Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LAT: Man kills 2 Edison co-workers before turning gun on self
Sheriff's deputies arrive at the Southern California Edison office complex in Irwindale where a man shot and killed two co-workers and critically wounded two others before turning the gun on himself. (Christina House / For the Los Angeles Times / December 16, 2011)
The employee critically wounds two other employees at the utility's information technology offices in Irwindale. He was very deliberate about whom he targeted, a source says.
By Richard Winton and Angel Jennings, Los Angeles Times
December 16, 2011, 10:05 p.m.
An employee went on a shooting rampage at Southern California Edison offices in Irwindale on Friday, killing two co-workers and critically wounding two others before taking his own life.
The man opened fire at the utility's information technology offices about 1:30 p.m. He methodically picked off co-workers, including some Edison supervisors, a source told The Times.
"He told some people to leave and he was very deliberate about who he shot," the source said. "He did not like management."
-------
Sheriff's homicide detectives recovered a semiautomatic handgun at the scene. Francisco said it appeared the gunman and the victims had all worked together. The shooter was at work in the morning, she added.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-edison-shooting-20111217,0,3292962.story
152 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's damn near delusional. 
The courts have consistently agreed with this notion. Your Second Amendment rights are not absolute. 
I want a real ban.
In fact, the whole episode illustrates the intellectual dishonesty and deceit of both the manufacturers and the gun lobby.
I thought you guys keep telling me the crime rate is down, you feel safer than ever, and that all that is needed is more guns.
I can drive a truck through the loopholes in the gun lobby logic. 
It really doesn't matter how "low" the "crime rate" is when you're the one staring down the business end of someone else's gun, does it?
their firearm is only to be used in those situations where there is no other reasonable alternative.
My first line of self defense is called "situational awareness" and is a tactic widely taught in martial arts classes. It simply means that you do not walk around with a cell phone glued to your ear but instead are alert to your surroundings. Using this tactic will avoid almost all bad encounters.
If I find myself in a heated argument with someone, I will walk away even if it makes me look like a coward. Since I have started to carry a firearm I have become a far more polite individual and others who regularly carry have told me they have noticed the same change in their personality.
I also carry pepper spray which can work well in some situations. Years ago I took some martial arts classes and still retain some of the techniques that I was taught.
But if there is no other choice and I find myself attacked by some individual who has every intention of putting me in a hospital or six feet under and is much larger and stronger than I am or is armed with a weapon such as a firearm, I will use my concealed handgun as a last option.
You are fantasizing about the nature of those who legally carry firearms and I doubt if you actually know many people who do. Statistics show that those who have carry permits commit far fewer acts of violence than the average citizen.
The reality is that violent crime has been decreasing in our nation for years. While there is no way to directly attribute this to the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry across our nation, it could be pointed out that the two trends happened in the same time frame.
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg
Far from it. I have a vested interest in trying to reduce gun violence as I have a considerable amount of time and money invested in my shooting hobby.
The good news is that gun violence and violent crime has been dropping in the United States.
December 20, 2011 8:19 AM
Analysts: Better policing behind cut in crime
(CBS News)
WASHINGTON - The latest FBI figures show there's a lot less violent crime across the country this year, a trend experts attribute to a larger investment in crime prevention by government and law enforcement.
The 6.5 percent drop in violent crime continues a five-year decline that shows the numbers of murders, rapes and robberies steadily falling....emphasis added
The FBI said these are not statistical flukes. Between January and June nationwide, violent crime fell sharply across all categories:
Murder down 5.7 percent
Rape down 5.1 percent
Robbery down 7.7 percent
Assault down 5.9 percent
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57345479/analysts-better-policing-behind-cut-in-crime/
For public safety, it's a golden age
Crime just keeps falling
Steve Chapman December 25, 2011
The 1950s are often recalled as a golden age in American life — stable families, rising incomes, wholesome TV shows and low crime rates. Doesn't sound like 2011, does it? When it comes to crime, though, there is a striking similarity: We are, believe it or not, in a new golden age.
Crime has never subsided as a topic for local news or prime-time detective shows. Anyone looking for reasons to fear going out of the house can find plenty. But the truth is our streets are safer than they have been in a long time.
***snip***
Six-month drops don't mean much by themselves. But this one continues an established trend. Crime peaked in 1991 and fell steadily before flattening out somewhat in the mid-2000s. But since 2006, both violent crime and property crime have plunged.
Today, your chance of being murdered is lower than it was in the late 1950s, a time of enviable peace and order. Robberies have been cut by more than half since their peak. Car thefts are about as common as they were when the Beatles first appeared on "The Ed Sullivan Show."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225,0,152834.column
Oddly enough this drop in crime occurred while the sale of firearms skyrocketed and "shall issue" concealed carry spread across our nation. While I believe that better policing is responsible for the drop in crime, it is also obvious that more guns do not cause more crime. This graph shows that between Nov. 1998 and Dec. 2009 over 110 million background checks were run by the NICS.
(source: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/)
Even more background checks were run in 2010 than 2009.
(source: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/12/05/november-firearms-related-nics-background-checks-up-16-5-percent/)
And the increase continued in 2011.
(source: http://www.ammoland.com/2011/12/05/november-firearms-related-nics-background-checks-up-16-5-percent/)
Therefore I don't see a tremendous benefit by limiting the number of firearms an honest person can own. My firearms are stored properly and endanger no one. Under your system I would have to get rid of about 20 firearms or get a permit as a collector or target shooter. None of my firearms would be considered collector items as they are not antiques or rare and all have been used extensively. I also feel that a license to own more than a certain number of firearms could eventually prove to be expensive and would serve to deny that right to many who are not rich.
I personally feel that requiring an NICS background check for all sales of firearms including private sales would have more effect. Admittedly this is a very unpopular idea with many gun owners. It should also be possible to set up a system that tracks firearm purchases and sales by individuals without recording serial numbers. Using that system a person who bought and sold a large number of firearms could be flagged as a possible straw purchaser.
Of course, the penalties for engaging in the straw purchase or smuggling of firearms to the inner cities of our nation should be VERY severe. I would like to see anyone convicted of such activities be charged as an accessory to any crimes that are committed with the weapons they trafficked. Few people would be willing to straw purchase a firearm if they knew they could be possibly changed as an accessory to murder.
I would also like to see anyone caught carrying a firearm illegally face prison time rather than a slap on the wrist. If the individual also had a conviction as a violent felon, he should be put away for a LONG time. This would discourage many violent criminals from always packing heat and reduce the tragedies that result when they feel disrespected.
Our approach to solving the problem differs in that you favor punishing the many for the actions of the few and I believe in focusing on those who are the cause.
You mention that I should reconcile myself to to "the fact that not all gun control advocates are trying to take your guns." I do believe that. Unfortunately the actions of our government under both the Bush and Obama administration in their War on Terror worry me. We are gradually losing the rights we were granted in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 have eroded our freedoms. This is a very disturbing trend. Who can say for sure that draconian gun legislation might not be passed in the near future in order to combat terrorism?
USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act"
is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]
The act, a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a controversial bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress separately, and a final version approved by the Senate on December 15, 2011.[1][2][3] Though the White House[4] and Senate sponsors[5] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill.[7] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources.[8][9][10][11][12]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
I am familiar with European gun laws but I would like to point out that there is a considerable difference in culture between the European nations and the United States as well as a difference in the relative size of European nations and the U.S. (All of Europe can fit into one half of the United States and the United Kingdom could fit inside of Michigan and ten other states.) I could also point out that prior to WWII, Germany passed the 1938 German Weapons Act which forbid firearm and ammunition ownership by Jews. I have little admiration for the history of gun laws in Europe. I prefer to live in a nation that trusts most citizens enough to allow them to own firearms without oppressive regulations.
People often perceive the police in relation to OWS as having some new power. They do not, they are simply enforcing powers they already have and are granted by the Constitution as set forth by the Government of the United States of America. The complaints of the NRA and its allies are fundamentally no different than those of the OWS who resent having existing governmental powers enforced to full effect. I do not believe that the holding of the Second Amendment as being above other fundamental rights such as those granted by the First and Ninth Amendments in these regard is a consistent interpretation of the Constitution.
There are those in the Gungeon who have maintained that there is no right to public safety, to the service of government, or its agents, and I find this view to be an abomination to the spirit in which the Constitution was set forth in opposition to the singularity of the Articles of Confederacy which was a relaxed form of Federal Government. Yes, we have individual rights, but they are offset by the persistence of such civic rights as part of the great social contract that underpins the our form of government.
To the oft quoted Benjamin Franklin, I reply with the words of John Adams: "Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." - Thoughts on Government (1776)
Unfortunately, John Adams wish to interpret the foundation of our government as being the absence of fear from government has not been well-headed. Similar principles, were also enunciated by James Madison in Federalist Paper #51 in stating: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (1788)
This is what is meant by checks and balances, that they must not allow fear to become the foundation of our government, and the spreading of unreasonable amounts of arms to individuals not participatory in the militia of the citizenry is exactly that: the fermentation of campaigns of assassination and insurrection. We have had our revolution and the Founders never intended for there to be another; such beliefs are sheer mystification of the Constitution. I do not believe that in any way the Founding Fathers conceived the individual right to bear arms as being separated from service in the Militia, and a "well regulated" one at that. I point to Justice John Paul Stevens dissent to the ruling in Heller, and specifically to several key passages in which the superior scholarship of Stevens clearly outshines the politically motivated decision of the majority of the court.
I. "To Keep and Bear Arms"
Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”—as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”—they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.
-----------
This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.
----------
Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”—as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”—they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.
-----------
This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.13 Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment.
----------
Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as “elevat[ing] above all other interests” “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
The ruling in Heller is in clear conflict with both the intent and the text of the Constitution. It is a decision no less flawed than that of Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson in elevating a right of one group against another and subsequent courts are very likely to strike down Heller as both those cases were. Might does not make right, the Government can and should make regulations of up to the total infringement of such a right which is possessed by the citizenry, including the forbidding of the use of handguns and, machine guns such as those described in the previous Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and further regulations to protect the liberty of the citizenry from treason and factionalism.
As I read your posts I get the feeling that we differ in the sense that you have a more European view of government in that you trust the national government will work wisely for the greater good of the citizens. I favor the American love of independence, freedom and distrust of all government which developed from our Revolutionary War and has always been an inherent trait of our nation.
Distrusting Government: As American As Apple Pie
by Ari Shapiro
April 19, 2010
While a new Pew/NPR survey on trust in government shows intense hostility toward Washington, a study of history shows that the roots of government distrust stretch far back into America's past.
"When you think about the beginning of the country, it was all about throwing off the shackles of the English monarchy," says Vanderbilt University political science professor Marc Hetherington, who wrote the book Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism.
"We set up institutions that were designed to cut down on people imposing their will on ordinary folks," he adds. "Given those circumstances, it's not surprising that we've had a legacy of distrust or mistrust of government ever since the beginning."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126028106
You mention the Federalist Papers in your reply. I would like to point out that there is opposition to the Bill of Rights expressed in these articles and letters. I'll quote from Federalist #84 by Alexander Hamilton:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
***snip***
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed84.html
Interestingly enough, Federalist #46 written by James Madison (who introduced the Bill of Rights to the 1st United States Congress) does support the right of citizens to bear arms although you will argue that it also mentions a militia.
...Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it....emphasis added
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
Alexander Hamilton had this to say about the militia in Federalist Papers #29:
..."The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." ...emphasis added
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed29.htm
The Supreme Court decision in the Heller decision was split and while you will agree with the minority view, I will agree with the majority. You quote Justice Stevens and claim his statements shows superior scholarship. I will quote Justice Scalia who to me shows the wisdom of Solomon.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
I feel the cartoon you posted reflects your opinion on your fellow citizens and your distrust of them as does your statement:
This is what is meant by checks and balances, that they must not allow fear to become the foundation of our government, and the spreading of unreasonable amounts of arms to individuals not participatory in the militia of the citizenry is exactly that: the fermentation of campaigns of assassination and insurrection. We have had our revolution and the Founders never intended for there to be another; such beliefs are sheer mystification of the Constitution. I do not believe that in any way the Founding Fathers conceived the individual right to bear arms as being separated from service in the Militia, and a "well regulated" one at that.
I differ in that I don't fear my fellow citizens and in general I have faith that they will handle their right to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner. I don't believe that firearm ownership fosters "the fermentation of campaigns of assassination and insurrection." While it is true that firearms have caused violence in our nation, the fact that there are over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation and 80,000,000 gun owners demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners live up to my expectations. Our violent crime rate has been dropping despite that fact that firearm sales have skyrocketed in recent years and "shall issue" concealed carry has spread across the nation.
Some who post here seriously believe that we should ban and confiscate all firearms and that would solve all of our violence problems and turn the United States into a crime free utopia. I would point out that such efforts would lead to violence on a scale that dwarfs the bloodshed we have today and would lead to an insurrection which could break our nation apart. It is debatable if such an insurrection would be successful but there is no doubt that it would occur and would disrupt our way of life for a considerable time. Banning and confiscation firearms would be a very foolish path to follow.
Others are more reasonable and merely wish to pass draconian gun laws that would impose considerable expense and hurdles in the path of anyone who wished to own firearms. Such "feel good" laws if passed would have little effect on the crime rate or violence caused by firearms as they would be directed at honest and responsible gun owners. No matter how you look at it the Assault Weapons Ban was a total failure and in fact made such weapons popular.
I fall into the category of those who would like to see gun violence decrease and favor the enforcement of existing laws and improving (tweaking) those laws so as to be more effective. I feel that this is the approach we have been using for the last decade and it has yielded results as the crime rate has been declining.
A few who post here believe that most gun laws are oppressive and unnecessary and should be eliminated. I believe they are as misguided as those who wish to ban all firearms. Most of our gun laws are reasonable and effective. However I will agree that in some areas of the nation the gun laws are excessive and should be more like the rational and reasonable laws that exist in states like Florida. Similar laws to those passed in recent years in Florida have spread across the nation. They include "shall issue concealed carry, "stand your ground" castle doctrine and "Take Your Gun to Work" legislation. Florida has been a model for the nation and similar legislation has proved to work in many other states.
1. Which meant they sent representatives of to form a Continental Congress, to a great degree from their own state governments, which in due turn formed a government under the Articles of Confederation, from which they then decided to form an even stronger government under the Constitution. I'm sorry, but the anti-Federalists lost the debate for good reason, and that they are so prevalent today is sheer proof of the enduring foolishness of such ideas as are underwriting the Tea Party, that America is founded on distrust of government. This is entirely incorrect, America is founded on the idea of good government. We revolted against the British because they imposed bad governance without consent per the social contract that underpins the universal natural rights accorded to all men. Our form of government is good and nowhere in the Constitution is the right to revolt afforded.
2. Hamilton is arguing that the Constitution offers enough significant protection without the addition of a Bill of Rights, most specifically probably in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Prefatory statements were much more important to people in those days, and were taken with seriousness, unlike the argumentation you'll find in Heller:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
These far-right justices are using the fears of anti-Federalists to make a Federal decision is political interpretation, not grounded in the Constitution or the compromise which the Bill of Rights represents. It is historicism at its worst. The consistent distortion of the intent of the Founders intention in this regard is sophistry.
3. You're arguing that the wisdom of Antonin Scalia over John Paul Stevens?
- you must have missed Scalia's true view of your rights to government:
"I hear Americans nowadays ... talk about dysfunctional government because there’s disagreement,” he said. If they understood the Constitution, he continued, they can “learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities.”
Scalia discounted the importance of the Bill of Rights and its protection for freedom of speech and the press. “Every banana republic has a Bill of Rights,” he said. Those are “just words on paper.” It depends on the “structure of government,” including independent courts, to enforce the rights of individuals.
--------
In recent years, they have conducted their own debate over whether the justices should rely on the original meaning of the Constitution in deciding cases. Breyer said judges needed to start with the “values” set in the Constitution, but need to update them to take account of modern times.
Scalia said he wanted no part of it. “I’m hoping the living Constitution will die,” he said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/05/news/la-pn-scalia-testifies-20111005
Scalia discounted the importance of the Bill of Rights and its protection for freedom of speech and the press. “Every banana republic has a Bill of Rights,” he said. Those are “just words on paper.” It depends on the “structure of government,” including independent courts, to enforce the rights of individuals.
--------
In recent years, they have conducted their own debate over whether the justices should rely on the original meaning of the Constitution in deciding cases. Breyer said judges needed to start with the “values” set in the Constitution, but need to update them to take account of modern times.
Scalia said he wanted no part of it. “I’m hoping the living Constitution will die,” he said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/05/news/la-pn-scalia-testifies-20111005
4. "Some who post here seriously believe that we should ban and confiscate all firearms and that would solve all of our violence problems and turn the United States into a crime free utopia. I would point out that such efforts would lead to violence on a scale that dwarfs the bloodshed we have today and would lead to an insurrection which could break our nation apart. It is debatable if such an insurrection would be successful but there is no doubt that it would occur and would disrupt our way of life for a considerable time. Banning and confiscation firearms would be a very foolish path to follow."
I do not believe in such a ban, and neither do most gun control advocates, this would be like me saying that there are Sovereign Citizen movement supporters here (Frankly I'm not so sure about some of posters in the Gungeon), but such talk is the foundation of treason. You know the Constitution was once interpreted as affording the right to slavery, and it took the 13th Amendment to state exactly that after a long and bloody insurrection against Federal government. Fuck the Confederacy.
A compromise resulted in the Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution.
Federalists vs Anti-Federalists
In the beginning of our country, the United States of America, the original two parties who helped create the Constitution were the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Parties. Even then, our Founding Fathers, were separated into two factions who did not see eye to eye.
***snip***
The Anti-Federalists, also fought in the American Revolution, were pro what we now know as The Bill of Rights. They were mostly farmers and workers, not the prominent business owners. They were opposed to a strong nationalistic government. They opposed the originally drafted US Constitution, until the Bill of Rights were added as Amendments, insisting it made the National Government too strong and the ability to wield too much power over the States. They were pro very small national government involvement, have a national government for the sole purpose of giving other countries a way to reach the States and communicate with them with very little authority in order to preserve the sovereignty of the States. A very famous Anti-Federalist was Patrick Henry, who gave many speeches about freedom, liberty, and the hazards of having a national government. The Anti-Federalists did not want an authoritarian national government, fearing it would try and take away their rights including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". They wanted to maintain EVERY THING listed in the Bill of Rights. Why they diligently fought to have it added to the original US Constitution as the first set of Amendments.
http://aliciaharrell.hubpages.com/hub/Federalists-vs-Anti-Federalists]
I don't include you in the group of people who wish to ban and confiscate firearms but feel you do fit into the group who wishes to impose draconian restrictions on honest gun owners which do accomplish little or nothing in the effort to reduce gun violence. "Feel good" laws are as effective as pointing a fire extinguisher at the flames rather than the base of the fire. Please correct me if I put you in the wrong group.
One of the most unfortunate things about the times when the Constitution was ratified was that outlawing slavery was politically impossible. Many of the Founders opposed slavery.
Constitutional Topic: Slavery
***snip***
Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.
In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it." Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.
The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
And of course I totally disagree with your view:
These far-right justices are using the fears of anti-Federalists to make a Federal decision is political interpretation, not grounded in the Constitution or the compromise which the Bill of Rights represents. It is historicism at its worst. The consistent distortion of the intent of the Founders intention in this regard is sophistry.
I instead feel that the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court are doing exactly what you accuse the "far right" judges of. I strongly believe that the majority view of the court on the recent cases involving firearms is firmly based on history and the original meaning of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
In passing, an interesting side note on history is that:
The term Anti-Federalist was later applied to the emerging political faction headed by Thomas Jefferson during the administration of George Washington. This faction would become known as both the Republican Party and the Democratic-Republican Party and later evolve into the Democratic Party.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h374.html
If anything the Democratic Party which has a reputation of supporting the common man should be the party that supports RKBA and the Republican party which is known for its support of the rich and the big corporations should be the party that wishes to take firearms from the average citizen. (By the way, I feel that in actuality the Republicans do present a greater risk to gun ownership than the Democrats. Witness the last few years of the Obama administration.)
In time we did...I think the gun control debate is not unlike the slavery debate. We will have real gun control in time because eventually we will say enough is enough, no further expansion of such a destructive and horrific enterprise to the citizenry of this country. People said many unkind things about abolitionists too in their day, and about women wanting the right to vote, about unions, about civil rights legislation, and still today about the right of people to marry as they please.
Not as many guns as one desires for anybody and responsible ownership.
The Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment09/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interpretation
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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 tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_decision#Decision
Will you please concede that you're wrong that the Constitution does not guarantee such a notion as public safety as being a pre-eminant right, or is that just too much too much of a shock to your misplaced pride?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interpretation
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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 tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_decision#Decision
Will you please concede that you're wrong that the Constitution does not guarantee such a notion as public safety as being a pre-eminant right, or is that just too much too much of a shock to your misplaced pride?
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/PublicSafety.shtml
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/
Courts throughout the land have upheld the notion that not only is my inherent right to be safe a constitutional principle, my actual right is concrete, and that policy makers may enact laws to address this issue in the form of gun control - see Heller.
By your logic then you have no inherent right to unfettered gun possession and it is merely bought off and intimidated politicians and courts protecting that right as stands in its current form.
Keep digging.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/
Courts throughout the land have upheld the notion that not only is my inherent right to be safe a constitutional principle, my actual right is concrete, and that policy makers may enact laws to address this issue in the form of gun control - see Heller.
By your logic then you have no inherent right to unfettered gun possession and it is merely bought off and intimidated politicians and courts protecting that right as stands in its current form.
Keep digging.
A longtime friend of shooting victim Henry Serrano shares a holiday greeting card featuring a family portrait. Serrano sits, beaming, with his wife and two daughters as his two sons stand behind with their fiancees. One son places his right hand on his father’s shoulder. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times / December 18, 2011)
Two managers, Robert Scott Lindsay, 53, of Chino Hills and Henry Serrano, 56, of Walnut, were killed when Andre Turner, 48, of Norco opened fire and then took his own life. Two others were injured.
By Irfan Khan and Hector Becerra, Los Angeles Times
December 17, 2011, 7:33 p.m.
Authorities on Saturday identified two men killed in a workplace shooting at a Southern California Edison office in Irwindale, as well as the gunman, who investigators said was a co-worker.
------
Two others, Angela Alvarez, 46, of Glendale, an Edison employee, and Abhay Pimpale, 38, of Montebello, a contract worker, were wounded and in critical condition.
------
At the Serrano home in Walnut, a longtime friend, Jose Mejia, politely said that the family was not ready to talk now. He shared a holiday greeting card featuring a Serrano family portrait. Henry Serrano sits, beaming, with his wife and two daughters as his two sons stand behind with their fiancees. One son has his right hand on his father's shoulder.
Family and friends showed up at the tidy, two-story home, decked in Christmas decorations. A teary-eyed young man walked out of the home and stared at the sky; moments later, a young woman hugged him, buried her head in his chest, and cried.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shooting-follow-20111218,0,2226000.story
