It will be interesting to watch those conservatives who yesterday decried the “activist” court for their death penalty decision now affirm that the gun decision today is firm and fair.
Heh.
That’s the court, baby.
Related
Something To Watch For
Rove Spin Watch
ABC Showed The Absurdity Of The Press, Again
Never mind that it seems such a no-brainer that the founders connected gun rights to “a well-regulated militia” and not to individual ownership. Never mind that Scalia needed to protect his friend Cheney’s rights to misfire at friends.
My question is this: can even an Obama-enhanced Supreme Court–with proportionally fewer morons on it–overturn wrong-headed crap like this? How likely is this ruling to become “precedent” that even enlightened justices will be reluctant to reverse?
I fear that of all the sewage Obama will have to clear, the Court’s recent decisions will be the most troublesome.
Short answer: broken clock syndrome.
Medium answer: Kennedy is sometimes right, despite himself.
Long answer: it should have been a no-brainer. At no other point in the Constitution does “the right of the people” refer to some vague, nebulous “collective” right, but the rights of the individual. The Second Amendment is probably the worst-written part of the Constitution, with the “well-regulated militia” being equally valid as either a dependent clause or a mere exhortatory example.
In this case, we have to look at other, contemporary documents and general practices at the time — and there, the evidence is incredibly strong that the right to keep and bear arms was NOT contingent on regular participation in any sort of militia activities, but simply a “given” for pretty much anyone who felt the need or desire to own a gun.
And if you wanna get all anecdotal, then we can discuss how many mass shootings have taken place in “gun-free zones” versus in ones where people are allowed to carry weapons — and how they’ve turned out.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
J.
Or how many tiger attacks occur in tiger-free zones versus the number of tiger attacks when people are allowed to carry tiger repellent rocks.
Never mind that it seems such a no-brainer that the founders connected gun rights to “a well-regulated militia” and not to individual ownership.
What something ’seems’ like doesn’t make it true. Read the decision. The case for individual ownership is pretty cut and dried. It’s just sad it took so long for a case to get to the SC for them to affirm that.
So what’s a gun barrel taste like, Jay Tea?
“Short answer: broken clock syndrome.”
It’s amazing that one side can have such contempt for a branch of government and yet call the other side anti-American.
If you were trying to reference the Shaq rap, well played. If not, then your retort was just silly.
“Never mind that it seems such a no-brainer that the founders connected gun rights to “a well-regulated militia” and not to individual ownership.”
Or did they mean that there IS a right to individual ownership in order to regulate whatever militia may be in place?
Dunno, PD. Don’t own a gun. Never have. No real interest in owning one.
Sorry if my ability to read and understand the Constitution offends you, though.
I’m presuming you were making a crude fellatio reference. If, instead, you were making a suicide allusion… well, then, I’d have to say it fits your side better that you’re willing to give an absolute monopoly of force on the police, the government (as in, “Bush’s police state”), and the criminals.
Of course, the government would NEVER violate citizens’ rights, would it? Like, say, going around after a hurricane with a list of all the registered guns and confiscating them?
Oh, that was done by a Democratic mayor, so it doesn’t count. My bad.
J.
Well, now that we have “three strikes” laws, and the gun ban has been overturned, perhaps conservatives can think of some other creative ways to lower the homicide rate in urban areas, from 25-50 down to a more manageable 10-15, eh?
Now, this is an example of reasonable rhetoric from a reasonable SCOTUS watcher:
“As Senator Obama points out, the supreme court’s decision against allowing “partial birth” abortion, even when the woman’s health is in the balance, shows once again how crooked the courts have become after the Republicans have packed them with conservative ideologues. Democrats too often cede the issue of judges to the right, and only discuss them when the abortion issue comes up, but this is an ongoing assault on the American way of life and we need common sense judges to stop the perversion of democracy.”
Wouldn’t you agree, Oliver?
That’s the court, baby.
Now, this is an example of reasonable rhetoric from a reasonable SCOTUS watcher:
An anonymous SCOTUS watcher, apparently.
Hardly so. It’s all a matter of looking in the right place.
Does this mean the tranquil crime-free streets of DC will now be overrun with guns? Wait until those unscrupulous criminmals realize they can now legally own handguns in the District!
Is that right with a capital R, matt?
“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.”
To me (and several Constitutional scholars and historians, including Richard Rhodes, the only one I can recall by name) the common-sense reading of this is that the right to bear “arms” shall not be infringed by the Federal government in order that individual states remain able to maintain militias for their CIVIL DEFENSE. By extension the Federal government is prevented from outlawing individual OR collective ownership of arms. BUT this is not to say that an individual state (or D.C., for that matter) cannot choose to ban individual ownership.
But I didn’t want to fence with anyone on that. Take the partial-birth abortion decision and other, clearer, of this Court’s travesties: will it be harder to clean up those decisions because of any better constituted Court’s reverence for “precedent?” That’s my original question.
Sorry if my ability to read and understand the Constitution offends you, though.
No, your dismissal of “gun free zones”. Pity, disgust -pick one.
Britain is a “gun free zone”. How’s that been working out? 61 gunshot homicides in 2005-2006. Here in the U.S. during the same period; 11,346.
I’d have to say it fits your side better that you’re willing to give an absolute monopoly of force on the police, the government (as in, “Bush’s police state”), and the criminals.
Come again? Government and police are institutions governed by the people, i.e. held accountable for their actions through oversight, checks and balances, y’know, constitutional stuff. There is no “absoulte monopoly”, civics genius. The idea of lumping that with “Bush’s police state” is retard kabuki, boilerplate sophistry at best.
Indeed no, Duros.
A small r, such as might follow the word “Olive.”
the common-sense reading of this is that the right to bear “arms” shall not be infringed by the Federal government in order that individual states remain able to maintain militias for their CIVIL DEFENSE.
bozo, I was under the impression (correct me, please) that this was due in large part to Washington’s ambivalence to the new United States having a standing army. In lieu of a federal army, it would be essential for states to have their own militias, yes? That being the case, and the fact that we eventually formed a federal army, I wonder why the founders left that part in the way it’s worded?
PD, I was referring to “gun-free zones” like Virginia Tech, or that mall in Omaha, or the first church in Utah, where “gun-free zones” meant “safe hunting grounds for psychos.” On the other hand, guns in the hands of private citizens (or, in one case, off-duty police officers attending classes at a law school) have put quick ends to would-be mass shootings.
Also, FD, it’s my understanding that while gun-related homicides have fallen in England, total homicides have risen. To me, that means that the killers have ratcheted up their efforts, while would-be victims have had to do without their ability to defend themselves.
Or is it OK if murders go up, as long as no big, scary guns are involved?
As a wiser person than I said:
“It’s not a gun-free zone if you get shot there.”
J.
JT: it’s my understanding that while gun-related homicides have fallen in England, total homicides have risen. To me, that means that the killers have ratcheted up their efforts, while would-be victims have had to do without their ability to defend themselves.
Does that mean the homicides are being committed with something other than a gun? Say knives or cricket bats? In which case, these non-gun items are as available to the general public as to the killers, and the would-be victims then do have an ability to protect themselves.
Duros62: “bozo, I was under the impression (correct me, please) that this was due in large part to Washington’s ambivalence to the new United States having a standing army.”
Per Malcolm Friedberg on HuffPo: “The Founding Fathers intentionally gave the States the right to have a militia, as opposed to creating a Federal army, as a way for the people to protect their State against the Federal Government. But over time the militia was replaced by city, state and federal law enforcement, and today the only militia recognized by the federal courts are the U.S. National Guard and the Naval Militia.”
The presence now of a Federal army doesn’t change the meaning of the Amendment, which is to prevent the Federal government from limiting the States’ own militias. States today, you may be sure, are still against the Federal government having a monopoly on arms.
More to the point is that the Founders did NOT establish an individual’s right to bear arms, especially one that would overarch any state’s or city’s law to the contrary. That overarching right remained to the Supremes to invent in 2008.
Sean, there’s a reason why guns were called “equalizers.” Take a 25-year-old man and a 72-year-old woman. Give them both cricket bats, and see who wins. Then take another similar pair, and give them both guns. Changes the equation a bit, eh?
Best yet: give the thug his cricket bat, breaking into the old lady’s house, and give her the gun. No guarantee she’ll come out ahead, but that’s where I’d put my money.
The point I’m trying to make is that when gun control is argued, the main point is “there will be fewer murders.” Well, pretty much every time it’s been tried, murders — as well as crimes in general — tend to go UP.
Even in Jolly Old England, when they banned guns throughout the whole COUNTRY.
At what point does this sink through the skulls of the gun-banning crowd? When will they acknowledge that not only has what they proposed never worked, but it’s almost always led to precisely the opposite of what they promise will happen?
J.
“Well, pretty much every time it’s been tried, murders — as well as crimes in general — tend to go UP.
Even in Jolly Old England, when they banned guns throughout the whole COUNTRY.”
Proof?
Anotherbozo: The presence now of a Federal army doesn’t change the meaning of the Amendment, which is to prevent the Federal government from limiting the States’ own militias. States today, you may be sure, are still against the Federal government having a monopoly on arms.
That’s all very well and good, but I rather doubt a state is going to mobilize the US National Guard in an uprising against the Federal government. That didn’t work out so well last time.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
Like Somalia, Afghanistan, Columbia, Haiti………………..
Duros62:
“That’s all very well and good, but I rather doubt a state is going to mobilize the US National Guard in an uprising against the Federal government. That didn’t work out so well last time.”
I’m sure it won’t come to that. President Messiah will surely negotiate a diplomatic solution, won’t he?
“Also, FD, it’s my understanding that while gun-related homicides have fallen in England, total homicides have risen. “
I’m trying not to laugh (nah, no I’m not) but when you boldly assert this claim, I hear you, Cassy, D.J., and Kim belting out “God Bless America” with a tuba, banjo, kazoo and an armpit.
Let’s refute the Wizbang School of “I Pulled This Straight From Mah Ass”
BZZZZT!!1!!11! The UK homicide rate has been flat from 2000 to 2006!!
But wait! Wizwank’s statement is technically correct within the limits of his claim that “total homicides have risen” by a whopping total of 640 to 785 in the span of 13 years!!!
Oh noes!1!!11!! Ditch the UK gun ban!! What does our contestant get?
An extra large gift package of STFU as a consellation prize!! Thanks for playing…
Yourrrrre a Wingnut Dipshit!
Liberal hubris and ignorance is almost unboundless. The desire to have a world as they wish rather than how it is. Liberal dissentors will argue that the clause which states the right is necessary for a well maintained militia is a collective and not individual right are substituting desire for fact.
“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.”
And what pray tell does regulate mean?
regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare “to control by rule, direct” (5c.), from L. regula “rule” (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, “act of regulating;” sense of “rule for management” is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng. history, with a capital R-, “member of a commission appointed in 1687 to manage county elections.” In U.S. history, applied to local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions c.1767-71. Meaning “clock by which other timepieces are set” is attested from 1758
So let us put this into context.
A militia subject to control by rule, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not nearly as so hard to understand as liberal teachers of constitutional theory like to make it out to be. Let us examine the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, many are familiar with the quote below:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Let us back up just a bit from what has been rendered now as basically a soundbite. A paragraph or two before the first phrase Jefferson writes;
“What country before ever existed a century &a half without a rebellion? &what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
Remind me again what is unclear about the second amendment?
The underlying premise of Natural law is an inherent right to life and liberty. At it’s most basic level the right to life includes the right to self defense. And again at it’s most basic level the right of liberty is meaningless without the ability to forcefully guarantee one’s right to liberty. Liberals wish to live in a sugar coated world of an all powerful nanny state. Liberal ignorance has yet to extinguish the historical premise of this nation, why it was founded and what it means.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
This quote, and the people who use this quote to oppose gun control, really speaks about the people that use it. What does it say?
1. “I cannot get a positive response from people under normal circumstances.”
2. “I am willing to resort to threatening physical violence in order to get said positive response.”
3. “I am so desperate for a positive reaction, I don’t care if it is faked or what circumstances the respondent was under.”
Summary: “I am an attention-craving sociopath!”
Sean, there’s a reason why guns were called “equalizers.” Take a 25-year-old man and a 72-year-old woman. Give them both cricket bats, and see who wins. Then take another similar pair, and give them both guns. Changes the equation a bit, eh?
Not really, the recoil from even a handgun would easily break the woman’s arm.
Dark: I’d be reluctant to call those “societies.”
PD: The homicide rate has stayed relatively flat since the gun ban? Gee, I thought — and was promised — that the ban would make things BETTER. By your own admission, the BEST you can argue is that it has stayed any increase. On the other hand, the general crime rate has gone up.
Finally, Zython, I’d say that the “armed/polite” line says that “I value my own rights — including the right to life — that I am willing to make damned sure I can protect both, and I fully expect that others will do the same. So as certain as I am that I will not let my rights be infringed, I am also as certain that others will believe the same way and act accordingly, so I will not infringe on their rights.”
And whether or not the recoil will break the woman’s arm depends on her physical health — I’ve known some 72-year-olds who could kick my ass. But more fundamentally, that recoil would mean that she had fired the weapon — in other words, had done at least SOMETHING to protect herself that might actually save her life. A broken wrist in exchange for an assailant killed or scared off? Sounds like a fair trade to me.
J.
I’d like to see those NRA fuckwits and Antonin Scalia join me for a stroll from my home, 50 feet to the site of the drive by shooting last week, another 2 blocks to the site of a shooting last year, and then into lovely Trinidad, where the district has set up a f’in military blockade to combat gun violence (which, by the way, does nothing but push the crimes a bit out of the neighborhood).
Seriously, how could they make this decision now? Gun violence is out of control in the district, and Fenty is damn right to enact whatever the hell he wants. Let people in red states keep their guns – here we need gun control. People are dying.
“States today, you may be sure, are still against the Federal government having a monopoly on arms.”
Meaning, Duros62, that states currently see a need to arm their municipal police forces, national guards, etc. for internal needs, (crime, riot control, etc.) not for any potential war against the federal government. Tyrannophobic Washington was loath to limit arms to a central power.
Clearly the framers wanted to limit the powers of the federal government; that’s why they phrased the Second Amendment as they did. What I’m sure they DIDN’T want was for there to be instituted a federally-guaranteed, universal individual right to own a gun that would supercede all local regulations to the contrary by making them “unconstitutional.”
Jay Tea, then can you cite any societies where the quote you made is, in fact, true as of this day?
To all the idiots arguing that the Constitution’s second amendment does not confer an INDIVIDUAL right — even the dissenting justices disagree with you:
That was the first paragraph of the dissent.
Dark,
As much as I hate to step on Jay Tea’s toes, I have to ask: “What’s your threshold?”
Repeating your question: “can you cite any societies where the quote you made is, in fact, true as of this day?”
The answer is yes. I can.
But can I count on you behaving like a liberal moving the goal posts after I do so?
How many is enough?
All you’ve asked for is “any.”
All I need is Switzerland.
On the other hand, the general crime rate has gone up.
BZZZZT!!1!11!!
Ocne again wrongness is no obstacle to writing. In fact, it just makes them double down..
“To all the idiots…”
They were adjudicating a very specific case, right? As is their wont?
And why not keep it civil, JWG?
BTW, according to Sanford Levinson at HuffPo, just because Scalia is wrong doesn’t mean Stevens is right:
DC v. Heller: A Dismaying Performance By The Supreme Court
There are a lot of arguments for a right of individual gun ownership.
But the plain fact is that the Constitution speaks directly to the issue. The Constitution defines a militia as a body organized and armed by Congress. Whatever the “practices of the time”, Article 1, Section 8 is specific: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the ervice of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
It’s important to remember that the 2nd Amendment is a later document than the Constitution and its reference to a “well-regulated militia” can hardly refer to something entirely new and different than what the framers wrote about originally. If that were the case, these rather intelligent, literate folk would have given us another definition of the term “militia”.
If what the Constitution says is important to you, then you have to go with what it says. Or forfeit all that bull about the value of “original intent”.
To add to matt’s citation of Switzerland, I’ll toss in Israel.
A sizable chunk of the populace goes around armed — some even with assault rifles and automatic weapons. But the vast majority of violence is carried out by outsiders, using bombs and rockets and mortars. I can only think of two serious shootings by Israelis — the assassination of Menachem Begin and the Cave of the Patriarchs.
More to the point, I have to wonder why so many people have so much distrust for their fellow Americans, why they think that the average person will turn into a crazed psychotic by the mere possession of a firearm.
I have a bit more faith in my fellow Americans. However, I do find it a tad comforting that some of the most irrational ones — say, a good chunk of the regular crowd here — are so paranoid about guns that they would never even dream of owning one. It’s a form of craziness, but it’s nicely self-regulating.
J.
It’s not my paranoia that bothers me, Jay. It’s the other guy’s.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/21375009.html
This got almost no press at all. Strangely fitting that the SC rules the same week.
Just saying.
Self regulating or not, good idea or not, there are actual Constitutional issues in play concerning the legality of owning firearms.
And remember, it was common practice for town marshalls in the freedom-loving Old West to have everyone check their guns when they came to town. There was no widespread agreement that having everyone walking around armed was a great idea.
Duros, I suspect that that plant was — like a lot of workplaces — a “gun-free zone.” To the point where bringing a gun on the premises was a firing offense.
And “other guy?” You mean your fellow citizens, those who you (I suspect) are counting on to support Barack Obama for president?
If you don’t trust them, individually, to do the right thing, why do you trust them, collectively, to do so? Ever heard of the “mob mentality?”
It’s been my observation that when someone subsumes their identity into a group, they are far more willing to commit more heinous deeds than when they are spotlighted as an individual. That’s why I fear large groups of unarmed people (such as, say, Congress) than any single random person with a weapon.
J.
Duros, I suspect that that plant was — like a lot of workplaces — a “gun-free zone.” To the point where bringing a gun on the premises was a firing offense.
Well, it is Kentucky, so we don’t know for sure. However, in a “polite society”, armed or not, there should not be a reason for people to be armed at work.
And “other guy?” You mean your fellow citizens, those who you (I suspect) are counting on to support Barack Obama for president?
No, I mean bat-shit crazies like your readers.
Remember, Duros, that those readers (well, apart from the occasional one from abroad — we have a new semi-troll from Canada) all have just as much right to vote as you do.
Ain’t it a great country?
J.
Never said otherwise, Jay.
I can only think of two serious shootings by Israelis — the assassination of Menachem Begin
I think you mean Yitzhak Rabin. Mr. Tea, if I’m going to have to spend this much time factchecking, I’m going to have to start billing you.
Dammit, Quaker. You’re right. I tend to think of Begin and Anwar Sadat together, because of Camp David, and Sadat was assassinated, so I tend to think of Begin as assassinated, too. But it wasn’t him, it was Rabin. You’re right, I was mistaken. Thanks for correcting me.
J.
It’s not my paranoia that bothers me, Jay. It’s the other guy’s.
Exactly, it’s not that I think average Joe citizen will turn psycho, is that the gun nuts like Jay Tea will turn psycho (if they haven’t already). I wouldn’t trust you people with anything more dangerous than a boiled egg.
Also, Jay (Tea), your “analysis” of your own quote is a bit fault, as it doesn’t mention anything about rights, just interpersonal interaction.
Zython, did you miss the part up top when I stated my personal opinion of guns?
Don’t own a gun. Never have. No real interest in owning one.
Just an abiding interest in the Constitution, and the rights recognized (NOT granted) therein.
Although I did recently read something interesting — apparently gun control laws really started emerging in the latter 19th century, to keep them out of the hands of newly-freed slaves. Ain’t that fascinating?
J.
Don’t own a gun. Never have. No real interest in owning one.
I have no way of verifying this one way or the other.
Although I did recently read something interesting — apparently gun control laws really started emerging in the latter 19th century, to keep them out of the hands of newly-freed slaves. Ain’t that fascinating?
Interesting if true. Even so, I fail to see how that’s relevant.
I guess Zython wouldn’t find this story relevant, either.
Switzerland isn’t a land where lots of folks outside the armed forces and local police pack heat, which isn’t what many NRA types are in favor of.
JT: Don’t own a gun. Never have. No real interest in owning one.
Zython: I have no way of verifying this one way or the other.
IOW, you say that’s your opinion but I have no way of verifying it actually is your opinion other than you’re saying it is.
That’s got to take the prize for stupidest come back I’ve seen yet in this discussion.
Dark, here’s something you might appreciate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
And Zython, if you want to challenge my gun ownership, feel free to break into my home. I’ll be facing you with a very scary-looking knife — presuming you get past my fierce stuffed attack duck.
If that isn’t good enough, then screw you. If I owned any guns at all, I’d say so. I have no reason whatsoever to lie; whether or not I owned a gun now, or ever did, is irrelevant to my arguments. Calling me a “gun nut” simply shows you to be an idiot — and because it’s factually inaccurate as well as an ad hominem attempt at dismissing my points, doubly an idiot.
J.