Supreme Court Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban

[Cygnus X1]

Alright, here is the whole thing, with some recaps of the various arguments.
The core of the Supreme Courts decision centered on an individual's right to bear arms, and addressed the wording of militia. Also a very healthy conversation about intent of the framers.
Justice Kennedy was excoriated by many the day before about his vote on applying the death penalty to those convicted in child rape cases. Here he is the deciding vote
in favor of the majority.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller#Argument_Recap

And here is the actual transcript of the arguments before the court:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Some aspects are left open (as usual).
But the most significant event is that the Court addressed this issue at all.
The only other case ever heard since 1791 was the Miller argument, which did not address the handgun bans that the Court addressed today.
My observation...on this and many others...please take the time and at least skim the document.
The media spins things the way they see it, and call in "experts" that are sympathetic to whatever they are peddling (left or right), and the public is left with confusion.

[shreder13]

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.

The purpose of a government is to hold order over society and to protect its citizens. When you are being attacked by a burgular they are unable to protect you (ie there are no police around), so you have the right to act as an interim governing body and take actions for self preservation.

[thetroy]

I might buy that argument, but it's not grounded in the 2nd Amendment. That's really my only point here.

[Cygnus X1]

I might buy that argument, but it's not grounded in the 2nd Amendment. That's really my only point here.

Troy, read the opinions of the court.
Even the minority opinion didn't give a real compelling argument based on law.
Kennedy played his usual game, asking many questions that would seem to lean to the minority, but landed on the side of Original Intent.

[shreder13]

I might buy that argument, but it's not grounded in the 2nd Amendment. That's really my only point here.

That's the thing about our government, so much is unwritten and is reinterpreted by each generation. But it can be argued that that "problem" helps keep it around.

[Cygnus X1]

That's the thing about our government, so much is unwritten and is reinterpreted by each generation. But it can be argued that that "problem" helps keep it around.

Not suggesting anything, but to understand the Constitution, it should be required reading for every citizen to read and understand The Federalist.

It explains a lot that is unwritten in the text, and how they came to those words. It also explains the complexities involved in the Bill of Rights, which is still the most hotly contested portion of the Constitution.

[Vass]

The Bill of Rights did not create any rights. It simply acknowledges rights that all human beings have inherently, codifies them, and says "these are things you are permitted simply by virtue of being, and we'll write them down so nobody forgets."

How anyone can look at the bill of rights, a document completely concerned with the rights of individuals, enumerating areas where government dare not tread, and then decide that somehow, the 2nd one on the list is government giving ITSELF a power (I can haz militia?) is beyond me.

Vass

[yard dawg]

Bottom line is that the gun violence in DC is at an epidemic rate. That alone proves anti gun laws DO NOT work. Alot of drugs are illegal and people (criminals) buy and sell then daily. Possession of alcahol by a minor is illegal but they get it daily. We can outlaw guns but criminals will ALWAYS be able to get one. All I want is the right to shoot back if attacked by a criminal. How many kids would have been saved if the teachers or other staff at columbine would have been allowed to shoot back? How many lives at VT would have been saved if ONE staff member or student could have shot back? Thats what the pro gun lobby is all about. We just want the right to shoot back. Its that simple.

[Spivonious]

How anyone can look at the bill of rights, a document completely concerned with the rights of individuals, enumerating areas where government dare not tread, and then decide that somehow, the 2nd one on the list is government giving ITSELF a power (I can haz militia?) is beyond me.

Vass

You have to remember that when the Consitution was written, we were coming out of the Articles of Confederation. The states were worried that the federal government would gain too much power, so they put the 2nd Amendment in there to guarantee the right of a free state's militia to be able to rise up against the feds. The Civil War was good because it got rid of slavery, but it just destroyed states' rights. What the south did was perfectly legal according to the 2nd Amendment.

Anyway, we already had this argument back when the VT shootings took place. I'm with Endrik - guns should be allowed for self defense, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it.

[Bengal]

If you want the right to shoot back, that's fine. You better hit what you are shooting at. If not and you hit an innocent bystander and kill them, you're a murderer. No better than the gunman at VT or the 2 kids in Colorado.

[GodOfRhythm]

Fact of the matter is, and I'll catch a lot of fucking flak for this, but whatever:

Pop QUIZ 101

If 70% of Americans is simply too dumb to spell correctly and more than half lacks the intelligence or education to point out a country on a world map, those are the last people that should:

A) Drive powerful, fatal-on-impact, SUV's

B) Have the right to 'bear arms'

C) Have a deciding voice in matters such as stem-cell research, abortion,...

D) All of the fucking above.

----

D was correct.

[Spivonious]

[Vass]

Fact of the matter is, and I'll catch a lot of fucking flak for this, but whatever:

Pop QUIZ 101

If 70% of Americans is simply too dumb to spell correctly and more than half lacks the intelligence or education to point out a country on a world map, those are the last people that should:

A) Drive powerful, fatal-on-impact, SUV's

B) Have the right to 'bear arms'

C) Have a deciding voice in matters such as stem-cell research, abortion,...

D) All of the fucking above.

----

D was correct.

Playing the game "Spot the Asshole" is soooo much easier when they just come on out and announce themselves.

Let me make a generalization myself: You can always count on a superior, smug, self-satisfied European to make a gross generalization about 400,000,000,000 x .70 people and feel perfectly justified in doing so. You Americans. So opinionated and arrogant!

Irony, GoR. GoR, Irony!

What's fun here is we have Americans discussing the internal workings of American government. You accuse Americans of "having a deciding voice" on stem cell research and abortion. Funny, I dont' know of any instances where America stops Belgians from doing whatever they want in these regards. And yet YOU seem to have pretty strong opinions on how WE should live.

So basically, if America doesn't research & invest in stem cell research, nothing will happen? Is that why you're concerned? I guess given the last 100 years, I can see why you're worried.

Oh, and I promise you, I can point out every single relevant country on a map of the world.

But you're right, it would take me a few minutes to point out Belgium.

Now did that feel very friendly?


Vass

[GodOfRhythm]

Playing the game "Spot the Asshole" is soooo much easier when they just come on out and announce themselves.

Let me make a generalization myself: You can always count on a superior, smug, self-satisfied European to make a gross generalization about 400,000,000,000 x .70 people and feel perfectly justified in doing so.


Vass

You bet your ass I feel justified in doing so, since I would say the EXACT same thing if the the same issue was brought up here or anywhere else.

Here's an idea! Let's solve/stop/temper (gun)crime by supporting gun proliferation! :ROTF: Do you really not realize the inherent fallacy of that logic?

As far as your 'constitutional rights' are concerned. There's a difference between a valid human right and an archaic construction put in place to serve the then-current regime and order of things. And as much as the latter should by all means be removed and/or amended, silly symbolism prevents it from being done so and promotes immobilism and preservation of the status-quo.

[Vass]

You bet your ass I feel justified in doing so, since I would say the EXACT same thing if the the same issue was brought up here or anywhere else.

Here's an idea! Let's solve/stop/temper (gun)crime by supporting gun proliferation! :ROTF: Do you really not realize the inherent fallacy of that logic?

As far as your 'constitutional rights' are concerned. There's a difference between a valid human right and an archaic construction put in place to serve the then-current regime and order of things. And as much as the latter should by all means be removed and/or amended, silly symbolism prevents it from being done so and promotes immobilism and preservation of the status-quo.

Ergo, we are no longer Europeans.

I suppose if I lived in Belgium I would also need to accept restrictions on my 1st Amendment rights as well. After all, they're archaic. The only TRUE "right" anyone has is that which is given to them by the current idiot in charge. Times change! Nothing is immutable, nothing is "basic". Today, freedom of speech! Tomorrow, depending on who is in charge, maybe not so much.

Are Americans a protected group under your Anti Racism Act of 1981, which of course covers FAR MORE than racism? I am sure we are not, because the current climate does not concern itself with American citizens of say Catholic heritage. Today, the laws concern themselves with only an Islamic citizen of America. This is justice? I suppose it is making sure those rights stay "relevant"!

In other words, what is ok to say and what is NOT ok to say is whatever the current people in power SAY is ok.

What of Filip Dewinter? I know little of the man's opinions, but should he be put on trial for expressing them? In your country, Barrack Obama would have been under threat of prosecution for going to the church he attended!

What of the priest who said:

“Every thoroughly islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority.”

What he said may be offensive. In this country he'd get some looks. He would be debated. His ideas would be confronted with the ideas of others, and his views, I would imagine, would be throughly repudiated.

In YOUR country, that doesn't happen. They simply bring the guy up on charges and throw him in jail. This is enlightened? How weak can a society be that it cannot survive ideas that are repugnant?

And what happens when the people who are in power decide that GOOD ideas are now ILLEGAL ideas for their own reasons? What do you do then?

I am sorry, I will keep my freedom, along with the difficulties sometimes attendant. I am a citizen, not a subject.

The simple statement of "I am an Islamaphobe" carries with it the possibility of prosecution in your country, does it not? Why are your statements about Americans not similarly illegal? I guess that's just "keeping with the times/current opinions"?

We believe in the rule of law. We will defend the rule of law from tyranny whenever and however we can. You don't understand that, and can't be made to, and frankly, that doesn't matter, & doesn't concern me, even a little bit.

Now- It is possible that I have said things here that would be illegal in Belgium. I don't know. And Thank God Almighty, I don't have to care, because I live in a country unafraid of the free expression of the product of one's mind, a country that values debate, not a country that cowers for fear of being jailed for saying what's on it's mind.

As far as your 'constitutional rights' are concerned. There's a difference between a valid human right and an archaic construction put in place to serve the then-current regime and order of things. And as much as the latter should by all means be removed and/or amended, silly symbolism prevents it from being done so and promotes immobilism and preservation of the status-quo.

I am sorry for the edit, but I just have to highlight this quote, one more time. A VALID HUMAN RIGHT? Who decides what a valid human right is? YOU? Brussels? The EU? If they are able to pick and choose what is a right and what is not, then I am sorry to tell you, you have no rights at all, not one. You simply have privileges, privileges that your masters are allowing you to have today. Tomorrow, you may not have them.

If you know so much about Americans (and you claim to, you seem to know alot of stats about us) you of course remember the the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness".

Note that no where does it say "We believe Americans living in America today have these rights, and maybe Americans in the future". It says ALL have these rights. This was a declaration on behalf of humanity, recognizing and identifying that which has ALWAYS been true. These rights exist,whether government chooses to acknowledge them or not. Just because a government represses them doesn't mean that the RIGHT to them doesn't exist. So frankly, it doesn't matter what the latest fad is of the past 20 years in Belgium. Belgians are still entitled to their rights. That hasn't changed, and in a million years will not change. What changes is whether or not they have them. Americans do, and are able to defend them.

Vass