First Supreme Court case re: 2nd Amendment in 70 years

[lostfan]

I'm not sure what saying this does to the argument, but if the gov't really did decide to call you up, i.e., draft you, they would give you a gun and you wouldn't even be allowed to use yours.

[StrangeSox]

I would assume that in a word definition, that all definitions would be valid.

Not when the definitions vary in meaning and are describing militias as defined around the world. Reading the rest of that wiki, along with the associated US militia wiki and official US code makes it pretty clear on what the definition of a militia in the US is, and its a bit more than your chopped up definition.

 

I'm not sure what saying this does to the argument, but if the gov't really did decide to call you up, i.e., draft you, they would give you a gun and you wouldn't even be allowed to use yours.

 

A military draft is not the same as calling out the unorganized militia.

Edited March 20, 2008 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

calling out the unorganized militia.

In the unlikely event this were to happen though, wouldn't that be in direct conflict with the first 4 words? ("A well-regulated militia")

[StrangeSox]

In the unlikely event this were to happen though, wouldn't that be in direct conflict with the first 4 words? ("A well-regulated militia")

 

Regulated and organized are two different things, and you have to be aware of what regulated means in 1792 vs. 2008.

[lostfan]

Regulated and organized are two different things, and you have to be aware of what regulated means in 1792 vs. 2008.

touche

[EvilMonkey]

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110//03-...0105002_06.html

 

Calif. Woman Slain on the Phone With 911

 

WEST COVINA, Calif. (AP) - A woman was asking a 911 dispatcher for help when her pleas were interrupted by gunshots, then silence. She was shot to death.

 

The woman told the dispatcher someone was trying to break into her home in upscale West Covina, Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Dan Rosenberg said. "Deputies heard gunshots followed by silence and an open phone line," he said.

 

Deputies arrived at the house, 20 miles east of Los Angeles, a few minutes after Wednesday's late morning call.

 

The woman, whose name was not released by police, had been shot several times. Paramedics pronounced her dead at the scene.

 

"At this point we believe it was a burglary gone awry," Rosenberg said.

 

Investigators are trying to determine if anything was taken, Deputy Luis Castro said.

 

While police were investigating the shooting, a man arrived at the home asking about his wife.

 

When he heard that the woman had been shot and killed, he collapsed and started to cry, saying "No! She just called me. You lie."

 

The man was placed in a patrol car and taken to a sheriff's station, police said.

 

Witnesses said they saw one or more men running from the house, Rosenberg said.

 

Investigators used bloodhounds to conduct yard-to-yard searches.

 

No arrests had been made by Thursday morning, deputies said.

 

As a precaution during the search, a high school and an elementary school were locked down for about two hours, police Lt. Dan Brooks said.

[lostfan]

I think fanatical gun control is flat-out stupid fwiw... just my 2 cents. Criminals don't obey laws, it's not fair they get to have guns and we don't.

 

However, regulations and certain restrictions are completely appropriate.

Edited March 21, 2008 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110//03-...0105002_06.html

So are we going to go now to posting every home invasion crime that takes place in this country and saying "oh if only this person had a gun". What happens if it turns out by some chance that the gun used in the killing actually belonged to the people living there? In that hypothetical, would you suddenly change your mind and want guns banned, because if there hadn't been a gun in the house she'd still be alive? Or, she's a 45 year old woman. Would you expect her to be well trained? They have 2 kids. There's a lot of potential for an accident there. Should I go and start finding every listing of a gun related accident and post those in response to every gun crime you post? Is any of that going to be productive?

[EvilMonkey]

So are we going to go now to posting every home invasion crime that takes place in this country and saying "oh if only this person had a gun". What happens if it turns out by some chance that the gun used in the killing actually belonged to the people living there? In that hypothetical, would you suddenly change your mind and want guns banned, because if there hadn't been a gun in the house she'd still be alive? Or, she's a 45 year old woman. Would you expect her to be well trained? They have 2 kids. There's a lot of potential for an accident there. Should I go and start finding every listing of a gun related accident and post those in response to every gun crime you post? Is any of that going to be productive?

Calm down a little, eh? You are leaping to a few conclusions there pretty fast. To the people who claim that we don't need guns because that's what we have 911 and the police for, this just shows that that isn't always going to work. I realize that there are alot of accidental home shootings, usually because some idiot leaves a gun laying around where kids can get it, and that they don't teach thier kids to respect guns. I have been hunting since I was big enough to hold my shotgun. Dad taught me to shoot, and to respect the power of guns. They have been in my house all my life without incident. I know they happen, just pointing out that they also don't happen.

[Texsox]

I am not an originalist. I do not believe the framers of our constitution were the most brilliant individuals to ever walk our earth. They did manage to write an amazing document that has served us well for over 200 years.

 

To keep strong, I believe we can, and should, carefully update the Constitution when necessary.

 

I believe they intended the citizens to grab their guns and come a runnin' when the government called. Such is clearly not the case today.

I believed they realized that most citizens would be shootin' up some food, and realized a gun would be a necessary tool. Such is clearly not the case today.

 

I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns.

I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose.

 

I think owning a gun is fine.

I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at.

 

I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed.

I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens

 

I think for a gun to be useful for home protection, it needs to be readily available, unlockable in seconds, and loaded.

I think that is a recipe for disaster with kids in the house. I felt a home security system was a better option for my family and kept all my weapons securely locked, partially disassembled, and my ammo was under separate lock and key. I slept better at night knowing my guns would not hurt my kids.

[lostfan]

I am not an originalist. I do not believe the framers of our constitution were the most brilliant individuals to ever walk our earth. They did manage to write an amazing document that has served us well for over 200 years.

 

To keep strong, I believe we can, and should, carefully update the Constitution when necessary.

 

I believe they intended the citizens to grab their guns and come a runnin' when the government called. Such is clearly not the case today.

I believed they realized that most citizens would be shootin' up some food, and realized a gun would be a necessary tool. Such is clearly not the case today.

 

I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns.

I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose.

 

I think owning a gun is fine.

I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at.

 

I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed.

I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens

 

I think for a gun to be useful for home protection, it needs to be readily available, unlockable in seconds, and loaded.

I think that is a recipe for disaster with kids in the house. I felt a home security system was a better option for my family and kept all my weapons securely locked, partially disassembled, and my ammo was under separate lock and key. I slept better at night knowing my guns would not hurt my kids.

Great post... plenty of common sense here. Only thing I have some issue with is the part about guns being readily available - the easier it is to access, the easier it is to be found by an intruder and used against you. That's a slippery slope.

 

What are your thoughts on gun collecting by the way? Curious.

[Texsox]

Great post... plenty of common sense here. Only thing I have some issue with is the part about guns being readily available - the easier it is to access, the easier it is to be found by an intruder and used against you. That's a slippery slope.

 

What are your thoughts on gun collecting by the way? Curious.

 

If you are going to count on the gun for protection, you have to assume you will be getting to it first and the intruder will not out muscle you for it.

 

Collecting and creating an arsenal are usually easy to differentiate.

[iamshack]

Great thread here guys. Some very interesting stuff in here.

 

As for your interpretations of the Constitution, my experience with it (as an attorney who has been through law school) are that the Supreme Court or the Powers that Be (that influence the Supreme Court) will find a way to construct an argument for an interpretation that supports their viewpoint or favorable result. The letter of the law is often manipulated backwards (from a results-oriented approach) to make the language support whatever they want it to support rather than truly trying to interpret the language as it is to support a a result unbiasedly. I suppose it's human nature, and it's also realism for the world we live in today, but it's a shame sometimes (and awfully confusing!).

 

I only say this because I've learned it's often pointless to try and analyze the language to understand the result reached. The better approach is usually to analyze the result reached (or desired) and attempt to understand how the language can be manipulated or interpreted to support such a result.

 

My personal opinion on gun control and the 2nd Amendment is that regardless of what the Framers meant or intended or flat-out stated, the world has changed enough to where reason must prevail (which is ALWAYS the largest underlying consideration in our method of government) and gun manufacture, marketing, and usage must be massively regulated and constantly revised. And as a person who has little experience with guns, the most obvious first step is no automatic weapons. But that's just my humble opinion.

[EvilMonkey]

Most gun owners would have no problems with 'reasonable' limits, restrictions, licensing, etc. But with our society today, you know full well that give an inch, take a mile. Automatic weapons are already against the law, except in certain cases (law enforcement and some collectors, but that is mostly vintage stuff). Sure, there is no real need for cop killer bullets and plastic handguns, but when buzz words like 'semi-automatic' get thrown around and nobody seems to understand what that really is, things get heated and misunderstood. Just about any gun today that isn't a single-shot rifle or muzzleloader is semi-automatic. OK, make gun owners take a safety class. The NRA sponsors alot of those, as do some police departments (not many, though). License them. Background checks are good. But some states go overboard. California is trying to pass new laws that will make you have to apply for another permit just to buy ammunition. And they want to make it a crime to give anyone, spouse included, more than 50 rounds of ammo in any 30-day period. You can go thru over 100 rounds at a target range easy. TEx had some good thoughts about this topic, some of which I agree with. I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns. I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose. I think owning a gun is fine. I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at. I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed. I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Most gun owners would have no problems with 'reasonable' limits, restrictions, licensing, etc. But with our society today, you know full well that give an inch, take a mile. Automatic weapons are already against the law, except in certain cases (law enforcement and some collectors, but that is mostly vintage stuff). Sure, there is no real need for cop killer bullets and plastic handguns, but when buzz words like 'semi-automatic' get thrown around and nobody seems to understand what that really is, things get heated and misunderstood. Just about any gun today that isn't a single-shot rifle or muzzleloader is semi-automatic. OK, make gun owners take a safety class. The NRA sponsors alot of those, as do some police departments (not many, though). License them. Background checks are good. But some states go overboard. California is trying to pass new laws that will make you have to apply for another permit just to buy ammunition. And they want to make it a crime to give anyone, spouse included, more than 50 rounds of ammo in any 30-day period. You can go thru over 100 rounds at a target range easy. TEx had some good thoughts about this topic, some of which I agree with. I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns. I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose. I think owning a gun is fine. I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at. I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed. I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens.

 

The irony is that this reasoning is the exact same reason every "common sense" abortion law has been fought tooth and nail. It is interesting to see the same technniques for getting something made completely illegal are being done.

[StrangeSox]

Most gun owners would have no problems with 'reasonable' limits, restrictions, licensing, etc. But with our society today, you know full well that give an inch, take a mile. Automatic weapons are already against the law, except in certain cases (law enforcement and some collectors, but that is mostly vintage stuff). Sure, there is no real need for cop killer bullets and plastic handguns, but when buzz words like 'semi-automatic' get thrown around and nobody seems to understand what that really is, things get heated and misunderstood. Just about any gun today that isn't a single-shot rifle or muzzleloader is semi-automatic. OK, make gun owners take a safety class. The NRA sponsors alot of those, as do some police departments (not many, though). License them. Background checks are good. But some states go overboard. California is trying to pass new laws that will make you have to apply for another permit just to buy ammunition. And they want to make it a crime to give anyone, spouse included, more than 50 rounds of ammo in any 30-day period. You can go thru over 100 rounds at a target range easy. TEx had some good thoughts about this topic, some of which I agree with. I think we have individuals in this society that should not have guns. I think there are many times more that are responsible and should have access to guns if they choose. I think owning a gun is fine. I think owning enough guns to arm a small city, should be looked at. I think practical guns and ammo, for reasonable activities, should be allowed. I think some types of ammo, extreme calibers and loads, fully auto weapons should probably be unavailable to ordinary citizens.

 

You can still have them, there's just a decent amount of red tape to go through first . They're not illegal by any means. There's also been only 1 or two crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons in the past 70 years.

 

Edit: The machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986.

Edited March 24, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

You can still have them, there's just a decent amount of red tape to go through first . They're not illegal by any means. There's also been only 1 or two crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons in the past 70 years.

 

Yeah, and how many committed with illegally owned automatic weapons? Thousands?

[lostfan]

Yeah, and how many committed with illegally owned automatic weapons? Thousands?

The key word here is "illegal." Criminals are already breaking the law by default, so I'm not sure what putting extra restrictions on people who do follow the law is really supposed to accomplish. Actually I am sure. It'll accomlish nothing. Nothing real, anyway.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, and how many committed with illegally owned automatic weapons? Thousands?

 

Doubtful. Most crimes are committed with semi-automatic handguns, not rifles. I'm sure some crimes are committed with illegally-modified guns, but making it illegal to modify a gun isn't going to stop someone who is going to use that gun to commit a crime anyway.

 

My point was that you can get an automatic weapon and if you're going through all of the BS to get one, you're not going to be the type of person using it for the wrong reason. Edit: The machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986.

 

FYI,

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

 

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

 

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

 

The key word here is "illegal." Criminals are already breaking the law by default, so I'm not sure what putting extra restrictions on people who do follow the law is really supposed to accomplish. Actually I am sure. It'll accomlish nothing. Nothing real, anyway.

 

Bingo. Time and time again, empirical evidence shows that gun bans just don't really work. A majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns anyway, so making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns doesn't do much of anything to stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

Edited March 24, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

Doubtful. Most crimes are committed with semi-automatic handguns, not rifles. I'm sure some crimes are committed with illegally-modified guns, but making it illegal to modify a gun isn't going to stop someone who is going to use that gun to commit a crime anyway.

 

My point was that you can get an automatic weapon and if you're going through all of the BS to get one, you're not going to be the type of person using it for the wrong reason.

Bingo. Time and time again, empirical evidence shows that gun bans just don't really work. A majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns anyway, so making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns doesn't do much of anything to stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

 

Oh I don't doubt you for a minute. The problem isn't so much in creating the red tape necessary to get them as it is somehow stemming the flow of them.

[lostfan]

I actually can't think of very many reasons the average person needs a fully-automatic weapon though.

[Jenksismyhero]

I actually can't think of very many reasons the average person needs a fully-automatic weapon though.

 

 

So? You arguing to me why the government shouldn't allow something is the complete opposite of how this system should, and I'd argue was intended, to work.

 

It should be: give me a reason why the government should ban my right to do X, Y, Z.

[southsider2k5]

Doubtful. Most crimes are committed with semi-automatic handguns, not rifles. I'm sure some crimes are committed with illegally-modified guns, but making it illegal to modify a gun isn't going to stop someone who is going to use that gun to commit a crime anyway.

 

My point was that you can get an automatic weapon and if you're going through all of the BS to get one, you're not going to be the type of person using it for the wrong reason. Edit: The machine gun has to have been manufactured prior to May 19th, 1986.

 

FYI,

Bingo. Time and time again, empirical evidence shows that gun bans just don't really work. A majority of crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns anyway, so making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns doesn't do much of anything to stop criminals from getting their hands on them.

 

This is the same arguement I hear over and over again for making illegal drugs legal.

[StrangeSox]

This is the same arguement I hear over and over again for making illegal drugs legal.

 

If a gun ban is in place to reduce violent crimes but does not, what good is it? Then you only keep law-abiding citizens from having the choice to protect themselves.

 

It's my opinion that if a law or policy isn't working or makes the situation worse (like with prohibition and criminalization of a lot of drugs), then it should be revised or removed.

[lostfan]

So? You arguing to me why the government shouldn't allow something is the complete opposite of how this system should, and I'd argue was intended, to work.

 

It should be: give me a reason why the government should ban my right to do X, Y, Z.

lol what? I have no idea how you figured that's what I was saying, in fact I think based off that you're completely misinterpreting my stance on the whole issue. That statement made no argument, it was intended to stand at face value.