# 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:** 9
**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, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/161 "2016-08-28T02:44:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then your amazement is an overreaction. Are all elements of the constitution of exactly equal utility, importance and relevance? If not, why are you amazed if some assigns priorities? It’s not a question of equal anything. It’s a question of rights explicitly in the constitution and rights that are not. If one can see rights that are not in the constitution, why is it so hard to see rights that actually are there? ---
**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 28, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/162 "2016-08-28T02:46:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So to clarify - are you retracting your claim about granting? That is what I identified as my objection to your false claim when this was in GQ. I want to be clear, that the idea of SCOTUS holding that the 2nd granted anything is false and wrong. Do you agree? You’ve so far refused to cite, tried to redirect, and above even say that I can remove the word “granted”, but you haven’t gone so far as to retract your claim or to say it was in error. My very first objection was about this point so I find it quite odd that you have taken this long to notice that. It’s pointless to proceed unless the factual items are resolved. Those factual items are what you keep getting wrong. a) Your whole objection over the word has absolutely no relevance to the argument being made. None whatsoever. Perhaps, before choosing to proceed with a further argument (or not) as you see fit, you might explain why you are so obsessed over this point and what possible relevance it has to the argument actually being argued! b) Even if it were relevant, how can my use of the term “granted” be wrong when it’s obviously debatable whether or not certain rights are granted or should be regarded as intrinsic? Cite: [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19578071&postcount=25). The unfortunate (for you) pertinent truism, stated by you: “The question of whether there exists inherent rights, or if rights are granted is debatable and not necessarily a matter of fact.” The fact that gun rights are not generally recognized as inherent or natural rights in the modern civilized world is affirmation of that. Unlike, for example, the broadly recognized rights of free speech and religion. ---
**Author:** ![Poto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ab992/32.png) [@Poto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poto)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/163 "2016-08-28T02:53:12Z")
Interesting. Two parallel discussions in the same thread and having the same points. With way more words in the other set (not mine). ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/164 "2016-08-28T03:04:59Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > And yet afaik nobody at the time or for decades afterwards tried to claim that the keeping and carrying of firearms was to be restricted entirely to militia duty. Even as infamous a SC decision as _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ offered a contemporary view of what were considered the rights of free men (by denying that Negros could be allowed the same): Dred Scott was not contemporary with the founding era. We actually have numerous extant documents which discuss the militia and all sorts of issues concerning arms. For instance, in 1833, the legislature of New York **[petitioned Congress](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=020/llsp020.db&recNum=249)** to make administrative changes to the militia system. Within their communication, they discussed their understanding of the right to bear arms and the relationship of that right to the militia: > [@](#): > > While the committee express this opinion [i.e. the requested changes to the system], they wish to be understood as advocating no change in the militia system which would have the effect of impairing its efficiency. They consider it as intimately connected with the maintenance of our internal tranquility, and with the preservation of that spirit of freedom on which the durability of our political institutions essentially depends. Every citizen is, from the nature of our social organization, a part of the public defence; and he is also, in the last resort, in common with his fellow-citizens, the safeguard of the liberties of all against the government itself. Thus it is that amendments to the Constitution of the United State have provided that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” **It seems indispensable to the accomplishment of the objects referred to that every citizen should be armed, and that he should be subjected for a course of years to a system of exercise and discipline.** The system should be limited in its application to such a period as will be sufficient to qualify those subjected to it for acting in concert and with efficiency on sudden emergencies until a more permanent force can be provided. [emphasis mine] Clearly, they seem to have understood a connection with the militia as well as a need for training and discipline provided by the state over the course of many years. ---
**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, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/165 "2016-08-28T03:10:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > a) Your whole objection over the word has absolutely no relevance to the argument being made. None whatsoever. The underlying facts and history regarding the current argument are relevant. That you think irrelevant whether or not a right is merely recognized and codified or granted is ridiculous. Of course it has relevance. An overruling of Heller could have fundamentally different outcomes based on how that question is addressed. > [@](#): > > b) Even if it were relevant, how can my use of the term “granted” be wrong when it’s obviously debatable whether or not certain rights are granted or should be regarded as intrinsic? Cite: [you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19578071&postcount=25). You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue it seems. The claim is not whether or not rights are inherent or granted. That’s not a factual question. The issue is that you claimed SCOTUS has only ever held that the 2nd grants a right. That has a factual answer. \*\*Do you understand the difference? \*\* SCOTUS could be right or wrong on any number of issues, all of which would be debateable. But it is a factual matter on what they have actually held, rightly or wrongly. You claimed that they held something that they did not. That’s why you’re wrong. You made an incorrect and false statement in General Questions. That is always grounds for correction. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/166 "2016-08-28T03:20:19Z")
I would further note that I never asserted the usage of firearms was meant to be confined only to the period when a person was actually on duty in the militia. I’ve merely asserted the right to bear arms was connected to the perceived need for the militia as it was envisioned during the founding period. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/167 "2016-08-28T04:32:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Even if the framers intended to limit gun possession to militia members acting in official capacity, they did not do so by the plain words of the amendment. It is simple English, independent and dependent clauses. > > Suppose a state passes a provision that says “Since reading is very important for education, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Would anyone argue that only people enrolled in school or only educational books were protected? Even if it was a drafting error, it cannot be denied what is stated in the independent clause. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of english grammar. An independent clause is one which could stand alone as a **syntactically** complete sentence. This is merely a theoretical exercise which has nothing to do with semantics, however. You can’t simply sever a dependent clause and claim it has no meaning. Eighteenth century grammarians such as Noah Webster, William Ward and Robert Lowth all addressed the particular format in which the 2nd Amendment is written. It’s called the _case absolute_ and it’s clear from 18th century grammars that the independent clause is contingent upon the conditions stated within the dependent clause. For instance, we have examples from **[Ward’s 1767 grammar](https://archive.org/details/agrammarenglish00wardgoog)** which show equivalent forms of this construction clearly demonstrating this (pg. 145 - 146): > [@](#): > > _[…] **COOL OF THE EVENING BEING A CIRCUM[STAN]CE**, with which holy Writ introduces this great Scene; it is poetically described by our Author._ Addis. Spect. No. 357. > **i.e. _Whereas_, or _because_ the cool of the evening is** , &c. > [@](#): > > **I BEING IN THE WAY** , _the Lord led me to the House of my Master’s Brethren._ Old Test. **i.e. _whilst I was_ in the way** , &c. > [@](#): > > _If a Man borrow ought of his Neighbor, and it be hurt or die,_ **THE OWNER THEREOF NOT BEING WITH IT** \*, he shall surely make it good.\* Old Test. > **i.e. _if_ or _supposing_ that the Owner thereof _be_ not with it.** [I added the red highlights to show the passages being compared but tried to reproduce the formatting from the book otherwise] Similar explanations and examples can be found in other contemporary grammars as well. While the case absolute rarely appears in common usage today, it was once quite common and is part of the rules of grammar our Founders would have learned. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/168 "2016-08-28T04:40:56Z")
And using the 2nd amendment itself: > [@](#): > > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Per grammars from the latter 18th century, this would be semantically equivalent: > [@](#): > > **While** a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ---
**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 28, 2016, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/169 "2016-08-28T07:28:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue it seems. The claim is not whether or not rights are inherent or granted. That’s not a factual question. The issue is that you claimed SCOTUS has only ever held that the 2nd grants a right. That has a factual answer. \*\*Do you understand the difference? \*\* I very well understand the _ **bogus** _ issue you’re trying to create. 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. Your line of argument appears to be a desperate diversionary tactic, and I note that you’ve never answered my challenge (as I answered yours): cite any Supreme Court case prior to _Heller_ when the Court ever made the extraordinary claim that the “militia” clause was irrelevant or, as Scalia so boldly thought it, merely prefatory.\* – - And lest I be the victim of more nitpickery, the exact words, in part, were “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home … The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.” This was an extraordinary judgment, which many scholars consider completely fabricated from ideological whole cloth and entirely unsupportable in history, in fact, and in precedent. > [@Bone](#): > > The underlying facts and history regarding the current argument are relevant. That you think irrelevant whether or not a right is merely recognized and codified or granted is ridiculous. Of course it has relevance. An overruling of Heller could have fundamentally different outcomes based on how that question is addressed. That’s a completely different argument, and it’s bogus as well. Overruling _Heller_ would in practical terms revert to the former _status quo_ where federal, state, and local governments could pass any common-sense gun laws that they deemed necessary for public safety. Need I remind you for about the ten millionth time that nations around the world that have no equivalent of the Second Amendment allow people to own guns and that many of their citizens indeed do, but that the restrictions are effective in enforcing safe and responsible gun availability, handling, and storage, and enormously cutting down on gun deaths and injuries. ---
**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 28, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/170 "2016-08-28T14:01:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Okay - that is clear, thanks. It’s wrong of course, but at least I understand what you are saying. On its face it makes no sense. If firearms were not effective methods of self defense, we would expect our police force, those that are often faced with a need to defend themselves or others not to carry firearms. Yet they do overwhelmingly in this country. You should tell them that their sidearms are not effective! British police manage just fine without guns. Besides, police are not comparable to average citizens. The police use their weapons in a much more offensive manner than the defensive use citizens do (e.g. citizens do not enter a situation guns drawn unless they are a criminal intending to do harm). Further, people engage with police differently. Most people will not get out of their car to go yell at a cop at a stop light or start a fight with one in a bar. Apples and oranges. > [@](#): > > Maybe your error stems from the fact that you think this isn’t hard to understand, so you oversimplify the analysis and rely on poorly constructed studies to confirm your already held view. In reality, when making the assertion that the cost is higher than the benefit, it would be critical to analyze both components, and gain confidence over each. When putting out studies like this that do nothing do analyze the benefits, it’s shortsighted to claim anything over the effectiveness, or cost/benefit. > > I had forgotten that I had read this study when it came out and it was easily disposed of as flawed junk. 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… It would be interesting if the most powerful lobby group in the US lobbied congress to study gun violence. Surely if guns are such a great means of self defense the studies would show that and put this to bed. But they don’t, do they? I wonder why? Here’s a guess: - The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. [Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955) - The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. [The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454) - Among high-income countries, where firearms are more available, more women are homicide victims. [Women in the United States are at higher risk of homicide victimization than are women in any other high-income country.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11991417) - "The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are [17 times more likely](http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf) to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations. Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from [significantly](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834986) higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A [study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15616955) focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent [meta-analysis](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426) revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much [more likely to be lethal](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1588718) in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. [Murder-suicides](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20933346) are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun. Crucially, these deaths are not offset by defensive gun use. As one [study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182) found, for every time a gun is used legally in self-defense at home, there are “four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” A [study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15066882) of adolescents in California found that there were 13 times as many threatening as self-defensive uses of guns. Of the defensive encounters, many arose in confrontations that became hostile because of the presence of a firearm." [SOURCE](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html) (there is more there than the parts I quoted) - [We found that state-level gun ownership as measured by the new proxy, is significantly associated with firearm and total homicides but not with non-firearm homicides.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24740937) - The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. [Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975) - [A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1661390) As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association. - [Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426) - A gun in the home can be used against family members or intruders and can be used not only to kill and wound, but to intimidate and frighten. [This small study provides some evidence that guns may be used at least as often by family members to frighten intimates as to thwart crime, and that other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619696) - [Homicides resulting from arguments declined by nearly half from 10,300 homicides in 1980 to 4,696 homicides in 2008, but as of 2008 remained the most frequently cited circumstance of the known circumstances](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) – in homicides resulting from arguments remained relatively stable from 2000 through 2008; about 60% of homicides resulting from arguments involved guns during this period. - [Our findings challenge the argument that gun ownership deters violent crime, in particular, homicides.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25121817) So we repeatedly keep seeing that owning a gun is associated with far more bad outcomes than good ones. The NRA often says we need more guns to effectively combat crime but the US already has plenty of guns in the hands of its citizens. Surely the benefits of defensive gun use should be appearing in the data yet form some reason we don’t. I wonder why? But I am sure to you all those studies are seriously deficient in one manner or another. ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/171 "2016-08-28T14:31:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I very well understand the _ **bogus** _ issue you’re trying to create. 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. 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. > [@](#): > > Your line of argument appears to be a desperate diversionary tactic, and I note that you’ve never answered my challenge (as I answered yours): cite any Supreme Court case prior to _Heller_ when the Court ever made the extraordinary claim that the “militia” clause was irrelevant or, as Scalia so boldly thought it, merely prefatory.\* Again - wrong. I did answer your challenge, though in a way that seems unsatisfactory to you. I’ll link it for you in case you missed it: > [@Bone](#): > > You keep asking for a cite for something I did not claim. None will be forthcoming because that’s not how cite requests work. That was in post #59. I also addressed it in post #47. > [@](#): > > That’s a completely different argument, and it’s bogus as well. Overruling Heller would in practical terms revert to the former status quo where federal, state, and local governments could pass any common-sense gun laws that they deemed necessary for public safety. 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. > [@](#): > > Need I remind you for about the ten millionth time that nations around the world that have no equivalent of the Second Amendment allow people to own guns and that many of their citizens indeed do, but that the restrictions are effective in enforcing safe and responsible gun availability, handling, and storage, and enormously cutting down on gun deaths and injuries. 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. ---
**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, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/172 "2016-08-28T14:52:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But I am sure to you all those studies are seriously deficient in one manner or another. 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. ---
**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 28, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/173 "2016-08-28T15:19:36Z")
> [@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. I am unsure how to access the complete, published studies. Perhaps some other poster here would know. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/174 "2016-08-28T19:36:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. [The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454) > > - Among high-income countries, where firearms are more available, more women are homicide victims. [Women in the United States are at higher risk of homicide victimization than are women in any other high-income country.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11991417) > . 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: ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/175 "2016-08-28T19:37:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s not a question of equal anything. It’s a question of rights explicitly in the constitution and rights that are not. If one can see rights that are not in the constitution, why is it so hard to see rights that actually are there? That’s not the question - the question is why are some posters are playing such a pathetic “gotcha, hypocrite!” game. So some people believe that some parts of the constitution are important and should be interpreted broadly, while others parts are less important (or even potentially harmful in their application) and should be interpreted narrowly. It’s unclear to me why anyone would be “amazed” or even surprised by this, if they thought about it for a few honest seconds. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/176 "2016-08-28T20:05:32Z")
> [@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. 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” > [@wolfpup](#): > > If it was “simple” it wouldn’t have been so intensely debated for the last hundred years or so. Furthermore, earlier drafts of the Second Amendment very clearly confirm the militia connection – for example: > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. > [Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Earlier_proposals_and_drafts_of_the_Amendment) 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. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Let’s examine that analogy, making adjustments for the actual facts surrounding the actual Amendment. The first adjustment would be how we should treat books if the central justification – education – was today a ridiculously outdated anachronism, the way that informal militias are to national security. The second adjustment is how we should treat books if, not only was the justification a ridiculous anachronism, but the books themselves turned out to be so physically dangerous that they killed an average of 86 Americans every single day, and that studies of the epidemiology of book violence confirmed that they caused far more problems than they solved. What then? 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? > [@wolfpup](#): > > New flash: the English themselves evolved from this outdated anachronism a long time ago, and have long abandoned any pretext of such “rights”, and today have some of the most restrictive gun laws anywhere. Americans who pat themselves on the back for being more freedom-loving and enlightened are also being shot in record numbers. 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. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Another news flash: the Roberts court that affirmed the right of same sex marriage wasn’t “the left”. > > Know what never ceases to amaze me? Conservatives. Four conservatives disagreed. Four liberals and the newest liberal Kennedy wrote that opinion. [QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] That’s not the question - the question is why are some posters are playing such a pathetic “gotcha, hypocrite!” game. So some people believe that some parts of the constitution are important and should be interpreted broadly, while others parts are less important (or even potentially harmful in their application) and should be interpreted narrowly. It’s unclear to me why anyone would be “amazed” or even surprised by this, if they thought about it for a few honest seconds. [/QUOTE] 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. A judge is in favor of same sex marriage so he strains and twists the Constitution to find that “right” there when all of the best jurists from 1789-2003 missed it. A judge is against carrying handguns so he strains and twists direct words in the Constitution out of existence so that his own policy preference regarding guns can become law. That sort of stuff is untenable in a democracy _no matter how positive or negative same sex marriage or carrying guns objectively are._ We become no longer a government of laws, but of men. If we have truly “evolved” to where limiting marriage to opposite sex couples or carrying handguns in public is so archaic as it needs to be eliminated, then that evolution should show it at least 75% of states, no? If not, then maybe we have not so evolved? ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/177 "2016-08-28T21:21:19Z")
> [@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. Then conservatives are even sillier than I’d thought. Until the invention of the ConstitutionBot 5000, there’s no alternative to.judges performing subjective analyses. But even putting that aside, can you honestly claim that all constitutional provisions are equally important, or should robotically be treated as such? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/178 "2016-08-28T21:44:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then conservatives are even sillier than I’d thought. Until the invention of the ConstitutionBot 5000, there’s no alternative to.judges performing subjective analyses. > > But even putting that aside, can you honestly claim that all constitutional provisions are equally important, or should robotically be treated as such? 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? It’s hypocritical to apply different methods of analysis to the two provisions, chosen to create desired outcomes, yes. Of course. ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/179 "2016-08-28T22:14:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But even putting that aside, can you honestly claim that all constitutional provisions are equally important, or should robotically be treated as such? 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? 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. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720/180 "2016-08-28T23:09:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s hypocritical to apply different methods of analysis to the two provisions, chosen to create desired outcomes, yes. Of course. What’s so different about the methods? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-overturn-dc-v-heller/763720.md?page=10)