View Full Version : Supreme Court may rule on the 2nd Amendment
whitecoyote
11-12-07, 05:51
U.S right to bear arms being challenged
Detroit News.Net
Sunday 11th November, 2007
The U.S Supreme Court is to examine the question of whether it should hear arguments on the right to bear arms.
For the first time in seventy years, a case has been lodged to ask the Supreme Court to decide if local citizens should be able to own and carry guns.
The U.S capital of Washington has lodged a case in the Supreme Court, seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.
Since 1976, Washington has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes.
The National Rifle Association has been fighting the law by saying the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few restrictions.
But Washington, the home to the president, has recently interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police or security force.
The court has still to decide whether to hear the case, but if it does, a ruling will probably not occur until the November 2008 presidential elections.
To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms
Business_Casual
11-12-07, 08:39
"Since 1976, Washington has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes. "
Um, no.
1) no one is "allowed" a basic right
2) no one in DC is getting a permit for a rifle or shotgun
3) it has to be disassembled and the ammo locked up
4) no just "carrying" handguns, but owning them
Good old media bias once again.
M_P
To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms
And it's about time they did.
Business_Casual
11-12-07, 10:11
It didn't work out too well in 1934 or 1968.
M_P
The court has still to decide whether to hear the case, but if it does, a ruling will probably not occur until the November 2008 presidential elections.
We could know on Tuesday, tomorrow, 11/12/07.
11/11/2007
The judges were due to have an initial discussion on Friday, and their decision on whether or not to examine the question could be announced as early as Tuesday (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJtO6WkbK-Pi34ZTfFph2dFe2o0Q).
Joseywales
11-12-07, 21:31
They supreme court can say a lot and end up not really saying anything. It is all on the details of the case. In all previous rulings, they have sided with individual rights. The details will be surrounded as to whether they are considering the commerce clause or the ownership issue. Typically, the SC has given the US government the right to tax and control your fart gas because it could be potentially sold. Let us not forget how they sided with the pro-eminent domain scumbags. If they can take anything they want, they will make sure you can't put up a fight.
On the other hand, when the SC is cornered on individual freedom issues, it tends to give a black-and-white view. Take the pornography rulings for instance. They certainly can't claim that they were ruling on behalf of protecting the population at large on that one.
nationwide
11-13-07, 06:49
On the other hand, when the SC is cornered on individual freedom issues, it tends to give a black-and-white view. Take the pornography rulings for instance. They certainly can't claim that they were ruling on behalf of protecting the population at large on that one.
IIRC, at least one Associate Justice has viewed pornography and publicly admitted it. He would be the black, in the "black-and-white view".
But he has always taken very strong stands for individual liberty...
For those of you who don't live here...DC is a pretty small city in itself. The rest of the metro area spills into MD & VA.
VA is a right to carry commonwealth. DC & MD = FU
Does it surprise anyone that night after night all of the violent crimes committed with guns are done so in DC and the MD suburbs? How can this be?!? There are no guns in DC!
I'm not saying there is no crime in VA but the ratio is amazingly disproportionate.
Criminals prey on the easy targets. VA targets aren't as easy and the scumbags know it.
No action taken today. Next chance is on Nov. 20th or 26th.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-takes-no-action-on-gun-case/
Business_Casual
11-13-07, 16:35
Not sure I follow you: which guns laws are good gun laws?
M_P
Not sure I follow you: which guns laws are good gun laws?
M_P
While I certainly take a more libertarian stance than many I would argue that it is probably in the public interest to deny firearms ownership to those who have demonstrated that they are a threat to the health and well-being of others. To that end, violent felons and severely psychologically unstable people should be barred from owning firearms. The laws that facilitate this aren't good per se, just a recognition of the harsh reality that not everyone has the personal responsibility required to merit full exercise of rights.
Not sure I follow you: which guns laws are good gun laws?
The one gun a month sounds good to me. I would try my best to obey that one.
nationwide
11-14-07, 04:13
While I certainly take a more libertarian stance than many I would argue that it is probably in the public interest to deny firearms ownership to those who have demonstrated that they are a threat to the health and well-being of others. To that end, violent felons and severely psychologically unstable people should be barred from owning firearms. The laws that facilitate this aren't good per se, just a recognition of the harsh reality that not everyone has the personal responsibility required to merit full exercise of rights.
I disagree.
No free man or woman should be denied their right to arms.
If someone is such a threat, that they not be trusted with weapons, they should be incarcerated until they are no longer deemed a threat, or executed.
nationwide
11-14-07, 04:16
The "Right" of self-defense largely does not exist anymore in the world. It is either flat out banned or regulated, licensed, and restricted to the point it is not a Right, but a (licensed) privilege. Even in Virginia there are restrictions where you may carry.
Bad guys like "soft" targets and the law tells them where they are.
If you read more than casually on the subject (and I'm not saying YOU don't), the issue globally is not individual self defense. It's the concern for the supposed right of a political regime to remain in power, without regard to how they go into power.
If the common folk do not have access to small arms ie. rifles and handguns, they stand little chance of throwing off the bondage of a repressive government.
Submariner
11-14-07, 05:27
If you read more than casually on the subject (and I'm not saying YOU don't), the issue globally is not individual self defense. It's the concern for the supposed right of a political regime to remain in power, without regard to how they go into power.
If the common folk do not have access to small arms ie. rifles and handguns, they stand little chance of throwing off the bondage of a repressive government.
Condi Rice refers to it as a "monopoly on the use of force."
I disagree.
No free man or woman should be denied their right to arms.
If someone is such a threat, that they not be trusted with weapons, they should be incarcerated until they are no longer deemed a threat, or executed.
I used to believe that, but it simply cannot be reconciled with reality. So far no society has found a way to successfully prevent recidivism to any meaningful degree. Many state that America's problem with recidivism has to do with labelling theory, that a felon is basically sentenced to a life of failure as they cannot vote, hold business licenses, or be employed by government. This theory is congruous with the experiments that have been done on labelling theory and how it affects the labelled individual. Where it falls flat is in an examination of nations that engage in full-restoration upon release, like Japan. Japan has very similar recidivism rates to the United States.
Likewise nations that engage in indeterminate sentencing (like you are suggesting) don't have huge differences in recidivism. Indeterminate sentencing is basically a committment, the offender is incarcerated and placed in a rehabiliation program engineered to "treat" the specific crime the offender committed. There are certain criteria that the offender must meet and then a reviewer (or board) makes a ruling on his case. It seems like a very clever concept, but it isn't really very effective in practice.
Since the United States has a multi-leveled judicial system, there is little to no commonality between the seperate systems; however, warehousing is the rule of the day almost everywhere. Sentences have become longer, parole and work release programs are being cut back or canceled in favor of "truth in sentencing" and the result is a nation that has more people incarcerated for significantly longer average sentences than almost every other developed nation. This method doesn't work very well, as we've seen lately. Our crime rate is basically flat, being tied more to the economy (ironically) than anything else.
Your supposition also doesn't take into account the mentally ill. It's not really fair to lock them up perpetually when medical treatment does work. But one must recognize that they may forget their meds, or have a reaction. If they do not possess a weapon it will be far more unlikely that they will be able to gain access to one should the SHTF (psychologically speaking).
In short, your idealism, while certainly commendable, isn't grounded in reality. Once you give any real study to criminology or penology you will quickly realize just how unrealistic pure libertarian views truly are. I desperately wanted to believe them myself, but like the "as good as" Bushmaster owner, I finally had to give up and acquiesce to realism.
Business_Casual
11-14-07, 18:45
In short, your idealism, while certainly commendable, isn't grounded in reality. Once you give any real study to criminology or penology you will quickly realize just how unrealistic pure libertarian views truly are.
Such a shame some people have been conditioned to think that way. It's also a shame that all those people who lived healthy, happy lives for 50 centuries before you were born and all these laws were passed. Goodness, how those poor people ever got through the day without a pile of laws to protect them from their poor grasp on reality. ;)
My opinion is that if a felon wants a gun, he should be able to get one. If he kills, robs or threatens others with it, then either the other people should shoot him or he should be arrested and put back in prison. Trying to prohibit the possesion of an object, whether it is drugs, guns or drink has never worked out well.
By the same token, I could say your faith in laws and the legal system is not grounded in reality. The results of the DC and NYC gun bans would seem to support my conclusion. :cool:
M_P
Joseywales
11-14-07, 19:52
I disagree.
No free man or woman should be denied their right to arms.
If someone is such a threat, that they not be trusted with weapons, they should be incarcerated until they are no longer deemed a threat, or executed.
AMEN!
Joseywales
11-14-07, 20:04
I used to believe that, but it simply cannot be reconciled with reality. So far no society has found a way to successfully prevent recidivism to any meaningful degree.
Execution prevents it. Life in prison makes it a mute point.
Many state that America's problem with recidivism has to do with labelling theory, that a felon is basically sentenced to a life of failure as they cannot vote, hold business licenses, or be employed by government. This theory is congruous with the experiments that have been done on labelling theory and how it affects the labelled individual. Where it falls flat is in an examination of nations that engage in full-restoration upon release, like Japan. Japan has very similar recidivism rates to the United States.
Likewise nations that engage in indeterminate sentencing (like you are suggesting) don't have huge differences in recidivism. Indeterminate sentencing is basically a committment, the offender is incarcerated and placed in a rehabiliation program engineered to "treat" the specific crime the offender committed. There are certain criteria that the offender must meet and then a reviewer (or board) makes a ruling on his case. It seems like a very clever concept, but it isn't really very effective in practice.
Since the United States has a multi-leveled judicial system, there is little to no commonality between the seperate systems; however, warehousing is the rule of the day almost everywhere. Sentences have become longer, parole and work release programs are being cut back or canceled in favor of "truth in sentencing" and the result is a nation that has more people incarcerated for significantly longer average sentences than almost every other developed nation. This method doesn't work very well, as we've seen lately. Our crime rate is basically flat, being tied more to the economy (ironically) than anything else.
Your supposition also doesn't take into account the mentally ill. It's not really fair to lock them up perpetually when medical treatment does work. But one must recognize that they may forget their meds, or have a reaction.
It is COMPLETELY fair to lock them up. You sound like a bed-wetting liberal. Some college professor has neutered you and painted flowers on your man card.
If they do not possess a weapon it will be far more unlikely that they will be able to gain access to one should the SHTF (psychologically speaking).
Please don't be that gullible.
In short, your idealism, while certainly commendable, isn't grounded in reality.
It can be reality with the passage of law. It once was the law of the land AND IT WORKED!
Once you give any real study to criminology or penology you will quickly realize just how unrealistic pure libertarian views truly are. I desperately wanted to believe them myself, but like the "as good as" Bushmaster owner, I finally had to give up and acquiesce to realism.
To bad for you. A little bit of education has caused you to become close minded and ignore the real reality around you. 85% of all criminals end up being released from prison. This is because of our drastic changes to the criminal justice system due to liberal judges and politicians since the 60's. We used to lock up and execute prisoners. We used to lock away the crazy. Now people like you are making this nation a prison and damning us all because you refuse to admit that execution and incarceration works.
No free man or woman should be denied their right to arms.
No free man or woman IS being denied their right to arms since no free people exist. If you know a free person tell me about them.
nationwide
11-15-07, 11:07
No free man or woman IS being denied their right to arms since no free people exist. If you know a free person tell me about them.
Paroled felons, persons covicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, persons who use federally criminalized recreational narcotics...
If they are a "real" threat to society, they should continue to be in jail, or executed...
Execution prevents it. Life in prison makes it a mute point
Do you mean "moot?" Execution does not deter criminals (except for the one being executed obviously). Should we execute those who are violent but have not committed murder? Should we make our already severely taxed prison system adjust to imprison every person convicted of any violence for life?
Have you given any thought to the implications of your ideas at all???
It is COMPLETELY fair to lock them up. You sound like a bed-wetting liberal. Some college professor has neutered you and painted flowers on your man card.
:rolleyes:
Cute. When a logical, knowledge-based answer escapes you resort to name-calling.
If you knew me AT ALL, or even read ANYTHING else that I've posted on other forums (I use the same username everywhere) you'd know that I'm far from being a neutured liberal, in fact, based purely on this thread, I'm more libertarian than are you, by a WIDE margin.
At what point does the "lock'em all up" reasoning end fella? Well? Do you even have the slightest INKLING of the slippery slope you are approaching?
Please don't be that gullible.
:o
Why don't you explain how that statement makes me gullible? Better yet, why don't you explain how exactly you intend to lock away every person who may be mentally ill, and how you intend to pay for it......
It can be reality with the passage of law. It once was the law of the land AND IT WORKED!
Show me the data!!!!! Prove your supposition. This is no time for unsubstantiated bloviation. Put the data on the table or sit down and shut up.
You also might want to explain your theory clearly, because you haven't intimated what exactly it is that you believe. It's pretty obvious you don't believe in anything remotely libertarian.
To bad for you. A little bit of education has caused you to become close minded and ignore the real reality around you. 85% of all criminals end up being released from prison. This is because of our drastic changes to the criminal justice system due to liberal judges and politicians since the 60's. We used to lock up and execute prisoners. We used to lock away the crazy. Now people like you are making this nation a prison and damning us all because you refuse to admit that execution and incarceration works.
:rolleyes:
Ok. You can continue living in a fairy tale world if you so desire, a world based solely on your political inclinations and a fantasy of a past that NEVER existed.
I can see that knowledge and reason is wasted, my comment on the Bushmaster owner stands. You argue from the position of emotion and political rhetoric and become abusive and frantic if somebody challenges you.
Paroled felons, persons covicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, persons who use federally criminalized recreational narcotics...
If they are a "real" threat to society, they should continue to be in jail, or executed...
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
Should we keep every person who may recidivate locked up indeterminately?
If so, how do you reconcile that with your views?
How do you determine when/if a person is no longer a threat to society?
KintlaLake
11-15-07, 16:53
How do you determine when/if a person is no longer a threat to society?
He did propose execution. :rolleyes:
Business_Casual
11-15-07, 18:15
So we all know that having the Government involved does not improve:
1) Education
2) Transportation
3) Health Care
4) Energy
So the Government can do a good job with rehabilitation?
I don't buy it. Well, actually I do buy it. Because I pay taxes. Because if I don't pay my taxes, men with guns will show up and put me in prison for tax evasion. So there is one thing the Government does well. Extortion.
M_P
A couple of posters are treading on very thin ice. There is no reason to resort to name calling just because you disagree with what someone has posted. Get this back to a civil level or I will lock it.
nationwide
11-15-07, 20:59
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm
Should we keep every person who may recidivate locked up indeterminately?
If so, how do you reconcile that with your views?
How do you determine when/if a person is no longer a threat to society?
First of all, you have to understand there are two predominate views on incarceration.
The first view, is that it is a punishment. The second view, is that it is an opportunity for problem individuals to rehabilitate.
Now, if you think that it's the first, then hasn't the "debt to society" been paid upon release???
If you think it's the second, then shouldn't release from prison indicate successful rehabilitation??
You determine a persons "threat level" by their conduct. You can't predict who will commit a crime... hence the "first time offender" who most experienced cops will say have commited up to 8 offenses before being caught...
This nation is, and has been, in huge trouble.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9731/lifesabitchnr8.th.jpg (http://img88.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lifesabitchnr8.jpg)
Paroled felons, persons covicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, persons who use federally criminalized recreational narcotics...
If they are a "real" threat to society, they should continue to be in jail, or executed...
...at the cost of an average of 20K a year per incarceration? Because they will be rehabilitated? Seriously, keeping them in prison does nothing but cost money and keep them of the streets.
keeping them off the street IS GOOD.
There are downsides to it too though, as stated above. Take your pick. I personally think releasing them (some of them, not all of course) and reducing their rights is as good a compromise as exists.
When it comes to crime, there is no black and white, we only wish there were. Sure there is right and wrong, but thats about as far as it goes...and WHAT is right and wrong? That has yet to be defined, hence why we still have a court system and not a sheet of paper detailing actions and their repercussions.
Execution.
Execution is state sanctioned murder. The death certificate reads: Homocide. When the coroner writes it out in the case of a successfully carried out death penalty.
Now...I support the death penalty, BUT! It takes a lot of time and a LOT of money to kill someone legally in front of an audience. Are you going to take the time and money to do it just to "keep them off the streets"? Or would not life in prison be cheaper? I don't know the answer to that one.
Another thing you have to look at is sometimes lesser criminals help the good guys catch the REALLY bad guys. I personally know of many instances where local cops have said "what pot/joint?" and let the smoker go on his way in exchange for something worthwhile. How is a joint hurting more people than the armed robbery trend in a neighborhood?
If you want that pothead as a witness...DONT CONVICT HIM OF BEING A POTHEAD! It really de-values him as a witness.
nationwide
11-15-07, 22:44
...at the cost of an average of 20K a year per incarceration? Because they will be rehabilitated? Seriously, keeping them in prison does nothing but cost money and keep them of the streets.
keeping them off the street IS GOOD.
There are downsides to it too though, as stated above. Take your pick. I personally think releasing them (some of them, not all of course) and reducing their rights is as good a compromise as exists.
When it comes to crime, there is no black and white, we only wish there were. Sure there is right and wrong, but thats about as far as it goes...and WHAT is right and wrong? That has yet to be defined, hence why we still have a court system and not a sheet of paper detailing actions and their repercussions.
Execution.
Execution is state sanctioned murder. The death certificate reads: Homocide. When the coroner writes it out in the case of a successfully carried out death penalty.
Now...I support the death penalty, BUT! It takes a lot of time and a LOT of money to kill someone legally in front of an audience. Are you going to take the time and money to do it just to "keep them off the streets"? Or would not life in prison be cheaper? I don't know the answer to that one.
Another thing you have to look at is sometimes lesser criminals help the good guys catch the REALLY bad guys. I personally know of many instances where local cops have said "what pot/joint?" and let the smoker go on his way in exchange for something worthwhile. How is a joint hurting more people than the armed robbery trend in a neighborhood?
If you want that pothead as a witness...DONT CONVICT HIM OF BEING A POTHEAD! It really de-values him as a witness.
How much does it really cost to string someone up in the middle of the town square in front of the public?
Much of the added "required" costs are nothing more than pork barrel spending at the State level.
No, crime and punishment are as much a game today as they were in the Roman times...
How much does it really cost to string someone up in the middle of the town square in front of the public?
Much of the added "required" costs are nothing more than pork barrel spending at the State level.
No, crime and punishment are as much a game today as they were in the Roman times...
Those "added costs" are court, lawyer, and time cost caused by the rights of the individual granted in the constitution as well as later rulings by the supreme court. You cannot just "string 'em up!" in this day in age. An execution sanctioned by state is one of the most precise operations in the medical field. Can you imagine the lawsuits if it were not?
Crime and punishment is indeed the same...only in title. The individual has a lot more right now, for better or worse.
.
Execution.
Execution is state sanctioned murder. The death certificate reads: Homocide. When the coroner writes it out in the case of a successfully carried out death penalty.
Execution is not state sanctioned murder. It may be Homicide, but that only means "a slaying" and does not usually refer to legal or illegal, innocent or guilty life being taken, etc.
Self-defense killing is also "Homicide."
Nathan_Bell
11-16-07, 07:55
Wow, talk about thread drift.
The SCOTUS will not end up hearing this case. As a previous poster stated they react to political and idealogical preasures. The court will tap dance around and avoid any truly landmark cases that would reaffirm that the government is secondary to the citizenry. The originlists on the court would not want to hear them, now, because they do not have a guaranteed win and do not want to weaken the citizenry more. The living document segment would not want them, now, because they do not have a guaranteed win and would not want the status quo upset.
nationwide
11-16-07, 08:20
Those "added costs" are court, lawyer, and time cost caused by the rights of the individual granted in the constitution as well as later rulings by the supreme court. You cannot just "string 'em up!" in this day in age. An execution sanctioned by state is one of the most precise operations in the medical field. Can you imagine the lawsuits if it were not?
Crime and punishment is indeed the same...only in title. The individual has a lot more right now, for better or worse.
"In this day and age" haha
That's the same argument those who want to destroy our civil rights use!
[stuffed shirt crooked politco]Uh... in this day and age, there is NO need for private arms, our thugs, er, state security will protect them! [/no applause, just votes and money please!]
"In this day and age" haha
That's the same argument those who want to destroy our civil rights use!
[stuffed shirt crooked politco]Uh... in this day and age, there is NO need for private arms, our thugs, er, state security will protect them! [/no applause, just votes and money please!]
If it were you accused of something worthy of death (lets overlook the fact that you may or may not have done it) would YOU want a totalitarian kangaroo court? Or would you like due process as detailed by the constitution? IMHO the constitution and the Bible have something in common. You take away any part of them and the rest is quickly devalued as well.
Wow, talk about thread drift.
The SCOTUS will not end up hearing this case. As a previous poster stated they react to political and idealogical preasures. The court will tap dance around and avoid any truly landmark cases that would reaffirm that the government is secondary to the citizenry. The originlists on the court would not want to hear them, now, because they do not have a guaranteed win and do not want to weaken the citizenry more. The living document segment would not want them, now, because they do not have a guaranteed win and would not want the status quo upset.
Which means what, exactly? It means your Constitutional "rights" will continue to erode.
Personally, my opinion and observation, the Constitution ain't worth the paper it's written on. Political and ideological powers will continue to control your ability to live your life as you see fit. And that Constitution will be the carrot that keeps you falling in line. As long as the powers that be can persuade you to believe that the next law is "Constitutional", then you'll fall in line. And it's very convenient that the one power that determines whether the law is Constitutional can just shirk their duty to make that determination because it's too politically uncomfortable for them. Keep on deluding yourselves that we're somehow "better" than the rest. I don't see it.
What I don't understand is why the 2nd ammendment is even questionable. Everyone knows good and well what was meant by it.
You served in the military, right? Then you took an Oath to support and defend that piece of paper.
Yes sir, I did and I would still. It doesn't mean that it's use to guide the governing of this nation is still viable. Our system and the society in which it is employed are both fatally broke.
John Adams once pointed out that the Constitution was only capable of governing a moral and religious people and that it was wholly unsuited to govern any other. This nation has gone out of its way to abdicate any reliance on or acknowlegement of the existence of objective truth. We no longer have a moral or religious foundation as a society. Therefore, according to Adams (and I concur), the Constitution is unsuited (or worthless) as an instrument to govern this nation.
And I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment that much of it began at least as far back as the Civil War. In his haste to "hold the republic together", Lincoln may have actually sounded the death knell.
The U.S. Constitution is just as relevant today as it was 100 yrs or 200 years ago. The problem is that people do not acknowledge the wisdom of our founding fathers.
I believe we just said the same thing in two different ways.
When we, the People, fail to read and understand this founding document of our Democracy then we have failed to be responsible Citizens. We can not expect our elected officials to uphold the Constitution when we do not know it ourselves.
And I believe that was Adam's point.
It's not the Constitution that needs fixed, it's this people. And I am just as certain that will never happen. The issue for me then becomes, how do I deal with that fact.
What HISTORICALLY takes place when you comfiscate a society's weapons? Maybe a short history lesson is in order for those who think it is a solution and not a problem.
Nazi germany:
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/hitler-and-guns.htm
Modern Day England:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
What has happened in the 100 years, usually VERY shortly after gun control/weapons confiscation edicts? Lets take a look....
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resource...un_control.htm
You see, this is not something new, nor are the circumstances. It is a crime against society to disarm law abiding individuals. Usually this crime results in very negative outcomes. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The constitution is just another piece of paper caught in the middle of a struggle that has gone on since democracies first existed: Power and the balance thereof being shifted to the ruling class (governtment office) and crushing the country as a whole. It has some great guidelines, but even without the 2nd ammendment any half way savvy historian can tell you the result of disarming a society.
*EDIT, NOW! this is in the right place!
I believe we just said the same thing in two different ways.
And I believe that was Adam's point.
It's not the Constitution that needs fixed, it's this people. And I am just as certain that will never happen. The issue for me then becomes, how do I deal with that fact. The libs have been trying to emasculate the male population since the 60's, now a kid cant even get into a fight on a school yard without some bullying statute being thrown at him and the Police becoming involved. No tollerance laws that push charges or result in expulsion for pocket knives. Hate crime laws that that are being pushed if its white against black but not if the roles are reversed. Single parent homes where kids are being raised by moms alone with no strong male figures in their lives to teach them about hunting & fishing or how to treat a woman. We are raising a bunch of angry kids with no outlet, no guidelines for success or failure, and parents that are too busy trying to make ends meet to spend any time with them. None of these bode well for the USA.
The libs have been trying to emasculate the male population since the 60's, now a kid cant even get into a fight on a school yard without some bullying statute being thrown at him and the Police becoming involved. No tollerance laws that push charges or result in expulsion for pocket knives. Hate crime laws that that are being pushed if its white against black but not if the roles are reversed. Single parent homes where kids are being raised by moms alone with no strong male figures in their lives to teach them about hunting & fishing or how to treat a woman. We are raising a bunch of angry kids with no outlet, no guidelines for success or failure, and parents that are too busy trying to make ends meet to spend any time with them. None of these bode well for the USA.
Good points. I was lucky enough to go to a small private school (in gradeschool) that didn't question a bloody nose now and then. Guess that makes me well balanced :D
blackwinch
11-16-07, 22:27
The Supreme Court has been very quiet (and evasive when they have spoken) on the issue of the Second Amendment. My money is on them refusing to hear the case. If they do hear the case then they will not render a decision.
While I do fully believe the Second Amendment is clearly the Right of the People, a Supreme Court ruling supporting this would overturn nearly every firearms/weapons law on the books. US v. Miller (1939) is an example where the Nation Firearms Act (NFA) was upheld because a short-barreled shotgun was not considered a "military" weapon. Seems like a lot of (military) breechers use shotguns. As we all know, the U.S. military-issued Colt M4 has a 14.5" long barrel and yet it is still governed under the NFA (for barrel length less than 16"....I'm not even touching the 3-shot burst [auto] banned by former President Reagan).
The Supreme Court is still influenced by politics....despite life long appointments
:(
Don,
I hope you are right on your first point...
As you are right... The Supreme Court is influenced by politics...
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms”
By Mark Alexander
There is yet another ideological contest brewing in our nation’s capitol, this one between two distinctively different groups in the federal judiciary: constitutional constructionists, who render decisions based on the “original intent” of our nation’s founding document, and judicial despots, who endorse the dangerously errant notion of a “Living Constitution.”
This is no trivial contest, however, and the outcome will have significant consequences across the nation.
The subject of this dispute is Washington, DC’s “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which prohibits residents from owning handguns, ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.”
Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—that of socio-pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.)
In 1960 the frequency of violent crime in the District was 554/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 10/100,000. In 2006, the frequency of violent crime in the District was 1,512/100,000 residents, and the murder rate was 29/100,000. That is a 200 percent increase, and according to the latest data from Washington Metro Police, violent crime is up 12 percent thus far this year.
Fact is, firearm restrictions on law-abiding citizens in Washington, and other urban centers, have created more victims while protecting offenders. There is nothing new about this correlation. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), “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.”
Simply put, violent predators prefer victims who have no means of self defense.
Most pro and con arguments about firearms are constructed around the crime debate, including excellent research by John Lott, whose book More Guns, Less Crime, clearly establishes that restrictive gun policies lead to higher crime rates.
The arguments from both sides in the current case in Washington are also constructed around the crime issue. However, the Second Amendment debate is not about crime, but about the rule of law—constitutional law. Fortunately, the appellate court for DC is making this distinction.
In March of this year, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down that federal jurisdiction’s restrictions on gun ownership, finding that the District is violating the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and should the High Court accept the case, its ruling would be the first substantial decision on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939.
At issue: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on the individual rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, or does it restrict the central government from infringing on the rights of the several states to maintain well-armed militias?
The intent of the Second Amendment, however, was abundantly clear to our Founders.
Indeed, in the most authoritative explication of our Constitution, The Federalist Papers, its principal author, James Madison, wrote in No. 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any...”
Alexander Hamilton was equally unambiguous on the importance of arms to a republic, writing in Federalist No. 28, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...”
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
In other words, the right of the people to bear arms is the most essential of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, because it ensures the preservation of all other rights.
Accordingly, the appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government... The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.”
Additionally, the majority opinion notes, “The activities [the amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
The dissenting judge’s conclusion did not dispute the plain language of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on government, but he insists that the District is not a state, and is, thus, not subject to the prohibition.
This is ridiculous, of course, since such a conclusion would imply, by extension, that District residents are not subject to any protection under the Constitution.
The real contest here is one between activist judges, those who amend the Constitution by judicial diktat rather than its clearly prescribed method stipulated in Article V, and constructionist judges, those who properly render legal interpretation based on the Constitution’s “original intent.”
As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...” In other words, nothing in the Constitution gives judges the right to declare the Constitution means anything beyond the scope of its plain language.
However, activist judges, including those among generations of High Court justices, have historically construed the Second Amendment through a pinhole, while viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens.
For example, though the First Amendment plainly says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” judicial activists interpret this plain language to mean a public school coach can’t offer a simple prayer before a game.
Equally absurd, they argue that the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause means burning the American flag, exploiting women for “adult entertainment,” or using taxpayer dollars to fund works of “art” such as a crucifix immersed in a glass of human waste.
If these same judicial despots misconstrued the Second Amendment as broadly as they do the first, Americans would have nukes to defend themselves from noisy neighbors.
The appeals case regarding the constitutionality of DC’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is not about crime prevention, or whether the District is subject to prohibitions in the Bill of Rights. It is about the essence of our Constitution’s most important assurance that all Americans have the right to defend themselves against both predatory criminals and tyrannical governments. It is about the need for the High Court to reaffirm this right and stop the incremental encroachment of said right by infringements like that in the District, or more egregious encroachments like those found within theFeinstein-Schumer gun-control act.
Of self-government’s “important principles,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is [the peoples’] right and duty to be at all times armed.” Indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
I think Ann Coulter pointed out that the left always points out that the Constitution is a "growing" document and it ALWAYS "grows" to the left hand side.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.