As I've been saying all along, Miller suggested and was interpreted for years to mean that banning firearms which don't suit a reasonable use by citizens (hunting, sport, self-defense, or w/e) was permissable. Heller seems to overturn this, though given Heller is a recent case not every ramification has been worked out. Also, some significantly older decisions were interpreted to allow individual states, though not the federal government, to pass whatever restrictions they wanted on guns; this had also been interpreted over time so that states had to allow some measure of ownership, though Heller might overturn this even further. And this is still somewhat irrelevant, because your original claim did not preclude the fact that the court has also changed its reasoning on what you call, "where the rights are derived from."
Gun rights and nations other than the US
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
As I've been saying all along, Miller suggested and was interpreted for years to mean that banning firearms which don't suit a reasonable use by citizens (hunting, sport, self-defense, or w/e) was permissable. Heller seems to overturn this, though given Heller is a recent case not every ramification has been worked out. Also, some significantly older decisions were interpreted to allow individual states, though not the federal government, to pass whatever restrictions they wanted on guns; this had also been interpreted over time so that states had to allow some measure of ownership, though Heller might overturn this even further. And this is still somewhat irrelevant, because your original claim did not preclude the fact that the court has also changed its reasoning on what you call, "where the rights are derived from."
Ecofarm
Deity
There was a poster here some time ago that claimed a samurai sword was a better personal defense weapon than a gun... I wonder what happened to him...
But that's irrelevant. The court has never changed a decision on specific rights. The rulings have been consistent and clear about what you can own and how.
Yes, the rulings have been consistent and clear at the time. Then, later rulings have changed or revised them and been consistent and clear in their times. And you apparently still haven't heard very much about Heller I guess since there are widespread implications that Heller has changed the "specific rights" - namely, expanding them, but that's still a change from previous judicial interpretations.
Ecofarm
Deity
1. Later rulings have not changed or revised the rights themselves, only clarified where they derrive from.
2. v Heller ruled that a piece of legislation was unconstitutional, not that a SC decision was incorrect. It did not "expand" rights or change any of ITS decisions on the substance of the right. It forced the recognition of existing rights upon an unconstitutional piece of legislation and clarified derrivatives.
3. It's never been like "ok, you can own machineguns... ok, now you can't". That's never happened in SC decisions on gun rights.
2. v Heller ruled that a piece of legislation was unconstitutional, not that a SC decision was incorrect. It did not "expand" rights or change any of ITS decisions on the substance of the right. It forced the recognition of existing rights upon an unconstitutional piece of legislation and clarified derrivatives.
3. It's never been like "ok, you can own machineguns... ok, now you can't". That's never happened in SC decisions on gun rights.
No, that's just semantics of how courts work. The Heller decision did change the Court's viewpoint on the right to bear arms, indeed the existence/nature of the right itself, as opposed to the Miller decision (which also didn't address a previous case, but rather, legislation as well...). Your statement is rather like saying, "Roe v. Wade didn't create any new rights or anything, just recognized rights that were already there." Also, derivatives is spelled with a single 'r'.
Right, caught that edit, but you're correct. It seems exactly the other way around with Heller
Edit: But it certainly seems like there isn't very much I can do to convince you, and you likewise would probably not listen to anyone else on CFC, though I would certainly welcome anyone's view on whether Heller does or does not represent a departure from the Court's view in Miller (of course, all sorts of non-CFC sources in the media, academia, etc... have discussed this but ultimately I guess that counts for little, since arguing over Supreme Court cases is such an obfuscated field.)
The biggest difference between the USA and countries that are civilised in their approach to firearms is none of us have the absolute right to carry firearms for the purpose of intimidating others as seen at so called health meetings.
Try that on down here and the anti terrorist squad will give you a couple of seconds to drop it, or if a group is seen as a real threat the hard mob will be called out, and the chances of surviving a meeting with them is slim.
Like another poster I own a SLR but what he did not say is that converting it to fully auto fire is not difficult, a waste of ammo but not difficult.
In some ways firearms laws are rather dumb, there is no need for repeating rifles for hunting most game so the need for repeating rifles is minimal.
If you are going to allow self loading sporting rifles you may as well allow people to own so called assault rifles, damn all difference.
The biggest difference is people, the Swiss have/had no problems with males of military age having to keep a assault rifle with fully auto mode at home.
What sums up the NRA is an article stating that the people with mental illness should be allowed firearms until they do some thing wrong, now that is completely nuts.
Then again they also wanted those who were suspected of being a terrorist to keep their firearms, utterly mad.
Try that on down here and the anti terrorist squad will give you a couple of seconds to drop it, or if a group is seen as a real threat the hard mob will be called out, and the chances of surviving a meeting with them is slim.
Like another poster I own a SLR but what he did not say is that converting it to fully auto fire is not difficult, a waste of ammo but not difficult.
In some ways firearms laws are rather dumb, there is no need for repeating rifles for hunting most game so the need for repeating rifles is minimal.
If you are going to allow self loading sporting rifles you may as well allow people to own so called assault rifles, damn all difference.
The biggest difference is people, the Swiss have/had no problems with males of military age having to keep a assault rifle with fully auto mode at home.
What sums up the NRA is an article stating that the people with mental illness should be allowed firearms until they do some thing wrong, now that is completely nuts.
Then again they also wanted those who were suspected of being a terrorist to keep their firearms, utterly mad.
It is illegal, though, and you have to modify them so that it's impossible (not that you can't do it with a rubber band and some sticks, but the police don't know that)
Shadylookin
master debater
It shoots a bullet which has the capacity to kill. Just like the good ol' days of 1776
In 1776 you could fire one shot with a fairly inaccurate firearm. Then if your opponent was stupid enough to stand there while you reloaded and prepared another shot you could try again. You couldn't shoot up a school for instance because you might hit one guy, but during the reload you'd get pummeled.
If we stuck with the weapons the original framers were accustomed to I don't really think we'd be having this discussion.
There are statistics which have a meaning. And there is your personel expierence which has ... none.
And thats where you're wrong. You do realize the majority of all firearm related deaths are drug/gang related right? This notion that people, especially seemingly a lot of Europeans, have that you run the risk of being held up or shot by some random person while walking down the street is very innacurate.
In fact, you do realize right that for your every day run of the mill average joe the most likely person that would murder him/her is somebody he or she knows.
This notion that having people be able to carry guns somehow is going to suddenly have a large increase in violence is not true.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Just to nitpick, but technically suicide is the leading cause of firearm related deaths in the US.
If you meant 'firearm related homicides' (someone killing someone else), drug/gang could very well be the top cause, but I'm not so sure that it is the 'vast majority'.
In Milwaukee, the AVERAGE victim of a homicide (yes, I realize this is all homicides, not just firearm homicides) had 12.4 previous arrests, and the suspects of the homicides had 12.8 previous arrests.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/50947192.html
NOTE: Yes, I realize those stats are a little misleading, but overall it still means that if you are a criminal your chance of being a homicide victim greatly increases and the actual rate of being a victim when you have a clean, or minimal criminal record is quite a bit smaller than what people would think when they just look at the raw data of homicide rate for the whole country.
To be honest, some of the misleading parts of it is:
1. It doesn't say what their previous arrests were for. Gut reaction would think most of those are gang/drug related, but some of the arrests could be for bad checks, DWI, marijuana possession (not dealing), etc.
2. It used 'arrested' and not 'convicted'. Of course sometimes people are arrested and it turns out they are innocent. On the other hand, though they could have got some charges dropped in exchange for information about others, plea bargain etc. So they still may have actually committed whatever crime it was, but it has to be counted as 'innocent until proven guilty'.
-
But to anyone saying "compare the UK firearm death rates and what their current firearm laws are to the US firearm death rates and their firearm laws, so this proves that the ban work!".....
I'll remind them that the UK has ALWAYS had a much lower firearm related death rate compared to the US, even before all the restrictions and bans were put in place, such as the popular 1997 handgun ban in the UK.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7977378&postcount=199
Littleton, CO used illegal guns, and in the Australian massacre while the guns were legal, the killer did not have a license for them, so he had them illegally. While there have been 'legal gun owners' who committed massacres, you can't say for certain that had they not already owned the guns they would not have been able to acquire the guns illegally.
PiMan
Deity
If gun ownership in the US were reduced, where would the country place on the graph? Would it be like Pakistan, Argentina or even Mexico? Or more like Australia, Spain and the UK?
Note that when I made this graph, some countries wouldn't adequately fit without making the lower trend more difficult to see. Some of the important countries you cannot see here are Russia and Iraq, which both follow the steeper trend of very high homicide rates. For example, Iraq has a homicide rate over 90.
OK - I was referring to the violence side of things and will use the rest of your post as support.
Without guns, no one would be killed by guns. Yeah, people carry the responsibility for their actions, but it is guns that allow them to actually carry out those actions.
This is a flawed argument. Odours do not kill people. Guns do. You can come up with any number of absurd comparisons, but that doesn't prove the point. The general rule doesn't apply to guns, they are an exception.
Well, proportional harm doesn't have to mean equal; generally speaking it's pretty reasonable if you're in imminent danger of being raped or severe harmed to assume that your life is being threatened. By proportionate I meant the fact that once there isn't a significant threat, (like say if he's unconscious, neutralized, or he's running away) it's no longer self defense; you can't kill someone who isn't a threat to you or others. While the rape victim would be justified in killing her attacker during the crime, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, if she finds and shoots the rapist, that isn't justified self-defense.
Actually, it's neither for those two. Both are exceptions to the duty to retreat. Castle doctrine eliminates the duty to reteat from the home in cases of burglary, and stand your ground essentially eliminates it altogether. Neither provide a justification for self defense, just the elimination of a component in US (state) law in certain circumstances, which as you said, is to aid in protecting property/home. I do not think that killing someone who steals property but is not a credible threat on a person's life is justified.
Jazzmail
King
It's too late for the USA and a few other countries. You cannot take back what you've given up.
The rest of the world had the good sense to control weapons back in the day a sword was cutting edge.
The rest of the world had the good sense to control weapons back in the day a sword was cutting edge.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Last time I checked, the Government was suppose to be in charge of your safety. Instead of giving people guns, why dont Governments give police officers better training. Or hirer better ones.
I've given up with that sort of argument - when someone thinks that he doesn't owe his country anything, it's not worth arguing.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Unless you happen to live on land that your family has owned and you grow your own food, dont use electricity, gather your water from the rain, dont work, built your home from resources found in your patch of land, never used roads or receive Government aide, then I think you pretty much owe your government a living.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
It must be hilarious for the shop workers when xarthaz is asked to pay sales tax/VAT.
I say this: Why does anyone need to carry a gun everywhere? What is the point?
I agree with Singapore.
Business men carrying classified info or large sums of money.
To answer the OP, I support the right of all people everywhere to carry guns. Of course there should be restrictions relating when it can be loaded and visibility. I don't mind concealed as much, but people waving pistols in the air at the mall or ak-47's at the beach, even if just to celebrate their first period, is not cool.
Similar threads
