Guns, homicides, and Sarah Palin -- Discuss (FSZ)

Quote: AZDuffman

He saw the guys running off and shot one between the eyeballs. His wife was also armed and was going to stop the robbery in progress but a store employee stopped her. In this case, guns saved the day. I only wish he had time to nail the other robber right in the heart.

Maybe I'm missing something in the story. How did guns save the day? It sounds like your off-duty/former cop used deadly force on someone who no longer posed a threat to himself or others. If an on-duty cop did that, he'd have his ass handed to him.

For everyone that has little understanding of the relationship between violent crime and guns: I recommend reading John Lott's books. He is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and has authored several books about the major statistical trends that are relevant. His books are less anecdotal BS like this thread is full of and more research. As a result of his research he supports gun rights and his thought process is logical. Good read.

On the anecdotal side: clearly there are situations where you would want a gun. I have been in one and am certainly glad I had one.

Wherever your stand on the issue or however much you trust in academic and/or ostensibly-academic-but-actually-political studies, there's one fact that supersedes everything.

The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms.

Quote: TheConstitution

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.

However you feel about it doesn't matter. If you want it changed, work towards its changing in the ways prescribed:

Quote: TheConstitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Constitution isn't perfect. Its writers knew that, and left provisions in place to change it. It's been changed 27 times, or once every 8.3 years, most recently in 1992.

I'm actually open to this changing, but I'm not open to using back-door legislation, questionable judicial decisions, and etymological gymnastics to change it.

FWIW, the 27th amendment was first approved by Maryland. In 1789. So, all you anti-2nd amendment types, GET TO WORK! Your efforts in 2011 may yield results down the road!

Quote: rdw4potus

Maybe I'm missing something in the story. How did guns save the day? It sounds like your off-duty/former cop used deadly force on someone who no longer posed a threat to himself or others. If an on-duty cop did that, he'd have his ass handed to him.

Guns stopped a robbery and made sure an armed robber will never do it again. The guy absolutely still posed a threat. But it was the last time he did.

BTW: I am pretty sure an on-duty cop shooting an armed perp is not a problem. If it is a problem, it should not be.

Quote: AZDuffman

Guns stopped a robbery and made sure an armed robber will never do it again. The guy absolutely still posed a threat. But it was the last time he did.

BTW: I am pretty sure an on-duty cop shooting an armed perp is not a problem. If it is a problem, it should not be.

From your telling of the story, the guns didn't stop the robbery...they killed the robber AFTER the transgression had occurred. And yes, it's a problem if an on-duty cop shoots an armed perp who could be otherwise subdued. That's why there are so very few officer-involved shootings every year (it SURE isn't because of a lack of armed-crime...).

Here is a link to a story about a guy who definitely qualifies as a "fool."

You know you're having a bad day when the animal you're hunting shoots you with your own gun...

Welcome aboard bbk.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership in the United States. Given that the gun essentially makes killing easily, perhaps people need to take a firearms class and get a license before they own a handgun. They can take lessons at the range. A few hours -- maybe an online written portion on responsible usage and storage, and a few hours at the range showing you how to use the gun. Now, I know that you liberatarians out there won't support any kind of licensing for guns. In the end, though, I think this would reduce death and injuries from firearms, especially from those who intend to use them legally.

With respect to Lott's writings on gun control, it has been widely criticized. However, the best researchers who have tried to debunk him with other studies can only come to the conclusion that carrying concealed does not increase violent crimes. Other research however, links increased gun deaths with gun ownership.

Quote: boymimbo

Welcome aboard bbk.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership in the United States. Given that the gun essentially makes killing easily, perhaps people need to take a firearms class and get a license before they own a handgun. They can take lessons at the range. A few hours -- maybe an online written portion on responsible usage and storage, and a few hours at the range showing you how to use the gun. Now, I know that you liberatarians out there won't support any kind of licensing for guns. In the end, though, I think this would reduce death and injuries from firearms, especially from those who intend to use them legally.

With respect to Lott's writings on gun control, it has been widely criticized. However, the best researchers who have tried to debunk him with other studies can only come to the conclusion that carrying concealed does not increase violent crimes. Other research however, links increased gun deaths with gun ownership.

I do not have a problem with a license to carry a gun, as long as the license is relatively easy to get, say a criminal background check only. At most it should be a few hour class anyone can take. "Licensing" is so often used as a back-door to deny ownership. Also it is a way to track gun owners should the government ever decide to confiscate firearms. (I think they did just that in Austrailia?)

However, to buy a gun and keep it in your home? In that case there is no more reason to have a license for a gun than for a TV set.

Quote: rdw4potus

From your telling of the story, the guns didn't stop the robbery...they killed the robber AFTER the transgression had occurred. And yes, it's a problem if an on-duty cop shoots an armed perp who could be otherwise subdued. That's why there are so very few officer-involved shootings every year (it SURE isn't because of a lack of armed-crime...).

No, they stopped the robbery in progress as the guy never made it to the getaway car. And who says the guy could otherwise be subdued? Hed was armed and running from a robbery. At least this way the guy won't be a repeat offender.

Quote: boymimbo

Welcome aboard bbk.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership in the United States. Given that the gun essentially makes killing easily, perhaps people need to take a firearms class and get a license before they own a handgun. They can take lessons at the range. A few hours -- maybe an online written portion on responsible usage and storage, and a few hours at the range showing you how to use the gun. Now, I know that you liberatarians out there won't support any kind of licensing for guns. In the end, though, I think this would reduce death and injuries from firearms, especially from those who intend to use them legally.

With respect to Lott's writings on gun control, it has been widely criticized. However, the best researchers who have tried to debunk him with other studies can only come to the conclusion that carrying concealed does not increase violent crimes. Other research however, links increased gun deaths with gun ownership.

I am a firearms instructor that teaches the kind of safety classes that you are talking about there. I would make a lot of money if they were mandatory, but it would not have an appreciable effect on gun accidents or violent crime. There are over 300 million guns in the US to acquire or abuse. Registration systems would be bloated and do virtually nothing. What would a registration system do exactly?

Your goal is to make things safer, and that is a laudable goal. These methods just are not going to work. Accidental deaths (there are surprisingly few) would go down with major bans, but it would have a minimal effect on violent crime. However, you'd have to disarm every normal citizen to have minor accomplishments. Regardless of how much you play it down firearms are frequently used defensively in a number of ways. Their presence is a major deterrence. I know Lott has been criticized, and I have read most of the criticisms. His is generally the better scholarship, though he is no longer objective. He basically disregards accidental deaths and suicides, and probably rightly. There are few accidental deaths and suicides would happen anyway.

More people drown than are accidentally shot with guns. Guns are just a political football that people like to play with.

Quote: AZDuffman

However, to buy a gun and keep it in your home? In that case there is no more reason to have a license for a gun than for a TV set.

I actually have a gun right next to the TV in my office. I have a shotgun mounted over the back door so I can grab it fast.

Quote: EvenBob

I actually have a gun right next to the TV in my office. I have a shotgun mounted over the back door so I can grab it fast.

I used to keep a loaded .380 in my nightstand. People thought I was crazy but I told them there were no kids and in fact no one else in the house. If there is danger I don't want to be unlocking a safe. And as I said, in Phoenix the one roommate usually had at least one machine gun in the house. Always made me feel safer.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms.

But for the right of WHOM to "bear arms? An individual, or "the people"?

Let's look at that in the context of a close reading of the Second Amendment, based on the very reasonable premise that the writers of that amendment chose their words very carefully:

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.

First of all, the Amendment says that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT "a person" or "an individual". There are many rights that "the people" have but "a person" does not--to wage war, for example. So the distinction is important, and in the Second Amendment, is made abundantly clear.

"The people" can both keep and bear arms without any one individual owning or possessing a gun; the militias referred to in the amendment usually got their guns from an armory, which was public rather than private property. Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

The fact that the "right...to bear Arms" is stated as a dependent clause to the statement that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary, means that the idea of the right to bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the need for a functional militia. In other words, "the people" only have the right to bear arms IN THAT CONTEXT and FOR THAT PURPOSE--to form a militia when needed.

Gun nuts will blow right past this reasoning, but nonetheless, the above is a precise reading of the amendment's language. That reading is correct regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it.

There may be abundant other arguments for the right of an individual to own a gun, but the Second Amendment argument is a spurious one. It does appeal to Sarah Palinesque conservatives and those with tiny brains, because if your English skills are limited (or you're just fond of jumping to conclusions that you want to reach), you might misread the Second Amendment as endorsing PERSONAL gun ownership.

Quote: mkl654321

"The people" can both keep and bear arms without any one individual owning or possessing a gun; the militias referred to in the amendment usually got their guns from an armory, which was public rather than private property. Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

This does not pass the smell test. Militias in the 1700s would be local affairs like a neighbiorhood watch today. They would keep their guns at home and show up as needed.

If you want to get into clauses, why does the first ammendment so often prohibit rather than permit any expression of religion in a government owned place? The "freedom of religion" clause was placed in rejection of how the Church of England was run with the King at the top. It was not meant to prohibit crosses in cemetaries and nativity scenes. That is why there it the clause "or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Yet kids in schools have been prohibited from praying or reading bibles alone or/and not bothering anyone. But I digress.

Point is, the Second Ammendment isn't about keeping guns for hunting, it is about keeping up to military grade guns from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Quote: mkl654321

"The people" can both keep and bear arms without any one individual owning or possessing a gun; the militias referred to in the amendment usually got their guns from an armory, which was public rather than private property. Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

This does not pass the smell test. Militias in the 1700s would be local affairs like a neighbiorhood watch today. They would keep their guns at home and show up as needed.

If you want to get into clauses, why does the first ammendment so often prohibit rather than permit any expression of religion in a government owned place? The "freedom of religion" clause was placed in rejection of how the Church of England was run with the King at the top. It was not meant to prohibit crosses in cemetaries and nativity scenes. That is why there it the clause "or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Yet kids in schools have been prohibited from praying or reading bibles alone or/and not bothering anyone. But I digress.

Point is, the Second Ammendment isn't about keeping guns for hunting, it is about keeping up to military grade guns from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Quote: mkl654321

The fact that the "right...to bear Arms" is stated as a dependent clause to the statement that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary, means that the idea of the right to bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the need for a functional militia. In other words, "the people" only have the right to bear arms IN THAT CONTEXT and FOR THAT PURPOSE--to form a militia when needed.

I would say, that it doesn't prohibit guns, but apparently creates some obligation on the gun owner to form or stay ready for a militia either locally at will, or perhaps as requested by a state or federal authority.

But as far as I know, if I buy a gun I don't have any such obligation. This means to me, there is a gross misinterpretation of the amendment.

No average gun owner has any constitutional obligation that I can see pertaining to a well-regulated militia. You sure don't need gun training to qualify for the military, so that's out.

So they all say, it just means I get to own a gun and that's it. I say that's BS by activist judges.

edit: gun training, that is prior to acceptance in the military -- most everybody gets some once you get in.

Quote: mkl654321

Gun nuts will blow right past this reasoning, but nonetheless, the above is a precise reading of the amendment's language. That reading is correct regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it.

You should hurry and tell those gun nuts on the Supreme Court about this. Wait, you are too late. (And you are also wrong.)

Quote: EnvyBonus

You should hurry and tell those gun nuts on the Supreme Court about this. Wait, you are too late. (And you are also wrong.)

Your link provides a very interesting read. Thank you.

Quote: EnvyBonus

You should hurry and tell those gun nuts on the Supreme Court about this. Wait, you are too late. (And you are also wrong.)

You didn't read that very carefully, did you? Nor did you read my post for content.

What I said was:

Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

The case you referred to dealt with:

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

These are two separate issues:

1. Whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution validates the individual's right to own a gun.

2. Whether a ban on personal gun ownership violates the Second Amendment.

In any case, this was a 5-4 decision, and the only one in US history dealing with this specific issue, so it was hardly definitive. Also, it only dealt with the SPECIFIC gun ban law in the District of Columbia; it did NOT strike down any other gun laws/regulations/bans in any othe jurisdiction.


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.”

So the issue is still very much up in the air. Since 219 years of Constitutional law affirmed the meaning of the Second Amendment, a 2008 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court hardly invalidates that.

Quote: rxwine

I would say, that it doesn't prohibit guns, but apparently creates some obligation on the gun owner to form or stay ready for a militia either locally at will, or perhaps as requested by a state or federal authority.

But as far as I know, if I buy a gun I don't have any such obligation. This means to me, there is a gross misinterpretation of the amendment.

No average gun owner has any constitutional obligation that I can see pertaining to a well-regulated militia. You sure don't need gun training to qualify for the military, so that's out.

So they all say, it just means I get to own a gun and that's it. I say that's BS by activist judges.

edit: gun training, that is prior to acceptance in the military -- most everybody gets some once you get in.

You're misinterpreting what I said. The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit individual gun ownership, but my point was that it doesn't affirm it, either. Other tenets of American law may very well do that, but the Second Amendment doesn't--so gun advocates are misguided in quoting it.

Quote: Doc

Quote: EnvyBonus

You should hurry and tell those gun nuts on the Supreme Court about this. Wait, you are too late. (And you are also wrong.)

Your link provides a very interesting read. Thank you.

Holy research batman! Good one.

Handguns kill people. Studies show that suicides and homocides are much higher in homes with guns than without (see earlier). Had the assailant in the Tuscon massacre this weekend not been able to legally get his weapon and fire on the crowd, the murders might not have happened. A good percentage of those suicides would not have happened if the home did not have a gun.

And with respect to the robber not being able to complete his robbery, is justice for robbery death? It is reasonable for you to kill someone because they took property?

Quote: mkl654321

You're misinterpreting what I said. The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit individual gun ownership, but my point was that it doesn't affirm it, either. Other tenets of American law may very well do that, but the Second Amendment doesn't--so gun advocates are misguided in quoting it.

mkl, as I posted, I found the information in the link to be a very interesting read. One point that I think is relevant to your latest post is that the justices stated that the 2nd amendment was, indeed, recognizing and affirming through codification a pre-existing right:

Quote: Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court (after detailed parsing of the elements of the 2nd amendment)

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

Quote: mkl654321

But for the right of WHOM to "bear arms? An individual, or "the people"?

Let's look at that in the context of a close reading of the Second Amendment, based on the very reasonable premise that the writers of that amendment chose their words very carefully:

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.

First of all, the Amendment says that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT "a person" or "an individual". There are many rights that "the people" have but "a person" does not--to wage war, for example. So the distinction is important, and in the Second Amendment, is made abundantly clear.

"The people" can both keep and bear arms without any one individual owning or possessing a gun; the militias referred to in the amendment usually got their guns from an armory, which was public rather than private property. Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

The fact that the "right...to bear Arms" is stated as a dependent clause to the statement that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary, means that the idea of the right to bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the need for a functional militia. In other words, "the people" only have the right to bear arms IN THAT CONTEXT and FOR THAT PURPOSE--to form a militia when needed.

Gun nuts will blow right past this reasoning, but nonetheless, the above is a precise reading of the amendment's language. That reading is correct regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it.

There may be abundant other arguments for the right of an individual to own a gun, but the Second Amendment argument is a spurious one. It does appeal to Sarah Palinesque conservatives and those with tiny brains, because if your English skills are limited (or you're just fond of jumping to conclusions that you want to reach), you might misread the Second Amendment as endorsing PERSONAL gun ownership.

Sorry, Scalia has the better argument.

Also, you are wrong about how militias armed themselves pre-constitution. The vast majority provided their own arms. Even when they did not it was usually a patron who provided the arms and powder- again private. Major state funded militias flourished after the ratification, but there was little before.

Who are "the people"? Hint: use the constitution to define it. "The people" appears several times- so look at the first and fourth amendments. Is there any doubt that "the people" refers to individual rights to peaceably assemble? Is there any doubt that "the people" refers to the individual right to be secure in person and property? Or are you going to pretend that this also is a general right and you are not afforded that personally? Why would they switch what "the people" means so suddenly?

It doesn't need to grant or validate anything. It simply recognizes a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms and prohibits infringement for purposes of having a well regulated militia.

Quote: bbvk05

It simply recognizes a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms and prohibits infringement for purposes of having a well regulated militia.

Where is this well-regulated militia?

Where? And more importantly, how is the average gun owner part of it?


A 7th grader could see that: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is all that is needed if that's what you mean to say.

Take a look at the first amendment, there's no words that you need to ignore to make sense of it.

Quote: rxwine

Where is this well-regulated militia?

Where? And more importantly, how is the average gun owner part of it?


A 7th grader could see that: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is all that is needed if that's what you mean to say.

Take a look at the first amendment, there's no words that you need to ignore to make sense of it.

That is a great question. The militia was understood to be any man of fighting age at the time. Regulated=trained. Nobody is ignoring anything: because X then Y. X existing as a reason does not dilute the fact that Y is stated.

The eradication of hunger being necessary for a healthy nation, the right of the people to eat their own food shall not be infringed. That doesn't create a requirement that I be hungry to eat. It simply recognizes that I have the right to eat, with the eradication of hunger as the goal.

Quote: rxwine

Where is this well-regulated militia?

Where? And more importantly, how is the average gun owner part of it?


A 7th grader could see that: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is all that is needed if that's what you mean to say.

Take a look at the first amendment, there's no words that you need to ignore to make sense of it.

I agree with you that a 7th grader would say, "Gee, that means mah paw can tote around that thar assault rifle after all."

Where is the militia? Doesn't matter--the Second Amendment only deals with the right of the people to form a militia. If militias don't exist, the Second Amendment is irrelevant.

Quote: Doc

mkl, as I posted, I found the information in the link to be a very interesting read. One point that I think is relevant to your latest post is that the justices stated that the 2nd amendment was, indeed, recognizing and affirming through codification a pre-existing right:

Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer: dissenting

Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas: affirming

Of these, only Kennedy had voted as a moderate while on the Supreme Court. The other eight voted either consistently liberal (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) or consistently conservative (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas). Kennedy often was the swing vote in what were many 5-4 decisions.

So I see this decision as essentially the opinion of one man--Kennedy--given that the votes of the other eight were a foregone conclusion. And rather than consider the opinion of one man--evn an exalted Supreme court justice--to be law, I will still go with the amendment as it was written (not to mention over 200 years of case law). An ideologically split 5-4 decision isn't enough to justify reading a constitutional amendment in a way other than as it was written.

I think that the fact that a "Militia" was specifically mentioned meant that this amendment referred to the right of the people to raise a militia--period. The fact was, the right of a person to own a gun wouldn't have been questioned at that time--many people needed a gun for safety, or simple survival. THEREFORE, the "founding fathers" wouldn't have felt the need to codify the right to gun ownership in the first place--it would have been taken as a given.

Quote: mkl654321

Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer: dissenting

Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas: affirming

Of these, only Kennedy had voted as a moderate while on the Supreme Court. The other eight voted either consistently liberal (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) or consistently conservative (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas). Kennedy often was the swing vote in what were many 5-4 decisions.

So I see this decision as essentially the opinion of one man--Kennedy--given that the votes of the other eight were a foregone conclusion. And rather than consider the opinion of one man--evn an exalted Supreme court justice--to be law, I will still go with the amendment as it was written (not to mention over 200 years of case law). An ideologically split 5-4 decision isn't enough to justify reading a constitutional amendment in a way other than as it was written.

I think that the fact that a "Militia" was specifically mentioned meant that this amendment referred to the right of the people to raise a militia--period. The fact was, the right of a person to own a gun wouldn't have been questioned at that time--many people needed a gun for safety, or simple survival. THEREFORE, the "founding fathers" wouldn't have felt the need to codify the right to gun ownership in the first place--it would have been taken as a given.

If I said "Interstate travel being necessary for the nation's economy, the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed"- what would that mean to you?

It is also pretty funny that you made a big deal about english grammar- then you said the "right of the people" clause is a dependent clause when it is actually an independent clause. To top it off your precious militia statement is a dependent clause. Your blinding grammar errors aside, you also refuse to follow proper statutory interpretation. Plain language, purpose, public policy, baby. All support a reading of the recognition of an individual right for purposes of supporting a well regulated militia. Don't worry, I am under no illusions that this will convince you. I am sure you cannot be troubled to read the constitutional congress records to see how disturbingly wrong your position is. The seizure of private arms by the government was on everyone's minds because it had just happened.

Quote: bbvk05

That is a great question. The militia was understood to be any man of fighting age at the time. Regulated=trained. Nobody is ignoring anything: because X then Y. X existing as a reason does not dilute the fact that Y is stated.

The eradication of hunger being necessary for a healthy nation, the right of the people to eat their own food shall not be infringed. That doesn't create a requirement that I be hungry to eat. It simply recognizes that I have the right to eat, with the eradication of hunger as the goal.

I think the 2nd is more like this:

In order to ensure smallpox readiness, the right to store smallpox vaccine at home shall not be infringed.

I believe the way it is written, the right to store smallpox vaccine is dependent on smallpox readiness, and in this case only makes sense if there is smallpox to eradicate, (and as it is virtually eliminated, it makes no sense to have it.) And it follows that if there is no well-regulated militia, there is no sense in the right to have arms either.

Quote: boymimbo

Handguns kill people. Studies show that suicides and homocides are much higher in homes with guns than without (see earlier). Had the assailant in the Tuscon massacre this weekend not been able to legally get his weapon and fire on the crowd, the murders might not have happened. A good percentage of those suicides would not have happened if the home did not have a gun.

And with respect to the robber not being able to complete his robbery, is justice for robbery death? It is reasonable for you to kill someone because they took property?

Handguns do not kill people, people kill people. I have a handgun, it has never killed one person. A more intelligent statemetn is handguns can kill people. Cars can kill people. Water can kill people. Had the guy in Tuscon not been able to get a gun he may have used the tactic of a muslim homicide bomber and blown himself up with her. The gun wasn't the problem. Heck, the gun laws were not the problem. The guy was the problem. The PC thing about no longer locking crazy people up in institutions is part of the problem. But gun-control-nuts want what they think is the easy solution. Liberals always want to look at merely one part of a problem and do something to "fix" it. And it rarely if ever works. Remember "All in the Family?":

Gloria: "Daddy, do you know how many people were killed with guns last year?"
Archie: "Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?"

Oh, and on is death justice for the robber? YES! Like in the old west, you pull a gun and you risk someone else knowing how to use one better when they pull yours to stop you. If a person was on trial for shooting someone who was in the act of commiting an armed robbery (and fleeing the scene seconds later is "in the act") I would vote not guilty every time then buy dinner for the person who stopped the robber. They performed a public service.

Quote: mkl654321

...So I see this decision as essentially the opinion of one man--Kennedy--given that the votes of the other eight were a foregone conclusion. And rather than consider the opinion of one man--evn an exalted Supreme court justice--to be law, I will still go with the amendment as it was written (not to mention over 200 years of case law). An ideologically split 5-4 decision isn't enough to justify reading a constitutional amendment in a way other than as it was written.

I think that the fact that a "Militia" was specifically mentioned meant that this amendment referred to the right of the people to raise a militia--period. The fact was, the right of a person to own a gun wouldn't have been questioned at that time--many people needed a gun for safety, or simple survival. THEREFORE, the "founding fathers" wouldn't have felt the need to codify the right to gun ownership in the first place--it would have been taken as a given.

mkl, this is the third time that I have mentioned that the link EB provided earlier in this thread is an interesting read. Have you actually read it yet?

That ruling goes into great detail analyzing the wording that was chosen for the amendment and the reasons that wording was chosen. Individual words, groups of words, clauses, and the entire sentence are analyzed in the context of the language used at the time and the wording used elsewhere in the constitution. Contemporary dictionary definitions, possible idiomatic meanings, and usages in contemporary documents are examined. The meaning and usage of the term "militia" is discussed in detail. I found the analysis much more convincing than anything I have previously read, either in the commercial media or in discussion forums, though I do not make it a practice to read judicial rulings.

While I may like or dislike various rulings by the supreme court, I hope I never become so radical/reactionary/extremist that I believe that my own interpretation of the constitution is more valid than that of the majority of the justices.

Court decisions that are 5-4 are common. And they establish in reality the fundamental law of the land, even for those people who feel that the law should be different.

Quote: mkl654321

But for the right of WHOM to "bear arms? An individual, or "the people"?

Let's look at that in the context of a close reading of the Second Amendment, based on the very reasonable premise that the writers of that amendment chose their words very carefully:

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.

First of all, the Amendment says that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT "a person" or "an individual". There are many rights that "the people" have but "a person" does not--to wage war, for example. So the distinction is important, and in the Second Amendment, is made abundantly clear.

"The people" can both keep and bear arms without any one individual owning or possessing a gun; the militias referred to in the amendment usually got their guns from an armory, which was public rather than private property. Thus, this amendment does NOT validate individual gun ownership. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

The fact that the "right...to bear Arms" is stated as a dependent clause to the statement that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary, means that the idea of the right to bear arms is SUBORDINATE to the need for a functional militia. In other words, "the people" only have the right to bear arms IN THAT CONTEXT and FOR THAT PURPOSE--to form a militia when needed.

Gun nuts will blow right past this reasoning, but nonetheless, the above is a precise reading of the amendment's language. That reading is correct regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about it.

There may be abundant other arguments for the right of an individual to own a gun, but the Second Amendment argument is a spurious one. It does appeal to Sarah Palinesque conservatives and those with tiny brains, because if your English skills are limited (or you're just fond of jumping to conclusions that you want to reach), you might misread the Second Amendment as endorsing PERSONAL gun ownership.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I'm actually open to this changing, but I'm not open to using back-door legislation, questionable judicial decisions, and etymological gymnastics to change it.

Emphasis on ETYMOLOGICAL GYNMASTICS. Wow, surely the Nadia Comenic of constitutional interpretation!

This is bullshit. And, if you don't buy the bullshit, the you MUST be ...

Quote: mkl654321

Sarah Palinesque

or

Quote: mkl654321

tiny brains

or

Quote: mkl65432

fond of jumping to conclusions

or

Quote: mkl654321

misreading

Whatever nasty name-calling, trying to ridicule, and condescention is, it's not a way to interpret the Constitution. But you don't bother me. I know I'm smarter and clearer-thinking than you, and I don't need to demean and insult anyone to try to make my point, much less a Constitutional interpretation. I wonder if it's even possible for you to make any argument (faulty as it is) without appending a "if you don't think this way, you're an idiot" statement at the end?

All documents need some level of interpretation, so I don't have a problem with that. But there are better ways to interpret a document than not. Rule #1 is: use the document to interpret the document. That's the first problem I have with these gynmastics: it doesn't ever refer to another instance of "the people" in the Constitution itself in its interpretation.

In this case, that would mean "the people" should be given the same meaning that the overall document gives it. So ... find the phrase "the people" in the entire document and see how it's treated. Then you can start assigning interpretation.

On my reading, "the people" as internally stated, is far, far away from this interpretation. Not surprising, I guess, seeing as how the Constitution's overall use of "the people" is never mentioned.

Quote: bbvk05

If I said "Interstate travel being necessary for the nation's economy, the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed"- what would that mean to you?

It is also pretty funny that you made a big deal about english grammar- then you said the "right of the people" clause is a dependent clause when it is actually an independent clause. To top it off your precious militia statement is a dependent clause. Your blinding grammar errors aside, you also refuse to follow proper statutory interpretation. Plain language, purpose, public policy, baby. All support a reading of the recognition of an individual right for purposes of supporting a well regulated militia. Don't worry, I am under no illusions that this will convince you. I am sure you cannot be troubled to read the constitutional congress records to see how disturbingly wrong your position is. The seizure of private arms by the government was on everyone's minds because it had just happened.

I didn't say that "the right of the people" was the dependent clause. Please read for content, as I keep telling my students. Your trying to correct my grammar is kind of hilarious. In any case, the only issue is the grammar of the amendment, which is unequivocal.

I don't know what your reference to "just happened" might be, but do you realize that when the Second Amendment was written, the United States had been an independent nation for several years, and the War of Independence had ended almost a decade ago?

Quote: Doc

mkl, this is the third time that I have mentioned that the link EB provided earlier in this thread is an interesting read. Have you actually read it yet?

That ruling goes into great detail analyzing the wording that was chosen for the amendment and the reasons that wording was chosen. Individual words, groups of words, clauses, and the entire sentence are analyzed in the context of the language used at the time and the wording used elsewhere in the constitution. Contemporary dictionary definitions, possible idiomatic meanings, and usages in contemporary documents are examined. The meaning and usage of the term "militia" is discussed in detail. I found the analysis much more convincing than anything I have previously read, either in the commercial media or in discussion forums, though I do not make it a practice to read judicial rulings.

While I may like or dislike various rulings by the supreme court, I hope I never become so radical/reactionary/extremist that I believe that my own interpretation of the constitution is more valid than that of the majority of the justices.

Court decisions that are 5-4 are common. And they establish in reality the fundamental law of the land, even for those people who feel that the law should be different.

Yes, I read the article rather thoroughly. The arguments that were made were compelling but not convincing. And furthermore, the dissenting arguments were just as compelling. Did you read any of those? (They were accessed through a separate link.)

And I don't think that Supreme Court decisions are the be-all and end-all of American law. If that was the case, the Dred Scott Decision would still apply, for example. in any case, the Court did NOT invalidate all gun control laws--only the particular one that was the basis of the appeal.

I still insist on interpreting the Second Amendment as worded, not otherwise. The decision of a single Supreme Court justice notwithstanding. If the writers of the amendment had meant to simply codify the right of an individual to own a gun, then they wouldn't have qualified it with the statement about the militia; they would have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Edit: and there are such things as incorrect, faulty, or ideologically-driven Supreme Court decisions.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Whatever nasty name-calling, trying to ridicule, and condescention is, it's not a way to interpret the Constitution. But you don't bother me. I know I'm smarter and clearer-thinking than you, and I don't need to demean and insult anyone to try to make my point, much less a Constitutional interpretation. I wonder if it's even possible for you to make any argument (faulty as it is) without appending a "if you don't think this way, you're an idiot" statement at the end?

All documents need some level of interpretation, so I don't have a problem with that. But there are better ways to interpret a document than not. Rule #1 is: use the document to interpret the document. That's the first problem I have with these gynmastics: it doesn't ever refer to another instance of "the people" in the Constitution itself in its interpretation.

In this case, that would mean "the people" should be given the same meaning that the overall document gives it. So ... find the phrase "the people" in the entire document and see how it's treated. Then you can start assigning interpretation.

On my reading, "the people" as internally stated, is far, far away from this interpretation. Not surprising, I guess, seeing as how the Constitution's overall use of "the people" is never mentioned.

You THINK you're smarter and clearer-thinking than me; the irony in your statement is that if you WERE, in fact, smarter and clearer-thinking than me, you nonetheless wouldn't claim that, because you would have the intellect to realize that you don't have the evidence to make such a claim. Similarly, I don't know how smart or dumb YOU are.

The process of interpretation involves trying to parse out what the writer was thinking, and what was his intention. If the writer had intended to codify personal gun ownership, he wouldn't have qualified the wording by mentioning militias--not IN THE SAME SENTENCE, at any rate.

I do agree that "interpretation" is rarely unequivocal. However, reading the Second Amendment as an endorsement of PERSONAL gun ownership is just plain ridiculous. I happen to feel that gun ownership IS a right, but the Second Amendment isn't what confers that right. And when gun nuts quote it, they very likely haven't engaged in any kind of analysis of its language one way or another.

Quote: mkl654321

... I don't think that Supreme Court decisions are the be-all and end-all of American law. If that was the case, the Dred Scott Decision would still apply, for example. in any case, the Court did NOT invalidate all gun control laws--only the particular one that was the basis of the appeal.

The decisions may not be "the be-all and end-all of American law", but they are the official rulings on the foundation of law. I think that's rather important. The old decision you cite did indeed apply until it was reversed, just as the decision we have been discussing will continue to apply until such time as the court chooses to reverse it, should that day ever come.

You are absolutely correct that the court did not invalidate all gun-control laws. They restricted their final ruling to the case that was brought before them, noting that further clarification may be required in the future but was not something they (other than one justice) wanted to get into at that time. From our discussions above, I thought the issue here was not the specific gun-control law that was invalidated but the proper interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment. That is an issue that the justices discussed in quite some detail, addressing many of the points raised repeatedly in this thread including the usage of "militia" and "the people". You found the arguments compelling but not convincing, but they were adequately convincing to the people who actually matter in such instances.

Quote: mkl654321

I still insist on interpreting the Second Amendment as worded, not otherwise. The decision of a single Supreme Court justice notwithstanding. ...

It seems clear, mkl, that you view your interpretation of "the Second Amendment as worded" as being more valid than the interpretation of "the Second Amendment as worded" as explained in detail by the majority of the justices of the supreme court. I cannot support that viewpoint either from you or from myself. And it was not at all a decision of a single justice; it was a decision by the majority of the court.

If you really believe that the rulings by 8 out of the 9 are predetermined prior to hearing of cases and split 4-4, then every decision will be 5-4. If you really believe that, then perhaps those 8 should just stay home, and we could just have the one remaining make all of the decisions. I don't view the supreme court that way at all.

I view this particular decision -- and its detailed explanation of the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment -- to clearly be exactly as it is described: the opinion of the court, determined by the majority just the way it is supposed to be. This is true whether you or I agree with them or not.

Quote: mkl654321

You THINK you're smarter and clearer-thinking than me; the irony in your statement is that if you WERE, in fact, smarter and clearer-thinking than me, you nonetheless wouldn't claim that, because you would have the intellect to realize that you don't have the evidence to make such a claim. Similarly, I don't know how smart or dumb YOU are.

I pretty much am, and do. We've gone over that. No need to go over it again. I don't hold your intellectual shortfall against you.

Quote: mkl654321

The process of interpretation involves trying to parse out what the writer was thinking, and what was his intention. If the writer had intended to codify personal gun ownership, he wouldn't have qualified the wording by mentioning militias--not IN THE SAME SENTENCE, at any rate.

I do agree that "interpretation" is rarely unequivocal. However, reading the Second Amendment as an endorsement of PERSONAL gun ownership is just plain ridiculous. I happen to feel that gun ownership IS a right, but the Second Amendment isn't what confers that right. And when gun nuts quote it, they very likely haven't engaged in any kind of analysis of its language one way or another.

Not ridiculous at all. The language says:

Quote: TheConstitution

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.

Your first pass was to try to convince me that "the people" had some meaning other than ... umm ... the people. You know, kind of like "I have an IQ of 190" really means some 500-word explanation as to why you really weren't saying "I have an IQ of 190."

Not only that, you don't even use the Constitution to try to invent such an interpretation, but all sorts of "I have an IQ of 190 but I don't really but I do but I don't" bullshit.

You won't care, and surely it makes me

Quote: mkl654321

fond of jumping to conclusions

but for others, here's an example why:

Quote: TheConstitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote: TheConstitution

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Apply the above interpretation MKL applies:

Quote: mkl654321

But for the right of WHOM to "choose their representatives"? An individual, or "the people"?

Let's look at that in the context of a close reading of the Article II, based on the very reasonable premise that the writers of that article chose their words very carefully:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.

First of all, the Article says that "the people" have the right to elect their representatives, NOT "a person" or "an individual". There are many rights that "the people" have but "a person" does not--to wage war, for example. So the distinction is important, and in Article II, is made abundantly clear.

"The people" can elect their representatives without any one individual voting; the representatives referred to in the article usually got their authority from kingly mandate, which was public rather than private policy. Thus, this article does NOT validate individual selection of their representatives. (It also, of course, does not invalidate it.)

I could go on, but it's scary enough already. Whatever "the people" means, it does not draw a distinction between society and individuals, and there's no use of it within the document to suggest otherwise. The Constitution itself supports that, not some "I have an IQ of 190, but not really, but really, but not really" mental gymnastics. But once again, just to be clear ...

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I'm actually open to this changing, but I'm not open to using back-door legislation, questionable judicial decisions, and etymological gymnastics to change it.

Quote: Doc

It seems clear, mkl, that you view your interpretation of "the Second Amendment as worded" as being more valid than the interpretation of "the Second Amendment as worded" as explained in detail by the majority of the justices of the supreme court. I cannot support that viewpoint either from you or from myself. And it was not at all a decision of a single justice; it was a decision by the majority of the court.

If you really believe that the rulings by 8 out of the 9 are predetermined prior to hearing of cases and split 4-4, then every decision will be 5-4. If you really believe that, then perhaps those 8 should just stay home, and we could just have the one remaining make all of the decisions. I don't view the supreme court that way at all.

I view this particular decision -- and its detailed explanation of the proper interpretation of the 2nd amendment -- to clearly be exactly as it is described: the opinion of the court, determined by the majority just the way it is supposed to be. This is true whether you or I agree with them or not.

You clearly give more weight to a 5-4 decision than I do. And yes, I consider the votes of most of the judges to be a complete foregone conclusion. One bloc of four almost always voted together; the other bloc of four did the same. Only Kennedy's vote was ever in doubt. So this ruling was a combination of ideology plus coin flip.

I also--unspeakable hubris though it may be--disagree with the logic that drove the majority opinion. They lifted much of the reasoning that was behind the amendment at the time it was written and tried to helicopter it into a modern setting. That only sort of worked. I'd bring in some specific examples of what I mean, but you wouldn't be convinced, because you assign more weight to the august words of a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE than little ol' me.

The sad fact is that the Second Amendment does not really apply to today's world. It deals with militias--and ONLY with militias--and we don't have militias any more. The Second Amendment was written to ensure the safety of the people--as in, the collective body--by guaranteeing their right and ability to form militias. It was never envisioned as ensuring the rights of a neo-Nazi survivalist to cache fifty grenade launchers and 200 bricks of C-4 in his underground bunker. As I said earlier, gun ownership and the necessity for it was a given in eighteenth-century America; the writers of the Constitution would have felt no need to explicitly codify the right to it.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Your first pass was to try to convince me that "the people" had some meaning other than ... umm ... the people. You know, kind of like "I have an IQ of 190" really means some 500-word explanation as to why you really weren't saying "I have an IQ of 190."

Your claim to intellectual brilliance is somewhat blunted by the fact that you couldn't understand that "the people" is not the same as "an individual". The Second Amendment codified a right of THE PEOPLE--to form a militia. It did NOT codify the right of AN INDIVIDUAL to own a gun.

I also explained that the Constitution grants many rights to the people that are understood not to be the right of any one individual. But you slept through that part.

And pick away at that IQ thing all you want--I already retracted that statement (specifically, I said I don't KNOW what my IQ currently is--and neither does anyone else, yourself included). But at least I don't believe in The Man In the Sky.