Guns in America

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that WMD's have made it possible to kill an armed populace, occupying or controlling them is an entirely different matter. The Grandmaster, who believed in an armed populace said it very well:

"No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein

[/ QUOTE ]

"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein

[Jamougha]

What I find strange about US gun laws is that the weapons least likely to be used in a crime, and most likely to be useful in a civil war or w/e, are most likely to be banned. OTOH automatic handguns seem to be handed out in cereal packets. If you reversed that it would seem that you would reduce gun violence and keep the hillbillies somewhat mollified.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
What I find strange about US gun laws is that the weapons least likely to be used in a crime, and most likely to be useful in a civil war or w/e, are most likely to be banned. OTOH automatic handguns seem to be handed out in cereal packets. If you reversed that it would seem that you would reduce gun violence and keep the hillbillies somewhat mollified.

[/ QUOTE ]

methinks there are many misunderstandings on the term "automatic"

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

The relevant part of that thread was my post a little further down. Basically, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was assumed to only apply to the federal government. Starting around 1925, the Supreme Court began employing the "incorporation doctrine" by which the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was interpreted to require the observation of portions of the Bill of Rights by States. This was done in a piecemeal fashion and as of this date the 2nd Amendment has not been included. This has been reaffirmed numerous times by lower courts including in the 1982 decision I linked earlier.

The bottom line is, the default is that States can infringe on portions of the Bill of Rights until the Supreme Court tells them not to. The Supreme Court has most definately ruled that States can infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights, most recently in Presser v. Illinois:

[ QUOTE ]
In Presser, the Court reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. Cruikshank and Presser are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

Funny thing is I had a recent conversation on the subject of the issues a foreign nation would have in trying to occupy the US during a drive through West VA. God, dealing with an underdeveloped and heavily forested space infested with heavily armed and highly experienced marksman? Forget Vietnam, that would be a quagmire. We couldn't see a way to effectively control the region without extreme numbers.

I'm quite curious how many of the respondents are familiar with the American south and the more rural regions of our country because I see a disconnect understanding the stats and the reality of those places.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that you understand current events as well you think you do. The resistance forces in those countries were successful for a variety of reasons, some political, some military. They most certainly were not successful because the "enlightened" governments of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan dutifully protected some "natural" right of the populace to bear arms. Furthermore, the opposition forces in those countries resisted with military hardware, most of it supplied by foreign governments (or pilfered from internal standing armies).

Also, I am from Alabama (aka the rural South), so there is no disconnect for me. The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

this has been the MO of most recent hostilities in afghanistan, iraq, somalia, vietnam etc. what makes you think mississippi would be different?

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On top of this, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not applicable to states and municipalities, although that might be changing. Link

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you mean by this quote. I assure you that neither the Supreme Court, nor any federal appellate court, has never ruled that states are allowed to pass laws that infringe upon a right protected under the Second Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong.

The relevant part of that thread was my post a little further down. Basically, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was assumed to only apply to the federal government. Starting around 1925, the Supreme Court began employing the "incorporation doctrine" by which the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was interpreted to require the observation of portions of the Bill of Rights by States. This was done in a piecemeal fashion and as of this date the 2nd Amendment has not been included. This has been reaffirmed numerous times by lower courts including in the 1982 decision I linked earlier.

The bottom line is, the default is that States can infringe on portions of the Bill of Rights until the Supreme Court tells them not to. The Supreme Court has most definately ruled that States can infringe on 2nd Amendment Rights, most recently in Presser v. Illinois:

[ QUOTE ]
In Presser, the Court reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon only the federal government and not the states. Cruikshank and Presser are consistently used by the lower courts to deny any recognition of individual rights claims and provides justification to state and local municipalities to pass laws that regulate guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my statement was a little strong, but you are relying far too heavily on the Wikipedia article you read for your "research."

I am a lawyer. I am familiar with the incorporation doctrine, though not the sparse case law dealing with the incorporation of the Second Amendment. In any case, your post implies that the Supreme Court has considered and declined to incorporate the Second Amendment. I don't believe that to be the case. Much of the relevant caselaw defining the scope of the incorporation doctrine was written post Presser. In any case, it doesn't matter. The real question is does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms. If the Supreme Court ever decides that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms, I assure you that the second part of the opinion will state that states cannot infringe on that right and that the Second Amendment is incorporated.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Joe Deer Hunter could band together with his buddies and resist the U.S. military (or any modern military) is a fantasy of state militia groups and people who watched Red Dawn one too many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

this has been the MO of most recent hostilities in afghanistan, iraq, somalia, vietnam etc. what makes you think mississippi would be different?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. You see no difference between an Afghan resistance fueled by American military weaponry, and a resistance by deerhunters in Mississippi, unaided by any foreign government and unaided by modern military hardware.

Also, we may disagree on what counts as successful resistance. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'm sure that opposition forces in Aghanistan and Vietnam suffered casualties that were 20-30 times as high as American and Soviet casualties.

[Thug Bubbles]

And the larger standing armies still lost.

[BeatUp]

I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.