Right To Bear Arms Now A Real Right
Offline So....today the Supreme Court Of the US said guns are allowed to be owned by the average citizen, outside of the trappings of a well regulated militia. I am an avid gun enthusiast, and as such I have always taken the 2nd amendment to mean that a well regulated militia is not the only purpose that allows an individual to bear arms.
Being a progressive, this is one of the few, if any times, I have actually agreed with Scalia, the ultra-conservatives on the bench, and the Bush administration. Occasionally, even the enemies of freedom can be correct. I just hope this doesn't devolve into a slippery slope attempt by gun lobbyists such as the NRA to push to eliminate all gun restrictions in certain states. The NRA spokesman was on Hardball with Chris Matthews today talking about this topic, as well as other gun rights advocates talking about getting rid of background checks for certain people, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Of course, I see this as a separate issue of actually being able to be legally own a gun, I am, nevertheless, afraid this debate has only just begun with the admission of the court to be gun friendly in its current incarnation.
This opens up a whole can of worms as to what exactly arms are. Where do you draw the line for personal ownership...assault rifles, grenades, bazookas, tanks?Is the right unfettered? Does anyone who wants a gun, deserve to be able to obtain a gun, regardless of criminal history or mental health? Can cities or states impose restrictions that are more severe than federal ones?
There are an endless number of questions that need to be sorted out, and the gun lobbyists have already vowed to bring legislation to the court that will attempt to answer those questions definitively. I wonder what everyone thinks about this decision.
Good or bad court ruling?
Why, or why not?
Here is an article discussing the issue.
WASHINGTON — Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.
The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."
The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.
Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights advocates praised the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.
"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Good ruling..
2nd amendment was in there for 2 reasons...
To protect from outside invaders looking to take away our rights.
To protect from interal forces looking to take away our rights.
People tend to forget the 2nd of these reasons....
I often wonder where the line for arms is drawn.
I have no good answer as of now....
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
Terrible ruling. Notice it was the 4 asshats on the Supreme Court who nearly always make the wrong decision along with the one swing vote (Kennedy.) All the Catholics carry the bad decision. Typical.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Not quite. I think assault weapons should be completely illegal and hunting weapons completely legal ( Not hunting deer in my area would be an environmental catastrophe. And I like deer meat. The domestically raised deer isn't as good as hunter frineds have given me and costs a fortune.) Pistols I think should depend on where. I am torn in some ways - I hate how people can't carry a gun in their car if they have to drive into a bad neighborhood. I'd rather see the scum shot than be able to rob. I guess we'll have to wait. If it reduces crime in D.C. it was a good decision - if it goes up - especially the murder rate - it was bad. In a way the law was useless anyway - the bad guys could easily have gotten guns from Virginia where there are almost no gun laws, while the decent folk don't break the law. I do think police should carry submachine guns instead of just pistols in dangerous neighborhoods.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Sub-par ruling, i like guns and all and believe we have a right to keep them, but i only like this to an extent. I feel that things such as fully, or semi-automatic weapons need to be left away from the public. It also scares me living in the area i live, the average gun owner has over 20 guns, no joke the county did a study last year and found this out... I know of at least 5 people who have multiple un-registered guns as well and that scares me as well. I like the whole registration thing people have to do in Pa at least.
Why... did the Neo-Cons just give us the only peice of legal legislation that could stop them?
I'm very confused now... but i have a gun, so at least im not scared
What Would Kharn Do?
Just goes to show that atheism doesnt mean thinking the same or even thinking on the same planet.
The day my neighbour even considers getting hold of a gun is the day I emmigrate. Mandatory 5 year jail sentence for the possession of a handgun in the uk and someone people here think its not enough. Not a big fan of mandatory jail sentences but an average jail time of 5 years seems about right (assuming no other crimes have been committed)
I literally can't fathom the thinking that entails 5 years in prison is a reasonable jail time for owning a gun, if no crime has been committed. I find that incredibly anti-freedom, but he you Brits do what you want.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Main point I was making isnt so much gun control is that atheism doesnt mean thinking the same. 'Logic' doesnt mean coming up with the same conclusion . It can in fact come up the complete opposite.
There simply is no real NRA in the UK. We have loads of right wing bigoted people like in any other country but liking guns in the UK doesnt make you right wing it makes you nuts.
Regarding 5 years in jail for a gun is quite interesting in terms of extradition. I don't know if you are aware of this Brit who the US is trying to extradite for hacking. He is pretty obviously guilty of some crime (he admits it) but a typical sentence for what he did if it was done on a UK computer would probably be a fine and maybe a couple of months in jail. In the US he is looking at 20 years to life!
Would the US allow an extradition of one of its own citizens for having an illegal firearm in the UK with UK style sentences
Realistically the situation wouldnt happen as the guy would never get bail in the first place for that level of offence
I think it's all about perception of intent. In the UK we've never had the legal right to bear arms. The nation has grown with the notion that the only people to carry arms are either the army or criminals. 'Ordinary' and 'decent' people don't. In a culture that's grown up this way the desire to possess a weapon of any sort is extremely suspect. Rightly or wrongly there's an assumption that if you want a gun you must want it for something. And we can all guess what the implicit 'something' is... The end result of all this is that guns are illegal and have been for a very long time. It's simply a criminal offense to own one and I personally don't see a 5 year jail term for obtaining an illegal deadly weapon as anything but reasonable.
In the States it's different though. Your nation was born with a gun in its hand which was held to protect you against...er...us! Legal arguments about the 2nd aside, you've always had the right to bear arms as the nation has grown and I think that makes the situation much more complicated from a social and legal standpoint.
Making guns illegal is never going to work for you guys. You have a different perception of them. You know that you have a higher chance of staring down a gun at some point in your life than almost any other "western" nation. As a society you generally recognise the idea that a gun can be used for protection rather than attack. I can understand that completely. Even though I'm anti-gun I think this ruling makes sense in that it legally protects those that have purchased guns with innocent intent. I just hope that measures come in to cover what I'd call "reasonable protection". You do not need an assault weapon to protect your home
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Why doesn't Virginia have a crime rate as high or higher than Washington ? After all, if Virginia basically hands out guns like they were candy ( "almost no gun laws" ) don't you think that Virginia would also have the same kind of crime statistics as DC ?
That depends entirely upon where your home is. Home invasion crimes also occur in parts of the world where the level of violence is routinely lethal and where the crime may also be ethnically or politically motivated.
( edited for brevity and clarity of meaning )
Bingo. "Assault weapon" is a marketing term dreamed up for gun legislation. You say "assault weapon" to a room of people who've had no experience with firearms and they immediately begin worrying about their neighbors carrying around dismounted mini-guns like Jesse Ventura in Predator. It's flagrantly dishonest. What time has shown us is that the weapons that make the average criminal dangerous to the average citizen and law enforcement officer are handguns. And there are mandatory sentences for people carrying (I won't say owning, because they don't legally own them) handguns when the state has abridged their right to do so. Making a pistol charge stick to a felon or a minor should be child's play for a capable prosector.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Oh yes, in the early 1990's there was a deliberate attempt by gun control advocates ( led by a guy named Josh Sugarman ) to confuse the public over the distinction between semi automatic and fully automatic firearms. The goal was to scare the public into believing that semi automatic weapons ( of which there are millions in the US ) were actually fully automatic. How's that for honest debate ?
( sorry for confusion, I edited my post after you had already quoted the deleted content )
Because Virginia Exile has been more effective that the hand gun ban. (Mandatory minimum 5 year sentence and bail restriction if you are in possession along with 1. a prior felony conviction, 2. being on school grounds, or 3. also being in possession of drugs.)
Interesting, why doesn't DC do this ? Do they just love being awash in violent crime ? ( DC is f**ked up
)
Granted, I was limiting my commentary to crime in the States.
Which is sort of my point. As a non gun-toting, ignorant brit I would normally associate the term assault weapon with any sort of automatic or semi-automatic firearm, ranging from Uzis to full on assault rifles (M4's, AK47). My point here was that I don't think anyone in the states could honestly justify one of these weaponse for home defence when a handgun is more than enough to do any sort of damage.
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
The problem here in the States is that we have thousands of miles of borders to try and cover. We can't keep out drugs. We can't keep out illegal immigrants. So I seriously don't think we could keep out guns. Might as well make it legal and give us a fighting chance.
My mother packs a .45 with hollow points. 5'7" 65 years old. If you fuck with her she'll blow your nuts off.
Mom
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
1. ) Why do you believe it's acceptable to kill an intruder with a handgun ?
( You seem to make allowances for handguns. Are you okay with using a 44 Magnum handgun or do they cause too much damage ?
.....do you also support using semi auto handguns ?; how about fully auto hand guns like the Glock G 18 or the Beretta 93R ? )
2. ) Why do you believe that its not acceptable to kill an intruder with a semi / fully automatic assault weapon ?
idk. virginia developed the program in response to all the gang related crime in richmond - which is about 2 hours from dc. apparently it's cut gun related crime by 40%... i live in southside richmond and i've never actually walked around outside of the perimeter of my building but i do still hear all gun shots and sirens at night. although ten years ago i wouldn't have been comfortable leaving the car to come in the building. so yeah - effective but far from eliminated.
i think the impact it has had on northern va (closer to dc) is a nice benefit but clearly not the original intention. i grew up in nothern va and everyone i know would consider it common knowledge that you'd be a complete idiot to commit a crime with a gun on you because they will lock you up for five years and ask questions later.
My position here has become a little confused. Let me try to clarify
I don't think it's acceptable to kill an intruder at all, regardless of the type of gun used. I personally don't think it's acceptable to own a handgun. However, I do accept that my position on guns comes from being raised in a society in which guns have always been illegal and are not something the populace is exposed to.
I recognize that in the US there's no getting round the fact that a large percentage of the population is armed with guns of varying types. I think it is and always will be impossible to make guns illegal in the United States. Just ask Watcher...
Their existence is an unfortunate fact of life. The recent decisions to clarify the 2nd amendment on the right to bear arms makes sense to me as it essentially clarifies the legal position of those US citizens that have purchased firearms with purely innocent intentions, even if I don't agree with those intentions i.e. as a form of home defense.
I don't agree with guns of any sort but in a society filled with guns I can see why it makes sense for citizens to arm themselves for protection.
I understand that some handguns are high caliber, large clip monsters. I make allowances for handguns in the US because, to my mind at least, that's the easiest way to try and limit caliber and clip size of the weapon. It's not perfect and perhaps not practicable, but if people are limited to these weapons with (sort of) limited clips then you can at least try to reduce the damage done if they get into the wrong hands.
In a perfect world I would rant about how owning a low caliber pistol with a single bullet was still too much of a danger for anyone to have. But it's not a perfect world and I don't live in a country filled with guns
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
I don't think you can brush the 2nd amendment aside in the discussion, though. It was written at a time when all voting citizens (that is, land-owning males) were expected to make up the militia. Jefferson was against an organized militia, and thought instead that we should all take part of the defence of our nation. He figured a standing militia was a tool for future despots, whereas a militia made up of citizens could not be used by the government against other citizens.
That's what the 2nd amendment is all about. It is about civil defence, and it is about personal liberty, because both were tied together when the 2nd amendment was written.
That's why our nation was "born with a gun in it's [sic] hand." Which is a perfect metaphor. I'll probably steal it for my own nefarious purposes.
Oh, and just because I want to weigh in on this: DAMNED STRAIGHT, SCALIA! The fucking evil little gnome is finally defending the constitution. I just wish he'd bother defending the rest of the constitution, as well.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
i just remembered some more absurdity concerning dc and guns. they do gun "buy-back" there... ie the police will give you money for turning in a handgun - no questions asked. you don't even have to prove ownership.
Personally, I find this ruling to pose an interesting dichotomy that exposes the court as a Republican court as opposed to a conservative court. A state (and for this purpose, DC is a state) opted to not register handguns. This was a state's right issue, plain and simple. Isn't that a conservative value? The states have the power when not explicitly granted to the federal government? If the DC ban disallowed all guns, I could see the problem, but from what I understand, rifles and shotguns were still allowed.
It is amazing how the four 'conservatives' seem to come down squarely on the Republican side on various issues as opposed to a strict conservative side.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
yeah - you could have shotguns and rifles in the home - as long as they were unloaded and disassembled.
That seems a bit harsh, and from a practical standpoint, unenforceable. How can the powers at be know that the long guns inside your home are disassembled and unloaded?
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
The 2nd amendment is a specific grant. That was the ruling, and I believe it is the correct interpretation.
However, I suspect you are correct. I think it just happens that the "conservative" (I'd rather say, "constitutional" ) interpretation matches up with the "republican" interpretation. That has been one of the cornerstones of the Republican party.
Of course, so is "small federal government" and "privacy" and things like that.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I wasn't meaning to belittle the 2nd amendment. My own opinion of it is that it should stand as written - that it gives the right to bear arms as part of a militia. It would be nice to say that in the modern world that would mean civilians should no longer be armed because we have professional armies. The mass presence of guns does tend to muddy the waters though. That's why I can understand a ruling in favour of everyone having the right to be armed, it acknowledges that guns aren't going away.
Dammit. I just got through lecturing someone in my office about the use of "its" and "it's" and I come back to find out I made a schoolboy error like that. Previous post edited to limit the level of retardation on the board. Oh, and steal away
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
It's not a state's rights issue as long as you're on board with the the first article of the Fourteenth Amendment, which clearly states that no individual state can abridge the rights granted to citizens of the United States.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Curious do all American citizens have an automatic right to use lethal force on an intruder in all circumstances?
Is it legal to shoot someone in the leg, tie em up pour a can of extremely cheap petrol by the rest of the worlds standards and burn them alive?
UK its 'reasonable force to protect yourself or others' which can include 'it was dark I thought he had a knife so i bashed his brains in with a cricket bat' but you will almost certainly need to justify a dead burgular. I'm pretty sure its restrain only if its to protect property ie you definitely cant stab a criminal int eh back who has your tv in his hands as he is climbing out the window
I'm also curious about how many house robberies occur when someone is actually in them? . House robberies are very common in the UK (more common than the US) but thats almost always when the house is empty , people on holiday or even during the day?
There are actually different rules on this in different jurisdictions. In the south, the law is fairly liberal when it comes to committing a lethal act in self-defense. In some states a person has to do his best to get out of the house before pulling the trigger. If the intruder continues chasing him once he's left the bounds of his own property, then all bets are off.
Now as for the "shooting in leg, tying up, setting people on fire", we save that for people who build big, ugly, stupid, baiting straw men.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
In the US deadly force can only be used to protect physically yourself or another person. You can shot if someone has a weapon, you can shoot if someone is attacking your or somone in the house.
EDIT: as above you do need to avoid confrontation if possible....example If you get your family safely out of the house because there is a gun wielding nut in there you can go back and plug him. If you are out of harms way, or can get out of harms way, you need to do taht before deadly force is used.
You cant shoot someone for being in your house without permission. You are supposed to call the police in that situation. If you catch someone running out the door with your stuff, you can not use force.
The flip side is if you are charged with using unneeded deadly force agaisnt someone robbing you. 1st the case would have to be picked up by the prosecutor. Next, if you demand a jury trail, you would have to have 12 people convinced to lock up a guy that was just trying to protect his stuff agasint someone trying to steal his stuff...there are bound to be a couple jurors that will not find him guilty regardless of the evidence.
Robberies occur all different times...I guess it would depend on area and stuff like that...the thing that scares many more people are home invasion type crimes.
Also, I know rural parts of the US are totally WITHOUT local police...they are under the juristicion of the state police, whom you will never see in these places. That being said if guns were illegal those places would be easy targets for 2 or 3 armed bandits...
PS maybe you would have as many robberies if the robbers feared the owner of the house was packing
"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta
A few years ago here in Texas a repo guy tried to take possession of a guy's truck in his driveway that he had stopped making payments on. The owner shot and killed the repo guy and was not convicted.
Actually there have been a number of home invasions here in this small town over the past year. And every one of them was while the owners were home. One homeowner got pistol whipped by the intruders.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I hate guns. I'm glad I live in a country where they are illegal. I think the second ammendment should be repealled. It wouldn't be the first time. Ammendment 21 rules Ammendment 18 (the prohibition of alcohol) invalid. Guns are designed to kill and as long as they are easily acquired throughout the general population there will be murders. In south Manchester where I live there is a huge problem with gun related homicide, because it is increasingly easy to get hold of guns, even though its illegal. I personally have never been on the end of it, but that's because it is usually gangland executions rather than nutters opening fire on civilians.
Ok, so I trust that you guys here who say you're gun enthusiasts probably wouldn't go out and kill somebody, but there are people who will and the fact that the US has such high homicide rates compared to other Western countries speaks volumes not only about the fact that guns are freely available but about the culture surrounding them. The fact that someone who is known to have mental health problems, such as the Virginia Tech murderer, can get hold of a gun is quite simply an atrocity in itself, even if he hadn't gone out and shot 30 people.
It's clear that the culture of gun-use in America has grown-up from the divisions that separate America. There is a huge divide between rich and poor, black and white as well as the various religious factions. Let's not forget that the US was founded on wealth created by slavery and the effects of this barbaric trade are still prevailent today. Michael Moore, who is often overly simplistic and let's admit very often misses the point did make a very good point about these divisions (albeit in cartoon form) in his documentary Bowling for Columbine. Fear of the unfamiliar drives a lot of people into gun ownership and very often with disasterous consequences, and stolen guns can often end up in the hands of those that would use them.
I hear Americans so often talking about the right to bare arms, but what about the right not to get shot. Does that exist? Sure, we have violent crime in this country, not least my city. But at the end of the day we're 40 times less likely to be shot walking down the street here than in the US. There is a gun culture, but it is only in a minority, only gangs fighting gangs.
Atheist Books
Oh please, don't you ever get tired of ragging on us Americans ? ...and wealth built upon slavery ? get over it.
Btw, Britain was undeniably doing the heavy lifting for the colonial slave trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire.
Incidentally, Britain itself didn't outlaw slavery until 1807.
Why don't you complain about all those British colonies in Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_John_Rhodes, see "political views" ) that existed well into the 1960's ? Bad habits are hard to break, eh ?
( note: edited just for the hell of it....
)
Nope. The "right to not be shot" as it should be phrased properly in our shared tongue is non-existent in the United States of America. It's also non-existent in England and Denmark and Sweden and Norway. You make reference in your post to the repeal of prohibition, but what you're actually advocating is prohibition itself. And as the United States' experiment with temperance proved, unenforceable laws turn already corrupt governments into self-parody.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
DISCLAIMER: I do applaud the decision of the supreme court, and am also an advocate for personal firarm ownership. Keeps the playing field level.
*EEEHH!*
Wrong answer.
The first assault rifle was developed (and named as such) in WWII, by nazi Germany: the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates to 'Storm Rifle'). Like most of the Nazi 'superweapon' technology, this was later cannibalized by weapons developers around the world for use in developing their own toys.
Just because the average person is ignorant of the term doesn't mean the term was coined by anti-gun lobbyists in some vindictive scheme.
...And I would disagree.
Pistols are shown statistically (maybe, I'm a little dubious of that claim without checking it, to be honest) to be the culprit more often in murders because they are more common, and thus less expensive than the big bad hardware. Ballistics, newtonian physics, battlefield reports and common sense should immediately make us aware that a pistol does not have the same lethality as a high-powered rifle, submachine gun or assault rifle (assault rifle is also not as ambiguous a term as you make it out to be, even in modern use. See the very well-cited Wikipedia page), given it's much lower muzzle velocity, barrel length, ammunition capacit, rate of fire and stoppping power.
Is these weapons were made more widely available to criminals, I think you'd quickly see the trend change (if it favors pitols to begin with) as to what is most dangerous to the overage citizen / officer.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Very poor logic.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The average gun owner may have 20 guns, but how many guns does the average violent criminal own? I'd wager one or at most a handful.
I personally own 23 firearms. Why? I'm a collector and shooter. many of the pieces I own have historical significance, or are family heirlooms. Some I once used for hunting (haven't been hunting in years though, simply no time). Several of the weapons are semi-auto and could be made full auto with a trip to the hardware store. Some of the weapons are military weapons - bought from the US government no less (like my M-1, M-14 and AR-15) many were purchased through the Citizens Marksmanship Program - and if that doesn't constitute a militia, I'm no sure what does.
The point is, you have little to fear from law-abiding citizens owning such weapons. Criminals on the other hand don't give a fuck about whatever bans or regulations one would put in place.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Kind of like a minimum sentence of five years for possessing pot?
Simply possessing the weapon does nothing to harm you, or the general peace, so why should you go to prison for it?
I can make a bomb from things I find at the harware store, but I shouldn't go to jail simply for possessing potassium nitrate (fertilizer) and diesle fuel should I?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
True, but it's not illegal to own diesel fuel or fertilizer. In the UK it is illegal to own a handgun. End of story. A 5 year jail sentence for possession of one is fair and reasonable considering that you're breaking the law.
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
I understand that it is illegal to own a gun in the UK, and that the law stipulates a certain penalty.
I also understand that in the US, as well as the UK, that owning a few grams of a certain plant is a crime and that the law stipulates a certain mandatory penalty.
None of this makes said laws reasonable, rational or just.
I do understand that in the UK the right to own a firearm is not gauranteed. I also understand that in many countries a woman's right to vote or drive a vehicle is not gauranteed.
The cutural mores for the oppression of individual freedoms are seldom rooted in utilitarian or libertarian motives. They are rooted in control and authoritarianism, and ultimately do little to protect citizens.
Edit to add: You say it is legal to own fertilizer and fuel, but is it legal to own a bomb? For if I have fertilizer and fuel and a highschool chemistry education - BOOM.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The whole reason I said it was a sub-par judgement was because of things like this morning.
I have a guy I work with and he is part of the NRA, (i've got no problem with this) but he comes in this morning and starts talking bout how the NRA is going to take on chicago and California next, i said okay.
then he goes on to say the after those are finished they are going to go after the laws the keep guns out of anyones hands period.
I said what?
he said ya that they are going to make sure that everyone in this country can have a gun.
I said so if someone is convicted of a felony then they too can carry a gun?
he says yes, there are no restrictions within the constitution and so there should be no restrictions on citizens.
I left it at that and changed the subject before i had to listen to anything else.
I have not seen or heard anything like this from the NRA and i would have had they even thought bout it.
There are alot of people around here who think like this.
I have heard many people round here talk bout in the next 10 years or so theres going to be a revolution and they are going to take back what is theirs(from both the gov't and the Native americans...). You see i live in the back woods of NW PA and most of the people round here dont think too much bout their education.
Plus the area i live in most use guns for hunting but i just find it to be absurd to need to own 20 different guns for hunting, the most my dad ever owned was 4, said that he only needed one spare and my brother only needed one spare. I was born after he thought that using a gun for anything is bad. He kept 2 of the guns and gave my brother his two.
I understand the whole collector thing but still dont like it.
Actually owning fertlizers can be an offense in the UK (conspiracy to create explosions etc).
Even stranger owning curry powder can also be a crime, in large amounts this can also be used to create bombs. And guess what large asian families (not neccessary muslims) tend to have to have a lot of curry powder.
Through as far as I know the US police have grounds to at least question people buying unusual amounts of both .
And in no way do does the government force me not to own guns, The people force me not to have guns for any politican to suggest an increase in fire arms ownership would be about as popular as reducing the age of consent to 2. In fact jail sentences for weapon possession is in fact higher than many forms of rape thats now serious its taken!
Again in the US the situation is more complex but I personally don't think you can equate the denial of someones right to vote (and contribute to the system) to denying them the right to own and use a lethal weapon in the UK. The lack of a gun in my hand will never impact my life. Ever. The lack of a vote would. The inability to drive would.
I do not feel exploited or manipulated. I feel glad that no one else in this country is allowed to carry a weapon, regardless of how people try to talk up the 'repression' of freedoms. I regard myself as a highly liberal person but the limitation on my 'right' to carry a weapon is one I'll gladly accept.
Of course if I were raised in the US I know my opinion would be much different... that's why I feel the current ruling makes some degree of sense for the States.
I hate to be a pedant but, as any good chemist will tell you, there's a large difference between making an explosive and making a bomb
I also have some education in chemistry. I've just had a look under my sink and using my notes and the chemicals in there I could make several different explosives, the precursors to a few drugs, purification kits for other drugs, and probably a cocktail that'd be a hit at parties... but the argument comes down to intent.
Fertilizer, fuel, and all my household chemicals have very specific purposes none of them immediately dangerous. That's why they're not illegal. In the UK there is a 'black list' of chemicals given to all police forces and suppliers of chemical items. If any are bought in suspiciously high quantities or regularity that's when intent becomes an issue and the authorities are empowered to take action. Otherwise Joe Public is safe to buy them because they're not weapons.
Guns have one purpose. To hurt and kill. I can argue with anyone here that the fertilizer is for my garden. There's no argument with a gun.
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Sure I can. Had you the right to a weapon and not the right to vote, or had a weapon and your right to vote was infringed upon, you'd have a physical last recourse to change that situation.
Are you so sure though? What I see happening in the UK is at least as insidious as what I see happening in the US. How many CCD cameras have you employed now? Your government is being a bit more subtle than the US, but were both heading down a road of state facism. Personally, I'm glad I'm armed in such a climate.
No, get it right. CITIZENS are not allowed to carry a weapon. Entities of the State are. That puts you over a barrel, and at the end of one as well.
Fair enough.
Yeah, we thought the same thing until Oklahoma city.
Fertilizer, diesel fuel, a U-Haul truck and a mad man did that. And he was an uneducated twit.
The same logic can be applied to a fire arm. By itself a gun or bullets can't hurt anyone. Only in combination with a person intent on causing harm do they become a danger to the public.
By this logic, I fail to understand why such things as diesel and plant food can be bought in the UK when fire arms are also illegal.
Wrong. My guns are used to put holes in paper and for looking at and talking about. They aren't even used for hunting anymore.
Also, by the logic above you should ban swords, for anything over 12 inches or so is really useless for cooking, at that point all it is a weapon.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
True, since the Patriot Act was enacted at least. Still, they cannot keep you from purchasing AFAIK. You may get put on the no-fly list.
An interesting aside, a few months before 9/11 I got pulled out of line randomly on a trip to Cancuun for vacation. There was nothing unsual about such a thing, about 1 out of every 50 people got such at the time. I suppose it didn't help that I'm often seen as an intimidating guy simply because I'm tall and far from scrawny.
What REALLY didn't help was that at the time I worked at a plant in Syracuse that made sodium nitrate - which is a precursor to an obscene amount of explosives - but it's also a preservative for hotdogs and other foods - which is what we were making.
So they went through my luggage and found no contraband - we'd already smoked it. But the swabs they took of my clothing and fed to the mass spectrometer turned up huge amounts of nitrates - duh, I work in a nitrate factory, of course it is all over every piece of clothing I own.
Anyway, after the strip search and an explanation they let me go. I suppose it helped that I was getting off a flight and not on one as well.
That is just bizarre to me. You'd lock a person up for owning an object that never hurt anyone, but simply had the potential to, longer than you would a person who actually commited a violent act.
Like I said, just because it is the law or the cultural more, doesn't make it reasonable, rational or just.
Frankly it sounds like a culture of fear in which your government has convinced you all that your fellow citizens are the biggest danger to you - while they erect CCTV towers and deprive you of the means to defend yourselves.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well I won't deny I fear my neighbour a million times more than I fear the 'government' and most CCTV camera in the UK are private not public. I have some outside my flat which I happily voted to pay for. Not that anyoen ever talks to their neighbour around here. The wonders of city life
You get maybe one two as most policeman shooting innocent people a year, you get around about 500 'private sector' murders a year seems pretty obvious what I should be concerned about
Well, I as understand it, you have about 4 million such cameras in your cities as of today, and the average citizen is photographed about 300 times a day. I'm wondering if that has changed the incedents of violent crime. I do think cameras are useful for certain things like mitagatiting traffic snarls, but I'm highly skeptical that they really make people safer.
Your gun homicide rate is negligle, in fact the homicide rate in the UK has always been low compared to other Western nations.. (And BTW, where did these guns come from, being that you arnen't allowed to own them?)
The thing is, you have 60 million people in the UK, and 500 gun murders a year. A rate of a little less than 1 per 100,000 people. But the US, where 40% of households have guns has a rate only about 3.5 times higher, or about 3.5 per 100,000. Switzerland actually has a lower gun murder rate than the UK by your numbers and nearly 30% of homes there are armed. Canada and Finland among others have similar numbers.
So what is this restriction really buying you, and what are you trading for it?
Personally, I feel you are trading the ability to defend yourself for a false and very inflated sense of security.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yesterday I read an article that stated that a little over half of all gun related deaths in the US were suicides. So it seems like us Americans use our guns as any easy means of ending our lives more than killing each other.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci