Na na na na, Hey Gun Ban, Goodbye!

[theexorcist]

Surprised it was 5-4.

[Deleted]

Works for me.

Personally, I'm FOR handguns... its semi-autos, AK's, Tec-9's and weapons you can modify to full auto I wouldn't mind seeing removed from the marketplace.

[SFHoya99]

I generally vote the other way, but I'd have to agree with the ruling. The only part I would have liked to see done differently is trigger lock requirements. I'm not sure how a requirement for a trigger lock makes it so you can't bear arms. Though I think a law on the manufacturers would be better.

I also think it is pretty obvious the whole banned handguns in DC hasn't done much to curb violent crime.

[theexorcist]

Jun 26, 2008 14:33:06 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I generally vote the other way, but I'd have to agree with the ruling. The only part I would have liked to see done differently is trigger lock requirements. I'm not sure how a requirement for a trigger lock makes it so you can't bear arms. Though I think a law on the manufacturers would be better.

I also think it is pretty obvious the whole banned handguns in DC hasn't done much to curb violent crime.

If the crux of Scalia's argument was that handguns are critical for self-defense (and, as Rosslynhoya said offline, a few of Scalia's lines are great advertisements for handgun manufacturers), then trigger locks that take precious time to deactivate defeat that purpose.

[SFHoya99]

I suppose. On the other hand, we don't let kids drive before they are sixteen because they could kill someone -- trigger locks are a good way to keeping a younger person from killing themselves or another younger person.

[strummer8526]

From Scalia's opinion, this is one of the best little sections I've read in a while. Like Scalia or not (and I do), you have appreciate his intelligence and style.

"In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque. "

[moe09]

Jun 26, 2008 9:45:44 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

Works for me.

Personally, I'm FOR handguns... its semi-autos, AK's, Tec-9's and weapons you can modify to full auto I wouldn't mind seeing removed from the marketplace.

Agree. Awesome avatar, too, Buff.

[AustinHoya03]

I'll take this opportunity to post one of the better pieces on the Second Amendment I have read:

www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

And I will also raise a question. Does the court's ruling today pave the way for a real national movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Would such a campaign have any chance at succeeding?

[njhoya06]

No, to both questions.

[moe09]

Anyone have any good articles on this?

[theexorcist]

Jun 26, 2008 19:39:08 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

I'll take this opportunity to post one of the better pieces on the Second Amendment I have read:

www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

And I will also raise a question. Does the court's ruling today pave the way for a real national movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Would such a campaign have any chance at succeeding?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You've never been outside the Northeast, have you?

One of the more interesting differences between the United States and almost anywhere else is a fundamental distrust of government. I consider the right to keep and bear arms an essential check on ensuring that the United States never develops a paternalistic attitude toward its citizens.

With that said, Foreign Policy did a great article a while ago on the expanded reach of the NRA and their efforts to include a culture of gun rights. A link to the article (almost all of which is embargoed unless you pay or subscribe) is below.

www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3329&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3329

And I find it amazing that the Constitution Society apparently hasn't updated its website since around 1996, which is the last time the flashing light GIFs on the main web page were borderline acceptable.

Even better is the exhortation to donate on a site that has a list of notable Libertarians.

[Jack]

Jun 27, 2008 8:22:01 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Jun 26, 2008 19:39:08 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

I'll take this opportunity to post one of the better pieces on the Second Amendment I have read:

www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

And I will also raise a question. Does the court's ruling today pave the way for a real national movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Would such a campaign have any chance at succeeding?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You've never been outside the Northeast, have you?

Something tells me AustinHoya knows a little something about gun culture. I, on the other hand, am an elitist Massachusetts pinko, so I have never understood the NRA or the individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I probably never will.

[theexorcist]

Jun 27, 2008 8:44:49 GMT -5 Jack said:

Jun 27, 2008 8:22:01 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You've never been outside the Northeast, have you?

Something tells me AustinHoya knows a little something about gun culture. I, on the other hand, am an elitist Massachusetts pinko, so I have never understood the NRA or the individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I probably never will.

Oopsie.

[DrumsGoBang]

I'm usually more liberal then a crack-smoking prosititue living on welfare, but I have to agree with this ruling. More guns for everyone. Gas prices are too high and the only way to reduce the price is reduce demand. That means everyone shoots each other in epic battles. The survivors...if they have arms and legs left can drive around with cheap gas

[Boz]

Jun 27, 2008 8:59:58 GMT -5 DrumsGoBang said:

more liberal then a crack-smoking prosititue living on welfare

Wisely, Obama did not choose this slogan for his ill-fated "presidential" seal.


Nice one, drums. ;D

I'm all for shootouts. They look like so much fun in the movies.

...Which means before long, we can live in a Road Warrior world.

...Which means before long, we can get rid of the President and Congress in favor of Lord Humungus and his Smegma Crazies!

[hifigator]

I am glad to see some of you on the left saluting this ruling. Ideologically, that ban was essentially in direct defiance of a Costitutional right. Why it wasn't thrown out sooner I don't know. I am somewhat disappointed that there were 4 of 9 justices who sided with the ban. But all's well that ends well.

[DrumsGoBang]

Jun 27, 2008 12:31:40 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I am glad to see some of you on the left saluting this ruling. Ideologically, that ban was essentially in direct defiance of a Costitutional right. Why it wasn't thrown out sooner I don't know. I am somewhat disappointed that there were 4 of 9 justices who sided with the ban. But all's well that ends well.

Yep, I ment exactly what I said. There is no hint of satire...not even a little bit. Everything I write or read is always literal. That is why I believe everything in the bible as total fact. Even all the stuff that contridicts the other stuff...and all that science.....

[SFHoya99]

Jun 27, 2008 12:31:40 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I am glad to see some of you on the left saluting this ruling. Ideologically, that ban was essentially in direct defiance of a Costitutional right. Why it wasn't thrown out sooner I don't know. I am somewhat disappointed that there were 4 of 9 justices who sided with the ban. But all's well that ends well.

Well, I actually think Scalia's argument (like a lot of law) is a bunch of semantic horsecrap. And having read up on it, I'm pretty sure the second amendment meant that people could keep arms in order to serve in a state militia, given the phrasing and era's mistrust of a strong central government.

That said, I'm a big believer in a living constitution, and

a. While regulating guns in general, registration, trigger locks, etc., have positive effects, it's pretty obvious a ban isn't preventing violence.

b. My leftist social leanings are often somewhat libertarian in nature, and if you want to hunt or go to a gun range or have something for protection, well, that should be your right. I like my freedoms, even if I don't exercise this particular one.

Of course, Scalia isn't allowed to "make" policy, so he hides his policy-making in cheesy semantics, but whatever. That's the tenor of this Supreme Court.

My biggest thing here is that I think we've reached a pretty decent compromise position -- though again, I'd like to see the gun makers put on trigger locks, and I'd like to see harsher penalties for those that cheat the waiting period and registration laws.

I think there is an argument for getting rid of guns -- there probably would be a decrease in second degree murder not committed by career criminals -- i.e. someone makes a stupid snap decision. And there's no such thing as a drive by knifing, either. But practically, again, it's not like most of those crimes are committed by people who would follow that law. For worse, we have a gun culture and simple bans aren't going to solve that.

[theexorcist]

On two SFS points.

"Well, I actually think Scalia's argument (like a lot of law) is a bunch of semantic horsecrap. And having read up on it, I'm pretty sure the second amendment meant that people could keep arms in order to serve in a state militia, given the phrasing and era's mistrust of a strong central government."

You go on a few tangents after this (tangents in a good sense). I would argue that, for the "living constitution" idea, states have essentially been subsumed into the federal government on a variety of items. Many people would make the argument (and if not many, then just me) that, if the federal government overstepped its bounds, the states wouldn't fight it but that the people still might. If that's your argument, then what had originally been a state militia perogative could (or should) devolve to non-state actors.

"And there's no such thing as a drive by knifing, either" - but there are walk-by knifings. Both London and Tokyo have recently had multiple knifings that killed people. So even people that have no access to guns will still kill multiple people.

[Boz]

I would like the Court to now take up the @#$^*(@)^@ SMOKING BANS THAT WE NOW HAVE ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY!

Damn Fascists!

If I have a shop make me a cigar that looks like a rifle, or a cigarette holder shaped like a gun, can I smoke then??


Go ahead and try it Tim Kaine, you Sling Blade lookalike......