Supreme Court overtunes Handgun ban in Washington

[Andy Turnbull]

Courtesy of the BBC news website.

I can't help but shake my head at this. You would think it might have dawned on America by now that having all these guns available might, just might be a contributing factor to the number of violent deaths in America.

Andy

[The Doctor]

Utter madness.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

The Yanks are funny buggers. They witness all of these kids take guns into colleges and subsequently clear out an entire campus and all they can do is continue to let people possess loaded firearms.

[mewshkin]

This is a Supreme Court ruling, not an American ruling. So we can only divine something about the Supreme Court.
This has mostly to do with the doctrine of Constitutional conservatism, wherein the Justice, imbued with voodoo powers upon confirmation by the Senate, channels the spirits of the Founding Fathers and divines what They meant when they wrote the Constitution. Its horseshit, in other words. Depends on what Father you cite, at what point in his life, and of course according to whatever current sociopolitical circumstance, or in less exalted terms, according to whatever political doctrine the Justice happens to cleave to.
Anyway, I can't understand how a private individual constitutes a "well regulated militia". The redcoats ain't coming.

[legios]

Jul 10, 2008 21:26:17 GMT mewshkin said:

Anyway, I can't understand how a private individual constitutes a "well regulated militia". The redcoats ain't coming.

This is something that has always fascinated me. I've always felt that the constitutional amendments regarding the "arming of bears" was very much a product of its post-revolutionary times. It always appeared to me that the emphasis intended at the time was not on the "every citizen should be armed" but on the "every able-bodied citizen is a part of the reserves should we be attacked by dastardly British oppressors". It has often struck me that its invocation to defend the right of the ordinary citizen to have a collection of varied and multifarious firearms somewhat misses the point. The "right to bear arms" seems more like a semi-accidental side-effect of what they were trying to achieve than a goal in itself.

But that is just from the standpoint of a "foreign devil" who is hardly steeped in US Constitutional scholarship

Karl
(And yes, I'm not sure how you get from a bloke with a couple of assault rifles, five hand-guns and a shotgun to "a well regulated milita" either.)

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 10, 2008 21:58:55 GMT legios said:

I've always felt that the constitutional amendments regarding the "arming of bears" was very much a product of its post-revolutionary times.

The arming of bears??? Those must have been desperate times indeed!

Martin

[legios]

Jul 11, 2008 4:50:10 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

The arming of bears??? Those must have been desperate times indeed!

Martin

When you are outnumbered you are inclined to take any volunteers who make themselves known.........

After all, there is a long tradition of various countries enlisting dogs of war as well........

Karl

[The Doctor]

I would not mess with a bear with a gun.

-Ralph

[Bogatan]

It always amazes me how strongly Americans in favour of guns feel about it and not always what might be considered the stereotype. Sadly the founding fathers are a little to revered Its like their wisdom should be applied for ever as if the world had not changed, America was a new country that had just declared independence from the military superpower of the day and the land was comparatively lawless and individuals had to be able to protect themselves.

I suppose at this point if all legal guns were removed from America the population would be terrified of armed criminals shooting them willy nilly.

Andy

[legios]

Jul 11, 2008 19:43:30 GMT Bogatan said:

I

I suppose at this point if all legal guns were removed from America the population would be terrified of armed criminals shooting them willy nilly.

Andy

That is one of the arguments advanced by defenders of the current state of affairs in the US:-

"If gun-owning was outlawed then only outlaws would have guns."

Which is a true statement as far as it goes, but doesn't really feel like it has much compelling force on its own to me. After all, the same logic can be applied to:-

"If alcohol was outlawed then only outlaws would have alcohol."

or

"If carrying knives was outlawed then only outlaws would carry knives."



The phrase is less an actual argument, and more a statement of fact mistaken for an actual philosophical/socio-legal debating position.

Karl

[dyrl]

Well - since I'm a crazy US citizen, I guess it won't surprise anyone to learn that this is one of those times when I agree with the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

I think the language and intent are pretty clear - the right to bear arms is an individual right, but there is also a right to have a well regulated militia.

As for all the shootings - I think that the problem is that these schools ban guns on campus in the first place.

"Gun free zone" is an invitation for people intent on doing harm to bring guns into said zone knowing full well nothing and no one would stop them.

I lived in Michigan, where it was legal not just to own a gun, but to carry the gun concealed - and I had the feeling that most folks would think twice before burglarizing a store or what not since you never knew whether other folks wouldn't pull a gun on you...

In any event - I understand that metropolitan areas might have a different view of this phenomena and a different interest. Nevertheless - I support the right and where there are practical concerns about how it's handled, I'm open to the idea of compromise - but a compromise that takes into account the right.

of course - this is never going to happen in Europe

Final note: the reason why it is a right in the Constitution is so that the people would always be armed and therefore the government would fear them - at least that was the idea - so that government could never repress them or potentially threaten them tyrannically...

Of course - with the US Army as powerful as it is, and the US police forces basically morphing into maramilitaries with armored trucks, tanks and the whole nine yards... I'm afraid regular Americans would have little recourse if their government were to ever turn on them

Pete