[Big Mac]

Regarding today's ruling released on the Chicago gun ban case (McDonald v. Chicago), it is deeply and utterly disturbing that none of the four dissenters had enough intellectual integrity to go with the majority in this case and recognize that the Second Amendment is indeed part of the Constitution and is indeed an individual right - as it clearly is. Pathetic. Another 5 to 4 decision that shows how tenuous our grasp on basic Constitutional liberties is in this country in 2010. If not for Bush getting the opportunity to appoint Roberts and Alito, the 2nd Amendment would have been defeated today.

The amazing thing is, though, the dissenting opinion had one of the most backward explanations of dissent from the majority that I've seen in quite a while. The argument of Steven's dissent was that gun ownership, while cherished by some people, was not in their view a right fundamental to the lives of American citizens in this modern age. That it was not "critical to leading a life of autonomy, dignity, or political equality." Through this opinion the four dissenters showed that they have no appreciation for the individual right of self-defense, nor do they recognize that regions with strong gun control have very high amounts of crime, nor do they recognize the value of individual firearm ownership to the security of free states.

But most of all, they reject a fundamental aspect of the Constitution: It's not the purview of any justice, or the Court in general, or Congress to erase from the Constitution those rights and liberties they don't view as fundamental or relevant to Americans. Nor is it their purview to bestow new rights. Courts are not legislatures, and even Congress as the highest legislature of the land does not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution. They may only rule whether or not what governments do pursuant to the Constitution are permissible or impermissible. The Constitution was established as a contract with the citizenry, and it may only be altered at the fundamental level not by judicial or legislative fiat but by the formal amendment process set forth by the Constitution. The four dissenting justices are unfit to sit on the SCOTUS because either they lack minimal intellectual qualifications to understand Constitutional law, or they choose to willfully disregard it. While the former is inexcusable, the latter is even worse than the former - and the latter reason was responsible for the dissent in this case. Inexcusable.

[tightsocks]

Bazookas for the Blind!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The amazing thing is, though, the dissenting opinion had one of the most backward explanations of dissent from the majority that I've seen in quite a while. The argument of Steven's dissent was that gun ownership, while cherished by some people, was not in their view a right fundamental to the lives of American citizens in this modern age. That it was not "critical to leading a life of autonomy, dignity, or political equality." Through this opinion the four dissenters showed that they have no appreciation for the individual right of self-defense, nor do they recognize that regions with strong gun control have very high amounts of crime, nor do they recognize the value of individual firearm ownership to the security of free states.

Well, I agree with the result of the decision, but I have to say I agree with the rationale of the dissent.

We aren't directly guaranteed the right of self-defense, and while the Second Amendment isn't the most explicit thing in the Constitution, it's pretty explicitly not about self-defense.

[Wiskedjak]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does that even mean?

[subego]

You cannot have a free state without a well regulated militia.

You cannot have a well regulated militia if its consituents (the People) cannot bear arms.

Therefore, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does that even mean?

It means that the government is less capable of tyranny with an armed citizenry or... what subego said.

[Wiskedjak]

So, what is a "well regulated militia"? Do you have any examples?

[ort888]

I'm pretty sure the original intent of the law was to ensure that the general populace would be able to stand up to the government if they felt the need.

Since the government currently has things like Predator Drones and Tanks, I think that in the spirit of the constitution we should all be allowed to own these things.

And since it has also been determined by the highest court in the land that corporations have all of the rights and protections that citizens do, I think that they should be allowed to start arming themselves.

I also think that now would be a good time to choose sides in the great Pepsi/Coke war of 2021.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what is a "well regulated militia"? Do you have any examples?

In the idiom of the late 1700s, "well regulated" meant "well trained." The "militia" at that time was basically armed citizens. How can one be well trained in the use of arms if one is forbidden to "keep and bear arms?"

So much fuss has been made about how, in later years, "militia" came to be used to describe a formalized, government sponsored organization. But during the Revolutionary War, the Minutemen (and frankly a whole lot of other folks) were the militia.

And basically ebuddy has it right. Jefferson, Adams, and others came out publicly stating that the right to be armed was the right to keep government in check.

I'd like to point out that the current 2nd Amendment is not the second one offered. That one, offered on the same day as the other First Ten, was finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. It prohibits laws affecting Congressional pay from going into effect until the beginning of the next session-basically putting Congress on a voter-controlled salary.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In the idiom of the late 1700s, "well regulated" meant "well trained." The "militia" at that time was basically armed citizens. How can one be well trained in the use of arms if one is forbidden to "keep and bear arms?"

So, I completely get and agree with that. But, I have two questions:
- How many well trained militias are there in the US?
- What percentage of gun owners in the US are part of a well trained militia ... or are even just well trained?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And basically ebuddy has it right. Jefferson, Adams, and others came out publicly stating that the right to be armed was the right to keep government in check.

Is it possible the the well trained militias in the US to keep the government in check?

[OldManMac]

Hold the roof up; I agree with Big Mac! (and I'm generally, although incorrectly at times, regarded as one of those pesky liberals)

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what is a "well regulated militia"? Do you have any examples?

The MacNN militia.

Seriously though, "regulated" is using the "to bring order or method" meaning in this context, in contrast with a mob. So, many groups that call themselves militias would qualify. Sadly, even some of the kooky ones.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

You cannot have a free state without a well regulated militia.

You haven't learned yet the 18th Century meaning of "well-regulated." It meant internally organized. There was a great post on the subject on Slashdot recently that I have to dig up and post here because I saved it. And the definition of militia was all free adults. Furthermore, the militia clause is an introductory, non-limiting clause. Although the founders clearly wanted to recognize independent citizen militias through the introductory dependent clause, the independent clause that follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands on its own. If they had intended to limit gun ownership to just organized state militias, the text would have read more like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in service to well regulated state militias shall not be infringed." It doesn't say that.

And regardless of that, I still don't see how you support the dissent, subego. The argument that Stevens makes is not about the technical aspects of the 2nd Amendment, such as interpretation of the militia clause. Instead, his chief argument is that the SCOTUS should be able to decide at any time by judicial fiat which rights contained within the Constitution are fundamental and thus deserving of protection and which rights are dispensable. That is about the most grevious attack on the Constitution ever committed by the Court in my estimation. And to me that makes Stevens and his cohorts, Sotomayor (look how fair of a jurist she turns out to be ), Bryer and Ginsburg guilty of the high crime of treason against the Constitution.

[subego]

Huh?

[chabig]

While the first part of the amendment (explaining the rationale) is nice, the second part, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is abundantly clear and would stand alone without the first.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You haven't learned yet the 18th Century meaning of "well-regulated." It meant internally organized. There was a great post on the subject on Slashdot recently that I have to dig up and post here because I saved it. And the definition of militia was all free adults. The militia clause is an introductory, non-limiting clause. Although the founders clearly wanted to recognize independent citizen militias, the independent clause that follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands on its own.

Ummm... That's what I said in the post right above yours about the meaning of well regulated, and I never said that clause limited the right to bear arms.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

While the first part of the amendment (explaining the rationale) is nice, the second part, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is abundantly clear and would stand alone without the first.

I think that's a convenient cop-out given that the first part appears to be the part that ends up being the most subject to interpretation and thus a topic of debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And regardless of that, I still don't see how you support the dissent, subego. The argument that Stevens makes is not about the technical aspects of the 2nd Amendment, such as interpretation of the militia clause. Instead, his chief argument is that the SCOTUS should be able to decide at any time by judicial fiat which rights contained within the Constitution are fundamental and thus deserving of protection and which rights are dispensable. That is about the most grevious attack on the Constitution ever committed by the Court. And to me that makes Stevens and his cohorts, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg guilty of the high crime of treason against the Constitution.

Just what I said in my OP.

The Second Amendment is about keeping the government in check, it has nothing to do with self-defense. The majority opinion that we have a fundamental right to self-defense is IMO incorrect, at least from a constitutional standpoint.

I mean, it says right in the amendment what we have a fundamental right to.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, I completely get and agree with that. But, I have two questions:
- How many well trained militias are there in the US?
- What percentage of gun owners in the US are part of a well trained militia ... or are even just well trained?

Is it possible the the well trained militias in the US to keep the government in check?

You miss my primary point-"in the idiom of the late 1700s." They used terse wording to indicate that it was to the benefit of the public for the public to be (at least potentially) armed. And both Jefferson and Adams were on record as being more interested in the individual citizen than any formally organized group being armed. It was not any formal organization that resisted the British Army by force of arms in the earliest days of the Revolution, but rather spontaneous volunteers, and this is what the two statesmen, especially Jefferson, were most in favor of. Remember, the Crown was the lawful government at the time of the revolution...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just what I said in my OP.

The Second Amendment is about keeping the government in check, it has nothing to do with self-defense. The majority opinion that we have a fundamental right to self-defense is IMO incorrect, at least from a constitutional standpoint.

I mean, it says right in the amendment what we have a fundamental right to.

We agree here in certain respects and disagree in others. There is a fundamental right to self-defense recognized by the founders, well attested to in their writings and made sufficiently clear in the 2nd Amendment. Certainly the militia clause complicates the matter because its archaic language and construction invites misinterpretation (including malicious, willful misconstruction), but the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not a restricted right and is a right that includes the right to firearm-based personal self-defense of citizens. Americans were natural gun-owners in the era of the ratification, and firearms for hunting and self-defense were as core to society as personal automobile ownership is to most Americans in contemporary times. The revolutionary war was fought by citizen soldiers after all, not a professional standing army. They didn't have to spell out self-defense as a feature of the 2nd Amendment because it was self-evident and contained within the independent clause of the 2nd Amendment.

However, to the extent we agree, I'm still confused why you said you understood the rationale of the dissent. I haven't read the full dissent yet, but the main argument it offers is indefensible.

[Wiskedjak]

So, it seems clear that the intent was for the citizenship to be empowered to keep the government from becoming corrupt and oppressive. That makes sense. I even appreciate that the original intent has since been reinterpreted to include self-protection from people who aren't the government. But, I find two things problematic:

1. The "well regulated militia" bit seems to suggest (not dictated, mind you) that they wanted those who possessed guns would be well trained and responsible with their weapons. Can that be said to be the case for most gun owners today?

2. The original intent was for the citizenship to be armed so as to keep the government in check. Is that even possible today with the weapons that regular citizens have at their disposal? The 1700's comparison would be that the revolutionaries only had knives compared with the government's guns.

It seems to me that, in order to preserve the original intent, the citizenship should be allowed to have access to access to some more powerful weaponry. That today's government doesn't allow this (usually in the name of National Security) suggests that all you currently have is an illusion of the 2nd Amendment ... knives to the government's guns.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

2. The original intent was for the citizenship to be armed so as to keep the government in check. Is that even possible today with the weapons that regular citizens have at their disposal? The 1700's comparison would be that the revolutionaries only had knives compared with the government's guns.

Sure. In this analogy, the revolutionaries would outnumber the government by at least 10:1, and they'd be frickin' everywhere.

Also remember, the revolutionaries don't have to beat the government to win, they just have to make it not worthwhile for them.

[Big Mac]

It's so fascinating to me that Sotomayor, who was sold as an eminently fair, highly intellectual judge by the left, has yet to show any independence whatsoever from the left-wing voting bloc on the Court. What a filthy, lying scoundrel. We can feel secure in the expectation that Kagan will be no different.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sure. In this analogy, the revolutionaries would outnumber the government by at least 10:1, and they'd be frickin' everywhere.

Sure, but really, how many private citizens would be fighting? And, how many of those would pose any kind of threat against tanks, jet fighters, artillery, carpet bombing and tactical nukes? I think it's a pipe dream to imagine that an armed citizenship could take down the US government.

[Big Mac]

No, it's not a pipe dream Wiskedjak, but that's a common and understandable objection. First of all, if a tyrant came into power and ordered the US military to occupy US cities and blatantly violate the rights of Americans, there would be a significant portion of the military that would refuse to carry out those orders. American troops, we hope, wouldn't be very happy turning their guns on the American population in a war-like situation. Secondly, if you wonder about the efficacy of ragtag fighters going up against the strongest military in the world, just look at Afghanistan. Obama has been saying since the campaign that we need to take the momentum back from the Taliban. If a relatively small Taliban/Al Qaeda fighting force can take the coalition forces on and gain/maintain the momentum in that fight, then millions of gun-toting Americans would theoretically be a mighty opposition force as well.

[hyteckit]

I demand grenades and bazookas.

What crappy militia doesn't have grenades and bazookas.

[besson3c]

This so called tyrant that would invade America seems like a pretty remote possibility, no?

I mean, in order to do stuff he would need to be funded by Congress, in order to do that he would need support from Congress and the American people, since congressmen and women generally like being re-elected. If he had support this would mean that our Democracy was working, and that some population of people supported these actions enough that the classification of "tyrant" would be debatable, and as such it would be better to vote the president out during the next election.

There are enough checks and balances that I'm not worried about this so-called takeover. To me the better argument for having the right to bear arms that applies to modern society relates to self defense and our civil liberties. However, I'm for restraints on these rights in certain cases too.

Cue lecture about how I hate the Constitution, am a dirty Canadian, whatever else...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This so called tyrant that would invade America seems like a pretty remote possibility, no?

I didn't say invade. Most tyrants come to power through democratic avenues. It's not likely to ever happen, but I think one important reason why it's not likely is because the citizenry has the Bill of Rights including the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

I mean, in order to do stuff he would need to be funded by Congress, in order to do that he would need support from Congress and the American people, since congressmen and women generally like being re-elected. If he had support this would mean that our Democracy was working, and that some population of people supported these actions enough that the classification of "tyrant" would be debatable, and as such it would be better to vote the president out during the next election.

All of what you said reads as quite reasonable, but in response I would say:

1. We've seen with the Obama Administration particularly massive bills passed with very little debate by narrow Democratic majorities. The 2,000+ page Obamacare legislation was pushed through with not only a lack of debate or consensus but with most Democrats never having read the bill. The administration was embarrassed after the passage of the bill because promises made by Democratic leaders and the president about the details of the legislation were explicitly violated by the text - this was disclosed weeks after the legislation was signed into law. The Dems had no compunction about going against all the public opinion polls that showed clear majorities against Obamacare.

2. Congressional incumbents are very powerful. They're usually guaranteed reelection. Neither the White House nor the Democratic Congress seem to care that much about what the people think, except perhaps a bit in the months preceding an election. Clearly the Democrats have underestimated voter outrage over the Pelosi-Reed-Obama agenda running roughshod over the will of the people. Voter outrage at health care town halls last year fell on Dem. deaf ears. If you followed the primaries you saw that many incumbents who were certain of victory were astonished to have been defeated. They underestimated voter dissatisfaction and stayed the course without fearing their own ouster because incumbents are usually safe.

3. The narrow 5 to 4 decision affirming the 2nd Amendment today, in which the dissenters didn't even try to make a Constitutional or legalistic argument, shows just how delicate the balance is in favor of protecting explicit Constitutional rights. To reiterate, the dissenters signed on to a dissent that rejected the majority's ruling specifically because those four justices hate gun rights. If the dissenters had possessed one additional vote, they would have been able to obliterate one of the ten essential Rights of the Bill of Rights. We narrowly avoided a major encroachment of tyranny today - tyranny doesn't necessarily have to emanate only from the executive branch.

4. Barack Obama campaigned as a moderate but has shown himself to be strongly left-wing. A lot of voters were asleep at the switch, duped by his flowery rhetoric and charismatic image. The electorate can be fooled, and a lot can happen in 4 or possibly 8 years.

There are enough checks and balances that I'm not worried about this so-called takeover. To me the better argument for having the right to bear arms that applies to modern society relates to self defense and our civil liberties.

You're correct to the extent that justifications based on self-defense and liberty are stronger arguments. But an armed citizenry as a final check against government tyranny is not an invalid argument, either. And I wouldn't be so sure that tyrannical government can't exist in the United States. Some would argue a soft tyranny has been growing here for a long time.

[besson3c]

You saw my reasonable and raised it with comparisons of Obama being a tyrant. Nicely done!

You're truly fascinating to me.

[Big Mac]

I never said Obama is a tyrant. At this stage I wouldn't characterize him as one. Just yet. But he's certainly not the moderate, post-partisan president he campaigned as, and he's the type of charismatic figure who could turn in the direction of hard tyranny if he wished. Moreover, a number of voices on the left have called for him to act as a dictator (see this article on Ed Shultz's call for an Obama dictatorship or this article on Woody Allen's call for an Obama dictatorship)

[besson3c]

So? What does this have to do with the conversation and the 2nd amendment being a safeguard against government tyranny? If a tyrant in office is a remote possibility as you agree with, Obama is not a tyrant and has shown little to believe that he is plotting to be one, why are you worried about a freaking Woody Allen article? Why is this even worth mentioning?

[Big Mac]

There's no conservative you can find anywhere who wanted Bush to assume dictatorial powers. That's one of the differences I want to highlight. And we're talking about tyranny, so I decided it was relevant to bring up.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And yet, this "left wing bloc" man with "minimal intellectual qualifications" to be a SCOTUS judge has been probably the strongest judicial force upholding free speech on the internet, DRM-free electronics, a lack of patent protection, and all these other phenonenas that you claim are being destroyed by "monopolistic, Socialistic and Fascistic forces."


I'd ask you "so which is it?" . . . but your head might explode

[BadKosh]

The 'well regulated militia' still needs the guts to get up out of their easy chairs, grab their weapons and go after the tyrants.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, it seems clear that the intent was for the citizenship to be empowered to keep the government from becoming corrupt and oppressive. That makes sense. I even appreciate that the original intent has since been reinterpreted to include self-protection from people who aren't the government. But, I find two things problematic:

1. The "well regulated militia" bit seems to suggest (not dictated, mind you) that they wanted those who possessed guns would be well trained and responsible with their weapons. Can that be said to be the case for most gun owners today?

2. The original intent was for the citizenship to be armed so as to keep the government in check. Is that even possible today with the weapons that regular citizens have at their disposal? The 1700's comparison would be that the revolutionaries only had knives compared with the government's guns.

It seems to me that, in order to preserve the original intent, the citizenship should be allowed to have access to access to some more powerful weaponry. That today's government doesn't allow this (usually in the name of National Security) suggests that all you currently have is an illusion of the 2nd Amendment ... knives to the government's guns.

1. Yes, I believe that most gun owners are far more responsible with their guns than say car owners are with their cars. And even the least trained gun owner has a lot of people watching him every time he goes to the range, "encouraging" him/her to behave safely and responsibly.

2. You underestimate the abilities of the common man and overestimate those of the government. Actually, that "more powerful weaponry" of which you speak has been seriously controlled in the name of crime prevention since 1934. It is still legal to own a machinegun*, but one has to have a LOT of money (prices are in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars), plus obtain the cooperation of the local chief law enforcement officer (and pay a tax as well). I know people who own machineguns for the simple and express purpose of "having fun at the range," i.e. causing cans to dance at 50 yards.

*in most states. Some states ban such weapons but provide "affirmative defense against prosecution" if the weapon is properly registered with the federal government-Texas is such a state.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The 'well regulated militia' still needs the guts to get up out of their easy chairs, grab their weapons and go after the tyrants.

I suspect you're going to get a Rob-esque visit from the tyrants very soon if you keep it up

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, it's not a pipe dream Wiskedjak, but that's a common and understandable objection. First of all, if a tyrant came into power and ordered the US military to occupy US cities and blatantly violate the rights of Americans, there would be a significant portion of the military that would refuse to carry out those orders.

Ya, that occurred to me as I was writing the post, but I still wanted to see the answer. It would be a nasty fight, but it wouldn't be a slaughter. The one thing that would tip the balance in favor of the tyrant would be America's nuclear arsenal, thought even a tyrant would have to question their usefulness ... not much to be a tyrant over if you hit enough of your country with nukes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You saw my reasonable and raised it with comparisons of Obama being a tyrant. Nicely done!

I'm kinda with Big Mac in this. Not specifically about Obama, but that there has been a discouraging lack of debate in a lot of democracies of late as bills granting more governmental power get shoved through.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's no conservative you can find anywhere who wanted Bush to assume dictatorial powers.

I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that I saw a lot of people wishing any opposition to conservative thought would just go away. I'm fairly certain that a bunch of people wouldn't have argued against Bush taking more power if at first it meant squashing the Left Agenda.

I think both sides have enough people that, given the right reasons, wouldn't be opposed to their chosen leader taking over. And that's a little bit scary if someone could find a reason that appealed to be across a few political spectrums.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm kinda with Big Mac in this. Not specifically about Obama, but that there has been a discouraging lack of debate in a lot of democracies of late as bills granting more governmental power get shoved through.

That's because they're being shoved through under the guise of "protecting against teh terrorists."

We've had this debate here. The Usual Suspects have explicitly stated that they don't mind giving up power in those circumstances, because it only affects the rights of others and not themselves.

Some might call that view "shortsighted". I myself might call it "harnessing the power of stupid." But we all have our differing viewpoints.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's no conservative you can find anywhere who wanted Bush to assume dictatorial powers.

Center for Security Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conservative Group Calls for Bush Dictatorship

Originally Posted by Philip Atkinson

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable -- for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands...

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure, but really, how many private citizens would be fighting? And, how many of those would pose any kind of threat against tanks, jet fighters, artillery, carpet bombing and tactical nukes? I think it's a pipe dream to imagine that an armed citizenship could take down the US government.

Well, I said 10:1. The total armed forces at the moment is a bit under 1.5 million, so 15 million. About 5% of the population would have to be combatants for my prediction to be accurate.

As as been mentioned though, desertion would skyrocket.

[dcmacdaddy]

How is this any different than the Heller case decided last year by the Supreme Court? Shouldn't Heller have been a prima facie invalidation of this case?



As for all the concern about gun rights I will just say this: We hear a lot of talk about the right to own guns but very little talk about the corresponding responsibility that comes with gun ownership. Why is that?

[The Final Dakar]

Because there's no laws about the second part of your statement?

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

How is this any different than the Heller case decided last year by the Supreme Court? Shouldn't Heller have been a prima facie invalidation of this case?

From what I understand, it's based purely on D.C. being a federal district and not a state. Now it's been incorporated for the states.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

From what I understand, it's based purely on D.C. being a federal district and not a state. Now it's been incorporated for the states.

Ahh, that makes sense. hanks for the insight/comment.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

How is this any different than the Heller case decided last year by the Supreme Court? Shouldn't Heller have been a prima facie invalidation of this case?

The Heller case concerned gun rights in federal enclaves, such as Washington D. C. This case extends to individuals in states and local municipalities.

As for all the concern about gun rights I will just say this: We hear a lot of talk about the right to own guns but very little talk about the corresponding responsibility that comes with gun ownership. Why is that?

The NRA and others do a fine job of promoting gun safety and responsibility. You might not hear about it if you're not into guns, which is one of the problems. Groups such as the Brady bunch spew a bunch of lies and false statistics and make sure to highlight the uncommon instances where people are killed or injured through careless gun use. In order to get a Concealed Pistol License, I had to take a gun safety and training course. Just as with any other instrument that's capable of killing or injuring people, such as vehicles, the majority of people are at least cognizant of basic safety procedures and practice them at some level. It's not the instrument; it's the person using it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Just as with any other instrument that's capable of killing or injuring people, such as vehicles,

This is a good point. You could probably kill more people in less time with a car than with an average gun.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, in order to do stuff he would need to be funded by Congress, in order to do that he would need support from Congress and the American people, since congressmen and women generally like being re-elected. If he had support this would mean that our Democracy was working, and that some population of people supported these actions enough that the classification of "tyrant" would be debatable, and as such it would be better to vote the president out during the next election.

Or, you know, they could just declare martial law.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The NRA and others do a fine job of promoting gun safety and responsibility. You might not hear about it if you're not into guns, which is one of the problems.

I know all about the NRA's gun safety programs. They are quite impressive in their variety of offerings and the breadth of firearms they cover. But what I am getting at is people's attitudes regarding the responsibility of firearm ownership.

When someone uses a firearm carelessly or in a criminal fashion we get little to no talk from the gun-owning public about the shortcomings of gun ownership, why is that? Why is there so little ability to be self-critical when it comes to gun ownership? Why is there so little expressed desire within the gun-owning community to be critical of those within the gun-owning community who do not own/use firearms in a safe and responsible manner?

When someone leaves a gun unsecured in their home and a child takes the gun and shoots itself or someone else with it, we never see calls to have that irresponsible gun owner lose their ability to own guns? Why not? Does a responsible gun owner look at that scenario and say, this person should continue to be able to own guns even though they have displayed a careless disregard for what constitutes responsible gun ownership? Why does the NRA not come out and say that people who carelessly store firearms in their homes should be restricted in their ability to own firearms?


TL;DR
Why do the responsible members of the gun owning/using community not work to actively weed out from their midst the irresponsible gun owners/users?