Supreme Court Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban

[thetroy]

I'll just respond without quoting.

When the amendment was written, "The People (who would want to own guns)" and "The Militia" were the same so no distinction needed to be made.

The amendment was never about defending from simple (i.e. individual) criminals, but defending against an oppressive government (i.e. King George).

Say what you want about what should be the case today, but your actual protections from the 2nd amendment alone are pretty limited if you consider the specific wording and what that wording meant in the context of the time.

[Newc]

You know as well as I do Newc that what you wrote is not the case at all. In most states, including Iowa, criminals have the same rights as everyone else.

I know. Sad, isn't it?

Anyway, I was saying it should be in the Constitution, and should have been from Day 1.

Iowa is an equal force state. You can only meet an intruder with the same force he is meeting you with. Pretty equal ground, if you ask me.

Now is it enforced? Not really. But it's there.

Remind me not to move to Iowa. That's one of the dumbest laws I've ever heard of, and there can be no justification for it.

Hell, my house was just broken into. For a split second I thought about buying a gun but tossed that idea right out the window the next time I spent some time with my boys. Just too damn risky.

Well, that's a personal decision, of course, but for me, I would rather have it, and teach my children both the value and danger, rather than risk coming home to find them raped and murdered, or missing, being raped, and then either disappearing forever or finding them face down in a ditch somewhere when they could have grabbed a handgun and shot an intruder to save themselves.

But as I said, it's a personal choice. To each his own.

[thetroy]

Note that I'm not taking a position against gun ownership for self-defense.

I'm pointing out that the 2nd Amendment alone is not a sufficient argument.

[Bengal]

Newc,
Cool. I see what you are saying.

It is a stupid law, no doubt. But it's never enforced. A lady shot an intruder coming in her apartment last year with no charges against her at all. They should just take it off the books.

I believe it's a personal decision as well. If it's for you, go for it. If not, no biggie.

[Newc]

I'll just respond without quoting.

When the amendment was written, "The People (who would want to own guns)" and "The Militia" were the same so no distinction needed to be made.

The amendment was never about defending from simple (i.e. individual) criminals, but defending against an oppressive government (i.e. King George).

Say what you want about what should be the case today, but your actual protections from the 2nd amendment alone are pretty limited if you consider the specific wording and what that wording meant in the context of the time.

I'm sure there were quite a few cases of gun-related crime back then. England's famous and much-romaticized Highwaymen were nothing more than the average mugger you might run across in New York or L.A. today. Yeah they had cooler clothes and rode horses, but still...

We're commonly presented with the polite and honorable picture of Colonial society because it's a romantic by-gone era, but I assure you there were just as many robbers, rapists, and murderers per-capita as there are now.

I highly doubt the founding fathers thought only of farmers and blacksmiths serving in impromptu defense against the King's men, who were trained at the longrifle. I'm sure they knew what went on in the "other parts of town", and that travelers in coaches should be allowed to draw a gun on a highwayman, be they noble or common.

"All men are created equal" is in there too. That signifies that the 2nd Amendment covers the notion of using a firearm to defend against the common criminal.

[VitaminG]

Both England and Australia experienced large increases in violent crime when they banned guns.

really? Can you provide any evidence to support that claim? A quick google of "violent crime increase in australia" returned only sites that advocate the abolition of gun control. I'd like to see an independent source that supports your assertion that any increase in violent crime here can be attributed to changes in gun laws. Particularly given that you've asserted that it's a large increase.

I know very few people that own guns. That didn't change with the gun buyback or the changes to gun laws. The farmers I know still have their rifles to control pests on their properties. IFAIK, no one I know owns a handgun.

[thetroy]

I guess if you want to argue that the role of the Militia was also to protect against those more 'common' criminals, I could understand that rationale (if it proves to be historically true).

I would then have to wonder how that should be applied to our society though, since we have police officers taking on that responsibility.

[RacerX]

Cecil's take: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html

[thetroy]

Bah. Cecil does the same thing most gun people do.

"Let's ignore the first half of the sentence, that way we are right."

[442w30]

I'll just respond without quoting.

When the amendment was written, "The People (who would want to own guns)" and "The Militia" were the same so no distinction needed to be made.

The amendment was never about defending from simple (i.e. individual) criminals, but defending against an oppressive government (i.e. King George).

Say what you want about what should be the case today, but your actual protections from the 2nd amendment alone are pretty limited if you consider the specific wording and what that wording meant in the context of the time.

If I understand your argument, I can carry an RPG and a full auto M16/m-4 Carbine instead of a pistol in DC. I'll take that trade, though it'll be in the way when I sit down to eat my happy meal.

[RacerX]

Troy: I'll see your bah and raise you a meh - I believe that first part is just poorly written: I used to work for the National Archives. In the main hallway they had framed repros of different historical documents, including a very interesting draft of the 2nd amendment. I wish I had written it down, but the few words that are no longer in the Amendment made it crystal clear the intent (the pro individual side).

[Cygnus X1]

I'm just laughing ( really crying) at the boneheads the mainstream media have dug up.
Handguns were designed for personal defense. This SCOTUS ruling addressed specifically
the handgun bans, and used the intent of the 2nd amendment to do it, right?
Honestly, I'll have to read the opinions of the Justices before I comment any further.
It does seem to address the right to protect a person's right to self defense.

[thetroy]

442: I think the wording of the amendment would support you as much as if not more than it supports the handgun lobby.

Ron: I've probably read the same thing at one point or another. I would probably agree that the framers believed individuals should all be able to have guns, but given the wording of the amendment and the drastically different environment today it is not clear what they would have us do. The additions of more advanced weapons and also of police officers make things much more complicated than they were 200 years ago.

[shreder13]

Which "people" is it referring to - those who are enlisted in the Militia? And who is "the Militia", if not the general populace?




Wrong. Somewhere someone would have Grandpa's rifle from The War (pick one) and used it against someone who didn't have one of their own.

Maybe if the first guy to invent the gun had accidentally killed himself with it and caught his notes on fire so no one else ever built one, then yeah, but as long as one person has something, another will want one "to defend against the other guy".

After that, it's the proverbial snowball effect.

Maybe they should take the initiative and do a preemptive strike by banning rocks and sticks, since those have also been used as weapons.
Also anything made of metal, or wood, or plastic, or water (drowning's a popular one), any electrical device, fire, all glass materials, and all gaseous substances other than the nitrogen/oxygen mixture we breath.

don't forget about hands, to protect ourselves from each other we need to have them removed

You know as well as I do Newc that what you wrote is not the case at all. In most states, including Iowa, criminals have the same rights as everyone else.

Iowa is an equal force state. You can only meet an intruder with the same force he is meeting you with. Pretty equal ground, if you ask me.

Now is it enforced? Not really. But it's there.

Hell, my house was just broken into. For a split second I thought about buying a gun but tossed that idea right out the window the next time I spent some time with my boys. Just too damn risky.

That's a horrible law, oh look he has a knife, but I only have a gun, huh I might be overdoing it, I better go find a knife to protect myself with. I know that's not the probable intent of the law (most likely, so people can not over react with force to a minor threat) but as you describe it the law is poorly worded.

Note that I'm not taking a position against gun ownership for self-defense.

I'm pointing out that the 2nd Amendment alone is not a sufficient argument.

You could argue that in order for a peoples to be free, they must hold the ability to rise up against tyranny with force(arms). Also you have to realize that arms is not just guns, if the government can restrict the posession of guns, they could also do the same for knives, swords, bows, ect.

[thetroy]

Doh, you got me, that was poorly worded. I meant actually using the guns, not just owning them.

When you just own a gun, you can always say it's for rising up against tyranny.

BUT When you shoot a burglar, it is clearly not rising up against tyranny.

That's the point at which your Constitutional protection becomes unclear.