Justices agree on right to own guns

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause The US Constitution did not declare that - Marbury v Madison declared that. That's an important difference that you'll find to be a running theme in our dealings.

No, GC, the Constitution declared it.

Article III. Section 1. - "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Section 2. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

Marbury v. Madison simply spelled out the obvious in clear and lengthy detail. Someone has to decide legal questions of constitutionality. Judges interpret and define law. That's what they do.

Unless you had a different idea, CG. If I believe that a new law is a violation of... say ...my right to free speech, where do you suggest I go to resolve it?

Quote by: GloriousCause But you don't get it. Your opinion doesn't matter because you're not in power.

Fer crissakes, yes, I understand. I'm not in power, and YOU are not in power. That's why I'm quoting from THE DECISIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POWER. And that would be the Supreme Court of the United States "and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain".

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!

Quote by: GloriousCause It's not that its convenient for my opinion - it's the truth. The SCOTUS isn't populated by the best and brightest judges any more so than Congress is populated by the best and brightest representatives of the people.

Or the founders. So what? Someone still has to do the job, and the Constitution tells us exactly how to go about selecting them. Beyond that, we're all defined by our human limitations.

ONCE AGAIN, who do you think should decide when there's a question of whether a law is constitutional or not? The PEOPLE? Sorry, but they're even dumber than the Justices and Representatives.

Quote by: GloriousCause Well excuse me for daring to stand up to the benevolent and wise SCOTUS. Common plebians such as ourselves have no right to challenge their superior knowledge.

Of course you can, CG. People do it each and every year. Do we have a 1st amendment right to picket an abortion clinic? Does the 1st amendment guarantee a college newspaper the right to print whatever advertising they chose? What qualifies as probably cause for the police to search my car? Can California ban so-called assault rifles? (Yes, they can... Silveira v. Lockyer, 2002)

You simply have to go through the process. Just standing out on the sidewalk and hollering your opinion doesn't do a damn thing.

That's why I keep asking... WHY, in 70 years, hasn't the gun lobby challenged any of those 20,000 horrible gun control laws before the Supreme Court as violations of your 2nd Amendment rights?

Because the gun lobby already knew the answer... they just decided it was better for their interests to keep you believing a lie..

Quote by: GloriousCause I never claimed that the law of the land is irrelevant - I claimed that it was WRONG.

Then WHY HASN'T ANYONE CHALLENGED IT???? I keep telling you, that's what the courts are FOR!!!! Like I said, standing out on the sidewalk shaking your fist doesn't change a damn thing.

My opinion might not matter to the powers that be, but it doesn't make the prohibition of drugs any less wrong.

And I share the same opinion about drugs. That and a couple of bucks gets me and you a cup of coffee. Now if I could think of some way to prove that federal and state laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then I'd be lobbying NARAL and whoever to mount a challenge to those laws in Court.

Unfortunately, the Constitution never mentions any rights to buy drugs. Maybe we could add an amendment, "The need for safe and effective medications for injury and illness being necessary for the care of our health, the right of the people to keep and use chemical medications shall not be impinged." But then, the Court would probably decide that we had a right to buy drugs only if they were needed for injury or illness, not an unlimited right to buy drugs.

Quote by: GloriousCause You're making an assumption when you define "the people" that way.

An assumption based on reading Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers. After all, the Army is the Army... the militia is composed of "the people", civilian volunteers.

Quote by: GloriousCause The opinion of the SCOTUS and lesser courts means everything in a technical sense, but this is not a claim to "truth".

I see... and who exactly determines the "TRUTH"? You, GC? The NRA??? Charlton Heston?

The framers of the Constitution knew that someone had to make the laws -- they chose Congress -- someone had to enforce the laws -- they chose the Executive -- and someone had to interpret and decide the law -- the Judiciary -- and the made a process by which we choose those someones. If little 'ol you doesn't think it's perfect, thinks the people are flawed, that's tough. You're free to petition the government with those greivances, but beyond that, SOMEONE has to define the legal 'Truth', because there has to be one.

Otherwise there's just chaos.

Quote by: GloriousCause And I agree with just about everything said in the opinion you quoted from the contenuous case of US v Miller - but it doesn't address the point in the video that I cited at the start of my involvement in this thread. "The people" is not "the militia".

Whether the people means 'the people manning the militia', or just 'the people', it doesn't matter because the Amendment defines the conditions under which 'the people' have that right...

The necessity of a well-regulated militia needed to secure a free state."

A well-regulated militia manned by gun-owning civilian volunteers is no longer necessary for our security, therefore the need for the right no longer exists.

That's what Miller is saying. Mr. Miller didn't need his sawed off shotgun for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, so he had no Constitutional right to own it.

Quote by: GloriousCause But I'm not a fan of the SCOTUS. I'm a fan of the founders

The folks who wrote legalized slavery into the Constitution? Really? What makes you think they're any more perfect than anyone else?

You know what Washington did to demonstrate the power of the new Federal government? To pay off the debts for the Revolutionary War, he pressed congress to pass a tax bill on distilled spirits -- like whiskey. The bill was designed to put a greater tax burden on small producers, like the subsistance farmers out west making local whiskey out of backwoods stills. They began harassing tax collectors, culminating in a 1794 armed uprising in Pennsylvania. Washington decided they needed to make a clear statement about the power of the new federal government, so he invoked martial law and became the first and only President in U.S. history to personally lead militia troops into battle, 12,000 in all, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War, marched west and scattered the "insurgents"

It was known as the "Whiskey Rebellion".

Those the folks you worship?

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart In the meantime, why not just answer my simple question? So as I was saying, Gun lovers keep insisting guns make us safer, and yet this nation, which is awash in guns, kills more people with guns than all the countries without unrestricted gun ownership. If gun ownership makes us safer, then why is that?

Hey, I answer direct questions, so I'll have a stab at satisfying your curiousity.


We state that very real fact to you because we do not limit our answer to "deaths" only, but include all violent crimes. Because after all, you're the ones making the association between guns, and violence, so it seems only appropriate to view the wider picture, and arrive at the larger truth.


Where people have the right to bare arms, there are less "violent" crimes.


I know this is an inconvenient truth, but, it is the truth.

Quote by: Sonart Cuz they have easy access to guns. Duh. It's NOT? So then... what? Americans are just more criminally inclined? This I'd love to hear.

I'd say the correlation was to the disparity between rich, and poor.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Where people have the right to bare arms, there are less "violent" crimes. I know this is an inconvenient truth, but, it is the truth.

I'm sorry, Milton, but this is simply gibberish, a complete disconnect with reality.

The United States has the least gun control of almost any other nation, and owns more guns per person. Therefore, by the logic YOU JUST STATED, we should have less violent crime. Except the inconvenient truth is that we have the exact opposite.

Among the 65 countries that keep such records, the U.S. is 9th in per capita homicide rates, and 1st in percentage of households that own guns.

We are number 8 in per capita murders with firearms, and number 24 in overall per capita murder rates.

We're number 6 in per capita assaults, and number 9 in per capita rapes.

Face it, we're a violent, brutish nation, besotted by our gun-toting, might-makes-right, individualist mythology.

Quote by: Milton I'd say the correlation was to the disparity between rich, and poor.

Beg pardon? Are you suggesting that the U.S. has a greater disparity between rich and poor than the rest of the world? That doesn't speak very well for your lust for an even MORE Darwinian, free market capitalist society, does it?

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you think the U.S. is far too "Socialist" than it should be, but the fact is, compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is definitely among the LEAST socialist and the most free market capitalist.

.
.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Beg pardon? Are you suggesting that the U.S. has a greater disparity between rich and poor than the rest of the world? Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you think the U.S. is far too "Socialist" than it should be, but the fact is, compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is definitely among the LEAST socialist and the most free market capitalist.

You just shot yourself in the foot, again.


Now, what can we learn from considering the obvious truth in first paragraph, while reading the second.


That's correct, I have been right all along, and our shared objective reality proves it so.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Militon Bradley Now, what can we learn from considering the obvious truth in first paragraph, while reading the second.

That because the U.S. is among the most libertarian, free-market capitalist societies on earth, it has among the highest disparities between rich and poor, and, by your reasoning, is therefore among the most violent.

Given that I've already batted your premise that more guns equals less violence out of the park, your own conclusion here doesn't seem to speak at all well of your libertarian utopia.... unless, of course, you're a member of that to 20% patriciate.

{{SIGH}} Counts me out.

.

[Apeman81]

Still tossing around the impressive sounding, but meaningless "guns per capita" ? You have yet counter my argument against this canard.

As for “more guns per capita”, you know as well as I that this is a meaningless data point. If 1 person has 10guns in his home, and 9 do not, then it is meaningless to adjudicate the safety of the 9 homes with regards to what is not within them. A gun that is not present cannot make one safe.

And as for your “more guns per capita”, do you know if that counts each of the hundreds of guns found in thousands of stores across the nation?

"More guns per capita" is meaningless. The gun must be present and employable by the victim in order to be meaningful. Guns per household would at least begin to have meaning.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . That because the U.S. is among the most libertarian, free-market capitalist societies on earth, it has among the highest disparities between rich and poor, and, by your reasoning, is therefore among the most violent. Given that I've already batted your premise that more guns equals less violence out of the park, your own conclusion here doesn't seem to speak at all well of your libertarian utopia.... unless, of course, you're a member of that to 20% patriciate. {{SIGH}} Counts me out. .

Until you choose to examine and recognize that firearms in the hands of citizens deters as well as truncates criminal activity, you have not demonstrated the critical thinking that allows you to claim to have debunked whether or not private firearm ownership increases or decreases crime.

Yours is a one sided equation. Guns are used by criminal to commit crime. Therefore, guns make us unsafe. You ignore the antithesis to your hypothesis. By doing so, you are unable to reach the synthesis. As such you do not have a coherent argument.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman As for “more guns per capita”, you know as well as I that this is a meaningless data point. If 1 person has 10guns in his home, and 9 do not, then it is meaningless to adjudicate the safety of the 9 homes with regards to what is not within them. A gun that is not present cannot make one safe.

You're desperately fishing, Apeman. You have any numbers to back that up? No, of course you don't.

But... Oh, wait .... I DO! Besides numbers of 'Guns per Person', I also showed you the 'Percentage of Households with Guns'. From another source, approximately 40% of American households have guns, 8% more than the next highest country, and of those 30% have 5 or more guns.

And this is supported if you look at state by state gun ownership.

Homicide Rates Higher in States with More Guns at Home

--"Guns are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in the United States, and new research shows that easy-access guns in the home make a difference. Homicide rates are highest in states where more households have guns, the national survey concludes.

In the top firearm-household states, homicide rates were more than double the rates found for states in the lowest firearm group. Overall, the top-gun states showed homicide rates that were 60 percent higher than all other states."--

So let's look at what your hero Gary Kleck has to say. He freely concedes that the U.S. has the highest gun ownership rates and has the most gun violence, but he doesn't see a direct correlation. First off, in his study of 18 countries, the majority are inconclusive. Only the U.S. stands out with extremely high ownership and violence numbers. And this, he believes, cancels out with Northern Ireland, which has very high gun violence compared to very low gun ownership.

Which is very interesting considering that Kleck's book came out in 1993, when Northern Ireland was still in the throes of a vicious civil war and the country was awash in illegal guns, most of which, incidently, came from the United States.

But never mind. Kleck continues that the averages are skewed by the vast size and shere numbers of guns and the amount of violence in the U.S., which overweighs any comparisons, so let's throw out the U.S. and Northern Ireland. Thus, in the other 16 countries of the study, while guns make a minute difference, statistically it's a wash... there's no clear suggestion that more guns equal more violent crime.

Further, Kleck suggests that even within the U.S., the numbers also cancel each other out, since the guns in the U.S. are used mostly for defensive purposes...

....IF you accept Kleck's numbers on defensive uses which further research suggests are wildly exaggerated.

But never mind that either. We're STILL left with a country awash and guns and a world leader in gun violence, and Kleck doesn't make any suggestions as to why the U.S. is such a bloody, gun-crazed anomoly.

Now Milton suggests the disparity between rich and poor, a disparity which his dreamed of return to an unfettered libertarian free market would only increase dramatically.

I, of course, have my own theory. Among the world's developed nations, the U.S. is unique in that it is both quite young, and more than half of our history involved a dramatic expansion across a vast and dangerous frontier. Firearms played a vital role in not only the founding of our nation but in that vast pioneering expansion as well. Therefore firearms are a huge part of our mythos, our sense of fearless pioneering individualism. That mythos carried on into the 20th century with the early popularity of westerns and then cops and robbers. In film and then television, we continuously celebrate our mythology with a constant refrain that good guys are all handy with guns, and that gunfire is always the solution to serious problems.

And now we can even live that mythology first person with computerized combat training programs -- first person shooter computer games.

But the end result is still the same... a supposedly civilized nation that kills more of it's citizens with gunfire than almost any other. So yeah, maybe gasoline didn't start the fire of violence in the U.S., but you certainly don't put out the fire by pouring more gasoline on it. Thinking your going to solve gun violence by giving everyone more guns is absurd... it's like taking an aspirin to cure cancer. Sure, it may make you feel better for a moment, but it doesn't solve the problem and likely only makes it worse.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman Until you choose to examine and recognize that firearms in the hands of citizens deters as well as truncates criminal activity, you have not demonstrated the critical thinking that allows you to claim to have debunked whether or not private firearm ownership increases or decreases crime.

Once again, Apeman, when the U.S. has the highest percentage of households with guns, and yet also has among the highest rates of gun violence in the world, how you arrive at this inane conclusion that more guns deter violence is simply beyond me.

You've added two plus two and arrived at seven. How do you figure?

.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . Once again, Apeman, when the U.S. has the highest percentage of households with guns, and yet also has among the highest rates of gun violence in the world, how you arrive at this inane conclusion that more guns deter violence is simply beyond me. You've added two plus two and arrived at seven. How do you figure? .

At least you've finally dropped the impressive sounding and statistically meaningless hyperbole about "more guns per capita”.

As for the U.S. having “the highest percentage of households with guns”, I would like to know the source of this notion. But for the sake of argument, let’s accept it.

If indeed the U.S has “the highest percentage of households with guns” then logic would dictate that it would follow that we would have the most instances of the use of a firearm on either side of a crime. A nation where few guns exist, say Japan, would have far less gun related instances whereas a man with a knife can kill 7 in seconds.
Japan knife attack leaves 7 dead - Los Angeles Times

You still refuse to examine the number of times a person employs a firearm to prevent or stop a crime. Until you identify and enumerate such “positive” uses of firearms here in the country with ““the highest percentage of households with guns”, you simply cannot determine whether the presence of firearms is a net negative or positive.

You add two to zero and come up with static.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . Once again, Apeman, when the U.S. has the highest percentage of households with guns, and yet also has among the highest rates of gun violence in the world, how you arrive at this inane conclusion that more guns deter violence is simply beyond me. You've added two plus two and arrived at seven. How do you figure? .

You are failing to recognize again, Sonart; that our high crime rate is in the big cities where citizens are usually curtailed from owning guns. In the countryside where they can, crime is very low.

You also fail to understand the criminals don't want to attack, invade, rape or steal from folks who are armed. Use logic.

You also fail to read the various key books, such as "More Guns Less Crime" to see what they say. Try it you'll like it.

Lastly you seem to fail to understand that if you were in a high crime area that you'd be safer if you were armed. An armed person is better prepared to protect himself from criminals. How can this be wrong?

[Toxey]

Just out of curiosity Sonart,are there any firearms in your household,or do you own one?

[ShadowFox]

I think he does, but he's not arguing against guns, like i do, just that we don't have the right to own guns, we have the privilege. At least, this is what i think he is saying.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, if that's so, that the privilege should be only taken away if one commits a violent crime, which happens anyway.

[ShadowFox]

Yet the privilege itself is making it easier for people to get their hands on a gun even if they aren't supposed to have one. Taking a gun away from a person after they shoot someone in the head doesn't help the person they just shot in the head. In my opinion, we should at least have stricter gun laws or a ban on guns, and maybe fund NLWs instead.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Then how do you police the millions of guns already in the country, and stop arms dealers from seeing the black market artificially created as the perfect opportunity to make the boatloads of cash they already make in places where demand for guns is high and supply artificially restricted? Short of storming everyone's house once a month to do a wall to wall check for guns, I don't see a way to keep weapons out of hands in America.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Halofan48 I think he does, but he's not arguing against guns, like i do, just that we don't have the right to own guns, we have the privilege. At least, this is what i think he is saying.

USSC says we do have that right because it's stated in the Bill of Rights. However people can lose that right by committing crimes. They also lose their right for freedom of speech as they linger in jail.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Toxey Just out of curiosity Sonart,are there any firearms in your household, or do you own one?

Yes, I own a .40 cal Baretta.

Quote by: Apeman As for the U.S. having “the highest percentage of households with guns”, I would like to know the source of this notion. But for the sake of argument, let’s accept it.

I include links to all the facts I've sourced Apeman. You're free to review them if you like.

Quote by: Apeman "Japan knife attack leaves 7 dead - Los Angeles Times"

{{YAWN}} Yeah, so? Last time I checked, Japan at a grand total of about 640 murders out of a population of 127 million, compared to our 13,000 murders in a population of 301 million. What's your point? That knives can kill too? Guns make it vastly easier.

Quote by: Apeman You still refuse to examine the number of times a person employs a firearm to prevent or stop a crime. Until you identify and enumerate such “positive” uses of firearms here in the country with ““the highest percentage of households with guns”, you simply cannot determine whether the presence of firearms is a net negative or positive.

Apeman, how many ways do I have to say it. IT... DOESN'T... MATTER! No matter HOW MANY times guns are used defensively, if we're still leading the world in gun murders, then it's obviously not enough, and if we own more guns per household than the rest of the world AND lead the world in gun crimes, then obviously your logic that the uses of guns defensively cancels out crimes committed with guns has a serious disconnect with reality. In America, more guns has meant more gun violence, no matter how many defensives uses you care to come up with.

Now, of course you're saying, if we had fewer guns, we'd be less able to defend against crimes. Maybe, but then, if we had fewer guns, there'd also be fewer gun crimes to defend against.

You are failing to recognize again, Sonart; that our high crime rate is in the big cities where citizens are usually curtailed from owning guns. In the countryside where they can, crime is very low.

Because 94.6% of American land is rural but contains only 20% of the population. I already answered that. Crime happens where all the people are gathered and everyone doesn't know everyone else. Duh!!!

Quote by: Deadeye You also fail to read the various key books, such as "More Guns Less Crime" to see what they say. Try it you'll like it.

Yeah, yeah... look, I already summarized Gary Kleck's book here. You gonna read any books that I recommend? Didn't think so.

Meanwhile, NONE of you can explain to me exactly why... if Kleck is correct ...we have so much gun violence in the U.S. while also having so much gun ownership, when you keep telling me over and over that more guns will make us SAFER!

C'mon, Deadeye, you read his book... how does Kleck explain it?

"Based on the evidence currently available, it appears that gun ownership is associated with a NET INCREASE in the risk of death for a typical individual. Clinicians might advise their patients accordingly."

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Then how do you police the millions of guns already in the country, and stop arms dealers from seeing the black market artificially created as the perfect opportunity to make the boatloads of cash they already make in places where demand for guns is high and supply artificially restricted?

Well certainly not by making guns even more easily available, GM.

Number one, Americans need to get over the idea that owning guns is a 'Gawd given' Raht' by making clear that the 2nd Amendment hasn't ever given you that individual right. (Alas, if Bush's Supreme Court reverses Miller... {{SIGH}} ...so much for that)

Number two, by slowly making it harder and harder to acquire huge caches of firearms. I have no problem with owning A firearm for home defense, or a couple of hunting rifles, but the ability of 3rd parties to purchase guns by the dozen, of almost any type, and for stores and manufacturers to sell them, only insures that criminals will always have a ready supply.

Number three, to slowly wean Americans off their love of guns. Specifically by pressuring media, the same way they've been pressured about cigarettes and seat belts, by constantly bugging them that gratuitous violence in media is irresponsible.

That's already happening to some extent. Fewer and fewer Americans own firearms, while more Americans want more gun control.

Quote by: Deadeye USSC says we do have that right because it's stated in the Bill of Rights.

No, they don't say that. For the last 70 years the Supreme Court precedent has been that you have a right to keep and bear arms provided that is it necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the Constitution.

You're obviously not paying attention.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, if that's so, that the privilege should be only taken away if one commits a violent crime, which happens anyway.

It's a privilege that should be earned in the first place. You have to be licensed to drive a car, and insured and registered to own one, and gawd knows folks should have more of a right to drive than to own a gun.

.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well certainly not by making guns even more easily available, GM. Number one, Americans need to get over the idea that owning guns is a 'Gawd given' Raht' by making clear that the 2nd Amendment hasn't ever given you that individual right. (Alas, if Bush's Supreme Court reverses Miller... {{SIGH}} ...so much for that) Number two, by slowly making it harder and harder to acquire huge caches of firearms. I have no problem with owning A firearm for home defense, or a couple of hunting rifles, but the ability of 3rd parties to purchase guns by the dozen, of almost any type, and for stores and manufacturers to sell them, only insures that criminals will always have a ready supply. Number three, to slowly wean Americans off their love of guns. Specifically by pressuring media, the same way they've been pressured about cigarettes and seat belts, by constantly bugging them that gratuitous violence in media is irresponsible. That's already happening to some extent. Fewer and fewer Americans own firearms, while more Americans want more gun control.

I don't see any of this happening, as a defense of gun rights will be one of the things many will see as a good thing bsh has accomplished through his appointees. I agree about the huge caches thing, actually, a couple of rifles, a shotgun, and maybe a few hanguns are all anybody should ever want. Though I'm not sure how you want people to acquire even one gun for self defense if nobody sells them.

It's a privilege that should be earned in the first place. You have to be licensed to drive a car, and insured and registered to own one, and gawd knows folks should have more of a right to drive than to own a gun.

I know of an ex army ranger and colonel in the army who had to take a safety course to keep his guns, so I think this is already a norm.

What do you think of extremely restrictive laws like in Massachusetts? Massachusetts Law About Guns and Other Weapons

I generally agree with making you jump through hoops to get a weapon, but not an outright ban, like the idiotic assault rifle bans that focus on things like pistol grip, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts, rather than the actual abiity to go full auto, which is the only one that makes a weapon more deadly.