I always wondered where the UN was going to get the troops.

Don't most people in Iraq have unlimited access to guns of all kinds? Perhaps the NRA(National retard Association) would have us degenerate to ths same state of affairs that exist in that misbegotten place.

Little will change with the decision handed down yesterday. Only outright bans will begin to fall, [sarcasm]and those have shown themselves to be fabulously successful in DC at deterring gun crimes[/sarcasm].

And, in any case, look on the bright side- Obama doesn't have to deal with the political uproar that would have ensued had Heller been decided the other way.

I think from a political perspective, Jack Balkin is right that partisan dems really wanted an 8-0 decision in favor of the incredibly reasonable Solicitor General's position... that maybe could have made intelligent gun regulation a possibility. Instead we got a 5-4 reprise of all the annoying gun related arguments on the internet and a vow to fight on forever. Yay.

Read Ted Nugent's take on this...

Yikes

He's after the four justices that voted "no"...meaning the pro-gun opinion is the only valid opinion. That's what we're up against...

- PonB

As a liberal-centrist gun-owning individualist-interpretation-of-the-Second-Amendment supporter, let me say: yeah, Kevin, I think you're pretty much spot on here.

One thing to consider, though: I've seen at least some lefty howling/garment-rending about the decision--and much of what fuels NRA-ish attitudes on the right is that--independent about what the law is--there's a spirit/attitude/set of principles on the left that is profoundly and irredeemably anti-firearm, and it WILL NOT REST until...etc...

I mean, heck, I sure get that feeling sometimes about some liberals and many leftier lefties.

What's the solution for the Dems? One suggestion: make sure Democratic candidates stand up with some regularity and say, e.g., "I will enthusiastically defend your right to keep and bear arms, even though I do support reasonable restrictions."

Appeasement emboldens authoritarians. Legislatures and city councils will come under increasing legal and political assault to prevent or overturn their efforts to protect their constituents from gun violence.

Er, that should be: "...independent of what the law is..."

Yancey Ward, your "sarcasm" about DC gun control laws is either dishonest or ignorant, and in either case is unwarranted.

Washington, DC borders on Virginia which has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, and whose legal gun dealers (as opposed to the black market) have been shown to be consistent violators of such laws as do apply to gun sales in Virginia, and to be the source of a huge number of guns used in crimes all up and down the east coast.

There is no way that any gun laws passed in DC can keep out the cheap, easily concealable murder weapons that Virginia proliferates all over the eastern seaboard.

Winston Smith wrote: "One suggestion: make sure Democratic candidates stand up with some regularity and say, e.g., 'I will enthusiastically defend your right to keep and bear arms, even though I do support reasonable restrictions.'"

Well, that would certainly help to reinforce my inclination to vote for Green Party candidates.

The American worship of guns is a form of mental illness that benefits no one and nothing, except the profits of the weapons manufacturers.

Winston Smith wrote: "... what fuels NRA-ish attitudes on the right is that ..."

The NRA is a lobbying organization for weapons manufacturers. What "fuels" the NRA is the weapons manufacturers' desire for increased profit from the sale of weapons that have no purpose but to commit murder.

Rank-and-file NRA "members" who believe that the NRA is protecting their "rights" are gullible dupes.

Rural gun owners who believe the NRA's propaganda that laws passed in cities like DC to protect urban residents against being murdered on the street with cheap, easily concealable, high-powered handguns will lead to "jackbooted thugs" (the NRA's words) breaking down their doors to confiscate their hunting rifles are idiots.

SecularAnimist,

If you are correct, then only alternative is a countrywide ban on such weapons. And when that does work because guns are being smuggled into the country, then what?

That is what I get for not proofreading before hitting the post button.

The above should have read:

If you are correct, then the only alternative is a countrywide ban on such weapons. And when that doesn't work because guns are being smuggled into the country, then what?

The DC gun ban, freely violated by lefty Carl Rowen and others of the elites, was a poster child for the attitude we see here expressed by Secular Animist. So long as that attitude, and the dishonest work of people like Michael Belleisles, prevails, there will be people like me becoming NRA life members. The historians' brief, relied upon by Stephens for his dissent, had lots of Belleisles sympathizers' contributions.

You didn't see the NRA guy on CNN yesterday. He was acting exactly this way. So there you go, no need to suspect, it's already happening.

Uh, it was Sandy Levinson not Jack Balkin that I meant in my above post, and... uhm... 5+4=9. /sheepish

Mike K wrote: "... there will be people like me becoming NRA life members ..."

I am resigned to the reality that there will always be weak-minded, ignorant dupes who can be bamboozled with inane propaganda into giving money to cynical corporate lobbyists like the NRA, who sneer at the gullible rubes all the way to the bank.

Don't most people in Iraq have unlimited access to guns of all kinds? Perhaps the NRA(National retard Association) would have us degenerate to ths same state of affairs that exist in that misbegotten place.

If Iraqis don't believe their government is serving their needs, and a foreign power is unjustly detaining/searching their homes/possessions, etc, do they not have the right to take up arms against those forces??
I can't believe these arguments are *still* being made.. did you guys not follow the Jose Padilla case? An American citizen seized and put into confinement without charge at the whim of this administration. Luckily, the Bush administration came to their senses, but do you not see how easy it is for a government to take dictatorial powers? The bottom line is, you trusted that Bush would eventually come to his sense. I wasn't so sure.. luckily, he did, but that's why now, more than ever, we need an armed citizenry.

This decision will provide data on the value or harm of more widespread guns. Opinions are divided as to whether legalized gun ownership increases or decreases crime. We're about to get some data. Will Washington D.C. crime go up or down? One way or the other, we'll know more than we do now.

Oh come on, whats wrong with an armory in every household, a tank in every garage, and streets that look like Mosul?
You can almost hear Heston's "I have a dream" speech now...
"I have a dream...where everyone has a .50 on their roof top, where moms and dads celebrate their togetherness by shooting up cars, bottles, and the occasional asshole. Where children of every family will walk with confidence knowing their mommy and daddy loved them so much to buy them a .44 magnum! I have a dream that one day, everybody in America will be armed better than the American military in Iraq, and peace will reign on the streets of America through superior firepower! Join me in my dream!"

S.A.: Do you believe it impossible for someone to simultaneously own a gun and not "worship" guns?

Opinions are divided as to whether legalized gun ownership increases or decreases crime.

There are many factors that determine crime, the most significant of which is the economy. In LA, with all its guns and no gun ban, crime rates went to levels not seen since the 1950s, before the current recession. Since the economy is turning south, crime will go up.. The data would need to account for that. I do understand people's concern about crime, and crime indeed is an important issue, but I personally believe the consequences of tyranny far exceeds the consequences of crime. Reasonable checks against gun ownership is fine, but when you unequivocally want to ban personal gun ownership, you are saying "I fear more the maybe slight rise in crime than keeping a check on tyranny." And with our recent experience with Bush, how can you possibly feel that way?

an armed citizenry

An armed citizenry is no match for the fire power of the state. Ruby Ridge and Waco ended with great loss of women's and childrens' lives despite the armaments their husbands and parents used to defend their households. The only way to fight the state, and have a chance of winning, is through the rule of law that the social contract represents.

Why do conservatives think any restrictions on firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and scream bloody murder if they think they are being infringed upon and then turn around and allow people like Bush to trample all over the 4th Amendment and not raise an eyebrow?

Are the individual components of the Bill of Rights not created equal to these simpletons???

See, it's folks like SecularAnimist I'm talking about. Start just about any discussion of firearms near a group of liberals, and somebody like SA comes out of the woodwork, spouting dopey cant.

Now, I'm not NRAer--in fact, I was once kicked out of a gun club because I wouldn't join the NRA--but, whatever else the NRA is, it *does*, in fact, protect the gun rights (or, as SA might put it, "rights") of its members (or "members"), and no amount of sneering invective will change that.

One lefty spouting nonsense about the ignorant rubes who blah blah guns, and even reachable firearm owners often shut off and reach for their NRA renewal.

Brojo:
An armed citizenry is no match for the fire power of the state

Er...know what kind of citizenry is even less of a match for the firepower of the state?

Brojo:
An armed citizenry is no match for the fire power of the state

Riiiight,
so all we can do is rely on the firm adherence to the rule of law (signing statements), a fair and constitutional Court system (Bush V. Gore), and, of course, the strict adherence to political conventions and sense of fair-play (Republican party for the last 40 years).

Sorry, but boy are you stupid. And besides, the citizens of Iraq seem to be doing a pretty good job holding up to the most modern and well equipped army in the world. And the very least slowing it to a standstill.

I'm one of those "far lefties" that used to spot the exact same material that SA does above. In fact, I'm a co-author of a diatribe against hand gun ownership that was published in a peer reviewed academic journal.

But the events of the last eight years have convinced me of how naive, unrealistic, and down-right stupid that viewpoint is.

I'm still a socialist, but I'm an armed socialist.

Winston Smith wrote: "See, it's folks like SecularAnimist I'm talking about. Start just about any discussion of firearms near a group of liberals, and somebody like SA comes out of the woodwork, spouting dopey cant."

The fact is that the Second Amendment is bullshit. It is an archaic 18th century anachronism from a time when "arms" consisted of single-shot flintlock rifles and muzzle-loading pistols and "national security" depended on a "well-organized militia" of farmers toting such weapons to defend the "state" against "Red Injun savages" or rebellious black slaves.

It has no relevance to or place in the modern world and its only use is to protect the "rights" of large corporations to profit from the proliferation of cheap, easily concealable, powerful handguns that have no purpose but to commit murder.

Anyone who thinks the weapons manufacturers' lobbying organization, the NRA, gives a damn about anybody's "rights" is a fool. The NRA exists to ensure that America's urban neighborhoods will continue to be flooded with weapons of mass murder, to fight bans on machine guns and cop-killer bullets, etc. The NRA is all about money, money, money and greed, greed, greed.

Sorry to offend your poor sensitive gun-loving soul with such blasphemy. Maybe if you go out and shoot some small defenseless animal for "sport" you will feel better.

This thread should be renamed "Beating a Dead Horse."

I believe the expression is 'suicide by cop,' if you should raise a weapon at a policeperson.

There has never been a successful armed rebellion in the US. Everyone who has tried has been killed, had their families killed, been incarcerated or been executed.

I am not addressing whether weapons of deadly force might come in handy with a breakdown of society into anarchy. No armed citizens will prevail against the military might of the state. Thinking they could is a militia wet dream.

Timothy McVeigh and John Brown were the stupid.

Dr. Morpheus: "I'm still a socialist, but I'm an armed socialist."

That worked out real well for the Black Panther Party.

I've been held up at gunpoint twice. All the blather about an "armed citizenry" being our defense against "tyranny" is BS. All an "armed citizenry" gets you is more people killing each other.

Republicans, of course, are very happy to see that happen in urban, mostly black, mostly Democratic neighborhoods. The more of "those people" that get killed with cheap, easily concealable, powerful handguns, the less of them there are to vote.

It's almost astonishing, SA, how irrelevant your comments are.

One could go on at length, but let me pick out just a few points:

First, the intentions of the NRA are irrelevant to the issue of whether they defend gun rights. I find it hard to believe I have to spell this point out, but there it is. Again, I have no interest in defending the loathsome NRA. But your arguments are irrelevant to the point at issue.

Second, as for the allegedly anachronistic nature of the Second Amendment: well, way to state the position, dude. But stating it isn't arguing for it. You can't show that you are right merely by insisting.

A woman who was familiar with fire arms attempted to purchase a hand gun in California for the sake of self-defense. The gun laws made it impossible for her to get the gun within a reasonable time period. That woman was raped, and did not have a gun which she could have defended herself with-thanks to liberal gun laws.

Of course, a woman's right to defend herself is not a right that liberals want women to have.

Unless that woman was going to hold that gun at the ready of every moment of her existence, she still might have been raped. Anyone with a gun that is not held at the ready can be killed by another person with a deadly weapon. Almost all the police that have been killed in the line of duty were armed. Many police are shot in the belly as they walk up to the pulled over perpetrator despite the fact they are armed. Being armed does not necessarily mean one cannot be assualted, robbed or murdered.

Why do conservatives think any restrictions on firearms is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and scream bloody murder if they think they are being infringed upon and then turn around and allow people like Bush to trample all over the 4th Amendment and not raise an eyebrow?

What is the industry that makes money from the 4th amendment that is comparable to the gun industry which is so dependent on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? The gun industry is the long-term supporter of the NRA.

Besides that the fact that America is a militarized society make a big difference. American history is more the history of America's wars with their landgrabs and corporate expansions than it is of its jurisprudence.

Libs who don't like guns could take the proper route and try to get the Constitution amended rather than trying to sneak around the Bill of Rights. Libs who don't like crime could get some backbone and take on minority culture and crime.

I just returned from a week in Finland. Although there is quite a bit of ownership of guns, you can't really carry them anywhere, and you have to state a reason for ownership to get a license. While there, I never saw a police officer or a police vehicle, and the paper every day had no references to shootings. While I was away, a man and his two sons were killed in San Francisco by someone who thought their car was in the way.

Gun ownership "rights" created the mess we have, but it doesn't look like it's politically acceptable to say anything like that.

Brojo:
Unless that woman was going to hold that gun at the ready of every moment of her existence, she still might have been raped. Anyone with a gun that is not held at the ready can be killed by another person with a deadly weapon.

That's a common fallacy in these discussions. My favorite form:

"Well, if someone sneaks into your house and puts a gun to your head while you're asleep, what good will your gun be then?"

Nobody thinks that firearms make you invulnerable. Rather, they can, if used properly, lower the probability that you will be the victim of a violent crime.

Brojo's argument, if sound, would also show that we shouldn't have a police force. After all, unless the police are by your side every hour of every day, they can't *guarantee* that you won't be a victim.

This should not be taken to be a defense of B Lair's ridiculous argument, of course. One case--if, indeed, it's even veridical--doesn't show much about policy.

Somebody should test the limits of this ban by finding out if you can buy a machine gun or if your rights can be "infringed". How far towards total freedom to own and bear arms will the Right Wing of the Court go?

Fallacy? Household guns kill many more family members than intruders. 42,000 killed ea year and most are shot by people they know well.

Off-duty cop shoots daughter sneaking back into house

STRATFORD, Conn. -- An off-duty New Haven police officer shot and critically wounded his 18-year-old daughter, apparently mistaking her for an intruder after she sneaked out of their Stratford home and re-entered through the basement.

Eric Scott, 41, on the New Haven force for nine years, has not been charged in the Tuesday shooting.

``Mr. Scott was under the impression his daughter had gone to bed for the night,'' Stratford Capt. Thomas Rodia said. ``He did not expect his daughter to be outside or down in the basement.''

Investigators said Tasha Scott left her home late Monday to meet a boyfriend. She triggered a backyard motion sensor light as she tried to enter through a basement door.

Awakened by the light, Eric Scott spotted someone moving in the basement bathroom, police said. He fired his department-issued pistol once, hitting the teen in the knee. The bullet traveled up her leg and lodged in her thigh area, police said.

Her father called 911, authorities said.

The teenager underwent surgery and was listed in critical but stable condition Wednesday morning.

Scott has been on leave since being struck by a truck while on duty in November. A telephone listing for him had been disconnected Wednesday morning, and a message left for him at the New Haven department was not immediately returned.

The fact is that the Second Amendment is bullshit. It is an archaic 18th century anachronism from a time when "arms" consisted of single-shot flintlock rifles and muzzle-loading pistols and "national security" depended on a "well-organized militia" of farmers toting such weapons to defend the "state" against "Red Injun savages" or rebellious black slaves.

It has no relevance to or place in the modern world

Happily the constitution has a mechanism for repealing such amendments. If enough people believed that was the case, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to get the second amendment repealed. But the words of the amendment are pretty plain.

The American worship of guns is a form of mental illness that benefits no one and nothing, except the profits of the weapons manufacturers.

Posted by: SecularAnimist

You forgot to mention we are all "bitter", too! If you don't want to own a gun that is fine. Unlike you I would like to at least have a chance of defending my family and home from harm.

As far as BHO is concerned we all know how he feels about guns from his record and fence straddling on the Heller case. This will cost him on election day. You lefties never learn. All religon and gun owner bashing does is cost you presidential elections. I love it!

"Libs who don't like crime could get some backbone and take on minority culture and crime."

People like Luther are prime example of why liberals should embrace the 2nd Amendment.

It is of interest to me, as a law-abiding gun owner, how being interested in defending myself and my family should immediately make me eligible for all of the Big Brothering, Nanny Stating, and general-purpose baby-sitting in the entire world.

You see, the problem is that all of those various suggestions listed in the original post's quote only work if the people transferring or receiving the guns obey the law, and guess what is the one thing criminals do not do?

Oh... Right...

keith g,

FAIL. The Kellerman study from the NEJM '86 has been exposed as a load of crap. Might wanna check your sources before quoting statistics. The hoplophobes have been trotting this one out (unvalidated) for 20 years now. Sad.

I noticed some of you daft anti-gun commenters are talking about how the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. I have a simple response to that.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don't "grant" me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.

If we repealed the 1st Amendment through a Constitutional Amendment, or the SCOTUS decided it was no longer an "individual right" would you anti 2nd Amendment types on the left just say "Oh well, I guess I don't have freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, or religion anymore." Of course not because you always had those rights. All the Constitution said was that those rights could not be violated by government. Seriously, read the preamble sometime.