What is really troubling, concerning the very clear language of the 2nd Ammendment, is that the court ruling was a 5-4 thing.
Gun owners and freedom lovers, like myself, are dancing around, crowing about their victory today as if they've saved the republic.
That's Bullshit.
I see this for what it is: 5-4 is proof positive that the republic is on it's deathbed.
link
****OK, thats enough.
Comments are down for this post.
36 comments:
Yup! Kagan will get confirmed. Sometime in the next 30 years the gun thing will be revisited and all personally owned firearms will have to be turned in.
squeaky
As a few folks have noted:
our basic rights lay in the hands of Kennedy.
Nah. The debate has always been based on two arguments, neither of which have much basis in reality:
Right or wrong, mostly wrong, the anti-gun lobby has decided to understand the amendment to be referring to the National Guard, read: defense against savages and homesteads on the frontier.
And right or wrong, mostly wrong, the pro-gun lobby tends to stray from the viable argument of the right of self-defense and make the ridiculous argument that people should have guns because Big Brother and the sneaky commies trying to take our rights and our guns away.
In the meantime no one seems to catch the irony that the US is number 1 in the world in declared religious affiliation as well as murders; which can be spun to mean anything anyone wants depending on their politics.
The fact of the matter is that even if the second amendment is repealed and erased - which has about as much chance of happening as I have of giving birth to a baby boy out my dick - me and you will keep our guns anyway and screw the bastards.
Like the law ever mattered...
Regarding RW's comment, visit www.jpfo.org; they make it very clear that in many "cultured, educated" nations, registration was in fact a prelude to confiscation. For that matter, it's been that way in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and California as well. Kristallnacht occurred just months after Schicklgruber had about 2500 firearms confiscated from Berlin's Jews. Do.The.Math.
And regarding the claim that the United States is #1 in murder; false. Many nations, among them Jamaica and South Africa, exceed as a nation even Washington DC's horrific murder rate. Like DC, they banned the private ownership of firearms prior to the exploding of their crime rates.
Again; do.the.math.
RW-
Same way England would never be so stupid as to charge a woman for keeping her dead father's service weapon? Not with ammo, not using it, just possessing it?
We do need guns for self defense. Even against the government. Awful hard to become totalitarian when your targets aren't disarmed.
I'm fairly sure we're so far from #1 for murder by either gross or per thousand, even if you count only reported murders (as opposed to, say, honor killings or beating a Filipino maid to death in Saudi Arabia)
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441
Because the correlation to Nazi Germany is always a winning take on the subject, lol. I smell a Godwin...
It's important to actually stick one's head from out of the suburbs from time to time, and Bubba has to make a case for how the presence of legal guns would have stopped even one of the scores of murders in Chicago so far this year, especially this one, where a police officer and his ex-cop Dad showed their guns and ID'd themselves before the junkasses opened fire. Wortham graduated police academy with and was a best friend of my son-in-law. There is a substantial myth that says legal guns will nullify the use of illegal ones and that's plainly bullshit.
It is true that I am here guilty of some irresponsible hyperbole in placing the US as the #1 murder kingdom on the planet. But if the logic that heavy government gun control would only make the streets safer for thugs with illegal guns somebody please explain the per capita gun death rates of England, Scotland, Chile, Hong Kong, Spain, Taiwan, Japan and Ireland.
As a gun owner I reject the shrill crying some of my fellows present with their Nazi/Hitler crap. they should study up on the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum before they make us all look like a bunch of idiots.
"We do need guns for self defense. Even against the government. Awful hard to become totalitarian when your targets aren't disarmed" isn't an argument for the second amendment, it's an admission of a paranoid disorder. They have meds for this. I know that sounds like it may be breaking Gino's rules around here but Jesus Christ.... think about this. It's the wingnuts that make us sound foolish. The government is not going to take our guns away. Some folks need to stop sleeping with them under their pillow for God's sake. Really!
How do you figure it's paranoid? It has happened before. Shoot, it happened here before.... Revolution, anyone?
On what do you base your notion that it can't happen here, after this moment? Sure, some folks can make basic rifles in their shop, but I much favor something I can easily use, like a Sat. night special.
The only reason to disarm law-abiding citizens is because they are a threat. Be it because you are totalitarian, or you view them as children who need to be controlled for their own good, or you refuse to differentiate between criminals and those who are law abiding. None of which are the proper response of a government that serves the people.
Godwin's as generally applied only works if you think that a disarmed population was not relevant to the evil of the Axis powers.
(Ignoring that Godwin's law is actually just a prediction-- quite an good bet, too, since a thread is likely to go on for a long time because it incites interest and passions, and that tends to mean morality, and Nazis are a cultural shorthand for evil.)
Hitler Ate Sugar!
...Not really part of what made it effective evil.
Hitler was able to do what he did because there weren't guns!
...Much more relevant.
RW wrote, "...Bubba has to make a case for how the presence of legal guns would have stopped even one of the scores of murders in Chicago so far this year..."
Here's a case in Chicago from just the other day where a gun quite possibly stopped a murderer (stopped him dead you might say):
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/burglar.shot.killed.2.1715871.html
Of course, RW did say "legal" gun, so I suppose that refutes my point since there's presently no way for the 80-year-old citizen to own a legal gun in Chicago.
Foxfier; "On what do you base your notion that it can't happen here, after this moment?" is the wrong question. The question is what do you base your notion that it can happen here, after this moment?" since it's your declaration we're talking about. My fall back position would be that I am rational and you are hysterical. For one thing I need you to point out really soon where I said I wanted to disarm law abiding citizens. If you look at my original point all I actually said is that there are problems with the extreme positions and we need to get real, to which you argue that we have to be ever-vigilant lest a totalitarian monarch plants his lovely ass in the White House or something. And to some extent I agree... I think you should be vigilant about that. Please keep watching for that to happen. Don't take your eyes off the ball now. Keep watching. Stay right there & watch. OK? Good deal.
"Hitler was able to do what he did because there weren't guns!" So the belief that those in power had that they could control him had nothing to do with it? Alright then. Whatever you say. Keep watching that horizon now. Don't take your eyes off it... the Nazis are everywhere lol...
No Crank: the question was not about a home invasion, my question referred - quite specifically in fact - to the scores of murders in Chicago so far this year. My question is based on the premise that is quite often argued by the nutjob wing of my fellow gun owners (the ones up there watching the horizon for Adolf who is gonna be here ANY MINUTE NOW OMG!!!) that guns in the hands of all those potential victims would have stopped the violence. I wasn't talking about a home invasion, and it is not even fair that this is the example you make your case with. But it isn't unexpected that this would be the route we're taking in this discussion.
Look - people - I'm a happy gun owner. The second amendment acknowledges the right I have to have that gun. But I'm not a member of the NRA because I don't believe crop circles are caused by aliens any more than there is a vast left wing totalitarian Muslim conspiracy to take away our guns... as if we'd let them.
But more and more you guys are talking to me like I'm a gum control bugger. I can't help it if you folks are misled. There isn't anybody behind the bush. Guys... it's a rabbit. See?
jeeeeeesus...
BUT OK - your turn. I'm not going to convince anybody to relax. Y'all just keep your eye on that horizon. You. never. know...
And we need guM control! lol...
RW-
as the one making an outrageous claim, the burden of proof lays on you. We've shown, historically, that it can happen; now it's your turn to show either why it can't, or why the risk is so low from here to eternity as to be negligible.
You also need to read a lot more carefully-- where did I say YOU wanted to disarm anyone? You've been clear that you think guns are good for self defense, but for some reason only think such defense is needed against sub-government levels of organized humans.
I was speaking rather clearly about gun control measures that actually disarm folks.
You, on the other hand, seem to keep falling back in name calling and false claims. (Your murder claim? For that matter, what exactly does the "declared religious affiliation" thing mean? That we have records?)
I think it is important to bracket the question of interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from whether private ownership of guns is good policy or not.
I *think* most everyone here would agree that the 2nd does prohibit the federal government from infringing on an individual right to keep and bear arms (since that's pretty much what it says, and nowhere in the Constitution are "rights" referred to as belonging to anything other than individuals). And now that the SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd with this decision, this prohibition applies to state and local gov't as well.
This is all to the good, if for no other reason than if "shall not be infringed" means anything other than exactly that, then "Congress shall make no law," "shall not be violated", etc. don't mean a hell of a lot either.
That said, I think reasonable people can reach vastly different conclusions about whether private ownership of firearms is good policy or not, and surely this has a great deal to do with one's location, experience, and priorities.
Personally, I don't care to own a gun at this point in my life, and don't particularly care to be surrounded by them either. BUT, I also have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. And clearly, owning and carrying is very different in Chicago than it is in Montana.
I think it's probably a good thing that outright bans on ownership are being struck down. But I do worry that the same reasoning could be used to challenge reasonable restrictions on where and how guns can be carried ("reasonable" varying from place to place), and that if the pendulum swings too far in that direction, the push-back could lead to much more restrictive laws (and maybe changing the Constitution) in the future.
Even if the framers intended the 2nd as a bulwark against governmental tyranny (and I think a pretty good historical argument can be made that they did), the notion that this is still workable in the context of 21st century soldiering and weaponry is kind of absurd. We haven't avoided sliding into totalitarianism because of the .45 under your pillow.
It is good to look at other counties and the different policies they have and have had...with the caveat that there is enough data out there that anyone can cherry-pick to make whatever point they care to. Any comparison between two countries with regard to firearms and murder rates is kind of arbitrary. Most European countries have pretty restrictive ownership and lower murder rates, but then again Mexico has very restricted ownership and a very high murder rate. I'd be willing to bet if you looked at a broad enough data set, the correlation would be pretty close to flat.
Sorry...this ended up being much longer than I intended...
RW, the pattern goes WAY beyond Nazi Germany. Ottoman Turkey, the USSR, Communist China, Uganda, Guatemala, and other modern nations have enacted gun bans prior to genocides--it's not a Godwin's Law issue, but a longstanding pattern. In ancient times, Rome disarmed Carthage (and then destroyed it), and Philistia forcibly disarmed Israel. The English 1688 Bill of Rights affirms RKBA as a bulwark vs. tyranny, and the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought as the British tried to disarm the militias of those towns. A key reason for the 14th Amendment; men feared the southern states would (like Daley) forcibly disarm blacks.
And yes, I dare suggest that the prospect of confronting armed victims might give Chicago's thugs (and aldermen) pause. At the very least, it sure helps when a few of them assume room temperature, as John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" clearly demonstrates.
Spot on Gino!!!
Remember when stare decisis was important
SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-VT): “Is It Safe To Say That You Accept The Supreme Court’s Decision As Establishing That The Second Amendment Right Is An Individual Right? Is That Correct?”
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “Yes, Sir.”
Stare Decisis my ass. The precedence of the Heller decision should never have ended in a 5-4 for this decision.
Expect Kagan to do the same.
Foxfier; That you can't see your claim as bullshit I think is endemic of the discussion. The steady state right now is that there is a second amendment that acknowledges my right to have a gun. I have that right and it has just been protected further by the Supreme Court just YESTERDAY for fuck's sake. But I have to labor mightily to now show why I feel the government isn't after my gun. Give me a fucking break.
I explained my comment on the murder rate, I read your line about disarming people in the same catty tone you wrote the line above it, and it is not "name-calling" to express a concern about your mental condition. People in the middle of a condition aren't always able to see it. I take meds for seasonal depression, and there's no shame in that. When I suggest you look into your paranoia I assure you I am not kidding or name-calling. I'm perfectly serious.
Bubba - so you are saying there are forces at work right now who are attempting to disarm us. Who are they? You note that disarming is the first step in the disarmed's destruction. Who wants to destroy us besides al qaida that has later in mind to destroy us? And the problem with your reasoning about whether or not the presence of guns in those situations in Chicago where gun violence has been rampant is, in my humble opinion, based on an ignorance of Chicago. There's guns all over the south side as it is. It IS an armed society there. the last thing it is is a POLITE society. You need a better understanding of Chicago before you can even hope to go there with what you "dare to suggest." Your suggestion is noted. But it would need more meat on that stick before it can be taken seriously.
And may I add, when a supreme court decision is handed down there is no score card on it. It doesn't matter if it's 4.897 to 4.103. So to see this as "proof positive that the republic is on it's deathbed" is really hyperbolic nonsense.
RW-
that fact is why you're the one that's actually got issues. I can see possibilities beyond "you are insane." You seem to be unable to do so, and still you haven't made an actual argument.
... Stating a preference for guns I can handle which are professionally and inexpensively made over ones that can be made in a home shop is "catty"? K, maybe you do have mental issues.
I guess from your listing of Japan and the UK as somehow not being safer for murderers is based off of the same in-depth research that made you think the US might be #1 for murder rates.
If we voted to kill all red heads in the nation, and the result was 40% in favor, 60% against, then we'd be pretty dang upset.
If the Supreme Court voted 5-4 against re-instituting slavery, would you see the issue?
"We haven't avoided sliding into totalitarianism because of the .45 under your pillow." This is correct. We've avoided totalitarianism because of that watchtower by my azaleas...
:-D
Even if the framers intended the 2nd as a bulwark against governmental tyranny (and I think a pretty good historical argument can be made that they did), the notion that this is still workable in the context of 21st century soldiering and weaponry is kind of absurd.
So... lesser armed folks can't possibly stand against the might of our cops, let alone our armed forces?
Asymmetrical warfare is totally impossible. I'm greatly reassured.
Can you tell that to, say, LA's gangs? Since the're not using grenade launchers or anything, they can't possibly resist the cops?
I want this to be an option for my den. ^.^
Foxfier, actually the best response for when you feel you've been dissed without cause on an internet discussion board is to quote the offense and then simply say "that is not an argument." It is a pleasing collection of self-deprecating humor (because you aren't actually denying the perceived slight), and chalks up a point for you because people see that you have risen above the petty stuff and gone on with the actual discussion. When you break down every issue and comment into sound bites that you can then go after, even on second thought, people stop reading. Short, quick, HUMOROUS bursts work better. Like - don't get pissed at me just because you have cankles. Stuff like that.
I gave my reasons for why I feel the government isn't going after my guns, and why it won't, as equally as I stated why it wouldn't. Your argument amounts to "because I said so + Nazis and 18th century Kings" or something. And I'm not being facetious about the possibility of paranoia. I know it sounds like a joke, but I was serious, and lashing out isn't going to fix it for you.
You really need to get a grip. And I don't mean on your cankles.
See wut I did there?
*cough* So far, your argument why it won't is because it's crazy and anyone who thinks the government might be a threat is insane.
My argument is "there is no good reason to disarm law abiding adult citizens if you do not mean them harm. Look at history, same pattern."
Excuse me if I don't choose to take advise on brevity, reason and humor from someone who opened with a multi-paragraph response that is based on "everyone who disagrees with me is insane."
No no no, you're still not getting it. Look - I made a crack about your cankles. Obviously I don't actually know whether or not you have cankles. And the better response would be "I earned those cankles in the military protecting your sorry little ass." See how that works? That would have been funny.
The loopy shit you did instead is really second rate. Be more creative. I'm not worried, though, you'll get the hang of it.
Don't forget to smile! The Nazis are watching.
And the better response would be "I earned those cankles in the military protecting your sorry little ass."
No, not really. Childish, yes; shopworn, yes, but not even amusingly either one.
You also don't seem to know much about paranoia...or even decent insults....
(still better than the guy who kept trying to call me a slut, over at Creative Minority Report, but that's not saying much)
If you're trying to insult, you should probably figure out what I am insecure about, then find something emotionally charged, and that you might have some sort of plausible knowledge of; shoot, even a lame "woman driver" joke might work.
But I'm not trying to insult you or find your weakness or anything else. I'm trying to point out that there is no good reason to expect secret societies and plots or - barring that - any concerted effort anywhere in the government to take your guns away, and that your concern for that is baseless; especially if the reason you feel that way are things that happened in 1776 or 1936 or whatever.
For there to be a concerted effort to take our guns away several things would have to happen, in my opinion. It would have to exist beyond just one administration, therefore have no consideration for party affiliation, because presumably it's something that "they" have to sneak in under the radar - unless of course no one anywhere is watching anything Obama is doing so it's all him trying to do it, plus the Supreme Court would have upheld the local laws yesterday and not struck them down as they did.
I have no idea if the framers included a 2nd amendment because of frontier defense, personal security, or with an eye to having something established to combat an intrusive government. Maybe all of them. And you don't know either (and saying you do isn't proof... just in case).
This is my answer to Gino's OP.
"Nah. The debate has always been based on two arguments, neither of which have much basis in reality:
"Right or wrong, mostly wrong, the anti-gun lobby has decided to understand the amendment to be referring to the National Guard, read: defense against savages and homesteads on the frontier.
"And right or wrong, mostly wrong, the pro-gun lobby tends to stray from the viable argument of the right of self-defense and make the ridiculous argument that people should have guns because Big Brother and the sneaky commies trying to take our rights and our guns away."
If I've made any mistake here it was assuming the conversation would be more reasonable than pedantic, and that folks who drag out the same shopworn phrases wouldn't care if somebody else was doing the same thing.
But on another note... sometimes cankles are hereditary. I mean... you just don't know these days.
And barring a couple of pathetic attempts to counter my jokes I haven't seen your argument either, Shirley.
I'm trying to point out that there is no good reason to expect secret societies and plots or - barring that - any concerted effort anywhere in the government to take your guns away, and that your concern for that is baseless; especially if the reason you feel that way are things that happened in 1776 or 1936 or whatever.
You're the only one that has brought up secret societies or plots, or concerted effort to take our guns by the government.
You seem fixated on the notion of there needing to be a plan for something to be objectionable.
Like the old saying goes: never assume malice when incompetence will aptly explain the situation.
Add in what the road to hell is paved with, and "we're not screwed yet" or "there's no conspiracy" is not much of a reassurance.
We have a long standing pattern of the means of defense being restricted and removed before governments can become really nasty. Don't much care why.
I have no idea if the framers included a 2nd amendment because of frontier defense, personal security, or with an eye to having something established to combat an intrusive government. Maybe all of them. And you don't know either (and saying you do isn't proof... just in case).
Exactly what proof would suffice? Writings from the time, by founding fathers, saying "if we have guns, they can't control us like they do everyone else"?
RW, two forces--both very prominent in your native Chicago--in working to disarm Americans are the Joyce Foundation and Handgun Control International, both of which filed briefs in favor of Klansman Daley's law. If you want a longer list, take a look at the amici curae briefs filed in Heller and McDonald. Add to that the other sources which have apparently convinced you--contrary to actual history--that gun control is anything besides people control.
And yes, when four justices can't parse out "shall not be infringed" in a coherent way, this fundamental freedom crucial to our founding and history (again, Lexington and Concord, fella) is in trouble--along with our republic.
Regarding the South Side being armed; yes, the criminals there are armed. The law abiding are generally not. I grew up in NW Indiana--sorry, I know the drill there. It's time to let the law-abiding defend themselves in the Windbag City.
BTW, when DC's law was struck down, the murder rate DROPPED a bunch. Do.The.Math.
So finally we get to the meat of your argument and we can actually LOOK at some things you believe are the reasons for your opinion.
"We do need guns for self defense. Even against the government. Awful hard to become totalitarian when your targets aren't disarmed."
You weren't suggesting the possibility of totalitarianism in America then? Where were you suggesting guns in America would help fight totalitarianism in, then? Cuba?
How do you figure it's paranoid? It has happened before. Shoot, it happened here before.... Revolution, anyone?
The pre-existence of something anywhere does not automatically assume that the same conditions exist specifically somewhere. Just because there was a Saddam Hussein in Iraq doesn't mean there's going to be a Saddam Hussein in Turkey. Or Boston. To make such a jump in logic, to my way of thinking, is paranoid. Going to a conclusion without cause or reason and assuming that conclusion will work against you, your freedom, or your life. If not paranoid, then certainly overwrought.
"Hitler was able to do what he did because there weren't guns!"
Which is still bullshit then posts later. He was given power by people who thought they could control him, and there is no evidence anywhere that an armed resistance would have had any chance of success EVEN if there were people who had the balls to carry it out, which is another question. The sudden appearance of guns does not automatically produce courage. Sometimes it makes people stupid. I'll say nothing further on that one...
"RW- as the one making an outrageous claim, the burden of proof lays on you. We've shown, historically, that it can happen; now it's your turn to show either why it can't, or why the risk is so low from here to eternity as to be negligible."
I didn't make an outrageous claim. I said that the government isn't after our guns and won't be after our guns. This is a reasonable thing to say because (once again) all the recent events show it out. And who is "we" who have shown me anything? Bubba's off imagining there'd be less of a murder rate on the south side of Chicago if only there were more guns (a prospect that - based on the amount of guns there already - is patently absurd if not altogether frightening. And Crankbait or whatever his name is said nothing anybody gave a shit about because it wasn't even on target. So who is that "we" you're talking about? The guy behind the fucking drapes + you? I've given my opinion on why I feel the way I do. It took you ten pounds of spit and a lot of tickling to get you to cough up one hairball about it.
"You're the only one that has brought up secret societies or plots, or concerted effort to take our guns by the government"
I brought up secret societies because I was guessing what your argument was, it taking what felt like over twelve posts to finally get you to make a declarative statement about what it is you actually think instead of just doing the over-officious pedant thing you waste so much of your fucking time on.
I don't see the way it's going to happen. The platitudes and cliches you've presented as an argument are bogus. Show me where and how it is happening.
Your turn. Go.
sometimes i dont know whether to shut it down, or pop some corn...
Bubba: I love it how a cogent argument is ruined by the "Klansman" bullshit. You're not doing me, as a gun owner, any favors with this crap and - to be quite honest - I wish you'd just make your argument and not be such a turd.
Be that as it may, you're crying over a victory because it wasn't resounding enough. What the fuck do you expect in a republic everyone in lock step with your opinion? Of course briefs will be filed, and papers cited, and arguments made, it's political expediency here. Daley courts the black vote by championing their wishes and their overwhelming wish right now is gun control - hard and heavy. So the Supreme Court knocks it down - as it should - and he can slap his hands and say 'oh well we tried. We did everything we can do" and there you are.
Don't be so naive. In Chicago politics ain't bean bag. Like maybe it is over by you.
Use.Your.Brain.
It's all good Gino. You made a good one. I'll have this taken care of in a sec... :-)
Bubba, brilliant! Ditto, not sure how anyone can logically disagree.
But nitpick one word they might on one word, but it does not ruin your cogent argument! The nitpick only strengthens what you said.
"I love it how a cogent argument is ruined by the "Klansman"..."
Soon followed by "bullshit" and "turd".
Nice.
Doctor, heal thyself.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha...
RW, how can you dismiss how the 4 in dissent can ignore stare decisis so blatantly?
Gino, popcorn is good; but I would recommend popped wild rice. Very good but it only pops if you have hand parched wild rice. It is not easy to find.
Post a Comment