# What would it take to overturn DC v. Heller? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720 "2016-08-23T05:41:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/181 "2016-08-28T23:11:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are confusing how often an issue comes up with how much scrutiny to give the issue when it does come up. Frankly, if a SCOTUS justice thought a part of the constitution was “harmful” (your words), and ruled accordingly, that justice should be removed from office. That judgement is up to the American people to make-- and to correct when they do. No, you’re confusing my disdain for lame attempts at “gotcha, hypocrite!” tactics with some kind of slippery-slope position that judicial review destroys freedom, or something. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/182 "2016-08-28T23:41:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No, you’re confusing my disdain for lame attempts at “gotcha, hypocrite!” tactics with some kind of slippery-slope position that judicial review destroys freedom, or something. I don’t think I’m confusing anything, other than what we are all confusing-- what this thread is supposed to be about. If you want to continue discussing constitutional interpretation in general, it would probably be best to open a thread dedicated to that topic. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2016, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/183 "2016-08-28T23:42:32Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It amazes me how the left can say in honest debate that the Constitution mandates same sex marriage and legal abortion, yet does not protect the right to keep and bear arms. And as was said earlier, this position does not require that we always and forever are ruled by 17th Century English law. There is an amendment process. For the record, I don’t believe the arguments in favor of or against same sex marriage and abortion are completely overlapping with those for the right to arms and self defense. They are sufficiently different that the comparison as a gotcha only works at a surface level. Same sex marriage is rooted in equal protection, and abortion is rooted in privacy - the right to arms and self defense are not those (though there are several equal protection causes of action with how firearm law is applied and constructed). I am firmly in favor of the right to abortion and the marriage equality. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is, say, the third amendment in need of as much scrutiny as the first or second? Is it hypocritical to.be less concerned about soldiers being unwelcome houseguests than, say, someone casually obtaining the means to mow down a kindergarten? If soldiers were forcibly quartering in my house, I’d be a whole hell of a lot more concerned about that than virtually any gun law. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/184 "2016-08-29T00:03:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So to be clear - you don’t think the issue is substantive, yet you are standing behind your false and incorrect claim? Can’t say I’m surprised. Your approach to smaller issues could be indicative of your approach to larger ones and if you’re unwilling to admit error and continue to make a claim that is obviously false I can’t see how it would be productive to get into more complex issues. I don’t know how I can explain it any more clearly than I already have, which I reiterate, including in bold the part that you didn’t quote: The central and substantive point of my argument is that whenever SCOTUS addressed the question of how Second Amendment rights related to the “militia” clause, the “militia” clause was always considered to be inextricably coupled to the right thereby described. \*\*I’m sure that you’re fully capable of recognizing that it is completely irrelevant to that argument whether one considers those rights to be inherent or granted. \*\* Instead, you chose an evasive tactic to focus on my use of the word “granted” instead of, perhaps, “secured”, which has nothing to do with my argument but does provide you an excuse to not address it. Secondly, if I was wrong to use the word “granted”, I see no reason not to admit it and it would not harm my case in the slightest, yet by your own admission such alleged wrongness is at best debatable and not a matter of fact. The only evidence you provided for it is the 1876 _Cruickshank_ ruling which, as has already been shown, was spectacularly wrong on many matters of law, and which moreover is completely irrelevant to both\* Presser v. Illinois\* and _United States v. Miller_ on which I based my case on how the 2nd Amendment has historically been judged inseparable from the militia clause. > [@Bone](#): > > Again - wrong. Heller could be overruled saying that the standard of “in common use” and “not dangerous and unusual” are too restrictive. Overruling Heller could take the form of eliminating the presumption of constitutionality for longstanding restrictions on the carry of firearms in sensitive places. In other words, your statement could be true, but it could be false. You assume that overruling Heller would be more restrictive, but it could be more permissive. You’re correct in this respect, as obviously I am making assumptions about how _Heller_ might be overruled. What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that those assumptions are based on extensive legal commentary from constitutional scholars and others, and the dissenting justices themselves, on why the _Heller_ majority ruling was deeply flawed, which leads to a highly plausible set of assumptions about how and why it might be overruled in the future. Whereas your “more permissive” scenario has no such analytical support – it is pure fantasy. > [@Bone](#): > > I’m well aware of your comparisons to ‘all other developed nations’ schtick. I’ll remind you again, in case you forgot. I don’t care one bit about the laws of other countries and whatever other countries choose to do is their own business. The US is sufficiently different with regard to firearms that comparisons to other countries are wholly unpersuasive. That’s some tightly wound circular logic there! That the US is “sufficiently different with regard to firearms” is precisely the problem! What you need to look at is whether the US is _ **intrinsically** _ different than other first-world nations. Your approach seems to be “I’ve looked at other first-world nations and how they’ve achieved low levels of gun violence, and I don’t like it – I’d rather have my guns and put up with gun violence”. Which is, I suppose, one kind of value judgment, but don’t try to pretend that it’s intrinsic, necessary, or even rational. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/185 "2016-08-29T00:11:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If soldiers were forcibly quartering in my house, I’d be a whole hell of a lot more concerned about that than virtually any gun law. Where I live I do not, alas, enjoy explicit constitutional protection from forcibly having to quarter soldiers and their horses in my house. Remarkably, despite that dastardly constitutional oversight, I have yet to be invaded by soldiers seeking accommodation. I do however enjoy the protection of strong gun control laws. On balance, I’d say it all seems to be working out. ---
**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:** [August 29, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/186 "2016-08-29T00:12:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Secondly, if I was wrong to use the word “granted”, I see no reason not to admit it and it would not harm my case in the slightest, yet by your own admission such alleged wrongness is at best debatable and not a matter of fact. So you actually don’t understand the difference. You made a claim about what SCOTUS has said, not what is actually true in an objective sense. Do you get that? SCOTUS can say things that we think are wrong, but they say them nonetheless. What they say is a matter of fact. You claimed they said something they did not. \*\*Do you see how those are different? \*\* As soon as you admit your error or retract your claim, I’d be happy to address the rest of your false statements. > [@](#): > > You’re correct in this respect, as obviously I am making assumptions about how _Heller_ might be overruled. So you can admit when you are wrong, good to know. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/187 "2016-08-29T00:41:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This borders on the absurd. Every state has laws against shooting people randomly so citizens are protected against this. There is no need for the Supreme Court to recognize this “right” Hardly “absurd”. Gun violence statistics – in which the US is a tragic outlier among the developed nations – say that citizens are poorly protected since they keep getting shot. Making laws against something is not necessarily sufficient if the conditions are ripe for it to readily occur. > [@UltraVires](#): > > It is only “intensely debated” because people not only want to do mental gymnastics to get around the plain words of the amendment, but to deny the pre-existing right. If the right was only meant to be for militia purposes, it would have been trivially easy to draft: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed.” > > They question then becomes why they didn’t make the individual right more clear. It is because at the time, the right of individuals to keep and carry arms was so obvious to anyone that it was not necessary. There’s so much convoluted logic there that it’s hard to know where to begin. You seem to assume that the justices and the numerous constitutional scholars who interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective right to form militias are all ignorant scoundrels reading it wrong. You provide an absurdly redundant rewording of the amendment showing how it must read if they “really meant” it to be linked to militias, whereas I just showed you an earlier draft where clearly it was always all about militias right from the start. Then you claim that the individual right wasn’t called out more clearly because “it’s so obvious”. Lots of rights in the Bill of Rights are “obvious”, like the right to free speech. The framers still saw the need to explicitly enumerate them. > [@UltraVires](#): > > There is a hell of a lot of opinion in there that many people disagree with. But for the purposes of argument, lets assume it is all true. That is why the Constitution can be amended. If it is so glaringly obvious that the Second is so outdated, then it should be easy to get 75% approval, no? It’s not an “opinion” that national security today is based on a modern military, and not on a bunch of guys grabbing rifles out of their root cellars because Redcoats are invading. Gun fatality numbers are not an “opinion”, they are statistics, and statistics can be compared with other similar countries. And no, it would not be easy to get a constitutional amendment despite these facts, not after three-quarters of a century of NRA propagandizing entrenching a gun culture and deeply held but deeply wrong beliefs that a plethora of guns somehow helps rather than undermines public safety. > [@UltraVires](#): > > More opinion. One person’s “evolved” standards are another’s oppression. In any event, the English are free to give and take away basic rights at the whim of any Parliament. We don’t do that here; we require supermajorities to take away basic rights, and your side does not have the numbers. Except that no one is advocating “taking away basic rights”. That is purely a rhetorical fiction. What _Heller_ did was create a brand new “right” that never existed before in previous interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Rolling back _Heller_ isn’t taking anything away. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Thinking certain provisions are “important” and others “less important (or even potentially harmful in their application)” and interpreting those provisions differently based upon one’s own person value system is exactly the sort of subjective analysis that conservatives believe that judges should not be making. > > When judges do that, they are little different that legislators. I agree with the last sentence. Except it’s patently obvious that this is just what’s been happening, and patently obvious that the Supreme Court is at least as divided and partisan as Congress itself, and along much the same lines. The egregious misreading of the 2nd Amendment in _Heller_, or the 1st Amendment in _Citizens United_, are stunning examples of that very fact, both being split decisions with a vigorous and eloquent dissent from the other side. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/188 "2016-08-29T01:10:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So you can admit when you are wrong, good to know. Yes, it is good to know. I’ve been wrong several times in GQ and readily admitted it. Would have been nice, however, if you had quoted the rest of what I said that provided, you know, context, in that they were assumptions but not arbitrary assumptions: What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that those assumptions are based on extensive legal commentary from constitutional scholars and others, and the dissenting justices themselves, on why the Heller majority ruling was deeply flawed, which leads to a highly plausible set of assumptions about how and why it might be overruled in the future. > [@Bone](#): > > So you actually don’t understand the difference. You made a claim about what SCOTUS has said, not what is actually true in an objective sense. Do you get that? SCOTUS can say things that we think are wrong, but they say them nonetheless. What they say is a matter of fact. You claimed they said something they did not. \*\*Do you see how those are different? \*\* > > As soon as you admit your error or retract your claim, I’d be happy to address the rest of your false statements. Are you trying to further a real argument or are you trying score points on a spectacularly irrelevant piece of digressionary minutiae? I understand the above difference just fine, thanks. What you apparently don’t understand, or find it convenient to pretend you don’t, is what argument I was actually making. The argument I’m making is crystal clear from my statement in post #12 and then clarifying further in post #15; putting the two key statements together, we get: One of the decisive aspects of _Heller_ was that, for the first time, the 2nd Amendment was ruled to be an individual right for individual purposes, something that many constitutional scholars believe has no historical justification and is just plain wrong … the term “individual right” has several interpretations, and until _Heller_, the only established ruling was that the Amendment granted an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes. **The phrase “the only established ruling” is very clearly supposed to be a reference to ruling(s) that addressed the above-stated question about individual rights versus collective rights to a militia**. I later corrected myself to say that “ruling” should have been plural, because there were two such rulings, _Presser v. Illinois_ and _United States v. Miller_, both of which I cited. Do get that? Are you able to comprehend that those are the only relevant SCOTUS rulings, and therefore the _ **only** _ SCOTUS rulings, that I was referring to? Are you able to comprehend that this is the only rational, non-insane interpretation of my statement? It was, and remains, inexplicable why you ever brought up the discreditable _Cruikshank_ case and what you imagined it could possibly add to the discussion, and why you continue to bicker about it. But suit yourself. I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/189 "2016-08-29T01:48:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you have links to the actual studies rather than the abstracts? I clicked through a few and found one that had the full text available, but the others did not. First of all I have to thank **Whack-a-Mole** for taking the time to compile that comprehensive set of links, it’s much appreciated. The full articles don’t seem to be that hard to find. I just went through the first five, and found the full papers for all five. Some like the first one need some navigation to get to the full article and others may need to be Googled separately. I don’t have time to go through all of them but as an example, here are direct links to full papers for the first five: [http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/fulltext](http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2813%2900444-0/fulltext) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44695809\_Homicide\_Suicide\_and\_Unintentional\_Firearm\_Fatality\_Comparing\_the\_United\_States\_With\_Other\_High-Income\_Countries\_2003](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44695809_Homicide_Suicide_and_Unintentional_Firearm_Fatality_Comparing_the_United_States_With_Other_High-Income_Countries_2003) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11379728\_Firearm\_availability\_and\_female\_homicide\_victimization\_rates\_among\_25\_populous\_high-income\_countries](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11379728_Firearm_availability_and_female_homicide_victimization_rates_among_25_populous_high-income_countries) > **[27-2-214.pdf](https://watermark.silverchair.com/27-2-214.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA0wwggNIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggM5MIIDNQIBADCCAy4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMpwLtohWxlwCaDyydAgEQgIIC_4QCLdrDyDlaICQN8hVvVlr6XtziHqek4TS9Pm3DXyTPbTwa73zWLJswklu121KM9DdBCqPeXN_LWHC0MyX5akEWD-wp0aNtwG8o74AUbMsYAMnAWj1bdJzTGYudJvPo8HKSq52sl5xmdT4OcTb-EknwMwDHeZ1IWvgJ1ivpiLNH50C0LHMD62n3uQrkThye7r_04cSt0oDHpaw1Q-QJMGB415VopUT6UUm5mFc7bF_eP2rHCPed06HpMACT_fWyJ_z-mJUn7GtpVi9M_JnSp79VPyxHwRv16i_yTiK7CtDOzeI_pB8lUyrHdVgCwcqHNPFP3BVyV4u1mI5Hil6nwh-LaZXCR8aCLZYQwV5WfDKqTHCSaNXJtt5M0ZPKlHMchDe3RcNnw1cuAUwwf_W1IhmhSLf8npy9oOsg3YJmPPVyH_2-WFvkINkUwttgE9WquWAz1DY3WRlywY01al6CuX08tAE_WqIKBKGxYe0EWvzwmWHq2pQR55VXxIQBt-b2JiOlzHeGHR6WR5Wsk1lJLHRhrqfe2CSR8Bc7SZFK2v9lEm_Hrv03B1JmKlf22PFjLVEWmgKOaXhdGwDQrCJCLXBPg-bCQ28XYrFR_hl9feqpLVWUb1MUk4yxxcpP0KuuhNBJ2CoRbcgdSn2CnvyRo7scCEH5H3jL-3y-j0iylYNNwRoiaS_zoYDyYzUhQxskNM4TJ9RXbHt-fn0hOKOZM5F7cm0Cn5EIzfd3HP647OpmSNyXB_azI4a8l0qKIVhBEqGdKQj9FSNsREekTBw-T1VR6m87b2UYVFcJDz8VrHw8f1MuVOP1MG-qoL9PZOdWFcH3YYWEz-S6SCcJ4OjUkHWDLhrQKQlBjwV3SNv6f5rlIsnIgC0eBUJm4t9jKGyk4S3eRye3DylZ-CuquYG4yHh1mJIu4SLZIy5qu3KwpVlRBtakH5pDVmsH_4ZcmMOuUOeh1vgu7p2sg7sPQ8xIi6ubyKXn3meFOYo1SIL7CqHFyvN6numwOIAWKr2NDWko)** > **[Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/)** > > Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between... ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/190 "2016-08-29T02:59:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Ah, now it’s “high income country”. It was First world, but of course there are quite a few nations with higher homicide rates, then it was “western” but again, so we make up a new category “high-income countries” which we cab define as whatever we want and put the cut-off whereever we want to the skew the results.:rolleyes: And once again you’ve got nothing. If there is something wrong with the methodology and/or conclusions then point it out rather than complain about word choice. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/191 "2016-08-29T03:05:30Z")
The most important reason why it’ll be hard to overturn the right to own a gun as a right of individual I believe is that it requires a state government to pass a law that blatantly violates that law. Sort of like its hard to overturn gay marriage or abortion because until a state actually passes and enforces a law which challenges those things. I can’t as a private citizen sue to remove a right from you and neither can the government without a law which takes away the right and an attorney general willing to enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/192 "2016-08-29T03:11:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > First of all I have to thank **Whack-a-Mole** for taking the time to compile that comprehensive set of links, it’s much appreciated. Thanks. To be fair another article on the web had done most of the footwork for those links. I’ll post the article if I can remember how I found it and can find it again if anyone cares. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/193 "2016-08-29T03:13:20Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > The most important reason why it’ll be hard to overturn the right to own a gun as a right of individual I believe is that it requires a state government to pass a law that blatantly violates that law. States do this sort of thing all the time on a variety of topics (recently abortion and election laws). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/194 "2016-08-29T03:42:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Thanks. To be fair another article on the web had done most of the footwork for those links. I’ll post the article if I can remember how I found it and can find it again if anyone cares. I should also mention that, as easy as it was to find the full papers for the first five links, I had much less success with the next five. IIRC, one was readily available, two looked like they were available free on request (but I didn’t complete the request process), and the other two seemed to be strictly paywalled. So judging from this total sample of ten, it looks like many of the papers are available in full but not all. The abstracts in fact provide adequate summaries for those seeking to understand the basics, except of course for those whose sole objective is to try to refute the findings. This seems to overlook the fact that the literature offers a massive amount of peer-reviewed literature with a chillingly consistent set of findings on gun hazards, of which this is barely scratching the surface. Gun advocates would have us believe that all such papers are wrong and all politically motivated, much as climate change deniers try to persuade their audience that virtually all climate change papers are wrong and politically motivated. I’ve seen the “refutations” offered by deniers in both fields, and said refutations tend to be consistently dishonest and often laughably inept – represented by mendacious charlatans like [John Lott](http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/). ---
**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:** [August 29, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/195 "2016-08-29T03:57:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Are you trying to further a real argument or are you trying score points on a spectacularly irrelevant piece of digressionary minutiae? I understand the above difference just fine, thanks. What you apparently don’t understand, or find it convenient to pretend you don’t, is what argument I was actually making. I think I’ve been very clear - I’m trying to help you understand and admit your error. Again, from the very beginning I’ve emphasized the idea about granting. Bold text, red text, etc. Yet you keep dodging that issue. It’s a factual matter and very easy to dispense with, but it is a threshold item. The reason it is that way is because if you make obviously false factual statements and yet refuse to acknowledge them, what hope is there you would be able to have a forthright dialogue? > [@](#): > > Do get that? Are you able to comprehend that those are the only relevant SCOTUS rulings, and therefore the _ **only** _ SCOTUS rulings, that I was referring to? Are you able to comprehend that this is the only rational, non-insane interpretation of my statement? Yes, I understand what you are saying. I also see that you avoid addressing the falseness of your statement about “granting”. SCOTUS has never held “that the Amendment \*\*granted \*\*an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes.” Never, not once. In this, you are spectacularly wrong. Why bother with the rest of your so called argument if you are so wrong on the basic fundamentals about what constitutes a fact? > [@](#): > > It was, and remains, inexplicable why you ever brought up the discreditable _Cruikshank_ case and what you imagined it could possibly add to the discussion, and why you continue to bicker about it. But suit yourself. I’m done. It was brought up to rebut and directly contradict your claim that SCOTUS has only ever held “that the Amendment \*\*granted \*\*an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes.” You made a statement in the absolute. Only ever. A single example is sufficient to prove absolutely that your claim was false. It is directly responsive to the term “grant”. A different person may have tried to salvage their false argument by saying something like, “Actually, the term “grant” wasn’t key to my argument, and the way I phrased it was incorrect. I’d like to restate my argument to …” and that would be done. But no, for some reason you just can’t bring yourself to do that. Keep dancing, this is amusing. But wait, you’re done right? ---
**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:** [August 29, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/196 "2016-08-29T04:32:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I saw one published peer review of that study which seems to be where you got all of your talking points. I have not seen a response from original authors. Hardly a resounding rejection from the scientific community but ok, let’s see if this was an outlier… So no addressing of the criticisms of that study you offered. We’ve disposed of it then? Let’s move on to the other studies, truly the gamot so I may have to take them in chunks. But before we do that, we have to identify your actual claim you are trying to support. I’m going to summarize, so correct me if I’ve misinterpreted. I’m drawing it from post # 140: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No, they are not effective. > … > So, if having a gun _increases_ your chances of being injured/dying rather than _improving_ your chances of survival then it is _by definition_ not an effective means of self defense. Essentially _‘Guns are not an effective means of self defense because they do more harm than good’_ Now that’s my paraphrase, so feel free to adjust or tweak it. Now onto the studies that you’ve linked to which the full studies are available. [Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths](http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2813%2900444-0/fulltext). This study compares different countries, and as surprising as bears shitting in the woods, countries with more guns have more firearm deaths! Of course, that’s completely uninteresting and not responsive at all to your claim. Like I said above, other countries are sufficiently different that comparisons to other countries regarding firearms are useless. But we can look further at what the study did. They used crime rate _as a nation_ as a proxy for the safety of a nation. Does that seem like a good method to you? The US has widely disparate laws regarding firearms, and vastly different rates of crime depending on area, yet the nation as a whole is grouped together, along with the overall firearm ownership rate. And know what is missing? No mention of defensive use of firearms. Again only considering costs and not benefits. So far, this study is unresponsive to your claim. If you think this is showing something, feel free to flesh it out. Next up, [Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44695809_Homicide_Suicide_and_Unintentional_Firearm_Fatality_Comparing_the_United_States_With_Other_High-Income_Countries_2003) More cherry picking countries, and comparisons to other countries. Yawn. This one is also a Hemenway study so there’s that. This study has no mention of defensive firearm use so again, it’s not at all relevant to the claim I think you’re making. The US has higher firearm deaths than other countries. Ok, that’s uncontroversial. If you think this is showing something, feel free to flesh it out. Next up, [Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates among 25 populous high-income countries](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11379728_Firearm_availability_and_female_homicide_victimization_rates_among_25_populous_high-income_countries) More cherry picking countries, and comparisons to other countries. Yawn again. The item that is most relevant from this one was the following: > [@](#): > > National random-digit-dial surveys conducted in 1996 and 1999 found that gun threats in the home against women by intimates were far more common than home self-defense gun uses by women. Ok, at least it gives passing mention of self defense. Let’s look at the citation for this claim: > [@](#): > > Azrael D, Hemenway D. “In the safety of your own home”: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:258-291.28. Hemenway D, Azrael D. Gun Use in the UnitedStates: Results of a National Survey. Report to theNational Institute of Justice. Washington, DC:US Department of Justice; 1997 Two studies by Hemenway again. I don’t have high hopes but I don’t have time right now to go further so I’ll have to pick it up again later. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/197 "2016-08-29T05:18:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s hypocritical to apply different methods of analysis to the two provisions, chosen to create desired outcomes, yes. Of course. You of all people should not misuse that word. Hypocrisy refers to claiming one rule for others and a different one for yourself. However, unlike **Bone** , I’ll simply say that you meant to say “double standard” or similar, and agree with you. Though I’m not sure if that is the situation at hand. Dude could be proposing the same system both times. I for one say that both are about reading more than the text, and that the implication of the Second Amendment is not about the individual rights. I’ll also point out that I see the right to abortion in the Fourth Amendment, though an implied right to privacy that prohibits the government from finding out that someone had one. Only then can you apply the Ninth, reserving the right to the people, and the Fourteenth which mentioned privileges and immunities and only then to the due process clause. But I would have preferred an Amendment, seeing how far you have to go to see all that. This makes it quite weak–easy toppled if any of those links gets broken. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/198 "2016-08-29T06:19:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes, I understand what you are saying. Thank the Lord or what gods exist, Zeus, Athena, and Apollo and all the others, for that one small blessing. The tiniest smidgeon of progress. > [@Bone](#): > > A different person may have tried to salvage their false argument by saying something like, "Actually, the term “grant” wasn’t key to my argument, … I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said that and tried to get you to acknowledge it – certainly [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19585504&postcount=148), and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19586928&postcount=154), and again [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19587264&postcount=162). To no avail. Because, apparently, you are such a stickler for absolute literal accuracy that the fact that a word like “secure” or “guarantee” could be substituted **and the entire essential argument remains exactly the same** is of no matter to you at all. OK, but before we proceed further, please explain a few things to me and the other readers. Please explain the following: 1. If all it would take is for me to acknowledge a word substitution that you just finished saying “wasn’t key to my argument at all” and then “that would be done” and we could cheerfully move on, please explain why you repeatedly, incessantly characterized it as [“how egregious of an error you made with your false claims”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19585790&postcount=151). Please explain how an essentially irrelevant word that doesn’t change the central argument at all is somehow “egregiously wrong” in the context of that argument. (Point #3 offers a clue, however!) 2. As an incredible stickler for perfect accuracy, please tell everyone why you stated the following, which is not merely inaccurate but totally wrong in light of the fact that I never made the statement you are refuting, as I already previously noted, and therefore your “refutation” is deceptive and irrelevant and attacks a non-existent strawman. Why was I allegedly “wrong” once again, [since I never made the statement you are refuting](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19586928&postcount=154). Will you acknowledge that your accusation was in error? … As to your interpretation of Miller - It is a fact that SCOTUS has said your interpretation is wrong. > [@](#): > > Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19578071&postcount=25](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19578071&postcount=25) 1. Please tell us all about this gem, too: This is wrong too. The court had not held nor did it hold that the 2nd amendment granted an individual right for militia purposes. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19577654&postcount=21](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19577654&postcount=21) That one is a real beauty and should be studied closely by those interested in the art of deceptive persuasion. What would one naturally conclude from a reading of it in the context of a conversation about individual vs collective militia 2nd Amendment rights? A reasonable person would of course conclude that the statement means that the Court never associated 2nd Amendment rights with militias. But of course they did, at least twice, in the cases I cited. But they used words like “guaranteed” instead of “granted” in affirming this critical point about the essential militia connection with 2nd Amendment rights. Let me put it this way. If you used this kind of obfuscation and verbal sleight-of-hand in public broadcast advertising, you’d end up in jail. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/199 "2016-08-29T07:28:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Some would like to see SCOTUS _expand_ the right of ordinary citizens and innocent children to not be shot by random gun-toting lunatics. That’s not a right, any more than you have a “right” not to be eaten by alligators while visiting Florida. ---
**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:** [August 29, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/200 "2016-08-29T13:32:05Z")
And here I thought you were done. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said that and tried to get you to acknowledge it – certainly [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19585504&postcount=148), and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19586928&postcount=154), and again [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19587264&postcount=162). To no avail. Because, apparently, you are such a stickler for absolute literal accuracy that the fact that a word like “secure” or “guarantee” could be substituted **and the entire essential argument remains exactly the same** is of no matter to you at all. The key is acknowledgement of the error. Keep in mind this was in GQ as well. You still can’t seem to bring yourself to do that. > [@](#): > > 1. If all it would take is for me to acknowledge a word substitution that you just finished saying “wasn’t key to my argument at all” and then “that would be done” and we could cheerfully move on, please explain why you repeatedly, incessantly characterized it as [“how egregious of an error you made with your false claims”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19585790&postcount=151). Did you notice the red text word “granted” there? I explained this explicitly in the post you are responding to. I’ll restate in case you didn’t understand: > [@Bone](#): > > I think I’ve been very clear - I’m trying to help you understand and admit your error. Again, from the very beginning I’ve emphasized the idea about granting. Bold text, red text, etc. Yet you keep dodging that issue. It’s a factual matter and very easy to dispense with, but **it is a threshold item**. The reason it is that way is because \*\*if you make obviously false factual statements and yet refuse to acknowledge them, what hope is there you would be able to have a forthright dialogue? \*\* I bolded the part that responds to your question - Is that clear now? > [@wolfpup](#): > > 1. As an incredible stickler for perfect accuracy, … You’ve written this question in a way that I can’t understand what you are asking. Can you rephrase it? I see one question mark but it’s not clear what the actual question is. > [@](#): > > 1. Please tell us all about this gem, too: > This is wrong too. The court had not held nor did it hold that the 2nd amendment granted an individual right for militia purposes. > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19577654&postcount=21](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19577654&postcount=21) This was my first response to your error. The entire paragraph (1 additional sentence): _This is wrong too. The court had not held nor did it hold that the 2nd amendment granted an individual right for militia purposes. Any SCOTUS that looked at the matter recognized that the 2nd amendment codifies a pre-existing right - it does not grant anything._ It’s clear I was referring to the word “grant”. Other posters in post # 24, 26, 27 and 48 understood this point easily. But in case you were unable to catch on, I made this statement in post #39: > [@Bone](#): > > Can you cite any SCOTUS ruling that held that the 2nd amendment **granted** an individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes? The key is granted. This is false. You seem to think this is not an important distinction, but it is, and your claim is false. See the bold text? That was in the original quote. The phrase “The key is granted”. Pretty clear, no? Well, to everyone else that isn’t you. Then a bit later we moved out of GQ and into GD where you continued digging with your false claim. I highlighted again in post #59, making the term “grant” in bold and red text. > [@wolfpup](#): > > But they used words like “guaranteed” instead of “granted” in affirming this critical point about the essential militia connection with 2nd Amendment rights. Let me put it this way. If you used this kind of obfuscation and verbal sleight-of-hand in public broadcast advertising, you’d end up in jail. You mean, SCOTUS didn’t ever only hold that the 2nd amendment granted something? Is this the closest you’ll get to an admission that you were wrong? Here again, you are trying to equivocate on the word “grant”. It is a critical difference in SCOTUS interpretation and I know you’d like to gloss over it but alas, no. So are you still clinging to the false idea that SCOTUS has only ever held the 2nd amendment granted something? About the whole jail thing, this gives great insight into your views on free speech and your opposition to Citizens United. Go Canada! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720.md?page=11)