supreme court

[luke warm]

as so often happens, another 5-4 decision

 

Guns and the gov't

[jtfanclub]

Meh. Has to be a line somewhere. D.C. crossed it, nothing in there to make me think Chicago did.

 

I am very displeased by Roberts et al getting all pissy because the habeus corpus decision left the method up to the individual judge (to decide if there was sufficient evidence and if it should be shared with the defense), and then they make this crappy ruling where it's so vague that nobody can tell if Atlanta crossed the line.

 

So I liked the decision, not happy that it left no hard and fast rules.

 

I didn't understand the McCain-Feingold decision. Not clear to me what they actually struck down.

[kenberg]

A prediction:

 

The number of gun related deaths during 2009 in D.C. will substantially exceed the number from 2007. I'm intentionally skipping over the transition year of 2008. I wouldn't bet my life on this claim, but I do think that is what will happen. We shall see.

 

Of course I realize that the case is based on Constitutional interpretation rather than practical consequences. Still, I offer my prediction. We can check back at at the end of 2009.

 

As to the 5-4 ruling. I think it is very bad that so many decisions are so closely decided. It supports the idea that, practically speaking, the Constitution means whatever the Justices say it means. I would much prefer to think that it means what it says and that for the most part this meaning can be unambiguously understood by fair minded justices with their advanced legal training . I'm naive, I suppose.

 

I have always managed to live where crime is low, so I have no direct personal stake in this decision.

[Gerben42]

I fear for the lives of those poor Americans who have to live with such an outdated amendment. Before it is abolished, it will cost many more innocent lives.

 

Scary stuff.

[luke warm]

I fear for the lives of those poor Americans who have to live with such an outdated amendment. Before it is abolished, it will cost many more innocent lives.

 

Scary stuff.

there's a difference in perspective at work, that's all... the constitution was originally meant to limit the scope and powers of the central gov't, giving the states (and the people) more of both... there was a mistrust of strong central gov't by the founders, and imo rightly so... in europe that's usually not the case, there have always been monarchs and/or very centralized control (for the most part)... so it follows that fewer personal liberties are desired there... here, it's just a different culture based on the beginning of the country

 

but even here, now, it doesn't much matter any more...

[Winstonm]

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.

[Gerben42]

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.

 

Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

[luke warm]

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.

 

Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

maybe so gerben, but don't you see that it's still a matter of your political philosophy? in the end, which entity do you as a citizen/human want to make the decisions, or hold the power? we over here are always bitching about the prez, the congress, the senate, the SC or all of them... why would we want them to have even *more* power if we can't stand them with the power they do have?

[helene_t]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

 

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

 

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

[Winstonm]

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.

 

Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

Perhaps. The significant aspect is not a debate over gun ownership - the truly critical issue is how that determination is made: via a democratic process or through a mnority decision (a ruling by a ruler).

[mikeh]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

 

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

 

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

Helene, you are far, far too rational B)

 

Politics is about fear and greed, not rationality.

[Winstonm]

This seems to be on point:

 

Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack

Moon Says No Longer Possible For Police To Protect Citizens

posted June 27, 2008

 

General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."

 

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself." The woman moved back in with her mother after the May 4 incident on E. 17th Street.

 

Judge Moon said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens have a right to purchase a weapon to defend themselves, their families and their homes - unless there is some disqualification that prevents them from owning a weapon."

[luke warm]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

the one that says that the greatest fear a citizen should have is of his own government... i don't think that fear is overstated, and i'm sure you'll agree that history teaches that lesson

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

i agree... none of those should concern the central gov't, they should be left to the states, maybe even to gov't entities at a more local level... but i don't think you're taking the tact that because gov't errs in some things it justifies other errors

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

and that's the difference in philosophy i spoke of... in europe, tradition and culture combine to allow opinions that might differ from locations that feel it's prudent to constrain central gov't

[mike777]

"It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns."

 

Helene you really hit the nail on the head, just as Winson did in another post.

 

Note not only allowed but somehow have a right, an individual right to own guns.

 

This gets back to the question of what rights do individuals have compared to what rights governments have. Or to put it another way, where do the powers of government over the govern end? If those in power get to decide anything and everything on the basis of the "greater good" and they decide what that means.....fair enough.

 

 

As a side note guns have been banned in DC since 1976 and the place is still a hell hole, murder jungle despite the ban. ONe of the worst in the world.

 

I think what people find crazy is the belief that a city or a country having even more guns, perhaps alot more guns will provide a greater "safety of freedom" This is really what many believe. That a country that allows no legal handguns and rifles in the home is much less safe compared to a country that allows widespread ownership.

[helene_t]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

the one that says that the greatest fear a citizen should have is of his own government... i don't think that fear is overstated, and i'm sure you'll agree that history teaches that lesson

OK, fair enough, I agree with that in principle. I am worried about the government controlling media, the housing market etc. It's just that this particular issue of guns is completely absurd IMHO - it is really beyond me in what way someone would benefit from owning a gun, or how someone could believe gun ownership to be good for society. OTOH it is quite clear to me in what way widespread gun ownership could be a disadvantage to a society.

 

I can sorta translate it to the current trend in Europe to constrain smoking. I am split about that issue since on one side I am against smoking and I believe it would be nice if something could be done to protect teenagers from getting addicted - it will harm them through their whole life. OTOH as a matter of principle I am against social engineering - if people want to tar their own lungs it is their own business.

[Gerben42]

I can sorta translate it to the current trend in Europe to constrain smoking. I am split about that issue since on one side I am against smoking and I believe it would be nice if something could be done to protect teenagers from getting addicted - it will harm them through their whole life. OTOH as a matter of principle I am against social engineering - if people want to tar their own lungs it is their own business.

 

Agree with this. If people want to smoke, let them. Just not near me, thanks. I think the current smoking ban in Germany is perhaps too harsh, if people have 1-man pubs they should be able to decide for themselves if they want to make it a smoker's place.

 

The government should instead threaten smokers with the danger of forfeiting their right for medical care for smoking-related illnesses on the basis that those who smoke are deliberately damaging their health, so that the government health care system should not pay for illnesses that they knew they would get. Of course if they break a leg or something else completely unrelated, medical care should be covered.

[blackshoe]

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong about gun ownership, any American has to applaud this decision because it shows that the system is still properly working - you cannot legislate around constitutional rights - you must amend the constitution to alter those rights.

 

Yes that's nice, but it is probably about time to amend the constitution for the 21st Century.

With all due respect, Gerben, what we do with our Constitution is none of your business.

[blackshoe]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

 

OK, if one subscribes to the principle that the government should not constrain citizens' freedom in any way. But then one would also have to oppose bans on prostitution, drugs and all the other things that are banned in the U.S.

 

Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things, I see it as a simple cost/benefit issue. How much harm will it do to individuals if they are not allowed to own guns? How much harm will it do to other individuals (or, if you prefer, to society) if people are allowed to own guns?

 

One of the reasons our Founding Fathers included the surety of the right to bear arms in the Constitution is that they could see what had happened in countries where that right was not recognized.

 

As to bans on prostitution and drugs, those too are anathema to some. As well they should be, IMO.

 

Here's a principle: individuals have rights. Groups, including governments, have no more rights than the individuals that make up the group. So if an individual has no right to tell another individual whether he can do drugs, or hire a prostitute, or carry a gun, then neither do governments.

 

If you assert that government has rights not accessible to individuals, I would ask you three things: what are they, from whence come they, and can you prove that your assertion is valid?

 

"Assuming that the government is allowed to ban some things". Why should we make this assumption?

 

You might want to read Point Blank by Gary Kleck, Stopping Power and Self Control, Not Gun Control by J. Neil Schulman and The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy by Ted Koppel. Kleck in particular provides not a pro- or anti- gun viewpoint, but an analysis of the data regarding gun violence in America. In fact he set out to prove that the data supported gun control, but found that in fact they did the exact opposite. Amazon.uk references since I expect they'll be more useful to you (although frankly I was surprised all of these books were listed there).

[mycroft]

Me, too, Ed, but still, this is the Internetz, I has my right to speak, whether it's my business or not :-)

 

First, the strange thing is that I think the ruling is *right*, and that's from someone who wanders around his 1.1M population city at night with no worries (and no gun). And much prefers that situation than the other.

 

I also agree with lukewarm about "greatest fear". Pity the current crop of Americans are (collectively) doing such a piss-poor job of it - the "personal rights" Republicans most of all. Their greatest fears are those projected *by* the government, and nobody seems to care to ask why the government would choose to project those fears. As a result, transition to police state owned by the Corporations is well in hand.

 

However, IIRC, the original quote was the other way around (that the government should fear the people)...and now I can only find the "V for Vendetta" one. However, this seems apt:

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry at the Virginia constitutional ratifying convention.

 

Sure looks like the presence of the Second Amendment has put guns in the hands of too many people who have given up everything but the ability to use that force. Truly unfortunate that the "I need a handgun to protect me from the government who is taking away my liberty" philosophy has died, without also removing the "I need a handgun to protect me from my fellow American". Those who can say the latter and defend the current government's actions as "in this crisis we need to restrict some liberty to Keep Us Safe From The Terrorists/Keep Ahead Of The Drug-Runners" deserve what they get, frankly. Pity they have to take Americans with them.

[blackshoe]

Certainly you have the right to speak. So does Gerben. That's as far as it goes, though.

 

It has been years since I owned or carried a gun. Or needed one. In fact, the one time I would have been happier if I'd had one, I'd left it at home. And while there are parts of my home city I'd not go into at night - or for that matter in daylight - I have no worries about going anywhere I would normally want to go. The "constant" shootings that some people seem to think are the norm in this country are, well, they just aren't. :)

 

Patrick Henry was a rabble rouser. He was also right. so was Ben Franklin ("They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.") Franklin also said, in a speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787 - almost exactly 221 years ago) " Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." The question seems to be whether we have become that corrupted. I don't think so - yet.

 

It is my belief that our "great experiment" will last only so long as we the people are willing to make it last - and we are very close to giving up on it. :(

[helene_t]

Truly unfortunate that the "I need a handgun to protect me from the government who is taking away my liberty" philosophy has died

How is that supposed to work? This is not a rhetoric question, I really don't get it. Suppose I am victim of some kind of government abuse. I can think of some ways I could defend myself. Some would require a lawyer, some involve using the internet. But a gun? How could a gun be useful for defending citizens against the government?

[luke warm]

Truly unfortunate that the "I need a handgun to protect me from the government who is taking away my liberty" philosophy has died

How is that supposed to work? This is not a rhetoric question, I really don't get it. Suppose I am victim of some kind of government abuse. I can think of some ways I could defend myself. Some would require a lawyer, some involve using the internet. But a gun? How could a gun be useful for defending citizens against the government?

how were they used to defend the king's citizens from the king's army circa 1770?

[mikeh]

Truly unfortunate that the "I need a handgun to protect me from the government who is taking away my liberty" philosophy has died

How is that supposed to work? This is not a rhetoric question, I really don't get it. Suppose I am victim of some kind of government abuse. I can think of some ways I could defend myself. Some would require a lawyer, some involve using the internet. But a gun? How could a gun be useful for defending citizens against the government?

how were they used to defend the king's citizens from the king's army circa 1770?

Well, some historians might have a different view of the American Revolution... some might argue that the revolutionaries were using their guns to attack the soldiers of the lawful government... but we have to remember that history is written by the victors.

 

LW wrote, earlier, that history teaches us not to trust centralized governments. I think he is fundamentally wrong on this.

 

History teaches us many things, as does anthropology. One thing both teach us is that there is a direct correlation between the size and strength of a centralized government and the health, safety, welfare and general living conditions of the population. This does not mean that the match is always exact, but the correlation exists, notwithstanding the unthinking anti-government rhetoric of some conservatives (who often, ironically, insist that the government should punish people who think differently... see how the US treated communists in the 1950s as an example.. free speech for all who agree with us, prison or blacklisting for those who don't)

 

The highest murder rates known to anthropologists are in hunter-gatherer tribes, the least centralized form of government known to man.

 

The murder rate in Somalia is likely somewhat higher than even that in Detroit.

 

There is no recorded example in history of a democratically elected government imposing a tyranny on an unwilling populace (I am not counting the roman empire, since it was never a democracy, and the forms of the republic persisted after the transition to an empire... further, the early emperors appeared to have the support of much of the relevant populace)

 

Hitler became a dictator after winning an open election, and then (probably) creating an atmosphere of terror.. of fear of the communists.. that allowed him to assume control with the support of the majority of the population.

 

Lenin prevailed over Kerensky, but Kerensky never represented an actual democracy... very few Russians, even in the big cities, were ever involved in a democratic political movement.

 

OTOH, recent history shows us that some dictators can be overthrown by a population without ready access to guns. Witness Romania. Witness Poland. Witness East Germany. And so on.

 

The myth of the need for guns to combat a dangerous government is just that: a myth.

 

Lest we have any doubt about that, consider the Orwellian Patriot Act.. in a matter of weeks, the US Congress passed a statute, mostly unread by members of Congress, that went further than any legislation in US history to creating a police state... and it was unanimous! And supported/approved of by most of the media and, presumably, most of the people.

 

A government can become a dictatorship by manipulation of the fears of the populace, and no number of handguns in private hands will prevent that. In my view, most enthusiastic gun owners are more likely to support repressive measures such as the Patriot Act than to oppose it... the dictatorship happens when the majority of the populace willingly surrender their freedoms.... and anyone then opposed to that surrender is likely to be shot, not by the government, but by the populace that has surrendered... in the same manner that Muslims have been discriminated against since 9/11, in the same manner that former members of the communist party were blacklisted in the McCarthy era, and in the same manner that a number of civil rights workers were murdered in the South in the 1960s.

 

If anyone wants to appeal to history, the least they can do is read some :(

 

Doing so might actually reveal that the US revolution might never have happened if the UK had expanded Parliament to include members elected in the colonies (remember: 'no taxation without representation'? What would have happened had representation been granted?).

 

Finally, history should teach us that societies change. That issues that were important once become irrelevant and that rules that worked in one era may become harmful in others. Some American jurists believe that the Constitution should be read in that light.. that brilliant minds such as Jefferson and Franklin would have understood and approved of that. Others, such as Scalia, think of it as if it were handed down, immutable, from the hands of God.. changeable only by constitutional amendment.. and when is that going to happen? The founding fathers did not have in mind the type of firearm now routinely available on the streets of the US. They had in mind muskets and similar weapons, capable of limited lethality and not exactly easy to carry unnoticed. I've often thought that the US Supreme Court should uphold private gun ownership, without offending the constitution, by allowing anyone to own a firearm provided it was of a design used in the 1780s :) .

[kenberg]

I also reject the "Guns are needed to protect us from a tyrannical government" argument although from a simpler and less learned approach.

 

It's a matter of how this would really play out in practice.

 

A. I may get pissed at the government from time to time, or at my neighbor from time to time, but I don't plan on taking up arms against either.

 

B. The folks that are most likely to decide it's time to take up arms against a tyrannical government are apt to be the people I would least like to trust with my future, or the country's future.

 

In short the likelihood of reasonable people (by which of course I mean people like me) taking up arms is far less likely than a bunch of nuts (that is, people not like me) taking up arms.

 

There is a right of self-defense. I have always managed to arrange my life so that a handgun for self-protection seems like a foolish choice. But I know others find themselves in less fortunate circumstances and I am a little uneasy about sitting back in my easy going suburb and deciding for others how they should cope. I can well imagine someone living in the SoutheEast DC saying, for example, Justice Stevens gets to advise me about guns after he has lived on my block for a while.

 

My guess is the Supreme's ruling will increase the number of homicides. That's not quite the same as saying that it will make life more dangerous for the law abiding citizen living in a tough neighborhood. Such a person may be safer with a gun.

[cherdano]

It's beyond me from which "political philosophy" it follows that people should be allowed to own guns.

the one that says that the greatest fear a citizen should have is of his own government... i don't think that fear is overstated, and i'm sure you'll agree that history teaches that lesson

LOL.

Even if that were true, a more useful protection than giving me a gun would be to punish those who assisted in illegal spying by the government on its citizens, and to impeach/punish those who initiated it.