# The War on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101 "2013-09-17T22:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/281 "2013-09-24T17:32:35Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You posted in support of [HurricaneDitka’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16691825#post16691825) assertion that gun support is shallow or non-existent in this country. I was simply opining that the article mentioned did not support this supposition. I’m curious what sort of evidence would convince you that this is the case? I’ve got some more, if that helps: [ul] [li][Slate: Why Obama Couldn’t Turn 90 Percent Into 60 Votes](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/04/barack_obama_s_gun_bill_failure_no_president_could_have_passed_gun_control.html) = “… polling support for background checks does not necessarily translate into political support for them.”[/li][li][USA Today: Democrats: Still not enough support for gun bills](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/gun-legislation-congress/2827909/) = " “Public opinion apparently does not manifest itself at the polls,” [Minority Whip Steny] Hoyer [D-MD] said. "[/li][li][CBS: Two Colo. lawmakers recalled over gun control support](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602365/two-colo-lawmakers-recalled-over-gun-control-support/) = “Voters ousted two Colorado Democratic lawmakers Tuesday in the state’s first ever legislative recall, launched over their support for stricter gun laws after last year’s mass shootings.”[/li][li][HuffPost: Gun Control: Democrats Face Heat From Pro-Gun Voters](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/09/gun-control-democrats_n_2844277.html)[/li][li][HuffPost: Gun Control Polls Find Support Sliding For Harsher Laws](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/21/gun-control-polls_n_3963958.html)[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/282 "2013-09-24T18:23:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m curious what sort of evidence would convince you that this is the case? I’ve got some more, if that helps: :dubious: I was stating that the one particular article referencing which topics people are rating as highest priority isn’t going to prove your original statement true or false. I don’t see what opinion that has that will change by your links. Your link list does prove, however, my assertion that the elected officials are out of touch with their electorates. 🙂 A further assertion: Polls _suck_. They are rarely a large sample size, and they tend to be influenced by how they are worded, what method of response they are trying (phone calls versus internet polls), and where the respondents are (fox news vs CNN; downtown New York versus Wichita). I don’t believe one should be trying to make a point with polls as they aren’t as useful as people like to pretend they are. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/283 "2013-09-24T19:38:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IIRC, the discussion of pools in the past was related to the overblown hoplophobic perception of the dangers of owning a gun with kids in the house. You got the Word of the Day calendar from _Guns and Ammo_ too? It apparently just came out, seeing as how so many of you are using that silly invented word as if it gives your position credibility. Hint: It doesn’t mean \*quite \*what you wish it did. 😃 For reality’s sake, [here’s the toll for just this week](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1239006/-GunFAIL-XXXVI?detail=hide): > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, the standout stats of the week fell disproportionately on the kids. Twelve were accidentally shot this week, including four three-year-olds, three five-year-olds, and kids aged eight, 10, 11, 14 and 16. In addition, one college student was accidentally shot by another (who was, of course, just trying to make his gun “safe” at the time), and another found herself the uninjured victim of a home invasion shooting (of which there were a total of six). Ten guns were found in schools this week as well, in Kansas City, MO; Clarksburg, WV; Shreveport, LA; Chattanooga, TN; Knoxville, TN; Mobile, AL; Nashville, NC; Paramus, NJ; Providence, RI, and; Hawthorne, FL. That’s a rough week. How many dead kids would it take not to be “overblown”? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Nobody tries to ban cars the way they try to ban guns based on this “right to be free from mortal danger” that you made up. No, and you fucking well understand why, and no, it isn’t made up. Scroll up. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > How many defensive gun uses are there every year? Are you under the impression that if you keep asking the question, it will make the fact that it’s already been rubbed into your face multiple times go away? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > And how many defensive gun uses are there every year? Apparently so. Pity. 😛 > [@](#): > > When you take these absolute positions you invite the reductio and the absurdium. Think about that point just a little more, will you? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/284 "2013-09-24T20:08:00Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Your link list does prove, however, my assertion that the elected officials are out of touch with their electorates. 🙂 Which politicians are you talking about? Max Baucus (along with a number of other Senate Democrats) is in touch enough to know he’s got nothing to gain and a lot to lose by voting for gun control. OTOH, Morse and Giron were rather out of touch with their electorates. > [@Farin](#): > > A further assertion: Polls _suck_. They are rarely a large sample size, and they tend to be influenced by how they are worded, what method of response they are trying (phone calls versus internet polls), and where the respondents are (fox news vs CNN; downtown New York versus Wichita). I don’t believe one should be trying to make a point with polls as they aren’t as useful as people like to pretend they are. I agree. For example, the NRA finds poll results that their members overwhelmingly oppose the latest gun control efforts while Bloomberg crafts polls so that he can claim that NRA members overwhelmingly support gun control. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/285 "2013-09-24T20:40:12Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] How many dead kids would it take not to be “overblown”? [/QUOTE] How many kids died in non-gun related accidents at that same time? WAG…more than 12. Probably by at least an order of magnitude. Perhaps 2. It’s called ‘perspective’…you should try and get some. Also, try to use less smiley faces. There are several 12 step programs you could put yourself on to try and ween yourself off of them if you want to check it out. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/286 "2013-09-24T21:49:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > For reality’s sake, [here’s the toll for just this week](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1239006/-GunFAIL-XXXVI?detail=hide):How many dead kids would it take not to be “overblown”? :rolleyes: Many many more than die from pools considering the relative hysteria surrounding the two. > [@](#): > > No, and you fucking well understand why, and no, it isn’t made up. Scroll up. :rolleyes: Of course its made up, as a matter of fact you’re the one that made it up and we all saw you do it. I googled “right to be free from mortal danger” and apparently you have identified a right that google doesn’t even know exists. YOU should totally tell google to fix that. When you start your response with seomthing along the lines of “No you’re wrong and you already know why” you are basically saying you Elvis have no clue why you believe what you do, but you believe it without reservation. > [@](#): > > Are you under the impression that if you keep asking the question, it will make the fact that it’s already been rubbed into your face multiple times go away? :rolleyes: Could you please do me the honor of rubbing it in my face just one more time because I’ve asked Hentor and he says he has no idea, he just knows that all the published studies are wrong in this area because he can pick some nits. > [@](#): > > Think about that point just a little more, will you? I would tell you the same thing but the irrational stuff you say only helps my arguments so I have no desire or incentive try and stop you. Unlike you Blaylock makes a lot of good points (aside form the whole second amendment is not subject to interpretation stchick). You just undermine the credibility of the entire gun grabber side of the argument, you are picking up were Pierce Morgan left off. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/287 "2013-09-24T21:49:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > How many kids died in non-gun related accidents at that same time? WAG…more than 12. Probably by at least an order of magnitude. Perhaps 2. It’s called ‘perspective’…you should try and get some. OK, share yours with us. How many preventable deaths of children are acceptable to those of you with “perspective”? **Damuri** , you really need to step back a moment and consider the effect your method of disputation has upon both your personal credibility and that of the position you’re desperately trying to uphold. You’re causing both a fair amount of damage with your endless use of invective and JAQ’ing instead of facts and reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/288 "2013-09-24T22:33:38Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] OK, share yours with us. How many preventable deaths of children are acceptable to those of you with “perspective”? [/QUOTE] As a society we aim to prevent as many deaths as possible while giving acceptable freedom to people to actually live their lives and take risks. Sadly, this means that we can’t wrap the entire population in bubble wrap and prevent all deaths, only attempt to mitigate them to the greatest extent possible while allowing those freedoms. From a probability perspective, guns are well down on the list of things that can kill children by accident or are otherwise ‘preventable’, which sort of tells the tale on your fantasy about a ‘right’ to safety (or from mortal peril or whatever). The ‘perspective’, which obviously you lack, is the ability to judge actual risk and determine relative danger coupled with allowing the maximum freedom within those constraints. As a SOCIETY, we collectively determine what is or isn’t ‘acceptable’ wrt ‘preventable deaths’. For instance, we COULD limit the speed of automobiles to 10 miles per hour (or 1 or half or some other arbitrary number) and mandate the installation of much much higher levels of safety equipment in all cars, lowering (by a rather larger amount than deaths due to firearms) the number of ‘preventable deaths’ per year. We COULD ban the use of any and all intoxicants, which would also cut down on more ‘preventable deaths’ than deaths due to firearms per year. And so on. As a society, however, such draconian measures have been deemed to be intolerable, thus we collectively determine what is or isn’t ‘acceptable’. Seems simple enough to me. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/289 "2013-09-24T22:57:14Z")
Nah, you just love it when little children die, you baby-murdering gun owner! :rolleyes: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/290 "2013-09-24T23:22:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I note still no response to this: > > > [@Bone](#): > > > > You’ve failed to cite what authority grants or recognizes your fictitious right to not be placed in mortal danger, and how Lumpy’s lawfully carried firearm violates this right. Feel free to try again. > > > > > [@Bone](#): > > > > > > When asked for a cite, you say to go back and read. I thought you said no ducking? Protip: smiley faces aren’t a cite. Maybe you’re confused. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, and you fucking well understand why, and no, it isn’t made up. Scroll up. :rolleyes: Still no cite to your ridiculous assertion? Keep on flailing. And I thought it was you who insisted on the whole “no ducking” thing. You may want to revisit that. Add this to the list of things that you’re ducking: > [@Bone](#): > > > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > > That your own cite disagrees with you. > > What assertion have I made that is contradicted by Heller? I challenge you to find one. I must say, out of 7 lines of text from post #283, 5 of them ended with a smiley face. How very emotive. Too bad those aren’t the cites your grasping for. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/291 "2013-09-25T03:34:00Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > First off, thanks for taking the time to explain your position. At least I have a better idea of where you’re coming from now. > > I don’t blame you for having great respect for the Constitution. I’m not even American and I respect it. I can thank the success of the American Experiment and its influence on the rest of the Western world for much of the quality of life I have today. For all that, though, the Constitution isn’t perfect (otherwise it wouldn’t have needed amending) and I think it’s a mistake to treat it so, especially more than two hundred years later. > · > · > · > As inexpert as I am about the Constitution;), I do know that it didn’t spring whole from a burning bush. It was cobbled together piecemeal through messy negotiation and compromise by real people with strong differences of opinion. And the Bill of Rights was a last-minute act of appeasement, not a decree from above. However perfect or imperfect it may be, the Constitution remains the highest law of the land. We have a government, that in its arrogance and corruption, feels free to disregard it in order to pursue policies which blatantly violate it; and a large part of our population that is ignorant and apathetic enough to allow this to happen. If one disagrees with the Constitution, if one wants policies to be put into place which are not consistent with the Constitution as it currently stands, then there is a process, defined in the Constitution itself, to make whatever changes are deemed necessary in order to allow previously-unconstitutional policies to be legitimately put into effect. By wise design, this procedure is non-trivial. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > In that light, your defence of it comes across, frankly, as rigid and fanatical. But aside from that, what I really don’t get is the visceral hate for the gun control crowd. It’s one thing to disagree with them, but characterizing them repeatedly as liars and cheaters, and everything they do as corrupt and deceptive, hints at a deeper complaint than just constitutional matters. Did they drown your puppy or something? Wherever that hate comes from, it sure shuts the door on any reasonable conversation. I very rightfully hate those who will disregard the highest law of my land, in order to strip from me and my countrymen the rights which our Constitution explicitly affirms. Why shouldn’t I hate this? I further hate that those who wish to pursue these policies do so by putting forth what they know damn well to be outright lies; and that—knowing that they could never muster enough public support to put their policies in place through the legitimate process of amending the Constitution—they seek to do so through entirely corrupt and illegitimate means. If you have a soft spot in your heart for tyranny and corruption and lies, then that’s your business. I have no tolerance for it, and I see no reason why I should. My ancestors fought and shed blood, to protect themselves and their posterity from exactly the sort of tyranny and corruption that the gun control crowd now seeks to impose on us. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/292 "2013-09-25T03:38:51Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Once you get over the shock of this discovery you will be able to see for yourself that “the rest” contains a provision whereby the Supreme Court gets to decide questions of constitutionality. The actual Constitution itself actually says that whatever the Supremes say is in fact and in law _exactly what the Constitution **IS** _ – full stop. So the Constitution, despite your protestations to the contrary, is subject to interpretation by that branch of “the government” (your words) called the Supreme Court. No, it most certainly does not say that. And the courts have no power to rule that “shall not be infringed” means anything other than “shall not be infringed.” The Constitution never gave the courts this power. This is a power that the courts illegally seized on their own, in violation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen, and it has. _“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”_ — Thomas Jefferson ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/293 "2013-09-25T03:44:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The supreme court’s authority as the final arbiter of what the cosntitution means was established in 1803 in Marbury v Madison. Not in the Constitution itself. By the court claiming this power for itself. Just as Jefferson warned could happen. _“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”_ — Thomas Jefferson ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/294 "2013-09-25T03:45:59Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > Not in the Constitution itself. By the court claiming this power for itself. Just as Jefferson warned could happen. > > _“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”_ — Thomas Jefferson But, how **else** could questions of constitutional interpretation be decided?! It’s a legal document, and only the courts can rule on it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/295 "2013-09-25T03:50:05Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > No, it most certainly does not say that. > > And the courts have no power to rule that “shall not be infringed” means anything other than “shall not be infringed.” :dubious: But **whose** right that might be is open to a great many interpretations. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=703091). Consisting of two (or maybe even three, depending on whether it has one or two commas) clauses with no very clear relationship to each other, it is really the most **ambiguous** element in the Constitution. **You** seem to think it is the **least** ambiguous element in the Constitution, but that is pure-D bullshit. Debate and litigation over what the 2nd Amendment means, including such basic questions as whether it embodies a collective or individual right, [goes back to the 1820s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Jacksonian_era). In fact, even “shall not be infringed” is also open to a great many interpretations, as we often see with First Amendment litigation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/296 "2013-09-25T03:56:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In fact, even “shall not be infringed” is also open to a great many interpretations, as we often see with First Amendment litigation. That is to say, you can’t lawfully and falsely shout “Theater!” in a crowded firehouse! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/297 "2013-09-25T04:04:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: But **whose** right that might be is open to a great many interpretations. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=703091). [See here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16695711&postcount=59) There may be many interpretations, but there is only one interpretation that matters, and that is the one promulgated by SCOTUS. Their interpretation is not in any way ambiguous. Not recognizing or denying what was clearly laid out in Heller is willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/298 "2013-09-25T15:10:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > OK, share yours with us. How many preventable deaths of children are acceptable to those of you with “perspective”? > > **Damuri** , you really need to step back a moment and consider the effect your method of disputation has upon both your personal credibility and that of the position you’re desperately trying to uphold. You’re causing both a fair amount of damage with your endless use of invective and JAQ’ing instead of facts and reasoning. HAHAHA ROFLMAO!! Are you seriously suggesting that ANYBODY should be taking advice about credibility from YOU?!??!? LOLOLOLOL. Pffft!!! > [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > Not in the Constitution itself. By the court claiming this power for itself. Just as Jefferson warned could happen. > > _“You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”_ — Thomas Jefferson You may not be aware of this but you are clipping the quote out of context. Here is the full quote: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” You see how that last sentence puts a different gloss on things? The judiciary has neither the power of the sword nor the purse. They cannot enforce their own opinons and rely on the cooperation of the other two branches to get anything done. In fact, they are virtually powerless to do anything other than give their opinion. If you read the full letter, it is even clearer that he was not objecting to judicial review. here is a link: [http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-judges-as-the-ultimate-arbiters-of-all-constitutional-questions-would-place-us-under-the-despotism-of-an-oligarchy](http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-judges-as-the-ultimate-arbiters-of-all-constitutional-questions-would-place-us-under-the-despotism-of-an-oligarchy) > [@Bone](#): > > [See here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16695711&postcount=59) There may be many interpretations, but there is only one interpretation that matters, and that is the one promulgated by SCOTUS. Their interpretation is not in any way ambiguous. Not recognizing or denying what was clearly laid out in Heller is willful ignorance. I think that Brainglutton is arguing against the notion that the only reasonable reading of the second amenment leads to the conclusion that you can’t regulate guns in any way shape or form. Heller explicitly condones gun reulations like licensing and registration requirements in dicta. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/299 "2013-09-25T15:29:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think that Brainglutton is arguing against the notion that the only reasonable reading of the second amenment leads to the conclusion that you can’t regulate guns in any way shape or form. I doubt that is what \*\*BG \*\*is responding to. He explicitly calls into question who’s right is protected by the “shall not be infringed” phrase. He continues in the same paragraph to bring up the “collective rights” idea. For someone who is unfamiliar with the issues around the 2nd amendment I’d give a pass - but in this case it certainly seems like willful ignorance. If my interpretation of **BG’s** response is wrong, I welcome clarification from **BG**. > [@](#): > > Heller explicitly condones gun reulations like licensing and registration requirements in dicta. No that’s not a correct reading. The opinion states: > [@](#): > > **The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt** on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (my bold) The opinion does not cast doubt on those restrictions. It only condones them to the extent that Heller was not concerned with any of those things so the opinion is effectively silent on them. It is not an endorsement of those restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/300 "2013-09-25T17:18:09Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > I very rightfully hate those… > . > Why shouldn’t I hate this? > . > I further hate that those… > . > I have no tolerance for it… Aw c’mon, put on a happy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=16)