American Voters "Overwhelmingly" Agree with Supreme Court Ruling

[TPaine7]

As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, ultimate sovereignty belongs to the people. In the D.C. gun case, the ultimate interpreters of law agreed with their masters, the ultimate sovereigns.

In other words, the chances of ratifying an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment are approximately the same as a snowball in a blast furnace. Which is exactly as it should be.

The United States Supreme Court generated plenty of news this past week by releasing its end of session rulings. For the most part, voters weren’t terribly impressed. Just 26% gave the Justices good or excellent marks for their work. down from 31% two weeks ago and 41% a month ago.

Those results came before the Court issued its landmark ruling upholding the Second Amendment on Thursday. Voters overwhelmingly agreed with the decision overturning a Washington, DC ban on handguns. Most voters believe Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain agrees with the Court ruling, but voters are evenly divided on whether or not Barack Obama shares the majority view. We’ll be checking soon to see if this decision will improve the public’s perception of the Court’s performance.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls

The actual numbers:

Among those who knew how the Court ruled, 63% agreed with the decision and 25% disagreed. These attitudes are very similar to results found in polls conducted before the Court ruling.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/voters_agree_with_court_gun_ruling_and_think_mccain_does_too

Power to the people!!!

[CBGLuthier]

1. I am sure they loved Dredd Scott too.

Mob rule does not a government make. Majority rule is ignorant.

The truth is america loves its guns more than its children.

[virginia mountainman]

2. hmmm...

My kids have their OWN guns??? So what are you trying to say??

[percussivemadness]

5. its this alarmist hysteria that reduces all logical discussion to the realm of stupid soundbytes

taking this BS theory to its logical conclusion, 1 drunk driver should be reason for banning all cars.

The anti-gun lobby on this board typify the stupidity and ignorance that has allowed people like Bush to basically bankrupt and destroy the USA...

Peace

[iverglas]

45. too amusing

The anti-gun lobby on this board typify the stupidity and ignorance that has allowed people like Bush to basically bankrupt and destroy the USA...

Certainly the responsibility for all that doesn't lie with the ignorant / self-obsessed assholes who actually VOTED FOR HIM.

Nah ... personal responsibility; what's that??

Something we hear a lot about from the gun militants, I thought.

[beevul]

46. Personal responsibility?

Oh, you mean like the anti-gun lobby taking responsibility for the lies they have told, which in part led Democrats to do things that would alienate voters and cause them to vote against Democrats?


You can't possibly believe that the people who pushed the "assault weapons ban" didn't know that when the "assault weapons ban" was passed based on lies and flat out misinformation and misrepresentation, that the people it pissed off would still vote for the people that passed it.

Want to talk about personal responsibility in THAT context?

[iverglas]

48. noooo ...

I meant like what I said.

People who voted for Bush and his gang taking personal responsibility for what they did.

Pretty fucking simple.

Of course, there are also the people who constantly did and do spout shit about Democrats in an effort to persuade the ignorant to vote against them. Some taking of personal responsibility on their part wouldn't go amiss, either.

[beevul]

51. I didn't think you wanted to...

I didn't think you wanted to talk about it in the proper and real context, as I laid out for you.

Thanks for confirming it.

[iverglas]

55. and I never believed you people

believe in personal responsibility at all.

So we're even.

[beevul]

60. I'm sure...

I'm sure the people that voted against Democrats over the issue will take responsibility for doing so, RIGHT AFTER those that decided to make that choice one of voting to preserve rights where firearms are concerned or voting Democrat.


Do feel free to prompt the latter, if you ever expect to see the former.


"and I never believed you people believe in personal responsibility at all."

Oh we believe in it allright. We also believe in damning those that forced the decision, and seeing them take responsibility for it FIRST, since they forced it FIRST.



Ta.

[percussivemadness]

57. whilst admittedly

"the responsibility for all that doesn't lie with the ignorant / self-obsessed assholes who actually VOTED FOR HIM", the responsibility also lies with the Democrat voters who allowed him to steal the election twice for want of not appearing PC...

You can blame the 49% of people who voted for him certainly, the what about the 51% of people who didn`t vote for him? Are you saying they have absolutely no responsibility for what has happened?

[iverglas]

59. sorry, failing to take your point

You can blame the 49% of people who voted for him certainly, the what about the 51% of people who didn`t vote for him? Are you saying they have absolutely no responsibility for what has happened?

What has happened, then? What are they supposed to take responsibility for? Not getting that one.

If you mean not pursuing the recount and that sort of thing -- absolutely, that was appalling. We kind of have to look at proximate causes, I guess. Should the 51% have taken to the streets? I would have.

This really is not what I was responding to, however.

[tburnsten]

83. Like the personal responsibility

of criminals for their acts and for their own eventual violent death at the hands of each other, police, or someone whose home they broke into or attacked?

[Mountainman]

8. Mob rule? The 2nd amendment is mob rule? Get a clue will you?

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution, How is that mob rule? You have it backwards

[TPaine7]

9. I have to disagree with you on almost everything.

"Mob rule does not a government make."

This is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant.

Constitutional democracy is not mob rule, and the ruling was fully consistent with the Constitution, indeed it was compelled by it.

"Majority rule is ignorant."

With all due respect, there are many dictatorships on this planet. I don't think you would be wise to choose one.

The people are not to be trusted when they are emotional, but their calm considered consensus opinions are worthy of great respect.

The Constitution is intended to be a brake on passion. This position was definitely not based in ungoverned passion; D.C. has had this pseudo law for decades.

"The truth is america loves its guns more than its children."

I assume that you are a normal, intelligent person. I also assume that you have been exposed to mass media that would give a person such as yourself this impression. Most child killings, especially dramatic "drive by shootings" are perpetrated by criminals--who are already forbidden to possess arms and who are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. As for accidents, gun fatalities of small children are about 1/20th of pool and bathtub deaths.

Neither pools nor baths (as opposed to showers) are necessary for most families, and yet many have both. But a normal, intelligent person like yourself would never say that America loves her pools or tubs more than her children. Ditto for a long list of common items responsible for many more deaths than guns.

This ruling also does not forbid most efforts to prevent child deaths.

The bottom line is that many good and decent people have received a skewed impression from the media. The media is big on drama and tiny on precision. If you've ever seen a story on a subject you knew intimately, you know what I mean.

[TPaine7]

13. I don't think most people loved Dred Scott

The Dred Scott ruling actually lied on the facts. And it lied to support a decision so unpopular that it helped start a Civil War.

I know you're angry, but the facts do not support your position.

[iverglas]

44. and they think women who have abortions are murderers

(or they say they do), and there is a homosexual agenda that involves teachers recruiting helpless children into their evil world, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and socialized health care will kill you, and the French invented French fries.

[percussivemadness]

3. I think it was Jefferson who said

"The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it won`t be needed until they try and take it away".

The 2nd amendment is just about the only thing left keeping Bushco at bay, our representatives certainly aren`t.

Peace

[Mojambo]

4. I wish Americans valued the 4th as much as the 2nd... n/t

[percussivemadness]

6. I wish our the people and our representatives valued all aspects of the Constitution

Equally....

choosing favourite "amendments" is a bit like having sex with a girl you don`t like, the blow job is cool but you don`t want to wake up next to her.

I find it fascinating that people on this board will defend the 4th amendment, but decide that the 2nd is wrong. Fundamentalist Christians use the same logic towards the bible, the bits that suit their argument they like, but at the same time the bits they don`t like they say "what we think God meant to say was....."

Says a lot really doesn`t it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Maybe that's because the 2nd amendment IS wrong.

That's not saying that people should be denied personal possession of firearms - it's simply saying that those who believe that can't base it on the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd has had a single interpretation for 230 years. It applies to the right of states to maintain well regulated militias, people's armies.

Only 50 years ago was that re-interpreted to mean a personal right, the interpretation pushed by the NRA.

The SC ruling is wrong because that is not what the amendment says. If the people want the amendment to support private ownership of firearms, then the 2nd amendment should be amended to say so. Very simple to do.

Amendment 2:
Article 1: A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State, shall not be infringed.
Article 2: The rights of persons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the State without due process.

Article 1 preserves the original intent - it bothers me a little because of wackos like the militia movement grounds to keep up their crazy shit, and groups like Blackwater would also qualify. OTOH, they do already so it makes nothing worse.

Article 2 clearly separates the right to keep and bear arms from the need for independent militias - which as currently written it clearly is not, being a secondary clause to the original subject of the article - that being the militia. It also protects the right to hold firearms in cases like New Orleans, when Blackwater illegally disarmed the people with no due process - due process being a warrant for search and seizure signed by a judge, 4th amendment stuff. Due process would disallow people to own firearms only under the light of official authority - upon conviction of a crime, temporary removal if under court order like a protective order, if found to be a mental health risk, etc.

The personal right that the court found is not there. The entire claim that the punctuation is ambiguous is bogus - where else in the entire constitution has such ambiguity arisen based on poorly placed commas? The commas are there for a reason, delineating the argument for the independent militia (which does not apply to ALL citizens anyway, but to men of good character between 17 and 45).

I personally believe in private gun ownership, with appropriate gun controls depending on the local needs. The second amendment, as written, does not guarantee that no matter what grammatical gymnastics the NRA, or this SC, may go through.

[TPaine7]

22. Have you actually read the ruling?

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Yes. And it is wrong. nt

[TPaine7]

33. The ruling cites Eugene Volokh, professor of Law at UCLA

who has shown in "The Commonplace Second Amendment" that the phrasing of the Second Amendment was common at the time.

The first clause was not intended as restrictive. This is shown by comparisons with other laws and by the authoritative cannons of legal interpretation at the time. IIRC, it is still the case in modern legal doctrine, though this type of phrasing is rare today.

The founders, being highly educated, knew exactly what they were saying. Everyone understood it until fairly recently.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. If that is the case, then WHY has it been consistantly interpreted

to refer to militias, no to personal ownership, for the past 230 years? Why, in the history of the nation, is this the first time it has been ruled this way?

Face it, if it was the common interpretation IT WOULD NOT BE GROUND-BREAKING. It would be no big deal.

It is ground-breaking because it overturns 230 years of ajudication. It creates a 'right' that is not in the constitution, and denies the 10th amendment right of states and municipalities to regulate firearms ownership in their jurisdictions.

[hack89]

39. Common interpretation for who?

one the issues is the lack of judicial rulings on the 2nd amendment - are you implying a body of judicial interpretation that is in conflict with this ruling? If so, I would like to see these rulings.

It was surely not a common interpretation when the Constitution was written. If you look at the actual ruling, it show how the individual right to bear arms was written into several state constitutions that were written before and concurrent with the US Constitution. I challenge you to show how the militia interpretation represents 230 years of adjudication.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Personal ownership outside of militias is specified in, I think, 3 state

constitutions that date to the time of the US constitution. The rest ALL tie it to the need for a militia, for the common defense. The most common reference in the various state constitutions is reflected in the wording of the US constitution - which supersedes the various state constitutions. Ever since the constitution was ratified there have been states and counties and municipalities enacting various gun control laws. Some of them changed their laws over time, others enacted new ones, but this is the FIRST time any have been ruled unconstitutional, based on a mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

As I said above, if you want to have private ownership written into the constitution, it will require an amendment to the @nd - because as written, it doesn't do it.

That is the ONLY way to end this debate.

[gorfle]

61. In fact, 7 states.

Self-defense is cited in 7 contemporary state constitutions, according to the Heller brief.

That is the ONLY way to end this debate.

In fact, as a matter of law, this debate is effectively over. It is likely that before the Supreme Court revisits this issue again the current opinion is going to be used to overturn a great many firearm laws in favor of the personal right paradigm. Thus future Supreme Courts and/or legislatures are going to have a very large uphill battle trying to undo what has been done.

[SteveM]

64. Really, you must read www.georgiacarry.org then scroll to Heller (nt)

[aspergris]

80. Nope. Here's an example...

""he liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . "

analogize that to the 2nd. It refers to the "liberty of the press" but refers to the fact that ANY PERSON may...

it's a close analogy to the grammatical structure of the 2nd, and Prof. Volokh cites several more. This is from the 1842 RI Constitution.

By your "logic" only the PRESS would hve the right to free speech under RI's constitution. Clearly, as stated the right belongs to "any person". The prefatory phrase is JUST that.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

[TPaine7]

42. Other amendments have gone a long time without being ruled on.

As the ruling that you say you read points out, the first cases on several amendments or at least on several clauses have been fairly recent.

I encourage you to read my open letter to obama at www.obamaonsecond.com , or at least the historical sketch portion (search on "Dred"). The truth is shocking.

The reasons this is the "first" ruling are 1) racism, 2) dishonesty 3) corruption 4) politics 5) inertia. There is lots of Supreme Court "dicta"--comments that accompany the official ruling but are not part of it--that shows they knew. (Most of what you read in the Heller case was not ruling but dicta. The ruling part is, IIRC labeled "Held". The rest is dicta.)

[TPaine7]

43. It has been interpreted that way by dishonest judges since 1939.

Lower (not SC) judges intentionally misread Miller to reach their desired conclusions and the Supreme Court stood by and watched. If you want to know more about this, google "Can the Simple Cite be Trusted?" and read that scholarly paper.

The truth is shocking.

[krispos42]

75. It was on the Federal level

However, since an awful lot of gun control is done on the State level, and many state constitutions have explicit individual rights to keep and bear arms, what happens then? If the Second is about the Federal government being unable to restrict state militiamen from keepting and bearing arms, how does that apply to the residents of a particular state?



Dammit, this collective-versus-individual right stuff is getting confusing.

[aspergris]

79. Correct

Prof. Volokh references the prefatory phrase. I STRONGLY suggest this misguided person read some of Volokh's examples (such as the NH State example...).

It's basic grammar, and it's quite clear.

(frequent visitor to Volokh.com I am, and it's a great legal blog)

[TPaine7]

41. You have been mislead.

"The 2nd has had a single interpretation for 230 years. It applies to the right of states to maintain well regulated militias, people's armies.

Only 50 years ago was that re-interpreted to mean a personal right, the interpretation pushed by the NRA."


Whoever told you this lied. It is clearly and demonstrably false:

Speaking about free blacks the Court said in 1856:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393

The NRA did not exist at the time.

In an even more direct reference to the Second Amendment, the Court said (1875) that:

The second and tenth counts <against the defendants> are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=92&page=542

The Cruikshank case had nothing to do with state militias, it had to do with whites depriving blacks of the right to privately carry personal arms. This passage is nonsensical unless the right was considered to be individual in 1875, (when the NRA was 4 years old and hardly in position to sway Supreme Court rulings and popular opinion).

The Court, of course, lied to meet its racist objective of freeing racist killers. The Fourteenth Amendment empowered the federal government to enforce the Second Amendment against the states. This would have been impossible if the right were a state right to begin with. The abolitionists would simply have made a new amendment.

Here is how the Fourteenth Amendment was introduced on the floor of the Senate: “<The Fourteenth
Amendment‟s> first clause, <which> I regard as very important . . . relates to the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the United States . . . . To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they
are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the
personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the
freedom of speech and of the press; the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government
for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear
arms. . . .

…<T>hese guarantees . . . stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution … <and> States are not
restrained from violating the principles embraced in them …. The great object of the first section of this
amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these
great fundamental guarantees.”

Source: Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and
Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).

There is a lot more where that came from. The evidence is truly overwhelming. Modern legal and historical scholarship is almost unanimous, even among those who hate guns. To quote myself:

Modern Legal Scholarship

Not long ago, few but laymen respected the Second Amendment; scholars laughed at the right to arms. In
1981, Daniel Polsby, then law professor at Northwestern University, mocked the personal rights view as “a
lot of horsedung.” 20 Then he researched it.

By 1994 he, along with the majority of academia, had seen the light. According to Polsby

"almost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the
subject . The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second
Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon
joining something like the National Guard."21

More recently, Professor Polsby (now dean of George Mason University School of Law) entered the DC
gun case against the District‟s functional gun ban.22

I could list many other distinguished converts, but I will limit myself to a prescient one: Harvard Law
Professor Alan Dershowitz hates guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed.23 But even he has a
problem with

"foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by
claiming it's not an individual right…. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to
use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."24

Source: www.obamaonsecond.com (you have to go to the source to follow the links and see the foot-
notes associated with the numbers).

With all due respect to your intelligence and honesty, your sources are dishonest.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. You might note that the '56 case was the Dred Scott court playing

on the public hysteria about the idea of ARMED BLACKS.

"You must see, that if we let this pass we GOTTA GIVE THE NIGGERS GUNS!!!!"

Also noted, it did NOT result in the arming of blacks.

ALSO,

Cruicshank was the supreme court overturning a conviction of whites (reconstruction era - was it KKK?) on the basis that the constitution did NOT grant a right to bear arms, and that the federal court (the circuit court that originally convicted them) had no jurisdiction to charge them with a crime - that it was in the state's purview.

That does NOT support your argument.

It was the Supreme Court ruling in (I think it was) 1911 that re-confirmed that the 2nd specifically refered to a collective right of the people, as specifically represented by a "well regulated Militia". That ruling is in accordance with precedent.

There were certainly some states that originally saw it as an individual right - the US constitution does not. The constitution is a living document - it evolves. But it doesn't mean one thing one day, and something else the next. For it to live, and evolve, it needs amendments - so amend it. Re-write the 2nd to say exactly what you think it should; don't depend on the whims of 5 persons in black robes to 'interpret' it.

[TPaine7]

52. You apparently miss the fact that the SC said that the right

was personal.

You also miss the fact that the Court was defying the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, in the portion you are relying on. If you subtract the racism, they were where we are today, after Heller.

It did not grant a right because the right was pre-existing. It simply recognized the right.

You need to read my citation of the framers of the 14th Amendment, which you have not addressed. The statement is nonsensical if the right were originally a state right.

[Longtooth]

67. I must disagree

The individual interpretation was well known and established. In fact all 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights are applied to individual rights and liberties. That is why when the national firearms act of 1934 was passed is was done under the guise of tax collection under the interstate commerce clause. To have done otherwise would have been a blatant violation of the 2A. Read the memos of the congressmen regarding it's drafting if you do not believe me.

The collective right view did not emerge until the early 60's and has in recent years been corrected. This Supreme Court got it right. Some people may feel that the 2A is outmoded and out of place in our society. To those the answer in the amendment process NOT in the ignoring of the 2A. Like it or not, it IS in there.

[Malidictus Maximus]

71. Please cite your source

"The 2nd has had a single interpretation for 230 years. It applies to the right of states to maintain well regulated militias, people's armies."

There have been some interpretations one way, some the other way in the last 100 years. Despite the hyperbole this is not a sudden and activist, but instead common sense, plain meaning interpretation. All of the other rights in the BOR are individual rights. It has only been since the modern gun control movement has attempted to eliminate firearms, more out of fear of the lobor movements such as the IWW and racial minorities than gangs and criminals (gun control in California is a result of Ronald Reagan's reaction tot he Black Panthers, for example).

To claim that there have been no other interpretations in the last 230 years than the one that emphasizes the 'militia' rather than the right of the individual flies in the face of the context of the second in the BOR and in the tradition of individual ownership of firearms for self defense going back much farther than Miller.

[aspergris]

78. it's simple grammar

The 2nd amendment does not recognize a right of a militia. It recognizes a right of the people.

In every other instance, when we talk about a right of the people, we talk about individual rights. The 2nd is no different.

Read it again.

[tburnsten]

84. Ha, none of the Amendments had anything to do with a state's right

to do ANYTHING! all the original amendments were restrictions on government power to restrict individual rights, not grants of privilege, and certainly not grants of privilege to government entities.

[TPaine7]

15. I value the 2nd, and I agree.

I think most Americans can more easily imagine being in a natural disaster or facing a home invader than falling into a government net intended to catch terrorists.

They do not appreciate the degree to which power corrupts, and to which principles, once defied, lose their power to control government.

[HockeyMom]

7. Here come the lawsuits

I heard they will be challenging not only handgun bans, but waiting periods, background checks, even licensing and registration. Yeah, EVERYBODY should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked, just like buying a can of soda. NOT.

Yippee. It's the Wild, Wild West 2008.

[percussivemadness]

10. so apparemtly you want want freedom

but with preconditions? not really freedom then is it?

[HockeyMom]

21. Yes

For one thing, I don't believe my bipolar daughter, who tried once to kill herself and once tried to kill her sister, should have a gun at her disposable. Do you think SHE has a right to a gun? Or do you think her sister should have a gun too, so she could fire BACK at her?

My Dad was an alcholic who tried to choke my Mom to death when I was 10. Should he have been able to purchase a gun? Maybe my Mom should have had a gun too, that way they could just shoot each other, or me in the crossfire.

It is not just about "protecting yourself against criminals". Domestic violence is far more prevelant than being mugged, robbed, etc., etc.

You cannot simply allow just ANYBODY to own a gun, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. If that tramples YOUR freedom, sorry, too bad. I probably wouldn't be typing this today if my Dad had had a gun in that house 50 years ago.

Freedom isn't really free. You have to pay the price for it. In this case it is with restrictions.

[percussivemadness]

27. without wishing to be disrespectful

The problems you experienced growing up having absolutely nothing to do with the issue of gun ownership. You offer hypothetical situations based on a worst case scenario, which are neither valid nor rational, as they never actually happened. Are you saying the only reason your father didn`t kill your mother or you is that he didn`t own a gun? How long did your mother stay with your father after he became violent? The fact is your father could have got a knife and stabbed your mother to death if he had wanted to kill her. Thankfully he didn`t.

I agree that domestic violence is horrendous, but what has that got to do with gun ownership?Absolutely nothing, so whilst I am empathetic to your upbringing, I am also going to have to say emotion flim flam has no place in this discussion.

Furthermore, you refer to your bi-polar daughter. Again my sincerest apologies about this, but, is she on medication? What type? I would also point you to a number of studies that demonstrate the relationship between prescribed drugs and psychotic behaviour. Again, this is a red herring.

Whilst I sympathise with your situation, I am afraid hysterical fear mongering based on what ifs have no place in this discussion. I have had 8 years of what ifs, and seen laws passed that undermine our constitution based on what ifs, its time to base decisions on fact and logic.

[HockeyMom]

38. I now live in Florida

The #2 state in the country from which the most guns used in crimes are exported. A law was recently passed allowing people to keep guns in the cars at work, even over objections of their employers.

There is no licensing, no registration, no background checks, no waiting periods. Unless you want a carry permit license, no questions asked.

No, my daughter is no longer on meds. However, if she came to Florida she would be able to buy a gun. She cannot where she lives in the state of NY. Sorry, as much as a love my daughter, I do not think she, or anyone else like her, should be permitted to buy a gun. It's not just me, NYS agrees. She cannot buy a gun in NYS, join the NYPD (she tried once), or even join the State National Guard with her condition. I agree. Actually even she agrees.

What I am saying is that freedom is not really free. There is a price to pay. That price for a lot of people is NO GUNS and that is how is should be. The right to own a gun is not an absolute right, even with the current SC ruling.

For the rest of us, there is still CHOICE in this country. I, and millions like me, me can freely choose NOT to own a gun. Although I HAVE been on the receiving end of a few crimes, I have never been a VICTIM. Do you understand the difference? I sucessfully defended myself, minus a gun.

[Longtooth]

69. Can you really get a CHL in Florida with no questions asked?

I thought there was a LITTLE more to it than that.

[HockeyMom]

70. Only to carry

If being kept in your home or your car, you need nothing.

[tburnsten]

86. There is more to it than that

There are some fees, an extensive background check (which would almost certainly turn up her bipolar), the background check is most of it, lots of paperwork to fill out, getting a carry permit is not so simple as asking for one.

[aspergris]

82. it's about being able to choose

"The #2 state in the country from which the most guns used in crimes are exported. A law was recently passed allowing people to keep guns in the cars at work, even over objections of their employers.

There is no licensing, no registration, no background checks, no waiting periods. Unless you want a carry permit license, no questions asked."

and after Florida passed it's "right to carry" CCW legislation violent crime and murder rates both went DOWN.


"No, my daughter is no longer on meds. However, if she came to Florida she would be able to buy a gun. She cannot where she lives in the state of NY. Sorry, as much as a love my daughter, I do not think she, or anyone else like her, should be permitted to buy a gun. It's not just me, NYS agrees. She cannot buy a gun in NYS, join the NYPD (she tried once), or even join the State National Guard with her condition. I agree. Actually even she agrees.

What I am saying is that freedom is not really free. There is a price to pay. That price for a lot of people is NO GUNS and that is how is should be. The right to own a gun is not an absolute right, even with the current SC ruling.

For the rest of us, there is still CHOICE in this country. I, and millions like me, me can freely choose NOT to own a gun. Although I HAVE been on the receiving end of a few crimes, I have never been a VICTIM. Do you understand the difference? I sucessfully defended myself, minus a gun."

Good for you. The issue isn't forcibly arming the citizenry. You have a right to vote, a right to arms, a right to free speech. All of those are voluntary. You can choose not to exercise any of them

[TPaine7]

29. A lot of questions are asked.

Most people who are violently opposed to gun rights speak from an uninformed perspective. Your "no questions asked" point shows that you don't know about the gun buying process.

"For one thing, I don't believe my bipolar daughter, who tried once to kill herself and once tried to kill her sister, should have a gun at her disposable. Do you think SHE has a right to a gun? Or do you think her sister should have a gun too, so she could fire BACK at her?

I don't know enough about your children to answer this so I will speak in generalities.

Mental competence is important. Children are not (generally) mentally competent.
Insane people are not mentally competent.
With respect to your situation and others like it, I do believe that people have a right to commit suicide. It is not the place of the government to keep people from killing themselves. Furthermore, with the exception of specialized imprisonment, there is no way to prevent suicide. Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than the US and draconian anti-gun laws.

"You cannot simply allow just ANYBODY to own a gun, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. If that tramples YOUR freedom, sorry, too bad."

I agree with you that Charles Manson has no gun rights. But sane, law abiding adults do have a right to keep and bear arms. This has been established by the actual authorities in this matter--the Supreme Court and their bosses, the American people.

No disrespect intended, but unless your last name is Almighty, you don't outrank them.

[gorfle]

62. The price of freedom, etc.

For one thing, I don't believe my bipolar daughter, who tried once to kill herself and once tried to kill her sister, should have a gun at her disposable. Do you think SHE has a right to a gun? Or do you think her sister should have a gun too, so she could fire BACK at her?

My Dad was an alcholic who tried to choke my Mom to death when I was 10. Should he have been able to purchase a gun? Maybe my Mom should have had a gun too, that way they could just shoot each other, or me in the crossfire.

It is not just about "protecting yourself against criminals". Domestic violence is far more prevelant than being mugged, robbed, etc., etc.

You cannot simply allow just ANYBODY to own a gun, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. If that tramples YOUR freedom, sorry, too bad. I probably wouldn't be typing this today if my Dad had had a gun in that house 50 years ago.

Firstly, in this country anyone who buys a firearm through a dealer must pass a NICS background check. This means generally that if you have a mental condition or a criminal background you will be unable to purchase a firearm. Most pro-firearm-rights people are all for this. Most firearm folks would prefer that criminals or mentally ill people not be allowed to own firearms.

Your daughter, who sounds mentally ill, should not, in my opinion, be allowed to own a firearm. Since she has attempted murder, I am presuming she is a convicted felon, along with possibly having been adjudicated mentally ill. If either case is true, then by law she is already prohibited from possessing a firearm.

If I had to choose between having one, mentally ill daughter killing the other, or having the other armed and able to shoot back in self-defense, I'd choose the latter.

The same situation applies to your father.

Freedom isn't really free. You have to pay the price for it. In this case it is with restrictions.

You are correct that freedom is not free, and there are prices we pay for it. The price, however, is not restrictions. The price we pay is firearm violence. That is the price for the freedom we enjoy in relatively unrestricted civilian firearm ownership.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Get your dictionary and compare the definitions of 'liberty' and 'license'. nt

[percussivemadness]

58. i wasn`t referring to liberty

perhaps you are confused???"?

[TPaine7]

12. "Wild West," they Wish

If D.C. or Chicago could achieve the crime rates of the "Wild West" the mayor might win the Nobel Peace prize.

Ok, that may be an exaggeration. But do some research. This comparison does not make your point.

[percussivemadness]

14. enough said :)

[virginia mountainman]

30. I spit out my drink on that one!!

If D.C. or Chicago could achieve the crime rates of the "Wild West" the mayor might win the Nobel Peace prize.

Man o MAN, that is funny, and TRUE!!! Mayor Fenty, can talk all the crap he wants too about banning handguns, and doesn't NONE of these gun control advocates find it odd in the least that he surrounds himself with an armed detail when ever he is out an about??

Talk about elitist..

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. You mean like Deadwood in 1875? Population of of @5000 and

and a dozen murders a week?

Or do you mean the Wild West of Dodge City, where Wyatt Earp had his deputies confiscate all guns at the edge of town?

[TPaine7]

53. I notice that you strategically limit my choices to two cases.

And give hard data with no references.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Don't be glib.

You know as well as I that the "wild west" reputation was based on some very real places and incidents, such as the Dakota gold rush, the cattle wars, the mining camps, the Oklahoma territory where there was no effective law. Was the entire west a crime-ridden hellhole populated by gunfighters and outlaws? Of course not.

And neither is Chicago. Or even DC.

When you talk about the Chicago crime rate, you are taking the crime rates of some neighborhoods, where it is REALLY bad, and conflating it with others where people don't lock their doors at night.

Just like "wild west" conflates Deadwood with Lincoln Nebraska.

I'm outa here. There is nothing I can say that is going to keep you from being afraid of your neighbors.

Have a good life.

BTW - Tom Paine would be embarassed that you are using his name.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Ah the old stick your fingers in your ears trick.

Stick your fingers in your ears and hurl one last insult out. Very effective strategy, I hope Obama doesn't try it against McCain.

David

[SteveM]

65. Daly mentioned "wild west." Chicago's "west" side? During Prohibition?(nt)

[aspergris]

81. that's how rule of law works

People (and organizations) challenge law. It's called the legal process - rule of law.

NOBODY is saying EVERYBODY should be able to buy a gun. It is well established that - through due process - rights can be restricted. Felons can be denied right to vote, prisoners can be denied right to travel freely, etc.

So, nice strawman...

[MercutioATC]

11. This ruling is the beginning of the end for ignorant gun control laws.

Not sensible ones, just ignorant ones...the ones that WE have been supporting.

This is a good thing and the Dems that get on board demanding sensible gun laws will benefit.

[StClone]

17. Gun Laws?

Only a few qualifications will keep you from your newly heighten constitutional Militia -- ike in schools, being a criminal or insane. I think things will be getting more complex than simpler. Face it, guns are made to generate wealth and are sold to the gullible as empowerment as everything else goes to shit.

[TPaine7]

18. "guns are made to generate wealth"

True.

I challenge you to name one thing that is made by human beings that is not made to generate wealth. This statement has exactly zero relevant content.


"and are sold to the gullible as empowerment as everything else goes"


This shows phenomenal prejudice. I take it you don't know many gun owners?

[StClone]

73. Value

Guns are marketed. Outside of hunting and law enforcement, their value vs. cost is not worth the danger is my opinion just as it is your opinion to carry.

Most people are sold on fear that there is a danger just waiting to spring out almost everywhere. I've ventured those DC hoods recently cited so frequently by anti-gun control types and saw lots of working poor, homeless and even some humor. I hadn't even thought "man if I'd have a gun I'd be safe" as I rode the public buses and walked the streets. I wasn't in the worst of neighborhood but I wasn't in the best.

Gun owners? I would venture, probably accurately, that I have fired off more rounds than you. I no longer hunt but I grew up with a well-stocked gun closet and am an expert shot. BB guns are as mush fun as anything if you are really into testing your skill. I worked at a slaughter house where we used 22-Calibers to dispatch many dozens of hogs, beef and lamb day-in-day out for years...dropping animals tens of thousands of times.

I grew up in a military family. My Father was an Omaha Beach Survivor and I had three brothers in service and one sister.

Guns are tools to me and seeing them given some heightened necessity by people looking to sell them is just sickening. Which is only made worst by the fact people are buying into the gun mentality to the extent that the NRA has people paid to sit here to argue their case paid out of gun makers coffers.

[TPaine7]

74. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim. . .

"the NRA has people paid to sit here to argue their case paid out of gun makers coffers."

...or is it worthless and totally unsubstantiated like much of the stuff spouted on this forum?

[StClone]

77. I can not do that.

But you are free to contact the administrators of DU and pose that query.

[MercutioATC]

20. Care to expand on that?

I disagree with your second sentence and don't understand your first.

[TPaine7]

25. Sure

Excluding "True" my first sentence reads:

"I challenge you to name one thing that is made by human beings that is not made to generate wealth."

My point is that (at least almost) everything made by human beings is made to generate wealth. Your statement is like claiming that guns have mass and occupy space, or that they reflect light.


Hence my second sentence:

"This statement has exactly zero relevant content."

[percussivemadness]

28. "I challenge you to name one thing that is made by human beings that is not made to generate wealth.

Refund vouchers.

[TPaine7]

31. The people who print them don't get paid?!!!!

What about those who make the paper? The folks who ship it to the plants that cut and process rolls into sheets? The ones who pick up the recycling scrap or cut down the trees? The ink makers? The printer manufacturers? . . . .

[Howzit]

50. Refund vouchers are printed to make customers happy

Happy customers come back and spend more on other things than the voucher was good for... Unhappy customers never come back.

[percussivemadness]

56. hmmmm

republican or democrat voters? They appear to defy the "unhappy customers never come back" theory..

:)

[MercutioATC]

32. My post reflected my belief that sensible gun legislation will now get some press.

...purely as an unintentional byproduct of this ruling and the resulting ases files based, in part, on it.

Sorry if that was vague.

[TPaine7]

35. You do realize that

post 18 was a response to post 17?

[MercutioATC]

36. Yes, and so was Post #20.

I responded to the original post, StClone responded to me, you and I both responded to StClone, you answered my question to StClone, I didn't realize that you had answered instead of StClone so I answered as if StClone had responded...you responded to my reply to StClone that was actually to you...

...and here we are...

[Tejas]

72. gullible?

I believe they're an excellent tool against someone that would otherwise do me harm.....or take my "wealth". Then again, I'm not prejudiced, I have no problem using a baseball bat or whatever else is close at hand.

[StClone]

76. I wish you the best

Hope you don't shoot me.

[StClone]

16. Gun Ruling Very badly needed in these times

As the U.S. declines, guns are more necessary than ever.

Guns will come in handy fending off the starving, protecting gas cashes and money stashes. A "Terminator"-like gun-powered Apocalypse will include audience participation though much less entertaining.

Weaponry is the solution to hold our Democracy together. Bush had the same idea for Iraq.

Think crime will decrease? Texas has the sixth highest per capita crime rate in the country and one of the highest incarceration rates. The underlying causes of crime, hopelessness, wealth disparity, joblessness, educational neglect, and family breakdown will still be there when guns are more free. I just think the criminals will get smarter and better-equipped.

Let the Great experiment begin! But like Global Climate Change re-taming the beast will take much.

[percussivemadness]

23. you were doing so well

until you said this "The underlying causes of crime, hopelessness, wealth disparity, joblessness, educational neglect, and family breakdown will still be there when guns are more free."

I cannot see how you equate gun ownership with "hopelessness, wealth disparity, joblessness, educational neglect". Are you saying that once you buy a gun, you experience "hopelessness, wealth disparity, joblessness, educational neglect" as part of the sale? Is it a natural progression from owning a gun to "hopelessness, wealth disparity, joblessness, educational neglect".?

If you could clarify I would be most grateful, because I have a lot of friends who own guns, have for many many years, and whilst none of them have been inflicted with this strange gun owners disease up until now, as my friends I feel I have a moral duty to inform them of the inevitable..

Thanks

[HockeyMom]

24. We will annihilate ourselves

Maybe that is the plan, while BinLaden, et al, sits back and laughs.

[Retired AF Dem]

63. We already have 200,000,000 guns

why is it that every census has our population getting larger? I don't think we are in any danger of annihilating ourselves.

[SteveM]

66. I was thinking the same. Only, isn't 290 million? Oh, well (nt)

[spin]

68. The "great experiment" as you call it...

began years ago.

Checkout the map at this site to learn how many states allow concealed carry of firearms...
http://www.moccw.org/map.html

And this link shows how many states have concealed carry reciprocity with Florida:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

So far the experiment has been a success. No states that granted licensed individuals the right to carry concealed have repelled that law.

The Supreme Court decision will merely allow honest citizens to have firearms in their house for self protection. The concealed carry laws I mention in the links go far beyond that.

But as you point out, gun ownership by itself does little to solve the crime problem. Blaming crime on guns has been a ploy used by politicians for years so they could avoid addressing the difficult underlying problems that you list.