When writing a concurring opinion in an obscenity case in 1964, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said he could not necessarily define hard-core pornography, but “I know it when I see it.”
The Justice’s legally vague, but commonly candid definition is worth remembering as America once again considers gun control.
President Obama has proposed, and many Americans support, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines as one of a series of measures to reduce gun violence following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
What happens now depends on two critical debates.
The first will be in the Congress where the people’s representatives will decide, presumably based on the wishes of their constituents, whether certain kinds of guns and accessories should be outlawed.
This debate will be rooted more in emotion than reason. The demand that we “do something” following Sandy Hook will drive the argument.
If the Congress does pass an assault weapons ban, then we could have another fight in the Supreme Court.
The high court has already ruled (5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, enunciate the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That landmark decision trumped the long-standing argument by gun control advocates that the Second Amendment right, as Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, pertains to arming a militia and not individual citizens.
Still, the court’s decision was limited to rejecting the government’s imposition of a blanket ban on guns. It did not, however, answer thoroughly a key question: how far does the right to gun ownership extend?
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualification on the commercial sale of arms,” Scalia wrote.
In a 2012 interview on Fox News Sunday, Scalia said the extent to which gun ownership could be curtailed will depend on future cases where the court will decide “what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
That, undoubtedly, is where reasonableness will be applied. How else can the court decide when or if the possession of a particular weapon crosses the line from the protected right of an individual to an unreasonably high risk to the rights of others?
Perhaps, like Stewart’s common sense approach on pornography, the justices will know it when they see it.
70
Comments
Jim N Charleston
Well Skippy. Other than the headline I didn't read much, so I'm gonna wing it. I'll even be serious for a day.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution and it's clear, the 2nd Amendment is there for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government. You know like being under the rule of a King like in England.
It is not about Duck Hunting, Deer Hunting, Clay Pigeon or trap shooting, or defense in a home invasion from a burgler, those are just bonuses. The 2nd Amendment is about defense against tyranny. Failure to see that after studying history is cause to stop even debating or discussion. Freedom from tyranny is the key.
Now what defines tyranny. Well $17 trillion in debt with annual trillion dollar deficits like its no big deal is tyranny for future generations. Its pretty hard to argue that. In 30 years it will be even harder. I'm glad I'll be dead by that point.
How about a total lack of accountability for those in charge. We have Governors, Presidents, Congressman & political cabinet members who break the law and never pay any serious penalty. The list of names is not prejudiced by their political party either. It is only about whether you are still electable or not. This is tyranny. It's separate rules for separate groups of people.
We're supposed to all be treated the same by the justice system but when does that happen?
Our political parties & politicians use the constitution with selective enforcement. They pick and choose what they like & dont like and cut it up like its a scrap book. The bothers me the most being a libertarian. This is tyranny.
I make up part of the 91% who has no approval or respect for Congress. I couldn't tell ya the last time I voted for a candidate with a D or an R by their name in a State wide or federal election. I'm waiting for option 3 to emerge. I don't think we've had a good President since Moby Dick was a minnow.
As a country we don't even teach the Constitution in our school system. Little doubt then why a US Senator comes on your program and portrays the 2nd Amendment as if its a hunting permit. Maybe he also believes the 1st Amendment is reserved for just the Newspaper industry. If they don't like what's in the US Constitution then change it through the Amendment process like the Founding Fathers intended. Don't massage and manipulate it to please you're constituents.
There are aspects to freedom of speech I don't enjoy, but I don't support limitations to curb my life into a Eutopia.
January 17, 2013 at 6:15 am | Report comment
Jim
Dear Sir
Very well said . I would like your permission to post your response throughout my internet network and blogs . For winging it you truly understand what has happened to our country .
January 17, 2013 at 8:26 am | Report comment
GregG
First off, let me state that I do not support gun control. The reason I do not support control is due to the fact I have enough common sense to know that gun control is as useless as the war on drugs. But what I don't understand is why so many are using the excuse that they need armed to protect themselves from our government. I hate to break the news to you, but this isn't 1776. If you honestly believe that your little AR-15 and a closet full of 30 round clips is going to protect you from a "tyrannical government" then all I can say is, good luck with that! In case you wasn't aware, our government is a little better armed than they were in 1776. If our government wanted to "take you out" I can promise you they could do it long before the thought even entered your simple little mind that you were being attacked. A pocket full of rocks would serve you just as well as a house full of guns and ammo if our governement really wanted you.
January 17, 2013 at 8:36 am | Report comment
Uncle Fester
GregG, The Syrian freedom fighters against the TYRANNICAL Assad regime started out with nothing more than AR-15s, AK-47s, and hunting rifles. And where are they today?? About to overthrow a tyrannical government. So much for your argument. It is not so much the AR-15 that will keep tyranny at bay, it is the coming together of thousands of people, with AR-15's, that will combat tyranny. Defining tyranny: Barack Hussein Obama.
January 17, 2013 at 9:18 am | Report comment
TD
obviously you have no idea what tyranny is and hopefully you will live a life that allows your blissful ignorance of what real tyranny is to continue. ABSURD.
January 17, 2013 at 10:22 am | Report comment
GregG
Well Fungo, when you and your like minded buddies pool all your funds together and purchase a battalion of tanks, a few fighter jets and you amass all the other weapons you can afford please let me know so that I may formally send you a letter of apology for ever doubting your power and resourcefulness. Just be sure to post the address and cell number of the Federal Penitentiary where you will be residing.
January 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report comment
Uncle Fester
WTF????? You are one loose cannon.
January 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
Tom Stark
The picture of a couple million citizens, armed with their AR-15s surrounding the Capitol and White House will strike fear in the heart of those within those hallowed halls. It is the fact that nearly 50% or more of the general population possesses firearms of various types that will act as a deterent when policemen and military are asked to go house to house to collect firearms from the citizens. The casualties ensuing will be enough to make them rethink the situation. Yes, there will be some casualties, but one of our founders suggests that the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots AND TYRANTS. When the time comes, if it does, God forbid, there will be many willing to fight for the liberty our founders gave their lives to provide us. So, no, it is not silly, but rather a principle on which our country was founded. If we give away the Second Amendment, how long will it be before the others fall by the wayside. The time to draw the line in the sand is now and no better subject than our Second Amendment rights.
January 17, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Report comment
Sampeer
Well Said Jim N Charleston!!!
It is sad so many don't understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment or it purpose and so many others want to corrupt its meaning for the sake of advancing their agenda.
I heard a commentator on the radio yesterday who stated that a college professor he had for a class in bible said that you could make the bible say anything you wanted it to say. Of course, you had to ignore parts of what was being said by the bible or only uses selected sections of scripture to do so.
The same can be said of the US Constitution. One can make it say what they want it to say, by ignoring history, the founders intent, or just plain misapplying word meanings. Thus the US Constitution becomes Al Gore's "Living Document" which in reality means it says what ever the powers to be want it to say.
If the 2nd amendment can be corrupted by dishonest judges and politicians, which it has byt he way, then any of the rights and freedoms we enjoy are in just as much danger. In fact we are seeing that happen. The Patriot Act is a fine example of the corruption of the protections enumerated in the Constitution. The 4th amendment recognized the protection from unreasonable search and seisure, yet, the courts of upheld the act's allowance of warrants being granted by phantom courts, witht he reaosn being no more the supected of beign a terrorist. We can go on, but we'll stop there.
It is as Ben Franklin once said. Sacrifice your liberty for safety and soon will will have neither nor desire either.
January 17, 2013 at 10:15 am | Report comment
Medman
When you look at the 23 executive orders,there is little substance there because most of this stuff already exists and it is tweaking and window dressing for a political press conference and photo-op with kids. Nothing at all about Hollywood gun violence....can't go after those big donors, right?
January 17, 2013 at 6:50 am | Report comment
J.R. Skene
Jim, you say it's about tyranny? You suggest weapons are needed to protect ourselves from the oppressive federal government? You have to be kidding. You think a store bought weapon is going to stop the federal government from coming to get any of us if they decide they want to? How is that weapon going to stand up against an Abrams tank, or an anti-tank missile, or and F117 Stealth fighter? It was about tyranny in 1787 when the largest weapon in the federal arsenal were the guns captured at Ft. Ticonderoga. No, what this is about is the lack of understanding about the modern interpretation of the second amendment. No one needs assault weapons. No one needs high capacity clips. Those should be reserved to the military. Period. And if you think the Supreme Court disagrees with me, read Justice Scalia, the most conservative voice on the court, and his majority opinion in Heller v. D.C. He quite clearly states the amendment is not all encompassing and regulations exist and should exist. Get past 1787 and start living in the now.
January 17, 2013 at 7:19 am | Report comment
Tom Stark
So only the government should be able to out-gun the citizens. Makes total sense if you are a member of the government. The founders created the 2nd Amendment based on the concept that every citizen was a potential soldier to protect the country from outside enemies as well as domestic ones including out-of-control tyranny. Their philosophy was that they be armed in such a manner as to be of service to the country meaning they should be armed equally with the standing armies of the day...so they can fight and win against them. Therefore, citizens should be able to possess the same weapons issued to the infantry in the Army. Without that equality, there would be no value to the 2nd Amendment. On another note, the criminal element is in possession of weapons that will make a single-shot 22 serve little purpose. For the same reason, until the state gets criminals under control (fat chance), citizens need whatever is available to feel safe in a very dangerous world. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE...PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. No gun law will prevent criminals and insane people from killing people. What's the point other than making politicians "feel good" about "doing something" even if it does nothing.
January 17, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Report comment
bulldog95
People dont "need" a lot of things but rather want them. I didnt know this was a dictatorship, yet.
January 18, 2013 at 10:07 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
I suspect Hoppy's commentary will be the most sensible words written here on this subject. After reading the first reply, I am sure of it. I think I'll opt to reading about Te'o and his imaginary girlfriend. Less craziness there.
January 17, 2013 at 7:43 am | Report comment
wirerowe
Hoppy The President's announcment regarding gun control had all the trappings of a normal day in Washington. A victory celebration, a poignant photo op with children, an executive order with 23 points that are already in place or do nothing to deal with assault weapons or multi round magazines, and the old favorite standby of creating programs that do nothing but add to the national debt. I sensed Vice Presdient 's stamp on this after he may have told the President, "Mr. President we don't have the votes to do anything menaingful about either the assault weapons or multi round magazine". We shall see.
January 17, 2013 at 7:46 am | Report comment
TD
I know when I see something, that when Hoppy doesn't give the full throated case for the right, he himself agrees with the left, he just can't say it. Just my theory.
Question is, how many more guns will it take to make us safe? There are over 300 million in the country at the moment but we're not safe, either at schools, the movies, shopping malls, college campusues, anywhere. In fact if any one of us hear gunfire erupt today we may be shocked but probably won't take more than a second to realize a shooting is taking place.
In Jim's understanding above we must have the firepower to take on the gov't. Really? Then we're going to need everything up to and including nuclear weapons, does that fit with your reading?
January 17, 2013 at 7:51 am | Report comment
Shadow
You fail to note that all of the killings have occurred in what the Government calls "Gun Free Zones." They really should be called "Massacre Zones" as that is what they are. There is no question about that... These weirdos that perpetrated the massacres weren't crazy enough to pick a place where they would have an armed individual to confront them. As to fighting the Government that does not support the Constitution, that is an obligation to everyone that served as they took an oath "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic," Right now, I doubt if many in or out of the Services would go against those Americans that support the Second Amendment and that is a lot of us.
January 17, 2013 at 8:47 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
So you are calling for a coup d'etat, Shadow? And may I assume you were similarly indignant during the last decade when a President sent Americans to fight a couple of undeclared wars.
January 17, 2013 at 11:20 am | Report comment
Shadow
I served during the first undeclared war. It turns out that one was against foreign enemies. This one maybe against the ones that are domestic. Where do you stand on the domestic enemies against the Constitution? I hope on the right side as there is no middle ground!
January 17, 2013 at 11:42 am | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Where do I stand on the domestic enemies of the Constitution who call for overthrow of a duly elected government? Whether it's you, Shadow, or the Black Panthers, I just roll my eyes and trust sanity will prevail.
January 17, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
Shadow
As an after thought, I doubt if there are many that regret their service to mankind in the undeclared war when they look at the result, the current South Korea and its accomplishments, and compare it to the invader, North Korea. Not to mention the problems that North Korea is causing the free World now.
hop'ship, you have not done enough homework in studying the tyranny's of the 20th Century. One example, and their are others, is the Jews that believed that the duly elected 30's government of Germany would not make ashes of them. Those that read the tea leaves survived in this and other countries and have tried to teach us, along with their descendants, what can happen if we are not vigilant to the actions of our government. For myself, I don't trust this Government as far as I could toss a Hog. Has Obama and his cohorts told you anything that you can believe? Hmmm?
January 17, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
Hop'sHip
Hmm...Let's see. Were they the ones who told me that we had to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction? If that was Obama, I believed that.
January 17, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
marmaduke
You know nothing about war. You know nothing about history, or communism. All communist leaders took people guns first, and then democide took place.
January 27, 2013 at 9:46 am | Report comment
Brandon
In the spirit of limiting magazines to 10 rounds, all
January 17, 2013 at 8:01 am | Report comment
Brandon
comments for now on must be 10 words or less.
January 17, 2013 at 8:01 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
Seriously? Limiting all comments to ten words would be like....
January 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Report comment
thornton
The problem with achieving a definition is that the dolts on both sides of the issue have taken over the role of defining and corrupted the process by a focus on their own extreme agendas.
Those being either "guns are evil incarnate" or "I will need my 30 rounders to soon battle federal tyranny in Left Hand...Wolverine!."
The more reasonable on both sides of the issue are often afraid to display that reason as voters or fellow barbershop customers will throw the ever more common hissyfit.
It is a shame that American voters allowed America to run further down a different path, a path of dependence and government control...but they did.
There is always a tradeoff to stupidity.
January 17, 2013 at 8:17 am | Report comment
CaptainQ
Hoppy, thank you for this commentary. It is my sincere hope that 'cooler heads' will prevail on this delicate issue.
However, what I am sensing nationwide (but especially here in WV) is a growing fear among many that somehow, the government is planning to or GOING to take away our guns. Granted, much of this false hype has been generated by the NRA and it's allies, but sadly, a good many in this country seem to be falling for it. Look at the sharp increase nationwide of those attending gun shows alone. On one of my recent trips to a local Wal Mart, I was told that the store had sold out of ALL AMMUNITION. I think this is rather unusual since most of the hunting seasons in this state are long over. Random friends that I've met keep telling me that they sense 'something big' is about to happen and that they are 'arming' themselves for it. Granted, most of my friends are 'old fogies' like myself, but I can't help but wonder if their opinions are the majority view in this state.
After all, look at all the political 'hot water' Senator Joe Manchin got himself into by mentioning the very HINT of gun control. Seems the average WV citizen treasures their guns as much (if not more) than their families, careers or even WVU/Marshall sports teams.
The bottom line is, no matter which side of the gun control debate we happen to be on, there needs to be some common sense thrown into the discussion. I know this is unlikely in political circles, but somehow we as a nation need to set aside all the 'scare tatics' and 'propoganda' to have an honest, sincere dialogue about private ownership of firearms. There MUST be a way to balance the Second Amendment with modern 21st Century American society. Until this is done, all we're going to have is more of the usual growling, grumbling and fear mongering that has dominated this issue for decades.
January 17, 2013 at 8:58 am | Report comment
AJ
What those who hang their hat on the "defense against tyranny" argument are really contemplating is treason. They are prepared to fight their own government, apparently, and believe the 2nd Amendment gives them carte blanche to stockpile unlimited arsenals of whatever weapons they choose. This is a group championed by the likes of one-hit-wonder Ted Nugent, former pro wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura and the nutcase who appeared on Piers Morgan literally foaming at the mouth about a "return to 1776." I think background checks don't go far enough in many cases. What's really needed are comprehensive psych evaluations.
January 17, 2013 at 9:05 am | Report comment
John Sofranko
I agree, AJ. I hope they put delusional paranoia on the list. Tyranny, indeed.
January 19, 2013 at 11:40 am | Report comment
mntnman
It is true that the second amendment was important to the Founders because of their recent experience with a tyrannical King. They sought to arm the individual to protect the community and the individual against tyranny.
Nonetheless, no constitutional right is without limitation. Not a single one has ever been found to be absolute. Free speech has its limits, as does the exercise of religion. Press has been limited as well. So, to suggest that the second amendment is free from any limits is absurd. We already face limits on its exercise. The only question is how far those limits can go.
Do we have the right to a weapon without a background check? Do we have a right to military style weapons. Cop killer ammunition? Weapons with clips so long that many die before the trigger man has to stop and reload? I don't know. I have my own opinion, but it matters little with the SCOTUS being the final arbiter. We will find out in due course what the current court believes the limits are. Then we will know.
Until then, don't panic. The government is not coming for your guns; they are not coming to take over your home; the only oppressed are those who believe they are an island unto themselves. I will be leaving home today, going to work, the grocery store and coming home, all without government interference. No tyranny there.
January 17, 2013 at 9:16 am | Report comment
Shadow
Spoken like a true lawyer... However, the words are "shall not be infriged" doesn't leave much area for legal maneuvering if you understand English.
January 17, 2013 at 11:47 am | Report comment
mntnman
Well, you are mistaken both constitutionally and historically. Fact, those with mental illness as well as felons can be denied the right to bear arms. Infringed. Anyone can be required to go through a background check to get a weapon. Infringed. You may not carry a concealed weapon (in some places you may with a permit. In some places you can never carry a concealed weapon.) Infringed. You can be denied a rocket launcher, a automatic weapon. Infringed. You may not own a mortar. Infringed. What part of this do you not understand. No right under the Constitution is absolute. SCOTUS has acknowledged that from the beginning. Even, Scalia agrees. Let me write it slow for you. No right under the Constitution is absolute.
As for the veiled lawyer criticism; am proud of being an attorney. Worked hard for my degree. An honorable profession. Interpreting text is as old as texts -- and judges (lawyers) have always been tasked with doing that. The fact you don't understand or like that does not change it.
One last time. No right under the constitution is absolute -- and that construction is as old as the constitution. It matters not to me whether you believe it, since you will have no say in the final determination -- that will be up to SCOTUS.
January 17, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Report comment
Shadow
Wasn't it Shakespeare that said "The Law is an Ass?" Nothing much has changed.
January 18, 2013 at 11:26 pm | Report comment
Hop'sHip
Maybe we should introduce a little more recent history on the gun issue. There were people concerned about the "tyranny" that they perceived at that time. Here is an excerpt from a fascinating article from the Atlantic:
"one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must
take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.
It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.
Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/
January 17, 2013 at 9:52 am | Report comment
mntnman
Excellent point! Of course, Reagan was a gun control supporter. He passed a assault weapons ban, if I recall correctly. He was a real conservative, not what is passing today for one. BTW, Reagan could not get out of a republican primary today. Not conservative enough -- I know, hard to believe.
January 17, 2013 at 10:17 am | Report comment
WVPragmatist
If they could speak, I wonder what the position of the 20 dead children in New town would be on gun control? Since they can't speak, who speaks for them? The President? The courts? Who?
January 17, 2013 at 10:16 am | Report comment
Shadow
I think they would say "Lock up the Crazy's and treat them" or "I wish my teacher had a gun!"
January 17, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
The Libertarian in me is out today.
Let's set aside the murky minds of Lawyers for a moment. This isn't really difficult.
The second Amendment to the US Constitution as ratified states:
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.
... A strict interpretation suggests that the Federal Government should be absolutely prohibited from any control of arms. This should even include the first big power grab, the National firearms act of 1934 (if you are curious google it). Federal power to regulate arms is absolutely prohibited by the Constitution period! It is up to the states (see below).
The tenth amendment as ratified states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or specifically denied by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... This also includes powers specifically denied by the Constitution. It is the purview of the states to regulate arms and lots of other things the Federal now tries to control.
The West Virginia Constitution states:
ARTICLE III
3-22. Right to keep and bear arms.
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
... Seems pretty simple to me! West Virginia has other laws governing arms that I don't want to dig out right now. Suffice it to say I am willing to comply.
Having spent a lifetime watching a growing and progressively more inept Federal Government I am not too worried about it beyond it's ability to tax me to serfdom and grope or x-ray me at airports.
My greatest concern is family and self protection when civil society breaks down, like during storms Katrina, Sandy, or the twenty minutes it took for police to arrive on the scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School or the Century 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado for that matter. Under these circumstance twenty minutes is a very long time!
January 17, 2013 at 10:27 am | Report comment
Greg smith
Very interesting debate, however I am worried that with all the debate centered around gun control, that the real issue of twenty- six year old children being gunned down will be lost. We need to allow our people, teachers included, to be allowed to protect our kids before another idiot walks into a school or theatre or mall where guns are not allowed. That's the debate that's being forgotten until the next mass killing . Lets put the NRA and politics away and figure a way to protect our defensless children.
January 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
I agree. Since Obama proposed nothing that will prevent future occurrences. I suspect he secretly is just waiting for another incident to stir things up again and further his various agendas.
I have done a little reading and as a result would advocate a comprehensive study of the effects of Psychotropic Drugs (Ritalin, etc.), violent movies, and video games simulating violence on adolescent through early twenties boys/young men. There is evidence that since these individuals are still undergoing some neurological development through their early twenties permanent brain damage results. This is apparently confined to the frontal lobes and decreases inhibitions while not effecting intelligence. The boys/young men then act out violent fantasies resulting from the movies and games.
In the 1960s when I was that age surplus M-1 Carbines just back from the Korean War with twenty round magazines were cheap and readily available from local military surplus stores for less than $100.00, the ammunition was cheap, and you could walk into a surplus store almost anywhere buy a gun and walk out in a matter of minutes. Yet nothing like Columbine or Sandy Hook happened. Back then these psychotropic drugs were not available, although I imagine they were under development, movies were a lot less violent, and of course video games did not exist.
January 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Report comment
GregG
regulated..........Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
militia................ A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Hummm, Google can be used to find the definition of words too.
One could argue that the rights conveyed in the 2a actually only pertains to persons that belong to a "well regulated militia". Something like the National Guard.
January 17, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
Definitions change. You are cherry picking and your google results are irrelevant. I can find differing definitions depending on your time frame.
At any rate this is settled law according to the Heller Decision.
January 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report comment
mntnman
You are right -- the right to bear arms is an individual right. However, you are also wrong. The courts have never interpreted the second amendment as absolute. Not even Scalia sees it that way. You may wish it, but that doesn't make it so. So, you get a 50% for being half right. Failing grade, though.
January 17, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
You are misunderstanding my statements.
I said that the Libertarian side of me is out today where incorporation doctrine is not an issue. I also set aside "the murky minds of Lawyers (and Judges)". I then suggested that that the second amendment is absolute. Now that you are insisting that we delve into the "murky minds of Lawyers". I am well aware of the ramifications of the National Firearms ACT of 1934 that was the first formal limit to the Second Amendment and Heller Decision including Scalia's contributions.
I don't have any machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, or sawed off shotguns you see and if I did I would dutifully contact the Sheriff and buy a $200.00 tax stamp for every one.
January 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
GregG
"Cherry picking"? Is that like the old faithful " Your taking it out of context" that is always used when someone has a different interpretation of a bible quote? As I have stated before, I'm against gun control because I feel it is a wasted effort all the way around. Since this tragic event in Newtown I'll admit that I am amazed/shocked by the amount support for the right to to own assult style weapons and large capacity clips. And it seems the reason for this fight to keep these rights is base on fear that our government is going to start raiding peoples homes. I personally find this ridiculous on two levels. One, have you every known the government to raid a how without just cause. And two, even a well armed home is not going to over power our law enforcement or our military. If as much effort and fight were put into finding ways to provide heathcare for the mentally ill as has been used these past few weeks fighting for an UZI, maybe we would be closer to solving the real problem.
January 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm | Report comment
Wowbagger
Nothing new here, just quoting from earlier posts that apparently you missed:
"Having spent a lifetime watching a growing and progressively more inept Federal Government I am not too worried about it beyond it's ability to tax me to serfdom and grope or x-ray me at airports.
My greatest concern is family and self protection when civil society breaks down, like during storms Katrina, Sandy, or the twenty minutes it took for police to arrive on the scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School or the Century 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado for that matter. Under these circumstance twenty minutes is a very long time!"
And I might add a semi-automatic and a few 29 round magazine are just about right. Real UZIs are class III weapons and none were manufactured before 1934 so only law enforcement agencies can posses them.
This is the real issue, in my opinion:
"I have done a little reading and as a result would advocate a comprehensive study of the effects of Psychotropic Drugs (Ritalin, etc.), violent movies, and video games simulating violence on adolescent through early twenties boys/young men. There is evidence that since these individuals are still undergoing some neurological development through their early twenties permanent brain damage results. This is apparently confined to the frontal lobes and decreases inhibitions while not effecting intelligence. The boys/young men then act out violent fantasies resulting from the movies and games.
In the 1960s when I was that age surplus M-1 Carbines just back from the Korean War with twenty round magazines were cheap and readily available from local military surplus stores for less than $100.00, the ammunition was cheap, and you could walk into a surplus store almost anywhere buy a gun and walk out in a matter of minutes. Yet nothing like Columbine or Sandy Hook happened. Back then these psychotropic drugs were not available, although I imagine they were under development, movies were a lot less violent, and of course video games did not exist.
January 17, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
Jethro
Check out Katrina and gun confiscation there
January 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm |