Justices agree on right to own guns

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary 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.

Maybe, maybe not. As I pointed out, fewer households are owning guns, hunting is a rapidly fading sport, and most Americans favor gun control. While Americans steadfastly support what they think is their 2nd Amendment rights, few know what those rights actually are. An anecdote demonstrates this; back in March, a roundtable of supposedly knowledgeable pundits - I forget which show - was discussing the SCOTUS hearing of Heller v. DC. The introductory analysis quickly made it clear what I've been telling you all along, that for 70 years the uncontested precedent has been that we have a collective, militia right to bear arms, not an individual right....

...at which point the entire pundit cast suddenly ground to halting, confused stammering, each staring at one another and wondering how on earth no one in the media seemed to be aware of such a basic fundamental of constitutional law.

However, GM, you may certainly be right about Bush's court. Oddly enough, however, it would go against the type of jurists both Roberts and Alito claimed to be. Both described themselves as NOT being activists judges, who would be more inclined to respect precedent.

"In private meetings with senators who support abortion rights, Alito has said the Supreme Court should be quite wary of reversing decisions that have been repeatedly upheld, according to the senators who said it was clear that the context was abortion."

That pretty well describes Miller, which as I've shown, has been repeatedly upheld by 8 of the 11 Federal Courts. It'll be fascinating to see if the conservative Court stays true to their supposedly non-activism and upholds the long standing Miller precedent, or instead chooses to get all 'Politically Correct' activist and overturn it.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary What do you think of extremely restrictive laws like in Massachusetts?

I'm reminded of conservatives saying that if workers didn't like working under certain conditions, they should simply find another job... as if it were always that easy.

If folks don't like Massachusetts laws, either challenge them in court, move somewhere else or deal with it. Massachusetts lawmakers are simply doing the will of their constituents.

.

[Gods_Mercenary]

If folks don't like Massachusetts laws, either challenge them in court, move somewhere else or deal with it. Massachusetts lawmakers are simply doing the will of their constituents.

Well, they're doing the will of their democratic urban voters, but I get your point, since we've allowed the creation of a one party state.

[Apeman81]

"SONART: 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."

That is an illogical argument. The Number of times a firearm is used to stop a murder is a non sequitor when adjudicating whether or not the possession of firearms in the U.S. is a net gain or loss? Foolish! If defensive usage of firearms stops 1 of every 2 attempts to murder (using your statistic of choice, although I would think it worthwhile to stop rape, mugging. Home invasion, and a myriad of other crimes stopped by the defensive use of a firearm), then you discount a factor that reduces the total number of murders by 50%. That’s simply stupid.

“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.”

And how do we establish an America with fewer guns. Confiscation? And how does one ensure that while your removing firearms from the hands of law abiding Americans, that the criminals cannot or will not obtain them?

It has not worked in Washington D.C.

Enjoy!

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Apeman81 It has not worked in Washington D.C. Enjoy!

Well, the problem with D.C. is that a person could easily drive out of the area, get a gun, and drive back to commit the crime. Now lets say the state of Colorado banned guns. The people in the center of the state would have a harder time getting a gun and would spend more. Sure people on the border could still get it relatively easily, at least the people within are a bit safer.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, the problem with D.C. is that a person could easily drive out of the area, get a gun, and drive back to commit the crime. Now lets say the state of Colorado banned guns. The people in the center of the state would have a harder time getting a gun and would spend more. Sure people on the border could still get it relatively easily, at least the people within are a bit safer.

Still, that's much better than doing nothing. We just need to establish a universal gun control sometime to get the full effect(which won't happen soon..).

[Gods_Mercenary]

and whats to stop Russian factories from pumping out AK's and selling them to arms smugglers who sell them here? Gun control works in europe because there isn't much of a demand for guns, but a ban while there is still a lot of demand tends to create artificial demand, if cigarettes were banned tomorrow, there'd be an outcry, but nobody'd go crazy, there might be a little black market, but there's not enough demand to drive a full blown industry, but if the ban was enacted back in the 70's, things would beuch different, since there was muc higher demand.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman That is an illogical argument.

What are you talking about... it is the DEFINITION of logic.

YOUR MAJOR PREMISE: Because we own firearms America has X number of defensive uses of firearms, therefore, more guns should equal less gun violence.

MINOR PREMISE: America already has more guns per household than any other nation

CONCLUSION: > by your logic < we should have the least gun violence of any nation.

REALITY: Not only do we not have the least gun violence, we are among the MOST violent.

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: More guns does NOT equal less violence. Adding guns may increase the number of defensive uses, but it also increases the amount of gun deaths, not to mention the 100,000+ gunshot injuries every year.

The number of defensive uses of firearms doesn't matter if it's outweighed by enough OFFENSIVE use to make Americans among the world's most gun violent.

Quote by: Apeman And how do we establish an America with fewer guns.

By getting Americans over the idea that owning guns is a 'Gawd given right' and getting them over their gun culture mythology.

Quote by: Apeman It has not worked in Washington D.C.

Since D.C. was already the nation's murder capital back in 1990, neither did not restricting them. However, unlike the rest of the nation, murder rates in DC have not only declined steadily since 1990 but, unlike the rest of the country, they have continued to decline throughout the Bush years. Washington DC is now about 18th in the nation, so I have to question your conclusion.

Besides, Washington's lingering problem is that criminals simply go across the border into Virginia, which is one of the easiest states in which to buy firearms.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Gun control works in europe because there isn't much of a demand for guns, but a ban while there is still a lot of demand tends to create artificial demand,

Then, as we did with cigarettes and drunk driving, we slowly reduce the demand by educating Americans and weaning them off their reckless and destructive love of guns.


.

[Apeman81]

Major Premise: Defensive use of firearms is an important factor in ascertaining the net effect of Individual ownership of firearms.

Minor Premise: Guns are used by intended victims to thwart crimes against them and those around them

Conclusion: The relationship of offensive to defensive use of firearms cannot be ignored when judging their net value.

Sonart’s conclusion: “Apeman, how many ways do I have to say it. IT... DOESN'T... MATTER! No matter HOW MANY times guns are used defensively” excerpt from post #461

It's easy to define another's position in a manner to your liking and then create a defense of earlier statements.

It's also boring

[Gods_Mercenary]

Then, as we did with cigarettes and drunk driving, we slowly reduce the demand by educating Americans and weaning them off their reckless and destructive love of guns.

Go do it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman It's easy to define another's position in a manner to your liking and then create a defense of earlier statements. It's also boring

Then stop doing it and simply explain why, if more guns means less gun violence, does America, which has the highest percentage of people owning guns, also have among the most gun violence?

Or how the number of gun defenses changes that? I mean obviously having a lot of gun defenses hasn't stopped us from having the most gun crimes either.

Your logic seems to be that we should allow more people to be killed and injured by guns than anyone else so that we can also have more opportunities to defend ourselves with guns.

Sorry, but I'd much prefer we make it harder for people to be killed and injured by gunfire and therefore less necessary to have to defend themselves with a gun. What's illogical about that?


.

[Apeman81]

"Then stop doing it and simply explain why, if more guns means less gun violence, does America, which has the highest percentage of people owning guns, also have among the most gun violence?"

I feel no need to explain an assertion I did make.

I asserted, and do so again, that firearms a) enable people to defend themselves against others, b) have a deterrent affect upon criminals, and c) are used far more often for legal purposes than illegal purposes.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman I feel no need to explain an assertion I did make.

It's not an assertion, it's a proven fact, and you won't explain it because you can't. If the country wasn't already awash in guns, we wouldn't need them for all those defenses, and even with all those defensive uses, Americans are still more likely to be a victim of a gun crime than in almost any other civilized country... in fact a greater likelyhood than in most countries combined!

.

[Hodge Podge]

Quote by: HelioPrime Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News I'm guessing this only sets a precedent now? So the gun ban opponents still will have to take the issue to the court. Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

Are you honestly that afraid of fire arms? Just like drugs, banning guns will not stop shit. I hate to sound like a NRA advocate but if they are illegal, only criminals will have them. Think man. This is a prime example of fascism thats plaguing America. Our right to bear arms is seriously being contested by some watch group. The few affecting the majority.

It's not an assertion, it's a proven fact, and you won't explain it because you can't. If the country wasn't already awash in guns, we wouldn't need them for all those defenses, and even with all those defensive uses, Americans are still more likely to be a victim of a gun crime than in almost any other civilized country... in fact a greater likelyhood than in most countries combined!

So what? What do those statistics amount to? Gun violence is not at the point were I would be willing to give up that freedom in an attempt to stop violence.

[Mick Jagger]

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.

--Heller v. D. C.

Scalia's a hoot. He said he was going to interpret the Second Amendment according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. Then he immediately proceeds to construe some of the words of the Amendment according to the use of the words in other sections of the Constitution.

What a bozo! If he's going to use context, he shouldn't tell us the was going to use the normal and ordinary meanings of the words.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Mick Jagger 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. --Heller v. D. C. Scalia's a hoot. He said he was going to interpret the Second Amendment according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. Then he immediately proceeds to construe some of the words of the Amendment according to the use of the words in other sections of the Constitution. What a bozo! If he's going to use context, he shouldn't tell us the was going to use the normal and ordinary meanings of the words.

Scalia's constitutionalist approach only works when it fits his agenda. He tosses it out when it doesn't. Was he the guy that held against the police having to identify themselves before barging into someones home! The know knock policy!

[Kamehameha34]

MINOR PREMISE: America already has more guns per household than any other nation

Correct.

CONCLUSION: > by your logic < we should have the least gun violence of any nation.

..If the amount of legal gun owners was the only variable affecting gun crime. Prove that it is or you have no case.

REALITY: Not only do we not have the least gun violence, we are among the MOST violent.

Correct.

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: More guns does NOT equal less violence.

Umm.. Are you sure you know this 'logic' stuff?

What you're basically saying is this:

X is Y.
X is Z.
Therefore, Y is Z.

If you think that's sound logic, then you have bigger problems than defending your opinion on a debate board.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct. ..If the amount of legal gun owners was the only variable affecting gun crime. Prove that it is or you have no case. Correct. Umm.. Are you sure you know this 'logic' stuff? What you're basically saying is this: X is Y. X is Z. Therefore, Y is Z. If you think that's sound logic, then you have bigger problems than defending your opinion on a debate board.

Well, mathematically, if X = Y and X =Z as well, then Y=Z

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Sonart LOGICAL CONCLUSION: More guns does NOT equal less violence.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, mathematically, if X = Y and X =Z as well, then Y=Z

It doesn't work that way in logic. I'll demonstrate.

X is Y (blue)
X is Z (a book)

It does not logically follow that all things that are blue would be books.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: HelioPrime Justices agree on right to own guns - Yahoo! News Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

Your first point is pie in the sky. If only we could all be rich, own a mansion and marry a beautiful blond.

Your second point is also off base. You have forgotten to consider that criminals commit crimes with guns and not law abiding citizens. In areas where guns are illegal most law abiding citizens don't own guns, because they obey the law and rely upon the police for protection. For your second premise to fit we'd have to magically vaporize all guns....won't happen, can't happen.

It's been proven in court that the cops do not have the responsibility to protect the citizens. Rather the people have the responsibility to protect themselves. Therefore, since the criminals are armed then why not the citzens? I mean, don't they deserve a fighting chance?