Get off your own rear end and research it yourself if you are that worried about it. I do not feel the need to do it as I already know it happened.
Let me explain how it works around here at SDMB. When you make a factual assertion, you are the one who is expected to support it. {i]You* said that SCOTUS has ruled definitively that the 2nd amendment applies to private citizens. I call bullshit. The ball is now in your court. Put up or shut up.
I agree. I just think that people overstate it sometimes when they claim that the right to bear arms for private citizans is as solidly established as freedom of speech.
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” or something like that.
Just because militia is mentioned in part of the sentence preceding that statement doesn’t mean that only militias can have guns.
It’s like saying, “I need sugar, so I think I’ll go to the store.”
That doesn’t imply that sugar can only be gotten at a store, nor does it imply that you can only go to the store if you are getting sugar.
That’s your interpretation but SCOTUS has never definitively ruled that way. This is an old debate, and you may be right, but it’s not a matter of rock solid law.
No, you are correct. SCOTUS has done everything possible to avoid ruling definitively on this issue.
But federal appeals courts have always struck down total bans on guns in the hands of private individuals. Restrictions are usually allowed, but there must always be a way for law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain guns.
If the SCOTUS does rule, I think it will be as big a decision as Roe v. Wade, and will probably have the same effects. Most restrictions on gun ownership will be struck down.
And it will be hilarious, watching liberal and conservative groups each lobbying to have the other group’s individual rights revoked while theirs are upheld.
Zabal, I think you are thinking of the court of appeals, not SCOTUS. I don’t recall of any recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the second. We’re here to fight ignorance, not spread it.
Why would you assume that SCOTUS would rule in favor an individual interpretation?
I don’t support a total ban, and my argument vis-a-vis the 2nd is somewhat academic here. As I said, the assertion that the 2nd allows private citizens to own guns is only one interpretation. It’s not dispositive. It’s not a useful argument to say that the state can’t pass restrictions because it hasn’t been established that they can’t. Until SCOTUS actually makes a definitive ruling on what the 2nd Amendment really means it’s hard to have a meaningful discussion about it. I think that issues like CCW can be debated on other merits, but throwing the 2nd around doesn’t really shed any light because we don’t have a definitive interpretation.
Regardless of my somewhat satirical comments in this thread, i’m not tremendously anti-gun. I even go and fire them on my in-laws’ farm once in a while. The main thing I worry about with Minnesota’s new law is that idiots who don’t know how to use these weapons will start toting them around. I’m ok with responsible and knowledgeable gunowners carrying them around (although I don’t feel the need to do so myself). It’s the amateurs that scare me.
**Why would you assume that SCOTUS would rule in favor an individual interpretation?
**
Because six out of the nine justices are either conservative or fairly libertarian.
You would have thought that that composition would have upheld the virtual child porn ban as well. This court is not entirely predictable along party lines. O’Connor, for one, has not been as conservative as she was expected to be when Reagan appointed her.
Also, there’s no guarantee that this will be the court to rule on it. GWB will be out of office in Jan. '04 and who knows what the composition will be after Hillary’s been in there for a couple of terms? 
Show me one instance in which anyone “prove[d] causation” (as your original response put it) as to any human action being definitively “caused” by any particular policy or impetus, and I’ll admit that your quibble vitiates all the force of the cite I was able to find in 2 minutes.
However, given that your (original, original) comment was that
[quote]
I really [ed.: your emphasis] don’t think that there’s any empirical evidence to suggest **[ed.: my emphasis]**that would be criminals take conceald carry laws into account before they commit a crime
[quote]
,
I don’t know that my cite was that far off base as “some” (i.e., “any”) “empirical evidence” “suggesting” just that. YMMV.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Huerta88 *
**Show me one instance in which anyone “prove[d] causation” (as your original response put it) as to any human action being definitively “caused” by any particular policy or impetus, and I’ll admit that your quibble vitiates all the force of the cite I was able to find in 2 minutes.
However, given that your (original, original) comment was that
[quote]
I really [ed.: your emphasis] don’t think that there’s any empirical evidence to suggest **[ed.: my emphasis]**that would be criminals take conceald carry laws into account before they commit a crime
I agree that your cite is suggestive, just not dispositive.
And yes, playing off of my own original phrasing, you got me.
**You would have thought that that composition would have upheld the virtual child porn ban as well. This court is not entirely predictable along party lines. O’Connor, for one, has not been as conservative as she was expected to be when Reagan appointed her.
**
Actually, I predicted that one, believe it or not. Thomas tends to be libertarian, and he’s a crucial swing vote when conservative and libertarian principles collide.
He also likes the porn, from what I hear 
You dont have to be anti-gun to be scared of amateurs with guns. I’m scared of them too.
Let me explain how it works in my world, you get off your own lazy ass and do your own research.
Maybe that is what I ws thinking of.
Sorry if I came off a bit rash on this but it irks me when I people trash talking about carry laws like everyone that has a permit is some gung-ho Dirty Harry wanna-be.
I personally dont know any gun owner who thinks that way, and I have known a lot of gun owners and ccw holders.
Everyone I know who owns, or carries, hopes they will never ever have to use it.
Well, I already know that, Susanann-I’m talking about people who think background checks and the Brady Law are this massive infringment. To me, it’s just common sense.