And any government that seeks to take the lives of its citizens out of their own hands is far overstepping the bounds of any just government.
Speaking of appeals to emotion, was there a point behind this observation? I don’t think you’re correct if you’re suggesting that resistance is futile, but you should at least endeavor to make your point clear, if you have one.
My great great grandfather fought off the Czar’s police with his hunting rifle, and if he hadn’t, I wouldn’t be here today. It happened during a pogrom - you may have heard that word before. The government didn’t do anything to protect the Jews from them, and the police took part in them. Fortunately for me, one policeman busted down the wrong Jew’s door and wound up with a bullet in his head.
Ironically enough, the modern U.S. Military uses what are essentially highly accurate hunting rifles to excellent effect against other modern militaries.
No, I personally feel that individual gun ownership is a guaranteed right under the Second Amendment. I think that’s the most obvious reading. Saying that people have the right to bear arms as part of a militia is basically the same as saying the government has a right to arm its troops. Why would we need an amendment to protect the government’s right to do something? If the government wants to form a militia company it can just go ahead and do it. All of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights (except arguably the Tenth) protect individual rights so I feel that the Second Amendment does as well.
I have heard one different interpretation of this amendment which I feel is interesting if not conclusive. One legal scholar argued that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the rights of individuals to serve in the military. His point was that historically many groups have been banned or restricted from military service and these same groups are otherwise generally treated as second-class citizens. In the United States, for example, there have been restrictions on blacks, Indians, women, and gays serving in the armed forces. His argument that the two main signifiers of full citizenship have been the right to vote and the right to serve in the military and that the Second Amendment guaranteed the second of these. Personally, as I said above, I feel it’s an interesting viewpoint but not what the authors of the Constitution had in mind.
If that was true, why would they have said “keep” and bear arms? Why not just bear arms?
As the saying goes, an anecdote is not the singular form of data. None of the people whose ancestors were killed by gunfire are around to post a rebuttal.
Don’t ask me to defend an argument I’ve already said I believe is incorrect.
I’m not saying it’s data or whatever, I’m just offering one real life example from my family’s history that I thought was an interesting thing to bring up.
Most of the people who were killed by gunfire throughout history were killed by gunfire that came from a government, not from private citizens bearing arms.
So, getting back to the purpose of the thread…what’s the decision going to be and what ramifications will there be?
How are we supposed to know?!?! Am I wearing a black robe?
Seriously though…I’m going to be pessimistic about it and say that they’re going to rule against Heller. Just because, if you always assume the worst, you can be relieved if it doesn’t happen, and you can have the satisfaction of saying “I told you so” if it does. That’s the philosophy I’ve always lived by.
And you think I haven’t? Karma isn’t as abstract and ethereal a concept as you might imagine, the men who did those things to me are very likely dead, or in prison (which is, so far as I’m concerned, six of one, half a dozen of the other). But not at my hand. Not my karma.
Averted? Do you advertise yourself? “Stay away from me, I’m armed and dangerous?” What kind of attention, do you suppose, that attracts? What kind of people are alert to those “vibes” (if you’ll forgive an arcane, but quite useful, bit of hippy argot…)? Perhaps you have “averted” unpleasant consequences, on the other hand, how many pleasant, even joyous, consequences have you “averted”?
Do you like peaceful people, the kind who will instinctively shy away from a violent person? I do, very much, salt of the earth, far as I’m concerned. What are you really paying for your “safety”, and how much safer do you think you are?
Of course it does. But the price is too high. I have had people dislike me (no, really!), I’ve had them detest me. Water off a ducks back. On very rare occassions, I’ve had people be afraid of me. Never again, if I can help it. In the words of Olaf, glad and big, there is some shit I will not eat.
Well, podnuh, if this town ain’t big enough for both of us, we’ll just have to find a bigger town.
I expect it to set a fairly high bar for “reasonable regulation” – i.e. gun bans will be right out, and so will hoop-jumping requirements that come anywhere near a de facto ban. Modest time-place-and-manner restrictions on purchase and carry, at a level similar to the sort of restrictions the courts allow on the sale and public display of pictures of nekkid wimmin, would remain acceptable as local law.
Karma doesn’t exist. Bad things happen to good people and that’s all there is to it.
Hey, Ex, you ever think of taking up trap? You don’t need good vision, you need good reflexes.
So, the idea is you step on it and get yer leg out before it snaps your foot off at the ankle? Is there beer involved?
Usually. 
In answer to which question? :dubious:
TWEEEEEEEEET!!
All right, ratchet back on the personal animosity, everyone.
Diogenes, you really need to watch your posting. There was nothing in your moe offensive posts that distinguished between “gun nuts” and people who were quite reasonable on the topic who happened to disagree with you;. Given the niumber of posters who had voiced views that could be construed as within your definition of “gun nuts,” a conclusion that you were insulting posters would not be out of line.
Everyone else needs to get thicker skins or report offensive posts rather than elevating the acrimony in a thread by replying in kind.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, let that be a lesson to me for being presumptious. My apologies to both you and Don’t Call Me Shirley (whom I now must agree with).
And don’t get me wrong – I think the 2nd does grant an individual’s right. And, given the little that I know about Scalia, I think his personal ideology does align with his constitutional principles in this case. But those principles are obviously debatable, as has been pointed out.
It’s anyone’s guess as to what rabbit Scalia will pull out of his hat. But my WAG would agree with Steve’s. I think Scalia will establish a standard as to what degree of regulation of gun ownership is a violation of the Second - a “Heller test” that gun laws will have to pass in order to be constitutional.
If they rule against Heller - i.e. deciding that gun ownership is NOT an individual right - can that result in massive gun bans across the country, citing that case as precedent?