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.â€
“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.â€
“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.â€
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.
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.
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.
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
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.â€
“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.â€
“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.â€
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.
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
jot on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
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. :^:
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.
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.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
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.
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.
So the citizens cannot overpower the government through force, but unless we have the right to own guns, to ensure we fail at trying to overthrow the government via force, nothing else matters? Your logic eats itself.
And suspending Habeus Corpus is a whole hell of a lot easier when people only vote on whether or not you get to keep your glock.
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.
The point is that there's a state literally next door with abysmal control laws.
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.
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.
I'd like to see some examples of these genocides preceded by gun control, because I can't think of a single one.
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.
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.
I'd like to see some examples of these genocides preceded by gun control, because I can't think of a single one.
Ze Nazis is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
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.
Sweeping gun control aimed at an ethnic or religious minority, as part of an overall governmental effort to restrict the rights of those minorities, to be more specific.
You know, completely unlike American and Canadian gun control laws.
And post-war Yugoslavia disproves part of your theory, since the prevalence of gun owners really didn't do much to stop ethnic cleansing.
We need guns to overthrow the country in the event of a dictator's rise to power, though we can't actually overthrow the country with guns, but someone isn't a dictator unless they try to take our guns. Remove Habeus Corpus? I still got my glock. Ignore judicial oversight? I've still got my glock. Any dictator who swept into power would ensure liberal gun rights existed while cracking down on everything else to the point where gun ownership doesn't mean shit because you're being ruled by a dictator. The very thing you're saying gun rights are necessary to prevent.
So the citizens cannot overpower the government through force, but unless we have the right to own guns, to ensure we fail at trying to overthrow the government via force, nothing else matters? Your logic eats itself.
A door lock doesn't prevent someone from breaking into your house. A car alarm doesn't prevent someone from stealing your car. These things are deterrents. It's much less attractive to coerce someone with deadly force when that person may be able to respond with deadly force.
Posts
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.
...really?
Out of curiousity, where do you live?
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
How do you mean?
I couldn't find the title edit. Where is it?
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.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Why do you think this?
Double click the thread box on the forum index to edit the title
Scalia often says and does things that suggest he has no perception of historical context.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Correlation does not equal causation, except when its convenient.
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.
Except when it aligns with his position :P
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.
At this point I expect every single SCOTUS case to split 5-4.
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
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. :^:
Wat
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.
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.
Yeah, those Canadian genocides since gun control was introduced decades ago are really getting out of hand.
So the citizens cannot overpower the government through force, but unless we have the right to own guns, to ensure we fail at trying to overthrow the government via force, nothing else matters? Your logic eats itself.
And suspending Habeus Corpus is a whole hell of a lot easier when people only vote on whether or not you get to keep your glock.
Yes. No it doesn't.
Overpower does not equal overthrow.
Correlation =/= causation.
...but our government is soooo malevolent? Is that what you are implying?
I'd like to see some examples of these genocides preceded by gun control, because I can't think of a single one.
Man what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Ze Nazis is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
Sweeping gun control aimed at an ethnic or religious minority, as part of an overall governmental effort to restrict the rights of those minorities, to be more specific.
You know, completely unlike American and Canadian gun control laws.
And post-war Yugoslavia disproves part of your theory, since the prevalence of gun owners really didn't do much to stop ethnic cleansing.
I'm not sure if this is relevant.
GOOD DAY SIR