If you read the opinion, it is extremely narrow in its application. The Supreme Court is reluctant to make broad laws and under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has become even more narrow. In lay man terms - the Supreme Court doesnt like the case and didnt want to say to much and having to be bound by it in the future.
This ruling is not a surprise at all, but in the same breath, it is far short of the victory gun supports hoped for and are trying to save face by declaring victory now.
Stemming from my rather lengthy post in the "Supreme Court Death Penalty" thread with Iowa, the votes from the likes of Scalia and Thomas are strictly reading the Second Amendment textually. Whether they agree with it or not is irrelevant... it's just constitutional.
The NRA is already positioning themselves to challenge similar gun laws here in Illinois and in San Francisco. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this ruling does not necessarily effect existing municipal or state gun bans - it only effects DC because currently, the police power only extends to DC.
Gun enthusiasts are jumping for joy, but the educated ones in the group know this is as narrow of a ruling as the Supreme Court hands out.
Yes, thankfully it is very narrow.
Like I said earlier, the NRA gives gun owners a bad name. Not all people who own guns think it should be none of the governments business. Those who do, though, are hoping this leads to the elimination of other 'bad' gun laws like waiting periods and registration.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
I have no idea. If you have any good ideas I'm listening.
I guess I'd start by paying cops more and arming them appropriately. Maybe make law officer a job that requires a college degree. I know there are too many morons with a badge on a power trip for sure.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Which is strange, because I really, REALLY doubt that any criminal is going to suddenly give up his gun because the stupid government made a law to make themselves look good.
You know, because it's only cold blooded assassins, gangster thugs, and the like that shoot people. There aren't any people who buy a gun with no intention of using it, then either snap one day and kill their family with it or someone else living in the house snaps.
Making the gun available makes it easier for someone to go psycho an kill someone. Not all crimes are premedidated. I guess what I'm saying is if you know you're a criminal and you're going to kill someone and you planned it out you'd still get a gun. But if you're one of those people who just goes insane one day, not having a gun might prevent you from doing something you'd really regret.
I have no idea. If you have any good ideas I'm listening.
I guess I'd start by paying cops more and arming them appropriately. Maybe make law officer a job that requires a college degree. I know there are too many morons with a badge on a power trip for sure.
I have no idea either, which is why I asked.
I'm glad I'm not making that decision, thats for sure.
Scalia's opinion was very pointed. He specifically mentioned "protection in the home." I think it is going to be left up to the state and local governments whether that right is extended to your vehicle, or walking down the street. Here in Montana, your vehicle is basically considered an extension of your residence, so we will continue to be allowed to have firearms in our cars.
Basically, this ruling will have little to no effect nationally and more in cities like D.C. and others with stricter laws.
I am interested to see what the Brady Campaign will go after next. I think ammunition tracking will be their next step. It is unlikely that the "assault weapons" ban will be revisited by the Supreme Court, IMO.
To address Displaced's comments about law enforcement, I know that here in Billings, though it is not a requirement, nearly all police officers hired in the past 5-10 years have had college degrees. The pay is likely a valid issue.
Last edited by Montana Moe; 06-26-2008 at 07:04 PM.
You know, because it's only cold blooded assassins, gangster thugs, and the like that shoot people. There aren't any people who buy a gun with no intention of using it, then either snap one day and kill their family with it or someone else living in the house snaps.
Making the gun available makes it easier for someone to go psycho an kill someone. Not all crimes are premedidated. I guess what I'm saying is if you know you're a criminal and you're going to kill someone and you planned it out you'd still get a gun. But if you're one of those people who just goes insane one day, not having a gun might prevent you from doing something you'd really regret.
Going by that you could ban anyone from owning anything. People can go crazy with a car too, knives, etc, etc.
You know, because it's only cold blooded assassins, gangster thugs, and the like that shoot people. There aren't any people who buy a gun with no intention of using it, then either snap one day and kill their family with it or someone else living in the house snaps.
Making the gun available makes it easier for someone to go psycho an kill someone. Not all crimes are premedidated. I guess what I'm saying is if you know you're a criminal and you're going to kill someone and you planned it out you'd still get a gun. But if you're one of those people who just goes insane one day, not having a gun might prevent you from doing something you'd really regret.
But if other people all had guns, they could protect themselves from those psychos
You mean the people who want to ban guns thinking it will lower gun crime?
Which is strange, because I really, REALLY doubt that any criminal is going to suddenly give up his gun because the stupid government made a law to make themselves look good.
What's sad Azure is the state of affairs in DC where nobody feels safe. I agree that it won't be easy cleaning up the guns owned by the outlaws but how did these people get their guns in the first place? They just don't magically appear. My guess is they get a lot of them legally or brought in from elsewhere, and the rest are got off of B&Es from your average Joe.
It's pretty simple logic, the more handguns out there, the more shootings.
I want a rocket launcher. I mean, this one would do just fine:
Because, you know, rocket launchers don't kill people - people kill people.
And if we outlaw rocket launchers, then only outlaws will have rocket launchers.
And if someone walks into my home with an RPG, I want to be able to defend myself.
I dream of the day when we are truly a free country and I can buy my rocket launcher at Canadian Tire.
Interesting issue from a moral/political/legal standpoint.
I think the idea that you should be able to defend yourself and your family through the use of force is sensible. But I read a hell of a lot more stories about kids finding guns in the house and shooting each other, and fathers going postal on their families, than I read about homeowners successfully defending themselves from intruders through the use of a firearm. In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a story like the latter.
I mean, the right to defend oneself with a firearm makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it makes any sense in practice. I would bet that having a firearm in the house costs about as many lives as it saves, even where the owner is a "good citizen."
Also, I have to wonder whether most good-natured law abiding citizens would really have it in them to shoot somebody if the situation arose, much less whether they should shoot the person in the circumstances.
Interesting issue from a moral/political/legal standpoint.
I think the idea that you should be able to defend yourself and your family through the use of force is sensible. But I read a hell of a lot more stories about kids finding guns in the house and shooting each other, and fathers going postal on their families, than I read about homeowners successfully defending themselves from intruders through the use of a firearm. In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a story like the latter.
I mean, the right to defend oneself with a firearm makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it makes any sense in practice. I would bet that having a firearm in the house costs about as many lives as it saves, even where the owner is a "good citizen."
Also, I have to wonder whether most good-natured law abiding citizens would really have it in them to shoot somebody if the situation arose, much less whether they should shoot the person in the circumstances.
These are good points.
Firearms = safer or No firearms = safer is the basis of the issue. From personal observation I feel the total ban on firearms in simply not the answer as in London and Toronto. There is simply not enough (nor with there ever be) law enforcement to go around to protect everyone. Whereas the total opposite of " any and all firearms for all" is no better.
I feel it has to be a personal choice with restrictions.
I want a rocket launcher. I mean, this one would do just fine:
Because, you know, rocket launchers don't kill people - people kill people.
And if we outlaw rocket launchers, then only outlaws will have rocket launchers.
And if someone walks into my home with an RPG, I want to be able to defend myself.
I dream of the day when we are truly a free country and I can buy my rocket launcher at Canadian Tire.
Sarcasm is noted.
But you're completely off your rocker here, even WITH the sarcasm. Pretty sure a rocket launcher would be labeled as explosive ordnance, and not a firearm, so sorry....your point is moot.
What's sad Azure is the state of affairs in DC where nobody feels safe. I agree that it won't be easy cleaning up the guns owned by the outlaws but how did these people get their guns in the first place? They just don't magically appear. My guess is they get a lot of them legally or brought in from elsewhere, and the rest are got off of B&Es from your average Joe.
It's pretty simple logic, the more handguns out there, the more shootings.
How about a wide open border into Mexico? How do you think the drugs get into the US?
War on guns would be the same thing as the War on Drugs. Completely and utterly pointless, and just a waste of money.
Interesting issue from a moral/political/legal standpoint.
I think the idea that you should be able to defend yourself and your family through the use of force is sensible. But I read a hell of a lot more stories about kids finding guns in the house and shooting each other, and fathers going postal on their families, than I read about homeowners successfully defending themselves from intruders through the use of a firearm. In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a story like the latter.
I mean, the right to defend oneself with a firearm makes sense in theory, but I'm not sure it makes any sense in practice. I would bet that having a firearm in the house costs about as many lives as it saves, even where the owner is a "good citizen."
Also, I have to wonder whether most good-natured law abiding citizens would really have it in them to shoot somebody if the situation arose, much less whether they should shoot the person in the circumstances.
I can see your point, but there WAS a study done by someone who was going to go out and prove that law-abiding citizens having guns in their home for self defense create more accidental death than actually defending themselves, and he found out that it was just the opposite. Now if I could just find it....
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
Example, if Texas ever wanted to exit the Union, and they voted on it and the vote passed and the Fed said, sorry cant do that, then they need to have the rights to then take up arms if they so choose to.
This one always makes me scratch my head - does anyone *really* think that an unorganized bunch of citizens with handguns and rifles (even semi-auto) is going to do anything other than die messily if they go up against a modern army? You know, the guys with armoured vehicles, rocket artillery, mortars, air support, and all those other things you can't go out and buy at your local gun store?
Any real revolution/secession would have to have some kind of support from indigenous military elements, and heavy military hardware. Handguns are just not going to cut it, which is why I suppose the serious 2nd Amendment fanatics are all about getting automatic weapons into the hands of Joe Survivalist, who presumably then joins some kind of paramilitary organization dedicated to stopping the gov't if it ever tries to ban drive-thru fast food windows. You know, the guys in Idaho and Montana who are exactly the kind of unstable paranoids who shouldn't have access to guns at all.
I suppose it all makes sense if you are an extremist, but personally I think the energy spent on arming oneself for the apocalypse would be better spent in using democratic avenues to prevent the gov't from becoming oppressive in the first place, but that's just me.
As far as other reasons for the right to bear arms in general goes, it comes down to a question of culture - Americans are raised on the ideal of the cult of the righteous individual, and in a heritage where the ultimate expression of the freedom of conscience of the colonists was a revolution against their lawful government. This ideal, which is in my opinion the defining difference between Americans and Canadians, is the root of the general American distrust of the government, including (and especially) law enforcement. Home defence, bearing arms, armed resistance to authority - these aren't perceived merely as rights, but as sacred duties, and attacking those ideas is tantamount to heresy.
Of course, it is an open question whether an ideal forged in a time where a foreign government and state religion were threats to freedom, is more than marginally useful in modern times where the threats to freedom are more likely to be multinational corporations or a domestic security apparatus nominally concerned with "terrorism". I personally think that it would be far better to embrace the idea that neither the individual nor the State has a monopoly on righteousness, and that righteousness itself is a suspect condition to be decried wherever it appears.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Last edited by jammies; 06-26-2008 at 09:31 PM.
Reason: extra comma
But I read a hell of a lot more stories about kids finding guns in the house and shooting each other, and fathers going postal on their families, than I read about homeowners successfully defending themselves from intruders through the use of a firearm. In fact, I can't remember the last time I read a story like the latter.
The reason you don't hear about homeowners defending themselves is because it usually isn't news unless the homeowner actually shoots the intruder. Guns are a deterrent to intruders too. There is no way to keep and compare statistics for these things.
Going by that you could ban anyone from owning anything. People can go crazy with a car too, knives, etc, etc.
Once again, one of the weakest arguments most pro gun types could possibly bring up. Cars and knives have purposes other than to kill people. Guns aren't used to drive you to the store, and guns aren't used to cut your food for you. Guns are a device with one singular purpose; to kill a living being.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
