Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

Hi, Artemis.By the way, I empathize with the Deep South thing: I was raised in the Midwest, but we moved to Tennessee for my teenage years. This is a major problem, Artemis. It was perfectly okay to be intolerant when there were under a billion people in the world. But, now that the world is effectively getting smaller, people are forced to live closer together, and intolerance is getting more and more likely to cause conflicts.And, it's only going to get more noticeable in the future. That's why tolerance is important.

---

Darwin loves you.

side question, is kentucky in the south or midwest (i say midwest). 1 billion of the people you speak of live in one of the most intolerant nations on earth. Im only defending 360 million. do you think if this 360 million here are tolerant somehow we can effect that nation of 1 billion? I dont think we can, nor do i think its any of our business.in fact the more i think of it the lesser amount of tolerant natiions i can think of. i guess we have to disagree on the importance of tolerance.

Not in my personal, admittedly very subjective, experience. Being too afraid to cause any offence at all is one way to ensure politeness I suppose. Yes but part of what makes us civilised is not splitting each others skulls (or indeed blowing each others faces off). Dude you are making too much of the England/UK/London thing. I have travelled all over the world, lived abroad and whilst London is my home and favorite place in the world I can see that this city, this country (Britain) and this continent (Europe) has all sorts of problems and contradictions. Just like the US and everywhere else. Each has it's unique set of issues. I certainly feel no need to decalre that every policy of my government or every law in place is beyond criticism. Far from it in fact. The only thing I would be intolerant of is intolerance. Intolerance in the form of violence against those whose views you oppose is an absolute recipe for disaster. The biggest barrier to peace and the greatest threat to genuine freedom that there can be. If everyone takes that view then we are all doomed.

South, and the old south, in lots of ways. It was actually part of Virginia at one time before becoming a state, if my memory serves me right. Although, along with Maryland, it was neutral in the civil war, it was definitely southern in heart and sympathies.I lived there for three years, a long time ago, and there were a lot of your flags on the cars, etc. So I say south, and I think most old Kentucky families would agree.{Sorry about the off topic}

quote:

---

What exactly does the US constitution say about the right to bear arms?

---

Unfortunately, because of the wording it's kind of hard to determine what exactly it says about it, Artemis Entreri's learned opinion notwithstanding. Having quickly glanced through the decision (does anyone else here ever look at court decisions before they go off commenting on them?), it appears that the justices themselves agree that it's not -- not only is the decision a near-tie (5-4), but even Scalia's lengthy exposition seems to admit that it's not a cut and dried answer.Fortunately, rather than have subliterate opinionators try to sound out the big words in the Constitution, we have a system whereby nine highly trained legal experts (well, at least six highly trained legal experts, a moron, a party hack, and a nut case) try to offer a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution in certain gray areas.In this case, according the Supreme Court, the Constitution says that the District of Columbia cannot simply ban handguns outright.-By the way, is subbie going to weigh in on this? I'd especially like to get his opinion on the written decision. The few decisions I've read include references to lots of prior precedents, which is kind of lacking here, having to go back to original documents over 200 years ago. I realize that there isn't a lot of federal precedent on the Second Amendment, but is this ruling a bit unusual?

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

I would very much liked to have expressed my opinions but felt too threatened to do so. Not really a "choice". I don't think I would have expressed views that would be considered anything other than very very common throughout Western Europe and large parts of North America. I have travlled in Asia, Africa, South America, Australasia, the Pacific etc. etc. and been to some of the largest and most dangerous cities on the planet. I am from one of the statistically most violent parts of London (Brixton). Yet I have never felt that my opinions alone (rather than my colour or perceived wealth or any of the other more obvious criteria that usually necessitate care when travelling) could be the cause of any potential violence against me as I have done in parts of the US.
This is a shame. I have had great times in America. Love NY, partied my arse off in Florida and have travelled the length and breadth of the West coast.But the intolerance and whole gun issue seem to be both related and part of a mentality in parts of the US that is really quite threatening. Yes but no more so than in Guyana, NY, LA, Tanzania, Brazil, Argentina, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, China etc. etc. etc.
Yet it is the Southern US that stands out in my mind with regard to this issue. I know a few Americans in London who have, at times, claimed to be Canadian to avoid conflict (verbal rather than physical in the cases I have witnessed or been told of).Why do you think that there is such strongly felt opposition to Americans (in particular "Bush friendly" Americans) in Western nations that are allies of the US and with which there is fundamentally much culture and belief in common. What is it that inspires these feelings in your view?I am not looking to make a point or win a debate on this. I am genuinely interested to know what a self avowed Republican American thinks inspires the reaction that you yourself have experienced.Just to get back sort of on topic - Aren't homicide rates, and gun related homicide rates in particular, higher in the US than in any other Western country? Are not the gun related homicide rates in Southern states amongst the highest in the US?Does none of this even begin to suggest that guns, and gun friendly policies, are not necessarily a good thing?

Thanks for the answer.It seems to all come down to what constitutes "arms". Is that correct?
Why, for example, does a handgun count as "arms" but (I am guessing here) a machine gun not?Please don't tell me that some US citizens have the right to carry machine guns.......!!!

I think it's to do with whether the constitution was really talking about people bearing arms as militias to prevent evil European monarchies re-colonising the fledgeling country, or whether it meant what the N.R.A. wants it to mean.I can't remember the wording, but I always thought that the former made linguistic and historical sense, meaning that the ammendment was out dated around about the middle of the nineteenth century, when the U.S. had become sufficiently large and populous that no distant powers would possibly be able to threaten her on her own territory.But Subbie's a U.S. lawyer, so he might be able to put us straight on this.

quote:

---

It seems to all come down to what constitutes "arms". Is that correct?

---

No, I think it comes down to what is meant by "militia". Is a militia an organized state-controlled military organization, or is it the able-bodied male population; the question of what are arms becomes important if the latter answer is chosen.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

quote:

---

I think it's to do with whether the constitution was really talking about people bearing arms as militias to prevent evil European monarchies re-colonising the fledgeling country...

---

...or people bearing arms to prevent the federal U.S. government from straying too far from its proper role. The Antifederalists (who gave us the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment) were afraid of the military and police powers of the proposed central government.I find it interesting how the wingnut conservatives in the U.S. constantly harp about the "original intents of the Founding Fathers" and then turn around and piss on their graves by trying constantly to increase the state's coercive police and military powers.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

I find this information Here. These kind of things is the reason they can my weapon from take it from my cold dead fingers.Ever wonder why Hittler didn't invade Switzerland. Do you think it might have been because they had guns?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If by "machinee gun" you mean a fully automatic weapon, then yes dependent on the state.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

That is also my understanding. You said it better than I could - Fortunately I saw your message before posting my own. Just think what "arms" were back in that time. I certainly don't fear people having single shot, mussel loading pistols and rifles. Arms technology has come a long way since then.Moose

I am staying out of the gun debate but should point out that Hitler's decision to keep Switzerland out of the picture had nothing to do with the citizenry being armed.Swiss neutrality offered very tangible economic benefits for both Switzerland and the ranking members of the Nazi party. Swiss bank accounts and lock boxes were a secure place to store looted gold and currency that could be 'checked out' at a later date following the war. If Switzerland was in German control, this would be impossible in the event of a defeat. Switzerland represented an economic safe haven and security blanket for every high ranking officer or party official.By the end of the war, Swiss banks were chock full of looted Nazi gold. To this day, various Jewish groups are still trying to recover funds or force some Swiss banks to disclose information or supply repayment for improprieties. Eichmann and other Nazi officials who fled Germany following the war had used some of these accounts, full of looted funds, to finance their new life in South America.Also, Germany bartered with the Swiss in Gold and other commodities. When Germany was circumventing the treaty of Versai, they were using Swiss accounts as a covert method to fund the German war machine and purchase materials for the industry.Swiss netruality made this all possible for Germany. Invading would have been counter productive.

Artemis Entreri responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. The opposite is true. "Blue" states have less crime than "red."

---

​

correct he said CITIES not states.

---

It carries down. More "liberal" areas have less crime than more "conservative" areas. In fact, more "liberal" areas tend to be better on standards of living from crime, divorce, education, teen pregnancy, obesity, etc.

quote:

---

guns dont make us violent.

---

In and of itself, it doesn't seem to. Canada also has a high gun ownership rate but a much lower crime rate than the United States.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.