D.C. Gun Ban Overturned. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 03-12-2007, 09:28 PM

bear,
The Constitution isn't a document about the states, it's a *federal* document.
Before the 14th amendement, citizens generally thought of themselves as citizens of say, New York, or Mass., or Georgia, etc. People weren't at that time accustomed to thinking of themselves part of a collective whole of states.

The relevant history for this is that when the Constution was ratified, our beginning nation was experiencing a number of problems. You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts. Two main factions formed around how to resolve some of these issues: the federalist and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central judiciary, a powerful court system, and they were concerned about our nation being governed by a majority. The anti-federalists wanted a weak central government, a less powerful court system, and they were concerned that states rights would be lost in the shuffle.

To resolve most of this, the two factions agreed that they would form a system of government with each branch controlling different aspects. So they oulined the executive branch and the legislative branch (as an example of how these compromises played out, we have a Congress comprised of a House of Reps where the population determines the members in conjunction with a Senate where each state has equal representation. I can't remember the respective plans each faction introduced, but if you google "connectcut plan" I think that's the one they reached, or it's one of the three and you'll be able to read about the other two.). Initially, the judicial branch was given the least amount of detail and this leads some scholars to believe that it was supposed to be least powerful branch and others to suspect that by not nailing down the details, it gave the federalists a springboard to add on to the judicial branch's power later on.

The Bill of Rights was a concession to the anti-federalists' fear of a central federal government over-running states' abilities to govern their citizens. It's written as a check against the federal government and the 10th amendment would actually support my points, not detract from them.

I'm not sure what kind of split you thought I was making about whether the Constitution is written for the feds or the states, but all the Constitution was about was how the federal government was going to operate. The Bill of Rights was introduced to ensure that the feds couldn't strip certain rights from the states.

In this context, that means that Congress is restricted from passing laws outlawing guns from New York residents. But it never meant that New York could was limited in it's ability to pass laws barring it's own residents owning guns. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights were applied to individual members in each state protecting them from their own state governments and laws.

And I wrote that we *think* it means that all of the Bill of Rights apply, when in fact the USSC has only ruled on some of them.

In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound.

Have you read your state consitution recently?
Why do you think California and Oregon constitutions guarantee their citizens the right to free speech and protections against unlawful searches and seizures (both ratified about a hundred years after the BoR were already in place)? I don't know other states off-hand, but I would be surprised to find that it does not mention rights very similar (or same) to those mentioned in the BoR.

Deltona Couple · 03-13-2007, 04:21 AM

I guess that it might be hard for someone who didn't grow up in the US to understand our way of thinking. At times I find myself looking at news from other countries and think WTF? myself. However that is the way THEY grew up. I just see our rights as just that: rights given to us by our Constitution. Do you honestly think that because we want to own a handgun, that we are fascinated by owning it? Can't you just believe that we CHOOSE to own one, not think we MUST own one. There are many other rights given to us by our Constitution, do you think we shoud just give them up as well? I think it is GREAT that women can vote now, and support them that right...Does that make me "fascinated" with women voting? We have freedom of religion, this causes MANY disagreements amoung the populace...should we just ban religion all-together unless it is Christianity because we are "fascinated" by religion? Police must secure a search warrant to enter our homes, but we have people who commit illegal activities in their home all the time...Should we just ban the 4th Amendment so the police can enter our home any time they want? Hell Charlatan, I can get alot more work done, and done cheaper, by slaves than if I had to pay an employee; lets abolish the 13th Amendment so I can own slaves!
.......Can you see where this is going? Once you start taking away civil liberties, where does it end? We MUST as an individual person, FORM a collective society to police OURSELVES as much as our government. If you look at history where states have actually enacted the Concealed Weapons permit, allowing LICENSED individuals to carry a handgun on their person in certain LEGAL locations, you will find that OVERALL crimes against persons have gone DOWN not up. Most criminals KNOW that in many states, people are allowed to carry, therefore their RISK of attacking someone is greater. This has caused a DECREASE in personal crime. The statistics you find where people are murdered or killed violently are done so by persons who are NOT legally allowed to own a handgun. They are done by criminals. Unless you want to live in a police state, the individual MUST be allowed to protect themself.

Now you might be saying "well lets not take this to extremes here Deltona, that is NOT what I am saying." But JUST as YOU are saying that handguns should be banned, other people are saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote; that the African-American populace should be deported; that we should allow the police to enter our homes any time they wish. It is true, there ARE people out there like that. It is the job of our Constitution to protect THEM, as well as let us protect ourselves. So where should it end? Why do you think we have Amendments? They are the PEOPLES way of telling the GOVERNMENT how it should be run. Not the Government telling the PEOPLE how they are going to do things.

*puts on flame-retardent suit*....lol

dksuddeth · 03-13-2007, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

DK can you elaborate a little bit, I can't follow. Thanks.

any specific part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts.

while paying back debts was a large part of the issue, the larger issue was about the stability of a unified standing army to safeguard ALL of the states. Without it, Massachussetts could be invaded and New York might not jump in to help defend it. A standing army would remove that issue, yet the fears of a central government and military were fresh in the minds of everyone, thus the constitution/Bill of Rights to ensure that the new central government had limited powers and KNEW that there were areas they were not allowed to touch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound.

The constitution was ratified in 1789, the BoR ratified in 1791. In 1790, D.C. became a federal district. Now, if you are trying to follow the 'logic' of the dissenting opinion, saying that the 14th doesn't apply to the citizens of D.C. because it is a federal district and not a state, you're saying that any state could deny a D.C. citizen of any rights, if outside of D.C.. Does the state of Virginia have the authority or power to arrest a D.C. citizen without charge and then detain them indefinitely without counsel?

smooth · 03-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Does the state of Virginia have the authority or power to arrest a D.C. citizen without charge and then detain them indefinitely without counsel?

Of course not, Virginia can not deny any person due process of law, according to its State Constitution, Article 1:

Sec. 11. That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law;

I pointed this out earlier. States have their own constitutions. You could have looked this up yourself.

If the federal BoR were intended to apply to relations between states and people, why do you think every state constitution has the same (or enhanced) protections in their own constitutions?

Now that the 14th Amendment has been in operation, some of the BoR have been extended across all states. That doesn't mean all of them have. Additionally, it may very well be that the 14th amendment's due process clause has been ruled to apply to the DC residents, or it may not. I haven't researched that particular situation. But it's irrelevant because Virginia already has it covered under article 1, section 11.

dksuddeth · 03-13-2007, 03:48 PM

Before the infamous dred scott and cruikshank decisions, there was zero reason to think or believe that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. An individual doesn't have inalienable rights that the federal government can't intrude upon, but the states can freely do so as long as it's not in their state constitutions. That ideology is patently absurd. The reason that a constitution is made is to enumerate powers to the government, not tell the people what rights they've been given.(since 'the people' have all their rights)

The ONLY reason that the incorporation doctrine was invented by the supreme court was so the individual states could still have their 'black codes' that the feds could not jack with. This was the cruikshank case in 1876. It was AFTER a black man named Ed Johnson was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death but lynched when his execution had been stayed pending appeal. The only time the Supreme Court presided over a trial, one Sheriff Joseph Shipp, for complicity in the lynching which denied a constitution right, the right of due process, to a black man. The first time the USSC applied the bill of rights against the states, starting the incorporation doctrine.

For a better read of this history, go Here

smooth · 03-13-2007, 09:29 PM

First of all, there is nothing in anything you've posted, other than your opinion, that substantiates your claim that "An individual doesn't have inalienable rights that the federal government can't intrude upon, but the states can freely do so as long as it's not in their state constitutions. That ideology is patently absurd."

That is the very essense of federalism--dual sovereignty. The federal constitution places restrictions on what the *federal* government can do to individuals. The BoR was never intended to interfere with how the states dealt with their own citizens in their own court systems. The states have always been able to do what they want with their citizens. *Now*, the states are only able to do what they want with their citizens so long as it is accordance with the federal government's bare minimum of protections. I don't feel the need to fight this issue with you, our nation already resolved its recalcitrant states' beef with federal sovereignty by 1865.

What I find strange is that you post links you think support your argument, yet whenever I take the time to read them I find them in opposition to your claims. For example, this is from the link you provided on the Shipp case:

Quote:

In 1906, there was little reason to expect relief in the federal courts. Federal judges could not reconsider the evidence presented in state trials. They could only act when the federal constitutional rights of the defendant had been violated. Moreover, the Supreme Court had narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The protections of the Bill of Rights--to an impartial jury, to effective counsel, right against self-incrimination, and all of its other guarantees--had not yet been found by the Court to be applicable in state trials. As of 1906, there existed not one case in which the federal courts had reversed a state court conviction on the basis of the due process clause.

This indicates to me that up until this case the BoR protections were only thought to be applicable in federal courts--even after the passage of the 14th amendment, according to sentences I bolded.

Quote:

Solicitor General Henry Hoyt argued that the Court did have jurisdiction. Hoyt contended that Johnson's right to be heard on his application for habeas corpus was protected by the Constitution and that the Court acted appropriately in staying his execution. "This proceeding is about nothing less than establishing and protecting the rule of law," Hoyt told the justices. Judson Harmon, a Cincinnati lawyer representing Sheriff Shipp, countered by arguing that none of Johnson's federally protected rights had been violated and that therefore the Court improperly granted its stay. Since the stay was improperly issued, Harmon argued, no one who violated the Court's orders should be found in contempt. Harmon was interrupted by Justice Holmes who asked, "But you would agree that this Court has the authority to determine that the Sixth Amendment [with its guarantee of a fair trial] is binding on the state courts, do you not?" The possibility that the Court might actually be ready to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to state courts shocked Harmon, and he understood for the first time how strongly incensed some of the justices must have been with the handling of the Johnson case.

emphasis mine

So it appears that not only is my point that the federal constitution was not historically applied to state proceedings correct, it seems these protections were not all applied to state proceedings even *after* the 14th amendment had been in effect (which I also stated)...this by your own evidence.

Now, out of curiosity, you claim that Shipp was the first time the court applied the BoR against the states. You also claim his trial was due to denying a black man's "due process." The BoR are the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and does not include the 14th amendment. Yet, if what I am saying is untrue about the BoR not intended to be applied to the states, what possible reason would there be a right to due process in the 5th amendment, and the *same* right in the 14th? And why would this article discuss the 14th amendment and not the 5th when it details the jurisdictional issues?

I found an alternate analysis. This analysis argues for the 2nd Amend. to apply to DC because it falls under federal jurisdiction. Notice, however, that he doesn't dispute what I've been claiming--that the BoR applied to the feds and that the 14th doesn't require the states to recognize all of the amendments.

Quote:

Just as important, Congress has plenary legislative authority over the nation's capital. That means the D.C. government, a creature of Congress, is constrained by the Second Amendment as much as the federal government itself. Yes, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, requires the states to honor many -- but not all -- provisions of the Bill of Rights. Like the other nine amendments, the Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government. Unlike many of the other amendments, the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states has not been resolved. Yet because D.C. is not a state and is controlled by Congress, that complex and widely debated question need not be addressed when D.C. law is challenged on Second Amendment grounds.

--http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024079035166

So here the author arrives at an alternate conclusion than I, based on a different legal theory of how one interprets the status of DC as a non-state entity in the US. That's fine, and it's these variances of legal arguments that led me to not definatively state whether the USSC would agree or disagree with the minority opinion...even if her logic was sound.

dksuddeth · 03-14-2007, 05:22 AM

Q. Why weren't the BoR applied to the states before 1865?
A. It didn't need to be. The states treated their WHITE citizens according to the constitution while BLACKS had no rights.

Q. WHY was the 14th amendment created?
A. Because a racist majority supreme court refused to accept that BLACKS had rights according to the US constitution via the 13th Amendment, THEREFORE, their decision in Cruikshank eliminated federal intervention in the way states treated their newly freedmen by saying that the constitution only applied to the federal government.

Answer this....WHY did it take 80 years to figure out that the US BoR didn't apply to the states?

smooth · 03-14-2007, 05:25 AM

dksuddeth, you need to check your history...it didn't take our nation 80 years to figure out that the BoR didn't extend to the states, Congress rejected the notion outright before they ratified the Constitution:

Quote:

This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away.

And the U.S. Supreme Court smacked "WHITE citizens" down routinely:

Quote:

Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:

In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v. Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment's Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

-- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

dksuddeth · 03-14-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

well shit, just when I figured you had matured enough to carry a conversation without insulting me, you prove me wrong. back on ignore you go...

then maybe my question should have been more along the lines of 'do you always take the remarks and decisions of a person wearing a black robe at face value and apply it as uncontestable fact?'

smooth · 03-14-2007, 06:27 AM

I honestly don't know how to respond to your last question.
I mean, I'm not taking any one judge's remarks/decisions at face value so your premise is flawed. But aside from that, I'm synthesizing what I learned about the reasons for drafting a federal constitution, how that meshes with the need for state's rights, what that meant to the residents of those states, how the delegates appeared to have viewed the federal constitution from their writings/comments, how this relates to issues of federalism, how this has played out historically in our nation, and what a broad consensus of legal scholars have taught me and written (unanimous, to my knowledge; you have yet to provide me with a single legal scholar supportive of what you're typing here)...and finally yes, generally speaking, when the US Supreme Court Justices make a decision, it is uncontestable fact.

I think given all that, I refuse to be ashamed that my analysis rests on these principles and facts. It doesn't make me a sheep, if that's what you're implying. It's the way our legal system operates, to my knowledge. I'm not an anarchist when I wear this hat. How I professionally orient to this information is a seperate matter from how I might personally orient to the notion of marching on the government and burning shit to the ground, however...

dksuddeth · 03-14-2007, 08:23 AM

then I'm extremely confused by your position. What I'm reading is that you believe the dissenting opinion is most logically correct because the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated in to the 14th, yet DC is not a state so it could never be applied to it anyway, but how does that work with the other amendments being applied to DC, since it is not a state?

smooth · 03-14-2007, 12:36 PM

I finally sourced a copy of the ruling.
http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf

Henderson's dissent begins on page 59.

dksuddeth · 11-20-2007, 11:22 AM

Supreme Court to decide on Handgun Ban in D.C.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for the D.C. residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

The Second 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."

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

Four states—Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York—urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for protection.

The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.

The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

Arguments will be heard early next year.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Although I anticipate an individual rights ruling, I wonder how 'narrow' this decision is going to be, considering the supremes tend to avoid radical change.

My personal prediction is a 6-3 ruling for an individual right with souter, breyer, and stevens in the dissent.

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 11:32 AM

You're probably right about the split. It's a good thing that they aren't judges in the UK or crime there would skyrocket.

Plan9 · 11-20-2007, 11:40 AM

Yay! I feel more threatened in D.C. than I did in Iraq or A-stan.

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 11:57 AM

I don't actually support the DC gun ban, btw. Any idiot can see that having a gun ban in a major city that's right next to a state with virtually no gun laws is a bad idea and is just asking for a high crime rate. The ruling of constitutionality is a bad way to go about doing this, though. One should simply weigh the situation and make a reasonable decision.

The problem with ruling gun bans as unconstitutional means that if, say, Hawaii were to instigate a gun ban (which would be VERY effective, see UK), it would be struck down as unconstitutional. That would ultimately be to the detriment of citizens of the US, and I can't really support it.

So when the gun ban is overturned it will be a victory for DC, but ultimately a loss.

dksuddeth · 11-20-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't actually support the DC gun ban, btw. Any idiot can see that having a gun ban in a major city that's right next to a state with virtually no gun laws is a bad idea and is just asking for a high crime rate. The ruling of constitutionality is a bad way to go about doing this, though. One should simply weigh the situation and make a reasonable decision.

The problem with ruling gun bans as unconstitutional means that if, say, Hawaii were to instigate a gun ban (which would be VERY effective, see UK), it would be struck down as unconstitutional. That would ultimately be to the detriment of citizens of the US, and I can't really support it.

So when the gun ban is overturned it will be a victory for DC, but ultimately a loss.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how people finally being able to effectively defend themselves and family, in their own home, is a loss. I know you feel that all people have to do is buy prison bars, 4 inch steel bolts to turn all their doors in to bank vault doors, a good alarm system, dog, panic room, and 911 on speed dial, but....how is having functional firearms in your home for defense a loss? especially given the fact that the DC ban has cost more lives in the last 30 years than nearly every other major city, excepting chicago and philly a couple of times?

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I'm sorry, I fail to see how people finally being able to effectively defend themselves and family, in their own home, is a loss.

As I said, it's a victory for DC. Crime rates will likely drop off slightly, which is a good thing. Did you read my post? If you had, I doubt you'd be making a starwman argument.

Banning guns in DC was a stupid idea. If you want to give a gun ban a shot (no pun intended), you should do it in an area where there are already very strong gun restrictions and measures. There is a reason that it is working so well in the UK. The UK isn't walking distance from West Virginia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I know you feel that all people have to do is buy prison bars, 4 inch steel bolts to turn all their doors in to bank vault doors, a good alarm system, dog, panic room, and 911 on speed dial, but....how is having functional firearms in your home for defense a loss? especially given the fact that the DC ban has cost more lives in the last 30 years than nearly every other major city, excepting chicago and philly a couple of times?

I've never herd of a war being fought with locks on doors. People aren't held hostage at alarm system-point. I've never herd of someone bringing their panic room to work and blowing away their coworkers.

dksuddeth · 11-20-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Banning guns in DC was a stupid idea. If you want to give a gun ban a shot (no pun intended), you should do it in an area where there are already very strong gun restrictions and measures. There is a reason that it is working so well in the UK. The UK isn't walking distance from West Virginia.

Why has there been an increase in the number of stories on the news about gun crime in the UK increasing then?

regardless, an individual rights ruling would be just a start. It would certainly put the other circuits that have ruled 'collective' rights on their heads. Although this will most certainly be a narrow ruling, I look forward to the hearings.

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Why has there been an increase in the number of stories on the news about gun crime in the UK increasing then?

You mean going from .049% of all crime to .05% of all crime in the UK is a gun crime? I don't think that even the word 'negligible' is adequate to describe just how insignificant that figure is, especially when one considers how low their overall crime rate is compared to the US. Also, as I understand it, there's a margin of error at .1% in most national studies, so it could have even gone down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

regardless, an individual rights ruling would be just a start. It would certainly put the other circuits that have ruled 'collective' rights on their heads. Although this will most certainly be a narrow ruling, I look forward to the hearings.

They will be interesting, that's for sure.

ziadel · 11-20-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

see UK

Just out of curiousity, how do you think that gun crime or crime in general is in the UK? Mebbe I'm wrong, but from what I understand it's gotten so out of control they're contemplating banning kitchen knives over a certain length. Every time I call my buddy over there he tells me about someone else getting shot, in a country with NO legal civillian firearm ownership.

I wish you peeps would come to Montana, last Saturday night I walked into the bar here in town and there were dozens of guns leaning up against the bar (hunting season) with their owners getting plastered and nary a worry or problem. It's truly eye opening.

dc_dux · 11-20-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Yay! I feel more threatened in D.C. than I did in Iraq or A-stan.

Hanging out east of the Anacostia River?

I have never felt threatened in 20+ years of living in Washington DC and I said earlier in this thread that I thought the DC ban was far too restrictive.

It will be interesting to see how narrow the Court rules. The majority opinion of the Appeals Court, written by a very conservative judge appointed by Reagan, said explicitly that DC has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms just not to ban them in homes.

In any case, its good to see that a Supreme Court finally took up a second amendment case.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2007, 07:41 PM

I seem to remember hearing something about violent crime tripling in UK after the gun ban.

And I agree its about time that the SC took up this case. I am however a little worried at the same time.

The 2nd amendment was meant as a means for the citizenry to protect itself/act as a check against an overbearing government. Obviously as such I think it should stand that the citizenry shouldn't be disallowed guns as long as the amendment stands (not that I'm advocating anti-tank uranium depleted sub machine guns..). BUt what happens if the SC rules in favor of the ban? What purpose does the 2nd amendment serve if people can't carry handguns? Not that it matters much anyway, any weapons the citizenry has are far outgunned by anything the government has.

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I seem to remember hearing something about violent crime tripling in UK after the gun ban.

You heard wrong.

Plan9 · 11-20-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In any case, its good to see that a Supreme Court finally took up a second amendment case.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2007, 08:09 PM

You sure Will?

Quote:

The cure is worse than the disease

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted. According to economist John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute, the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/f.../ukutopia.html

j8ear · 11-20-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

My personal prediction is a 6-3 ruling for an individual right with souter, breyer, and stevens in the dissent.

Ginsburg with the six then?

-bear

dc_dux · 11-20-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Although I anticipate an individual rights ruling, I wonder how 'narrow' this decision is going to be, considering the supremes tend to avoid radical change.

My personal prediction is a 6-3 ruling for an individual right with souter, breyer, and stevens in the dissent.

I dont know that its that clear cut, considering that only two of the 12 circuit courts of appeal have ever ruled that the second amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms. Historically, most of the circurt courts (some very conservative) have ruled that it conferred a collective right as part of a state militia.

Willravel · 11-20-2007, 08:18 PM

Oh nice, liberty-page. Do you want to find more pseudo-news sites with guns on the homepage?

MSD · 11-20-2007, 09:06 PM

This won't do shit for anywhere else in the US. DC is a federal area, and since the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated yet, I see no reason to expect them to do it now. Maybe Alito will write an opinion that sets a precedent for incorporation, but with 2008 elections coming up, I see no motivation for them to rock the boat and give the left another thing against the GOP by attacking Bush appointees.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-20-2007, 10:53 PM

Or whats more asinine, is that gun crime increased under the ban. It would be obviously stated, and the best argument against gun laws is that the vast majority of people are law abiding and don't use guns for crimes, hence they get them legally. Criminals do not care about gun laws.

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

Quote:

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

Ammunition

Examples of illegally manufactured guns include screwdrivers being adapted to fire off one round, he said.

The Metropolitan Police said its official figures showed a 20% drop in armed robberies of commercial premises between April and July this year, compared with the same period last year.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said that, since April 2001, the Flying Squad has arrested 39 people in connection with 34 armed incidents and seized 52 weapons.

Operation Trident, which investigates "black on black" shootings in the UK, has made more than 300 arrests, recovered 100 firearms and 1,500 rounds of ammunition since it was established a year ago.

The Home Office said measures were being taken to tackle handgun crime, including an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons.

Going by history what does post #69 account for, attacking the source rather then the information... Will the bottom line is, criminals will break the law, with guns, or without them.

THe majority of folks do not break the law, with guns, outside of maybe traffic laws. You out law guns so I cannot have them, fine have it your way. Some gabroni who preaches thug life doesn't care and he will still be strapped, without concern for the law.

dksuddeth · 11-21-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Ginsburg with the six then?

-bear

If she has any intellectual integrity, she would have to vote on the side of individual rights, otherwise she would be plainly going in the opposite direction of her opinion in the muscarello case.

GonadWarrior · 11-22-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh nice, liberty-page. Do you want to find more pseudo-news sites with guns on the homepage?

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, and not a very good one at that. Please post the reference which prompted you to say that "you heard wrong."

I assume you must have had one to make such a statement.

Willravel · 11-22-2007, 12:58 PM

There are very few reliable gun stats online. It's something I discovered a few years ago in a similar conversation. BTW, it's not poisoning the well, if anything it's ad hominem fallacy as I discussed the credibility of the source, but really it's not a fallacy at all to question the validity of unsubstantiated stats from a gun enthusiast site about gun control. It's perfectly reasonable.

According to a UK Gov website, less than .05% of all crime in the UK is linked to guns.

The gun ban started in 1997. What do you see between 1997 and 2000?

Crime did go up 35% in 2003, but that was attributed to drugs, not guns. Gun crime is still VERY low.

dksuddeth · 11-22-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There are very few reliable gun stats online. It's something I discovered a few years ago in a similar conversation. BTW, it's not poisoning the well, if anything it's ad hominem fallacy as I discussed the credibility of the source, but really it's not a fallacy at all to question the validity of unsubstantiated stats from a gun enthusiast site about gun control. It's perfectly reasonable.

According to a UK Gov website, less than .05% of all crime in the UK is linked to guns.

The gun ban started in 1997. What do you see between 1997 and 2000?

Crime did go up 35% in 2003, but that was attributed to drugs, not guns. Gun crime is still VERY low.

and yet, over numerous websites (not gun oriented) still talk about a rising crime rate. For over a year now it's been known that the UK gov has been hiding crime stats to avoid this specific issue.

Plan9 · 11-22-2007, 05:58 PM

Oh, how I wish I lived in a civilized country where otherwise good people didn't believe they need a firearm to fend off other citizens who would do them harm for minor pecuniary gain.

And I wish I hadn't witnessed events to reinforce this behavior in myself.

ring · 11-22-2007, 06:20 PM

There's drugs in the hood.. there's guns in the hood...

I truly speak from experience here, I wish I were not.

It is hand in hand combat..eye to eye you die... 15 yrs. old and hardened.

Life is relative to some, and all you see on the news is relatives sobbing.

I do not profess to have any answers....

I am so tired.

Willravel · 11-22-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and yet, over numerous websites (not gun oriented) still talk about a rising crime rate. For over a year now it's been known that the UK gov has been hiding crime stats to avoid this specific issue.

It is on the rise, but how high is it? It's easy to ignore that question when you don't want to know the answer. The question is: what effect has the gun ban had, if any?

MSD · 11-22-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There are very few reliable gun stats online. It's something I discovered a few years ago in a similar conversation. BTW, it's not poisoning the well, if anything it's ad hominem fallacy as I discussed the credibility of the source, but really it's not a fallacy at all to question the validity of unsubstantiated stats from a gun enthusiast site about gun control. It's perfectly reasonable.

According to a UK Gov website, less than .05% of all crime in the UK is linked to guns.

The gun ban started in 1997. What do you see between 1997 and 2000?

Crime did go up 35% in 2003, but that was attributed to drugs, not guns. Gun crime is still VERY low.

Burglary is a crime against property, not people. Home invasions and robberies are not classified under burglary and therefore the graph simply shows that in 1997, the rate at which burglaries per capita was falling decreased.

Plan9 · 11-22-2007, 10:38 PM

Yeah, as a far as defining crimes:

Burglary = larceny where owner of building is not required to be present
Robbery = use of force against another to commit larceny

03-12-2007, 09:28 PM	#41 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	bear, The Constitution isn't a document about the states, it's a federal document. Before the 14th amendement, citizens generally thought of themselves as citizens of say, New York, or Mass., or Georgia, etc. People weren't at that time accustomed to thinking of themselves part of a collective whole of states. The relevant history for this is that when the Constution was ratified, our beginning nation was experiencing a number of problems. You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts. Two main factions formed around how to resolve some of these issues: the federalist and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central judiciary, a powerful court system, and they were concerned about our nation being governed by a majority. The anti-federalists wanted a weak central government, a less powerful court system, and they were concerned that states rights would be lost in the shuffle. To resolve most of this, the two factions agreed that they would form a system of government with each branch controlling different aspects. So they oulined the executive branch and the legislative branch (as an example of how these compromises played out, we have a Congress comprised of a House of Reps where the population determines the members in conjunction with a Senate where each state has equal representation. I can't remember the respective plans each faction introduced, but if you google "connectcut plan" I think that's the one they reached, or it's one of the three and you'll be able to read about the other two.). Initially, the judicial branch was given the least amount of detail and this leads some scholars to believe that it was supposed to be least powerful branch and others to suspect that by not nailing down the details, it gave the federalists a springboard to add on to the judicial branch's power later on. The Bill of Rights was a concession to the anti-federalists' fear of a central federal government over-running states' abilities to govern their citizens. It's written as a check against the federal government and the 10th amendment would actually support my points, not detract from them. I'm not sure what kind of split you thought I was making about whether the Constitution is written for the feds or the states, but all the Constitution was about was how the federal government was going to operate. The Bill of Rights was introduced to ensure that the feds couldn't strip certain rights from the states. In this context, that means that Congress is restricted from passing laws outlawing guns from New York residents. But it never meant that New York could was limited in it's ability to pass laws barring it's own residents owning guns. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights were applied to individual members in each state protecting them from their own state governments and laws. And I wrote that we think it means that all of the Bill of Rights apply, when in fact the USSC has only ruled on some of them. In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound. Have you read your state consitution recently? Why do you think California and Oregon constitutions guarantee their citizens the right to free speech and protections against unlawful searches and seizures (both ratified about a hundred years after the BoR were already in place)? I don't know other states off-hand, but I would be surprised to find that it does not mention rights very similar (or same) to those mentioned in the BoR. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 03-12-2007 at 09:30 PM..

03-13-2007, 04:21 AM	#42 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I guess that it might be hard for someone who didn't grow up in the US to understand our way of thinking. At times I find myself looking at news from other countries and think WTF? myself. However that is the way THEY grew up. I just see our rights as just that: rights given to us by our Constitution. Do you honestly think that because we want to own a handgun, that we are fascinated by owning it? Can't you just believe that we CHOOSE to own one, not think we MUST own one. There are many other rights given to us by our Constitution, do you think we shoud just give them up as well? I think it is GREAT that women can vote now, and support them that right...Does that make me "fascinated" with women voting? We have freedom of religion, this causes MANY disagreements amoung the populace...should we just ban religion all-together unless it is Christianity because we are "fascinated" by religion? Police must secure a search warrant to enter our homes, but we have people who commit illegal activities in their home all the time...Should we just ban the 4th Amendment so the police can enter our home any time they want? Hell Charlatan, I can get alot more work done, and done cheaper, by slaves than if I had to pay an employee; lets abolish the 13th Amendment so I can own slaves! .......Can you see where this is going? Once you start taking away civil liberties, where does it end? We MUST as an individual person, FORM a collective society to police OURSELVES as much as our government. If you look at history where states have actually enacted the Concealed Weapons permit, allowing LICENSED individuals to carry a handgun on their person in certain LEGAL locations, you will find that OVERALL crimes against persons have gone DOWN not up. Most criminals KNOW that in many states, people are allowed to carry, therefore their RISK of attacking someone is greater. This has caused a DECREASE in personal crime. The statistics you find where people are murdered or killed violently are done so by persons who are NOT legally allowed to own a handgun. They are done by criminals. Unless you want to live in a police state, the individual MUST be allowed to protect themself. Now you might be saying "well lets not take this to extremes here Deltona, that is NOT what I am saying." But JUST as YOU are saying that handguns should be banned, other people are saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote; that the African-American populace should be deported; that we should allow the police to enter our homes any time they wish. It is true, there ARE people out there like that. It is the job of our Constitution to protect THEM, as well as let us protect ourselves. So where should it end? Why do you think we have Amendments? They are the PEOPLES way of telling the GOVERNMENT how it should be run. Not the Government telling the PEOPLE how they are going to do things. puts on flame-retardent suit....lol __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

03-13-2007, 03:48 PM	#45 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Before the infamous dred scott and cruikshank decisions, there was zero reason to think or believe that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. An individual doesn't have inalienable rights that the federal government can't intrude upon, but the states can freely do so as long as it's not in their state constitutions. That ideology is patently absurd. The reason that a constitution is made is to enumerate powers to the government, not tell the people what rights they've been given.(since 'the people' have all their rights) The ONLY reason that the incorporation doctrine was invented by the supreme court was so the individual states could still have their 'black codes' that the feds could not jack with. This was the cruikshank case in 1876. It was AFTER a black man named Ed Johnson was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death but lynched when his execution had been stayed pending appeal. The only time the Supreme Court presided over a trial, one Sheriff Joseph Shipp, for complicity in the lynching which denied a constitution right, the right of due process, to a black man. The first time the USSC applied the bill of rights against the states, starting the incorporation doctrine. For a better read of this history, go Here __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-14-2007, 05:22 AM	#47 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Q. Why weren't the BoR applied to the states before 1865? A. It didn't need to be. The states treated their WHITE citizens according to the constitution while BLACKS had no rights. Q. WHY was the 14th amendment created? A. Because a racist majority supreme court refused to accept that BLACKS had rights according to the US constitution via the 13th Amendment, THEREFORE, their decision in Cruikshank eliminated federal intervention in the way states treated their newly freedmen by saying that the constitution only applied to the federal government. Answer this....WHY did it take 80 years to figure out that the US BoR didn't apply to the states? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 03-14-2007 at 05:32 AM.. Reason: someone objected to a question

03-14-2007, 06:27 AM	#50 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I honestly don't know how to respond to your last question. I mean, I'm not taking any one judge's remarks/decisions at face value so your premise is flawed. But aside from that, I'm synthesizing what I learned about the reasons for drafting a federal constitution, how that meshes with the need for state's rights, what that meant to the residents of those states, how the delegates appeared to have viewed the federal constitution from their writings/comments, how this relates to issues of federalism, how this has played out historically in our nation, and what a broad consensus of legal scholars have taught me and written (unanimous, to my knowledge; you have yet to provide me with a single legal scholar supportive of what you're typing here)...and finally yes, generally speaking, when the US Supreme Court Justices make a decision, it is uncontestable fact. I think given all that, I refuse to be ashamed that my analysis rests on these principles and facts. It doesn't make me a sheep, if that's what you're implying. It's the way our legal system operates, to my knowledge. I'm not an anarchist when I wear this hat. How I professionally orient to this information is a seperate matter from how I might personally orient to the notion of marching on the government and burning shit to the ground, however... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-14-2007, 08:23 AM	#51 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	then I'm extremely confused by your position. What I'm reading is that you believe the dissenting opinion is most logically correct because the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated in to the 14th, yet DC is not a state so it could never be applied to it anyway, but how does that work with the other amendments being applied to DC, since it is not a state? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-14-2007, 12:36 PM	#52 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I finally sourced a copy of the ruling. http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf Henderson's dissent begins on page 59. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 03-14-2007 at 12:42 PM..

11-20-2007, 11:32 AM	#54 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You're probably right about the split. It's a good thing that they aren't judges in the UK or crime there would skyrocket.

11-20-2007, 11:40 AM	#55 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yay! I feel more threatened in D.C. than I did in Iraq or A-stan. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-20-2007, 11:57 AM	#56 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't actually support the DC gun ban, btw. Any idiot can see that having a gun ban in a major city that's right next to a state with virtually no gun laws is a bad idea and is just asking for a high crime rate. The ruling of constitutionality is a bad way to go about doing this, though. One should simply weigh the situation and make a reasonable decision. The problem with ruling gun bans as unconstitutional means that if, say, Hawaii were to instigate a gun ban (which would be VERY effective, see UK), it would be struck down as unconstitutional. That would ultimately be to the detriment of citizens of the US, and I can't really support it. So when the gun ban is overturned it will be a victory for DC, but ultimately a loss.

11-20-2007, 07:41 PM	#63 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I seem to remember hearing something about violent crime tripling in UK after the gun ban. And I agree its about time that the SC took up this case. I am however a little worried at the same time. The 2nd amendment was meant as a means for the citizenry to protect itself/act as a check against an overbearing government. Obviously as such I think it should stand that the citizenry shouldn't be disallowed guns as long as the amendment stands (not that I'm advocating anti-tank uranium depleted sub machine guns..). BUt what happens if the SC rules in favor of the ban? What purpose does the 2nd amendment serve if people can't carry handguns? Not that it matters much anyway, any weapons the citizenry has are far outgunned by anything the government has. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-20-2007, 08:18 PM	#69 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Oh nice, liberty-page. Do you want to find more pseudo-news sites with guns on the homepage?

11-20-2007, 09:06 PM	#70 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	This won't do shit for anywhere else in the US. DC is a federal area, and since the Second Amendment hasn't been incorporated yet, I see no reason to expect them to do it now. Maybe Alito will write an opinion that sets a precedent for incorporation, but with 2008 elections coming up, I see no motivation for them to rock the boat and give the left another thing against the GOP by attacking Bush appointees.

11-22-2007, 12:58 PM	#74 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There are very few reliable gun stats online. It's something I discovered a few years ago in a similar conversation. BTW, it's not poisoning the well, if anything it's ad hominem fallacy as I discussed the credibility of the source, but really it's not a fallacy at all to question the validity of unsubstantiated stats from a gun enthusiast site about gun control. It's perfectly reasonable. According to a UK Gov website, less than .05% of all crime in the UK is linked to guns. The gun ban started in 1997. What do you see between 1997 and 2000? Crime did go up 35% in 2003, but that was attributed to drugs, not guns. Gun crime is still VERY low.

11-22-2007, 05:58 PM	#76 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Oh, how I wish I lived in a civilized country where otherwise good people didn't believe they need a firearm to fend off other citizens who would do them harm for minor pecuniary gain. And I wish I hadn't witnessed events to reinforce this behavior in myself. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-22-2007, 06:20 PM	#77 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	There's drugs in the hood.. there's guns in the hood... I truly speak from experience here, I wish I were not. It is hand in hand combat..eye to eye you die... 15 yrs. old and hardened. Life is relative to some, and all you see on the news is relatives sobbing. I do not profess to have any answers.... I am so tired.

11-22-2007, 10:38 PM	#80 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yeah, as a far as defining crimes: Burglary = larceny where owner of building is not required to be present Robbery = use of force against another to commit larceny __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."