Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > DC gun ban repealed?

DC gun ban repealed?
Thread Tools
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2007, 08:36 PM
 
Woah, did Hell freeze over?
I can't find ANYTHING on the news on it.

I believe this is the 75 page document outlining it.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Sky Captain  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2007, 08:37 PM
 
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2007, 09:19 PM
 
Wow. NICE. Appears to be a strong affirmation of the Second Amendment. We need more judges like that nation wide.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2007, 09:39 PM
 
AP had it over 3 hours before your post... BREITBART.COM - Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:52 AM
 
So what? A failed experiment is being discarded, just as it should be. If anything is remarkable about it, it's only the fact that we don't jettison failed experiments often enough and so this is becoming the exception.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
kobi
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 02:23 AM
 
It's a sad day for the Constitution.

Unfortunately this won't be repealed anytime soon, and how many lives are going to be lost in the process??

I wonder how big that judges payoff from the NRA/KKK was?

The founding fathers would be ashamed.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 03:42 AM
 
Kobi,
I'm afraid I don't understand.

You say that the founding fathers would be ashamed, and that this is a sad day for the Constitution.

But the judges affirmed the Constitution and cited the founding fathers. The judges stood up for the 2nd Amendment.

Why is this a sad day for the Constitution, and why would the founding fathers be sad?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 09:39 AM
 
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
It's a sad day for the Constitution.
...what, because a violation of the Second Amendment has been corrected? It seems to me that this is a good day for the Constitution, perhaps the first in quite a while.
...and how many lives are going to be lost in the process??
Given that DC's murder rate climbed to one of the highest in the country during the time when guns were banned, I fail to see how things could get worse.
I wonder how big that judges payoff from the NRA/KKK was?
Interesting that you associate the NRA with the KKK. What possible connection could be drawn between these groups?
The founding fathers would be ashamed.
They'd be ecstatic.
( Last edited by Millennium; Mar 11, 2007 at 07:39 PM. )
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 03:18 PM
 
Kobi is just trolling.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
If anything is remarkable about it, it's only the fact that we don't jettison failed experiments often enough and so this is becoming the exception.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. This is an important ruling because we haven't been doing the right thing in so many cases; the Constitution has been largely marginalized for the last 70 or so years. Rarely does a Circuit Court of Appeals use the Second Amendment as a basis for a ruling, and there's a slim chance this could end up being affirmed by the USSC, which would be a huge and unprecedented victory.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Sky Captain  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 06:29 PM
 
New York and Chicago should fall next.
did our part In fact, my brother and I did our part to tell Michael Bloomberg to go pound sand this weekend.
I bough an AR15-SP1 and he bought an Uberti 1866 lever action rifle from:
ADVENTURE OUTDOORS.

Bloomberg, you are an crook. Your cronies are under investigation.
I hope they implicate YOU in straw purchases.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 06:26 PM
 
As long as there is unrestricted and unlicensed access to longarms for non-felons (which seems to me to be the point of the 2nd Amendment), I don't see what the problem is in regulating other arms in an urban enviroment.

If you need to protect your home, or be part of the militia, what you need is a longarm. No one given the choice (who knows what they are talking about) would choose a handgun over a longarm for personal defense or militia duty. You need a handgun for portable emergency defense. This essentially means concealed carry, which I think everyone agrees is not in the Constitution and should be regulated.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 06:46 PM
 
How is a a longarm best suited to home defense? When defending your home from an intruder you're liable (depending on the layout of your home) to be operating in close quarters where maneuvering with, and aiming a rifle will be difficult. Additionally, if you're using high powered rounds they're much more likely to penetrate through the walls potentially injuring or even killing other in the home (like your children, your spouse, or your neighbors). A low-caliber handgun or a short-barreled shotgun with light shot are best suited for operating in a confined space and wanting to minimize collateral damage. The other alternative is non-lethals, but there are obvious arguments against that.

As for regulating portable defense, how does that make sense? You somehow lose your right to defend yourself the minute you step outside your home? What if, as recently happened, you're in a mall and some asshole pulls out a gun and starts shooting people? Someone who's carrying might be able to save lives and neutralize the assailant. Anyone else is just a potential target.
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 07:01 PM
 
I just have to say, I'm amazed at the level of support for this decision in this forum. Almost every Mac/Technology forum I visit is heavily anti gun. Hurray for the good guys, we've made a lot of progress in the last few years. Don't think this one is done for a second though. The Dems will try to bring this up as soon as they're done with their Iraq witch hunt. Hopefully the Republicans will still have a spine when they do. I fully expect they'll have totally lost it by that point though.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
How is a a longarm best suited to home defense?

Shotgun = longarm

Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
As for regulating portable defense

I said regulate concealed carry, which is what portable defense outside your home is. Inside your home, your defense does not need to be portable.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Shotgun = longarm
That's why I specified a short barreled shotgun, such as these: http://www.remington.com/tactical/tactical_shotguns.asp

My point wasn't the technical category of the gun, but the fact that a long barrel is not well suited to indoor, tactical shooting where you have to deal with narrow hallways and doorways, and possibly close quarters action.

I said regulate concealed carry, which is what portable defense outside your home is. Inside your home, your defense does not need to be portable.
Concealed carry and portable defense are not the same thing. You can carry a gun without concealing it...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
That's why I specified a short barreled shotgun, such as these: Remington Tactical Shotguns

My point wasn't the technical category of the gun, but the fact that a long barrel is not well suited to indoor, tactical shooting where you have to deal with narrow hallways and doorways, and possibly close quarters action.

My point is the technical category of the gun. For personal defense in the home you want a shotgun. Period. A shotgun is a longarm, hence restricting handguns does not restrict your ability to defend your home, if anything, it prompts you to make a more suitable choice.


Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Concealed carry and portable defense are not the same thing. You can carry a gun without concealing it...

When people actually start doing that, then the argument of restricting them in urban areas can be reopened. Fair enough?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 10:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
So what? A failed experiment is being discarded, just as it should be. If anything is remarkable about it, it's only the fact that we don't jettison failed experiments often enough and so this is becoming the exception.
The amazing part is that a court finally got to hear any challenge to this stupid and obviously ineffective "experiment." It's about time the citizens of our capital got to enjoy the benefits of the Constitutional guarantees many of the rest of us (not ALL by a long ways) have enjoyed since 1781,

Originally Posted by kobi View Post
It's a sad day for the Constitution.

Unfortunately this won't be repealed anytime soon, and how many lives are going to be lost in the process??

I wonder how big that judges payoff from the NRA/KKK was?

The founding fathers would be ashamed.
While your reply is not unexpected, it is off target. EVERY other of the original ten amendments is held to be about INDIVIDUAL rights, so why is the Second Amendment not? And I hate to be the one to tell you, but people die in DC all the time-because bad guys don't see any deterrent in a police force that doesn't work, and that courts have said are not responsible for protecting individuals against crime anyway. Your last sentence is libelous at least, and rude at best. Further, it was a panel of three judges, not a single judge, and if I'm not mistaken, a fair number of that circuit was appointed by Mr. Clinton... Makes you wonder.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My point is the technical category of the gun. For personal defense in the home you want a shotgun. Period. A shotgun is a longarm, hence restricting handguns does not restrict your ability to defend your home, if anything, it prompts you to make a more suitable choice.
Ok, so a shotgun is technically a longarm. That does not change the fact that a handgun is better suited to indoors, short range, tactical use than a hunting rifle with a 24" barrel. I agree with you that a shotgun is a better choice (and once I get my Massachusetts FID, I intend to get one), but there are worse things than a handgun for home defense.

When people actually start doing that, then the argument of restricting them in urban areas can be reopened. Fair enough?
So you're saying that it should make a difference (legally) if the gun is concealed or unconcealed? I would say that concealed is better, because then the people who don't carry a gun are still safer as would-be assailants don't know that they don't have a gun.

Although if we were to start carrying handguns openly, I might just have to get one of these:
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2007, 10:53 PM
 
You do forget that guns are not just for home protection. Its also for the idea of protecting ourselves from the government, and for situations in which the government cannot protect us (such as overwhelming foreign invasion, defecting branches of our own, etc etc).

We should never fully trust our fates to the government.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Ok, so a shotgun is technically a longarm. That does not change the fact that a handgun is better suited to indoors, short range, tactical use than a hunting rifle with a 24" barrel. I agree with you that a shotgun is a better choice (and once I get my Massachusetts FID, I intend to get one), but there are worse things than a handgun for home defense.

As I said in my OP, I don't think you should need any license for a longarm. I think if the government has a list of who has the longarms, it makes said longarms less of a deterrent to the government, which is what they are intended to do. This means "assault" rifles too, as well as the biggest pre-ban banana clip you can find.

Full auto should probably stay where it is though. I want people to learn to aim.


Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So you're saying that it should make a difference (legally) if the gun is concealed or unconcealed? I would say that concealed is better, because then the people who don't carry a gun are still safer as would-be assailants don't know that they don't have a gun.

Absolutely. That's why I'm comfortable with the longarms. Whatever their configuration, their lack of concealability (and being impractical in certain tight quarters, like a car) make them far less suited to nefarious activity.

Note also that I'm only talking about urban environments. It seems reasonable to have to prove to the powers that be some necessity to possess and carry a handgun, and because of the massive potential for abuse, have the things registered and do ballistics on them. What they have in D.C. though, where you can't bring any new guns into the system, is ridiculous and arbitrary.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 08:52 AM
 
Add one point for the good guys.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I said in my OP, I don't think you should need any license for a longarm. I think if the government has a list of who has the longarms, it makes said longarms less of a deterrent to the government, which is what they are intended to do. This means "assault" rifles too, as well as the biggest pre-ban banana clip you can find.

Full auto should probably stay where it is though. I want people to learn to aim.
I'm in complete agreement with you on that, then.

Absolutely. That's why I'm comfortable with the longarms. Whatever their configuration, their lack of concealability (and being impractical in certain tight quarters, like a car) make them far less suited to nefarious activity.

Note also that I'm only talking about urban environments. It seems reasonable to have to prove to the powers that be some necessity to possess and carry a handgun, and because of the massive potential for abuse, have the things registered and do ballistics on them. What they have in D.C. though, where you can't bring any new guns into the system, is ridiculous and arbitrary.
I don't think it should be necessary at all to prove necessity to possess and carry. The right to defend your life is necessity enough, and you don't need to prove you have that. As for registering and licensing, while I understand the reasoning, I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I'm totally fine with background checks, and therefore waiting periods, as I do not believe that people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to purchase guns (though obviously they still can, but let's not make it any easier than it has to be). But as soon we introduce licensing we're basically saying that we do not have the right to defend ourselves in public, we merely have the privilege to do so at the whim of some bureaucrat.

At the same time, I also think that it's important that gun owners know how to own and use a gun responsibly. Especially in densely populated urban environments, there's a lot of risk involved when an untrained person gets their hands on a gun. The question, I suppose, is am I more at risk from an untrained but legal gun owner or from a criminal with an illegal gun.

I really don't know how to balance these competing needs, which, I suppose, is one of the strengths of democracy: it allows for discussion on these sorts of things and policy based on a compromise of multiple points of view. On the other hand, I do think that the basic 'presumption of innocence' in our legal system should apply here as well as the famous saying that it's better that 10 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be imprisoned. Is it better that 10 irresponsible people own guns than that 1 responsible person be deprived of them, or is it better that 10 responsible people be deprived of them than that 1 irresponsible person own them?
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 11:05 AM
 
I'd like to see it resolved by the Supreme Court. At this point, the Second Amendment effectively doesn't exist. I'm a "loose constructionist," so although the Second Amendment was intended for arming militias - which don't exist any more - as a citizen I of course hope my rights are interpreted as broadly as possible. The strict constructionist/original intent decision, though, is clearly to say that gun rights don't exist outside of the existence of militias. So let's hope the conservatives on the court are as unprincipled as I think they are, and reject that silly philosophy.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 11:45 AM
 
^Yes, the Supreme Court could clarify the whole militia thing, but I think, at base, the Supreme Court cannot resolve this issue. It is a broad-based societal disagreement, not a legal issue.
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 12:19 PM
 
No cries of judicial activism?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I'd like to see it resolved by the Supreme Court. At this point, the Second Amendment effectively doesn't exist. I'm a "loose constructionist," so although the Second Amendment was intended for arming militias - which don't exist any more - as a citizen I of course hope my rights are interpreted as broadly as possible. The strict constructionist/original intent decision, though, is clearly to say that gun rights don't exist outside of the existence of militias. So let's hope the conservatives on the court are as unprincipled as I think they are, and reject that silly philosophy.
The Second Amendment was for arming militias which don't exist anymore? Did you read smacintush's post of quotes by the founding fathers? There is still a militia, and the both of us are in it. Every citizen of the United States is a member of the militia. It is our duty to protect ourselves, our countrymen, our constitution from those that would harm them, even, or possibly especially, if those enemies are within our own government. That's why it is essential the the Second Amendment be viewed as an individual and sacrosanct right. The goal behind gun control may be to protect us from ourselves, but the goal behind the Second Amendment is to protect us from our government, and I don't know about you, but I'd consider the government to be a lot more dangerous than an armed citizenry.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timo View Post
^Yes, the Supreme Court could clarify the whole militia thing, but I think, at base, the Supreme Court cannot resolve this issue. It is a broad-based societal disagreement, not a legal issue.

I'd say there was broad-based societal disagreement about all our civil-rights. The people who are truly interested in supporting them are a marked minority.

Of course, the gun issue is different, because it causes a bunch of people to flip sides.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
The Second Amendment was for arming militias which don't exist anymore? Did you read smacintush's post of quotes by the founding fathers? There is still a militia, and the both of us are in it. Every citizen of the United States is a member of the militia. It is our duty to protect ourselves, our countrymen, our constitution from those that would harm them, even, or possibly especially, if those enemies are within our own government. That's why it is essential the the Second Amendment be viewed as an individual and sacrosanct right. The goal behind gun control may be to protect us from ourselves, but the goal behind the Second Amendment is to protect us from our government, and I don't know about you, but I'd consider the government to be a lot more dangerous than an armed citizenry.
Of course militias don't exist any more. The intent of the militia is very clear - to be a citizen army, where we bring our own guns to the battlefield. Yes, it was to act as a counterweight to the standing army of the federal government. But it couldn't be more clear that that argument has absolutely vanished, ever since we got the largest and most powerful standing army in the history of the world. And unless citizens start using satellite-guided missiles and nukes, that fact is not likely to ever change.

My point is that the type of constitutional interpretation that conservatives say they want -a strict constructionist interpretation - would, if applied consistently, take away this right. As a liberal, I want our rights interpreted as broadly as possible: Privacy, penumbras, emanations, the whole deal, all the things that conservatives complain about. I'm willing to disregard the clear original intent of the amendment in favor of a loose construal. I just hope that conservatives who otherwise are so willing to read individual liberties as narrowly as possible through strict constructionism (e.g., privacy, sexual behavior, abortion, free speech, rights of defendants, etc. etc.) won't apply this "loose constructionism" only to gun rights.

And I don't care what those quotes say because anyone can grab quotes off the intarweb. I for one don't believe for a second that Thomas Jefferson actually said that first quote. The author of the Declaration of Independence talking about gun laws and homicides? Please. I'll continue to disbelieve that's a real quote until someone proves otherwise.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
But it couldn't be more clear that that argument has absolutely vanished, ever since we got the largest and most powerful standing army in the history of the world. And unless citizens start using satellite-guided missiles and nukes, that fact is not likely to ever change.

Uhh, yeah... we sure proved that in Iraq.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timo View Post
^Yes, the Supreme Court could clarify the whole militia thing, but I think, at base, the Supreme Court cannot resolve this issue. It is a broad-based societal disagreement, not a legal issue.
Maybe I've been in the wild West too long and away from large urban areas, but I actually think there's pretty basic agreement that there should be a basic right to own guns, with reasonable restrictions.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Of course militias don't exist any more. The intent of the militia is very clear - to be a citizen army, where we bring our own guns to the battlefield. Yes, it was to act as a counterweight to the standing army of the federal government. But it couldn't be more clear that that argument has absolutely vanished, ever since we got the largest and most powerful standing army in the history of the world. And unless citizens start using satellite-guided missiles and nukes, that fact is not likely to ever change.

My point is that the type of constitutional interpretation that conservatives say they want -a strict constructionist interpretation - would, if applied consistently, take away this right. As a liberal, I want our rights interpreted as broadly as possible: Privacy, penumbras, emanations, the whole deal, all the things that conservatives complain about. I'm willing to disregard the clear original intent of the amendment in favor of a loose construal. I just hope that conservatives who otherwise are so willing to read individual liberties as narrowly as possible through strict constructionism (e.g., privacy, sexual behavior, abortion, free speech, rights of defendants, etc. etc.) won't apply this "loose constructionism" only to gun rights.

And I don't care what those quotes say because anyone can grab quotes off the intarweb. I for one don't believe for a second that Thomas Jefferson actually said that first quote. The author of the Declaration of Independence talking about gun laws and homicides? Please. I'll continue to disbelieve that's a real quote until someone proves otherwise.
I don't agree. We are still a militia, a citizen army, even if we don't have the advanced weaponry of a modern army. The insurgents in Iraq are the perfect example of this. They are more or less ordinary citizens (I'm not talking ideology here) who are still managing to put up a hell of a fight against the United States Army. Most of the enemies we've sent our military out after in the past decade or so has been nothing more than normal people with AK-47s, and still they put up a fight.

During the American Revolution our troops, militia mostly, didn't have the training or the supplies of the British army. Many were using old guns with outdated technology that simply weren't as good as what the British regulars had. And still they won a war against the most powerful force in the world. And, coincidentally, they did it by engaging not in traditional warfare but through guerilla tactics (what some today would term terrorism, even).

And in the event that it came to the point of us forming a militia, I don't think we'd have to worry about cruise missiles and the like. The sort of warfare where you bomb your enemies cities to dust is over. If it came to regular US citizens taking up arms it would be against an invading army trying to hold US cities as we're trying to hold Baghdad. If that were to happen, would you still be saying that it's pointless to fight back, that we should just give up and surrender? Or would you be grabbing your hunting rifle and taking up sniper duty in the nearest occupied city?

And say were were revolting against our own government instead. Do you really believe that, even if so ordered, the US military would bring their full force to bear against their own citizens? I don't think they would, and if I'm wrong then I'd probably die in that situation regardless, so I'd rather do it fighting.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I really don't know how to balance these competing needs, which, I suppose, is one of the strengths of democracy: it allows for discussion on these sorts of things and policy based on a compromise of multiple points of view.

Yes. That's exactly what I am trying to do. You are right that people (especially in an urban environment) have the need to defend themselves.

Maybe just licensing the gun then (not the person).

I would like this explicitly coupled with "no touch" on the longarms though. I mean, I think it is already pretty explicit, but you know what I'm saying.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes. That's exactly what I am trying to do. You are right that people (especially in an urban environment) have the need to defend themselves.

Maybe just licensing the gun then (not the person).

I would like this explicitly coupled with "no touch" on the longarms though. I mean, I think it is already pretty explicit, but you know what I'm saying.
You're probably right. I just don't like the idea of giving the government the power to take away my right to self defense, nor of having to prove that I deserve the ability to do so. On the other hand, I like that more than the idea of the idiot next door (not a specific person...) having a gun they don't know what to do with and then accidentally shooting and killing someone in my family when they're attempting to ward of an intruder.

Maybe if there was some sort of private certifying/licensing organization so that it wasn't government dependent.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
I don't disagree that, in a "Red Dawn"-type situation, people could and would fight independently. Of course they would, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that the well-regulated militias referred to in the Second Amendment don't exist any more. It used to be that militias regularly met and trained, not unlike our National Guard. They were well-regulated. A bunch of individual citizens fighting in an unorganized fashion is not the well-regulated militia of the 18th-19th centuries referred to in the Second Amendment. It's a fact that those militias simply don't exist any more: They don't meet, they aren't used as our military, they don't exist.

Now, that doesn't bother me. It used to be that "the people" really only meant white, land-owning males. That has changed. We've changed the way we view the Constitution significantly and repeatedly.

But, with all due respect, I don't think it's useful to reason backwards, from "I believe American should have gun ownership rights" to "the Constitution must therefore say that."

Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I don't agree. We are still a militia, a citizen army, even if we don't have the advanced weaponry of a modern army. The insurgents in Iraq are the perfect example of this. They are more or less ordinary citizens (I'm not talking ideology here) who are still managing to put up a hell of a fight against the United States Army. Most of the enemies we've sent our military out after in the past decade or so has been nothing more than normal people with AK-47s, and still they put up a fight.

During the American Revolution our troops, militia mostly, didn't have the training or the supplies of the British army. Many were using old guns with outdated technology that simply weren't as good as what the British regulars had. And still they won a war against the most powerful force in the world. And, coincidentally, they did it by engaging not in traditional warfare but through guerilla tactics (what some today would term terrorism, even).

And in the event that it came to the point of us forming a militia, I don't think we'd have to worry about cruise missiles and the like. The sort of warfare where you bomb your enemies cities to dust is over. If it came to regular US citizens taking up arms it would be against an invading army trying to hold US cities as we're trying to hold Baghdad. If that were to happen, would you still be saying that it's pointless to fight back, that we should just give up and surrender? Or would you be grabbing your hunting rifle and taking up sniper duty in the nearest occupied city?

And say were were revolting against our own government instead. Do you really believe that, even if so ordered, the US military would bring their full force to bear against their own citizens? I don't think they would, and if I'm wrong then I'd probably die in that situation regardless, so I'd rather do it fighting.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2007, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I don't disagree that, in a "Red Dawn"-type situation, people could and would fight independently. Of course they would, and I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing that the well-regulated militias referred to in the Second Amendment don't exist any more. It used to be that militias regularly met and trained, not unlike our National Guard. They were well-regulated. A bunch of individual citizens fighting in an unorganized fashion is not the well-regulated militia of the 18th-19th centuries referred to in the Second Amendment. It's a fact that those militias simply don't exist any more: They don't meet, they aren't used as our military, they don't exist.

Now, that doesn't bother me. It used to be that "the people" really only meant white, land-owning males. That has changed. We've changed the way we view the Constitution significantly and repeatedly.

But, with all due respect, I don't think it's useful to reason backwards, from "I believe American should have gun ownership rights" to "the Constitution must therefore say that."
But you have to take into account why those militias no longer exist. It's not as if they can't exist any more (and in fact there are plenty of people out there who consider themselves part of a militia and do train), they don't exist simply because we don't choose to have them exist. We can just as easily choose to have them exist again.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I'm arguing that the well-regulated militias referred to in the Second Amendment don't exist any more. It used to be that militias regularly met and trained, not unlike our National Guard. They were well-regulated.

This seems wrong to me on a few levels. Let me walk you through how I see it and you tell me what I'm missing.

First, if you look at it from a purely pedantic standpoint:

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.

This seems to explicitly say:

1) A free State cannot exist without a well regulated militia.
2) A well regulated militia cannot exist without the right to bear arms.
3) Therefore, the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I think, you may be interpreting this in reverse, or... I dunno. I keep on trying to break down the chain of logic and it's making my head hurt.

Less pedantically (though the Bill of Rights seems to be one of those things where pedantry counts) from what I understand the framers were trying to do, the anti-Federalists wanted to let everybody have guns so the government didn't get too uppity, and the Federalists were afraid of mob rule. The amendment is the compromise.

Well, looks to me like the Federalists lost this round. The anti-Federalist sentiment is (as I said above) really explicit, the Federalist sentiment is unfocused, and really doesn't make any sense.

What the hell does "well regulated" mean? Does it mean lawful? Lawful under the Constitution, or lawful under a government who infringes on the Constitution? Who is doing the regulating? The government? How do you pull that off without infringing on the explicitly stated right?

This is either half a right, or no right.

Being a Card Carrying Memberâ„¢ of the ACLU, I'll take half a right, thank you very much.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 17, 2007 at 12:17 AM. )
     
rambo47
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Denville, NJ.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This seems wrong to me on a few levels. Let me walk you through how I see it and you tell me what I'm missing.

First, if you look at it from a purely pedantic standpoint:




This seems to explicitly say:

1) A free State cannot exist without a well regulated militia.
Actually it doesn't say that at all. It clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The State will exist without the militia, but the founding fathers clearly believed that we're responsible for our own security and shouldn't rely on government to keep us safe. In fact, they believed this so strongly it was the second ammenndment to the constitution, not the tenth or eleventh. It was clearly a high priority to them.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by rambo47 View Post
Actually it doesn't say that at all. It clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The State will exist without the militia, but the founding fathers clearly believed that we're responsible for our own security and shouldn't rely on government to keep us safe. In fact, they believed this so strongly it was the second ammenndment to the constitution, not the tenth or eleventh. It was clearly a high priority to them.
Security has so many meanings though. They could mean that a well-regulated militia is necessary to secure the longevity of the state. I don't know enough to say what the common meaning was at the time, but I think it's a bit much to assume that they were necessarily referring to what we would commonly think of as 'national security' nowadays.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by rambo47 View Post
Actually it doesn't say that at all. It clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. The State will exist without the militia, but the founding fathers clearly believed that we're responsible for our own security and shouldn't rely on government to keep us safe. In fact, they believed this so strongly it was the second ammenndment to the constitution, not the tenth or eleventh. It was clearly a high priority to them.

Okay, I forced it a little to maintain symmetry in my parsing of the amendment, but I think you are forcing it as well. It's not just necessary for the security of the State, it's the security of a free State. The state exists without it, yet it is no longer free.

Either way, as I said in my OP, the militia half of the amendment just doesn't make any sense. It is (and I hate to say things like this about the Constitution) wrong. Not in terms of being a bad idea, but in terms of being filled with demonstrably incorrect observations.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Uhh, yeah... we sure proved that in Iraq.
This is a silly silly statement. You act as if we were/are being beaten.

According to you WWII would be lost. And our armies sucked.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
This is a silly silly statement. You act as if we were/are being beaten.

Two things.

First, if you support the 2nd Amendment, I'm curious what your response is to the argument that the amendment no longer has value because of the superiority of our army over our citizenry.

Second, I'm interested in your analysis of the situation in Iraq. Not in terms of slogans, but in terms of the actual military definition of winning, i.e. victory conditions.

Both we and the Iraqis have victory conditions. More important than fulfilling one's own victory conditions is the denial of the enemy their victory conditions. If one doesn't deny the enemy their victory conditions, the best that one can achieve is a draw. On the other hand, If one can deny the enemy their conditions, the only other thing that needs to be done to win a major victory is to remain standing.

Whatever we are doing to attain our own victory conditions, we seem to be doing a horrible job of denying the enemy theirs. I would place their primary victory conditions as "deterioration of security" and "sapping the will of the American public".

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
According to you WWII would be lost. And our armies sucked.

More or less, yes.

For instance, we didn't win in Europe, Hitler lost. The Germans had a huge advantage in tactics and technology. Hitler had to actively screw things up for us to win, and even then it was really close. We owe a lot to the Soviets for throwing a wall of flesh into the onslaught, which was chopped into hamburger.

Obviously, getting chopped into hamburger wasn't the Soviet's victory condition. They achieved victory by denying the Germans' condition: to take Stalingrad.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 09:32 PM
 
Actually, I disagree.

The victory condition for the anti-Iraqi forces (that would be the people blowing up the Iraqi police stations and setting out IEDs and car bombs) is that they need to oppress the Iraqi people, keep them reliant on an authoritarian leader, and believe that they can affect no change.

The victory condition for the free Iraq and for the US is that the Iraqi police and government be in charge, and answerable to the people.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi understood the stakes. In a message to al-Qaida (intercepted by the Coalition in February 2004), Zarqawi wrote that after Iraqis run their own government, U.S. troops will remain, "but the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts." Iraq's new army and police will link with the people "by lineage, blood and appearance."

Because the anti-Iraqi forces realize they can't defeat the US, they chose instead to launch a sectarian war, so as to avoid defeat. Al-Qaeda bet that they could break the Iraqi people with their bombs. They're mistaken.

The Iraqi resilience is a rejection of terror.

And that is why the US and a free Iraq are winning, and will defeat the anti-Iraqi forces.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The victory condition for the free Iraq and for the US is that the Iraqi police and government be in charge, and answerable to the people.

The deterioration of security is denying us of both these conditions.

Likewise, they have effectively sapped the will of the American public. Our continued involvement in this enterprise is on shaky ground indeed.

Not that I think that is a good thing, it's just the reality of the situation.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 10:02 PM
 
There's a government in place, a police force, and elections. That's victory. The anti-Iraqi forces are going to have to do a lot in order to take that away and return to totalitarian oppression.

The will of the American public isn't as sapped as you think: I see no movement in Congress to de-fund the troops who are deployed. I see no movement to bring home troops this instant in Congress. I see a loud, obnoxious minority making those demands on blogs and camping out in front of the House Majority Leader's residence. Her answer to them is "You aren't my constiuents."

And she's right.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
There's a government in place, a police force, and elections. That's victory. The anti-Iraqi forces are going to have to do a lot in order to take that away and return to totalitarian oppression.

No, that's changing your words. Previously the condition was that they be in charge, now it is only that they be in place.

One of the requirements of being in charge is maintaining security.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The will of the American public isn't as sapped as you think: I see no movement in Congress to de-fund the troops who are deployed. I see no movement to bring home troops this instant in Congress. I see a loud, obnoxious minority making those demands on blogs and camping out in front of the House Majority Leader's residence. Her answer to them is "You aren't my constiuents."

And she's right.

Straw man.

If you don't see the writing on the wall here you are taking an obscenely narrow and short-term view.

If you care (which I imagine you do), I think you would be better served combating the sentiment rather than denying its existence.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 10:59 PM
 
The sentiment exists. It is the refuge of a very small number of people who happen to be in posession of the mistaken notion that we have not had victory, and can never attain victory. These people also frequently are people who believe there is no Terrorist War Against the US. I see no evidence that this wrong-headed notion is ensconced in Congress.

The elected free Iraq government and police are in place and in charge. What remains is to continue to govern, continue to reject totalitarian oppression, to not let the anti-Iraqi forces gain control, and for the US to continue to support free Iraq in that task.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by BRussell
I'm arguing that the well-regulated militias referred to in the Second Amendment don't exist any more. It used to be that militias regularly met and trained, not unlike our National Guard.
This seems wrong to me on a few levels.
I don't see how you can deny that. They truly don't exist any more. That's not conjecture or opinion.

Now, we can debate what that fact means for our Second Amendment rights. But I just want to make sure we're on the same page, and you're not assuming that I said something I didn't say. I didn't say that the fact that militias don't exist any more means that the Second Amendment doesn't either. I believe in a broad interpretation of our rights in general, and I don't see any reason to give up that philosophy for just this one amendment.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2007, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The sentiment exists. It is the refuge of a very small number of people who happen to be in posession of the mistaken notion that we have not had victory, and can never attain victory. These people also frequently are people who believe there is no Terrorist War Against the US. I see no evidence that this wrong-headed notion is ensconced in Congress.

We've had this conversation before.

You don't seem to accept that the Democrats have deluded themselves into thinking a withdrawal in the next year or year and a half is the best course of action.

If you don't believe me, ask any Republican here.

These people run Congress. Of all the people not to understand the deep **** implications.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,