patrick.net

StillLooking says

But since people don't know history we get these other interpretations

StillLooking says

The intention behind the second amendment was repealed by the Civil war

you should send that memo to the Supreme Court. They think it's an individual right, and have ruled that way for about the last 200 years

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the peopleHomeboy says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

Stricter gun crime punishment reduces violent crime. nationally the sentencing for gun crimes has been declining for the past 6 or 7 years. In Florida in 1999 10-20-life became the law. Use a firearm in a felony: 10 years minimum. Fire the weapon in a felony : 20 years minimum. Hit some one when you fire the weapon: LIFE. big ad campaign on tv and radio
by 2004 gun crime had dropped almost 30%
Punish criminals

thunderlips11 says

Basic reading comprehension. Scroll down to Comma Rule #4.
http://www.towson.edu/ows/modulecomma.htm

I don't see the sentence "commas separate the how from the why" there. And grammatical nitpicking is beside the point. You can't deny that the first clause is there. If the intent of the amendment was to guarantee the right to personal self-protection with a gun, then why is that first clause there?

ownmyown says

Homeboy says

The First Amendment declares the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An individual cannot be an assembly, by definition. Therefore, this is referring to a group right, not an individual one.

so you are saying this does not apply to all the people

No, I did not say that.

ownmyown says

In the 5th Amendment is the phrase: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

and the exception is noted in the amendment as an exception
Supreme Court and lower court rulings say IT IS AN I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L RIGHT

I never said the right to indictment by Grand Jury wasn't an individual right. Please try to read what I write, because when you start acting condescending about things for which you are incorrect, it really makes you look bad. I said it's not a UNIVERSAL right. There are cases where the right does not apply. Similarly, there are cases when the right to bear arms doesn't apply - namely, when one is not participating in a militia.

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

Obviously, saying "your way makes it different than the other amendments" is a weak argument.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

Homeboy says

But none of this matters. You are basically arguing that my interpretation of the Second Amendment is not valid because it would render the amendment "different" than the other amendments. However, YOUR interpretation (that the first clause is simply explanatory and carries no legal meaning) ALSO renders the amendment "different" than the other amendments. Is there an explanation of why the right to free speech is granted? No, there is not. Is there an explanation of why the right of free exercise of religion is granted? No, there is not.

This has really been a lot of fun. Anti gun says if your'e not in a militia you have no gun right. The courts (5th Circuit, 9th Circuit and Supreme court) all have ruled that all of the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically stated that

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

That is from the Supreme Court , I don't see how it can be any clearer.

Homeboy says

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

you have been a veritable Lord Fontleroy (on this thread)and I can't express my gratitude enough for your restraint from four letter words and insults.

Any one interested in checking may look up Kennesaw, Georgia. This is the town that passed a law requiring every household to have a working firearm and ammo for that weapon. Sub-Atlanta. Low crime. 2007 Family Circle Magazine said in 2007- one of top ten cities to raise a family

ownmyown says

That is from the Supreme Court , I don't see how it can be any clearer.

I don't think Supreme Court decisions make ANYTHING clear. The Supreme Court upheld the right to have an abortion, yet it is still argued by right-wingers to this day. I find it interesting that your first argument was that the "grammar" of the amendment makes it unquestionably a right to personal self-protection. When I showed this to be untrue, you fell back on a different argument: "Well, the (conservative) Supreme Court ruled on it." You refuse to admit the interpretation is not as cut and dried as you claim, and that scholars disagree on the meaning, but the fact that you switched argument shows you know this.

NY Times editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-second-amendment.html?_r=0

When the Supreme Court struck down a ban on handguns by the District of Columbia in 2008, ruling that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense, the decision was enormously controversial in the legal world. But the court’s conclusion has generally been accepted in the real world because the ruling was in tune with popular opinion — favoring Americans’ rights to own guns but also control of gun ownership.

The text of the Second Amendment creates no right to private possession of guns, but Justice Antonin Scalia found one in legal history for himself and the other four conservatives. He said the right is not outmoded even “in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.”

It is not just liberals who have lambasted the ruling, but some prominent conservatives like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The majority, he wrote, “read an ambiguous constitutional provision as creating a substantive right that the Court had never acknowledged in the more than two hundred years since the amendment’s enactment. The majority then used that same right to strike down a law passed by elected officials acting, rightly or wrongly, to preserve the safety of the citizenry.” He said the court undermined “conservative jurisprudence.”

ownmyown says

you have been a veritable Lord Fontleroy (on this thread)and I can't express my gratitude enough for your restraint from four letter words and insults.

Yet you accused me of it, and have yet to offer an apology. But I am used to rudeness from gun-lovers; it kind of goes with the territory.

Homeboy says

By the way, I'm still waiting for that quote of the "insults" I allegedly wrote in this thread.

I never said on this thread., just that I had seen them. You are very thin skinned , especially considering some of the things you've said to me on other threads. I try very hard to state my case and not call names. If you are offended by capital letters....well. And I believe what I said of your exemplary behavior should assuage your hurt feelings.

If you will go back and check, I believe( I won't say positively 'cause I'm gettin' old and forgetful) you'll see that the whole grammatical question was someone else.

But, considering the disdain for the Constitution of the last 2 or 3 presidents[see: patriot act; NDAA, undeclared wars, execution of US citizens without due process] I'm sure Mr Obama will Use an executive Order to do away with Amendment #2 and maybe a couple of others he says he doesn't like.
As to the interpretation, you're right about disagreement on the courts ruling. Same is true for Obamacare. Now I could whine and cry about the interpretation by the Supreme court that it's a tax when the admin. claimed it wasn't a tax, but that was the ruling. Now it's law. You may disagree, It's your right ,.. no it's your duty as a citizen to voice your disagreement. By exercising your first amendment right to free speech, you help to guarantee your other rights. Being able to read and hear dissenting opinions is always a good thing.
Voltaire said " I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend , to the death, your right to say it."
I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" There was no expiration date on that oath.
whatever weapons I have ,I'll keep. You may wisecrack about cold dead fingers, but "Live free or die" is a good motto.

ownmyown says

I never said on this thread., just that I had seen them. You are very thin skinned , especially considering some of the things you've said to me on other threads. I try very hard to state my case and not call names. If you are offended by capital letters....well. And I believe what I said of your exemplary behavior should assuage your hurt feelings.

Let's see... you remembered something I said to you in another thread, and it hurt your feelings so much that you brought it up in THIS thread, even though I didn't insult anyone in this thread.

And you call ME thin-skinned. Thanks for the laugh.

No legal action taken to regulate guns (or even repeal ammendments) will prevent the very next massacre, simply because there are too many already in circulation. Additionally, there is no evidence as far as I can discern that humans have evolved beyond the warlike and violent nature they have always displayed. Finally, it is clear that there are too few police per capita to sufficiently protect citizens or their children.

If you truly care about the next unfortunate group of innocent people on the receiving end of psychotic-launched high speed lead, you would encourage more armed guards in public places. I think if people give it sufficient thought, both sides of the gun control argument will want more professionally trained marksmen watching over their public places. They simply disagree about who should be trusted with the firearms.

It's ironic that the NRA's suggestion the other day that armed guards should be a requirement at all public schools should be so roundly rejected by the gun control advocates, when that is precisely what will occur if the second amendment were to be repealed.

It's about making themselves feel better and not about saving another 25 innocent school children's lives in the near future. We DO need trained arms in schools in order to protect the kids. Any other conclusion is foolish and self-serving propaganda. I think you'll find that you can't fight fire by trying to eliminate fire from the earth.

No, you don't get it. We don't want a police state. Show me any example, ever, where more guns resulted in less gun violence. That is not the right path. We need to end the gun culture; stop raising our children to worship guns. Guns in schools? How long do you think it would be until a kid got ahold of one of those guns, or got shot by one of those guns? There has to be a better solution.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state. Hoping differently is foolish. You won't be keeping guns out of the next massacre.

I've made this argument before. The USA's military presence in Europe is what allows those nations to spend so little on defense. Fewer guns in their culture is one benefit of such an arrangement. What you are hoping for is a change in human nature on the part of the government - not only the citizen.

deepcgi says

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state.

Absurd. The UK has some of the strongest gun control laws in the world, and their cops don't even carry guns.

Call it Crazy says

The guard actually drove the shooters into the building and then stayed outside waiting for the police to arrive, giving the shooters plenty of time for their rampage inside the school.

So then it would seem that having armed guards at schools is not an effective way to prevent violence.

I have no more faith in government than in sociopathic gun owners. One need not return to the 1700's for examples of governmental abuse against its citizens - last week would do nicely. If you wish to only consider the "first" world, then certainly stray no further back than the 1940's. Or do we believe that with the era of WMD's came sanity in governance?

Call it Crazy says

Not when they are sitting OUTSIDE the building eating lunch in their car. I think they work better when stationed INSIDE the school.

Right. Because it would have been impossible for the guard to walk into the school....

Maybe we could just have guns set up every 10 feet that automatically shoot at you. Or we could find a realistic solution.

Like 911, Columbine was a sucker punch. You don't leave your back door unlocked after the first break-in.

I think the problem is that you guys seem to be confusing reality with a Rambo movie.

Equating the opposing position with a trigger happy mental case is just what I would expect. How many riots occur at football games in the UK as opposed to "football" games in the US? A culture of violence without the culture of guns, huh? I see no evidence of evolution there. Some lame legislation banning assault weapons will save no one. Extreme action like repealing the second amendment will save no one. There is no "legislation" that will have an effect on culture. There are too many humans in too close proximity to one another. Paranoia will likely increase in proportion

Criticize the glorification of violence. That is the key. And let's not be foolish and expect our governments to hesitate to abuse power. We haven't even declared war and yet the government wages it continuously.

The Soviet government (and our own CIA) thought that it was impossible that the Union could splinter so quickly, since Joe Soviet was powerless in comparison to the Soviet military - just like Joe Six Pack is no match for the US war machine, but just as in the Soviet Union, it turns out that "Joe" staffs the military and wouldn't even consider firing on his own people. The union simply fractured and the overwhelming military might made no difference at all. Money matters more than weapons. Criticize the video games and the Rambo movies rather than the gun owners. The rule of law would be a good idea. Simply upholding existing laws. A deemphasis of nonviolent crime versus violent crime is another good idea. Not going to war unless it is declared is another.

A US Senator was a neighbor of mine on 911. I had the chance to ask him personally if we would be declaring war soon. He told me, "it's very highly unlikely. If we declare war, we let a lot of insurance companies off the hook for reconstruction costs in Manhattan. Sadly that is just the way it is."

deepcgi says

. How many riots occur at football games in the UK as opposed to "football" games in the US? A culture of violence without the culture of guns, huh? I see no evidence of evolution there.

Now you're finally starting to get it. Around 9,000 gun murders in the U.S. each year. How many in the U.K.? Less than 50. As you say, both countries have a culture of violence. What's the difference? We have guns, and they don't.

To slightly change an oft-used quote: "It's the guns, stupid".

deepcgi says

I'm making a point. If you ban guns, you WILL create a police state. Hoping differently is foolish. You won't be keeping guns out of the next massacre.

So the rest of the first world is a police state? Funny I never noticed when I travelled or lived overseas. The US has just about the least civil rights in the OECD and you don't even know it.

About 50 homicides per year by guns, but about another 700 to 750 murders by other means. Plus the population of the UK is 6 times smaller than the the US. The number of "murders per million" is HIGHER in the UK. Over 30 percent of the murders were by use of a knife.

Now you're getting it.

As far as the the police state comment is concerned, reread the posts.

deepcgi says

The number of "murders per million" is HIGHER in the UK.

What are you talking about? No it's not. Not even close. The per-capita murder rate is like 4 times higher in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Homeboy says

What are you talking about? No it's not. Not even close. The per-capita murder rate is like 4 times higher in the U.S.

Don't confuse ideologues with facts.

I think deepcgi may be on to something. Let's follow his thinking to the logical conclusion. Armed guards at every school is a good start. But wait people have shot up malls. By god, armed guards at the malls then. But wait what about government buildings, been plenty of them shot up. Armed guards are clearly the answer there also. Banks, stores, gas stations, sports arena's. Bring it on. The logical end point is to have armed guards for every place people gather in groups of 2 or more. The TSA is the logical agency to provide them. Think of the benefits to the unemployment rate. Plus the greatest benefit of preventing living in a police state. See, if you just think it through it all becomes clear.

There is a huge debate in the UK (whatever apologists say) about the accuracy of the numbers.

The longest standing trick is to report ONLY England and Wales in the "UK" numbers, leaving out Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are more violent areas; Glasgow is the stabbing capital of Europe, and Belfast is also pretty violent.

The UK's murder rate would rise substantially if they were to be included.

The 'official' numbers reported a 20% drop in murder over the past 2 years - which is so great, it should be treated with a great deal of skepticism!

In 2011, the same time the Wales & England murder rate dropped 16%, homicides were up 19% YOY in Scotland! Something does not compute!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16175439

BTW, in Japan, if some guy flips out and kills his wife and two kids, then himself, it counts as 4 suicides according to their figuring, rather than 1 suicide and 3 murders.

Bob2356:

If you outlaw guns, does that mean the government and private security give them up as well? No? Then the guards are armed everywhere. Not my idea to arm anyone but the citizens, that's your idea.

And homeboy is right about UK murders not being higher.... just in Scotland - where if you're the victim of homicide, there is a 63 percent chance you were stabbed. (probably head butted first though - they like that).

Number of people head butted before being murdered anywhere else in the world ...0
In Scotland ... Most.

It's the foreheads, stupid. Outlaw foreheads and we'll reduce the murder rate in Scotland overnight.

Oh, and a single stab is very rarely fatal. In Scotland, if you're murdered, you are stabbed and stabbed over and over again. Much more civilized than gun violence.

thunderlips11 says

There is a huge debate in the UK (whatever apologists say) about the accuracy of the numbers.

The longest standing trick is to report ONLY England and Wales in the "UK" numbers, leaving out Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are more violent areas; Glasgow is the stabbing capital of Europe, and Belfast is also pretty violent.

The murder rate in Scotland was 2.14 per 100,000. Northern Ireland, 1.52. So even if you count ONLY those places, the rate is far below the U.S. rate of 4.2.

You gun guys really seem to be in denial about what the actual facts are. I guess sometimes you just want something SO BAD, that the truth doesn't matter to you anymore.

deepcgi says

If you outlaw guns, does that mean the government and private security give them up as well? No? Then the guards are armed everywhere. Not my idea to arm anyone but the citizens, that's your idea.

The word of the day is satire. Look it up.

Remind me again how many schools, malls, etc. have been shot up by government (wtf is government, military, police, what?) and private security firms. How many murders a year?

Where did I say we shouldn't arm the citizens? You are assuming that. You know what they say about assume. Allow citizens who are responsible and trained to arm themselves. Although no other country even comes close to gun ownership rates in the US there are plenty with relatively high ownership rates and very low murder rates. How can they do it and not the US? Simple, their requirements to own a gun are higher than having a pulse and a couple hundred bucks.

Why do the gun advocates like you fight so hard to avoid any kind of accountability? Why not have a real back round check on everyone buying a gun, no exceptions? Why not track all guns nationally by serial number. Require a yearly inspection of guns at the local police station to make sure the alleged owner actually has the gun. The vast majority of guns used in crimes come from a handful of states. Have a single standard for gun sales and ownership nationally this problem goes away.

Na, we can't do any of that, there is a god given and constitutional right to individual gun ownership for 235 years. Well actually not true at all. District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 is the first ruling by the supreme court that asserts individual gun rights. But don't let simple facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Bonus points, if everyone is armed they can rise up against an unjust government. What a stupid idea. It happens in countries where the military is very small, totally corrupt, completely incompetent, and most soldiers cut and run at the first shots fired (think Egypt). It isn't going to happen in the US no matter what the NRA members fantasize.

The insanity rate is going up. Drop your defenses.

Bob:

Are you seriously asking in what schools, malls, public places were innocent civilians killed by governments or private organizations?

You see, there is the problem with the gun control lobby...short selective memories. The answer is "the vast majority". You simply leave the world wars out of your calculations and out of your mind.

There is no evidence that with weapons of mass destruction and the Information Age came the end of genocide or massive world war.

I absolutely guarrantee war will return to the first world. America funds the defense of Europe including the UK. If the US pulled its thousands of military bases from Europe, Asia, and down under, borders would fall in short order.

The total carnage created by all lone psychotics with guns is so small compared with the actions of governments that the numbers are forgotten wholesale. They are so huge we don't even consider them.

When I was a kid in the 70's, I thought world war 2 was forever ago. Back when they couldn't even make films in color. Back before television! I know my parents were around, but damn they were old.

Now, however I realize just how short a time that really was. For example, Universal is advertising the 20th anniversary release of Jurassic Park due out in the spring. A number of the freshman college students whom I teach the other day stunned me by not knowing what I was referring to when I used the term "Columbine".

Why? Because those college kids were in kindergarten when Columbine went down. It's been the blink of an eye since the rape of Nanking, Hitler, Stalin or even fall of Rome. We have not evolved. It will happen again and it will happen here. Put all of the gun controls you can in place and watch massacre after massacre continue to occur.

Demonize the glorification of violence, don't demonize gun owners by portraying them as crazy Rambo's on the loose.

About 4000 murders per year in the US are committed by illegals from Mexico. I wonder if you increased the population of the UK by ten percent by adding illegal Frenchmen to all of the low income areas, if their cultural differences would become a factor in crime.

Nowhere on earth do so many cultures and nationalities share a country together in such close proximity. There's the cause, right there. Hundreds of millions of new citizens in the US in only my lifetime. And very little culturally in common. Political correctness encouraging tolerance over common culture - and that culture being one built on Call of Duty, Spartacus, and Zombie movies.

Ignore these factors and watch the insanity continue.

deepcgi says

America funds the defense of Europe including the UK. If the US pulled its thousands of military bases from Europe, Asia, and down under, borders would fall in short order

You have no clue what you are talking about. Other than a very few specific cases like Korea the US military doesn't guard the borders of sovereign nations. Where to you get this stuff?

deepcgi says

You see, there is the problem with the gun control lobby

Obviously you didn't read my post past the first sentence.

deepcgi says

I absolutely guarrantee war will return to the first world.

What does war have to do with the murder rate? Try to stay on subject. We don't consider the numbers because they are irrelevant to the subject at hand.