I find your acknowledgement of self defense with arms to be a natural right, and hence protected under the 9th amendment, combined your view on the second amendment to be quite unique, Hamlet.
I’ve argued myself in the past that arguments over the second amendment could be moot on that basis.
For what it’s worth, Scalia acknowledged in the oral arguments that he didn’t believe that “well regulated” in the context didn’t mean “goverened by regulation”:
Also, in regard to the two clauses of the second amendment:
You can listen to the oral arguments (if you haven’t already) here.
It’s the NRA-ILA website, and requires RealPlayer, which is a free download available here.
Tone is evrything; reading the arguments made me think the Justices were a bit more ambiguous about the issue. Hearing the arguments makes me think I’m going to be a happy camper in June, when the written decision gets handed down.
I strongly, as an IT professional, reccomend against installing RealPlayer on your computer.
Installing it may lead to said anal probing with skyscraper.
UncleBeer, thank you for the link. Can we find one for ‘arms’ and ‘bear arms’? Hamlet claimed that the 1791 OED said the words were only used in military fashion. I believe my countercite of various contemporary state constitutions and someone’s later cite of Madison’s own words disproved that. (Was it in the written arguments? I think so), but I would like OED confirmation.
I’m taking a break shoveling out from this %$#@ingBlizzard we’re getting hit with to make 2 quick points:
First:
No kidding! Gura did a horrible job! Sarah Brady would have made better pro-gun arguments for Khrist sake. Especially when he started babbling about machine guns. :smack: :smack: We may win this in spite of him.
Second, If we (pro-gun side) win this, it’s a reminder how important the Presidency is because of SCOTUS nominations. Had Gore or Kerry put their people on the court there is no way we’d have a prayer on this. The next 4-8 years are going to suck as I don’t expect Clinton, Obama, or even McCain to put up decent candidates.
The argument I’ve read now about why Gura tried to counter the idea, for example, that machine guns aren’t protected under the second amendment was because he was specifically attempting to win his clients case, which didn’t involve that.
Ginsberg was baiting him, trying to trap him into saying that his definition of the second amendment included MGs - a view she considered too extreme, and hence, if he took that position it would make it less likely to rule in their favor.
So he did the expedient thing, rather than the right thing. Because it’s plainly obvious to anyone who truly supports the second - though perhaps not the “just leave my duck gun alone” fucktards that make up 75% of the NRA - that the most obviously protected guns are assault rifles. So then when they were questioning him about “machine guns” (assault rifles aren’t actually machine guns in a military sense, but they are in popular usage), they were right. The second, under any reasonable interpretation, would logically allow citizen access to the common infantry rifle of the day - what could possibly be even more obviously protected than that?
The fact that he denied this and tried to steer them away from it really pisses me off. If he made an argument about MGs, and they agreed and made a “regulation, but not outright ban” decision, we might go back to the pre-86 days of the MG era at least.
Quick history lesson - in 1934, the national firearms act made fully automatic weapons among the weapons that became taxable and heavily regulated in their ownership. For the next 52 years, at least tens of thousands of people went through the process to become legal machine gun owners, and not a single one every committed a crime using them. Despite this, the gun control lobby labelled them a menace to society and snuck in an amendment to a bill banning their manufacture or importation in 1986. Despite an absolutely perfect record a safety, they were practically banned. This is what 95% of the gun control lobby does - they’re not interested in facts, or whether they’re actually causing any sort of good - they have an emotional reaction that motivates them deeply and will do anything they can to inflict any damage they can on gun rights. The '86 MG ban is a perfect example of gun control in action.
So anyway - had Gura pursued that line of reasoning, some of the Justices seemed sympathetic. We could at the very least have gotten ammo against the '86 ban.
Besides that, there’s simply a truth issue involved. It makes me extremely uncomfortable to see a gun rights advocate bullshit. In my view, the pro-gun side of the argument generally has the facts, the history, the practical matters on their side - we don’t need to stoop to tactics like deception and manipulation. Now, not all gun control advocates are dishonest - there are some people on this board who can make a legitimate case - but people like Sarah Brady lie constantly. And they try to manipulate your emotions by talking about children being in danger and saving the children.
Gura knew that he was peddling bullshit about what he was saying about MGs, so that makes me uncomfortable. The only justification I can see is that, as a lawyer, his goal is limited to winning his case for his client, and he didn’t want to reach too far and risk that. Still, I feel that he did a disservice to the American people as a whole, as the representative of the only gun case in the supreme court in 70 years.
None that actually exist (yet), your fondest wishes notwithstanding.
That said, it does certainly appear that the GOP’s court-packing process of recent years (albeit with a primary focus of banning abortion) is about to succeed in a secondary part of its judicially activist agenda. When/if it does, that will become the law instead - and it *still * won’t matter what anybody else thinks it *should * be. Airman, go ahead and start gloating if you like - but please consider while you’re doing so if this is the way you’d like other issues to be settled as well. e-sabath, what gives you the idea that I’ve taken a side here about what *should * be the law, rather than what *is * the law? :dubious:
A ruling in favor of an umabiguous individual rights view would help to protect gun rights, and hence, individual rights. Whether it’s a “proper interpretation” or not, it would be the SC ruling in favor of greater individual rights, which is something one could generally support.
Practically, as a free citizen, I have the rights bearing arms and self defense naturally. I don’t need the SC to tell me what my rights are - it’s just that their decision will influence how the government attempts to infringe upon my rights.
Because, my good sir, your interpretation of the law is horribly dubious, and can only be explained by wishful thinking rather than examination in context.
… or, to be honest, several less charitable explanations, but I don’t see them as accurate.
This is a pattern you express, in not just this thread, but others, where you take a position, and hold it, not just against logic, but against reason and factual contradiction.
I cite the… was it the ‘Stick The Fork In Her’ II thread? One of them, where you behaved in the same way, recently. Is this a debate tactic, or are you honestly unaware of the behavior? I don’t find it the most effective debate tactic.
And that goes into the topic of the Constitution referring almost exclusively to rights and not responsibilities. I believe that’s a serious defect, since any system needs both to be recognized to work properly. The arguments seen from the individual-rights faction somehow never seem to include any individual responsibilities that go along with that right. That mode of interpreting is certainly an easy habit to get into, from reading most of the rest of the document, and yes, it has enabled the ongoing strong myth of the “rugged individualist” that has found full expression in the divisiveness (particularly social and economic) of recent national politics. But that’s another thread.
However, the framers did take a stab at discussing responsibilities in the Second, by stating the the people’s right to bear arms existed for the purpose of facilitating the people’s responsibility of keeping an organized military force. Only by dismissing that explanation can one find a right beyond that purpose to be fundamental.
I’ve seen him do that before; I think it’s a rhetorical or … I don’t know the word for it, thing. As in “I can see you want to say yes, but you’re struggling.” I wish that some day they would allow video in the Court.
I think that even with a majority seriously appearing to back an individual rights position, the Court would normally have tried to craft a very narrow position on DC - except I get the feeling from a second reading, as well as slogging through most of the briefs, that Roberts and others want to make some serious history here and settle this, and have a lot of backing should they in fact decide to do so.
Edited to add: many are saying that this could be a “Roe v. Wade”-level decision. And I hope it is, whichever way it goes. Because I’m tired of the wishy-washyness. If it goes for pro-gun rights, then I can finally tell certain trolls to go fuck themselves. And if it goes anti, then I will admit I was wrong, resign myself to that fact, and move on.
At least if it went anti I for one would have the courage and moral fiber to admit I was wrong. I don’t think we’ll be seeing that from the anti side if it goes pro. Just see if I’m right in June.
PS, “certain trolls” does not refer to people on this Board, nor necessarily do my comments above, they are meant to be in a general sense for the communities I am in. I don’t debate gun control issues on this message board any more.
You still wouldn’t be “right” or “wrong”, whichever way the decision goes. No apology would be expected from anyone either way in that regard. You’d be either “in agreement” or “not in agreement”.
Court rulings are not necessarily either right or wrong; that’s just incidental. They’re just enforceable.
Hamlet has been saying something entirely different. For one thing, he backs his words up with evidence and reasoning. And when I do manage to find a weak point, he admits it. You tend to stick with bloviation and assertion, dismissal and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.
The fact that you do not see a difference between your argument and Hamlet’s should be something for you to examine.
(I only reply in the vain hope that Elvis can learn. Hamlet, if you would be so kind as to put a word in, it might be useful. Elvis could be a much more valued member of this board if he were to alter certain tendencies of his.)
Speaking of that, Hamlet, it seems that the Supreme Court does seem to think there is a clear and obvious individual right. (I was as surprised by Justice Kennedy’s reverent defense of self-defense as any.) I rather think it has something to do with their age, they are from eras when guns-as-tools were much more common. You know, growing up, when everyone had a .30 and a 12ga, and they were tools for harvesting food as much as the plow was.
Edit: I was kind of counting on the shotgun hobby of apparently a few judges to slightly bias them, mind you, but nothing as strong as this.