ears

/lets just get that out of the way

Awesome. I just submitted this as

The first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers. Except this one.

Despite my misfire with the fail gun, this is an awesome article. I want to be this guy. Having failed at that as well, though, at least the article gave me a good excuse to renew my Cato Institute membership.

"Why don't we do away with the court system?" Daley said. "The old West - you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle on the street."


sounds fine with me. there are quite a few people sitting in a prison cell that shouldn't be allowed to continue breathing. Not to mention the fact that legalized dueling would tend to shut up the RIAA assholes fairly quickly.

I thought this was interesting:

But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Aren't more people killed in car accidents than by guns? If we're going to go by this sort of logic, then we should ban cars and trucks. Highways too, since thats where all these car deaths occur.

Weaver95: Aren't more people killed in car accidents than by guns? If we're going to go by this sort of logic, then we should ban cars and trucks. Highways too, since thats where all these car deaths occur.

The usual counter to that is that the cars have significant social utility, while most of the guns don't.

There are fewer people making that argument lately because even the most die-hard paleoliberal type has to think twice about the social utility of giving Dubya a monopoly on destructive power.

eqtworld: /You don't have to desire something yourself to understand that others have the right to do if if they wish.

And if, as a country, we remembered that lesson and voted accordingly we would have a much better society.

*sigh*

But we don't. For some reason we all decided that it's ok for special interest groups to write laws telling us all what's 'right' for us. Smoking nazis, eco-nuts, gay rights, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-family, RIAA, MPAA....they all want to pass legislation that tells us all how to live our lives, use their products and conduct our business. Nobody wants to live and let live anymore.

eqtworld: /You don't have to desire something yourself to understand that others have the right to do if if they wish.

Sure, but tell that to the four nanny-statists on the Supreme Court. To the dissenters, it was all about "b...b..b...but the chilllllldrun!"

Weaver95: Aren't more people killed in car accidents than by guns?

Plus

(repost)

Medical Error Is The Fifth-Leading Cause Of Death In The U.S.

What do some in congress do?

Senate Fight over Medical Malpractice Cap Looms as Major Campaign Issue.

Priorities!

/not really

Man On Pink Corner: Awesome. I just submitted this as The first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers. Except this one.

yeah, i saw that. thought it was funny

the Admins are feisty today

Weaver95: eqtworld: /You don't have to desire something yourself to understand that others have the right to do if if they wish.

And if, as a country, we remembered that lesson and voted accordingly we would have a much better society.

*sigh*

But we don't. For some reason we all decided that it's ok for special interest groups to write laws telling us all what's 'right' for us. Smoking nazis, eco-nuts, gay rights, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-family, RIAA, MPAA....they all want to pass legislation that tells us all how to live our lives, use their products and conduct our business. Nobody wants to live and let live anymore.

What laws do they want to pass telling you how to live your lives? Gay rights and pro choice groups want to generally expand choices, not limit them. Like the right to marry, or the right to have an abortion.

Man On Pink Corner: The usual counter to that is that the cars have significant social utility, while most of the guns don't.

I would think that law enforcement officials would beg to differ on this point.

I'm not very up on law, but if Obama gets elected can he fire the 5 Justices and replace them with gun haters and get this ruling overturned?

Bloody William: What laws do they want to pass telling you how to live your lives? Gay rights and pro choice groups want to generally expand choices, not limit them. Like the right to marry, or the right to have an abortion.

Actually, if they JUST did that, I'd be just fine with those groups. But gay rights and pro-choice people are just as fanatical and uncompromising as their opponents (which I suppose makes sense in a Nietzschen kinda way), and just as intolerant of ideological differences. Why else do you think the gay rights groups went after the Boy Scouts? They could have just let the BSA go their own way...but no. they had to push it to the supreme court. And the pro-choice people could easily co-exist with a live and let live approach with the pro-life councilling people (assuming you could find some non-crazy ones) and really mean it when they say 'choice'.....but they preach and convert as heavily as the wacko fundies when it comes to their issue.

Gun control is merely one example of polarizing 'hot button' issues dividing this country. And for a long time it's been a great distraction. But we're a complex society facing a large number of interconnected issues. We cannot continue to decide whom to support based on single issue advocacy any more. we have to learn to compromise and understand that we can't just legislate away different ideological viewpoints. we have to get along.

I don't think it'll happen tho. we're too fond of hating the opposition.

BGates: I'm not very up on law, but if Obama gets elected can he fire the 5 Justices and replace them with gun haters and get this ruling overturned?

No; you can't fire SC justices. They are appointed for life, so they leave the bench at their leisure.

Even after major ideological shifts, the Court isn't usually eager to overturn itself. The individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, along with both the good and bad parts of Scalia's opinion, will be around for many years.

Worst case, this ruling turns into the right's answer to the Roe v. Wade litmus test.

Weaver95: Why else do you think the gay rights groups went after the Boy Scouts?

Dude, the BSA gets Federal funding. I'm not gay myself, but I don't want my taxes going towards discriminatory, strongly religiously-influenced organizations.

It's sort of like agreeing with Heller decision even though you're not interested in guns. One of those "principle" things.

Man On Pink Corner: BGates: I'm not very up on law, but if Obama gets elected can he fire the 5 Justices and replace them with gun haters and get this ruling overturned?

No; you can't fire SC justices. They are appointed for life, so they leave the bench at their leisure.

Even after major ideological shifts, the Court isn't usually eager to overturn itself. The individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, along with both the good and bad parts of Scalia's opinion, will be around for many years.

Worst case, this ruling turns into the right's answer to the Roe v. Wade litmus test.

I see. Thanks.

Man On Pink Corner: Dude, the BSA gets Federal funding. I'm not gay myself, but I don't want my taxes going towards discriminatory, strongly religiously-influenced organizations.

No, that was shallow justification in support of their ideological agenda. Again, it makes sense when you consider that most of their opponents really ARE religious fanatics. But far too many of the gay rights activists jump at shadows and see enemies that don't exist.

And round and round we go....

Weaver95: No, that was shallow justification in support of their ideological agenda. Again, it makes sense when you consider that most of their opponents really ARE religious fanatics. But far too many of the gay rights activists jump at shadows and see enemies that don't exist.

Very unlikely we'll reach any agreement on this point. It's OT for this thread, at any rate.

eqtworld: /You don't have to desire something yourself to understand that others have the right to do if if they wish.

So I take it I won't be hearing any more "ZOMG if you think Iraq is a worthwhile war, then why aren't you signing up to join the military" anymore?

Weaver95: I thought this was interesting:

But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Aren't more people killed in car accidents than by guns? If we're going to go by this sort of logic, then we should ban cars and trucks. Highways too, since thats where all these car deaths occur.

Glad you pointed that out. Banning cars and trucks doesn't seem practical, but, having some regulation over them, requiring some demonstration of skill and judgement before letting a person use one, and - here's the kicker - requiring that you post a financial bond or have insurance to cover the damages that you OR YOUR VEHICLE may cause, even if purely by accident. A well-regulated highway system, one might call it.

Anyhow, was there something you were saying there?

Man On Pink Corner: Very unlikely we'll reach any agreement on this point. It's OT for this thread, at any rate.

The details might be, but my main point is that half our problems in this country are related to various/sundry single issue advocacy groups using the court system to push their agenda on the country and bypassing the legislature entirely.

And that's not even consider the mutations of the law that corporations manage to achive via judical fiat rather than dealing with the legislature (cf RIAA/MPAA or even Microsoft for that matter).

This lawsuit was a rare instance of the little guy sticking up for his (and our) constitutional rights against a single issue advocacy group and actually WINNING! Which will not sit well with the gun grabbers at all. If they follow true to form, they'll retrench and start writing insanely difficult and expensive registration/regulation and try to make people jump thru as many expensive hoops as they can to own a gun.

MisterTweak: Anyhow, was there something you were saying there?

Yes. Self-defense is a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution. Driving isn't.

Here's the ironic thing: most on the left urge a very close reading of the text when it comes to the Second Amendment, while most on the right favor a broad reading. The exact opposite is true for many of the other Amendments.

It all boils down to this: what the conditioning phrase "a well-regulated militia being necessary..." means. I'm of the mind to think that it confers nearly absolute collective rights to gun ownership (e.g., communities have the right to arm themselves) but more limited individual rights. Consider the situation in which it was made: much of the United States was unsettled. The colonies that were settled were not the major urban sprawl we know today. Communications and transport time were much slower. Communities had to be able to defend themselves from attack (from natives, from other nations around the borders, etc.) and not rely solely on a trained military force.

Now, I don't advocate a strict constructionist or original intent view of Constitutional interpretation. I think those views are myopic, backwards and dangerous. But I do understand that the Amendments prescribe values, not legislation. They set out general policies, rather than specific edicts. The general policy of the Second Amendment is to allow communities to provide for their common defense through a civilian militia that is capable of owning firearms whose primary purpose is martial.

I think that any individual right to gun ownership under that rubric is more limited. Martial firearms can and should be restricted from the general public. Guns for sporting (hunting, target shooting, etc.), whose primary purpose is not killing, are within the ambit of a State legislature to permit or regulate as they see fit. But there's no reason that an individual needs to own most types of handguns, semi- or automatic rifles, or any of the other number of firearms that aren't directly useful for any purpose other than killing people.

However, the community should and does have the right to provide a store or cache of these weapons for the common defense. While that may be slightly anachronistic in this day and age of rapid military and law enforcement agency deployment, that is what the language of the Constitution supports and if the legislative choice is made to enact that, I must respect the democratic will of the people.

Lane83: I'm of the mind to think that it confers nearly absolute collective rights to gun ownership (e.g., communities have the right to arm themselves) but more limited individual rights.

You don't think the people who wrote the Bill of Rights would have looked at you really funny if you'd suggested there wasn't an absolute individual right to own arms? This seems obvious to me, but then I'm hardly a historical scholar.

My feeling is that they didn't mention an individual right to weapons ownership because at the time, it would've seemed like a waste of perfectly-good ink.

For the record, I do like the idea of community-owned weapons caches, as long as they aren't registered or otherwise 'regulated' by the government itself. It would give the common people access to weapons and training they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. The trouble is, the people in charge of the caches would effectively be a political body in themselves. I'd want this idea to serve as an adjunct to private weapons ownership, not as a replacement.

I've read about him before. Great guy.

And of course I'll do the obligatory gloating that it was a Libertarian, not one of those pro-gun liberals that seem to exist only on Fark, and not some theocratic whackjob who'd fight for your right to have a gun just as soon as he'd fight to have gay people rounded up and put in prison.

Score one for us!

One last thing- fark the NRA. If they want to get on the bandwagon now, that's great, but if they'd had their way the Supreme Court never would have heard this case.

Lane83: Guns for sporting (hunting, target shooting, etc.), whose primary purpose is not killing,

What do you think that hunting does? It kills. The reason to keep firearms at homes is so that one person or organization doesn't have all the guns. If this be the case, then there is no way that a community can form a militia if all the arms are lock away.

Martial firearms can and should be restricted from the general public.

Why do you hate the rights you don't agree with. You're allowed to speak and say anything you want. Why would you want to limit or restrict one right and use the other right you're guaranteed to do it with?

Churchill2004: One last thing- fark the NRA. If they want to get on the bandwagon now, that's great, but if they'd had their way the Supreme Court never would have heard this case.

The lawyer didn't want to be viewed as an NRA guy.

The NRA has been supporting this for years.

Lane83:
It all boils down to this: what the conditioning phrase "a well-regulated militia being necessary..." means. I'm of the mind to think that it confers nearly absolute collective rights to gun ownership (e.g., communities have the right to arm themselves) but more limited individual rights.

Then why not just say "The right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Weaver95: But here's another statistic: Approximately 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

Remember that about half of those are suicides.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

BGates: The lawyer didn't want to be viewed as an NRA guy.

The NRA has been supporting this for years

No, they initially opposed the case because they feared it would go the wrong way. According to wiki, they've "since reconciled with the plaintiffs".


If I was really cynical, I'd be tempted to accuse them of being like the Republicans who never do anything about Roe because then all their enthusiastic anti-abortion supporters would go away.

TFA:"We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government," Levy said. "We don't like the government in our wallets, and we don't like the government in our bedrooms, so we're very happy to be a bridge between the left and the right, particularly on this issue, which has separated so many on the left and the right."

This is how libertarians should think, strategy-wise. It's why I get so pissed at the Lew Rockwell/angry Troofer types at times. As radical as I am personally, I have to side with the CATO/reason/moderate wing of the libertarian movement that believes in proactive broad coalition-building, not just angrily sitting on the sidelines hurling epithets. That's how you actually get things done- like this case.

Man On Pink Corner: MisterTweak: Anyhow, was there something you were saying there?

Yes. Self-defense is a fundamental human right protected by the Constitution. Driving isn't.

Never said it was, but driving *is* a logical extension of the original document (the whole thing, not just the amendments) - and various state and federal statues reflect the practical changes needed with advancing technology, and the varying needs of vastly different environs. We don't let 15-year-olds drive 18-wheelers in midtown Manhattan, nor do we have a 15mph speed limit on I-10 200 miles west of San Antonio. Again, that whole "well-regulated" thing. Infants need absolute rules and permissions, adults don't.

Lane83: It all boils down to this: what the conditioning phrase "a well-regulated militia being necessary..." means

and the heller decision, being mindful of that, went into it in detail, citing the history, and concluded the prefatory clause does not rule; the operative clause does.

so the militia argument is over. and it lost. the second amendment is not a collective right of the states

Lane83: But there's no reason that an individual needs to own most types of handguns, semi- or automatic rifles, or any of the other number of firearms that aren't directly useful for any purpose other than killing people.

yes there are reasons. the citizenry have decided that handguns serve a useful purpose in self-defense (again, see heller's exegesis on this) and are ideal for that purpose. and killing people, in this case, is a useful purpose.

MisterTweak: Never said it was, but driving *is* a logical extension of the original document (the whole thing, not just the amendments) - and various state and federal statues reflect the practical changes needed with advancing technology, and the varying needs of vastly different environs. We don't let 15-year-olds drive 18-wheelers in midtown Manhattan, nor do we have a 15mph speed limit on I-10 200 miles west of San Antonio. Again, that whole "well-regulated" thing. Infants need absolute rules and permissions, adults don't

The difference is that the level of gross negligence required to accidentally harm some one with a firearm is many times greater than that which can end up getting people killed in a car. Also, the licensing is not to use the car. It's to use the car on the government-owned roads.

And besides, if you're talking about accidents, the only thing that makes any difference is the caliber. Nothing else matters, because you won't be getting more than one shot.


One last thing- there actually did used to be a common law right to use the public roads. That died when the states choose to treat road safety as a law enforcement issue.

Crosshair: Accident 802

Obviously we need heavy regulation to stop this bloodbath!

Churchill2004: It's to use the car on the government-owned roads.

people often forget this tidbit. Public roads.

Churchill2004: No, they initially opposed the case because they feared it would go the wrong way.

They supported the lifting of the ban (of course). Yes they were critical about it going to the court because they were fearful of a ruling (which they won by one single vote) that anti-gun folks would use to ban guns in every city in the US. They didn't want one wrong decision to be a standing point of everything they are trying to fight. There is an article explaining there position but I can't find it online.

eqtworld: /I want a GLOCK 27

I might recommend trying out a XD from Springfield. They are a sweet shooting firearm.

Following the armed conflict between American colonists and British forces at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage, commander of British forces and the royal governor of Massachusetts, demanded that Boston`s citizens deposit their arms at Faneuil Hall under the care of a Selectman before being permitted to leave the city, then under siege by the colonial militia. After obtaining 1778 muskets, 634 pistols and 36 blunderbusses from citizens, the governor had an armed guard mounted over their arms and refused to permit their owners to depart from the city.

Man on Pink Corner: Well, I did say that I don't advocate an original intent interpretation of the Constitution. If TJ and the rest looked at me funny, I'd look at them funny. "You don't think we have an individual right to own guns?" they'd ask, and I'd retort, "You don't think women deserve to vote?" It'd be really tense until someone mentioned that people from different times often have different views on what's appropriate.

BGates: I never said I hated the right to own firearms. In fact, I think I just presented several cases where people should own guns. What I disagree with is the general, unassailable right of people to own guns whose primary purpose is killing humans. I think that States should be able to restrict that as they see fit, and Congress should be able to restrict the interstate trade of such weapons. That is, if the people elect representatives to sponsor those bills. I think that such policy decisions are for the legislatures, not the courts.

Snarfangel: I don't understand what you're saying. The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I know that Scalia and the majority rejected the interpretation I argue in favor of, but cases can be overturned, do it doesn't disclose my advocacy of such an argument from the standpoint of policy.

Albo: Scalia's analysis is, as is usual with him, the use of history to obscure his own politics. He may claim some sort of objectivity and historicity, and while I do not mean to impugn his knowledge or rigor, he has a definite political bias that colors many of his value judgments. I'll pretend to no such objectivity or fetishism for the text of the Constitution. My politics are naked: I don't see any benefit to a general ownership of guns whose primary purpose is martial. The cited reason (self-defense) is... disturbing. Unless one has the proper training in the use of such firearms in life-or-death situations (e.g., military, law enforcement, etc.) then the person attempting to use a handgun or automatic weapon in "self-defense" is as much a danger to himself and bystanders as he is to any putative "bad guys." It's the same argument I see being made for allowing students to carry weapons at school. Speaking from personal experience, violent confrontations are not easy under the best of conditions. While the potential for defense is there, so is the potential for good intentions to go awry and people to be hurt. I think that most self-defense scenarios are little more than juvenile fantasies of people with messiah complexes. When it comes down to it, the smartest thing one can do in self defense is to run and hide, not attempt to confront a violent attacker. That's because most people aren't capable of killing, psychologically. And that's a good thing: that's why most of us aren't violent criminals. I'd not like to find out if I could kill a man at the crucial instant, so to speak, where it's me or him. Any hesitation might be fatal, and I don't have the training nor the knowledge to trust myself to handling a gun in those high-pressure situations. And I have had training in both nominal "self-defense" (judo and kickboxing) and firearms (I am from Texas, after all). Do I really want someone like this guy deciding to be a hero? No.

Do I care if my neighbor down the street goes deer hunting? No again. His shotguns have a purpose independent of killing a human. Someone with a concealed handgun knows his weapon has only one purpose, killing another human. And as the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems begin to look like nails.

BGates: ollowing the armed conflict between American colonists and British forces at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage, commander of British forces and the royal governor of Massachusetts, demanded that Boston`s citizens deposit their arms at Faneuil Hall under the care of a Selectman before being permitted to leave the city, then under siege by the colonial militia. After obtaining 1778 muskets, 634 pistols and 36 blunderbusses from citizens, the governor had an armed guard mounted over their arms and refused to permit their owners to depart from the city.

Curʃes! Ye muʃt know King George is the legitimate ruler of this land?

Lane83: Unless one has the proper training in the use of such firearms in life-or-death situations (e.g., military, law enforcement, etc.) then the person attempting to use a handgun or automatic weapon in "self-defense" is as much a danger to himself and bystanders as he is to any putative "bad guys."

1. that's ridiculous

2. we don't evaluate constitutional rights on a person's ability to avail himself of that right. even if you are dumber than a post and are a neo-nazi, you still have free speech rights.

Churchill2004: MisterTweak: Never said it was, but driving *is* a logical extension of the original document (the whole thing, not just the amendments) - and various state and federal statues reflect the practical changes needed with advancing technology, and the varying needs of vastly different environs. We don't let 15-year-olds drive 18-wheelers in midtown Manhattan, nor do we have a 15mph speed limit on I-10 200 miles west of San Antonio. Again, that whole "well-regulated" thing. Infants need absolute rules and permissions, adults don't

The difference is that the level of gross negligence required to accidentally harm some one with a firearm is many times greater than that which can end up getting people killed in a car. Also, the licensing is not to use the car. It's to use the car on the government-owned roads.

At least one acquaintance of our family had no less than 14 guns stolen from his house in one break-in. None of them locked up. This is not the tactic you are looking for.

And besides, if you're talking about accidents, the only thing that makes any difference is the caliber. Nothing else matters, because you won't be getting more than one shot.


Not just owner-use accidents but the acts resulting from negigient ownership of a gun. So it could be leaving it in your nightstand, and your kid blows the brains out of a playmate while showing him daddy's toy. Or leaving it in the glovebox - of a convertible (yes, people do that). Or even, like the "patriot" I mention above, just being a complete dolt and putting a dozen or so military-grade firearms in the hands of felons because locking them up would have been an infringement on his rights.

One last thing- there actually did used to be a common law right to use the public roads. That died when the states choose to treat road safety as a law enforcement issue.

Ah yes! our friend the "law enforcement approach/issue". Our current president *does* have a very high comfort level when it comes to side-stepping constitutional rights in times of public danger. A true cynic might see this trend as a way of conditioning the voters to demand sanctions against people who are merely *percieved* as a risk to preserve public order and protect commerce.

eqtworld: Great guns. I don't know much about their compact models I do know the FBI and CIA moved from issuing them about 2 years ago and now only issue GLOCKs. I am not exactly sure why.

The SS standard issue is a Sig P229.

MisterTweak: Not just owner-use accidents but the acts resulting from negigient ownership of a gun. So it could be leaving it in your nightstand, and your kid blows the brains out of a playmate while showing him daddy's toy. Or leaving it in the glovebox - of a convertible (yes, people do that). Or even, like the "patriot" I mention above, just being a complete dolt and putting a dozen or so military-grade firearms in the hands of felons because locking them up would have been an infringement on his rights

You do realize that all the gun accident deaths per year total up to less than 1,000, right?

It's well below drowning on the list of causes of death.

Lane83, it appears you come down on Bryer's "interest balancing" argument. here's how Heller addresses that, which relates to what I was just saying:

(Bryer) proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests."

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government-even the Third Branch of Government-the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different.

albo: he First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets

Aside from libel, actually none of that's true. And I'm not all too pleased with the "original understanding" argument. The "original understanding" of the First Amendment allowed for the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The text, not the intent, is what's legally binding.

Lane83: Do I care if my neighbor down the street goes deer hunting? No again. His shotguns have a purpose independent of killing a human

So we're hunting deer with shotguns now. Ooooooooookey-dokey.

Man On Pink Corner: So we're hunting deer with shotguns now. Ooooooooookey-dokey.

Actually lots of people hunt deer with shotguns.