Heller will be huge. Unfortunately, I think the Court will find against the District, but probably without requiring strict scrutiny and keeping the opinion narrowly focused on the DC law. From the common sense perspective, the DC law basically bans people from any feasible attempts at self-defense, and thus I think the Court will come down at least partially opposed to it.

You're right about the organized/unorganized distinction. I mentioned that in my original post but it may have been misleading. You're also right about the state militias around the time of the founding, although I suspect some would argue that the "ties" are stronger now than before.

Even if it were resolved that the National Guard is the definitive modern day militia, the argument that the Second applies only to those entities is still tenuous at best. It would seem ironic that a constitutional right to gun ownership would be so severely limited in a time when so many individuals owned and cherished their arms. Further, you still have the classic law school interpretation conundrum of whether the RKBA is simply supported by the need for a well regulated militia, or whether the inclusion of the militia provision was intended to define the scope of the right.

I don't really think the right to self-defense arises from the Second Amendment. I do think such a right could be crafted from other sources, probably in a much more convincing fashion than even the right to privacy. I realized when I wrote that paragraph that people would probably read it together, but it was really just a stream of one-line supports for the right to gun ownership. Protecting your family in a situation where the police may not be available should be a right, but it is more a practical consideration for why gun ownership is essential. Frankly, I don't think many of us would pause to consider whether the Constitution guarantees us such a right if faced with that precarious dilemma.

I'm not confident we'll get that much resolution this year from Heller.

My argument doesn't have anything to do with what the answer is. I have no idea whether broader concealed carry regulations will have an impact on violence. I strongly suspect that it won't result in rise asserted by anti-gun advocates, but I'm not sure whether it will result in less violence either. My approach is more common sense, at least with respect to the more narrow subject of where concealed weapons are to be permitted. Why should students who can carry in churches, banks, supermarkets, gas stations, etc...have to give up their ability to protect themselves to go to school? This is a group that commits very, very little gun violence in all of the other places they frequent, why would that change if they were allowed the same right on campus? Not only that, but the arrogant advertising of gun free zones simply informs criminals about the location of easy targets. This isn't directed at you, I'm just stating my approach.

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/phot...96957_9196.jpg

Except, of course, that at the time of the Amendment, all adult male citizens were indeed part of the militia and could be called up for service.

That of course leads to:

I think its going to be very interesting to see what happens in Heller, given the current composition of the Court.

In the meantime, I love the cartoon.

the "militia" as originally defined and understood were members of the civilian public who were not holding public office

Let me throw this out: many counties in my state have mandatory weaponry classes in high schools, usually taught by members of the NRA. The students have the option of not going to the firing range (which is usually in the school itself), but they do need to know how to handle & clean a few types of guns correctly. Also, since these school districts are usually near where the Amish live, they are permitted to forego the class. One more thing I've noticed about these school districts is that drivers education is also mandatory.

Any thoughts?

Umm, the school boards are deep in the pocket of the NRA???
Driver's ed (classroom & behind the wheel) was mandatory when I was in school too. Is that not the norm anymore?

And you aren't in the minority.

My thoughts are:

1. This is NRA propaganda. Does this training mean they can now bring a gun to high school? Guess not.

2. Gun practice is different than being prepared to shoot a human if need be. But they'll learn how to safely handle a gun and effectively shoot the hell out of a board or hunting target. Yeah.

3. Drivers education should be mandatory. Vehicle accidents are more common than mass gun shootings and gun assailants.

4. Speaking of gun assailants, gun assailants who are strangers are relatively rare so if that's what gun owners are waiting for--they need not hold their breaths. Gun violence resulting in death tends to be among family, friends, and close associates that people spend a substantial amount of time with. Thus, another reason why people shoot up their own places of employment and schools. But also why many law abiding citizens do not want to increase the gun access of nonsecurity officials in places of employment and schools.

And who could be called into military service.

Increased gun access? Seriously, how many people do you think would legally carry to work AND THEN decide to kill everyone in their office? Do you honestly believe these gun free zones are keeping this from happening?

Training is the best we can do. If you think your average police officer is that much more prepared than your experienced and avid firearms enthusiast, you're sorely mistaken.

We've had this discussion already.

"Avid firearms enthusiast" sounds fun as a hobby that you leave outside of work and school. :)

It is a fun hobby. It is also a very valuable skill to have in a dangerous world.

The NRA has, because of its mission, developed an outstanding firearms safety program and an outstanding shooter education program. Just because they come from the NRA doesn't make them bad.

I do believe that students and/or their parents MUST have the right to opt out. Still, just as a student is taught very young that improper use of cars can be deadly - you don't stand in front of a moving car, you don't get behind the wheel without instruction, you don't touch a hot engine - so too should a student be taught that the improper use of guns can be deadly.

DSTChaos, you have yet to provide any facts to back up any of your assertions.

Way to call me out. ;)

Don't know which assertions you're talking about. But I won't put time and effort into providing anything in this thread.

You have consistently, through this thread and the NIU shootings thread, made assertions that research shows this or that, or that colleges will not allow this or that. You have yet to back anything up.

I find many who fall back on rhetoric when they can't (or won't, as you say) provide facts. You appear to be saying it's wasting your time to go get facts. Too bad. Those who do research sometimes learn things.

Rightbackatcha. ;)

I discuss the research from both sides of this debate, and others, everyday as part of my profession. :) I won't discuss it here and you'll just have to get over that.

But you should read up on both sides of the issue. Being married to one side of the debate shouldn't happen until you do that. I'm not anti-guns, which is obvious if you've read my posts, I just believe that it's not as simple as "every law abiding adult have gun access anywhere." My stance is an informed one based on the neutral research on the nature of violence and guns (because you can't understand this issue unless you understand violence, which is why most of my posts have discussed general violence and crime issues), as well as research from both sides of the gun control debate.

And I just reread my 2 posts in this thread and realized that you exaggerated.

I did not mention "research" in this thread but moreso general info. If you do not know that you're more likely to get in a car accident than shot or that you're more likely to be victimized by someone you have more frequent interaction with than a stranger, you've missed out on basic info on crime and violence. And that would tell me that you've sensationalized the issue of violence and guns to fit your "pro-guns everywhere because the boogeyman may try to get you one day and you can shoot the boogeyman" stance. :)

I also know that many colleges won't allow guns in the classrooms because it's true because I'm psychic. :eek: As I said, SydneyK is not a minority when she says she will stop going to work if guns are allowed on campus.

Have no fear DGTess, I'm sure these criminals just aren't seeing the gun free zone signs. If we make them bigger, that should be enough to guarantee the safety of those law-abiding citizens who are left vulnerable by the law.

Indeed.

It's this kind of fairy tale logic that makes these discussions null and void most of the time and not worth delving into the real substance behind the issue.

If guns were allowed on campuses, would would-be assailants also see huge gun zone signs that let them know whether a significant portion of people on that campus are actually taking advantage of their newfound right to have a gun during class? :)

I'm not worried about deterrence, as I've continually stated.

My boyfriend has completely changed my opinion of guns. I used to be very anti-gun and thought no one should have them. But after I met him I decided that I wanted to learn how to load and shoot a gun in case I ever needed to. So, he took me to the range for the first time, and I now realize how careful and safe most gun owners are with their guns. They take ownership very seriously - they're not a bunch of wackos brandishing their guns about. However, I do think there should be some restrictions on the kinds of guns you can buy - no automatic weapons (done), but also restrictions based on what a gun is realistically used for. For example, at the range we go to sometimes, the shop there has a 50 caliber long-range gun...the kind that you have to use with a tripod on the ground. What is someone going to use that gun for? Surely not self-defense, and not hunting either. That gun could blow up a car hundreds of yards away, and in my opinion it has no business being owned by Joe Somebody.

Anyone who's seen Bowling for Columbine remembers the cartoon debate in it that pondered why there is so much gun violence in America. And they'll also probably remember from that that there was no clear answer as to why America is so different from the rest of the world in this regard - remember, Canadians have more guns per capita than Americans :p But what I do think separates the US from the rest of the "big" countries is our obsession and TOLERANCE of violence...period. Not gun violence, but any type of violence. We are a very aggressive, hostile country and it seems that more and more kids are not being disciplined when they act up. Well, those kids grow up...and then they turn into teenagers, then adults, who act up. And I should say that it's not just about disciplining them when they act up, but it's also about teaching them why they shouldn't act up in the first place...why it's not a desirable behavior.

For the past week I was down in L.A./Orange County, and I can't tell you how many times my friends and I sat someplace for lunch or whatever and watched pre-teens and teens disrespect the people and property around them. We saw kids kicking planters, spitting on cars, shoving people aside as they ran around a boardwalk, etc. That stuff may seem minor, but it's a lack of discipline and control like that that I think leads to some of the violent behaviors. These kids aren't being taught right vs. wrong by their parents. Sure, they may know what's right or wrong in the law's eyes, but what's right morally/ethically is not being instilled. We're not raising kids with character and good sense anymore...just "go for it", independent, and in some cases, book smart, individuals who don't care about doing the right thing.

You don't remember saying that your gun under your pillow deters individual criminals? :p

You took it back after I questioned you but your first instinct was deterence. :p

Oh right. I forgot about that imaginary conversation.

psssst...it was in that other thread....

But you actually didn't take the deterrence comment back. So you really did/do think your gun under your pillows deters individual criminals. :)

I clearly said that my support for concealed carry on campus had nothing to do with deterrence, at least not in the "they won't come to campus and shoot us because they think we might have guns" way (which is what you seemed to reference a couple posts up).

I said the same thing about guns in the home, pretty much. You seemed to be referring to a community wide "they'll have guns, lets not do this" deterrent effect, while I mentioned an individual deterrent effect. By that, I mean "2 to the chest, you're not coming any farther towards me or mine" type impact. So sure, that individual effect could extend to campus carry too, but my rationale for campus carry is simply an extension of the already-existing carry rights. Certainly has nothing to do with the idea that people won't attack schools because they're concerned about guns, though if that occurred it would be beneficial (like some studies show for gun ownership in the home).

Deterrence can be specific or general in that people can be deterred through direct experience or through the experiences of others/general climate. I was not talking about community wide deterrence but, either way, a deterrent effect is a deterrent effect.

So what you're talking about really isn't deterrence unless you're arguing that people who are faced with gun wielding citizens will not attempt to offend in the future. It's more of a self-defense argument, which makes sense based on everything else you've said. You know that "deter/deterrence" has a lot of criminological and legal theory and meaning behind it so to say having a gun under your pillow/having guns in a classroom has a deterrent effect means something different than what you intended.

It was pretty clear what I was saying, considering I specified how I was using the concept of deterrence. I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying as well.

*waving at you as we type past each other*

;) If I say I didn't know what the hell you meant or whether you knew what the hell you meant, that's what it is. It isn't up to you to change what deterrence means. So now that we agree that you meant "self-defense" instead of deterrence, OKAY, move along lookieloos...nothing to see here.

You are sooooo too young to resurrect "lookieloos."

It’s probably a bipod.

My friends and I used to say it all the time. Running gag. LOL.

Usually we said it with a Southern state trooper voice "move along...lookieloos...nothing to see here!"

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to have a Barrett .50 cal. I need it for home defense. It's a really big home.

Driver's ed is not provided by the public school system in my area anymore, although it was when I was in high school. However, it was not mandatory. If you don't want to get a driver's license, there's no need to take driver's ed. Driver's ed is mandatory to get a driver's license. If we're going to compare the two, then the same should hold true for owning a gun. Mandatory gun safety for those who are going to own a gun.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue. While I see no reason for anybody other than military to have automatic weapons, and I would never touch a gun, let alone own one, I'm not opposed to other people owning them. Most of the men I know I have hunting rifles. If gun laws were enforced, we'd go a long way toward reducing violence by guns. Yes, it is people who kill people (if you want to use bumper sticker phrases), but a gun (or a bomb) sure seems to be the easiest way to kill someone.

It's a tough one and a complex one. From what I heard on the news about NIU, it was 90 seconds from the time the shooter began killing until he turned the gun on himself. I don't think anybody would have stopped him in that short a time period.

We face a real dilemma in this country. Freedom vs. Security. It's been emphasized since 9/11 and the Patriot Act and everybody seems to have their own personal limit on where we draw the line between the two. There's a middle ground somewhere, but it's very murky. I tend to lean toward the Freedom side of things. I might feel differently if someone carrying, with a permit, shot up my work place or my kids' school.

I think you need a 20 micmic, but the ammo is $50 per round...

Usually a gun permit allows one to carry a concealed weapon. In a perfect world - and why I like the counties which teach Weaponry Safety - is that everyone (except those who opt out) knows how to handle guns safely. One of the very best classes that is open to everyone is the NRA's Personal Protection Course. There is so much more to personal protection than just "putting a gun under a pillow", and that's the main thrust of the classes. That's why someone from the NRA usually teaches these classes, and they stress what to do before deciding to arm oneself.
Also, being licensed to carry in one state does not necessarily mean you're able to do so in other states. Some states have reciprocal agreements, but not all.

As I've said several times before, Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the country, and one of the highest crime rates. When that changes, I may change my mind. Until then, I'm usually packing.

Word, I'll take 1000 rounds.

I'm not arguing with your underlying premise. But not everyone who takes drivers ed knows how to handle a car safely, so I wouldn't bet that everyone how takes weaponry safety knows how to handle a gun safely. You have to factor stupidity into the equation.

Absolutely. And not everyone who takes Sex Education is capable of having safe sex. It's a risk we take, and erring on the side of wisdom makes better sense to me.

Arrggh!!!
 

Where I live, criminals are breaking into properties and trying to steal money and jewelry!!!

So I put up a sign that says:

http://www.saf.org/merchandise/images/armed.jpg

I have a Glock and other assorted "items". My house also is ADT alarmed. And I am of the belief that gun control is using 2 hands instead of one... And yes, I have been trained to use this weapon, properly.

My husband removed the sign... And the fools did not bust our door down, yet...

Then I get this email from my homeowner's association and I would like to know where my $250 in dues is going per month. In my state we are not allowed to gate up our communities.

What say you folks of GC?

What do you mean we can't gate up our communities? There are a bunch of gated neighborhoods/developments up here!

At least most of the crime in Western Washington are property crimes...particularly in Microsoft country where you live =) Yep, I'd put the sign up, just to keep the punks away, if it's that much of a problem where you are.