Wonkette
They’ve been talking about it for a while, but the ACTIVIST judges of the Supreme Court today struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership, voting along Ideological Lines. Hooray! Because we all have guns, and now we don’t have to hide them under our pillows with the safety off anymore, which was not safe in the first place. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion went along the lines of: “If a bunch of blacks in Anacostia shoot each other, how the hell does that affect me, Tony Scalez?” [Washington Post]
In honor of this decision, there will be free venison at the National Observatory. Forever.
Oh, good, now I can worry about being shot in BOTH VA and DC when I, by walking in the crosswalk on green, make the mistake of pissing off an armed driver turning right on red (the rule around here apparently being you can run down a pedestrian if they impede your way).
SayItWithWookies: Naval Observatory. Damn.
SayItWithWookies: along with sauteed Filet of Cheney’s Hunting Companion.
What is Lara doing there with a gun and scales?
Fuck. And people thought the police in Trinidad were bad before. It’s gonna turn into Fallujah over there now.
Tawmn: It looks more like a Sim version of Lara.
Doglessliberal:
Served in an open-face sandwich.
As long as D.C. can still make bullets illegal. The second amendment says fucking NOTHIN’ about bullets.
Anthony Kennedy has become the de facto ruler of the United States. He will always break the 4-4 tie. We should just ask him to appoint the new President.
Tawmn:tunamelt:
Christmas tree. Cyber-chick. Dope scale. Rifle.
That’s a full 66% of a Paultard’s wet dream.
All it needs now is a bag of cheetos and an X-box.
Why do ignorant gun haters think that striking down the UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun ban will somehow make DC more dangerous? Do you really think that the gun ban law had kept criminals from owning and using guns? Or do you think that now more criminals will go and buy more guns since now it will be “legal” for them to do so?? Of course they will , since criminals always try to obey the laws , except when they are doing their criminal stuff that is
<<runs out to buy guns !!
Doglessliberal: Q: What’s the hardest part about Texas cooking?
A: Getting the buckshot out of the lawyer.
Canmon (the Inadequate): seriously. If WALNUTS gets elected, and we get Nino Jr appointed when Stevens cannot hang on longer, Kennedy is going to feel so deflated.
…not to be a total tin foil conspiracy theorist(but I am), does anyone else see something disturbing with this law being struck down in Washington D.C. and the high probability of Barry being president in January! Anyway we can lobby to have his presidential limo replaced with a Stryker personnel carrier?!
(Very softly) Hurray!
Canmon (the Inadequate): Yes, excellent idea, but not until he has been thoroughly reprogrammed by a select group of progressives.
SayItWithWookies: as a lawyer, I find that funny.
I wouldn’t mind prying Anton Scalia’s gun out of his cold, dead hand.
So a friend went fly fishing in Montana, and before leaving he asked his guide if he should bring a gun to protect himself from grizzly bears. The guide said, yes, and he recommended a .22, “because it won’t hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your ass.”
I await the editorial in the National Review condemning the activist judges who made this decision.
Now recruiting for new gang, “th3 H1ll $taffaz”.
Must bring own handgun (No pussy .22’s).
It would appear that the four justices in the minority were trying to say that the constitution was unconstitutional by way of the second amendment. Or in other words, they were saying that individual rights given in the constitution were unconstitutional or better yet let us use the constitution to declare the constitution unconstitutional. What a stretch!
Yay!!! I can finally start building that low-yield nucular weapon I’ve been saving up for!
AngryBlakGuy: not that I don’t disagree there are abundant whackos around, but people have been trying to get this struck down for a looooong time. This predates Barry’s run, and the outcome is completely unsurprising and could have been predicted. Not to go off into legal geek minutiae, but the argument to uphold the ban was poorly structured and made on the wrong grounds. This was not the case to appeal if the DC gov didn’t want precedent based on bad facts, and the DC gov should not have done so.
That being said, Barry should still go for the reinforced vehicles, wherever he drives.
AngryBlakGuy: No. I see a conspiracy in Cheney getting a shotgun in DC.
I am telling you, no one is safe now, not even the lawyers.
I’d totally hit that Sim, BTW. Something about a hot woman with a gun, I think. Especially a 3D woman with a gun. Especially a hentai 3D woman with a gun and really ginormous tits.
Ok, wait a minute. Help me out people. The Supremes have rules that we can’t give folks the death penalty for child rapists, and THEN tell us we can tote guns? What are they REALLT telling us? Open season on child rapists! Yipppeeee!
He I have an idea on how to test this decision — let’s all show up at Scalia’s house with guns…and beer!
WIDTAP: Are you saying that the folks in D.C. are not capable of living in peace and are savages that have to be protected from themselves, by the all knowing, all capable elected leaders? Marion what was his name?
AngryBlakGuy: I was thinking that too. And it’s not paranoia if they are out to get you. I’m waiting for the email to be circulated that says that not only is Barry a Muslim, but if you shoot him you can redeem this gift certificate for 72 open-minded Christian virgins.
snig: What a leap, let me get my hard hat the sky is falling, nothings going to chance. Get a grip.
Really, does this surprise anyone? I imagine the majority discussed this all of about seven minutes before deciding to go get ice cream. Scalia’s probably had this decision written since the day the court decided to hear this case.
I’m failing to see the point of this decision. Is someone predicting a massive influx in gun registrations in SE DC?
That being said, I can’t wait until John McCain snaps and starts shooting. Nam style.
MoodProcessor: And a pile of gold. Sweet, shiny gold.
snig: Oh please. Just offer a gift certificate to Old Country Buffet.
70 year-old WALNUTS supporters will make the White House look like the Tet Offensive.
Hey Ken,
I would install a metal detector in your Washington Bureau, if I were you. I know your bureau is only 6’ x 8’ but you never know when Sara will reach into her purse for that .357 mag and Jim reach down into his trouser pocket and whip out a dainty Beretta .25.
We’ll read about it on Gawker about how Wonketters’ comments finally pushed Sara over the edge to unload into Jim and his computer.
Happiness is a warm gun… yes it is.
And one of these days, the Justices will understand this when they become a victim of a crime involving a gun.
If Justitia, Lady Justice of the Scales, actually looked like that, I would’ve become a lawyer for the boffing. Justitia should be portrayed as a 300 pound transvestite weilding the Dildo of Law (possibly a strap-on, probably with spiky bits on it) balanced against the Enema of Freedom, and resembling Divine more than anyone.
NB: apologies to the 300 pound transvestites in the Wonkette readership. Sorry!
Just in time for W.’s birthday, too! Fuck cards; this is a much better way to let him know how we feel.
NedPepper: snig: …as a flaming liberal I actually have no issue with people owning guns(in D.C. or otherwise). However I do have the common sense realize that a Barret .50 cal isn’t for self defense and isn’t for hunting(unless you want to turn a deer into a cloud of red mist). To go off topic a little; where were all of the 2nd amendment gun nuts when our spineless house and senate gutted the 4th amendment(search and seizure) this afternoon and passed FISA. Don’t they realize that if us gun hating liberals really did want to take their guns away the way we would do it is by illegally SEARCHING and SEIZING them?!?!
So it’s okay to see hidden meaning in the Constitution that says handguns for everyone, but it’s not okay to see hidden meaning in the Constitution that says women can choose to have abortions.
Got it.
Actually, I don’t got it.
And let’s get back the old Washington Bullets!
I always hated that name change.
In my honest opinion, I think the wrong animals are being shot every autumn.
Thank God the right to bare arms is back in D.C.
http://www.countryhumor.com/larry/righttobarearms.jpg
Godless Liberal *: No, see, abortions KILL people, whereas guns just…
…oh.
Looks like that guy in Kentucky celebrated a day early. God only knows what Cheney’s going to do. Personally disable trigger locks and start forming citizens’ arrest SWAT teams for the express purpose of shooting additional people in the face?
norbizness: HA!!! HA HA !!!! AWESOME! 20 BILLION WHORE DIAMONDS!!!
If the “God loves irony” streak continues, a closet-gay GOP Senator will be shot in a D.C. bathroom while having gay sex with an illegal immigrant.
AngryBlakGuy: I agree, good point, one has to look at the entirety of the constitution and see where the different rights are dependent on the others. Point, A Barret 50 is for getting a nut off and it kills from great distance, truly a military only weapon.
nbawriter: …While smoking joints they got from their cannibis clubs to ease the pain from the cancer they contracted after being tricked into a 30-year, three pack a day habit by devious tobacco companies.
AngryBlakGuy: However I do have the common sense realize that a Barret .50 cal isn’t for self defense and isn’t for hunting(unless you want to turn a deer into a cloud of red mist).
But the Second Admendment isn’t about self-defense or hunting, despite anti-gun attempts to frame the debate favorably for them.
NedPepper: …well welcome to the light, you are amongst friends!
Godless Liberal *: Come, keep it straight: the rule is, only the hidden meanings that God shows to Scalia are the real hidden meanings. The rest are tricks put there by the Devil and his evil fornicator handmaidens on Earth.
AngryBlakGuy: hey you haven’t had fun until you go dove hunting with a .357 magnum or an Uzi!
Doglessliberal: The good doctor would be proud.
Whiskey Tango: Actually, Scalia points to self-defense as one of the specific reasons’s why the 5 Justices overturned 70 years of precedent and converted this to an individual right. Check out the opinion first next time.
wonderfulwonderful: [deletes the apostrophe "s"]
The supreme irony! The only reason I support gun rights is I want to be able to defend myself in case the government goes fascist and I have to shoot the National Guard thugs who are trying to detain me! And now, the government IS fascist, but they support my right to carry guns AND they’ve sent the National Guard overseas. You never see this stuff comin’.
Whiskey Tango: …yes you are correct the second amendment isn’t actually about self-defense or hunting! What it is about is maintaining a “well REGULATED militia”. In the United States the National Guard is considered each states militia. Secondly the term “regulated” means that CERTAIN weapons can be OUTLAWED for various reasons(for example: fully automatic weapons and armor piercing, incindeary and explosive rounds). Many gun nut confuse regulation with confiscation and this is not the case. Once again I have no issue with gun ownership, however I do recognize the need to keep weapons designed for war off our streets.
“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.”
AngryBlakGuy: oh wait, bear ARMS?
http://www.buckleshop.com/images/b45e.jpg
Mumble Softly: I look forward to reading about your death by accidental self inflicted gunshot.
wonderfulwonderful: Scalia really has no sense of irony at all. In yesterday’s dissent in the child rape death sentence case he went on about how public policy considerations shouldn’t play a role in deciding the existence of a Constitutional right. I have seen this guy in action, and it’s like having a talk radio host on the bench: Zinger, interrupt, zinger, false duality, self-satisfied smirk. I hope President Obama and the filibuster-proof 111th Congress initiates a mass impeachment of everyone appointed to the federal bench between 2001 and 2008, inclusive.
WadISay: You’d have to go back a little further to remove that fat bastard…
AngryBlakGuy: …my argument isn’t that guns should be outlawed, my argument is that CERTAIN guns should be outlawed.
-Hand Guns: Legal
-Hunting Rifles: Legal
-Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles: ehhhhh Legal
-Barret .50 cal: ILLEGAL
-Mini Gun: ILLEGAL
-RPG-7: ILLEGAL
-SAW M249 : ILLEGAL
-MP5 Sub Machine Gun : ILLEGAL
I hope you are picking up my pattern here.
WadISay: of course he doesn’t. Irony is surgically removed when you join Opus Dei.
And I shudder when I say this, but I actually agreed with him in the 6-3 Giles v. California opinion yesterday on a defendant’s right to confront his accuser under the 6th Amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-6053.ZS.html
I saw pigs flying by my window, too.
AngryBlakGuy: but I want to use RPGs to protect the sanctity of my home! And a small nuclear device would work, too.
I’m going to stick my neck out just a leeeetle here and cautiously say that the mere ownership of a firearm does not instantly convert one from a law-abiding, peaceful person into a blood-drenched, vengeful, destruction-bent hate machine ready to mow down every man, woman, child, dog, cat, etc. that hoves into view.
(Ducks head)
Doglessliberal: …I use my RPG’s to chase my neighbors dog off my lawn and my Nukes are strictly for special occasions, like the 4th of July(cuz I’m conservative/patriot). That being said if you are in the Miami area on the 4th of July don’t forget your fallout equipment.
Truculent: …no it doesn’t, however how many guns are stolen from law abiding citizens each year? How many unscrupulous gun shop owners dump illegal weapons into the hands of criminal just for a buck? If everyone weapon known to man was legal then I guarantee you criminals would find a way to get their hands on all of them. You have to weigh the rights of some people to go to a shooting range and legally shoot a Mini-Gun versus a gang member who may steal one and use it in a drive by shooting.
That snoring sound you hear is Nina Totenberg preparing an unusually short report for ATC tonight. Ho hum.
AngryBlakGuy: Hey… Northern California skies look like we are in a nuclear winter, so you can be assured of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
bitchincamaro: random fact: I recently rode in an elevator with Nina and her husband at the Kennedy Center. She was wearing a fairly ugly outfit. When she opened her mouth and spoke, it was quite bizarre, sort of like “wait, you cannot be talking about normal things with your spouse-you need to be giving that trademark Nina-giving-us-the play-by-play report on the oral arguments!”
AngryBlakGuy: All very valid points. I am addressing a very narrow aspect of this ruling and the ensuing fallout, that three weeks from now D.C. will look like Sadr City. Like that scene in “Reefer Madness, when the clean-cut guy takes his first toke and then turns into Lon Chaney? The inference is that the mere act of owning a gun makes one homicidal. Yeah, there are and will continue to be bad gun shop owners, just like there are bad pharmacists who sell narcotics, and bad cops who steal drugs for resale on the streets, and bad bankers who cheat poor people and run off with millions.
I would be very interested to see how many cases there are of gang members obtaining a vehicle-mounted weapon like a mini-gun, which requires a special power supply and an ammo pack weighing hundreds of pounds. The vast majority of street weapons are low-quality, very cheap firearms. Even the vaunted “assault rifles” are little more than .30 caliber semi-automatic deer rifles. They’re no more or less deadly than Dad’s old reliable Remington 700 hunting rifle. They just look meaner. And the rate of fire is determined by how fast you can wiggle your index finger.
You are also correct that society has to weigh the rights of people to go to target ranges against the risk of a criminal acting, well, criminally. I would hope that we would always opt on the side of more liberty even at the risk of reducing safety somewhat. Most of the people in this space probably prefer to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom to go and do whatever they like without anyone telling them what to eat, smoke, sleep with, vote for, and so on. Gun owners are no different.
Now, if you’ll excuse me I have to go kneel down and put my neck into the notch of that big wooden block.
http://usera.imagecave.com/destonio/Destonio_SupremeGun.jpg
My proposal is put a wall around DC and create an open form federal penitentiary with armed convicts, a la “Escape from New York”.
WIDTAP: hey, that was the State of Georgia.
AngryBlakGuy: In the United States the National Guard is considered each states militia.
You are correct, that the N.G. is considered each *States* militia. However, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311 of the U.S. Code defines *all* the militia. Let’s take a look:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
AngryBlakGuy: Secondly the term “regulated” means that CERTAIN weapons can be OUTLAWED for various reasons(for example:
Hmmmm. Regulated has other meanings, as well. Let’s look:
For “regulate”, the Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions which were all in use during the Colonial period, and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989).
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
5) [obsolete sense] Of troops: Properly disciplined.
One can also gain a sense of the common interpretation by studying the literature of the time. For example, you might consult what Alexander Hamilton wrote about “well-regulated” Federalist Paper No. 29.
AngryBlakGuy:no it doesn’t, however how many guns are stolen from law abiding citizens each year?
Do you appear think this is the law-abiding citizens’ fault?
As this is typically American, I think it is only fair if the response were typically American. Therefore, here is Dick A. Heller’s address and phone number… Write him a letter, give him a call… Let him know your thoughts: American Hero? or Biggest Prick Ever?
Dick A. Heller
263 Kentucky Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-3425
Enjoy, America.
Heller gave us so much, why not return the favour.
AngryBlakGuy: In the United States the National Guard is considered each states militia.
You are correct, that the N.G. is considered each *States* militia. However, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311 of the U.S. Code defines *all* the militia. Let’s take a look:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
AngryBlakGuy: Secondly the term “regulated” means that CERTAIN weapons can be OUTLAWED for various reasons(for example:
Hmmmm. Regulated has other meanings, as well. Let’s look:
For “regulate”, the Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions which were all in use during the Colonial period, and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989).
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
5) [obsolete sense] Of troops: Properly disciplined.
One can also gain a sense of the common interpretation by studying the literature of the time. For example, you might consult what Alexander Hamilton wrote about “well-regulated” Federalist Paper No. 29.
AngryBlakGuy:no it doesn’t, however how many guns are stolen from law abiding citizens each year?
Do you think this is the law-abiding citizens’ fault?
Wow, thanks Whiskey Tango.
Change your name to: DeltaOscarUniformCharlieHotelEcho … OK?
What happened to that guy who wrote the Federalist Papers, anyway?
Whiskey Tango: …yes I love you too but you don’t have to post so many times to get my attention!
Im not really sure your point on the National Guard so I will address your other posts.
…you can “regulate” anything out of existence in a legal fashion. For example drugs like Marijuana and Cocaine were banned in the early days by requiring distributors to pay taxes on them but the only way you can pay taxes is by obtaining a special “tax stamp” which the government then refused to actually give out. Another way to regulate something out of existence is to simply tax the shit out of it!
…secondly I don’t want to punish “law abiding citizens”. I respect everyones right to own a gun, I just think certain guns are too dangerous to be floating around. The same way the government can tell me that I cant get behind the wheel when I have a blood alcohol level .08 but I can with .07 for public safety reasons, is why I believe they should be able to tell people they cant have SAW M249 but can have a handgun/shotgun/rifle. And the same reason why someone can use racist/sexist/anti-semitic language but cant scream “FIRE!” in a crowed theater.
Truculent: …first my reference to a “Mini-Gun” was satire my friend. Secondly if you talk to any law enforcement officer they will tell you that criminals have far better weapons than they did in years past. Hence the explosion in the number of police departments purchasing semi-automatic rifles. Yes, criminals will act criminally but if the flood gates for weapons were opened PLENTY of them will fall threw the cracks into the hands of criminals. On top of that you would see an acceleration in the Cold War style weapons race between Law Enforcement and criminals. And at that point it wouldn’t be too long before 7-11’s are being robbed by guys toting TOW missle systems(I kid I kid)
AngryBlakGuy: Im not really sure your point on the National Guard so I will address your other posts.
Simply that, under the U.S. Code, all (with qualifications/exceptions listed above) able-bodied males, aged 17 to 44, are members of the (unorganized) militia. It’s not just the National Guard.
AngryBlakGuy: you can “regulate” anything out of existence in a legal fashion.
True, but it doesn’t appear that this meaning is the one referenced.
AngryBlakGuy: I just think certain guns are too dangerous to be floating around. The same way the government can tell me that I cant get behind the wheel when I have a blood alcohol level .08 but I can with .07 for public safety reasons, is why I believe they should be able to tell people they cant have SAW M249 but can have a handgun/shotgun/rifle. And the same reason why someone can use racist/sexist/anti-semitic language but cant scream “FIRE!” in a crowed theater.
In the order of the points you make, Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right, and can be suspended/revoked by the issuing authority; and you can scream “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, but the First Amendment won’t provide a defense for any resultant injuries/damage. Damaging people or property with any object, M249 or .50 cal, (or automobile), isn’t defendable by the Second.
(And I apologize for the double post.)
AngryBlakGuy: I suspected the mini-gun thing was in jest, but if you look at the WaPo blog on this topic there are lots of people predicting that and more.
What was Nicholas Cage’s opening line in “Lord of War?” “There are 500-million small arms in the world. That’s one for every 12 men, women, and children. The only question is, how do we arm the other 11?”
Realistically I don’t think people will run out and buy guns en masse. They’re expensive and not user-friendly. States that legalized concealed carry expected a rush of people applying but the rush turned out to be a trickle. Probably the same thing will happen here.
Of all the blather I typed earlier, the one most salient point is this — I would prefer to take on a little additional risk in my life rather than surrender some of my freedoms. I have a concealed carry permit and I almost never strap up. The gun is heavy, you have to work hard to keep it out of sight, and if a cop spots it you’ve gonna spend some quality time face-down on the pavement until he takes the piece and you produce the permit. There is another sort of heaviness beyond the weight of the firearm. Knowing you carry a tool that can deliver death makes me, at least, all the more cautious, all the more careful to avoid trouble. When I’m going places where trouble may find me, Mr. Nine Millimeter tags along.
I lived in D.C. for a dozen years in the 80’s and 90’s. It was bad back then. Today’s ruling will affect the gangbangers not one whit. For the few that do arm themselves, I hope they learn to use the gun and recognize that a bullet, once fired, cannot be recalled.
Whiskey Tango: …I think you are concentrating a little too much on my analogies, so I will stay away from them. What I am trying to say is that the governments purpose is to protect the people; and that there is a balancing act between peoples rights and what is best for the society as a whole. None of the rights that are granted by the constitution are ABSOLUTE. In life there is no such thing as black and white and the same thing goes for the constitution. You cannot allow citizens posses any and all forms of “Arms”(which in its literal sense covers everything from low-tech daggers to state of the art chemical lasers), because it would present danger to the public at large. I think we can agree on this(I hope). The question is how dangerous is, too dangerous; and I advocate that weapons designed with the sole purpose of battlefield use cross that line. I guarantee if you ask the maker of a Barret .50 cal if there rifle is made for urban use within the U.S. they would say “No”. My arguement is that the more battlefield tech you have floating around your neighborhood/city the more likely that someone will use it and that is what scares me.
Truculent: …maybe we had a misunderstanding. Because Im not advocating outlawing guns nor do I expect the streets of D.C. to look like something out of “Black Hawk Down”. All I want is to keep the REALLY DANGEROUS crap off of the streets and the best way to do it is make it illegal.
AngryBlakGuy: Actually, most of those aren’t illegal, they’re just highly regulated. You can own a machine gun or for that matter a 105mm howitzer, if you have a Class III license and pay the $200 transfer fee. Under federal law, anyway; some states ban those.
I personally think .50 BMG rifles should be regulated the same way that machine guns and grenade launchers are, since they are by no means sporting rifles (the round was originally designed for anti-tank weapons). Sure, you can shoot target competitions with them, but you could do that with tanks, too.
Oh, WhiskeyTango (where’s the Foxtrot?), “bear arms” in the 18th century (or for that matter, now) doesn’t just mean “carry a gun.” It means to serve in the ranks of an organized militia (the idea was, we wouldn’t have a standing army after the Revolution, which turned out to be a crummy idea). There’s considerable difference of opinion what “keep” means. Some of the Founders argued that it meant individual gun ownership, but historians note that one major reason for it was to allow militias to have armories, something the Brits had attempted to ban (that’s what Lexington and Concord was about). The Southern states in particular were concerned the Feds wouldn’t let them keep arms (muskets AND cannon) in state-controlled armories, which would put them at risk of slave insurrections.
The Second Amendment, like most of the Constitution, doesn’t mean today what it did when it was written, because what it meant then was that men should have the right to keep a musket around the house in order to serve in the local (well-regulated) militia. None of that really applies any more, since the weapons technology has moved along so far, and hardly anyone serves in the ranks (like, 1-2 percent). What it means now is what the Supremes say it means, which is largely determined by who appointed the majority.
It seems like a funny picture, but in some red state, right now, someone is spanking it to that. Blond, a gun, and can’t yell “get your hands off me you fat fuck”. It’s like a redneck trifecta!
God Damn those activist judges.
Somebody oughta shoo…..
Nah.
Somebody oughta shoot ME.
More guns and ammo dammit, and less cowbell.
Shit I shot a gun for the first time last weekend- a 12 gauge to be exact. You know what? Fucking awesome. I can’t hear very well out of my left ear though, which sucks a lot.
LETS BLOW SOME SHIT UP (for patriotic 4th of July reasons). It’s FUN !
Okay, back to being a dirty liberal.
Doglessliberal: On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Giles v. California. The high court rejected the State of California’s theory that the defendant, by killing the witness, waived his right to question her.
Employment opportunities for paralegals. Re-animators for dead witnesses so they can be cross examined. Experience with zombies, hopping ghosts or other undead required. Degree in mortuary science helpful.
The D. C. gun case is an EXCELLENT opinion from the High Court! OsiSpeaks.com
KYJurisDoctor: No. No. No.
With all this talk about the right to bear arms, did no one consider the right to bear legs? Or fangs. You could really mess up someone with a bear’s fangs. Rawwwr!
I mean, they ARE Strict Constructionists, aren’t they?
re: the Lady Justice upgrade. The new one is a mannequin, which admits of more interpretive possibilities than the old one carved in stone. She’s standing in front of an evergreen, holding a wind chime and a rifle, perhaps to use in defense of nature? And she’s dressed for a toga party! I can’t wait to see her new line for Fall. Maybe wearing an Ohio State sweatshirt, roasting a wolverine on a stick over a trash barrel fire, holding a shotgun in the other hand, at a liquor store parking lot?
NedPepper: If you’d told the Snig of eight years ago that the incoming adminstration was going to hamstring Habeus Corpus, launch a pre-emptive war, endorse torture, and tap our phone lines, I’d have told you to get a grip too. I’m actually conflicted on the gun thing, I believe in self-defense and freedoms, but from a public health standpoint, lot of kids getting severe lead poisoning. It’s just weird to me, lawn jarts being harder to obtain than a sniper rifle. And I worry for the safety of Hopey.
Truculent: I was in Boston years ago, I worked with a guy who coached football for inner city kids. There was one of the typical horrible shootings, 12 year old perp, gunned down a classmate. The topic came up and he said, “I know all about it, I coached the kid that did the shooting”. I asked what he was like. He looked at me a little funny. “Actually, he always reminded me a lot of you”. I was/am typically quiet/gentle/softspoken type. So when I think about guns, I wonder if I had grown up in a dangerous urban area vs. a remote rural area whether I would have been under stresses that could have made me a shooter. If I decided to own a gun now, I very much doubt I’d ever use it. Of course the vast majority of gun owners never fire them illegally. With greater access to guns, there would be some people who’d be made safer by owning one, there’d likely be some accidents and crimes that would be caused. My guess is more of the latter.
snig: Reasonable people will continue to disagree over this issue. Emphasis on reasonable. The Court’s ruling is a full-employment guarantee for legions of lawyers as they work through the nuances of regulation, registration, licensing, and so on. Personally, I’m pleased that the individual right was recognized. Whether the average citizen needs a personal Aegis system to prevent the neighbors’s dog from crapping on the lawn is a discussion for another day.
Truculent: AngryBlakGuy: The question comes down to who has the right and responsibility to protect your life with up to lethal force in your home and who has the the right and responsibility to protect you in public and semi-public spaces.
I am not sure the answer is the same in both cases. Nor do I necessarily believe the answers are the same in urban areas with a reasonable density of police coverage and remote/rural areas where there only a few sheriff deputies per county (I’m looking at you, West Virginia.)
The other valid concern is the power and destruction area of the weapon. Why does one need an anti-tank weapon to protect themselves home? If you need it for detente with you neighbors, then you need a government intervention anyway.
So I say ABG has it right - there is a need for balance of individual rights and public safety which may be balanced differently in different circumstances.
But personally, I’m agin’ carry conceal. If you’re going to take your gun with you in public space, you should have to carry out in the open where it is obvious, just like the police do. Only wussies conceal their phallic symbols.
WIDTAP: So the pistol I very occasionally carry has a three-inch barrel. Are you saying… Uh oh.
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis