WASHINGTON (June 26) – Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
I often talk about my first Atheist event — the event that got me started down the road to activism — the PromiseKeepers (bankrupt Christian man-cult) event in DC. At this event, I learned what it was like to meet other Atheists. I learned how it felt to be in front of a TV camera. Finally, I learned how to get a whole bunch of Atheists pissed off at each other: Mention gun control.We have a few resident posters from all sides of the fence. Let’s see who agrees with whom now.
What-you need to get out more, meet new people, broaden your horizons
Alex,
You and I have disagreed strongly in the past, but I’m taking your side on the last post. I think you hit it right on the money.
The personal attack from What (I don’t know) was uncalled for. His posts have been particularly obnoxious of late. I’m always amazed by the breathtaking lack of intellect displayed!
The stats on gun control are clear – it doesn’t work. Study after study shows that crime either doesn’t go down or actually rises after gun bans are enacted.
Further proof of the folly of gun control can be seen in the crime stats for communities that have enacted gun ownership requirements! In one community, gun ownership was actively promoted. Crime was reduced dramatically!
Don’t expect to find information or facts on this subject in the mainstream media. For the most part, TV and newspapers ignore instances of citizens protecting themselves and their property with firearms. In some cases, the media’s bias against gun ownership is blatantly obvious.
I am so thankful that our founding fathers had the wisdom to enumerate the right to keep and bears arms in the Constitution!
Regardless with how I personally feel about gun control, the preponderance of the data indicate that stronger gun control does reduce gun-related crime. Why do so few people bother to look at the science before deciding on issues such as this?
While it is hard to find myself in agreement with any decision that self-righteous xian Scalia makes, I do agree, for both good and ill that the second amendment does grant an individual?s right to own and bear arms. Anything less would require another constitutional amendment and the chances of that ever passing make it hardly worth mentioning.
But as usual his legal reasoning I find faulty. The right has to be taken in context to the time it was written. The primary rationale as I read it then was the fear that the country could at some time establish a national standing army that would usurp the individual states rights to have state militias of citizen soldiers, thus the individual?s rights. It was a state?s rights issue.
Also the writers had no way of imagining what might constitute arms in the future. Although pistols were certainly around, they were very inaccurate. Most people used long guns. In addition, and something I don?t see mentioned much, they were all single shot. If you missed your intended target the first time, you either had to have another gun handy and already loaded or ask your target if he wouldn?t be a good chap and stand by for 20 seconds or so. Thus I think is the basis for gun regulation.
The NRA should stick to its founding premise, the right to own rifles or long guns.
Please provide these studies.
That’s true; they were so clever to have predicted automatic weapons and hand held rocket launchers.
If guns make you safer, then the USA ought to be the safest country on the planet.
freethought, I certainly appreciate you mentioning the historic context in which the constitution was written. While gun control is not an issue that I’m passionate about, it does seem that most people believe gun ownership should be legal, but with varying degrees of restrictions. I believe that one should be allowed to own a pistol, shotgun or rifle (for hunting), but what I think most people object to is the extreme elements of gun ownership.
I have a vague notion of gun shows not being regulated enough and allowing people to skirt existing laws that do regulate ownership. Waiting periods (I always think of Homer Simpson going to “Blood Bath and Beyond” saying “Waiting period? …but I’m angry now!”) background checks and accurate records of gun ownership seem to be reasonable.
I took a look at a couple of sites to get a little more information about the subject. I found http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_gun_control.shtml, which is a little dated, but has good information. Does anyone know of a site that has information about how guns are regulated? I’d like to become a bit more informed about the subject to add to an intelligent discussion of the issue. I reflexively don’t like guns, but I’d like to know more about the issue to have a less gut reaction and more informed one.
While I know this thread is about the 2nd Amendment, I’m surprised no one else has seen the significance of the Supreme Courts ruling when it comes to the “myth”….
Comment from: freethought1
EXACTLY…!!! You’ve just blown the idea of the “myth” right out of the water.
You’ve explained perfectly how the federal government could sign the Treaty of Tripoli while each individual state could decide their own religious affairs.
You’ve just explained why Tennessee’s original state constitution was never challenged as being “unconstitutional” simply because it denied atheists the opportunity to serve in state elected positions.
You’ve just explained why so many state constitutions mentioned God or Jesus Christ and were NEVER challenged to be “unconstitutional”…
You’ve just explained what was the historical understanding of Jefferson’s private letter when he claim the wall of separation is to keep the Federal government out of the affairs of the states…
It’s going to fun to see the mental gymnastics that are to follow to deny these facts…
But make no mistake about it…this ruling was HUGE…
Ever since the silent revolution that took place within the walls of the Supreme Court in the 1940′s we’ve seen the rulings move in the direction of usurping “States Rights”. We’ve just witnessed the first tic in the opposite direction…
The Second amendment is quite short and concise. Let?s look at it:
?A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.?
The language is a bit dated but, it is a couple hundred years old. In the vernacular of the day, the term regulated is interchangeable with appointed or supplied. The classical meaning for militia is a body of citizens organized for military service.
I?ve always thought the phrase ?security of a free state? was a curious way to frame the amendment. It dawns on me that, we the people seem to be missing the point. The second amendment guarantees our right to sedition if ever our government becomes tyrannical. Given this, the arms in question should be effective against the present military. In this light, discussions about small arms seem pointless.
litebright,
Very good point. That’s what makes this amendment dated and useless in our time. No one is going to have the fire power to take on the government with the current laws and no one is crazy enough to let people purchase their own tactical nukes.
LOL, a “dated and useless amendment”.
Just because it’s not PC bullshit, doesn’t make it useless.
Welfare, social security, medicare & medicaid are dated and useless bullshit.
Several points:
I don’t think that the US has ever gone wrong by erroring on the side of individual freedom. There were nay-sayers about emancipation, sufferage, civil rights, etc. but in hindsight we’ve always been right when we’ve decided to let the freedom of individuals be our primary value. We’ve always been wrong when we’ve let other concerns trump individual rights (e.g. the Japanese-American internment). Individual freedom should be our default primary value.
Secondly, I would be disturbed if we concluded that the 2nd amendment was intended to grant the government the abiltiy to have a military. If that is so, maybe we could reason that the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. amendments were also intended to grant collective, rather than individual rights. It sets a dangerous precedent for other freedoms.
Also, I agree with the earlier posts that the whole “keep the govt in check” argument is outdated. Try fighting a predator drone / hellfire missle with your 30 caliber deer rifle! Try fighting a Marine squad with air support! Ever take on a tank with a pistol?
Finally, the first gun control laws were enacted in the South to keep freed slaves from obtaining protection against Klan lynchings. Widely hated minorities such as atheists should keep this legacy in mind.
There are countries, I understand, that have strict gun controls and low murder rates. Those countries manage by restricting domestic production of guns and their importation from other countries.
That’s not possible in the US. The constitution prohibits customs checks at state borders. Anybody can buy a trunkful of guns in a gun-friendly state and drive anywhere in the country. Unless a cop sees the driver commit a serious offense, that trunk will never be searched.
A city or a state cannot have effective gun controls under these conditions. A workable law would have to be national.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Chicago’s murder rate in the next few years. It was really bad a few months ago.
If you want to protect yourself and family get a taser. They are far more effective and safer. Also they can be legally carried without a permit in 43 US states.
Tasers are safer for sure, but more effective? That’s bullshit. I think owning a gun is unwise because of the high accident rate, but nevertheless, nothing is as effective as killing an intruder so he can never come back. Dead is as effective as it can get.
When “We the people” formed this government; of the people, for the people, and by the people, the first thing we did was to inform the people that would govern us is that the Bill of Rights is not negotiable.
The real out rage shouldn’t be about guns but rather why we are negotiating.
Whether a right or privilege, it’s about choice.
this interpretation game opens the door to other rights like:
The 1st amendment means we have freedom of religion, the right to chose whatever religion we want, but not the freedom from religion. the right to not worship a god at all.
Next up! Do we have a right to privacy in a public place?