Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination

PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
edited July 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Thank Christ.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

PeekingDuck on
«13456723

Posts

  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    My pet theory is that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment quick on the heels of the American Revolution, and right in the middle of the French Revolution. Revolting against the government was like the cool thing to do, and you have to imagine that they were all for it having just reaped the benefits. So the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to revolt against an oppressive government.

    In that case, it should be expanded to allow the private ownership of RPGs, assault rifles, fighter jets, and ICBMs.

  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.

    Dogs.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?

    Because Obama keeps bringing it up. ALL THE TIME. It truly is one of his major campaign points.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
    I'm going to hazard a wild guess here, and Jeffe can strike me down if I'm wrong.

    I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.


    OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jot wrote: »
    I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
    But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.

    The Swiss own more guns per capita than we do...

    tea-1.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
    So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?

    When did the President get restricted to only have influence on 1 single issue per term?

    tea-1.jpg
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Don't do it, MikeMan! It's suicide!

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Would you say it's the single issue you care most about?

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
    So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.

    Obviously we can't take away the military's guns... I meant it as more of a "let's all smoke pot and achieve world peace" statement. Though we should definitely spend a lot less money on that shit.

    They are developing all sorts of non-lethal weapons, which is great but doesn't exactly seem to be high-priority.

    Dogs.jpg
  • galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.

    Spot the irony.

    linksig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been, since it didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, and made sure to declare that the individual right to own a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is in fact rather limited:
    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

    “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Would you say it's the single issue you care most about?

    I would, yes.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been,


    You might say we... dodged a bullet.

    :winky:

    Dogs.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Oh, and if you ever want to re-affirm why you shouldn't have gone to law school, try reading the part of Scalia's opinion where he parses, in mind-numbing detail, the exact legal definition of every single word of the 2nd Amendment.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.
    That's not actually true (see: the rest of the first world), so I think you should vote.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been, since it didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, and made sure to declare that the individual right to own a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is in fact rather limited:
    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

    “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

    It's pretty much what they hinted at back in Oral Arguments. Though I'm kinda surprised it split 5-4. I had thought it'd go 6-3.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

    ...really?

    Out of curiousity, where do you live?

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Could you reword the thread title please so people know what the case is about?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

    How do you mean?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I don't think all of the judges on the dissenting side actually agree with where they placed their stance. I think it was more of a way to soften the precedent than anything.

    I couldn't find the title edit. Where is it?

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'd be happier for you Yanks if I wasn't so jealous.
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yes, because trying to control handguns when a state that has abysmal control is an hour away will totally be representative of effective gun control. Now, whether banning handguns is an effective gun control method or not I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't help when there's an easily accessed supply right next door.

    It's tough to say how much of a role proximity plays when you take into account bans in Britain which is an island nation plus chunnel.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    I don't think all of the judges on the dissenting side actually agree with where they placed their stance. I think it was more of a way to soften the precedent than anything.

    I couldn't find the title edit. Where is it?

    Why do you think this?

    Double click the thread box on the forum index to edit the title

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    See, until now I thought we were on the wrong rack.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Oh, and if you ever want to re-affirm why you shouldn't have gone to law school, try reading the part of Scalia's opinion where he parses, in mind-numbing detail, the exact legal definition of every single word of the 2nd Amendment.

    Scalia often says and does things that suggest he has no perception of historical context.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
    Twitters
  • The Man with No NameThe Man with No Name __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    You won't be. See: Canada.

    Alright, let's see Canada.
    Spoiler:

    That said, gun control is of course not the only factor at play here, nor is it by itself a sufficient factor to reduce crime. But it certainly helps.


    EDIT: Fixed table.
    EDIT2: To hell with the table. Just look at the damn website.


    Correlation does not equal causation, except when its convenient.

    :whistle:
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Honestly if this thread had more pictures of racks, it would be better. No, not spice racks.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

    No, they really do. Being deprived of Habeus Corpus matters a good deal whether or not you can own a gun. The politicization of Justice matters a lot, whether or not you can own a gun. &c.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Oh, and if you ever want to re-affirm why you shouldn't have gone to law school, try reading the part of Scalia's opinion where he parses, in mind-numbing detail, the exact legal definition of every single word of the 2nd Amendment.

    Scalia often says and does things that suggest he has no perception of historical context.

    Except when it aligns with his position :P

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been,


    You might say we... dodged a bullet.

    :winky:

    That's a pretty hollow point to make.

    Also seriously Peeking you kinda gotta be more than a single-issue voter for anyone to give a crap about your position. As much as people love to be daring martyrs and abstain, wouldn't it be more useful to vote for dudes you pretty much enjoy and then persuade them that your position is significant?

    I mean, say Obama doesn't think.... I don't even know, net neutrality is a big deal. It would be too bad for me, the net neutrality superfreak that I theoretically am. But if I mostly dig his positions, I could always vote for him and then start a letter-writing campaign saying "Pay attention to this it is super important!". It lacks the verve of saying "psssh they're BOTH jerks" but it has higher odds of actually bringing the outcome you desire.

    BUT that is kind of a tangent.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been, since it didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, and made sure to declare that the individual right to own a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is in fact rather limited:
    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

    “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

    It's pretty much what they hinted at back in Oral Arguments. Though I'm kinda surprised it split 5-4. I had thought it'd go 6-3.

    At this point I expect every single SCOTUS case to split 5-4.

  • jotjot Registered User
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    jot wrote: »
    I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
    But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.

    The Swiss own more guns per capita than we do...

    Switzerland is, if I'm correct, rather special in that regard. During your, at least for men, mandatory military service, you get your own gun and are of course trained in the use of it.
    Then, at the end of your military service, you take your gun home with you. So pretty much every household has at least one gun, but its owner is trained in its use, and I'll expect the military does some basic psychological checking too.

    I don't think it's a system that would work in any other country than Switzerland, though. And I don't know how well it works, but you don't hear much about school-shootings from there...

    If someone knows the Swiss system better than me, feel free to correct my incoherent ramblings :P

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Have a look at the violence statistics on Native reserves. Comparable to the US.

    Availability of guns has little effect on the actual rate of violent crime. The only thing it affects is what weapon that violent crime is committed with. While that may be worth it for control, it is my belief that crime is more a factor of poverty and disenfranchisement.

    That said, other than the registry, which is retarded, I think Canada is doing it right. No automatic weapons, required licensing for owners, heavy restrictions on pistols. :^:

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Almost every mass genocide in history was preceded by sweeping gun control. I really don't think this was a coincidence. And suspending habeus corpus is a whole lot easier when there isn't a whole lot of blood on your hands. Not that the citizens could overpower the government, but they could make it bloody enough to deter these actions. Sort of a mutually assured destruction, only in the form of a second civil war.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I do agree that trying to enforce a law like this doesn't work very well, but I still think the dissenting opinion is a bit more salient than the majority opinion.

    Somehow I doubt crime rates or firearm deaths will go down in D.C. with the gun ban lifted. Just as conceal and carry laws have not helped reduce crime rates in multiple areas.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Durandal,

    On every other issue I'd agree. I've voted for people I vehemently disagree with on other issue and campaigns and I've voted with both parties. On this I can't imagine voting for a candidate against it. It just seems fundamental.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Honestly if this thread had more pictures of racks, it would be better. No, not spice racks.
    Gun racks?

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
«13456723
Sign In or Register to comment.