Will the recent Supreme Court decision on firearms lead to anarchy or save lives?

[spin]

The Supreme Court gun decision moves us toward anarchy
By David Ignatius | June 28, 2010; 12:40 PM ET

Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts and other enthusiasts for our newly created universal right to bear arms should take a trip to Beirut or Baghdad and see how this idea works out in practice.

My biggest worry with Monday's Supreme Court decision is that by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license, the justices will make gun ownership much more pervasive in a society that already has too many guns.

After all, if I know that my neighbor is armed and preparing for Armageddon situations where law and order break down (as so many are --just read the right wing blogs) then I have to think about protecting my family, too.

That's the state-of-nature, everyone for himself logic that prevails in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been struggling to establish a rule of law, where the police have a monopoly of force and militias are a thing of the past. How weird that we are moving in the opposite direction.

By the way, the Roberts court might also want to take a look at the "well-regulated" reference in the second amendment. That might at least slow the rush to the gun stores.
http://newstrust.net/stories/2299804/toolbar?ref=rss

Supremes Say “Yes” To Guns
June 28, 2010 10:48 AM UTC by John Stossel

UPDATE, 2:30 pm: A lawyer who argued the case, Alan Gura, tells me, “This is a fantastic day for freedom in America. This is going to save lives. This decision is good nationwide... People will be able to rest easily knowing they can access firearms if they need to defend themselves.”

Otis McDonald tells me he plans to have a handgun in his home as soon as he can: “I have a handgun, but it’s out-of-state. As soon as I get the paperwork straightened out, I’ll bring it in.”

“I thank the Lord for giving me the strength to do this, and the people to do it with…”

***snip***

In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bear arms, but that case only applied to DC, and other federal property. This new case, McDonald vs. Chicago, challenged all gun bans. On my FBN show last week (video here) I interviewed Otis McDonald, the plaintiff suing for his right to own a gun in Chicago, and his attorney Alan Gura.

“Common sense tells me that we should be able to defend ourselves,” Gura told me. “Government cannot take away your right to defend yourself with the tool… most commonly used for that purpose.”

But Chicago's Mayor Daley said that if his gun ban is struck down:

"Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war. Take Europe. Take Japan and other countries that don't have access to guns. They don't have the amount of killings."

They don’t. But they also have different cultures. Just look at Switzerland, where all men are expected to keep a machine gun at home -- they have a far lower murder rate than the United States.

Comparisons across countries aren't very helpful, because there are many reasons why crime rates differ. It's more important to look at what happens before and after bans.

Here's what happened after DC passed its handgun ban:





http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/28/supremes-say-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-to-guns/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

5. Correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment based on the founder's views ...

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates.

The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

[shadowrider]

9. -- Snort -- Once again you provide me with a daily chuckle n/t

[cowman]

11. Says you

But apparently the vast majority of Americans and states disagree with you.

[safeinOhio]

2. "Just look at Switzerland"

Then look at the real story on Switzerland. The author would be crying crocodile tears if we had their laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit
There are three conditions:
• fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section below)
• stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
• passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.

Transporting guns
Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
• The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
• The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
• For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
• To an army warehouse and back,
• To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
• To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows.<9>
• Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name \

• Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
• Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.
• Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
• Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.
• Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit: Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns, including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the late 19th/early 20th century.
• Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
• While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.


But why would the author want to check anything out on foxbusiness.com

[spin]

7. You should have also cut and pasted this section from your link ...

Army issued arms

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.<3> The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
A "shooting society" somewhere in Switzerland; people come to such ranges to complete mandatory training with service arms, or to shoot for sport and competition.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. However, pro-gun advocates David Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli claim "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed".<3> Indeed, while the sale of non-hunting ammunition is registered at the dealer if purchased at a private store, ammunition purchased at a shooting range is not. Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo is not subsidized, but is not subject to sales controls.<3>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[one-eyed fat man]

8. Sins of omission are yours too

Here's the part you left out:

"The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

• Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
• Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.
• Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
• Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.
• Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit: Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns, including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the late 19th/early 20th century.
• Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
• While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale."

I routinely traveled to Switzerland in the Seventies and Eighties while stationed in Germany restrictions were far fewer. The Swiss have not been immune to anti-gun politics despite the low crime rates. Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Despite the fact that the Swiss are more likely to get stabbed than shot, I don't see any great push from you or anyone else to outlaw Swiss Army knives, except in the UK. To ignore that the last round of restrictions were forced by Treaty rather than purely internal politics is just as disingenuous. Particularly nettlesome is the restrictions imposed by the Treaty on non-firing replicas of firearms which are treated as if they were the real thing. Something surely applauded by those who think suspending school children for drawing pictures of guns is appropriate.

[Bold Lib]

12. That's very interesting. Some of those rules that were imposed by the Schengen treaty

are what many here in the U.S. fear will happen with the UN treaty on small arms. Very interesting indeed.

[safeinOhio]

22. If you agree with foxnews blog

that " Just look at Switzerland, where all men are expected to keep a machine gun at home -- they have a far lower murder rate than the United States." and want the same laws that Switzerland now has, along with their low crime rate, have at it. Of course that includes on going military training and registration of all handguns,etc. As I recall, all of those machine guns are required to be in locked cabinets too. Mandatory military service also. I did post a link to ALL of the rules something the author omitted from the start. I stand by my post. But, please feel free to demand Swiz type laws here.

[Euromutt]

26. You're ignoring the context

Stossel's argument re: Switzerland is in response to the quote from Mayor Daley that "Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war." Sure, reservists' army-issue individual weapons do have be kept locked up, but the reservist has the key; anything else would defeat the purpose of having the reservist keep his weapon at home in the first place. So basically, a large number of Swiss adult men have access to a select-fire assault rifle and at least 50 rounds of ammunition at all times. Stossel's point being that having access to firearms does not automatically spell lawlessness and mayhem.

But as Stossel also acknowledges, different countries have different cultures, and the low Swiss homicide rate (in spite of the relatively high availability of firearms) is an effect of a culture that is more homogenous and communitarian than that of other countries. Jay-walking in Switzerland will get you yelled at for being a scofflaw, even if there isn't a moving car in sight. The United States will never have Switzerland's crime levels, simply because American society is very different from Swiss society. Neither, for that matter, will most other western European countries, despite having tighter firearm laws than Switzerland.

The point is that--contrary to Daley's assertion--private access to firearms is not the primary driving factor in determining homicide levels. It may not even be a significant factor.

[safeinOhio]

27. Stossel's argument

using Switzerland as an example is fine with me. I'm all for more guns and more regulation, using the Switzerland model.

[cowman]

31. More regulation?

So apparently the 20,000 or so laws already on the books is not enough for you? Here's a novel idea, why not enforce those laws before calling for more regulations>

[safeinOhio]

33. Excuse me Cow, I was responding to the post

that used Switzerland as an example of more guns and less violent gun crime. Actually I should have said better laws, rather than more laws. Switzerland has enforceable gun laws, like registration of handguns. Also a less paranoid population that has no fear of their government taking away their guns for some nefarious, tin foil plot to turn their country into a socialist heaven. I think that kind of cultures comes from more of a focus on education and less on iron fisted ideology.

Would be very interesting to use the same method of counting up U.S. gun laws as you have and count the number simple enforceable gun laws in Switzerland. I'll bet they have a much lower # of laws as one set covers the whole nation. Also, I'll bet they have a much lower, any way you want to count them, number of gun violations.

I'm with you, lets lower the number of laws and use Switzerland as an enforceable model for our laws.

[spin]

36. Out of curiosity, why do you favor registration of handguns ...

Canada has a gun registration program that has proved very expensive and ineffective.

Canadian Firearms Registry

The Canadian Firearms Registry is part of the Canadian Firearms Program. It requires the registration of all guns in Canada. It was introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrιtien and implemented by successive Justice Ministers Allan Rock and Anne McLellan. It requires all usable firearms in Canada to be registered. This was an effort to reduce crime by making every gun traceable. The annual operating cost of the program is reported to be $4 million. <1><2><3><4>

Any person wishing to obtain a firearm must first acquire a Possession and Acquisition Licence or PAL.<5> The PAL carries a fee of $60 for non-restricted, $80 for restricted, and is renewable every five years. Expiry dates are set on the holder's birthday following the fifth anniversary of the initial issue of the licence.

After a change in government in 2006, the current Conservative Federal Government announced amnesty to all rifle and shotgun owners facing prosecution for failing to register their firearms, with an extended amnesty currently set to expire on May 16, 2011. <6> Since its introduction in the 1990s and continuing on to the present, the gun registry remains a contentious issue in Canadian politics.

***snip***

Opponents argue that firearms registration does nothing to prevent crime and that gun owners are already licensed. They state that given a significant data error rate and high levels of non-compliance with current legislation, firearms information is often unreliable. They further claim that registration will lead to confiscation. In this regard they note the promises made by the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quιbιcois parties during the 2008 election campaign to prohibit certain types of semi-automatic firearms and handguns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

Canada set to repeal registration of hunting rifles, shotguns
4/6/2010 8:48:00 AM

After nearly 20 years, Canada appears poised to end one of its boldest experiments in gun control - the required registration of long guns, or shotguns and hunting rifles.

Last November, a bill to abolish the Long-Gun Registry, enacted in 1995 and gradually phased in through 2003, passed a second reading in the Canadian House of Commons by a tally of 164 to 137. It faces a third and final reading in that chamber later this year; prospects are good for passage in the Canadian Senate.

The bill would delete from federal law the obligation to register so-called nonrestricted firearms, though licensing requirements for long-gun owners to buy or possess firearms and to buy ammunition would remain in place.

The legislation would also require all registration information collected to date to be destroyed.

About 7 million long guns have been registered, but as many as 8 million guns, according to various estimates, have not been in what many say is outright defiance. The Conservative government has also extended to May 16, 2011, an existing amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners facing charges for failing to register their firearms. emphasis added

Opponents cite runaway costs, gun rights, and lack of effectiveness in pushing the repeal measure. The author of the legislation, MP Candice Hoeppner, says the registration requirement pays lip service to reducing crime without actually doing so.

"Canadian taxpayers have shelled out $2 billion and counting to hassle hunters, farmers and sport shooters with registration requirements, while receiving nothing in return in crime reduction or prevention," Hoeppner told a recent gathering of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH).

In an article written for London Free Press, Hoeppner called the registry a "massive" policy failure.

"It makes no sense to force law-abiding individuals with firearms licenses to register their long-guns," she wrote. "It makes no sense to believe the registry will prevent a gun crime from taking place."

And, Hoeppner stated, the $2 billion could have been better spent.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11192

If you can't get Canadians to register their firearms why do you expect that Americans will?

[safeinOhio]

38. I have said nothing about registering long guns

only handguns as they are used in 90% of gun crimes. Hell, in Canada you have a hard time even owning a handgun.
My problem is with illegal purchase by criminals and others not legal to buy handguns. Straw purchases are hard to trace. Any criminal can buy a handgun at a garage sale in most states. It is hard to trace stolen handguns with no registration. As a person that may legally own a handgun, I have no problem with having that weapon registered, in fact I would rather it was. Just as I have no problem and do not find it any hassle to comply with a back ground check when a purchase a firearm from a dealer.
As for the tin foil paranoids out there, I am not for registration of long guns. No one would know which house has the AK and M15 in it in case of some fantasy government coming to confiscate and disarm the citizens.

I know you disagree and would find it a major hassle, cost and think it would only affect a few percentage points of crime. Yes criminals find ways to get illegal guns. I would still like to make it difficult for them and be able to trace handguns illegally possessed or used in a crime.

Now you already knew that and any argument you or I use will not change either of our minds. I am more than open to you and I disagreeing about handguns as we already agree on long guns. However, your use of Canada does not fit with my stance.

[cowman]

41. So you would trust the govt.

with that info? Sorry, but I don't trust the govt as far as I could throw them, I am glad I live in the county of Nye where the local govt trusts it's citizens with handguns and there is no registration, matter of fact, the only county in NV that requires resgistration is Clark County.

[safeinOhio]

42. I can't even drive thru Clark county

with my legal handgun locked up in the trunk. Might be the only county in the U.S.. You can keep NV.

You may want to look into moving to Somalia if you don't trust governments.

[cowman]

51. I know you can't, I'm the one who posted that,

and you can drive thru parts of Clark County with your weapon in your car, just not NLV or Boulder City, stupid isn't it, and the last I heard, if you drive thru CA. your gun has to be either in the trunk and the ammo in the cab or vise versa.
As far as trusting the Govt., yeah they are soooooooooo trustworthy.:sarcasm: :rofl:

[PavePusher]

44. And yet, Canada began it's long-gun registration for the same reasons...

you want to do so with hand-guns.

Why do you expect the outcome (waste of money, very few crimes solved, criminals <gasp> don't comply, many "legal" citizens long-guns never registered) to be any different?

[safeinOhio]

47. I see no big difference in cost

than the current background check system we now have for purchase from FFDs. Just as LEOs can now use a data base to see who legally owns a vehicle, there could be the same for handguns. The last thing I want to do is buy a stolen or lost handgun. Straw sales could also be better enforced with accurate records. Persons with recent arrest could be easily checked for handgun ownership, same with protection orders. Last year I bought a P22 at a garage sale with no questions asked. I later had the police check the serial # to make sure it was not stolen. Any person not legally eligible to own a pistol could have done the same. I would have no problem with registering that or any other handgun, just as I would have to do with a title change on a motor vehicle. But then again, just think of the money the states could save with no title or registrations of motor vehicles. Of course you'd see a lot more stolen cars. Possession of an unregistered handgun could also add to a criminals time in jail. Help keep them off of the streets as well as the knowledge that having it in possession is another crime to worry about and guaranteed jail time.
Most gun crimes are committed by repeat and often offenders. One crook might commit many gun crimes. Stop just a few of them and you have prevented many crimes.

[oneshooter]

48. Why not just enforce the laws that exist. Not allow plea deals

that drop the firearms charges? Have the times served stacked instead of concurrent? There are many ways, other than a registration program that can and will be abused by our "leaders".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

50. But you haven't demonstrated how a registry will stop crimes.

The crims won't register their guns, and a registry won't stop theft and criminal use.

I'm not sure how you think this will work. What am I missing?

[X_Digger]

52. Not only won't criminals NOT register, they CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for failing to do so.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[jazzhound]

55. Unfreakinbelievable!!! n/t

[SteveM]

60. Yes, one of those "right-wing" court rulings. (Warren, btw, was GOP.)

[Katya Mullethov]

56. Consider it jobs "creation"

If you put thousands and thousands of probationers to work filing endless paperwork , they wont want to commit crimes anymore . And it is just this type of innovation that is driving our national economic recovery .

[Euromutt]

54. Maybe you should consider changing your handle to "Brick Wall"

...because talking to you is like, well, you know. I just explained why Stossel's argument is not what you say it is.

[one-eyed fat man]

32. Actually.....

Being retired Army with 26 years active military service, including multiple combat tours in two wars, I think I might have fulfilled any mandatory requirement.

Secondly, I favor a return to the draft. As it stands now the Army is very professional but is becoming more and more disconnected from the general society. The Army's active duty strength is barely a half million soldiers of all ranks and the demands placed on those soldiers are high. The wag's comment about the "...Army being at war while America is at the mall" underscores the fact that ill-advised military adventures are easier for the central government to undertake when 85% of the population does not directly have a "dog in the fight." Apathy is the politician's best friend.

The Swiss take their militia service and traditions quite seriously. Swiss males who are of military service age and residing out of the country have an obligation to contact the Swiss consulate or embassy where they are working to make arrangements for annual rifle qualification. The annual summer training period is referred to as the "Kaiser's Maneuvers." This is in reference to an incident in 1912 when Kaiser Wilhelm II was invited to observe the Swiss Army on maneuvers. The Kaiser, after being told that the Swiss had a quarter million men under arms, asked what would happen if a half million German troops crossed the frontier. The Swiss response, "Shoot twice!"

The last time the notion of universal military obligation was acceptable in the US, Eisenhower was President. During WW2 the fabled Ivy League schools were the source of heroes. Graduates of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc., out of proportion to their numbers volunteered for the Air Corps, the OSS, and served in the Navy as the submarine and PT boat commanders, all dangerous jobs. Now those same schools "proudly" ban military recruiters from their campuses. Serve in the military? The most typical response I have heard to that query is too despicable to repeat. Needless to say, the Swiss model of military service would fail miserably in 21st century America.

As I mentioned previously I had the chance to travel and work there and 25 years ago one of the BIG debates was extending the vote to women. In the Swiss tradition only those willing to fight for Switzerland had the right to vote. I see a certain logic to that position. Since voter eligibility was tied to military service, and women were exempt from compulsory service, they had no vote. The Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden was the last to grant women the vote and that was in the 1990's.

What folks don't appear to grasp is the despite machineguns in every closet, the Swiss are not shooting each other up, while in every penitentiary in the US, gun-free as they might be, inmates are gleefully robbing, raping, and sticking each other with shivs without compunction. So maybe, just maybe, the problem is that nasty bastards will do nasty things to you, me, each other or anyone who suits them at the time and no law you can pass will make them stop.

[safeinOhio]

34. You have an excellent point on

universal service. I would guess we would be less involved in the Middle East. Add to that a ban on private armies.

I think the social structure in Switzerland promotes a fairer society with less income disparity. I think our system is responsible for our higher number of "nasty bastards".

[one-eyed fat man]

39. Private armies

While domestic private armies are prohibited, militias for hire most certainly have not been. Most people have heard of privateers, i.e., privately owned warships sanctioned by the government to attack the shipping of an enemy nation on the high seas. But the law applies to land and air operations as well. A Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal might include a seizing of property or guilty persons by force, to include killing terrorists, pirates, or the combatants of an enemy who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

After the Crimean War, seven European nations signed the Paris Declaration of 1856 renouncing privateering, and forty-five more eventually joined them, which in effect abolished privateering worldwide. The United States was not a signatory to that declaration because it advocated protecting all civilian property on the high seas.

While not as prevalent as in the days of Sir Francis Drake, privateering is not entirely extinct. The submarine hunting Goodyear airships Resolute and Volunteer in the early days of the second world war operated under a "privateer status" hunting and sinking German U-boats off the Atlantic coast so successfully that Navy commissioned and built its own fleet of blimps for anti-submarine and convoy escort duties.

As far as nasty bastards go, the Swiss have little tolerance for indolence. We, on the other hand, have unwittingly established systems to reward it.

[safeinOhio]

43. I was talking about private outfits like

Blackwater and Xe.

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Exactly so

When the government gives them a contract outside the United States, which is what they have done, they are "legal", whether you like it or not. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been doing it since Davy Crockett quit Congress to take some Volunteers to Texas. Somewhat earlier, Aaron Burr got into a bit of trouble because he wasn't sanctioned for his expedition.

What do you think FDR did when he had Chennault organize the American Volunteer Group, popularly known as the "Flying Tigers?" He evaded the Neutrality laws enacted by Congress by dispatching a "private army" to China, even if it was an air force. And if you really had been paying attention in the Fifties you would have noted it was a cadre of former AVG pilots in Southeast Asia that founded a dual purpose airline, known as Air America. Those world war two vets were in their 40's then and many of them had grown to like the adventure of clandestine operations. They were flying close air support missions in support of the French Foreign Legion throughout Indochina until they went to work for the CIA. Southern Air Transport is another outfit that in addition to legitimate air cargo did "government contract work" in unmarked C-130s flying off uncharted strips in Central and South America until some unfortunate publicity 15 years ago.

Companies like "Blackwater" are not new. Nor is the type of individual who enjoys that type of work. There is a culture of military and former military that slip easily back and forth. Had you spent anytime around Legionaries back in southeast Asia or North Africa you would have been astounded how many of them were German. To this day a Legion funeral will likely include: Ich hat' einen Kameraden , old recording by the French Foreign Legion

[safeinOhio]

46. The draft is gone for now

like it or not. To bring it back might lessen the need for out of control money grubbers like Blackwater. In the best world, they would be limited in scope, just as universal service could be instituted. Mercenaries do have a long history, not all of it good. I'd be more in favor of the type of supply type missions rather than taking over combat mission as happened in Iraq. That is just my opinion.

[oneshooter]

49. German Jaegers in the 1700's, and Nepal Gurkas today. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

53. You are right about the draft.

It's gotten to the point where many don't have the balls to serve and look down on those who do. The US Army (Fort Knox) is the biggest employer in this county. Back a few decades ago the post commander made a comment about one of the local communities that incensed the mayor. The mayor responded that the town could get along quite well with Fort Knox and its soldiers.

Well, this was in the days when the military payday was the last day of the month, you walked in saluted your commander, and got paid in cash. To make his point, the Commanding General had the Finance Officer arrange the very next payday to pay every man on post in 2 dollar bills. 48 hours later he called that mayor to ask him if he had change for a two. Considering that at the time Fort Knox was the third largest city in the Commonwealth the visibility of those 2 dollar bills made a sobering impact on some.

During this last round of base closures local officials were hot to keep the jobs, yet the wife of our past Democratic Party county chairman would constantly deride military service. Admittedly she is an aging "flower child" of the draft card burning 60's but she hadn't the sense to STFU.

[tourivers83]

59. FEAR

“So maybe, just maybe, the problem is that nasty bastards will do nasty things to you, me, each other or anyone who suits them at the time and no law you can pass will make them stop.”
And this is true and this is fear.
And this is why as Americans we cannot and will not surrender our firearms.

[east texas lib]

3. The Supreme Court gun decision moves us toward anarchy ...

Interesting...Mr.Ignatius should spend an evening out in Oak Cliff in east Dallas. He would then have a better understanding of what anarchy is and what survival in such an environment really entails.

[shadowrider]

10. And all of those Oak Cliff "anarchists" are law abiding citizens with no arrest record? n/t

[east texas lib]

13. My point is that you will never see guys like Mr Ignatius in a place like Oak Cliff ...

Without paid security anyway. That experience might be rather eye-opening. I do HVAC service all through that and other areas of Dallas and I wouldn't go into downtown without my popgun on a bet. They's some bad hombres out in that neck of the woods.

[Bold Lib]

4. As with any right, some will abuse it. On par - more lives will be saved

as a result.

[PavePusher]

6. Got to love the way Ignatius tries to incorrectly frame the debate...

"...by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license..."

No, sir, not about applying for a license, it's about the Right to own a firearm without begging permission from the government, and soon, to bear in the same manner.

He lost all credibility in his second sentence. How... efficient.

[Euromutt]

14. The right to possess a firearm does not equal the right to form a private "militia"

Ignatius asserts an invalid connection between an individual right to possess firearms and a right to form a private "militia" and set about using violence against one's fellow citizens who subscribe to a different ideology. Groups like Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army and the Taliban are not merely a problem because they have weapons, but because they are organizations and more specifically, organizations that are prepared to use violence to impose their political objectives on others.

As a counter-example, consider Weimar Germany in the five (or so) years following the suppression of the Spartacist Revolt: the communists and the forerunners of the Nazis frequently engaged in running gun battles in the streets of major cities, which regularly claimed the lives of innocent bystanders. From 1919 to 1922, an estimated 35,600 homicides occurred that were the result of political violence. This in spite of the fact that, during this period, private ownership of firearms was completely outlawed.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Heller and MacDonald do not give anyone the right to form private armies and intimidate or harm adherents of ideologies one doesn't like, or seize control of regional or national government.

[spin]

15. Good point. (n/t)

[sharesunited]

16. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court willfully misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment.

To the detriment of the nation.

[Straw Man]

17. Willfully misinterpreted?

As in "We know we're wrong, but we're going to do it anyway"? One might ask why. Sheer perversity? The fabled gun lobby Leviathan bought their votes? They want to see blood in the streets? The devil made them do it?

Even conspiracy theories need credible motives.

[spin]

18. Have you ever read any of the fonding fathers quotes on firearms?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Source: http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[Bold Lib]

19. excellent post! Thank you for those.

[sharesunited]

23. Those dudes did not know the guns of today. Nor had they witnessed the Civil War.

Both those factors make your quotes utterly obsolete, quaint though they may be.

[spin]

24. The same basic concept holds, firearms are firearms...

If you brought them forward in time and showed the founders modern firearms, they would know right off what they were.

They wouldn't immediately understand a cell phone or a jet aircraft.

[mvccd1000]

25. Nor did they know of the internet or television

Surely the quaint notion of free speech cannot be applied to those mediums, can it?

[Remmah2]

30. Gun control is like prohibition.

Both are doomed to fail. When enforced to their maximum the criminals ignored them.

[SteveM]

37. How much else of the BOR is "...utterly obsolete, quaint...?" nt

[Bold Lib]

57. Doesn't matter. It is not obsolete it is the law and the original intent. If you

don't like it then change the law. To deny the reality of the law only opens the doors to doing the same to other civil rights. The "living breathing document" adapts to modern times. The 2A adapts to modern firearms the same way the 1A adapts to modern printing machines and the internet.

[Bold Lib]

58. The "Living Breathing Document" that is our Constitution adapts to modern times.

The 2A adapts to modern firearms just like the 1A adapts to modern forms of communication. Your argument is specious at best. If you do not like the 2A then there is a way to change or repeal it. If you simply ignore it then what civil right do you think is next to be ignored?

[Pavulon]

20. Same answer to roe v wade and brown vs board

deal with it, move on. you can work tirelessly on restricting the rights of the people who live in your community but the nation has passed you by. Find a new meme.

[krispos42]

28. Several gungeon regulars have pointed out...

...in the wake of the MacDonald ruling, that all 9 SCOTUS justices said that the 2nd Amendment was about an individual right to keep and bear arms. The 5-4 decsion was about whether handguns as a class of firearm could be banned.

Just thought I would bring that up.

[spin]

35. You rarely hear that fact mentioned . (n/t)

[krispos42]

40. I haven't read it myself, so I can't honestly claim that I've read it...

...but I saw the point being made and nobody seem to be able to refute it.


I was awfully busy in real life about when the decision came down.

[benEzra]

21. Ummm, I guess the guy in the first post doesn't realize that almost all of the nation

already recognizes the right that Chicago is now being dragged kicking and screaming toward? And that our homicide rates are lower than Chicago's?

This guy had better never visit Vermont....

[krispos42]

29. Mr. Ignatius , there is very little surpressed demand in America for guns.

Very little can be done that would cause a rush to the gun stores. Trust me, electing anti-gun politicials gets the consumer base moving to the gun stores a hell of a lot more than lifting a handgun ban in a few select cities.

Guns are expensive. People for the most part don't buy them on a whim; they save up, or wait for a bonus or overtime check. And the pepole that can buy guns on a whim already have what they feel they need.