This will apparently be on the docket soon for the Supreme Court of the United States. What do you guys think? This is an odd case to choose for this particular litigation (it's not like we didn't know it was coming).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-to-rule-on-gun-rights-terrorism-law/#more-11314

Quote :

"Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county, and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups. The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA., lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court. The Court, while agreeing to return to its monitoring of legal issues stirred up by government anti-terrorism efforts, did not take any immediate action on the basic question of federal judges’ power to decide the fate of detainees held at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It had examined anew a case left over from the prior Term — Kiyemba v. Obama (08-1234) — but the case was not on the grant list released Wednesday morning. The next opportunity for the Court to announce some response to that case will come on Monday, when the new Term formally opens. The specific issue in the case is whether a federal judge may order the release into the U.S. of a detainee no longer considered to be an “enemy.” The terrorism law case the Court did agree to hear — actually, it involves two petitions, which were linked for argument — involves the “material support” law, which the Justice Department has used to prosecute about 120 individuals. About half of those resulted in guilty verdicts. The Ninth Circuit struck down parts of the law, leading to the government appeal (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498), and upheld other parts, leading to the appeal by private challengers (Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, 09-89). The Court will schedule all of Wednesday’s grants for oral argument no earlier than the January sitting, which begins on Jan. 11. The first three months’ calendars have been completed."

To give a bit of case background,

Quote :

"Chicago Alderman Richard Mell owns a variety of shotguns, rifles, and pistols, but forgot to re-register them, which makes the handguns permanently illegal and unregisterable under Chicago law. Since he wants to keep his handguns, he is proposing a 1 month registration amnesty period. The catch? It would only apply to people who happened to have failed to re-register in the same time frame as him. Chicago’s Mayor Daley endorses this plan, which is designed to benefit an influential alderman, while the vast majority of Chicago’s law abiding citizens will be left without the ability to keep a handgun to defend themselves. For more than 20 years, Chicago has required that all firearms be registered, and if the yearly registration lapses for a handgun, that gun become illegal and can never be re-registered. Chicago also banned new handgun registration for over 20 years, which means that unless a citizen had a handgun before the ban, and has re-registered it every year, an ordinary Chicago citizen cannot have a handgun. Long guns can still be registered. That is how Chicago’s handgun ban, and draconian restrictions on long gun ownership, work. "

This is also an interesting website for more information: http://www.chicagoguncase.com

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : I absolutely think it should be incorporated, for the record.]

9/30/2009 4:32:17 PM

It certainly should be.

I've always wondered how it hasn't been incorporated so far.

9/30/2009 4:37:22 PM

States should have the primary decision making process for local laws.

Except, of course, when it rankles conservatives. Right?

(just placeholding until the real trolls get here)

9/30/2009 4:52:48 PM

Quote :

"Since he wants to keep his handguns, he is proposing a 1 month registration amnesty period. The catch? It would only apply to people who happened to have failed to re-register in the same time frame as him."

probably just a coincidence...

9/30/2009 4:57:56 PM

I never understood how, if the Bill of Rights categorized inalienable rights, why they shouldn't have been incorporated from day one.

Quote :

"States should have the primary decision making process for local laws."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, which means it limits both the powers of states and the powers of the central government.


Most libertarian leaning citizens (big L as well as libertarian leaning Ds and Rs) simply want it to be enforced equally.

9/30/2009 5:05:33 PM

Quote :

"I never understood how, if the Bill of Rights categorized inalienable rights, why they shouldn't have been incorporated from day one."

My limited historical understanding is as follows; states were given a lot of leeway toward their forms of government so long as they met the proviso of having "a republican form of government." So, no Baron of Massachusetts. Otherwise, they were pretty free to do as they wish. The Constitution / Bill of Rights was intended to be binding upon Congress, with state constitutions respectively binding upon state governments.

As time came to pass, it was clear that states were trying to stomp on federal guarantees of citizenship - namely, voting. Incorporation, I think it could be argued, was an evolutionary move to the relationship between the federal government and the states, and in that, I think, not a bad one either. It still left the states free to set certain policies but now set the bar a little higher - "republican form of government" now included the same guarantees against action that are held against Congress. At least that's how I look at it.

9/30/2009 5:11:46 PM

Quote :

"States should have the primary decision making process for local laws. Except, of course, when it rankles conservativesthe constitution. Right? "

9/30/2009 5:17:38 PM

^^That's a very good way of explaining it. Predominantly this: "The Constitution / Bill of Rights was intended to be binding upon Congress, with state constitutions respectively binding upon state governments."

Prior to the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. But, in the 1890s, the Supreme Court started to say that certain parts of the BORs did apply, but they would do so on an Amendment by Amendment basis. It's widely believed that only the first 9 can be incorporated, and only parts of those amendments are judged.

This article, even if it is wikipedia, does a really good job of simplifying the issue and addressing which provisions of the Amendments have been or will be incorporated : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM. Reason : fixed link]

9/30/2009 5:18:18 PM

bah, logical and reasonable replies, I have obviously failed as a troll.

The previous logic against this has centered around the militia provision in the 2nd amendment. Arms are guaranteed for militias, but not for the common citizen not acting in an organized manner.

Will the Surpreme Court ignore this expressly stated provision? Will they argue that it should be loosely interpretted? Will having to do so cause Scalia's head to explode?

9/30/2009 5:21:59 PM

Quote :

"The previous logic against this has centered around the militia provision in the 2nd amendment. Arms are guaranteed for militias, but not for the common citizen not acting in an organized manner."

The militia, at the time of the Founding, was considered to be every able-bodied adult male. It was not restricted to a specific membership. Therefore, every SCOTUS precedent up until the 20th century ruled in favor of an individual right to gun ownership, and then the recent Heller v. D.C. did the same.

9/30/2009 5:33:09 PM

So you would argue that a militia doesn't have to exist in order to be a valid argument?

I mean, I doubt even the founding fathers would consider 5 guys on a farm a militia. Militias did have to be organized and armed (why do you think towns had central armories?)

9/30/2009 5:42:46 PM

Quote :

"So you would argue that a militia doesn't have to exist in order to be a valid argument?"

I'm arguing that miltia membership was, historically speaking, considered essentially universal among what we would then call citizens (i.e., adult, white males). Every able-bodied adult (white) male was considered part of "the militia." Hence a century of an individual-rights interpretation. This isn't something which sprang up yesterday.

Quote :

"I mean, I doubt even the founding fathers would consider 5 guys on a farm a militia. Militias did have to be organized and armed (why do you think towns had central armories?)"

No, they considered them members thereof. In other words, anybody who would be called upon for the militia was therefore considered a part of that wording at the time it was written.

If you look at alternative draftings, this point becomes very clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Drafting_and_adoption

Quote :

"Madison proposed nine amendments. The fourth included not only a right to keep and bear arms, but also other rights such as a right to due process. The portion that would become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives during the first session of the First Congress, was: "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.""

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2009 5:48:51 PM

Funny how we can read things differently. I suspect you read "this means that everyone's in the milita unless they have religious objection".

Whereas I read "we could institute a draft that people can exempt themselves from on a religious basis". It simply sounds like a backdoor to allow conscription.

It's just a different perspective, that's all.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM. Reason : not trying to put words in your mouth]

9/30/2009 6:05:07 PM

When they say well regulated, it doesn't necessarily mean regulated by the state. In 1776 the state was England and they certainly weren't regulating the militias. If the goal of the ammendment is to secure the freedom of the people (or the people's desired government) then it would not make sense to put the regulation of arms in the hands of the government the people are trying to disolve.

9/30/2009 6:37:35 PM

Quote :

"Prior to the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government."

Yeah, the Bill of Rights specifically limited the federal government's power, only. That's why there are so many redundancies in state Bills of Rights.

Incorporation is great. If only many of the people who support this (generally speaking-- not directed at anyone in this thread) would realize it's great when applied to the establishment clause, too.

9/30/2009 7:53:33 PM

Quote :

"So you would argue that a militia doesn't have to exist in order to be a valid argument? "

Yes, the first part of the second amendment is not a restrictive clause.

Quote :

"Funny how we can read things differently. I suspect you read "this means that everyone's in the milita unless they have religious objection". "

Well, legally this is true:

Quote :

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

9/30/2009 9:01:36 PM

THat does look fairly definite. Since this is a matter of Constitutional law then I assume you can point me to the portion of the Constitution containing those phrases?

9/30/2009 10:17:33 PM

because the only material to which one can refer regarding constitutional law is the constitution itself!

9/30/2009 10:53:43 PM

The constitution and its interpretations evolve with time people and the days of savage natives and wild wild west gunslingers are long gone. With nano communication and the presence of police forces everywhere,there is no longer a need to bear arms. Face it. It causes more harm than good.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 12:27 AM. Reason : A LIVING DOCUMENT=MOVES WITH SOCIETY]

10/1/2009 12:26:33 AM

^ intellects such as these are at the root of our dysfunctional government.

10/1/2009 12:29:32 AM

ignore mambagrl, he/she/it has yet to make a post on T-dub that isn't pure trolling

10/1/2009 1:13:12 AM

that was my first thought, also, when I saw her post this in The Lounge:

Quote :

"Why do you have to be an atheist just becuase you don't believe in the bible? Think about it. You being an atheist is a slap in the face to your parents."

10/1/2009 1:15:00 AM

Quote :

" because the only material to which one can refer regarding constitutional law is the constitution itself"

If the Supreme Court is going to be hearing this case on it's Constitutional merits then yes, the final say on the matter is what's written in the Constitution itself, not some military code cooked up by Congress a century and a half later.

10/1/2009 6:50:27 AM

^That's not really accurate. When they go to interpret the Constitution, they do first look to the text.

But they also look to the original intent of that text. Other statutes/versions/federalist papers etc that are written will help them determine the original intent.

Then they also look at any prior precedent. In this case, very few things have been ruled to not be incorporated. But this is a case of first impression for the Supreme Court on this specific topic, so that does leave them a certain amount of discretion.

And if they believe the (in my opinion) bullcrap argument that the Constitution should be interpreted in a non-originalist way, then they'll take into account natural law and current consequences. But the make-up on our court really doesn't lend itself to this right now.

In short, while the text seems plenty cut and dry, there are numerous ways it can be "interpreted" and it will be interesting to see what the Court relies on to make that interpretation.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 8:48:32 AM

Ok, I feel duly more informed now.

So, on a slightly different tact, are handguns covered under the original intent of the framers? Granted that they had single and double shot handguns before colonial times, but they weren't in wide use and weren't as easy to conceal as a modern handgun. Also the framers certainly couldn't picture the semi-automatic handguns of the type that exist today.

So should modern handguns be considered to have the same protection? What is the Constitutional definition of a gun?

Also, does the requirement of registering a gun buck against the 2nd amendment as written? Registration doesn't mean it's banned, it just means that it's tracked.

I'm just full of questions this morning.

10/1/2009 9:41:53 AM

Every right needs to be balanced with countervailing rights.

Speech is fairly unrestricted because it bumps into others' rights only in certain circumstances.

Arms are much more restricted, because they pose a much clearer and more present threat to others' rights.

10/1/2009 9:48:11 AM

arms vs. guns

10/1/2009 9:57:55 AM

Why would you make modern handguns different? Their purpose is the same as any weapon during the revolution. Politicians will try to make you afraid of them in order to take them away from you, but in reality handgun bans have only ever made citizens less safe. It would be the same as if they banned Muslims from practicing their religion because of some irrational fear of terrorism.

Gun registration is kind of iffy. On the one hand I kind of like the idea of getting people educated on proper use and storage prior to ownership, but on the other hand that system would just be used to prevent people from getting guns. I think if you made registration optional and provided some kind of legal benefits for people to register most law abiding citizens would do it. Also maybe offer vouchers for free cases/locks/classes for people who register.

Would you require people to get permits and pass background checks prior to being allowed to vote?

10/1/2009 10:01:23 AM

Quote :

"Would you require people to get permits and pass background checks prior to being allowed to vote?"

The act of casting a ballot can't directly deny rights to other people

Using a gun can.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 10:14:00 AM

The act of voting has denied gay people the right to marriage in california. In the past it denied black people the right to vote. It can force people into the military. Voting can take your land.

So yea, voting can, has, and will continue to deny people their rights.

10/1/2009 10:16:17 AM

So long as those acts pass judicial review, they aren't unlawfully taking away any rights. We may disagree, but that's tough nuggies.

And you can certainly understand that there's a significant difference in remoteness between one person using a gun against another person v. millions of people casting a ballot for a person who may or may not take away rights. The threat is certainly not clear or present.

10/1/2009 10:24:17 AM

what is your definition of troll? you guys seem to throw that word around quite often on this site. Anywhere else, calling someone a troll because they argue a point you don't agree with is trolling.

example

1.everyone is talking about x
2.someone comes in and presents a valid point on why x isn't valid
3.an actual troll comes in and doesn't argue any points but just calls person in 2 a troll

everyone doesn't do it but it seems to be quite common on this site from my experience.

10/1/2009 10:28:03 AM

The big problem with incorporating the 2nd Amendment is that the militias have always been under state/colony control and therefore the States have the right to regulate the militias. To incorporate the 2nd Amendment would be in violation of the 10th Amendment.

As for wholesale gun bans, no I don't think that passes muster so I can see the Chicago ban go down.

10/1/2009 10:40:19 AM

Quote :

"So long as those acts pass judicial review, they aren't unlawfully taking away any rights. We may disagree, but that's tough nuggies. "

yea but the judiciary is put in place by the people we vote for.

The other thing is that gun crime is so retardedly simplified by politicians looking to take away rights and secure the vote of the ignorant. In DC they took away peoples guns and it didn't solve anything. Even if they took away every gun in the country it wouldn't solve DC's crime problem. People who commit those crimes are poor people with no education. What the politicans should focus on is getting their constituents educated. You'll never see this happen though, for multiple reasons. Fixing education requires long term solutions and politicans dont get re-elected on long term solutions. They do get re-elected promising to get rid of gun crime or other worthless and innefective legislation. Also, if they actually did manage to educate their constituents, they'd quickly learn how they'd been continually fucked over by the politicians and never vote for them again.

tl;dr: Gun crime is a crime problem, not a gun problem.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 11:05:42 AM

DC doesn't matter because DC is not a state and therefore the full aspect of the Constitution applies there.

10/1/2009 11:15:44 AM

i was using it to point out the futility of gun control laws regardless of their constitutionality.

10/1/2009 11:51:56 AM

Banning guns is completely ineffective, so it's wrong in this situation to completely deny a fundamental right.

Registration seems perfectly acceptable. You're putting a very, very small caveat on a right, in order to provide a great deal of protection for our right to live securely.

Quote :

"The big problem with incorporating the 2nd Amendment is that the militias have always been under state/colony control and therefore the States have the right to regulate the militias. To incorporate the 2nd Amendment would be in violation of the 10th Amendment. "

We can't all of a sudden start taking a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment on just this one amendment. There are plenty of things that were traditionally left entirely to the states that rightly aren't now.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 12:10:08 PM

I dont see the difference. If registration requires that someone pass a test how is that not a violation of their rights in the same way as voter tests?

I guess i'd be fine with it if you put it on sellers to register their guns and report it when they sell them. There would be no requirements for who they sell to, but they'd be required to report the serial and who they sold it to. if it shows up in a crime later they can track it back to the new owner. It also gives incentive to the current owner to keep track of their gun and then register a transfer if they sell it later. Kind of like when you transfer the title of your car.

As long as there aren't any tests or requirements for actual ownership I'd be fine with registration.

10/1/2009 12:33:15 PM

Quote :

"We can't all of a sudden start taking a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment on just this one amendment. There are plenty of things that were traditionally left entirely to the states that rightly aren't now."

In this instance yes; because the States have sole authority over the militias.

10/1/2009 12:35:47 PM

^^ Unsafe use of a firearm poses a direct threat to other peoples' rights. If someone has demonstrated (via a test) that they're incapable of safely exercising their right, then the government has the right to limit that right. This is the same concept that allows us to ban a certain group from assembling if it's almost certain that they will spark violence.

^ Then we're going to have to dismantle the Department of Education

10/1/2009 1:09:41 PM

Quote :

"Uninformed voting poses a direct threat to other peoples' rights. If someone has demonstrated (via a test) that they're incapable of safely exercising their right, then the government has the right to limit that right. This is the same concept that allows us to ban a certain group from assembling if it's almost certain that they will spark violence."

10/1/2009 1:19:33 PM

Ah, but Shaggy, taking away people's rights via the ballot box is doing it legally, and therefore acceptable.

You see, the law is what makes anything we want acceptable. Not some outside notion of ethics or morality. As long as we do it legally, we can disenfranchise anyone we want to.

10/1/2009 1:21:06 PM

Quote :

"arms vs. guns"

A nice thing to quibble over, but not really that important. "Arms" could mean anything that could be used in defense, but the government obviously limits the ability to own certain forms of weapons.

Would you argue that the average citizen should be able to purchase a nuclear weapon, a bunkerbuster, a F-22, a missle launcher?

Quote :

"Why would you make modern handguns different"

Guns during the Revolunary period were self-limiting. You could fire one shot at a time and then you needed to reload. A good soldier could get off three shots in a minute.

With a modern handgun you can get off 3 shots in 3 seconds (hyperbole).

The difference is pretty plain. Technological differences and the lower cost of purchasing a decent gun compared to the Revolutionary period has increased their killing power far beyond what the founding fathers could have envisioned.

And that's not even looking at automatic weapons.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 1:22:11 PM

^^^ I've addressed that.

It's a matter of remoteness. The clarity and presence, if you will.

10/1/2009 1:27:59 PM

^^I understand what you're saying, but I think you're missing the big picture. Everything is different today in terms of culture and technology. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned the internet when they thought about the freedom of speech. It doesn't make it any less valid.

10/1/2009 1:38:42 PM

Quote :

"THat does look fairly definite. Since this is a matter of Constitutional law then I assume you can point me to the portion of the Constitution containing those phrases?"

I can't give you those exact phrases since they come from US Code, but I can give you plenty of clear evidence that the founding fathers meant the right to own guns as an individual right and not a "militia" right or a government right.

Article I Section 8:

Quote :

"The congress shall have the power ... To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"

Intent that there should be no standing federal army.

Article I Section 10:

Quote :

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, ... keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, ... or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "

States can not have their own armies, except by explicit authorization from congress (why the NG is legal). However, if a state needs authorization from congress to have troops, then how would the state engage in war when in "imminent danger"?

Amendment II:

Quote :

"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. "

And here we find our answer. The state in "imminent danger" without authority from congress may call upon a militia, which by definition must be comprised of the people of that state. And the right of those people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's also worth asking if "the right of the people" doesn't actually mean "the people" then which government authorized groups have a right to free speech and assembly?

Quote :

"With nano communication and the presence of police forces everywhere,there is no longer a need to bear arms. Face it. It causes more harm than good."

The news is full of stories about police responding to crimes, even within minutes, and still being too late. At Virginia Tech the police arrived on the scene within 2 minutes of being notified. I've had bullets come through the window of my apartment and the police took 45 minutes to arrive from a substation less than a 15 minute WALK from my apartment. Further, the US Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the police are under no obligation to protect you. When the shit hits the fan, you will be the only person capable of protecting yourself.

Quote :

"So, on a slightly different tact, are handguns covered under the original intent of the framers? Granted that they had single and double shot handguns before colonial times, but they weren't in wide use and weren't as easy to conceal as a modern handgun. Also the framers certainly couldn't picture the semi-automatic handguns of the type that exist today."

I don't see why they wouldn't be. Concealed weapons have been around for a lot longer than the modern hand gun, and while our founding fathers could not have foreseen the specific form a handgun would take in the future, I highly doubt none of them could have imagined a handgun getting smaller and more reliable.

Quote :

"What is the Constitutional definition of a gun?"

Given the time our founding fathers lived in, the best definition of "arms" would be the same "arms" that an average soldier in the army would be equipped with. This is easily the best answer as during our founding father's time, the US military and state militias were quite literally people called up to service bringing their own weapons.

Quote :

"Also, does the requirement of registering a gun buck against the 2nd amendment as written? Registration doesn't mean it's banned, it just means that it's tracked. "

In the same way that requiring every person to register before they could give a speech or register before they could use a computer, or if every reporter had to be certified by the government would violate the 1st and 4th amendments.

Quote :

"So long as those acts pass judicial review, they aren't unlawfully taking away any rights. We may disagree, but that's tough nuggies."

So long as the act of using a gun passed judicial review, they aren't unlawfully taking away any rights. We may disagree, but that's tough nuggies. (See Joe Horn)

We don't restrict people's rights and freedoms based on what they MIGHT do (or we shouldn't, that we do anyway is a different subject). We restrict their rights and freedoms based on what they have done. That is why assault and battery are separate crimes.

Quote :

"And you can certainly understand that there's a significant difference in remoteness between one person using a gun against another person v. millions of people casting a ballot for a person who may or may not take away rights. The threat is certainly not clear or present."

Yes there is. If someone uses a gun against me to take my property, I can fight back by myself. If someone uses a ballot, or a court to take my property, I need a full on army of legal support to fight back (see Kelo V. New London)

Quote :

"In this instance yes; because the States have sole authority over the militias."

They do have authority over the militias, however, the right to keep and bear arms is a right retained by "the people"

Quote :

"^^ Unsafe use of a firearm poses a direct threat to other peoples' rights. If someone has demonstrated (via a test) that they're incapable of safely exercising their right, then the government has the right to limit that right. This is the same concept that allows us to ban a certain group from assembling if it's almost certain that they will spark violence."

Registering a firearm is different from a practical test. I think it would actually be more reasonable to requires that citizens pass a practical qualification prior to purchase (no different than the easiest qualification exam for the state or county police) than to require them to register the fact that they own a gun.

Quote :

"The difference is pretty plain. Technological differences and the lower cost of purchasing a decent gun compared to the Revolutionary period has increased their killing power far beyond what the founding fathers could have envisioned."

But the rest of the world has advanced as well. I assure you that during the time of the founding fathers a bullet wound was much more deadly than it is today. To say that our founding fathers were not aware of what they were asking for when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms is to say they could never have foreseen anonymous internet activity and therefore the right to free assembly and speech does not apply.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/1/2009 1:42:09 PM

Weapons that would serve no purpose in private hands other than to threaten large amounts of people (explosives, fully automatic weapons) should be restricted by the government.

Handguns aren't in that category.

And really, if we're going to take a historical angle-- top of the line military equipment was readily available to the colonists. Our farmers were able to stand toe-to-toe with the technology of the British Empire. Not that we should allow private parties to own Abrams tanks, but our founding fathers clearly weren't squeamish about letting individuals have significant weaponry if it didn't interfere with others rights.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : Restricted, not regulated. All firearms should be regulated.]

10/1/2009 1:48:20 PM

Having a gun does not interfere with other peoples rights. Using a gun might, but so can using your vote. Thats the point im making. Owning a gun doesn't make you more likely to be a criminal. The only argument you're making for restricting gun ownership is that gun owners might use their guns to shoot other people.

My argument is that thats a very very small portion of the population of gun owners and that their reasons for wanting to shoot people are not related to them owning a gun. By focusing on taking away the gun, you and everyone else ignore the reason they want to shoot. This is why places like DC and baltimore are in bad shape. People end up focusing on the symptom and ignore the cause.

Legislating away someones gun ownership wont stop them from owning a gun and it wont stop them from commiting a crime.

10/1/2009 2:06:34 PM

Quote :

"States can not have their own armies, except by explicit authorization from congress (why the NG is legal)."

No, that is not why the national guard is legal. The national guard is legal because it is the state militia.

10/1/2009 2:32:43 PM

So Article I Section 10's prohibition against states keeping troops in a time of peace, prohibits what in your opinion?

10/1/2009 6:51:54 PM