Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[bluegoose]

Methinks they did include the aforementioned "unless you're a total moron..." clause, worded as "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Last time I checked, all the folks who want to carry guns for personal protection/security did not constitute a "well regulated militia." But if you do feel that it is your civic duty to be part of this militia to defend your state and country, the National Guard is recruiting. And while I've never experinced this firsthand, my impression is that you'd be able to use fully automatic AR-15's, and M16/M4's without even having to upwards of $5000. From what my friend (Eagle scout and member of the Illinois National Guard) has said, they will even pay you to use those weapons, and provide extensive training to prevent accidents from occuring. As for the nomination of Mr. Alito, I support it. As much as I am in favor of diversity, I felt that Mrs. Miers was not qualified to sit on the supreme court, due to her lack in judicial experience. And Mr. Allen, I've saved more lives without a gun than Ted Kennedy has taken with a car.

 

Constitutional text taken from the Legal Information Institue of Cornell University's School of Law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

[BrentAllen]

I guess you (able-bodied) folks didn't realize you ARE part of the militia. Better check your state constitutions!

Fro Wikipedia:

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:

 

An official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers

The national police forces in Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militsiya

The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government

 

Bluegoose - you and others who don't carry or own guns (if that applies to you) should thank the rest of us for doing so. We help protect you. How, you ask? The bad guys don't know who is armed, and who isn't. Ever wonder why crime is so high in D.C. or New York City? Because they are all unarmed! (except for the bad guys). If you have any doubts about my claim of gunowners protecting non-gunowners, just take this little test. Put a sign in your front yard and on your front door stating "Gun-free home". How does that make you feel?

[TheScout]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

 

It is tough to protect ourselves from the government if they relegate the citzenry to obsolete weapons.

[Prairie_Scouter]

So, we have lots and lots of folks who are getting all kinds of weapons, most of whom have no clue how to safely use them. How does that fit into the "well regulated militia"?

 

A sign saying "Gun-free Home"? I think an awful lot of people would like to see signs with something to the effect of "Got a gun; can shoot it, otherwise, don't have a clue". You'd not only keep away the bad guys, but most of your neighbors, too.

 

Would the NRA be in favor of gun ownership providing that the owner is required to be licensed and complete a standard safety course, with regular updates? We ask no less of people who drive cars.

 

Those are nice quotes from Jefferson and Washington, but we no longer live in that time. The country is no longer in its formative stages and vulnerable to attack by other nations. The times are different, and the needs are different. I don't have a particular problem with people who want to have guns in their homes, but they are deadly weapons, and I think if a person is going to have one, the community at large should be able to feel comfortable that gun owners are properly trained and licensed to own those weapons.

 

And Brent, I'm not sure how you think your gun is really protecting your home. Home invasions where the intent is to harm the residents are a very, very small percentage of domestic crime. Most people wanting to get into your home don't even want you there; they just want your stuff. Across the nation, I would bet that if there is a gun in the home, it is a LOT more likely to be used in a domestic dispute or to harm someone accidentally then it is that the weapon would be used to protect the home's inhabitants. I don't know that for a fact, but I'd bet that it's true.

[LongHaul]

Kahuna touched on the cruel and unusual punishment aspect but the right to bear arms issue won out. Id like to look at the cruel and unusual punishment provision again. Anyone think that the framers envisioned a penal system controlled by gangs where inmates are subjected to physical assault, sodomy, sexual abuse, and intimidation as part of their sentence imposed by the court ? Society acknowledges the systems lack of ability to protect inmates. We had Scared Straight and other programs which used the reality of prison life to influence troubled youth. It is portrayed on television in most of the police, courtroom, law and order shows which populate prime time. Society as a group accepts the injustice as the price of doing business. In todays society where the minority can dictate to the majority, where political corruption is determined by whos in power rather than the acts themselves, where we will debate the wording and intent of the second amendment but ignore the part where it says only Congress shall declare war, who sits on the Supreme Court should be determined by that persons ability to apply the laws impartially and not political lines. This thread began with an opinion about changing the wording of the Constitution, lets keep in mind that ours is the oldest established government on the planet. No revolutions, no coups, no military takeovers, we are the longest running show today. We have amended the Constitution, reinterpreted it repeatedly but how often since 1788 have we changed the basic wording? That doing this should be a topic of discussion now should remain our topic here. Remember Alito could be called upon to decide who your next president will be.

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Kahuna]

"we no longer live in those times ..."

 

Once again P-S, the times are not relevant to the principle. You ignore the thrust of the Jefferson quote which is to the effect that we need guns to prevent tyranny by government.

 

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems clear to me that the "well regulated militia" portion of that Article refers to the ability of Americans to shoot well in case they are needed in the militia.

 

"no longer vulnerable to invasion . . ." If you believe that, I'd like to show some land in Florida as soon as it's low tide. We have been invaded (9/11) and will be again.

 

Yes, your odds of being victim of a home invasion are probably less than being killed in a car crash, but if my home is invaded, the invaders will get a very nasty surprise. I would also mention that, without government oversight, the vast majority of people I have known who have weapons in their homes have weapons training and know what they are doing. Of course we could always bring back the draft, which would ensure that every young person gets some weapons training. I think I would prefer that.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Aloha Kahuna!

 

The 2nd Amendment is one of those things that I've seen people debate to death in regards to the exact wording, what they mean, even the punctuation I don't pretend to understand it and will gladly bow to your expertise. I just know that my own feelings are that I wish we didn't have such a pre-occupation with firearms as the most suitable solution to problems with violence. It's predictable, tho, when you consider that over the past 25 years or so our government has gone more and more to military solutions when diplomatic solutions might have been more suitable, albeit more time consuming.

 

I don't know that the events of 9/11 were an "invasion" per se; I think I'd probably describe it more as an "attack", thinking invasion in my mind denotes something involving troops "on the ground" for some extended period. I suppose, tho, that that's really playing semantics. Usually when I read people debating the 2nd Amendment, they're talking about the possibility of an "internal invasion" by government forces and the need to be able to defend ourselves against something like that. Although I have to question the sanity of people who think that the citizenry could realistically repulse the U.S. military were it to be used against us. And I still think the political reality of today is that it's not going to happen.

 

I wonder also if in today's world "tyranny" is limited to military force. Look at how basic freedoms, and privacy rights, are being infringed in the name of security. I know people who think that the theoretical abuse of information is every bit as burdensome as a military occupation might be. I might even be one of them if the so-called Patriot Act grows as some would like.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am an NRA Instructor in Rifle, Muzzleloader and Shotgun, to announce my bias right off.

 

I wonder if the American people would be OK with having to register with the police what Church they attend. If you wanted to get into a chuch, you would have to present your photo ID identifying you as a "church goer". Now, you can go to any church you want, there is no repercussions because you or are not a "chuch goer" you just have to be registered to go to church.

 

[TheScout]

"the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

I'm no English major but it doesn't seem to me that it is very hard to screw the meaning of that one up. It must be remembered that the first part of the Second Amendment is a mere preamble to the second.

 

If anyone looks into the circumstances leading the the passage of the amendment they will clearly see that it was written to protect the rights of the citizenry to keep arms to prevent abuse from the government. Can anyone here seriously say that if the people who ratified the Constitution knew that it would allow the federal government to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting arms, disarming them, licenseing them so they may be disarmed at will, that they would have ratified the Constition. Of course not, that is why we fought the War of the Revolution, to stop this kind of tyranny.

[Kahuna]

Aloha Nui, P_S!

 

The gun issue is extremely complex, but a few facts stand out apart from the constitutional issue: the crime rate in Florida has gone down dramatically in many categories since introduction of right-to-carry and the "castle" doctrine, removing the duty to retreat. In a lot of places where guns have been outlawed, there has been a rise in the crime rate. The Brady people, with help of the media, have grossly overplayed the number of gun accidents as they relate to other types of accidents.

 

I am an NRA member. I get the magazine monthly. There is always a page there with stories of people who have used personal weapons to save themselves from harm or robbery. Many of these people would be dead without their guns.

 

I could go on, but I doubt I would win the argument. I wouldn't win because few people tend to change their minds on this issue. Like abortion, we tend to be on one side or the other and not open to change.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

P-S,

It's not your fault you are not educated on defensive gun use. The media has a deliberate bias against reporting any stories in which a firearm is used successfully in defense. One of the classic examples of this bias involved the Appalachian Law School attack. A student who was failing out of the program took a pistol and killed a Dean and a professor. He then went outside and starting firing into a crowd, killing a student and wounding 3 others before being subdued by other students.

When I first read this story, I wanted to find out who these other students were, who were brave enough to take this guy down while unarmed. I mean - it takes a pretty brave soul to charge a gunman firing shots at you when you are unarmed yourself! Well, lo and behold - there were 218 separate stories written about this incident - that is 218 individual stories written, not a bunch of AP reprints. Out of those 218 stories, ONLY 3 MENTIONED THE STUDENTS THAT SUBDUED THE BADGUY DID SO WITH THEIR OWN FIREARMS! Now, you either have to believe all those journalist thought the fact the other students used a firearm to stop this madman murderer was a small, insignificant detail, or you believe there is a media bias against showing firearms can be used to stop crime. P-S, which do you believe? The sad/funny part about all of this is the Washington Post finally put out another report on the incident, with this as the last line: "Odighizuwa was subdued without incident by armed students." They did this 2 years and 2 months after the shooting actually took place, and was first reported. Sense a little reluctance of their part??

 

P-S, there is no Constitutional right to drive or own a car. Requiring licensing and registration to drive or own a car is not restricting a Constitutional right. Requiring the same of gunowners is exactly that - a restriction of a Constitutional right.

 

[packsaddle]

I think there are two issues being discussed here, neither related much to the decision about Alito. I think that if he is fair and honest, not much more can be asked from a judge and I would support him. The other two issues have, somehow, gotten onto guns. Why are we so fanatic about this?

OGE, that was not one of your more reasoned analogies.

 

I think that the vast majority of the public has no interest in regulation of firearms used for hunting or target sports. The problem arises for firearms that are designed to kill people. I own a bunch of those and I see the problem. I know the problem. The problem is that the firearm makes it so easy to stand away from a person and essentially 'push a button'. You don't have to empathize with the target. You don't have to think about family or repercussions from a distance. It is so easy. Much more difficult if it is required to slip a blade under a sternum or through a kidney, twisting it to ensure the kill. Or to place the hand and arms in a manner that allows a spinal cord to be severed. To do that you have to get close. You have to smell the person, feel their skin and hair. You have to feel their last pulse and hear their last breath. You may have to experience the slick warmth of their blood, and possibly some of your own. And you have to risk injury to yourself, possibly reversing places with the other person. You might even reconsider the whole thing and just sue. But the gun makes it so much easier...

[TheScout]

Thats nice, but the Constitution does not differentiate between arms used for target shooting and hunting and those designed to kill people it just says arms, and says "the right to bare arms" shall not be infringed.

 

Remember an important reason why the amendment was passed if you look at the motivation of the founders was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government oppression. If the citizenry is relegated to keeping only hunting and target weapons, their ability to preserve their liberty is greatly diminished.

[Trevorum]

I think "the right to bare arms" is being discussed under another thread - the one about wearing long sleeve shirts underneath the uniform...

[Hunt]

"I wonder if the American people would be OK with having to register with the police what Church they attend. If you wanted to get into a chuch, you would have to present your photo ID identifying you as a "church goer". Now, you can go to any church you want, there is no repercussions because you or are not a "chuch goer" you just have to be registered to go to church."

 

I don't know...I don't think this is a very strong analogy. The gun is a dangerous instrumentality, and society has a strong interest in insuring that it not be used illegally and recklessly. It's really much more like an automobile in that respect. I would point out that we also make people get a license before getting married, and marriage is definitely a fundamental right.

I would also disagree with those who say there is no constitutional right to drive a car. While driving isn't specifically mentioned, because of our right to equal protection of the laws, the government can't unfairly restrict who gets a license. I guess the government could ban all cars, but once they start licensing people, they can't refuse to license for unfair or discriminatory reasons.

 

And to get back to the main point, sort of, TheScout argues that when the Second Amendment says "arms" it doesn't distinguish between what kinds of arms are meant. This means, I guess, that he thinks every American has a constitutional right to possess a flamethrower, rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or any other weapon he can afford. So even if the Supreme Court were to agree that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, it would have to engage in interpretation to determine what "arms," exactly, should be considered within the term.