I can't see how a ruling not allowing citizens to own guns will ever go through with the powerful gun lobby and all.

/and by "powerful", I mean people with a lot of guns

The second amendment says nothing about bullets. The solution that both sides have been arguing for is to give guns to everyone, and bullets to no one

DamnYankees: Oh, ok. Well for sure, that's one of the best parts of our system.

Absolutely. And that's the interesting thing- in the past century, we've started developing scientific tools for analyzing the success of different systems for a variety of purposes (systems analysis, a close relative of computer science and game theory). Our Founders were extraordinarily prescient. Their system predicted many of the things that systems analysis tells us makes for a successful system.

Atomic_Puppy: Do you delusional farkers think that with your handful of AR-15s and revolvers you could stop a guided missile being dropped from 45,000 ft up or an Abraham's Tank barreling towards your trailer?

Give me a break. If a time came to bear arms against the government you will be easily appeased when you hear from those same abusers that dissent is "unpatriotic".

You make me laugh.

The purpose of an armed population is to prevent easy subjugation... not an all out war. You're right, if the United States government wanted to just carpet bomb the crap out of it's citizens it could. But, I find it highly unlikely they would want to destroy the citizenry that pays their paycheck.

Gun ownership places a restriction on what they can enforce if it is not supported by the people.

zvoidx: (I don't feel like scroll through all of thr comments), but...

Can someone tell me why this issue is being handled as if they found some scroll from an alien spaceship crash and are arguing about deciphering it?

Weren't there many records kept since the birth of the Bill Of Rights that explain the founders' intentions?

...even from universities of the time?

/232 years is not that long ago


Yes, the debate on the wording of the 2nd Amendment is on file in the Library of Congress. If scholars would bother to dig it out they would find there's not a shred of doubt that they fully intended for individuals to have guns and it was a guaranteed right in their view.

The real problem is that the judiciary has been reinterprating the Constitution to fit society's needs for the past 150 years rather than society evolving within the constraints of the Constitution. In the early days, it was all about the states. Since, the Civil War it's been all about the country.

evilgreg [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-18 10:57:17 AM
hb0mb: evilgreg: staplermofo: If we are allowed to form militias to fight off our own government, why did the south lose the civil war?

Just like you said: the South lost. I'm pretty sure they fought. If you want to be picky about it, the South lost because its army surrendered, then its newly-formed government surrendered.

the south was kicking ass until Lincoln made the war an issue of slavery and England got involved.

I believe it changed when Grant replaced McClellan.

All gun control regulations are unconstitutional.

Suck it Gun Control nutjobs.

Weaver95: Disgruntled Postal Worker: Just imagine how peaceful and safe America would be if the government would just ban all weapons and disarm those who do have them.

it'd be a GREAT day for the criminals, that's for sure.

It'd be a great day for the freedom tree too. Poor girl could use some manure.

OH NOES you can't keep loaded guns under your pillow anymore?

/waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
/whiners.

nekom: I think the second amendment needs to be revisited. Not eliminated by any means, but clarified. The problem is that when it was drafted, we had muskets. Now we have advanced weaponry that the founding fathers never dreamed of. We obviously can't allow people to walk around with RPG's and flamethrowers, so the courts have sort of arbitrated what is and isn't allowed, and that's really not the best way to do things.

OK, I'll bite - why not?

The very reason the Second Amendment exists is because the Colonies were told that poor people weren't allowed anything that could kill without skill - no crossbows, no guns. Gunsmiths were required to register what they worked on and imports were strictly controlled.

When it was drafted, the public had the most advanced weaponry available to them, and the only thing that kept it out of the hands of "everybody" was the price. You're talking about folks that saw what cannonballs, explosives, bayonets, muskets, and grapeshot did to people. The Second Amendment gives folks the right to own weapons. Doesn't give them the right to use them on each other indiscriminately, though.

These folks not only wrote the Second Amendment, they enacted gun control laws as well. You'll find weapon control laws on the books as early as the 1600's (I say "weapon control" because the laws didn't cover just guns.) No guns or swords in public places, for example. Some states didn't allow firearms to be sold to the Native Americans. Other states allowed it, but controlled the quantity of ammo. Some places required you to own not just a gun, but enough powder and shot to use it repeatedly, as well.

I honestly think we're looking at an issue between federal and states' rights. The federal government is supposed to be the "baseline" law of the land - the Second Amendment should allow individual ownership of any weapon, period. States should then be able to enact weapon control laws based on their state and local government needs and requirements, as they see fit.

In other words, government should be an object-oriented design - states should be able to completely implement the federal interface, then subclass it as they see fit.

In Montana we firmly support the right to Arm Bears.
Hunting season for state visitors starts soon... :)

Atomic_Puppy: Do you delusional farkers think that with your handful of AR-15s and revolvers you could stop a guided missile being dropped from 45,000 ft up or an Abraham's Tank barreling towards your trailer?

Give me a break. If a time came to bear arms against the government you will be easily appeased when you hear from those same abusers that dissent is "unpatriotic".

You make me laugh.

The point is that the elected representation of the people would have to make things bloody if the people who elected them were armed. If they are unarmed, they are much easier to quell. Even if the free people of a country couldn't win an armed revolution against the people who had stopped representing them and those people happened to have the most powerful military on the planet (hold on - that sounds familiar somehow...) then they could at least make them think twice before failing to represent them. (Last sentence left all tangled up on purpose - deal with it.)

A guerrilla force that really believes in itself can pose a difficult problem even for the U.S. military.

Also, in case you forgot, the U.S. military is also made up of voting citizens.

i could be wrong, but for those of you who keep bringing up the "nuke arguement" - i was pretty sure somewhere it was stated that citizens were guaranteed the same weapon as the standing army, meaning that in todays day we'd be allowed the same weapon as the standard soldier - the m16. i dont know of any regular soldiers running around with nukes... or is this starshiptroopers?

//really... is it?

studebaker hoch: Why does the SCOTUS even get to debate this?

It's in the Constitution. Either take it out of the Constitution, or STFU.

They are debating on the exact meaning/context of it.

2wolves: Who are you well regulated by?

Doesn't have to be.

"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".

That's it.

Unless "a well-regulated militia" is no longer deemed "necessary to the security of a free State", the 2nd amendment still applies and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Want some docudrama regarding the need to bear arms in the face of an oppressive government?

Watch 'John Adams' on HBO. Too fat and bald (too Giamatti)?

Try the last two episodes of the soon-to-be-cancelled 'Jericho.'

Weaver95: I'd like to see the philly chapter of the ACLU come out to perry county and tell them they all have to turn over their guns.

they'd through the ACLU into the perry county ocean

I'm a bear and I'm getting a kick outta these replies...

'From my cold dead hands'

/that is all

debug: Great headline, except DC residents are allowed to have rifles and shotguns so long as they aren't stored loaded and have a trigger lock on them.

Which makes them very useful for self-defense... if they swing them like clubs and their assailant is unarmed.

Officers are issued handguns for a reason.

Hoooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

But I was going to use my government issued stimulus check to buy a handgun!

Crosshair: you can't go walking down the street with an uncased AR-15 over your back as it is.

You might want to check the laws in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, Vermont (These are all "Gold Star" open carry states).

get informed: Open Carry . org (new window)

Not to sidetrack the debate, but this isn't that Supreme Court.

It's just a regular court with tomatoes and sour cream.

Background: I'm a gun owner/military firearms training instructor. I teach small arms safety/marksmanship for the DoD. (Iraq 2006-2007, Afghanistan 2008)

I love guns. You might love sports cars, fine wine, music, art, animals, sports, (etc, etc, etc).... I give you permission to love what you love (I EXPECT you to give me permission to love what I love). It's called FREEDOM. Look it up...

I love guns... I do not love crime/violence. In fact, I despise them. If you think they are synonymous (eat shiat). I don't think sports cars are synonymous with DWI, nor sports with steroid abuse, wine with alcoholism, etc, etc, etc...

Owning a gun is not a sin (it shouldn't be a crime either). It's all about how we use them that should be legislated/judged. Owning a car isn't criminal (but DWI is...). Owning a gun shouldn't be criminal (murder is).

I wish our legislators would quit over-legislating on issues that are impossible/impractical to enforce.

Lastly, I look forward to all you Farkers quoting me out of context... Begin...

FormlessOne: In other words, government should be an object-oriented design - states should be able to completely implement the federal interface, then subclass it as they see fit.

Your newsletter... may I subscribe to it

/was prolly confiscated after the cival war though
//the death knell of state's rights

Weaver95: Actually, I was thinking it'd be more along the lines of 'Deliverance'. Only with less lube...

string 'em up on trees along route 34

joshik72: mysite.verizon.net

You highlighted the important part. It's all together in one clause:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The question remains: does the government have the power to regulate what you can and cannot own, based on public whims? Could the Federal government ban cellphones if they wanted?

dittybopper: None. It says "keep and bear".
Or a gun in my hand?
See above.

Being able to walk around public sidewalks with a gun in my hand is a significant departure from the way our system works now. I'm not sure if people would be willing to accept that, I doubt the justices are sure of that either.

dittybopper: Can a business owner ban guns on their business?
Absolutely. I can require you to sing the National Anthem while you are on my property, and force you to leave if you do not agree.
I can require you to be silent while on my property, and force you do leave if you do not agree.
Recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't nullify the rights of property owners to decide what they will allow on their property: It's a bar against GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Under the 14th Amendment you cannot kick a black person out of your restaurant for being black. You can force me to sing the national anthem, stand on one leg, or bark like a dog. But based on precedent, at least some constitutional provisions (such as the 14th Amendment) trump property rights. . . Is the Second Amendment one of those rights? Certainly there are people in here who think the Second Amendment is a more crucial Amendment than the 14th, shouldn't it have the same or broader reach?

dittybopper: Children don't have the same rights as adults.

The constitution does not delimit the 2nd A. based on age. A "historical literalist" judge like Scalia might look back and say "kids routinely used guns to hunt and defend homesteads in the days of the founding fathers, and the founding fathers knew this, therefore they probably intentionally did not limit the 2nd A. to adults". Remember, when the constitution wanted to limit a right to a certain age group, they knew how to do it (president must be 35, voting only at age 21/18). They decided not to put an age limit in the 2nd A. They must have had a good reason.

dittybopper: Actually, yes he can, just like he can refuse you for wearing a pink sweater on St. Valentines day. The remedy isn't a resort to the courts, it's to change your sweater (or secure the gun in another location).

The civil rights act of 1964 was effective at prohibiting a hotel owner from refusing black guests because the hotel at least affected interstate commerce. If your bar or restaurant can be said to affect interstate commerce, even if only because you attract a non-nominal number of interstate customers, you can't ban blacks from it. Under the CRA of 1968 you also cannot refuse to rent property to blacks. Both of these acts were passed under the authority of the commerce clause and the Equal protection clause. Both trump property rights.

i could be wrong, but for those of you who keep bringing up the "nuke arguement" - i was pretty sure somewhere it was stated that citizens were guaranteed the same weapon as the standing army, meaning that in todays day we'd be allowed the same weapon as the standard soldier - the m16. i dont know of any regular soldiers running around with nukes... or is this starshiptroopers?

Doesn't need to be same as military. Constitution says right to arms. Nothing more. If you've got better than the military: yay for you.

You can't use em'... but you can bear em'.

On a sidenote, it's been suspected that "dirty bombs" have been used by the military before... though nobody really knows.

albo: Weaver95: I'd like to see the philly chapter of the ACLU come out to perry county and tell them they all have to turn over their guns.

they'd through the ACLU into the perry county ocean

The ACLU pretty much stays out of gun control issues, so piss off. While the NRA protects Amendment 2, the ACLU takes care of all the rest. And before you attack me, note which side I am on by reading a couple of comments above.


/Card carrying
//Gun owner

CantMakeALongStoryShort: I give you permission to love what you love (I EXPECT you to give me permission to love what I love). It's called FREEDOM. Look it up...

If it's called freedom, then why are you giving permission? ;)

Listen (new window)

Nuuu: The constitution does not delimit the 2nd A. based on age. A "historical literalist" judge like Scalia might look back and say "kids routinely used guns to hunt and defend homesteads in the days of the founding fathers, and the founding fathers knew this, therefore they probably intentionally did not limit the 2nd A. to adults".

Except that any decision has to be grounded in relevant case law. To argue that the 2nd applies to children means that the 1st also applies to children- something the supreme court has already said isn't true.