DC v Heller decided

[das1330]

As you may have heard, the US supreme court case District of Columbia V. Heller was decided today. Heller was a security guard that wanted to keep a handgun in his home for self defense but due to a district law, handguns were banned. He sued the district in court claiming that banning handguns infringes the second amendment to the constitution, which reads:

 

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.

 

There was two schools of thought here; that this either protected the militia's right to bear arms (which DC claimed was the national guard) or the people's right to bear arms. The court ruled in favor of Heller, striking down the bans and writing a decision that said that the amendment specifically refers to the peoples right to bear arms. (the actual decision can be found here http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf)

 

 

 

My question is what do you think of this? Personally I am in support of the decision, and I hope that this will lead to the striking down of similar type related bans in other parts of the country.

[Lenticular_J]

Great, they made the right choice.

[hoffman44]

The 2nd amendment is completely out dated. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to provide security in case a European power invaded, back when there was no regular military. But now the US has an army, navy, air force, coast guard, marines etc. The 2nd amendment should be changed or completely taken out.

[Da Pirates]

So you mean I can now carry a handgun in my house without having to have a handgun license?

[Mischlings]

The 2nd amendment is completely out dated. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to provide security in case a European power invaded, back when there was no regular military. But now the US has an army, navy, air force, coast guard, marines etc. The 2nd amendment should be changed or completely taken out.

 

 

 

And people within this country trying to kill you are not equally a threat?

 

 

 

I'm reminded of someone else's words on this subject (I will be paraphrasing): "Guns are banned, and law abiding citizens, being law abiding citizens, turn in their guns, while law breaking criminals, being law breaking criminals, keep their guns. Then when a law breaking criminal breaks into a house wielding a gun, the law abiding citizen is left defenseless, and therefore more likely to be killed."

 

 

 

People have the right to bear arms for protection; the way I read the amendment, the militia and right to keep and bear arms are separate ideas. Also, are you saying that disarming innocent people protects innocent people?

[hoffman44]

The 2nd amendment is completely out dated. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to provide security in case a European power invaded, back when there was no regular military. But now the US has an army, navy, air force, coast guard, marines etc. The 2nd amendment should be changed or completely taken out.

 

 

 

And people within this country trying to kill you are not equally a threat?

 

 

 

I'm reminded of someone else's words on this subject (I will be paraphrasing): "Guns are banned, and law abiding citizens, being law abiding citizens, turn in their guns, while law breaking criminals, being law breaking criminals, keep their guns. Then when a law breaking criminal breaks into a house wielding a gun, the law abiding citizen is left defenseless, and therefore more likely to be killed."

 

 

 

People have the right to bear arms for protection; the way I read the amendment, the militia and right to keep and bear arms are separate ideas. Also, are you saying that disarming innocent people protects innocent people?

 

 

 

Thats what the police and ADT are for. I have never of have had my house broken into.

[Mischlings]

The 2nd amendment is completely out dated. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to provide security in case a European power invaded, back when there was no regular military. But now the US has an army, navy, air force, coast guard, marines etc. The 2nd amendment should be changed or completely taken out.

 

 

 

And people within this country trying to kill you are not equally a threat?

 

 

 

I'm reminded of someone else's words on this subject (I will be paraphrasing): "Guns are banned, and law abiding citizens, being law abiding citizens, turn in their guns, while law breaking criminals, being law breaking criminals, keep their guns. Then when a law breaking criminal breaks into a house wielding a gun, the law abiding citizen is left defenseless, and therefore more likely to be killed."

 

 

 

People have the right to bear arms for protection; the way I read the amendment, the militia and right to keep and bear arms are separate ideas. Also, are you saying that disarming innocent people protects innocent people?

 

 

 

Thats what the police and ADT are for. I have never of have had my house broken into.

 

 

 

Neither have I, but in the time between when the house is broken into and the time the police get there? Unless you're really lucky, there's not going to be an officer right outside your door.

[hoffman44]

This is why you should not have guns in your house.

 

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb ... otato_chi/

 

 

 

And most often the security alarm is enough to scare away a bugler.

[Mischlings]

This is why you should not have guns in your house.

 

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb ... otato_chi/

 

 

 

And most often the security alarm is enough to scare away a bugler.

 

 

 

And there are people more determined than that. Sure, many will be scared away, but if they were, were they really THAT much of a threat?

 

 

 

So we're supposed to ban guns because some people are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]s and don't manage to keep them where they can't be reached? Dear god, it's not that hard to keep them away from kids, and also not that hard to keep the kids ignorant of their existence.

 

 

 

That's what pisses me off: people who think things should be banned because other people are idiots about it. It's the blame game: they're blaming the guns and not the [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]s who keep them within full reach of their children. THEY are the problem, not the guns.

[magekillr]

There goes the [bleep]ing neighbourhood. Thanks, SC.

 

 

 

God, I can't BELIEVE the savagery of the American populace - it's grotesque how people want to enshrine their right to be afraid, their desire to bully, to harm, to 'even the scales' with firearms, masking these insecurities under a pathetic ward of 'protecting my family/self/business/home'. What on earth gives you a right to ownership which supercedes another person's right to be alive? This attachment-to-everything is insane. If you have to do that to protect your property I'd say that you don't own it, it owns you.

 

 

 

My problem is with the assumption of a person's moral supremacy on one's 'own' property, when protecting one's 'own' tribe. If ethics can't supersede the importance of the petty, tiny fiefdoms into which we carve the world for ourselves, how likely are you to really be able to be happy in a prison you build to keep yourself in and the world out? I mean, really it's a question of how you deal with ethical affronts to your own psychological make up. Do you lash out? Do you plot revenge? Do you endeavour to understand?

 

 

 

I understand that the delineation of public and private space is monolithic in the western mind, but that doesn't make it the only way to view space or the right way to view space.

[Mischlings]

It's savagery to want to protect ourselves?

 

 

 

I believe that owning firearms is not morally wrong. I believe that people are responsible for deaths, not guns. I believe that killing in self-defence is justified if you were in danger yourself.

 

 

 

I'm not saying shoot the guy running away with your TV. He's no longer a threat, and it's not that important. I'm saying shoot the guy in your house with a machete, or the one trying to run away with someone else in your family. Someone trying to steal or damage your property doesn't give you right to kill him, but threatening your life or your family's life does.

 

 

 

Will I own a gun in the future? Unlikely. Do I support owning them? Yes.

 

 

 

The right to own a gun DOES NOT supercede someone else's right to be alive. If you shoot someone when you're not in actual life-threatening danger, then you'll be punished for murder in the third degree or for manslaughter. If you're shooting someone in self-defence, because your life is in danger, you won't be punished in the same way.

 

 

 

The second amendment gives you the right to own a gun and use it within the law, which includes the definition of what's considered self-defence.

 

 

 

Dear god, think about things people. For once. I'm sick of people thinking guns are an abomination of society.

 

 

 

69,999,993 legal gun owners (or thereabouts) killed no one yesterday. Get the point?

[hoffman44]

Then how come were in countries were gun control is very strict, the violent crime rate is far below the U.S. crime Rate.

[Mischlings]

Then how come were in countries were gun control is very strict, the violent crime rate is far below the U.S. crime Rate.

 

 

 

First off, correlation =/= causation.

 

 

 

Ever notice where the majority of violent crimes are? Tell me that. Where they are, and why that would happen. And tell me which countries these are, and what other reasons they might have lower crime rates.

 

 

 

Thing about violent crime in America is that it's a multi-faceted problem. It has more to do with our "culture" and poverty than gun ownership.

[magekillr]

Legitimate self-defense? In principle I believe in complete non-violence. If somebody attacked my spouse, would I be able to stand it? I don't know. But I think that until we at least aspire to such courage our society will not really improve. I also think that example is bandied around because it's emotion-provoking but not actually particularly relevant. The statistics on this one speak for themselves vis-a-vis guns - you could probably protect your people better, and with less risk to your family, with a sword.

[das1330]

Then how come were in countries were gun control is very strict, the violent crime rate is far below the U.S. crime Rate.

 

 

 

Put simply, its not:

 

Trends in recorded violent crime in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia, rate per 100,000 persons, 1962-2004

 

 

 

 

Both Australia and the UK have very strict gun control. Canada's is only slightly worse then the US.

 

 

 

Source is the Australian goverment: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.pdf

[Lenticular_J]

Legitimate self-defense? In principle I believe in complete non-violence. If somebody attacked my spouse, would I be able to stand it? I don't know. But I think that until we at least aspire to such courage our society will not really improve. I also think that example is bandied around because it's emotion-provoking but not actually particularly relevant. The statistics on this one speak for themselves vis-a-vis guns - you could probably protect your people better, and with less risk to your family, with a sword.

 

How could you defend your family with a sword? Someone with a handgun is threatening to shoot you, you throw it at them?

 

 

 

You believe different than us, apparently. The typical American would not be able to stand their spouse being attacked, whereas it appears you're not sure whether you'd care or not. I personally would fight with anything if I or my family/friends were under attack - and have. I completely believe in self-defence personally, and it appears that the Supreme Court does as well.

 

 

 

EDIT: That's quite a bad graph, Sniper. I can't really distinguish the words or lines.

[magekillr]

Legitimate self-defense? In principle I believe in complete non-violence. If somebody attacked my spouse, would I be able to stand it? I don't know. But I think that until we at least aspire to such courage our society will not really improve. I also think that example is bandied around because it's emotion-provoking but not actually particularly relevant. The statistics on this one speak for themselves vis-a-vis guns - you could probably protect your people better, and with less risk to your family, with a sword.

 

How could you defend your family with a sword? Someone with a handgun is threatening to shoot you, you throw it at them?

 

 

 

You believe different than us, apparently. The typical American would not be able to stand their spouse being attacked, whereas it appears you're not sure whether you'd care or not. I personally would fight with anything if I or my family/friends were under attack - and have. I completely believe in self-defence personally, and it appears that the Supreme Court does as well.

 

 

 

EDIT: That's quite a bad graph, Sniper. I can't really distinguish the words or lines.

 

 

 

Yes, that's it. Boil down a complex argument to a single frame of interpretation you can understand within your existing paradigm, without allowing any of the substance of the argument to interface with your consciousness in any way, then heap scorn on this 'handle' on the argument with that single sentence and declare victory! The Michael Giliberto tactic.

 

 

 

How can you not see the criminal, at the very least IN PART, as a victim of society? wtf? do you think that some people are just born evil?

 

 

 

I would also add that people find it hard to understand others when they don't make any attempts to understand themselves. Their strengths, their weaknesses, etc. It makes for a sore lack of those four letter words "Empathy" and "Compassion".

 

 

 

A lot of it has to do with that "Us Vs. Them" mentality that America has...

[Mischlings]

EDIT: That's quite a bad graph, Sniper. I can't really distinguish the words or lines.

 

 

 

Pull up the source, it has the same graph, you can see the lines on it much better

 

 

 

How can you not see the criminal, at the very least IN PART, as a victim of society? wtf? do you think that some people are just born evil?

 

 

 

Philosophical arguments? Great, I should've realized where this was heading.

 

 

 

When someone threatens your life unprovoked, why it happened doesn't matter. What matters is that if you don't act, someone is dead. Who's to say they won't do it again? And if, regardless of what happens, someone is getting killed, why let the one who might kill unprovoked again survive?

[magekillr]

People use objects and possessions as definitions of their personalities (corporations used a lot of Freudian theories to develop ways to market the changing of a buy-what-you-need into a buy-what-you-want culture) therefore they really don't have a "use", as they see it, for introspection. As a result, there's not much under all of the materialistic "personality"... so in cases where there is no access to possessions, or the means to possessions, they are more willing to let the animalistic urges control them into doing naughty, naughty things.

 

 

 

Not only that, but we are also raised from a very early age to assign some sort of value, usually arbitrary, to everything we see. with this mindset, it's easier to have 'conditional compassion' where it becomes a cost/profit evaluation of who we are willing to be compassionate towards.

 

 

 

And, after all, is killing to keep a possession that much different than killing to take one?

[Igor]

Eww. I think they shouldn't let ANYONE have guns.

 

 

 

If nobody had guns, nobody would feel the need to protect themselves with a gun.

 

 

 

Unless they had crossbows.

[Mischlings]

People use objects and possessions as definitions of their personalities (corporations used a lot of Freudian theories to develop ways to market the changing of a buy-what-you-need into a buy-what-you-want culture) therefore they really don't have a "use", as they see it, for introspection. As a result, there's not much under all of the materialistic "personality"... so in cases where there is no access to possessions, or the means to possessions, they are more willing to let the animalistic urges control them into doing naughty, naughty things.

 

 

 

Not only that, but we are also raised from a very early age to assign some sort of value, usually arbitrary, to everything we see. with this mindset, it's easier to have 'conditional compassion' where it becomes a cost/profit evaluation of who we are willing to be compassionate towards.

 

 

 

And, after all, is killing to keep a possession that much different than killing to take one?

 

 

 

You're attempting to further your position by completely ignoring what I have been saying.

 

 

 

When have I mentioned killing to keep a possession? I've already said that if you kill for that reason alone, and not to protect someone's life, it is wrong. Address why you're so opposed to that idea.

[magekillr]

I addressed that earlier. It was my second post here.

[Mischlings]

I addressed that earlier. It was my second post here.

 

 

 

All you did was say that you believe in non-violence and believe that examples are irrelevant. In fact, they are quite relevant, as that just might happen. You gave no reason for believing what you do.

[Laura]

Well shoot, I have 7 registered guns with me. One has a lead filled barrel, but we still keep one in most of the major rooms.

[warren211]

I live near Chicago. The suburbs of Chicago are known for their gang violence, drive by shootings, and unprovoked murders. Every day there's another sad story on the news of a teenage boy or girl being killed for what seems to be no reason, or was caught in the crossfire of a violent shootout, or was mistaken for another target. A young life brimming with potential for success being killed before his time to the violence of gun use. Every month in Chicago Public schools students hear that a fellow classmate has been killed. And after every one of these shootings a group of parents and fellow gun-ban supporters take to the streets in peaceful protest. Just today there was a protest on the cold blooded assault on an 8 year old boy in his stepfather's car. the kid took several bullets all over his body but somehow managed to survive. Its violence like this that give Chicago and its suburbs a bad name. Check out the History Channel's documentaries on gang violence. Chicago is the channel's favorite subject for its gang documentaries. For decades this has happened, innocent people being shot in cowardly drive-by shootings, where the criminal can easily drive away from the crime.

 

 

 

This sick violence has got to stop. I don't like the fact that I'm sitting here comfortable in my chair in my safe, cozy house when there are families out there who can easily have their children killed in cold blood on any given day. Second amendment my [wagon]. guns are protection from what? OTHER people with guns. If we can get these weapons off the street, then maybe one day a 12 year old girl can ride her bike down the street without being murdered in a drive-by shooting.