The Supreme Court Rules: Americans permitted to kill
I thought we were an evolved species that thought and felt and progressed with time. Apparently we are still barbarians.
Today in a close 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court chose to make it a little easier for residents of D.C. to kill each other, a little easier for the person who just lost their job to go on a killing rampage, a little easier for children to get a hold of their parents guns to shoot a hole in their face or bring it to school for show and tell, a little easier for criminals to steal guns and use them on police and innocent citizens. D.C. police should be afraid. D.C. residents should be afraid. And all because gun enthusiasts and manufacturers live their lives based on fear. Fear breeds fear.
It's not that the 32 year D.C. gun ban really stopped people from killing each other. Gun crimes in D.C. did not go down, but they also didn't go up. This is significant because the population did go up and overall crime did indeed go down. D.C. has the lowest crime rates in twenty years, including homicide. You can bet gun crimes though are going to go up in the coming years. It's a terrible injustice, especially considering that D.C. residents, mostly African American, have enough community problems. Maybe the Supreme Court should have ruled to give D.C. more community support instead of more community problems.
Opponents of the gun ban constantly resort to their misinterpretation of the archaic language in the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights, which provides the right to arm militias. A linguistic analysis of the language in the amendment shows that the subject or clause comes first, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the emphasis were on the second half of this sentence, then the statement would become passive; this would make the 2nd amendment the only amendment with this type of unusual language. The majority of language specialists will agree with this analysis. Professor Dennis Baron further clarifies: "...according to the grammar lessons that the Framers would have learned, the sentence structure of the Second Amendment binds the right to bear arms to service in the militia."
Furthermore, there is no emphasis on arming the public in any of the documents that influenced the Bill of Rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason in 1776 is the document credited as being a model source for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Mason's document clearly states in XIII: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power." This obvious concern regarding military carried over to the Constitution. It is a shame that the Supreme Court has given in to a terrible misunderstanding and manipulation of the English language, all in the name of the gun corporations and lobbyists, who profit every time someone gets shot.
Despite the manipulated and misunderstood language, it's quite astonishing that people rely on one 218 year old principle that endangers the lives of others. Perhaps it is time to revise the second amendment, as we have with other outdated parts of the Constitution.
Remember, that the Constitution once permitted slavery and even protected it, until the later installment of the 13th amendment. African Americans were still excluded from rights until the 14th and 15th amendments. The Constitution also allowed unequal treatment of women until the 19th amendment. Let's not forget about continued genocide of the Native American, which the Constitution also ignored making the natives aliens on their own land. Hence, the Constitution has not always been right on every point and as we progressed as a nation we made the necessary changes. That's what progress is about.
Unfortunately, the American quest for killing human and non-human animal goes on. We'll need a little more time in this department.
In regards to the Supreme Court case, hunters have recently argued that they have the right to kill. Why you would want to kill a beautiful creature of God, of nature, I don't know. But who's hunting in Washington, D.C.? No one's hunting anything in American cities except for people. And what hunter uses a handgun anyway?
It's time to reconsider where we are going as a nation. In an age of democracy there is no need to fear a tyrannical takeover, not physical at least. Tyranny is more likely to happen via propaganda and media manipulation; that's why more Americans should be reading and getting an education.
There are also other sources of protection. For one, we have police departments. If you are worried about police brutality, gun or not, it's still going to happen. Some cops are good, some are bad. If you think your handgun is going to protect you from police brutality, you're going to get shot full of holes. It's a lot safer to rely on civil rights.
As for protecting yourself from criminals, there are other weapons. Baseball bats, tools, knives, mace. Get a dog- they're great at deterring domestic crimes. Martial arts too- there would be no reason for guns if more people studied this. Tasers are also a better weapon choice than guns because they are more effective, less expensive, and aren't made to kill. In fact, some police departments are now switching over to more humane taser weapons. This is the wave of the future. There will be no need to manufacture guns in the future, just as there is no need for the steam engine now.
As for hunting, if you want to murder animals for kicks and thrills, that's your choice. But it seems no more criminal than some of the heinous things the worst offenders in U.S. prisons have committed. If you hunt for food still, then give up your weapons; chase that animal, jump on its back, sink your teeth into its neck and take it down like real carnivores do.
This isn't even really about guns though. The root of the problem is the American hunger for violence. More Canadians have guns than Americans, yet they have less gun crimes, less overall violence too. If more Americans were calm, intelligent, educated, and empathetic, there'd probably be no problem with allowing guns (though why you would want them would be a mystery.) But in a nation gung ho for war and violence, there's no more room for guns.
As we are now seeing the ramifications of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that ignored the popular vote and installed George W. Bush into the presidency in 2000, there will also come a time when we see the consequences of today's 5-4 decision on guns. Hopefully, these tragic lessons will bring us to our senses.
Will Lawrence's works have been published in a variety of literary journals, magazines, and anthologies, both online and in print. He is the author of one volume of poetry, a nonfiction book, and two chapbooks of poetry.
You are absolutely correct in that people should read and become better informed to prevent tyranny. Unfortunately social studies is being left behind in favor of math and science and students no longer know why this country was created. Here are some famous quotes that should clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defence."John Adams
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."Thomas Jefferson
"Americans possess the advantage of being armed."James Madison (the guy that actually wrote the second amendment and Bill of Rights).
If those quotes don't define the true meaning of the second amendment as our founding fathers intended, I don't know what does.
Also, the militia was the citizens themselves, the founders feared a standing professional army. So if you read the second amendment literally, all of us are a part of that militia.
Here are some other interesting quotes:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms."Adolf Hitler
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Benjamin Franklin
Brings a little perspective to the Second Amendment and freedom, doesen't it?
How can the word people apply to collective rights and not individual ones only in the Second Amendment. We all know that when the word people as applied in the First Amendment meand individual Americans have the right to free speech. Why would that change in the Second Amendment.
The Bill of Rights were written for a reason, to protect us from the very erosion of liberty that people with your mentality want to give up. Only you don't want to just give it up for yourselves, but rather all Americans.
by
james davidson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 7:40:37 PM
With the Bush regime gutting Amendments Four through Ten...
and your recommendation for the elimination of the Second Amendment, that leaves the First Amendment standing alone in the crosshairs of the Christianists. Will nothing remain of the Bill of Rights?
I say, God save the republic from this multilateral assault on our freedom. The people who advocate the incursions pressing from all sides have a full understanding of their interests, but no concept of liberty.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1055 comments)
on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 9:07:08 AM
We'd still have the Third Amendment, where no soldiers could be quartered in our homes. Not that it matters much, with most soldiers quartered overseas and so many homeowners being foreclosed on anyway.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1055 comments)
on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 2:05:33 PM
It's sad that so few people, such as Will Lawrence, have no knowledge of our founders' intent with the Second Amendment, and their writings are so clear on their intent.
by
shielah jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM
Will, why did you delete my question? I simply asked what you would prefer should your wife be under attack: should she be able to choose to defend herself? Or should she be forced by the government to always be defenseless? Should she be forced by the government to rely on them to protect her, AFTER the fact? Or as a free American, should she have the choice to defend herself, whether she learn martial arts, whether she carry pepper spray, whether she learn the use of a handgun? Should a rapist have "free pass" with defenseless women?
by
shielah jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM
Your comment is not inappropriate. You merely put forth a logical scenario, which should be addressed. We are not called to be a nation of victims, and defending oneself from crooks and murderers is our right.
A few years ago a couple of Sheriff's deputies came to my door. They showed me a picture and told me that person was a known rapist and lived down the road from me. I thanked them for the info and told them I packed a gun. They told me to keep my gate shut anyway, just in case.
According to the gun control people I guess I should just depend on a 911 call to the nearest deputy 50 miles away when confronted by a rapist. Not likely.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 9:01:57 PM
And if you've watched the news this a.m., you've heard that a body has been found and it is most likely the body of Nancy Cooper -- the young woman who went out jogging Saturday a.m. Unarmed and defenseless. Had she had a handgun and known how to use it, perhaps she'd be alive and her attacker would be in the morgue this morning. There is nothing immoral in self-defense.
by
shielah jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 8:45:02 AM
James, you should know as an 8th grade social studies teacher that society was a very a different society than it is today. For one, there were no organized police departments then. Your quotes are also taken out of context and have little to do with tody's problem of violence, something they could not have foreseen. Your use of a Hitler quote shows you have a biased pro-gun stance since this is a common misconception and myth spread by American gun onwers. Hitler took away the guns of the Jews, but he also took all of their rights. This was an ethnic based act. Are you actually comparing gun owners in the U.S. to the terrible ethnic slaughter of the Jews? That's outlandish. None of the non-Jewish German citizens (who didn't have their guns taken away)resisted Hitler's mission. If being an armed populice fights tyranny, why didn't they stand up for morality? They didn't because they were brainwashed. Hence my offered solution: give up the guns and read more books. Education. You should value that as an educator, if that is indeed what you do.
You apparently didn't really read my article and the analysis of language in the second amendment. How does giving one person the freedom to buy any gun they want under any circumstances so they can terrorize everyone else lead to any real freedom for everyone else in society? As George washington once said, "As the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first to be laid aside when those liberties are firmly established."
by
William Lawrence (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM
Re: G. Washington's quote that you cited, it's important to understand that our liberties have not been firmly established, they are constantly threatened, and the first group we have to worry about enslaving us is the group that wants to disarm free people.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Samuel Adams said, "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from owning their own arms."
Do you really want to live in a country where the only people who have guns are the ones in government uniforms?
Hitler knew the best way to enslave a nation was to disarm them. Do you really want to be in line with his thinking?
Again, the bottom line, do any of us really want to live in a country where the only people who have guns are in government uniforms? Think about it....
by
shielah jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM
around the extremes. Has anyone read the court's decision? I, for one, was astonished that this court, which I normally suspect the worst from, came out with such an evenhanded decision that was so much in line with my own judgment of the issue.
Why can't the contestants in debate over this issue be as even handed for their starting point? As one interested in preserving the Bill of Rights, I gladly will stipulate that firearms should have reasonable regulation, and the Second amendment says nothing to prevent it. As one who is also interested in a society that is free of anarchy or tyranny, I say that a complete ban on fire arms is an unconstitutional violation of the Second amendment.
Ownership of firearms is not antithetical to good social order. Indeed, in many cases it contributes to it. That is particularly true if the citizens who exercise the right to own arms are well trained in proficiency with and security for those firearms that they own.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1055 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 1:25:35 PM
How does giving one person the freedom to buy any gun they want under any circumstances so they can terrorize everyone else lead to any real freedom for everyone else in society?
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that American citizens have an individual right to own guns, as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In District of Columbia v. Heller,[47] the Court stated that an absolute firearm ban was unconstitutional.[48] The Court further determined that its decision in Heller does not impinge upon existing statutes and regulations, such as those that prohibit felons and the mentally-ill from owning or possessing firearms.[49]
I live in the boonies and know how to shoot. Having a gun is a matter of survival here as we have wild animals as well as wild humans. We also shoot for food.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 8:51:37 PM
I’ll admit openly my bias is pro-rights including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
“It's not that the 32 year D.C. gun ban really stopped people from killing each other.This is significant because the population did go up and overall crime did indeed go down.” Incorrect.Per capita crime, including murder, was consistently higher from 1977 (the year after the ban) until 2003. The raw numbers are easily obtainable on the internet to do an analysis.Population declined and crime increased.
“Opponents of the gun ban constantly resort to their misinterpretation of the archaic language in the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights, which provides the right to arm militias.”I have seen scholarly interpretations of the English used to support the provision of the Second Amendment as an individual right, to include the definitions of “keep” and “bear” used at the time that are completely in line with these showing “ownership” and “carrying” by individuals with the Militia clause as a dependent clause.You need look no further than the amicus briefs supporting Heller.And why repeat the authorization of a Militia in the Bill of Rights which was intended to delineate individual rights? Article 1, Section 8 defines control and authorization of the Militia, and Article 2, Section 2 puts civilian leadership of Militias in the hands of the President.To say the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights solely to ensure a Militia’s right to arms is ludicrous.Do the think the Framers “forgot” that militias needed arms?The Founding Fathers understood civilians needed the right to arms to protect themselves from government tyranny.I hear people screaming (rightfully) that the Patriot Act is violating the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7.Shall we just repeal those outdated amendments away too?And please tell me where else in the Bill of Rights does “the people” refer to a collective right of the people to fulfill a defined government function?
“Furthermore, there is no emphasis on arming the public in any of the documents that influenced the Bill of Rights.”Incorrect.There are plenty of other documents, including the more clearly worded State Constitutions, for the individual right to keep and bear arms in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Delaware.
“Hence, the Constitution has not always been right on every point and as we progressed as a nation we made the necessary changes. That's what progress is about.”Fine, do the work required to amend the Constitution again.Just be advised that over two-thirds of the citizens believe the Second Amendment is a personal right so be prepared for an uphill battle.
“Why you would want to kill a beautiful creature of God, of nature, I don't know. But who's hunting in Washington, D.C.? No one's hunting anything in American cities except for people. And what hunter uses a handgun anyway?”I love to eat deer and elk.It is leaner than beef and by hunting it myself far cheaper than beef, pork or lamb.More than half of the hunters I know carry handguns in addition to their bows and rifles for protection from snakes or predators, as well as to put a wounded animal out of its misery. Clearly you should have researched handguns and hunting.
“Tyranny is more likely to happen via propaganda and media manipulation; that's why more Americans should be reading and getting an education.”But when the propaganda and media manipulation works, and the victims have been disarmed, you are too late.Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin immediately spring to mind as those who used the propaganda machines and eventually disarmed their subjects.If you want something from the last 5 years you need look no further than Africa and the genocides there.The confiscation of lawfully owned weapons in New Orleans after Katrina proves it could happen here too.
“There are also other sources of protection. For one, we have police departments.”Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police do not have a responsibility to protect individual citizens?They are to protect the public at large.Waiting even 10 minutes for the police can mean the difference between life and death.As for me, I will continue to own firearms for self defense, it is my Constitutional right.
“If you hunt for food still, then give up your weapons; chase that animal, jump on its back, sink your teeth into its neck and take it down like real carnivores do.”I should not dignify this with a remark.Humans have always used tools, guns today, to hunt.
“As we are now seeing the ramifications of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that ignored the popular vote and installed George W. Bush into the presidency in 2000 . . .”The United States is a Republic with an Electoral College.Change that too if you believe it is outdated.Considering the number of uneducated voters who cannot tell you today who any of the Supreme Court justices are, I tend to believe we still need a republic.
In your reply to James Davidson you also state:“Hitler took away the guns of the Jews, but he also took all of their rights. This was an ethnic based act.”You are wrong again.Hitler disarmed the Jews, essentially disarmed any non-Nazi German, and prohibited arms for citizens in all conquered territories.As to Hitler’s quote, here it is in its entirety:"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
by
Mike Kimball (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 9:06:56 AM
