The right to bear arms

Wow, this is big news. The Supreme Court found that the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms.

Whether or not you like the idea of anyone being able to own weapons, the Constitution does actually say that.

Four dissenting justices said that the words of the Constitution should be ignored.

Comments

[Peter]

As best I can tell, the only immediate result of the decision will be the end of DC's complete ban on in-home handgun possession. No other jurisdiction seems to have such an complete ban, not even New York. Restrictions on carrying firearms may not be affected.

[roissy]

Four dissenting justices said that the words of the Constitution should be ignored.

it's funny cause it's not hyperbole.

as a practical matter, i don't think this changes much on the ground. the NW quadrant and capitol hill area is filled with panty-twisting SWPLs who'd never shot a gun in their lives, and the thugs didn't need a reaffirmation of the 2nd amendment to procure their tools of the trade. maybe some upstanding decent citizens with the smarts and discipline to go through the licensing process of owning a handgun who are living in the shittier parts of town where self protection isn't an abstract concept might take advantage of this ruling and increase the gun ownership rate in DC.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

The liberal panty piddling over this ruling will make the current midwest flooding look like a spilt latte. Head for high ground now and avoid the rush.

[Heater]

I'd imagine that a place like DC would make the "licensing process" very expensive and time-consuming as well as a major hassle to try and negate the ruling as much as they can. All perfectly legal of course to make exercising your Constitutional rights as difficult and costly as possible. However, this is a step, however small, in the right direction for the Supreme Court.

PS: Peter, the Sullivan Act has been fucking regular NYers for something like 100 years.

[Dan Morgan]

Four dissenting justices said that the words of the Constitution should be ignored."

Yes, this points out the best reason to vote for McCain over Obama. Replacing even a single justice with a liberal could flip many outcomes and bring back major judicial activism.

I own a pistol and I go out and shoot it sometimes. It is fun. I also keep it in the house in case some criminal breaks in. I found that buying and owning a gun makes you more pro-gun.

It is funny that the liberal gun control crowd seems to focus on cities where low-income blacks live. Though they would never admit it, isn't the goal to take guns away from underclass blacks so that violent crime will drop? But then hardworking black grandmothers can't have guns in the house to protect themselves from the thugs trying to break in. Fortunately the Supreme Court has rectified that.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"It is funny that the liberal gun control crowd seems to focus on cities where low-income blacks live. Though they would never admit it, isn't the goal to take guns away from underclass blacks so that violent crime will drop?"

I don't think this is right. You can't even get most liberals to admit the reality of underclass criminality. I've always been of a mind that since they hate and fear Joe Sixpack they want him disarmed. One of the chief bugbears of the liberal mind set is fear of "backlash". What this speaks to is an obsession with counter revolutionary elements reaching a critical mass and exacting violent retribution for decades of unrestricted liberal social engineering. This is not just garden variety paranoia as before the high priests of the current PC/Marxist dispensation were in power,rage, violence and sticking it to the man were by words in that set. That is to say that they are projecting their own lawless tendencies onto their opponents as always.

[Vim]

It would have been more interesting (to me) if they had upheld the ban.

I think people are correct to take the right to bear arms seriously as it is a fundamental right in the US constituion. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that the path to lower numbers of crime and less lethal crimes is the European/Canadian/Australian model of gun ownership not the American one.

I wish that pro-gun people would be more honest about admitting that the right to bear arms costs us a few people (some kids) a year. Then at least people would know what it costs and whether it was worth it. For instance, the luxury of having pools costs us a few kids a year ... and we still have pools so it might turn out to the be the same for guns. What a minute! A few kids a year is worth the ability to swim in your backyard in the summer time!?!? Perhaps ... perhaps ...

[Vim]

Tired of Smoke Rings:

"One of the chief bugbears of the liberal mind set is fear of "backlash". What this speaks to is an obsession with counter revolutionary elements reaching a critical mass and exacting violent retribution ... This is not just garden variety paranoia ... That is to say that they are projecting their own lawless tendencies onto their opponents as always."

Ha ha. I think you are blowing some smoke rings here. Go read the thread where all the rac(e real)ists are freaking out about whether blacks are going to riot if Obama loses and tell me who this paragraph you just wrote describes.

One of the guys was saying he's buying freaking guns and ammo in anticipation. He should probably also buy some foil so he can have enough hats. Have you heard any liberals or blacks saying they are buying ammo and guns in case Barack loses? Me neither!

[hugh go naught]

"On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that the path to lower numbers of crime and less lethal crimes is the European/Canadian/Australian model of gun ownership not the American one."

It is fairly obvious you haven't done a comparison of the gun violence rate between DC and (throwing a dart at the United States) Kennewick, Idaho.

[Turambar]

I look forward to the commentary on Slate where we will be told how "laughable" and "moronic" the decision is by non-practicing lawyers who's gig is writing for an Internet-only magazine.

I see there is already one protesting Scalia using convenience as a factor in favor of handguns and Rosa Brook has nothing other than snit because the Court is protecting a right that she has no interest in exercising.

[Heater]

hugh go naught,
Check out Vermont's gun laws. Not much of a problem with gun violence up there either. And all this talk about guns, rioting blacks, violent crime and a decent Supreme Court decision has got me so excited I just might have to run out and buy a "freaking" gun or two myself. Got my eye on one of these little beauties:

http://www.tommygun.com/ao_aom110_f.html

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

Vim,

I think they have a point. Notice that what they are doing is what prudent people do.

1.Learning from past experience.

2.Preparing for the anticipated outcome.

The Sixties Riots

The Sixties were a time of expanding ecomomic opportunity and power for black Americans. Detroit, Watts and other riots took place as blacks felt empowered to protest improving conditions.

Fast forward to 2008.
Obama is/isn't elected president. The election is exciting and a cause for raised expectations and feelings of empowerment(followed by a crushing let-down unless Obama can actually walk on water). Contracting economy, intense competition from immigrants for the bottom rung positions in the workplace and years of "racism is holding you down" blather poured into peoples ears. Sound like a combustable mixture or just tin foil hat time?

By-the-way, Vim, were extensive plans made for the riots after the acquital of the cops charged with beating Rodney "can't we get along?"King? Or did the lumpen-crim-dregs of LA just see their main chance (such as it was) and grab it with both hands?

To the point that liberals are projecting consider that most of them are all for rule of law now that they have captured the castle. If they had any confidence in the justice and rationality of their cause they would dispense with state sponsored social engineering and let people choose what's best for themselves. As it is, they know, even if they won't admit it to themselves, that they rule only because they are ruthless. Not right, not more reasonable or more compasionate but more ruthless.

[Captain Beefheart]

While this is a victory for freedom loving Americans, I think its pretty scary that this even went in front of the Supreme Court. And while I do think an Obama victory will benefit us in the long run, one major argument against Obama is the threat of him putting more Marxist-Liberals on the supreme court.

However, in 20-30 years, if and when the coalition of Marxist-Liberals and non-whites come into power, the Constitution probably won't matter anyway? After all, it was written by White men, therefore it is evil by its very nature.

As the country becomes non-white, concepts like "private property" or "freedom" will be replaced by concepts such as "justice" and "equality." The Marxist-liberal coalition fears greatly the idea of people owning firearms. Because when they try to implement so called "land reform" (Like Zimbabwe) or reparations, or forced diversity, the non-Marxist-Liberal population may try to resist?

Given the choice between the right to bear arms, or the right to vote, I'll take an AR-15 any day. I have much faith in an AR-15 when the Marxist-Liberals attempt their new Soviet-Style "collectivization" for the 21st century.

[Kirk]

I figured I'd post a couple of things for those who may be interested in firearms.

The first is an FBI paper on the stopping effectiveness of hanguns. Though some may consider it a bit dry, I found it entertaining, as it dispells many Hollywood-made myths regarding what happens when you shoot someone.

FBI article

The second is just a fun and interesting site, where two old coots shoot stuff to see how far bullets penetrate into it. Though admittantly unscientific, it is startling to see just how many sheets of wallboard a typical 9mm will penetrate.

As a pass/fail measurement of bullet effectiveness, they go by the FBI's recommendation -- that a bullet should penetrate no less than 12" of ballistic gelatin to be useful. This agrees with the paper I posted above.

Box O' Truth

[Rick A Hyatt]

OH, THIS IS NOTHING! Next Step? Will be when I am subpeona'd for my testimony on my past 30+ years as an US Army "Manchurian Candidate Study" subject.
(Go to www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com to see just how immersed I AM in this espionage business - Hope you have Piclens, for I've got PHOTOS of past major spies I have known long-term along this line you won't believe!)
That is to say, my own mission as a "Sleeper," totally controlled, of course, by the FBI and (Double-Blind, unknowingly) "Social(ist) Services," was to "Act up" (Utilizing special psychological and physical attributes such as clinical hypnosis and Celiac's Disease, which causes reversible neopathy) to the degree that I became "One of those who shouldn't own a gun... and thusly influence on-going anti-gun legislation. I was successful in helping Maui Waiver Form 2036 (Allowing the corrupt politicians to search a gun applicant's ENTIRE LIFE'S medical, sexual etc. files) and then exploit same for political purposes on Maui. Coming then here to Wyoming, hearing of my "Reputation" they specially whipped up our Concealed Carry Permit Restriction, for such " a person like me... Then, when I passed the NCIC, etc., and got a Florida Permit, valid here, they passed a special law - JUST FOR ME- ILLEGAL AS HELL - Such that it could not be used here, as examples.
My "Behavioral Programming?" To act unnaturally conservative, pro-Constitutional, openly Patriotic, and to be vocal about it. Be "Dumbed Down" from the Celiac's by eating bread and drinking beer. Couldn't have made a better target and/or "Dummy" for the Liberals to use as an "Example."
Now... Since so many anti-gun laws are based on the acts of the Columbine, Post Office, Mall otherwise-untraceable (By the APA, anyway) "Sleepers" (As myself), then how can ANY OF THOSE LAWS BE VALID AT ALL?

"Telling the truth during times of universal deceit will be a revolutionary act." George Orwell, "1984"

[Dan Morgan]

Vim writes: I wish that pro-gun people would be more honest about admitting that the right to bear arms costs us a few people (some kids) a year.

That was once a decent argument against gun freedom, but actually no one can prove this with studies. In fact, in recent years the data has been pointing in the other direction. Right-to-carry-laws have spread across the US and violent crime has dropped in those states rather than increase.

Of course a comprehensive model, including all variables, is extremely difficult when trying to find the correlation between gun control and crime. John Lott, for one, has spent much time on this and concluded "More Guns, Less Crime". I read his book and thought it was well reasoned. At a minimum it showed that claiming gun control reduces crime is on very shaky grounds.

From wiki on Lott's book: "His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases."

[Dan Morgan]

HS, sorry, crap, I didn't close the italics right again.

[HS response: I've been seriously considering turning off people's right to use HTML tags in comments. Not a day goes by where I don't have to fix at least one comment.]

[Svigor]

(Like Zimbabwe) or reparations, or forced diversity, the non-Marxist-Liberal population may try to resist?

I remember crossing swords with gun-grabbers, and even some gun advocates, over the power the gun gives the people over the state. All scoffed at the idea that guns give the citizenry a fighting chance against government tyranny, with the latter waxing Clancy-esque about government hardware.

It just occurred to me that the federal government's current experiences in Iraq might have something to say on that matter. I don't know, call me naive, but I think 200 million snipers and saboteurs vs. the federal government comes down to a question of wills, more than way.

[Vim]

Dan Morgan:

Yeah, I think you are right. The mechanisms you suggested do sound plausible and like there might be factors that would cut both ways. My claim probably would need some research to be adequately defended.

I was more thinking of gun accidents, Columbines and other issues related to guns rather than a reduction in crime. As I have said before, Europe/Canada/Australia make it pretty self-evident to me that America is not in the forefront of figuring out how to have lower crime and in fact, it seems to be a tertiary factor in considerations of what to do.

I get the impression Americans like to see people punished and they are willing to live crappier lives themselves as long as they know other people are suffering for their 'bad' choices: being gay, promiscuous sex, not studying in school, robbing people, doing drugs ... hence all the policies on these issues that don't work and seem to make things much, much worse.