2008-06-26: Supreme Court (Heller v District of Columbia)

[traveltoad]

My point was not whether or not this was an appropriate decision. I just wanted to make sure folks remain aware that merely making sure the general population is armed will not rid us of crime unless we deal with underlying causes. To believe that all violent crime is stimulated by a lack of firearms in the home is ignorant, IMO.

...

We still have bigger issues to deal with if we truly want to feel safe, IMO.

I do agree that there are many underlying problems that must addressed to reduce crime.

[traveltoad]

To me, the greater imperative served by maintaining the individual right to bear arms is so that the people always hold sufficient power to fight back against tyranny by the government. In this time so far removed from the founding of our country we often forget that this principle was foremost in the minds of the framers when they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first move by virtually any tyrannical government is to remove the right of citizens to bear arms, assuming such rights remain.

I don't know what tyrannical government we should be fearing, with the exception of the current administration.

The first step in controlling a population, historically speaking, is to induce fear. Then the citizenry is asked to voluntarily give up certain "small" rights, such as freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom of speech, freedom to individual privacy, and finally (although not historically), the freedom to own and bear arms. You have but to look at most third world coountries and the Middle East to see heavily armed citizens still controlled by their goverments.

The first three reductions of our civil rights have been successfully accomplished over just the last 7 years.
Wiretapping ? no problem. Incarceration without proper representation ? Sure. Disagree and you are unpatriotic ? Seems fair. Check your shoes, body cavities or any thing else before you get on the plane? Yes, of course.

Of the 3 documented "terrorist attacks" within the US borders in the last 200+ years, one-third of them was the result of an armed American. But we have been told to be very afraid, and we have voluntarily allowed our government to "protect" us from ourselves. The false sense of security we will all have by being armed and afraid will allow us to kill each other long before we'll ever need to defend ourselves against an organized invasion by another country.

We need to put the same energy, as we demonstrate in our fervor to stay armed, into demanding the restoration of all our guaranteed civil rights. To think the founding fathers were more concerned about gun rights than our other rights is to ignore 90% of the bill of rights and the constitution. Remember, those who would allow you to bear arms are the same folks gradually eroding away your other freedoms in the name of "protection" - and I'll wager they are better armed than we are...

I know I'm alone here - that's OK. I'll still defend our right to bear arms, and hopefully, everyone else will find it worthwhile to defend our right to free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of privacy.
Well, we've got the guns - now it's time to get the rest of our personal liberties back...

In reading Scalia's majority opinion (I am not a lawyer), it seemed to me that he was trying to put the right to bear arms on the same level as the right to free speach. No more, no less.

And I agree with you that one needs to be consistant. You either believe in the Bill of Rights or you don't. I don't think any of us can pick and choose which parts are applicable and at what time they should be applied.

[DaveK]

I don't know what tyrannical government we should be fearing, with the exception of the current administration.

Larry, Larry, Larry. Neither an accurate statement concerning the current administration nor a productive contribution to this discussion

The first three reductions of our civil rights have been successfully accomplished over just the last 7 years.
Wiretapping ? no problem.

Big problem!!! No disrespect intended, but I do not believe that you have participated in any efforts to secure a wire tap order. You need to see one up close to know how truly difficult it is to obtain. I have no objection to law enforcement listening in on conversations of the bad guys.

Incarceration without proper representation ? Sure.

You have to be kidding. Do you have any idea what the budget is across this country for the cost of attorneys for the "indigent." It is automatic reversal of any conviction if there was not "proper representation" I challenge you to name one "citizen" who has been denied "proper representation" whose conviction stood up on appeal[/quote]

Disagree and you are unpatriotic ? Seems fair.

You have the right, protected under the constitution, to disagree. You forget that others have an equally protected right to call the complainers, unpatriotic. Or does that right only protect those who disagree?

Check your shoes, body cavities or any thing else before you get on the plane? Yes, of course.

Maybe you travel on a different airline than I have. Which one checks your body cavities, Larry? I must confess that I have no objections to the checks, especially of my fellow passengers. Seems to make sense to me. Anyone object?

The false sense of security we will all have by being armed and afraid will allow us to kill each other long before we'll ever need to defend ourselves against an organized invasion by another country.

Nothing false about shooting a bad guy and killing him.

We need to put the same energy, as we demonstrate in our fervor to stay armed, into demanding the restoration of all our guaranteed civil rights. To think the founding fathers were more concerned about gun rights than our other rights is to ignore 90% of the bill of rights and the constitution.

Suggestion: Name one other country in the world whose system of civil rights is better than the USA.
Query#1: Is there a limit on how much fervor we can demonstrate to restore a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights?
Query#2: I may have missed it, but who suggested that we are more concerned about gun rights than the other rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I know that I am not.

Remember, those who would allow you to bear arms are the same folks gradually eroding away your other freedoms in the name of "protection"

Quite wrong. Quick lesson: The Supreme Court of the United States, the "folks who have allowed us to bear arms", is the same group of folks who, about three weeks ago, conferred a bunch of civil rights on foreign enemy combatants. Which freedoms did the SC erode?

I know I'm alone here - that's OK. I'll still defend our right to bear arms, and hopefully, everyone else will find it worthwhile to defend our right to free speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of privacy.
Well, we've got the guns - now it's time to get the rest of our personal liberties back...

You are not alone here. I,for one, am a fervent supporter of each of the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We celebrate today the return of one of those rights. All freedom loving Americans should share in this joy.

[cruiserlarry]

Ok, DaveK, I surrender.

Based on the response to my posts, the point of my statement was lost in the fervent attempt to formulate a dramatic response (when I see a response that asks me which other country has more personal freedom, I know logic has left the room). While I could also point by point, present opposing statements, I will respectfully bow out. There would be no end to this round robin, and as is usually the case, political discussions on forums do nothing to change anyone's view.

This forum is new, and we are looking to attract and keep members. The focus, in my understanding, is the great outdoors, and amateur radio's contribution to those the hobbies utilizing our natural resources. While shooting and hunting are integral parts of some outdoor experiences, the politically-charged topic involving the Supreme Court's latest ruling is, IMO, not going to offer any positive contribution towards the goals of this forum, or outdoor hobbies in general. I suggest we close this topic before it gets more heated, and starts alienating members from joining, staying, or participating. Let's get back to what we were trying to create - a site focused on the appreciation of outdoor adventures, and leave the political diatribe to campfire conversation. No, I'm not implying censorship, just restraint for the benefit of this forum's growth.

Unless, of course, I misunderstood what this forum was supposed to be about....

So, field trip, anyone ???