Gun owners win in the Supreme Court, again! 5-4 decision

[Ricardo]

This is proving to be a nice, thought-provoking thread! I especially appreciate Tom Amlie's measured responses and the views of our British guest. I would like to add a few thoughts, both as someone who came from a gun-restricted country and an advocate of SOME kind of regulation.
First, it does seem crazy to allow the State to have a "monopoly on violence", as contemporary thinkers would say. The US remains, I think, the only country where firearms are allowed in the hands of the public FOR THIS REASON. That shows, among other things, a great degree of confidence in the workings of the country as a whole. In this regard, and as a lefty-type of person, I do agree with the opinion that the self-defense argument gives the anti-gun folks a negative idea of what gun rights are about.
Second, and this is purely speculative, I have come to believe that if we could take this issue and START FROM SCRATCH it would be possible to design a well-crafted set of rules for who is and who isn't allowed to own firearms and what kind. And I'm not even talking about compromise here. I think that if responsible gun owners felt confident that their rights are not at risk, they (you, we) would be more receptive to the legitimate fears of urban citizens who feel threatened by the presence of large numbers of criminals with handguns. But to date the argument has been over "guns or no guns". No ground is left open for the alternative line of "guns for people who pass some minimum of responsibility testing". I know, I know, many of you fear the "slippery slope" argument, but I'm proposing something that would be firm, not slippery. Getting a driver's license has been used many times as an analogy, and I believe that there is validity in it. Face it: the weaponry needs of a rancher in Wyoming just aren't appropriate for someone living in L.A. or -yes- Chicago. And vice-versa. Sadly, the NRA has taken a screaming paranoid approach that is not only distasteful to the anti-gun crowd but it tars the image of all of us.
Third, please don't consider my open lack of respect for the NRA blasphemous, because here is my big one: This country does have a healthy do-it-yourself character. Well established. This means that we need to start weaning ourselves from the hero-worship attitude we have towards the framers. Those guys were human; they messed things up sometimes. They were inconsistent (v.gr. Jefferson), and they LIVED 250 YEARS AGO. The only way we will ever resolve the weird issues of today is if we stop trying to stuff them into the narrower categories of the problems of the 18th century. The framers never experienced life in the "inner city". They had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER. And that's not their fault; it's our responsibility. We need to grow up.

[Jose Rossy]

Ricardo, my right is not open to discussion or negotiation to placate the fears of stupid urban sheeple, nor to satisfy your idea, or anyone else's idea, of what kind and how many firearms I should have.

Some of us are done compromising and will not tolerate more infringement.

The reset can't come soon enough.

[Richard H]

The framers might not have experienced the "inner city" but by the same token you most likely haven't experienced tyranny or rebellion. I'm sure those in 1920's Germany thought their rights were safe. One can't judge the future safety of one's rights by what is going on today.

This always get coached in the sense of a left/right issue when that is false. I'm a pretty liberal guy and I believe that people should have the right to own and bear arms (any arms yes that includes full auto or a damn howitzer if you can afford it). The left/right is a division that is used to cultivate division which those in power like. Heaven forbid should the left/right, poor/middle class, educated/uneducated , religious/non-religous ever get together they might want to take back the third plus of the wealth that the one percent of the ruling class control.

The governments control of arms should be very limited, basically to those that have shown that they can not be trusted, either through criminal acts or mental illness.

Why would the number or type of firearm lead one to criminal activity? If that's not what you're suggesting Richardo what would these limits do then, other than to make the stupid feel safer.

[Pat McCoy]

The framers of the US Constitution were well educated men with a firm belief in "natural law", a proposition beginning with Socrates and his disciples, Aristotle and Plato, and more fully formed by the Greek Stoics. The idea is that certain laws are not generated by governments, but are natural (or God given), one of these is the right of self-defense. The framers relied on their readings of Cicero (in the original Latin), who influenced the discussions of natural law up through the American Revolution. Cicero's teachings were later expanded on by Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Fortescue, Thomas Hobbes, and other philosophers. I hardly think you can call the right of self-defense a "narrower category of the problems of the 18th century".

Man is a tool using animal, arguably the primary differences between us and other animals, and the use of tools applies to self-defense just as to other needs. Without the ability to use tools for self-defense you would relegate the young, the elderly, the weak, the infirm, and the otherwise physically limited individuals to the level of prey for the strong. If you could snap your fingers, and magically make every gun in the world disappear, the problems of violence would not disappear. The violence would only be committed with the use of other tools, including hands and feet. The violence problem is not a tool problem, but a social problem which would only be exacerbated by the lack of tools to use for self-defense.

The needs of an inner city resident and a Montana cowboy do not differ when it comes to the basic natural right of defending oneself from either a tyrannical government or criminal bullies. The cowboy may have additional needs for hunting or control of four legged predators, but the basic needs are the same.

The need to "grow up" is one many residents of the US need to adhere to, and understand they are responsible for their own protection. The US Supreme court has stated the police owe no individual a duty of protection, thus it is a personal responsibility and right. Today many cry out for protection and "safety". Franklin said it best "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[sparky]

The framers might not have experienced the "inner city" but by the same token you most likely haven't experienced tyranny or rebellion. I'm sure those in 1920's Germany thought their rights were safe. One can't judge the future safety of one's rights by what is going on today.

This always get coached in the sense of a left/right issue when that is false. I'm a pretty liberal guy and I believe that people should have the right to own and bear arms (any arms yes that includes full auto or a damn howitzer if you can afford it). The left/right is a division that is used to cultivate division which those in power like. Heaven forbid should the left/right, poor/middle class, educated/uneducated , religious/non-religous ever get together they might want to take back the third plus of the wealth that the one percent of the ruling class control.

The governments control of arms should be very limited, basically to those that have shown that they can not be trusted, either through criminal acts or mental illness.

Why would the number or type of firearm lead one to criminal activity? If that's not what you're suggesting Richardo what would these limits do then, other than to make the stupid feel safer.

What he said.

[2650 Plus]

I am more safe than the criminal preditator , and from his/her threat because I am armed. I am also safer from a tirant and tiranical government because I am armed. I, sir,am always armed because I am a free man and fully intend to stay that Am I safer than you? My answer is you damed right I am. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[NB]

I dont carry a gun, I dont own a gun bigger than a 22. I dont think we need to own fully automatic guns. Thats my opinion. If you own a full auto good for you (can i come over and shoot it?) The day someone tries to take away the guns I do have is the day I will die and the day I wish I had a different opinion on guns(full autos). On a different note, yesterday in Ca. a cop got away with murder. The good guy had the gun , the dead guy had 3 cops on top of him when he was shot in the back. The shooter was saying something like " What do you F****** think of this" Sometimes the wrong people have the guns. If every black man on Bart that day had a gun none of them would have been shot by a cop( that was just a thought that came into my mind, if that was true everyone would have got shot (lol) ). PS Im buying a 45 this year and a buttload of bullets.

[Guest]

I especially appreciate the views of our British guest.

Perhaps you should move in with them. I bet you will find their view on gun control and the use of weapons for defense far more to your liking.

[Freepistol]

Ricardo, my right is not open to discussion or negotiation to placate the fears of stupid urban sheeple, nor to satisfy your idea, or anyone else's idea, of what kind and how many firearms I should have.

Some of us are done compromising and will not tolerate more infringement.

The reset can't come soon enough.

Well said

[Ricardo]

"Stupid urban sheeple"
"..the stupid feel safe"
"Perhaps you should move in with them"

I apologize, yet again, for hoping that responsible gun owners could be less intransigent than they are believed to be by the gun-hating crowd.

The attitude of both sides is unfortunately the same: born of fear. Both sides portray each other as nuts, and talk like nuts. If neither side is willing to think deeply the end result will be exactly what we are seeing: the chipping away at gun ownership by moronic laws like those in California. Go ahead, then. Watch what happens. Love your tantrum.

By the way, if any of you have trouble getting into the "Zen of shooting", it's because you either get it or you don't. You won't find Zen in shooting without seeing it in everything. Good luck.

[Jose Rossy]

Ricardo, spare us all your condescending "advice".

In case you didn't notice, WE are winning. I see absolutely NO reason to compromise, change course, or make concessions. Who the hell cares about California anyway? Their stupidity is not spreading, in case you didn't notice that either.

We do not operate out of fear. We operate rationally, making predictions about the behavior of your side based on its past history and current actions.

F-ing compromise got us nothing. NO MORE. Do you not understand that? If you do not, you are part of the problem and we do not need the likes of you on the side of the Second Amendment. Be gone from our side.

[Ricardo]

Q.E.D.

[Jose Rossy]

Q.E.D.

LOL!!!

Yeah, you are morally superior and right........

You are on the wrong side of this issue.

[Richard H]

Ricardo maybe you should work on your comprehension skills, if you want to quote me quote my whole statement, which was "Why would the number or type of firearm lead one to criminal activity? If that's not what you're suggesting Richardo what would these limits do then, other than to make the stupid feel safer."

Which of course you don't answer, it's a valid question. Why would I be more likely to commit a crime because I have three handguns instead of 2 or 1? Why would I be more likely to commit a crime because I own a .50 cal instead of a .308? Please I'd really like to know the answer as to how limiting the number, type , caliber, or firing system will make society safer.

Your comments prove this point too quod erat demonstrandum. Just because you quote latin doesn't make you better than everyone else. When faced with a question you cherry pick parts of phrases rather than explain your misguided and ill-informed opinion.

[Richard H]

Jose, who would have thought you and me on the same side of this arguement. ;)

[FredB]

Jose, who would have thought you and me on the same side of this arguement. ;)

Ricardo,

I'm writing this in hopes that you are seriously concerned about this issue, and are not some kind of troll, trying to bait people into inflammatory statements.

Yes, there are extremes of rhetoric on both sides. On the pro-gun side, people frequently resort to chest-thumping and macho sounding declarations. And on the anti-gun side, people often take a snide and superior tone, as if their opponents were somehow incapable of logic. Both sides usually end up with name-calling. What was promising - at first - about this thread, was that it seemed participants were trying to be open-minded, and I hope the thread can remain that way.

I would like to ask you to read this article: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ ... -Amendment. As an old-fashioned "liberal", I think the article makes an unassailable "liberal" case for complete gun rights - complete, without limits on numbers or calibers or waiting periods, or any other so-called "reasonable" restrictions that in reality affect only the law-abiding, and make not a jot of difference to the criminal or the insane.

In fact anyone who has "liberal" friends who are reflexively anti-gun (as many, if not most, are) should refer them to this article. IMHO it does a great job of logically dissecting the liberal anti-gun arguments, which, when examined turn out to be much more emotionally-based than logically-based.

In the end, though, we have to realize that most people of all different political stripes would rather defend their emotional beliefs with bluster than examine them with logic.

FredB

[Matt Clemens]

My question is not directed at any specific poster.

When in your life have you changed your mind about an issue so important as the one we are discussing here?

More specifically, when in your life have you changed your mind on such an issue as the result of discussion with others?

I've changed my mind about such issues (pro-life vs. pro-choice, belief in God, right to keep and bear arms, etc.) as a result of discussion with others only once in my 5 decades. In that one instance, my interlocutor had not resorted to argument (either logical or emotional), exhortation, ad hominem attack, nor any of the myriad other methods I see employed in such discussions. Instead, he simply said, "I'm surprised you think that way."

[Philadelphia]

The needs of an inner city resident and a Montana cowboy do not differ when it comes to the basic natural right of defending oneself from either a tyrannical government or criminal bullies.

Pat, this one sentence completely hits the nail on the head. The ability of some pols (mostly local government officials it seems) to convince (really brainwash?) so many that somehow urban dwellers only deserve America "light" when it comes to natural rights is simply dangerous; far more dangerous than any gun.

Ultimately, high urban crime rates are an indicator of local government failure in its job of dealing with crime along with numerous "social engineering" issues meddled with, and the rush to demonize guns in the hands of the law abiding and criminal alike has become the universal mayoral formula of scapegoating to hide their miserable failure. I shudder in realizing that their repeated refrain that urban governments somehow need more control over the people, again law abiding and criminals alike, has apparently convinced some that it might be true. It is not.

[alb]

… it would be possible to design a well-crafted set of rules for who is and who isn't allowed to own firearms and what kind .

Good luck with that. One of the rationales (probably the principle rationale) for the 14th amendment was that after the Civil War the southern states passed laws banning black people from owning guns. Currently, in the U.S., we have a problem with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who have been treated for stress-related problems being denied the ability to own firearms – without any legal way to appeal their ‘mental health’ adjudication. Any law that you can craft will always be less-than-perfect, and will invariably favor one group over another.

Face it: the weaponry needs of a rancher in Wyoming just aren't appropriate for someone living in L.A. or -yes- Chicago. And vice-versa.

…

This means that we need to start weaning ourselves from the hero-worship attitude we have towards the framers. Those guys were human; they messed things up sometimes. They were inconsistent (v.gr. Jefferson), and they LIVED 250 YEARS AGO. The only way we will ever resolve the weird issues of today is if we stop trying to stuff them into the narrower categories of the problems of the 18th century. The framers never experienced life in the "inner city". They had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER. And that's not their fault; it's our responsibility. We need to grow up.

The right, responsibility and the need to defend one’s self, however, is the same. Of course, some of us prefer to have a few facts to go with our rhetoric, so here are some U.S. crime statistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... crime_rate
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Putting these statistics into perspective, the murder rate in England in the Middle Ages, before firearms had been invented was around 18 to 23 per 100,000, see “Guns and Violence: The English Experience” – Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002), pg. 21, available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence-Joy ... =8-3-spell

The fact that the murder rate was higher back then than it is now, in all but our worst 10 cities, suggests that maybe there is a weakness in your theory.

Why would I be more likely to commit a crime because I own a .50 cal instead of a .308? Please I'd really like to know the answer as to how limiting the number, type , caliber, or firing system will make society safer.

Richard, perhaps you over-simplify. It’s true that you could effectively defend yourself with a machine-gun, or a .50 BMG, or an RPG, or a sawed-off shotgun that fires pellets in a wide-pattern spread. But, we live in a society, and your rights stop where mine start, and vice-versa. The problem with all of those weapons is that when they are used as they were intended, they carry considerable potential for collateral damage. If I shoot an attacker with my .357 revolver, he will be stopped just as effectively as if I’d shot him with a .50 BMG, but with far less likelihood that my round will also pass through him and kill an innocent bystander 6 blocks away. In this way, restricting use of .50 BMGs for self-defense makes society safer.

Regards,

Al B.

[Constitutionalist]

If the enemy or terrorist attacking a lawful citizen has superior firepower, then the citizen will likely lose the battle. The Second Amendment is primarily about keeping the Government honest, and really has very little to do with common criminals and almost nothing to do with Hunting.

Vigorous discourse aside, almost everyone in these three pages of conversation would agree on the basic principles we’re discussing here, save one.

I am starting to smell a Troll…