U.S. Supreme Court rules against D.C. Handgun Ban

No it's just a simple fact. For one to think otherwise is childish.

Though we may know how you will use the firearm against a criminal, we do not know how you will use it in public or on your fellow citizens that are not criminals.

Quote:

No it's just a simple fact. For one to think otherwise is childish.

Let us say that it is true that more guns in the hands of the general populace will equal (or generate) less crime.

Give me a break. 46 out of the lower 48 states are at least "may issue" and in those where CCW/CPL's have been issued, crime has gone down. Gun control only takes guns away from law abiding citizens - the kind you reall want on your side.

Let us say that it is true that more guns in the hands of the general populace will equal (or generate) less crime.

That is a statement of fact.

We agree.

You extract my opening statement...

Quote:

Let us say that it is true that more guns in the hands of the general populace will equal (or generate) less crime.

And you conclude...

Quote:

That is a statement of fact.

We agree.

The right to bear arms is not an individual right; it is a collective one for purposes of domestic security in the face of a threat of rebellion or invasion in the absence of a standing army.

The right to bear arms is not an individual right; it is a collective one for purposes of domestic security in the face of a threat of rebellion or invasion in the absence of a standing army.

I disagree. I think the framers of the constitution recognized that for a government to be "of the people, by the people and for the people", that it was necessary for the people ultimately be able to defend themselves from that government if necessary. And I think that's why they protected an individual's right to bear arms.

Scalia actually addressed that point.

The right of assembly is a collective right, in that it can only be exercised collectively (i.e. one guy cannot "assemble"). However, the right of assembly is not a collective right. It doesn't attach only on membership in a particular group, or even in "any" group. Certainly the government can't declare that certain people are the ones that may assemble and others have no right to assemble at all. Nor can the government place restrictions such that the right to assembly is denied, even though it can put certain reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on assembly in general.

As far as the whole "well-regulated" clause goes, it's certainly true that it would be bizarre, by way of example, for a court to take an environmental provision starting with "Whereas, protection of the integrity of the environment is paramount", decide that even though the law was being violated, the protection of the integrity of the environment was being met, so it didn't matter if the law was being followed or not. A statement of that nature can add color to the later, operative statements, but it -cannot contradict them-.

Quote:

I disagree. I think the framers of the constitution recognized that for a government to be "of the people, by the people and for the people", that it was necessary for the people ultimately be able to defend themselves from that government if necessary. And I think that's why they protected an individual's right to bear arms.

I understand. In this regard, the individual right to bear arms is necessary due to the possibility that the people may need to defend themselves against a government that, initially, was to be for and by them. Forgive me, though I can not see that (individual) right protecting the people from an abusive government.

My own point is that a proper translation of the Second Amendment is this:

The right to bear arms is not an individual right; it is a collective one for purposes of domestic security in the face of a threat of rebellion or invasion in the absence of a standing army.

And this is the Second Amendment as written in 1789:

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.

That is true. Do tell me though, so because there was a scuttle to compromise between the feds and anti-feds to satisfy and fast-track ratification, and the basis for that compromise was for the addition of specific "individual" rights, this adds support to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is an individual right? Because it was placed in a listing "concerning" individual liberties and when individuals have the right to do this or that?

Fashion that: the forefathers of our country not realizing the difference between arming the People and arming a well-regulated militia! If there is no standing army, then a well-regulated militia will be required- consisting of the PEOPLE. But to arm both the well-regulated militia and the People?!

Here is Amendment II:

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.

I suppose we could twist the meaning of this to suit the individual, but it would take a good lot of twisting.

My own point was that the equation 'more guns=less crime' is absurd;

more guns in any hands in society- whether or not they are socially responsible people- will engender a higher capacity to intimidate and inflict harm on others with ease

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."