In fairness, 65 of those 67 pages by Scalia were photos of captivating females posing with truly handsome pistols.

Please don’t harsh on my Schlussel.

hey genius… 67 pages IS shorter than 70 pages!! that means it is 3 pages righter!

I’m glad the Schlussel hilarity has come up again so I can snarkily say “Judge Ito–That’s so topical! That’s me in the spotlight losing my religion! Grant Hill will be the next Michael Jordan! Dudes, Home Improvement is on, keep it down!” Glad I got another bite at that apple. OK, I’m done now.

64 pages is even righter rightier shorter than 67!

She was only talking about “simple and absurd” decisions, not “simple and TRUE.” Which is what this is!! You liberals!!!1!!!

Debbuh is busy with other important news:

Here’s a tip. When a 78-year-old with not-so-early-onset-dementia and an angry bitch who’s never before been proud of America do something, it’s no longer hip. It’s out. When the angry bitch who’s never before been proud of America does it multiple times, it’s just ugly.

Time to get rid of the fist-bump, or as FOX News Channel’s E.D. Hill calls it, “the terrorist fist jab.” Either way when these people do it, it ain’t cool (not that it ever was).

Arbiter of cool, she is indeed.

LOL, silly liberals. Everyone knows that 64 pages is the correct page length for opinions. 70 pages = st00pid. 64 pages = brilliant. Get it, LIEbruls?

Btw, I’m starting to think Anthony Kennedy just flips a coin.

Funny. I wonder if the the Malkin thing and the Wankee will repeal their calls to have Justice Kennedy hung from the nearest freedom plant, i.e. a “tree.”

The Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man is surely seated at his home desk with a cup of coffee, whining and moaning with the turn of every page in this 64er.

In nine or ten hours, he will let us know of its gloriousness.

Kennedy’s ruminations about bears terrorizing D.C. citizens during oral arguments was fantastic.

Oh boy! They’ve made it legal to own a handgun in the nation’s capital just in time for our nation’s first black president! Suddenly, I’m giving much more of a shit about vice-presidents.

Here in Atlanta we’re about to be able to pack heat on the subway. Yay.

I’m glad that the District of Columbia isn’t a state, because otherwise this would be more ammunition against keeping the darkies offa my lawn State’s Rights.

Oh, did I mention that our state is in a drought, and the state legislature/governor are refusing to do much about water conservation?

But we can pack heat on MARTA. At least there’s that.

I’m bet a good portion of those 64 pages was drafted by law clerks. Just the way of the world.

Along similar lines, I should hire interns to preview my posts for grammar. Since I obviously don’t.

Last week.

RightWing: The Supreme Court Sucks! The Supreme Court Wants Terrorists to Kill Us in Our Beds and Get Blood All Over Our Star Wars Sheets!

This week.
[Sound of tires pulling a tight 180]

RightWing: The Supreme Court is the Bestest! The Supreme Court Keeps us Safe!!

I don’t know. I live on the border of D.C. and I have a hard time being surprised or giving a fuck. People who feel they need a gun will purchase and keep a gun in their homes. This includes peole who feel they need a gun to commit crimes. Now, if it allowed concealed carry I’d be worried.

[Clif adds: Part of the rationale for banning handguns was that it would reduce the number of guns in homes. Guns were being taken in home burglaries and then used to commit crimes in the District and elsewhere.]

I wonder how much of this was actual legal reasoning, and how much was another round of the Right’s favorite game of “let’s fuck with DC”?

“Oh, did I mention that our state is in a drought, and the state legislature/governor are refusing to do much about water conservation?

But we can pack heat on MARTA. At least there’s that.”

More support for my thesis that Republicans consider Mad Max to be a utopian vision.

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.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Hooray for Originalism!

As a bike commuter in D.C., I’d just like to say that the rules have changed now, and you fucking motorists on Sherman better give me my goddam 3 feet when you pass… or else.

(Just kidding. I will put a hand axe through your window though.)

Great Gangly Dieties in a Souped Up Sidecar!

Debbuh: When the angry bitch who’s never before been proud of America does it multiple times, it’s just ugly.

Debbuh, ya wanna know what’s ugly?

Hatin’ on great swathes of people with generalized untruthitudes.

Makes your soul wear wafer-thin. See-through slimness. Makes it fragile and floppy and not up to the communication with the Divine that is our reason for being.

Which is central to my point.

The cyclist hand axe ban is still in effect. Kennedy will be considering the arguments (call heads on the flip).

Awful, awful decision. The 60s and 70s, especially in New York City, ought to have proved once and for all that police paperwork after the crime is all the protection a citizen needs.

Ahh, Debbs.

and an angry bitch who’s never before been proud of America do something

Says the well-mannered Miss Schlussel, who never rages over anything ever.

Time to get rid of the fist-bump, or as FOX News Channel’s E.D. Hill calls it, “the terrorist fist jab.”

Um, callED it, Debbie, for you see- Hill’s show got the boot.

I take it this means D.C. is now the politest society in America?

I take it this means D.C. is now the politest society in America?

Breaking news! Dick Cheney shot dead on senate floor!

Maybe SCOTUS is hoping for a well-time hurricane to “clean up” DC the way they cheered Hurricane Katrina.

The cyclist hand axe ban is still in effect. Kennedy will be considering the arguments (call heads on the flip).

Tails never fails…

Hooray for Originalism!

It’s activism. They just can’t bear to call it that. I don’t have a problem with the ruling per se, though I worry about the impact on D.C. residents. SCOTUS was bound to answer whether the Second is an individual right.

I haven’t clicked on the link to the opinion but I’ll bet my left foot it is pages and pages of dictum with historical anecdotes for legal support.

Truly, I believe the wingers want to bring back the Old West.

With everybody packin’, schoolmarms buttoned up to the Adam’s apple, but over at the saloon, there’s that clandestine fun…

Only the hosses are missing.

It reminds me of the summer Star Trek was in reruns, and I was at my grandparents’ on the farm. I wanted to watch it, and my grandma was all, “That’s not real.”

“You watch Gunsmoke.”

“Well, that’s real!”

Yeah. Everybody has all their teeth and the prostitutes at the saloon don’t sleep with anyone.

Right.

(I was eight.)

Whoo weee. Guess who Scalia cites in his decision? Eugene Volokh. I can’t wait to see who JiSM3 has in mind when he says more like Scalia and Alito. Supreme Court Justice Pantload?

I take it this means D.C. is now the politest society in America?

Bwahaha!

Actually, I think D.C. natives are very nice. It’s just all the invaders from points north, east, west and somewhere to the south that screw things up.* The only place I’ve met nicer people was in Chicago. After several years in the heart of Indiana it was almost creepy.

[*Some restrictions apply. Offer not valid during contact with any employee of any D.C. public service office.]

I have but one word for the oh-so-eminent “Justice” –

VAFFANCULO!

Sums up what he’s essentially padding with 70 additional pages of tripe.

I haven’t clicked on the link to the opinion but I’ll bet my left foot it is pages and pages of dictum with historical anecdotes for legal support.

Well, I haven’t got very much of the way through it, but so far it looks like your left foot is pretty safe. Scalia also managed to work this in

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents

Banned in D.C.:
Handguns = no
Bad Brains = yes

Even though I’ve lived in the area forever, I really don’t know too much about the gun ban. Ignorant as I am, I can’t imagine it has much of an impact given that the borders of DC end at the city limits, and it’s not like you have to go through customs or anything. I don’t see how it would be any harder to bring in a gun than it would to drive to a liquor store in VA to pick up booze after the stores in DC close. Shit, if you could fit it in your bag or coat, you wouldn’t have any problem bringing it in on the Metro.

So I’m not sure I’m really that terrified about the ruling, though I disagree with it. If it were a nationwide gun ban being repealed, then I would be worried, but the geographic circumstances of DC being what they are, I just don’t see much changing.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents

ZOMG CITING TEH INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS Y DUZ SCALIA HATE AMERICA SHARIA LAW AIEEEEEEEEE

Wow! Those nasty Stuarts make up three pages of the decision. It’s a good thing that only crazy kooks think that foreign law (especially three decade old stuff) should not influence SCOTUS.

whoops, should be centuries instead of decades. Pretend like I’m Spock trying to fool Khan.

whoops again. Should be two not three. Gosh, correcting the correction. At this rate I’ll be writing Kristol’s NYT column by next week.

At this rate I’ll be writing Kristol’s NYT column by next week.

No way, according to MJ Rosenberg, that job should be Peggy Noonan’s so get in line. Evidently, in his book, cornball > boring, stupid and wrong. I guess he’s right, but isn’t this like going to the doctor to lance a big festering boil and asking him if he can replace it with a huge wart?

So Kennedy thinks the citizens of downtown DC need handguns to fight off bears. Even if there were bears molesting folks in the deep, dark wilds of Rock Creek Park, don’t handgun shots just piss bears off?

No way, according to MJ Rosenberg, that job should be Peggy Noonan’s so get in line.

That’s okay, I don’t want Clark Hoyt trying to explain why every third column consists of just one word.

PENIS

So Kennedy thinks the citizens of downtown DC need handguns to fight off bears.

Well, there’s not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

Hey remember when Roberts said he wanted more unanimous decisions, more comity amongst the justices, less politicization of the court?
Sure you do.

Well, since this is another big, “page one” case involving a hot-button topic, we’ve got a 5-4. And comity?

Shorter Scalia: Stevens is a sissy. Stuart kings are going to eat your babies. Breyer is a poopyhead.

So…the part where we foam at the mouth about black-robed tyrants thinking they know better than the Merkin people, and how dare they strike down laws with which they disagree…..that is no longer operative?

I don’t see how it would be any harder to bring in a gun than it would to drive to a liquor store in VA to pick up booze after the stores in DC close.

Don’t they sell guns alongside the booze in VA? Convenience.

At long last the Black Panthers can once again supervise the activities of the police.

So…the part where we foam at the mouth about black-robed tyrants thinking they know better than the Merkin people, and how dare they strike down laws with which they disagree…..that is no longer operative?

I thought so too, but we’ve all forgotten how weasly Tony is. From SCOTUSblog:

While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision’s nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws — an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly.

Oh, please note that I have no legal background and the opinions I stated earlier were pulled out of my ass (the Scalia method) and I only just now checked to see what other opinions on the decision were. Note: balkinization hasn’t weighed in yet.

Also, PENIS

Fuck, this is almost as retarded as the astoundingly ridiculous(sorry to Jillian for killing a kitten) Gore v. Bush “and don’t use this decision as a precedent for anything” cheese-ass crap.

More support for my thesis that Republicans consider Mad Max to be a utopian vision.

And suddenly I had a vision of Justice Antonin roaring out from the bench, “I am the Nightrider! I’m a fuel-injected suicide machine!”

it all makes so much sense now

Don’t they sell guns alongside the booze in VA? Convenience.

Yeah, but you still have to drive to a separate spot to pick up your meth! I wish Wal-Mart would get its act together on that so I can shop for my whole weekend before 6 on Friday.

I take it this means D.C. is now the politest society in America?

AI hadn’t grasped the scope until I read the SCOTUSblog headline:
Court: A constitutional right to a gun. It’s nation-wide.

The 2nd finding of the decision enumerates what SCOTUS sees as the constraints on this right:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Erm. It’s a weapon. They’re dangerous. That’s what they do.

You know, and important legal question comes to mind–is the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile a dangerous and unusual weapon? And how many pages do we need to unpack all the inherent issues in that?

Erm. It’s a weapon. They’re dangerous. That’s what they do.

Nino argues that the popularity of handguns makes them not unusual.

Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

Ahhhhh, I get it, not dangerous weapons and unusual weapons, but weapons that are both dangerous AND unusual (i.e. the Weinermobile)…lawyermering is hard! They should have special schools for it or something!

It still strikes me as stupid because it implies the possibility of non-dangerous weapons. Do the crappy Cold War-era Chinese arms our awesome government bought from 20-year-olds in Florida for our troops in Afghanistan count?

Here Nino waxes poetic on the wonders of the handgun

There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.

See pistols are teh 1337 awesum since you can keep the burglar covered while using the phone!

Roe v. Wade was 40 pages long. It must be really right!

That being said, it is pretty clear that the second amendment allows, at some level, an individual right to bear arms.

The fact is, that photoshop job of Scalia is very slick.

Well, I’ll be damned. First decision by Scalia I can ever remember being in agreement with.

Second Amendment always seemed pretty clear to me.

Pretty obvious it’s an unfortunate dinosaur, but considering what the bush administration has already got away with, if we start fucking around with the Bill of Rights I can’t imagine the the biblical police state we’d end up with in no time.

Sometimes doing the right thing sucks.

And sometimes people assholes end up doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

But hell. I don’t think this is going to lead to running gun battles in the streets of DC…

mikey

Well, there’s not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

The bears are all off buying handguns for self protection. There’s going to be hell to pay when they get back.

“or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,”

If carrying handguns keeps us all safer in our cities, wouldn’t the same hold true in smaller microcosms such as schools and government buildings?

Now I’m confused. I want my child and gov’t employees as safe as I am on 18th and P.

Weinermobile is protected. It may be dangerous since a single deli-style beef frank contains 9 grams saturated fat, but since it’s popular it’s not unusual. Also, one might argue that the weinermobile would be of limited use for a Militia in case of need to defend the State, but since the prefatory clause is just some pretty words that aren’t relevant to determining the founder’s intentions, that argument is moot.

There are no words to express how much I love that Photoshop.

None.

Weinermobile is protected. It may be dangerous since a single deli-style beef frank contains 9 grams saturated fat, but since it’s popular it’s not unusual. Also, one might argue that the weinermobile would be of limited use for a Militia in case of need to defend the State, but since the prefatory clause is just some pretty words that aren’t relevant to determining the founder’s intentions, that argument is moot.

Then it’s settled! You will take my weiner away when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

If carrying handguns keeps us all safer in our cities, wouldn’t the same hold true in smaller microcosms such as schools and government buildings?

I’m not sure, but I think the answer has something to do with the fact that abortion kills babies unless it’s rape or incest in which case they’re not babies but evil parasites.

re: Photoshop
Having now slogged through most of the Scalia decision, I have to say that I doubt the photo has been modified in any way, except possibly red-eye reduction.

Also, BEAR ARMS!!11!eleventy

Actually, I think D.C. natives are very nice. It’s just all the invaders from points north, east, west and somewhere to the south that screw things up.* The only place I’ve met nicer people was in Chicago. After several years in the heart of Indiana it was almost creepy.

Hooray for us! This D.C. native is returning home, driving from Columbus. Back to Columbus on Sunday!

**But it’s all for work. 😛

I’m not sure, but I think the answer has something to do with the fact that abortion kills babies unless it’s rape or incest in which case they’re not babies but evil parasites.

Next on the docket: Does a fetus have a constitutional right to a tiny, fetus-sized handgun to protect it from abortionists and other womb invaders?

Next on the docket: Does a fetus have a constitutional right to a tiny, fetus-sized handgun to protect it from abortionists and other womb invaders?

Well, sure.

But ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated…”

Lieberal malarkey!

And “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.”

If you’re not a islamocommiefascimexican, what’s your worry?

There’s only one right in the wingnut constitution.

I don’t mind bare arms, as long as they are well sculpted and not all saggy and wrinkled.

Can I bear cobras? They’re kind of a bitch to get out of the holsters but they’re so cool.

Bring ’em on, RB!
~

Can I bear cobras? They’re kind of a bitch to get out of the holsters but they’re so cool.

You crazy Darwinists trying to come up with Abominations against God. You can bear cobras, but only if they’re Colts.

If you’re going to keep those loaded Cobras in your home, you must secure them with an industry approved Fang Lock™.

mikey

The bears are all off buying handguns for self protection. There’s going to be hell to pay when they get back.

I can see it now: Bad Ass Bears, for those who find the Pink Pistols too nellie. Holsters to match harnesses! Whee!

Unless, of course, y’all meant Ursidae, in which case forget I ever said anything.

ittdgy,

Fuck. You win. There’s no way I’m dealing with multiple cerebral, myocardial and mesenteric infarctions.

via Adam B at Great Oeang Satan,
Dahlia Snarkwick.

My opinion remains the same: you can have as many guns as you want, as long as they were the type available when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Seems fair to me…

“Bear arms” rings a bell
http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/1038.html

Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

Beyond the venom, there is also the delivery system. Fer de Lance coils and strikes very quickly, like most pit vipers. A mongoose has no chance against it.

In fact, mongeese (mongooses?) were imported to deal with the Fer de Lance. But the mongeeses were no dumbies, they quickly decided poaching chickens was the safer meal.

Beyond the venom, there is also the delivery system.
Yeah, I watched the video. I’m amused by how the cameraguy obviously thinks this is a bad idea in that the camera points basically nowhere when the stick gets really close to the snake.
But holy crap. The guy in Martinique took 6 days to die, and essentially did so from his blood vessel disintegrating. That does not sound like a pleasant way to die.

Lithwick on WBUR (NPR Boston).

I don’t care.

Fat Tony is not going to ruin my weekend..

COMFEST!.

Fcuk him.

Ya know, it occurs to me that getting snakes out of a holster wouldn’t be all that difficult. What would be tough is convincing the shoulderless little bastards to get into the holsters in the first place. I’ve always found snakes to be very obstinate by nature.

That being said, it is pretty clear that the second amendment allows, at some level, an individual right to bear arms.

No, it does NOT. The 2nd Amendment, in its entirety, says:

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.

Show me ONE WORD in that sentence that makes reference, direct or indirect, to an INDIVIDUAL person. Every single noun in that sentence refers to a group or organization: “militia” does not refer to an individual, neither do “state” nor “people”.

In addition, there is the phrase “well regulated”, indicating rather clearly that there is an expectation of rules to control “the people”/”militia” when THEY are bearing arms.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to give people like Mark David Chapman legal cover.

See pistols are teh 1337 awesum since you can keep the burglar covered while using the phone!

Won’t be necessary when the next gen iGun comes out. They still gotta fix a problem where a cross-site scripting exploit can fire the thing remotely. Fucking goddam javascript.

Show me ONE WORD in that sentence that makes reference, direct or indirect, to an INDIVIDUAL person.

Well, much as I think Nino’s fully of shit, “the right of the People” means individual rights, otherwise the fourth amendment is pretty much useless. Well except for still prohibiting blanket warrantless wiretaps which won’t be illegal soon anyways.

Won’t be necessary when the next gen iGun comes out.

DRM Ammunition. You license it, so it can only be fired at targets the ammo makers deem appropriate.

The after-market goodies on this thing, skull candy silencers, gel-skin laser sights. Man that’s gonna be a hot market.

#

David in NYC said,

June 26, 2008 at 22:00

That being said, it is pretty clear that the second amendment allows, at some level, an individual right to bear arms.

No, it does NOT. The 2nd Amendment, in its entirety, says:

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.

Show me ONE WORD in that sentence that makes reference, direct or indirect, to an INDIVIDUAL person. Every single noun in that sentence refers to a group or organization: “militia” does not refer to an individual, neither do “state” nor “people”.

In addition, there is the phrase “well regulated”, indicating rather clearly that there is an expectation of rules to control “the people”/”militia” when THEY are bearing arms.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to give people like Mark David Chapman legal cover.

See, here’s my problem. Standing to one side to avoid the spittle, I can see the nugget of a point in your position. I don’t agree with it, I don’t think one has to be a constitutional scholar to understand “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”, but I do understand that a case can be made either way, primarily based on where you come down ideologically.

But see, if you scream at people that you just can’t see how they could possibly arrive at such a stupid, dense, idiotic conclusion as the 2nd being an individual right, you just look like a crazed looney, instead of a holder of a reasoned position. You see, if I disagree with you and you just shout that there’s NO WAY I can possibly be right and it’s impossible for a person not suffering from advanced mental degenerative disease to reach the conclusion I’ve reached, I’m just going to tune you out as another asshole.

Y’know?

If I had a gun for every ace I’ve drawn I could arm a town the size of Abilene.

Dragon-King Wangchuck:

The 4th Amendment makes more than one specific reference to “persons”. The 2nd Amendment does not.

Furthermore, the 3rd Amendment makes reference to “the Owner”; the 5th Amendment begins “No person” and makes additional reference to “any person” and “himself”; and the 6th Amendment refers to “the Accused”. The authors were well aware of the distinction and did not hesitate to use singluar/individual nouns when that was the intent.

Or do you also believe that the 10th Amendment means that I, as an individual, have all the rights “not delegated to the United States”, since it says all those rights “are reserved to the states respectively, or the people”?

Mikey:

I did not scream at anyone, nor did I refer to anyone’s position (including Scalia’s), as “stupid, dense, idiotic”. I also did not accuse you or anyone else of “advanced mental degenerative disease”. I made a rather obvious (at least to me) interpretation of the language of the 2nd Amendment, which you are certainly free to disagree with, as you obviously do.

However, it certainly sounds to me like you are tuning out “as another asshole” anyone who does not agree with you, since you have made no effort to respond to any of the thoughts or logic I presented, but rather have imputed (projected?) some sort of evil negativity to my spittlecomment.

If you have a response to or refutation of my position not involving ad hominem attacks, I would love to hear it.

Cheers!

psst… David… in case you are not aware of all Internet traditions, the use of CAPS generally indicates, well, screaming.

David in NYC, Mikey and Dragon-King etc,

Stevens’s dissent makes it quite clear that the individual versus group right issue need not be resolved here because it is certain, from the language and history of the 2nd Amendment, that whether it is a group or individual right, it is a right restricted to using arms for military purposes.

Sorry, David, if I misinterpreted your tone. Been known to happen.

But it certainly did seem to me, and in re-reading your comment it still seems to me, that you are taking the position that your interpretation of the second is the only intelligent, obvious, indeed, the only possible interpretation.

And that is certainly not the case, as can be established by taking your credit card into your local gun shoppe.

It’s pretty obvious to me that so far, the second has been interpreted quite broadly as an individual right. And if Clif’s correct in his comment, then it seems that in well over twenty years the supreme court has never felt it necessary to address the question…

mikey

“…the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II Maliki government in Iraq succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents…”

Fixing TEH INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS.

Can I bear cobras? They’re kind of a bitch to get out of the holsters but they’re so cool.
If you want to get snaked-up, you should pack a couple of inwits.
I have no idea what an inwit actually looks like, but apparently they have a nasty agenbite.

Pretty obvious it’s an unfortunate dinosaur, but considering what the bush administration has already got away with, if we start fucking around with the Bill of Rights I can’t imagine the the biblical police state we’d end up with in no time.

I don’t necessarily agree that it’s an unfortunate dinosaur (though you might be able to convince me), but the point is that, whatever the Constitution *should* read, it *does* read

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.

The first portion of that, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, does only one thing: state that, for the purposes of law, a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

Likewise, if I were to propose an amendment reading thus:

Waterwheels, being necessary to the grinding of grain, the value of pi shall be set to exactly three.

It doesn’t matter if waterwheels are obsolete. It doesn’t matter that, in fact, pi is not exactly three. The amendment would set the value of pi to three. It’s a bad amendment. But it’s what we’ve decided it should be.

Further, I should add:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So would you say that you don’t have the right to peaceably assemble alone, but rather, only as a group?

Waterwheels, being necessary to the grinding of grain, the value of pi shall be set to exactly three.

The right of a free people to round things!

Activist Judges!

Original Intent!

Free Pi!

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445 923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938 446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229 489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091 456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063 155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204 665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117 931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298 336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392 171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713 427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796 892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187 072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083 026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083 814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937 519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952 572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736 225994138912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168 617278558890750983817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488 240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678374494482553 797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047

So would you say that you don’t have the right to peaceably assemble alone, but rather, only as a group?

Erm, you … can’t … assemble alone?

I didn’t come here for a pi fight.

Cosine, secant, tangent, sine!
Three point one four one five nine!
Cosine, secant, tangent, sine!
Three point one four one five nine!

What do we want?
The ratio of the circumference to the diameter!
When do we want it?
As soon as we finish calculating it!

Bonus!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Indicating that people have control over several things: their persons, their houses…

I’ll leave off the 9th and 10th, as there’s much dispute as to what they mean, and even to what the drafters intended.

So would you say that you don’t have the right to peaceably assemble alone, but rather, only as a group?

An assemblage is necessarily constituted of more than one item. Therefore you cannot “assemble alone”. Unless you’re referring to lego or tinkertoys or gun-parts – but I don’t think that’s what the B.o.R. was speaking to.

The second is an “unfortunate dinosaur” in the sense that the framers had no way to imagine the tremendous firepower and lethality of todays high capacity autos, nor could they have imagined the dystopian horror of today’s urban centers.

Gangs, drugs, poverty and life being so cheap as to be worthless, along with jack bauer and his ilk, make guns less a tool than an albatross around our society’s neck. But it’s real hard to imagine a solution that isn’t WORSE than the problem…

mikey

the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
The “IKEA kitset furniture” clause.

Erm, you … can’t … assemble alone?

Fair enough, but the connected right, freedom to petition, must necessarily be an individual right.

Can I bear cobras?

Why would anyone want to carry around multiple copies of that dreadful Sly Stallone movie??

The second is an “unfortunate dinosaur” in the sense that the framers had no way to imagine the tremendous firepower and lethality of todays high capacity autos, nor could they have imagined the dystopian horror of today’s urban centers.

I agree. I also think:
The FIRST is an “unfortunate dinosaur” in the sense that the framers had no way to imagine the tremendous speed and reach of todays high capacity internet, nor could they have imagined the dystopian horror of television, radio, and moving pictures. Imagine that, pictures that move ! None of this existed when the constitution was drafted and hence is not applicable for first amendment protections…

When I read the words ‘unfortunate dinosaur’, I imagine a scene of bespectacled Gary-Larson paleontologists uncovering a fossil Tyrannosaurus where the cranium is crushed under a 2.5-ton weight labelled ‘Acme Corporation’.
Though the hadrosaur whose pelvis ended up in Mikey’s drawer sounds like it encountered more than its share of misfortune.

When the angry bitch who’s never before been proud of America does it multiple times, it’s just ugly
WARNING — Do not read this as projection. Do not interpret this as a revealing glimpse of Debbie’s self-image.
Stomach acid is bad for your tooth enamel.

*sigh*

Could we please have the fight about the Second Amendment Next year? Please? I totally see both sides of it (hell, I’ve been a proud gun owner myself), but I want a saner political culture in this country before we get into this one.

Could we please have the fight about the Second Amendment Next year? Please?

I’m right there with you.

All I did was say that I thought the decision was well-founded and should have been expected, and suddenly, I’m challenged to pistols at dawn.

Seriously. Can’t we discuss more important things, like the prohibition of Flo-Bees?

P.S. Google hit #4 for Flowbee. Fess up.

Holland & Holland is certainly no Acme, my Smutty friend…

mikey

I am the first to admit that I know nothing about guns and don’t particularly care to learn. However, my sister who does own a hand gun says she would rather have a pump shot gun for defense. If someone hears that rather distinctive sound and keeps on coming then you know that you want something with stopping power.

As someone who’s home has been broken into (nothing like waking out of a sound sleep to hear someone walking up the stairs), I gave serious consideration to buying a shotgun for a while. I figured that I didn’t have to be terribly accurate with it.

Dragon-King Wangchuck, lurn too speel Orange
David, I think Andrew’s answererd the question about the 4th.
Clif, I totally agree with the Stevens dissenting position that the first part of the 2nd amendment is, well sort of important to the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS disagrees. That, to me is the big story here.
ITTDGY, those pit vipers still give me the heebie jeebies. Fatal diffuse throbotic microangiopathy. Ewww.
Andrew, Nino’s got a footnote, I believe #6 about the individual right to assembly. I think he actually gets this one right, but I also think he’s taking Stevens out of context in otder to score the point.
stryx, thanks for the pi
Doctorb, GOOOOOO TRIG!

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill

Also, black people.

President Hussein Obama X needs a color guard of black guys with Uzis. Not that I enjoy the smell of fat-old-white-man shit, but there you go.

OK. One more and then I’m done.

The Supremes have historically punted on 2nd Amendment cases. I’ve read that this may be because the SC prefers to have the cases decided by lower courts, thinking that they are more likely to understand the particular circumstances, needs and other factors that might apply to one district but not another.

But I suspect that the DC law was seen as just going too far. And since the lower courts seemed to have overturned the earlier decision, and the decision was in the DC district, it was impossible to punt on this one.

In the future, I suspect that the Supremes will go back to not caring about lower courts’ 2nd Amendment decisions. The trigger lock thing was surprising, though.

#

acrannymint said,

June 27, 2008 at 3:09

I am the first to admit that I know nothing about guns and don’t particularly care to learn. However, my sister who does own a hand gun says she would rather have a pump shot gun for defense. If someone hears that rather distinctive sound and keeps on coming then you know that you want something with stopping power.

As someone who’s home has been broken into (nothing like waking out of a sound sleep to hear someone walking up the stairs), I gave serious consideration to buying a shotgun for a while. I figured that I didn’t have to be terribly accurate with it.

Ok, I’ve heard this before.

Couple things.

First. And this is REAL important. If you are not willing to kill someone, do NOT purchase a firearm for self defense. No matter how intimidating it might “look” or “sound”, if you are not going to lay the sight on center mass and pull the trigger and be alone in the room with the dying dood you just killed and listen to him bleed out and beg for his life and there’s not a goddam thing you can do except tell him he’s a fucking asshole for making you kill him, get a dog.

Second. Yes. An 18.5 inch extended mag twelve is the single BEST tactical home defense weapon that has ever existed.

But you’ve got to understand how to use it, and how to retain it.

A nine loaded with frangible ammunition is a better option for any casual gun-owning homeowner who isn’t prepared to do the work and put in the time…

mikey

I keep telling myself that ‘frangible’ is a perfectly cromulent word, but it still makes me laugh.

It turns out, after much research and experience, that I have a frangible heart.

Dammit…

mikey

Well that’s the process of science for you, Mikey. Carrying out the experiment is always more fun than writing up the results.

And I will be surprised (but impressed) if any blues songs include the phrase “She broke my frangible heart”.

“Shattered”.

Not “Broke”.

Broke is minimal damage.

Shattered is Frangible.

mikey

I dunno. Maybe I’ll just let Roger do my talking for me.

mikey

Americans will die because of this decision. That’s the metric we’re using now, right?

Oh, Okay.

One more. Reason Magazine:

As Jacob Sullum noted earlier, Scalia also goes out of his way to note that the “individual right” the Court found today doesn’t undo onerous regulations on the sale of guns, leaves untouched bans on “unusual or dangerous” weapons, and doesn’t overturn existing bans on concealed carry.
[…]
• The 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C. and residents of other federal protectorates now have the constitutional right to own a handgun, provided they meet a set of conditions put forth by the city council—the limits of which will be litigated at a future date. Also, even this right for this small group of people extends only to handguns or rifles kept in the home.

I’ve always found snakes to be very obstinate by nature.

Fat Tony is going to send Mrs. Alito over to cry at you for saying that, you DFH!

By the way, Fat Tony left the gun ban in place at “government offices” and other places HE is likely to frequent–which tells you all you need to know about what a joke his ruling is and what a menace armed dimwits really are.

But then he’s been hunting with Deadheart Dick Cheney and knows first hand what dangerous turds gun loons are.

Americans will die because of this decision. That’s the metric we’re using now, right?

So long as it’s the proggs’ beloved criminal mascots, instead of innocent crime victims for a change, it’s fine with me.

So long as it’s the proggs’ beloved criminal mascots, instead of innocent crime victims for a change, it’s fine with me.

I guarantee you that no innocent will ever be shot as a result, and a pony.

The second is an “unfortunate dinosaur” in the sense that the framers had no way to imagine the tremendous firepower and lethality of todays high capacity autos,

I agree with you this far

nor could they have imagined the dystopian horror of today’s urban centers.

This–not so much. With war, famine, plague, crushing poverty, violence and brutality the founders were intimately acquainted with dystopia. If you think carjacking is new, consider the concept of “highwayman”. The firepower has changed not the propensity of our species for barbarism.

..er. So when the court narrowly avoids overturning a few centuries of legal precendent and the foundation for a state ruled by law.. then it’s horror unfolding on a scale hitherto not known by neither Scalia, or mankind.

But when the court avoids overturning the right to kill people on the street in the course of protecting the state against enemies and government armies bent on enslaving the people with… laws – then it’s heroics and respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

This… defies mockery. It’s like the tough guy in school who could somehow intimidate everyone else by shitting in his pants. (Which was disturbing enough, mind you).

You had a good thing going here.

Then you delve into the wingnut approach we like to call “pulling stuff out of your ass” with this:

But when the court avoids overturning the right to kill people on the street

You pretty much crap all over your own argument.

Go back and do it right.

And give me twenty for fucking it up in the first place…

mikey

My bad. I thought we already knew what the law said. So if I exaggerated a bit it wouldn’t be as if the law.. you know.. actually changed overnight through the spin I added, or anything crazy like that.

But then, there just are a couple of things your shouldn’t be able to mock, I guess. Like – how Barack Obama is a politician, the war, or the gun thing. And I think that’s fair – people shouldn’t have to have their dirty laundry thrown up for the whole world to see like that. We all have dignity here, so just smiling politely at a few thousand deaths and saying “they have their silly ways, but we sure do love them anyway”.

“Just like we love our guns”, one adds, and we all laugh heartily. Because we shouldn’t be impolite and call him a fucking retard with no manners or concern for the next guy like he demonstrably is. While contemplating ways remove them from the planet once and for all, after giving them all fair and just trials in specially appointed tribunals of their own design.

“Swear on the flag!”, we’d ask. And then after three and half years in solitary confinement, maybe we would get the most decent ones to catch on and say “FUCK AMERICA”, instead of starting to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Then, because we’re fair and democratic, we’d let them para… stand trial and allow them the freedom and opportunity to choose between having their pride crushed, or between having their pride crushed and being put in jail for good.

But we won’t mention the guns. Because we are decent folks.

Whether or not one can assemble alone, I believe one can dissemble alone. Except for Dubya, who always gets an assist from speechwriters and Cheney.

David in NYC said,

June 26, 2008 at 22:00

That being said, it is pretty clear that the second amendment allows, at some level, an individual right to bear arms.

No, it does NOT. The 2nd Amendment, in its entirety, says:

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.

Show me ONE WORD in that sentence that makes reference, direct or indirect, to an INDIVIDUAL person. Every single noun in that sentence refers to a group or organization: “militia” does not refer to an individual, neither do “state” nor “people”.

In addition, there is the phrase “well regulated”, indicating rather clearly that there is an expectation of rules to control “the people”/”militia” when THEY are bearing arms.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to give people like Mark David Chapman legal cover.

David…….. for real?????? You’r kidding….ah, I get…. you were kidding. Had me worried dude!