Yes, what it does it open the floodgates to hundreds of lawsuits challenging city/state regulation on guns.

I support the Second Amendment, but this is going to get ugly.

What?

You mean I can't own an Intercontinental Ballistic Hunting Missile that I purchase with no waiting list and carry in my pocket in case a band of unruly coloreds attack me?

That's not how I'm reading it.

This is only the beginning, the precedent has been set though

Howie Spankowitz: What?

You mean I can't own an Intercontinental Ballistic Hunting Missile that I purchase with no waiting list and carry in my pocket in case a band of unruly coloreds attack me?

That's not how I'm reading it.

What?

Look, I know the desire to tie gun ownership with complete mental instability and racism is powerful, but the flowers you were sniffing on the way to the arboretum while breaking in your new Birkenstocks was sprayed with pesticide and you probably are just a little wasted.

Go take some atropine and then post, when you don't sound like an out of touch moron.

Howie Spankowitz: coloreds



FIRE MISSLES

So, this doesn't give me the right to cyanide-tipped nuclear cop-killer bullets?

/you know...for protection?

jpbreon: flowers you were sniffing on the way to the arboretum

That part doesn't make sense. Wouldn't he be going to the arboretum to sniff flowers? Or is there a trail of flowers leading to the arboretum?

You also fail on verb-subject agreement and comma usage; not good if the point of your post is to mock another's use of the English language.

The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead.

And i'm sure that if/when the time comes to throw off the chains of oppression, all those individual gun owners will respect this SCOTUS decision and leave those gun in the house.

Sometimes I wonder what the hell people use for brains.

Lionel Mandrake: So, this doesn't give me the right to cyanide-tipped nuclear cop-killer bullets?

/you know...for protection?

I hunt doves with them.

jpbreon: Howie Spankowitz: What?

You mean I can't own an Intercontinental Ballistic Hunting Missile that I purchase with no waiting list and carry in my pocket in case a band of unruly coloreds attack me?

That's not how I'm reading it.

What?

Look, I know the desire to tie gun ownership with complete mental instability and racism is powerful, but the flowers you were sniffing on the way to the arboretum while breaking in your new Birkenstocks was sprayed with pesticide and you probably are just a little wasted.

Go take some atropine and then post, when you don't sound like an out of touch moron.

And you have so brilliantly rebutted the position that you supposed that I took. Please don't shoot me.

Weaver95: And i'm sure that if/when the time comes to throw off the chains of oppression, all those individual gun owners will respect this SCOTUS decision and leave those gun in the house.

Armed rebellion can happen whether or not the Second Amendment has teeth... but that doesn't make for a good argument, does it?

Solon Isonomia: Weaver95: And i'm sure that if/when the time comes to throw off the chains of oppression, all those individual gun owners will respect this SCOTUS decision and leave those gun in the house.

Armed rebellion can happen whether or not the Second Amendment has teeth... but that doesn't make for a good argument, does it?

no, it doesn't. The author actually seems to believe that JUST BECAUSE the supreme court said that we can't use guns to stage a revolution that gun owners would leave their guns at home during an incident of armed rebellion.

There are some very sheltered people in this country.

Good. If I want to have an ICBM in my yard then I should be able to. If I use it improperly then I should be punished.

eddyatwork: Good. If I want to have an ICBM in my yard then I should be able to. If I use it improperly then I should be punished.

you go right on beating the crap outta that straw man.

Subby, I think many of us on TF knew exactly what it meant. That headline would have worked better with the Freeptards, Daily Kos, or the liters.



_{/Green? Oops.}

Weaver95: no, it doesn't. The author actually seems to believe that JUST BECAUSE the supreme court said that we can't use guns to stage a revolution that gun owners would leave their guns at home during an incident of armed rebellion.

What part of the article says that?

Obdicut: Weaver95: no, it doesn't. The author actually seems to believe that JUST BECAUSE the supreme court said that we can't use guns to stage a revolution that gun owners would leave their guns at home during an incident of armed rebellion.

What part of the article says that?

FTA: "The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead."

Weaver95: FTA: "The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead."

And what part of that sentence says "armed rebellion" to you?

Weaver95: There are some very sheltered people in this country.

No kidding. It's like arguing about flag burning; if it does get successfully banned (which it most likely never will) then people will just move to burning a copy of the Constitution or Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence in protest.

Just plain silly.

Obdicut: Weaver95: FTA: "The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead."

And what part of that sentence says "armed rebellion" to you?

Remember my comment earlier about 'sheltered people'....?

Or did you want to keep narrowly constraining phrases and words in a futile and vain effort to distract from the article...?

You know. For kids!

Solon Isonomia: Weaver95: There are some very sheltered people in this country.

No kidding. It's like arguing about flag burning; if it does get successfully banned (which it most likely never will) then people will just move to burning a copy of the Constitution or Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence in protest.

Just plain silly.

As a country, we seem more vocal about flag burning than we do about the Patriot Act. Hell - even the mess that is the mortgage company bailout isn't getting all that much air play. And Dodd took a freaking BRIBE over that farking legislation. It was a legal bribe, but still....he farking SOLD HIS VOTE and the rest of the country is like...'meh'.

Amazing.

Weaver95: Amazing.

I know. This is why people need to pay attention. And think a little bit.

Weaver95: Or did you want to keep narrowly constraining phrases and words in a futile and vain effort to distract from the article...?

Why would I want to distract from the article? The article is a very good one; it points out a glaring weakness in this ruling's defense of the 2nd amendment individual rights, or public rights, whichever way you want to put it.

The "bulwark" he's referring to is concealed carry, public carry, and being able to assemble armed. He's pointing out that if the logical conclusion of the limitation of this ruling was carried out, only guns inside the home would be legal. That would mean the only time you could conceivably defend yourself against unlawful actions by the government would be at home, individually.

I assume you do see the way that an armed populace is a bulwark against an oppressive government, and is much less so if they have to leave their weapons at home? If it's not clear, I'm happy to spend awhile explaining the stunningly obvious to you.

I think choosing to spend your time arguing with trolls and alts has weakened your rhetorical skills; you can't read an argument without making a weak version of it to fight against.

Obdicut: I assume you do see the way that an armed populace is a bulwark against an oppressive government, and is much less so if they have to leave their weapons at home? If it's not clear, I'm happy to spend awhile explaining the stunningly obvious to you.

Oh yes, because people in armed insurrection against an oppressive government are going to leave their weapons at home 'cause the lawyers will yell at them if they don't.....

You don't get out much, do you?

Weaver95: Oh yes, because people in armed insurrection against an oppressive government are going to leave their weapons at home 'cause the lawyers will yell at them if they don't.....

You don't get out much, do you?

Jesus christ, that is so far from what I'm saying it's ridiculous.

In an armed rebellion, people will be chiseling out the auto locks, they'll be sawing off shotguns, they'll be doing all kinds of illegal shiat. Not to mention the highly illegal action of, you know, rebelling.

I am talking about a bulwark against an oppressive government before it gets to the state of armed rebellion-- and so is the author.

Do you understand how concealed carry and public carry serve as a bulwark against an oppressive government, leaving entirely aside the idea of armed rebellion, and how losing those rights would allow more government abuses, or do I really have to spell that out for you? Can you not come up with a single case where knowing that their citizens were armed in public would deter the government from some action or another?

Obdicut: I am talking about a bulwark against an oppressive government before it gets to the state of armed rebellion-- and so is the author.

That's not the impression I get from the article....but you can believe whatever you want.

Obdicut: Do you understand how concealed carry and public carry serve as a bulwark against an oppressive government

Uhh... that's a fast way to get shot by a cop with an itchy trigger finger.

Solon Isonomia: Weaver95: Amazing.

I know. This is why people need to pay attention. And think a little bit.

I think you're setting your hopes too high.

A couple months ago at work we were talking about the second amendment and I said, "I refuse, flat out refuse to vote for anyone, reguardless of their party affiliation if their primary focus is for gun control." Someone asked, "Why?" and I said, "Because that's going to be the first thing they're going want to go for. If the next president's first act is to take away our ability to fight back, then what the hell is he or she planning that requires us to be unarmed first?"

Solon Isonomia: Weaver95: Amazing.

I know. This is why people need to pay attention. And think a little bit.


Well, you have one problem there Sparky.

If the people *could* think or pay attention, would you even need to mention that they should pay attention and think?

Your expectations obviously exceed the people's ability to deliver, so you either have to lower your expectations (I suggest you observe some second-graders...that's about where your expectations should be) or go do the Hank Thoreau thing.

Just sayin'.

Weaver95: Obdicut: I assume you do see the way that an armed populace is a bulwark against an oppressive government, and is much less so if they have to leave their weapons at home? If it's not clear, I'm happy to spend awhile explaining the stunningly obvious to you.

Oh yes, because people in armed insurrection against an oppressive government are going to leave their weapons at home 'cause the lawyers will yell at them if they don't.....

You don't get out much, do you?

I think the point Obdicut is trying to make is that, yes, should it come to actual rebellion, of course people will disregard the law.

However, the public knowledge that people are walking around with concealed weapons would prevent conditions from ever reaching the rebellion tipping point at all.

If I'm misinterpreting, please correct me.

jaylectricity: I think you're setting your hopes too high.

Giblet: If the people *could* think or pay attention, would you even need to mention that they should pay attention and think?

The general public used to give a shiat about politics and what was going on in the world. Sometimes it had good results and sometimes it had bad results, but at least people were farking involved. What's so unreasonable about wanting people to give a shiat again?

Weaver95: That's not the impression I get from the article....but you can believe whatever you want.

Yeah. Please explain how you jump from "a bulwark against an overly oppressive government" to "armed insurrection."

Hell, even if we do allow you to create your strawman of the author's argument, it still beats the tar out of you; if public carry was completely outlawed, an insurrection would be a lot harder to pull off, since every single person carrying a weapon openly would be in violation of the law. Actually assembling into a group would be much more difficult. It would be a very useful tool for a government attempting to suppress an armed insurrection to outlaw concealed and public carry. It would make transportation of weapons from place to place, stockpiling of weapons, and gathering together in groups with weapons all illegal.

So even your strawman is an actually defensible position; not that that is what the author is saying.

While you're at it, you could actually answer this question:

Can you not come up with a single case where knowing that their citizens were armed in public would deter the government from some action or another?

Cubist Robot Party: However, the public knowledge that people are walking around with concealed weapons would prevent conditions from ever reaching the rebellion tipping point at all.

If I'm misinterpreting, please correct me.

Well, that's part of it; it's not so much that it would work to prevent things reaching that point-- though it would-- as much as it would help stop excesses far before that point, at the "abduct you in a public place" level.

I don't actually think gun ownership changes the balance of power that much, but to the extent that it does, public and concealed carry are every bit as important as the right to own a weapon in the first place.

Obdicut: Do you understand how concealed carry and public carry serve as a bulwark against an oppressive government, leaving entirely aside the idea of armed rebellion, and how losing those rights would allow more government abuses, or do I really have to spell that out for you? Can you not come up with a single case where knowing that their citizens were armed in public would deter the government from some action or another?

Well said.

As a Black guy who has been open-carrying for four years, I guarantee you that it has an impact on LEOs. All of a sudden, I don't get harassed for standing around while my wife is browsing some store, and LEOs, on average, are a lot more courteous and polite than they are w/o the obvious holster.

If you are unarmed, any armed government people consider you a passive sheep which they must tolerate ... if anyone is watching. That's human nature, sure, but it's also a bully's nature and many LEOs are just bullies with badges. If you're better-armed than those same government types, you're at least their equal. That's a substantial psychological advantage likely to yield positive results most of the time.

Wait. So you mean there could still be layers & layers of govt bureaucracy involved before I'm allowed to have a gun? Color me surprised.

Solon Isonomia: The general public used to give a shiat about politics and what was going on in the world.

That was back when there were no computers and only three TV stations.

Giblet: That was back when there were no computers and only three TV stations.

But plenty of radio going out over clear channels.

nashBridges: Absent a real, practical threat to the power of the government, the government will not listen. While I am all for gun ownership, a conceal carry would at best make one cop more cautious at a traffic stop. A public carry will make the same cop more courteous at a traffic stop while increasing your chances of getting a ticket to near 100%

We have a far more effective weapon to keep the government in check. It's called voting. It's a damn shame we don't wield it in greater numbers. To see this weapon in effect, look no farther than the NRA. Their power isn't derived from guns themselves, it's derived from people who want to own guns legally and unfettered and vote accordingly.

I don't actually think gun ownership changes the balance of power that much, but to the extent that it does, public and concealed carry are every bit as important as the right to own a weapon in the first place.

Also, see Giblet's post, above.

I'm not in the least bit a gun-nut, which is why it's kind of laughable that I'm the one arguing against Weaver95's interpretation of the article; I fully accept voting, and unarmed, civil disobedience, are much more powerful weapons in a democracy than guns are. I'm simply making the argument that if one considers gun ownership at all a bulwark against an oppressive government, then obviously public and concealed carry are an important part of that bulwark.

nashBridges: Absent a real, practical threat to the power of the government, the government will not listen. While I am all for gun ownership, a conceal carry would at best make one cop more cautious at a traffic stop. A public carry will make the same cop more courteous at a traffic stop while increasing your chances of getting a ticket to near 100%


Practical experience proves these statements wrong.

/Open-carry Black man (1911 .45 ACP, hip holster with hidden retention).
//Pulled over for speeding six times in the past four years; twice on a motorcycle.
///No tickets.
////Respect (not butt-kissing) and humor work every time.

Actually, now I'm hoping that public and concealed carry is outlawed, vehicular carry is outlawed, and only home ownership is allowed. That way, when the government springs its clampdown at 2:15 PM, and all the working schlubs are at their jobs, crying out, as they're rounded up and put on buses "Oh if only I was at home," it'll be the chronically unemployed (and night-shift workers) who save America.

Sounds like a Mike Judd movie to me.

Solon Isonomia: Giblet: That was back when there were no computers and only three TV stations.

But plenty of radio going out over clear channels.


The point is, the people are mesmerized by all the shiny. They don't care about anything except their shiny stuffs.

I don't pay for satellite, and that's the only way I can get TV where I am. It's really weird talking to TV people now (that's what the wife and I call them). They constantly refer to people and shows as if everyone knows about them, and it's obvious they devote a great deal of time to contemplating these fake people and fake situations.

Do you have any idea how much bandwidth that fecal matter uses up? How much does it distort overall public opinion or the ability to formulate a considered opinion about anything?

Obdicut: Actually, now I'm hoping that public and concealed carry is outlawed, vehicular carry is outlawed, and only home ownership is allowed. That way, when the government springs its clampdown at 2:15 PM, and all the working schlubs are at their jobs, crying out, as they're rounded up and put on buses "Oh if only I was at home," it'll be the chronically unemployed (and night-shift workers) who save America.

Sounds like a Mike Judd movie to me.


This counts as copyright... I'd go see the movie.

I think this post in the comments section gives a good rebuttal to the article.

The Court only decides issues brought before it as part of a case or controversy. In this case, it's a question of whether you can keep a handgun in your house in D.C., a Federal enclave. Hence there is no need (and no justification) for writing an opinion that decides the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a feature, not a bug. Nobody briefed the incorporation issue, so it would be premature to decide it without having interested parties.

As to optimism for the future, this case provides and individual rights starting point for all future gun decisions. It also provides a convenient litmus test for potential Supreme Court nominees.

With all due respect, Radley, this decision gave a huge win to people in D.C. who want to defend themselves, but you're complaining about not getting a pony too.

As for the people who bring up the "ICBM" argument". It is a non-issue for several reasons.

1. Who can afford one? Joe Bob is not going to be able to afford something that costs tens of millions of dollars, no matter how much he wants one.

2. Who is going to sell you one? Seriously, who is gona put an ICBM up for sale if it was legal to do so? The only people I can think of are either the French or the North Koreans and neither of them are likely going to include a nuclear warhead with the ICBM kit. So unless you have $100 billion to start your own Manhattan project the "What about ICBMs" argument is nothing but a Red Herring.

3. Not like you are going to be able to use it. Unlike owning a 155mm howitzer, there is nowhere "safe" to launch a nuke. With a howitzer you can go buy 300 square miles of desert and go have fun.

It is quite easy to draw the line for civilian ownership. Weapons that have dangerous, uncontrollable fallout would not be allowed. Arms are intended to be aimed at a specific target or area. A grenade, 155 howitzer, TWO missile, or even a MOAB do not generate dangerous fallout. Shrapnel, yes, but that doesn't travel too far and is easy enough to contain. A Nuke creates dangerous, uncontrollable radioactive fallout, Chemical and biological weapons are nothing but dangerous, uncontrollable fallout.

Obdicut: jpbreon: flowers you were sniffing on the way to the arboretum

[...]

You also fail on verb-subject agreement and comma usage; not good if the point of your post is to mock another's use of the English language.

Err, I thought he was making fun of the content of the post, not the language use. Still true though.

See, I read an article on the the Supreme Court ruling, then I read this article, then I realized that this article says nothing that I didn't already know from reading the first article, because I'm not a moron who over-interprets things.

The real flood won't start until the lawsuits seeking to get this right incorporated to the states under the 14th Amendment reach the Supreme Court, which could still be a few years off.

Crosshair: Chemical and biological weapons are nothing but dangerous, uncontrollable fallout.


But making these things illegal can only accomplish one thing: create a black market for those who want them.

Now, instead of just having to worry about the flipped-out billionaires next door, you ALSO have to worry about their illegal arms dealers sneaking through your yard at 3AM. Nice one. Brilliant.

Do you learn nothing from history?

Crosshair: I think this post in the comments section gives a good rebuttal to the article.

The Court only decides issues brought before it as part of a case or controversy. In this case, it's a question of whether you can keep a handgun in your house in D.C., a Federal enclave. Hence there is no need (and no justification) for writing an opinion that decides the question of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Aww, how cute, conservatives are trying to convince themselves that Scalia's opinion was an act of judicial minimalism. In reality, the Heller decision was an outcome-based, activist judicial decision that is convoluted. Certainly, the holding was limited to the DC handgun ban. But the rule set out by Scalia is convoluted and even after dozens of decisions will probably be unclear.

Conservatives criticize Roe v. Wade as a wrongly decided and poorly reasoned decision. Heller is essentially the same thing. Scalia knew that he wanted to rule in favor of gun rights, but wasn't sure how to get there. So, instead of relying on the dozens of well-researched scholarly articles, he decided to split the baby and come up with some bizarre explanation relying on a "constitutional right to self-defense." He tries to argue that this is a "pre-existing right," yet nearly all of his arguments are essentially policy arguments. After all, if the right to self-defense was constitutionally enshrined, then why doesn't the second amendment use those words?

I'm sure law students in the future will look to this decision as a prime example of how conservative legal scholars who so heavily criticized the Warren court decided to follow in its footsteps.

Weaver95: The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead.

And i'm sure that if/when the time comes to throw off the chains of oppression, all those individual gun owners will respect this SCOTUS decision and leave those gun in the house.

Sometimes I wonder what the hell people use for brains.

Yep.