do you even know what the court said in its opinion?

It's becoming blatantly clear that you have not bothered to read the opinion.

7/2/2008 1:06:26 PM

Quote :

"The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."

do YOU know what the court said?

7/2/2008 1:09:49 PM

Did you read the opinion?

7/2/2008 1:19:29 PM

no i didnt read the 157 page opinion, I read some summary articles, for example the one i just quoted

why dont you tell me what i'm missing since you "bothered" to read a 157 page document

7/2/2008 1:23:42 PM

So you have read a summary of a document instead of the document itself.

Your reading of the summary articles and aaronburro's overstatement of the findings of the court are amazing blind to the truth.

Next time, I suggest you read the actual opinion and not what someone paraphrased it as being. You'll learn a lot.

7/2/2008 1:27:04 PM

so you read the 157 page document?

please enlighten us...i merely quoted some direct statements by Justice Scalia...maybe you could shed some light on what we're missing since you apparently understand it so well

it seems like all you are doing in this thread is asking people if they've read the opinion, without discussing it at all...I can only imagine that you're still upset from the ruling (based on your own political views and interpretation of the constitution) and therefore arent happy with the court's ruling and are trying to somehow convince us that its wrong? maybe i'm wrong to assume that but you sure havent said anything to lead us to believe otherwise

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 1:28:56 PM

Quote :

"This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”)....Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons....We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”"

p.50-53

7/2/2008 1:51:17 PM

Quote :

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Want more?

You should also note that Scalia's decision is not 157 pages in length.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 1:54:40 PM

Quote :

"Except for the two proceeding clauses that are, you know, in the constitution. Ignoring them removes from the Constitution."

Allow me to reiterate:

Quote :

"If only the militia clause limited the right in the 2nd Amendment. We've already been through this, and you've failed to support your smug assertion, so get on with it, k?"

Quote :

"Your reading of the summary articles and aaronburro's overstatement of the findings of the court are amazing blind to the truth. "

I'm not summarizing their findings whatsoever. Don't fucking put words in my mouth.

7/2/2008 6:11:53 PM

Quote :

"extends only to certain types of weapons....We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”""

I guess reading isn't one of your strong suits.

7/2/2008 6:24:53 PM

Quote :

"And I would argue that that is an incorrect application of the 1st Amendment. I'll admit to being ignorant to legal precedent on the issue, but it really doesn't matter to me. If X is a right, then X is a right. It doesn't mean that that right should protect me from any and all bad things that might happen as a result."

Your rights do not protect your exercise of them to do harm to others. You have a right to own a gun - you don't have a right to shoot people at will. You have a right to freedom of speech - you don't have a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or, to use another example, you don't have the right to commit fraud.

So, here's the catch - in each of the cases we're discussing, we're dealing with a speech action whose application is inherently illegal. So, how else do you propose to unbind the two, absent drawing a line in which we say "This isn't under the bounds of protection"? Because in these cases, the criminal act is an act of speech. How do we therefore protect speech without granting immunity to wantonly criminal acts, other than how we do it now?

Quote :

"If you take that approach, then what happens if I am a Nazi and I want to use my right of "free speech" to put a burning swastika in my front yard, which happens to be right in front of a nursing home for Jewish patients? Skokie aside, and other discussions about "intimidation" aside as well, your argument would suggest that I could not be prosecuted for such an act, because I was using my "free speech." You counter that such speech is not "protected," at which point I have to ask where is the word "protected" present in the 1st Amendment. Who is "adding things" to the Constitution now?"

Actually, no I wouldn't argue it isn't protected speech - assuming it's on your own property.

Interestingly enough, this is one First Amendment case where Justice Thomas thought there should be a limit - see the case Virginia v. Black:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black#Dissents

The exceptions I'm talking about are extremely narrow, interpreted under one of the strictest standards for review. The idea is that the compelling interest of preserving public safety can mean that even the Bill of Rights isn't totally absolute in the sense that you can't use speech to bring about direct and immediate harm.

Look, there are a lot of places to bitch about the courts overstepping their bounds in their interpretation of the Constitution. This isn't one of them - at least so far as we're sticking to the standard of strict scrutiny.

Quote :

"Humour me, by coming up with a few examples. Remember, proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Very simple example - "sedition" laws where dissidents are locked up for causing "unrest" by questioning the government. It's happened several times here in our own history. Or simply charging someone with "harassment" for engaging in hate speech. Or invent your own example. Note that both of these cases presently fall within the explicit bounds of the First Amendment and within classes of "protected speech."

There are plenty of ways to tack on spurious "consequences" to speech actions.

Quote :

"And again, who is adding things to the Constitution here. It sure as hell aint me."

Look, you can argue all night why it's wrong, all I'm trying to do is lay out an example of how the law is and therefore how this connects to the Second Amendment.

Quote :

"I sure as hell would say yes. Is it a good thing, I dunno, but that is definitely what I would say that it says. it does not, however, state that nuclear warheads should be 5.95 at wal-mart."

Oh now come on. I'm one to defend your right to own just about any firearm out there, but making the case to own a weapon of mass destruction under the Second Amendment is really stretching it.

Quote :

"I'd like to see how simply uttering the words "kill whitey" causes any harm. It's what people do after the fact that really matters. Could that incite a riot? Sure. But, the crime here should be inciting a riot, NOT yelling "kill whitey." Anything more and I think it is a whittling away of basic human rights. I think trying to divine circumstances where it is "ok to use your rights" and "not ok to use your rights" is far more likely to result in tyranny and oppression than simply saying "here are your rights, don't fuck up while using them.""

Ok, let's back up here for a second. First, what about cases where a person's response to speech is "rational" - i.e., panic after someone yells "fire!" Are the people who end up stampeding one another responsible, despite the fact that they were acting under what they believed to be dire conditions? Or is it the person who yelled fire to begin with who is at fault?

Now, as far as the whole "fighting words" doctrine goes, that's been getting progressively narrower an area where they exclude speech. If you asked for my personal opinion, I'd think it should only apply to areas where one is threatening an immediate, credible harm to another - "I'm going to kill you, whitey. With my .38 right here." Not just "Kill whitey!"

Quote :

"Few people need to be told "hey, you shouldn't yell 'kill whitey'," and while, yes, we do have racist assholes running around in this country, we should punish them when they actually do something that is illegal. What's that? A racist prick starts a riot by dragging a black guy down the street behind his truck yelling "fuck all you niggers!!!"? Well, let's punish his ass for murdering someone and for also inciting a riot. Don't punish him for yelling "fuck all you niggers!!!", because the guy was clearly breaking the law long before he got to that point."

I think you're missing the point, here. What is inciting a riot, if not an act of speech? Otherwise, I'd agree with you. The paradox is that to incite a riot usually involves a speech act. We have to therefore say that act, inciting the riot, is not protected in order to make inciting a riot a crime.

Quote :

"At its core, for any circumstance where you are tempted to say that a right should be "limited due to immediate public harm," you can easily identify an actual crime that is completely separate from the use of the right which you say should be limited. Punish the fucking crime and the criminal, but leave the right alone."

Again though, you're missing the point. What happens when the criminal act is inherently a speech act? How do we suddenly interpret freedom of speech no longer to apply? An act is both a criminal act and a protected one at the same time. Hence the problem.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 9:50:25 PM

Opponents promise challenge of new D.C. gun law

Quote :

"Under terms of the emergency law, passed earlier this week by the D.C. Council, residents must obtain a city-issued handgun permit and may keep handguns only in their homes for self-defense purposes. The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency. The provisions still rank as some of the toughest in the nation. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the law, gun rights advocates say, mandates that gun owners keep their weapons unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless they face a 'threat of immediate harm.' The National Rifle Association has signaled it also will challenge the new D.C. regulation, describing the law as extreme and in 'complete defiance of the Supreme Court's decision.' 'The current D.C. proposal requires the complete cooperation of the criminal,' NRA spokesman Andrew Akulanandum. 'It would require the criminal to call and tell you when they plan to come and attack you.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-17-gun-ban_N.htm

The anti-gun zealots just won't give it up.

7/17/2008 2:36:22 PM

Quote :

"only in their homes"

Quote :

"unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks"

Quote :

"submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency."

I could totally go for that. Why isn't this in effect elsewhere?

7/17/2008 2:40:01 PM

A number of reasons, but the most common one is that the "ballistic fingerprint" of your gun changes over time and can also be modified manually. That and the only time it would do you any good is when the last legal owner of the firearm is the person committing the crime in question.

7/17/2008 8:11:49 PM

Quote :

"You have a right to own a gun - you don't have a right to shoot people at will. You have a right to freedom of speech - you don't have a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

Ah, but those are NOT the same. owning a gun is NOT the same as shooting a gun, for one. freedom of speech would mean that you do explicitly have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, as speaking is, well, speech.

Quote :

"How do we therefore protect speech without granting immunity to wantonly criminal acts, other than how we do it now? "

Simple. As I said before, you separate the actual criminal act from the right. As I said before, causing a stampede of people is the crime in this instance. How you managed to cause that stampede might not necessarily be a crime. By definition, a right cannot be a crime, otherwise how could it be a right?

Quote :

"Oh now come on. I'm one to defend your right to own just about any firearm out there, but making the case to own a weapon of mass destruction under the Second Amendment is really stretching it."

Actually, it's really not. Cannons were the WMDs of their day, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue in that day that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to cannons as well, especially to the founders.

Quote :

"Ok, let's back up here for a second. First, what about cases where a person's response to speech is "rational" - i.e., panic after someone yells "fire!" Are the people who end up stampeding one another responsible, despite the fact that they were acting under what they believed to be dire conditions? Or is it the person who yelled fire to begin with who is at fault?"

The person who is at fault is the one who yelled "fire!", of course. But, again, the crime is causing the stampede. The evidence could very well be that he yelled "fire!" and that there was no fire.

Quote :

"What is inciting a riot, if not an act of speech? Otherwise, I'd agree with you. The paradox is that to incite a riot usually involves a speech act."

However, one can incite a riot without an act of speech, thus it follows that doing so is not an act of speech. Yes, it's easy to start a riot with words, but other things can do so as well. Take, for instance, the verdict of the Rodney King trial. Certainly you would agree that the verdict ended up causing a riot. Should the verdict not have been read? Obviously that's not a wonderful example, but I think you see what I am getting at. Hell, I could start a riot by driving my car into a bank. I could start a riot by looking at someone the wrong way. Are you going to tell me that I can't look at people the wrong way now, too?

Quote :

"Again though, you're missing the point. What happens when the criminal act is inherently a speech act?"

I would argue that, again, by definition, a right cannot be a criminal act. It's simply impossible. AND, since the right must be enumerated in the Constitution or an amendment, any law which made it a criminal act would be null and void, which solves the problem right there. Remember, laws and rights given by the Constitution are NOT equal to each other. There can be no conflict because one supersedes the other.

7/17/2008 11:52:13 PM