did not trust. Read the Federalist Papers. That's exactly why they wrote the second Amendment the way they did, with a qualifying preface.

Quote by: GHook I think the right to gun ownership is important and I am more of a mindset of preserving the constitution rather than ignore it, but its protection of the 2nd amendment seems to be hurting us greatly.

Actually, the law of the land for the past 70 years -- that is, the standing case law precendent of the Supreme Court and overwhelming majority of the lower Federal Circuit Courts -- is that you do NOT have an individual right to own firearms, only a collective right based on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

That precedent has only just now been challenged last March in DC v. Heller, which will be decided in June. It will be interesting to see if the conservatives on the Bench, including Bush's two most recent appointments, keep their words when they declared they wouldn't be activist judges and would respect precedent.

Somehow I doubt they will.

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu You were born with an inalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; furthermore, with that right comes the sacred duty to defend that life and right (along with the life and rights of your neighbors) as well as the means to exercise the pursuit of the fulfillment thereof, from usurpation by those determined to do so...

And yet, interestingly enough, only our political rights are guaranteed by the constitution. For instance, you have an inalienable right to defend yourself and your family from injury and disease, don't you? So where's your constitutional right to healthcare? You have an inalienable right to feed and shelter yourself and your family, right? Again, where in the constitution does it guarantee you that right?

All the Constitution guarantees is your right to keep arms necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated civilian milita, and to bear those arms when called upon in the service of that militia.

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu Well Britain banned Guns and as a result is realizing massive spikes in violent crime...

That's interesting, because Britain has had strict gun control for centuries, yet only recently experienced a spike in crime. I too would like to see your source that led you to conclude there's a connection.

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu But here's the thing... for a right to be valid, it must bring responsibility; meaning that through your own actions, you perpetually maintain the viability of the right itself.

Well, given that the United States is the most violent, morst murderous wealthy, civilized nation on earth, we've pretty well failed in upholding our responsibilities towards our "right" to possess firearms, haven't we.

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu Thus where there is no responsibility, there can be no right.

You said it, not me.

.

[GHook93]

Quote by: PubliusInfinitu Well, what you don't seem to be grasping here, is the principle... You were born with an inalienable right to your life and to pursue the fulfillment of that life; furthermore, with that right comes the sacred duty to defend that life and right (along with the life and rights of your neighbors) as well as the means to exercise the pursuit of the fulfillment thereof, from usurpation by those determined to do so...

I have done pretty well in my constitution law classes. All the amendments are not absolute, that is not unconstitutional or leftist mumbo jumbo that that is a fact. I like to stick closest to the constitution as possible, but I now question the consequences of the sale of concealed handguns. I think a lot more deaths can be prevented by stricter gun control, then looser gun control.

Now these days many people have been indoctrinated to believe that rights are a function of government fiat... Meaning you may be under the impression that you get your rights from the government; that rights are those things you 'get to do'... with no further obligation required on your part. But here's the thing... for a right to be valid, it must bring responsibility; meaning that through your own actions, you perpetually maintain the viability of the right itself.

The government's job is to make sure those rights are being protected. If they don't protect them then its like you don't have them.

Thus where there is no responsibility, there can be no right. Thus, where you set aside your responsibility to defend your life and those of your neighbors, you set aside the right.

Or were there is no enforcement there are no rights. If there is a law that states you can't j-walk, but its not enforced. Rarely are people going to follow it.

Is it your intention to set aside your inalienable right to your life?

How am I doing that, when all I am doing is questioning the 2nd amendment.

I question the 14th amendments birth right clause. I question 16th amendments income tax clause (I prefer it and all taxes to be replaced by the Fair Tax) and I question the 26th amendment (suffrage for 18 year olds).

HOWEVER, I would not want the Supreme Court creating laws of there own interpretation. I would rather have the legislatures amend the constitution itself. That is 100% constitutional pursuant to Article V - Titled: Amending the Constitution!

[Milton Bradley]

"The irrational fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity."
Sigmund Freud


( Thanks to Dunedan for finding that )


Now, I'm no Fruedian, but I don't think anybody is willing to go out on a limb, and proclaim that he had it all wrong.


Perhaps there is a connection here, because there does seem to be a lot of irration fear, and fear mongering concerning the gun.


And since the anti-gun lobby deny it is the person committing the crime, and insist that it is the mere precence of the gun, well, there's no way to deny just what it is they're attempting to demonize.

[Milton Bradley]

You know the answers I'm looking for Sonart.


How can we be in this alleged "mess" if the citizen does not have the right to bare arms?


Even more importantly, how can you advocate voting for people whos idea of law, and order allows gun manufacturers to manufacture, sell, and export guns right under the noses of the people they appoint, and the legislation they create?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Milton Bradley "The irrational fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity." Sigmund Freud

You're quoting the guy who snorted so much cocaine that he thought his mother wanted him?

Now, I'm no Fruedian, but I don't think anybody is willing to go out on a limb, and proclaim that he had it all wrong.

ah, fair enough. But I think he was taking a wild stab again.

Perhaps there is a connection here, because there does seem to be a lot of irration fear, and fear mongering concerning the gun.

One could argue that the attachment to the gun is unhealthy. To the point where a gun is more then a defense mechanism but a way of life. I'd rather err on the side of caution when dealing with a deadly weapon.

And since the anti-gun lobby deny it is the person committing the crime, and insist that it is the mere precence of the gun, well, there's no way to deny just what it is they're attempting to demonize.

Everyone is guilty of demonizing. Gun lobby too.
Guns cause death, but guns save lives...nice little catch-22. If only we could just give guns to the good guys...

It's not that simple.

[Sonart]

.

"The irrational fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity." -- Sigmund Freud

"Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" -- Mae West

An "irrational" fear of anything is the sign of a sick mind, Milton. Fearing deadly weapons in the hands of basically anyone that wants one is entirely rational.

Quote by: Milton How can we be in this alleged "mess" if the citizen does not have the right to bare arms?

For someone so smart, you really are stupid, Milton. Not having a "Right" to own firearms is not the same as not being legally able to. Gun control legislation has only nibbled at the edges of gun ownership... no machine guns,no assault rifles, waiting periods, criminal or mental restrictions, etc. And thanks to the NRA's 'Big Lie' that we all do have that right, and Congressional pandering to gun owners who believe it, the loopholes are immense. Gun shows and private sales are practically immune from any regulation, 3rd party transfers, gun dealer immunity from liability, back door sales by manufacturers.

We're in this "mess" because America is literally awash in guns... 200,000 million of them. Only when DC took the final desperate step of banning handguns -- and the Bush League finally tipped the Supreme Court -- did the gun lobby finally rise up to challenge the current law of the land.

Quote by: Milton Even more importantly, how can you advocate voting for people whos idea of law, and order allows gun manufacturers to manufacture, sell, and export guns right under the noses of the people they appoint, and the legislation they create?

I advocate voting for people who supported things like the Bradey Bill, not those who opposed it. What's your recommendation? Ron Paul?

Besides, this is a pathetic, loaded question. I can't control what people do once they're in office or the compromises they feel obliged to make. I can only vote for those who I think are more likely to support my views, and that sure as hell isn't John McCain or Ron Paul.

Is that really your BIG question?

.

[Halofan48]

Sonart, please keep things civil, lest we fall into throwing insults. Thank You.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Halofan Sonart, please keep things civil, lest we fall into throwing insults. Thank You.

But by smugly implying that we're emotionally retarded and sexually immature, Milton was simply making polite conversation. Got it, Halofan... thanks for your un-biased concern.

And as I said, Milton is way to intelligent -- (sounds like a compliment to me) -- to be so stupid as to think that not having a Right to something means that thing is therefore illegal. I mean, we don't have a constitutional 'Right' to own automobiles, now do we, yet the country's awash in them as well. One can only conclude that my highly intelligent friend Milton is swinging wildly out of frustrated desperation.

Not to be confused with emotional retardation or sexual immaturity.

.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's Freud, who's something of an expert, so I don't think it would count as insulting, just if the boot fits. And you can always come back with freuds thoughts on men compensating with things such as guns.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind One could argue that the attachment to the gun is unhealthy. To the point where a gun is more then a defense mechanism but a way of life. I'd rather err on the side of caution when dealing with a deadly weapon.

Again, you seem to want to punish all, law abiding citizens included, for "potential crime", and that is not how our justice system was set up to operate.

Quote by: Winter wind Guns cause death, but guns save lives...nice little catch-22. If only we could just give guns to the good guys... It's not that simple.

Well, since you seem to realize that, why would you deny the true law abiding citizen the right to be a good guy with a gun?


In effect, that's what you are agruing for, a state in which only criminals, and the government have guns.