Court says individuals have right to own guns

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Not to beat a dead horse, but could your provide an example?

From my perspective, when we're talking about fear, I'm talking about people who fear the government knocking on doors and taking away guns when people need them the most. That may seem irrational to some, but I suspect some citizens of NOLA feel differently.

Good example. When do you suppose that you will "need them the most?" That's where the issue of fear can irrationally fuel the discussion. And would the government ever really be knocking down doors or is that not literal?

I think you and I have discussed this before. Aren't you (or macallan?) the one who said you keep a gun under your pillow because you think it's a deterrent? You now know that pillow guns aren't deterrents because criminals don't know you have a pillow gun or the probability that anyone would have a pillow gun. But I'm all for your right to have a pillow gun as long as you are well-informed and realistic in what it is intended to accomplish and what it is most likely to accomplish. Most people aren't. Let's also pray that you never have to startedly fumble with your pillow to actually defend your home.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Good example. When do you suppose that you will "need them the most?" That's where the issue of fear can irrationally fuel the discussion. And would the government ever really be knocking down doors or is that not literal?

I think you and I have discussed this before. Aren't you (or macallan?) the one who said you keep a gun under your pillow because you think it's a deterrent? You now know that pillow guns aren't deterrents because criminals don't know you have a pillow gun or the probability that anyone would have a pillow gun. But I'm all for your right to have a pillow gun as long as you are well-informed and realistic in what it is intended to accomplish and what it is most likely to accomplish. Most people aren't. Let's also pray that you never have to startedly fumble with your pillow to actually defend your home.

We have, and I've made statements about deterrence, but I don't keep a gun under my pillow. Must be Mac or a combination of statements made by us both.

I believe collective gun ownership in an area can be a deterrent, and there is some evidence to support that argument. Further, I can deter criminals by possessing a weapon (pulling my gun from under my pillow can certainly deter a criminal from committing a violent act).

I brought up the Katrina example because it was a realization of many people's fears. When authority comes to your door and by force, takes your weapons, that it rightfully frightening. To many people, the time when one will most need a weapon to defend themselves and their families is during periods of societal collapse. Arguably, that is what happened in New Orleans.

I think fear can certainly be irrational, but we have to be careful when dismissing those fears as illegitimate. Anti slippery-slope arguments can be just as dangerous as the slope itself, IMO.

[UGAalum94]

Random thought about assault rifles etc:

Many of us consider placing limitations on assault weapons among the most reasonable of the restrictions that the government can place on gun ownership, and yet, if you try to read the 2nd amendment to be about militias, wouldn't those be the guns be the most essential in that regard?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Random thought about assault rifles etc:

Many of us consider placing limitations on assault weapons among the most reasonable of the restrictions that the government can place on gun ownership, and yet, if you try to read the 2nd amendment to be about militias, wouldn't those be the guns be the most essential in that regard?

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

Da Vinci envisioned the machine gun in the 14th century; the first documented rapid-fire gun was patented in 1718. I don’t see why the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined a light weight assault rifle.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

That's simply not a viable argument.

The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.

Not to go all black helicopters, but that's the kind of thinking I was considering.

If the 2nd amendment is an individual concern, I'm more willing to accept some common sense limitations on individuals who are nuts, felons, etc. (Yay, Heller.)

But if it's a collective-militia based right, then how was the 1994 federal assault rifle ban constitutional?

I think for most people who go back and look at "here's why the framers did this," the 2nd is not just a reflection of concern about the British; it's a concern about any government the people find oppressive. And if the 2nd amendment is about taking martial action, how can the federal gov't, limit weapons at the state level?

Does anyone remember how this was resolved in debate?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

When they envisioned free speech, the probably didn't envision internet pornography either. Constitutional interpretation should rarely be impacted by technological advance, and Scalia addresses this in the Heller opinion.

Regarding assault weapons, I again want to urge people to look into what you're supporting (if you support such things). These measures probably will not just limit "assault weapons" (which are fully automatic rifles like AR 15's and AK-47's), but will likely try to limit the semi-automatic versions of these rifles as well. The only difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a hunting rifle are magazine capacity and the fact that the former looks "scarier." I also expect such legislation will try to limit magazine capacity in handguns as well (as seen already in states like CA).

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

That's simply not a viable argument.

The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.

Pshh, this is 2008, tyranny is a thing of the past.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

When they envisioned free speech, the probably didn't envision internet pornography either. Constitutional interpretation should rarely be impacted by technological advance, and Scalia addresses this in the Heller opinion.

Regarding assault weapons, I again want to urge people to look into what you're supporting (if you support such things). These measures probably will not just limit "assault weapons" (which are fully automatic rifles like AR 15's and AK-47's), but will likely try to limit the semi-automatic versions of these rifles as well. The only difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a hunting rifle are magazine capacity and the fact that the former looks "scarier." I also expect such legislation will try to limit magazine capacity in handguns as well (as seen already in states like CA).

Well, the 1994 ban expired, and I don't think there's been any successful reauthorization. I'm just wondering how it went down.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, the 1994 ban expired, and I don't think there's been any successful reauthorization. I'm just wondering how it went down.

Dunno, perhaps you'd need to look at the floor debate. As of a week or two ago, another AWB had arisen, but gun control just isn't appealing subject for politicians right now. However, I expect that to change (at least an attempt, I mean) if the Democrats have the WH, and big gains in both houses.

[texas*princess]

Up until I heard on the news of this decision I didn't even know this was up for discussion.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

That's simply not a viable argument.

The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.

I don't think citizens need to have weapons to defend themselves from the government.

Unless you are doing some crazy shizz, the American government is not going to wake up one day and storm your home and try to harm you or your family because they are bored.

People should have to right to have weapons to defend themselves from dumbasses who also have weapons and are trying to harm them (e.g. people breaking into homes for various reasons).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

I don't think citizens need to have weapons to defend themselves from the government.

Unless you are doing some crazy shizz, the American government is not going to wake up one day and storm your home and try to harm you or your family because they are bored.

People should have to right to have weapons to defend themselves from dumbasses who also have weapons and are trying to harm them (e.g. people breaking into homes for various reasons).

I could be wrong, but I think his point was about the founders' attitude about why the people needed the right. If you relatively recently had to band together to throw off the British and remain concerned about individual liberty and the role of limited federal government, you might feel different about protecting yourself from the government.

I tend to think only nuts really imagine having to defend themselves with weapons against the government today, but I think our right to have weapons for other reasons grew out of concern about limiting the powers of government by granting explicit rights to the people, even in cases where the reasons why they granted those rights militia's, fears about gov't power, don't seem to apply, etc. The right is still there.

ETA: If you look at some no knock raid stories it may give you something to consider in terms of government storming people's homes. Personally, I'm not going to try to shoot any police who try to enter my home; I'd go with a lawsuit later. But there are are lot of cases in the news in the last few years about agents of the government storming peoples homes for no good reason.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9659C8B63
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

[Elephant Walk]

Unless you are doing some crazy shizz, the American government is not going to wake up one day and storm your home and try to harm you or your family because they are bored.

The victims of Ruby Ridge and Waco would love to speak with you.