Jun 26 2008
Let’s all go out and shoot one another
We can, you know. The Supremes (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) say it’s okay…
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”
I love that last line by Scalia. Like Americans had telephones with which to dial the police in 1791. Idiot.
I’m locking my doors, barring my windows and never venturing outdoors again until these idiots are gone from our government. It’s not safe. I don’t wanna get shot!
Damn those activist judges.
17 Responses to “Let’s all go out and shoot one another”
Um, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that people can “go out and shoot one another.” They ruled that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Scalia doesn’t write that handguns are protected because of the existence of telephones. Did you mean that as a joke? Did you not read the opinion? I won’t insult your intelligence with the third possibility.
Don’t be afraid of going outside. Criminals already had guns before the ruling. In every state and country that has created new strict gun control laws, the homicide rates have *increased*. So you’re actually safer now.
@Adam : There are two reasons that I found Mr. Scalia’s statement so funny:
1) It infers that nothing in our society has changed since 1791. We live by the same rules now that we lived by then. (Of course our society has evolved in that past 200+ years.)
2) Nobody is going to hold their gun on a burglar with one hand while dialing the police with the other. It’s not going to happen. Shoot first and ask questions later.
We had a case locally just recently where a man’s wife took violently ill at 3:00 in the morning. For some reason, his telephone was not working and he could not call for help. He went running to his neighbor’s house in a panic seeking help. As he was frantically pounding on his neighbor’s door, his neighbor shot through the door and killed him instantly. The neighbor said he thought that a burglar was trying to get into his house. No charges were filed.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
More guns in the hands of more people is not going to make me feel safer. It may you, but it won’t me. Go ahead and insult my intelligence. You will not be the first nor, I am sure, will you be the last.
1) You really should read the decision then, so you understand what Scalia meant by that remark.
2) Most of the time when a gun is used to prevent a crime, it doesn’t even have to be fired. This “nobody” you talk about seems to be an awful lot of people. There are obviously many tragic anecdotes, but statistically speaking, guns save far more lives than they take. You can ignore the evidence and panic if you like, but we all saw how well that’s worked as a foreign policy over the past 7 years.
You mean when we went out and started shooting everybody?
It only takes once.
Nope. I’m sticking to my guns on this one. (get it? sticking to my guns?) (oh, well) As far as I am concerned, the fewer guns on this planet of ours, the better. My personal experience with guns has not been good. Don’t like them. Never will. And I definitely do not see the need for members of civilized society to be carrying them around.
Activist?
How can a judge who acknowledges original intent be activist?
I don’t know of your personal experience with guns, and if you’ve been traumatized, I’m sorry to hear that I understand. But we have to make rules for society based on laws, facts and rights.
@Cato : Original intent? Unless somebody has some mighty awesome powers of which they have not yet made the rest of us aware, I don’t think anybody can state with assurance what the original intent of the drafters of the second amendment was. Last I heard, they were all quite dead.
Plus, I reserve the right to define the term “activist judge” in the same manner as the right wing of the Republican party. An activist judge is any judge who does not agree with me.
@Adam : Laws, facts and rights? Who gets to determine those? Okay, laws are determined by whichever party happens to be in the majority at the moment. But facts and rights? I think it is a fact that every citizen of the United States should have the same rights. I mean every citizen should have the same (i.e. equal) rights. Unless, of course, they have forfeited those rights by disobedience to “the laws.” Are you beginning to see how easily twisted this all becomes?
That’s the law and they interpreted it in that way. Like illegal immigration, if you don’t like it, change the law. It’s pretty clear cut about being able to bear arms. You can’t bypass laws because they are stupid. Obama also flip-flopped on this one.
I don’t know what’s so twisted about all of this. The fact is that guns save lives. Instead of addressing that fact, you choose to try and come up with witty responses.
You think that every citizen of the US should have the same rights. Well, they do. In fact, every person everywhere in the world was born with the same rights.
The purpose of laws is to protect those rights and legal theory examines how those rights play out in real-world situations. There’s no way to make sure laws are always implemented perfectly, so we have the populace elect the lawmakers; historically the least-bad solution.
@Adam : Now, for whatever reason, you are just being obstinate.
My final word on this…
Here, let me save your life. BANG! BANG! BANG!
People with guns kill people. It is really just that simple. If you choose to believe otherwise, well… sorry, can’t help you. Quote all the statistics you want. A person who is shot by another person with a gun is either dead or maimed for life. There is no other choice.
As for rights… I can’t get married to the person whom I have loved and with whom I have shared my life for the past 32 years, but, by God, I can own a gun with which to kill him. Perfectly implemented rights there, I’d say.
As for every person in the world being born with the same rights… You are kidding, right? Do you really believe that? Been to Africa lately? Or even some of the poverty stricken areas of our own country? (I have.) Tell those kids they are born with equal rights. Dare you.
Glad we’re wrapping this “discussion” up.
I’m really surprised you’ve never heard any of these arguments before. They’re pretty ubiquitous in any newspaper’s Letter to the Editor section. Criminals have guns regardless of gun control laws. Law-abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves. Guns are used to stop murders, sexual assaults and other violent crimes more often than they are used to commit them. Most of the time a gun is used to stop a crime, it doesn’t even have to be fired.
Everyone is born with certain inalienable rights, and being poor doesn’t take away any of those rights. We’re all created equal. These are the principles that not only the US but most of the other governments on the planet were founded on. If a government is infringing upon your rights or discriminating against you because of sexual orientation, that doesn’t mean you don’t still possess those rights.
Hi Len.
Thanx for the Comment on my blog. Well The Entrecard Widget had disappered because, my WP-Theme messed up went back to the Default Design
Thanx again.
Owning firearms will always be a problem until those that register them, and own them legally learn that it is the people that are killing, not the guns.
ALL of the legal owners need to get a grip. Once that occurs, then crime will take on a new face when criminals see that gun owners have stepped up in wisdom, and knowledge.
Many things in America are a privilege as well as a right, and should be given privileged respect, and right treatment.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the election.”
Some random thoughts on this discussion:
Non-sequitor here; “rights” as enumerated in the Constitution do not include the “right” to marry. That being said, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the equal protection clause have substantial bearing on the marriage debate which is why the opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning it.
From a practical perspective you are correct. However, if the people in Darfur or Zimbabwe or The Sudan had unfettered access to firearms I dare say that the security and “rights” situation in Africa would be significantly improved.
Disingenuousness aside, we can learn quite a bit about Original Intent by reading the historical record. The drafters of the Second Amendment left us with an ample supply of their writings and notes. Justice Scalia quoted from some of it in his opinion. There is a significant amount of scholarship which supports the individual rights viewpoint held by the Court. Up until the mid 20th century this was so ingrained in our shared understanding that it wasn’t even necessary to explicitly note it.
If you’re really interested in the legal minutia, take a trip over to The Volokh Conspiracy where they’ve been posting non-stop for the past two days. There’s a ton of good info there.
Legal minutia and my disingenuous arguments notwithstanding, I remain opposed to guns and gun ownership in general. Dead is dead, and I’m a pro-life kind of guy. I like life. I am steadfastly opposed to somebody shooting me (or anyone else I know or happen to care for).
I am really going to dislike being the person to say “I told you so” on this one.
A really great way to avoid getting murdered is to have some way to defend yourself. Gun ownership among the law-abiding populace saves countless lives. Oh wait, I’ve already mentioned that. You really don’t seem to be reading any of the comments.
I’m reading them, Adam. I’m just not agreeing with them. If you multiply the number of guns among the populace, it only stands to reason that you are going to multiply the number of people in the populace getting shot. I know you won’t agree. You seem to think that pointing a gun at somebody is somehow going to prevent them from shooting you. You are entitled to believe that. (Try telling that to Wyatt Earp or Matt Dillon.) I just hope it’s a theory that you don’t have occasion to test. (In spite of the statistics you may be able to quote. Statistics don’t really mean a whole lot if you’re dead.)