Gun Control in Chicago Works...to Boost Homicide Rate

[goju]

"Strict gun control in Chicago has worked... to once again boost the homicide rate, making the Windy City the most murderous city in the nation for the past 12 months, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

"Chicago finished off the year with more murders than New York or Los Angeles," said SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "During the past 12 months, 599 people were murdered in Chicago, three more than in New York, where 596 people were slain, and about 100 more than in Los Angeles.

"Isn't it remarkable," he observed, "that Chicago, New York and Los Angeles have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet they still typically lead the nation in the number of homicides?""
http://chicago.about.com/cs/governmen1/a/2003_murders.htm

Ok, everyone who is surprised, raise your trigger finger!

Im still amazed that people with a gun control agenda wont acknowledge the role of the criminals behind the guns that they fear so much. At some point, you would think they would they abandon the idea of controlling guns and start to think about controlling criminals. But, Im not holding my breath.

[CarolynEC]

1. Boy, that's pretty sloppy logic...

... if you can call it "logic" at all. Maybe the numbers would have been even higher WITHOUT gun control. And maybe, just maybe, things like population density, poverty rates, education levels, etc etc etc figure into it, no?

[FatSlob]

3. There are many factors.

Population density, poverty, education, and the disarming of the law abiding are all factors. The criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. The citizens should be on equal footing.

[goju]

4. Indeed

"And maybe, just maybe, things like population density, poverty rates, education levels, etc etc etc figure into it, no?"

Try to convince the gun controllers of that, but dont try too hard. You will break your cranium :)

[DarkPhenyx]

10. wow...

...talk about missing the entire point of a post.

[goju]

11. What did you miss?

Maybe I can help clarify things.

Strict gun control=high murder rates
Poverty, education, urbanization, drugs, gangs all contribute to that number.
Gun control only affects those who will abide by the laws.
Criminals dont abide by the laws.
Gun control will have no effect on murder.

[MrBenchley]

13. And laws against bank robbery....

only affect those who will abide by the laws.

Somehow I don't think you'll see the American Banking Association lobbying for their repeal though.

[petronius]

17. Your analogy is flawed

Laws against bank robbery address the crime. Laws against murder address the crime. Gun control laws address the tool that could be used in the crime, in the hopes that limiting the tool will also limit the crime. As the OP is trying to point out, this approach doesn't necessarily work (mainly because the availability of the tool is not the only factor in whether a crime occurs - other posters have mentioned a range of social conditions that play a bigger role).

This is part of why RKBA and Democratic beliefs are not incompatible: many of us believe that addressing root causes is the appropriate way of controlling crime, and if we make the effort to control the criminals (and the conditions that encourage criminality) then we have no need to try controlling the guns.

[MrBenchley]

18. The analogy is right on the money

"As the OP is trying to point out"
That would be the piece by this right wing fuckwit? Great source.

"This is part of why RKBA and Democratic beliefs are not incompatible"
Maybe in fantasy land., But in the real world, RKBA is pretty much the exclusive province of right wing fuckwits like Gottlieb--who, you will notice, is a convicted felon himself.

[petronius]

20. The OP would be goju,

and I'm referring specifically to what he wrote in his last paragraph.

And no, the analogy is completely wrong: if banks were advocating for or against pen-control laws, so people couldn't write stick-up notes, then your analogy would work.

IOW, a law against a particular crime is not the same as a law against a tool that could be used in that crime. Outlawing guns is not the equivalent of outlawing murder; legalizing guns is not the same as legalizing murder. Where your analogy breaks down is that it confuses the tool for the crime. It seems that many gun control arguments also contain this flaw - the real goal is to minimize crimes of violence; guns are utterly irrelevant if they are not used criminally.

My belief, then, is that crimes of violence will be more effectively addressed by alleviating the conditions that produce criminals, not by trying to reduce the tools that can be used in crime. Call it Fantasyland if you like, but I'll continue to think that reducing poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, overcrowding, etc., are the key goals, and will be far more effective at crime reduction than any gun-control measure...

[MrBenchley]

23. Ah, you mean the silly paragraph

that's being derided as sloppy logic....

"Outlawing guns is not the equivalent of outlawing murder"
Horseshit. Guns don't leap off the store shelves and sell themselves. Nor did the guns that evaded the AWB get made by some mindless robot factory.

"I'll continue to think that reducing poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, overcrowding, etc., are the key goals"
Funny, isn't it? All of those goals are being addressed by the liberals who support gun control...and poverty, illiteracy, unemployment etc., are being made worse by the right wing fuckwits who peddle this gun rights crap. Ought to make you think, but I'm too old and cynical to even pretend.

[petronius]

24. Precisely!

Guns don't leap off the store shelves and sell themselves.

And they don't leap out of holsters and kill people either - they sit there like the inert chunks of metal that they are, until someone does something with them. They are tools - the murderer murders, and outlawing the tool is not the same as outlawing the crime, no matter how loudly you cry "Horseshit." Some of us do not see the sense in outlawing the tool, when a) we could spend our time and effort doing something about the criminal, b) outlawing the tool is of dubious effectiveness in keeping it away from the criminal, and c) the tool in question has value to the law-abiding as well as to the criminal.

All of those goals are being addressed by the liberals who support gun control... and by the liberals who oppose gun-control, which is indeed something to think about.

[MrBenchley]

25. Appallingly silly....

One wonders why someone would leap through such mental hoops to try to prop up this wretchedly dishonest bit of right wing horseshit from a convicted felon....

"Some of us do not see the sense in outlawing the tool"
Gee, most of the country does. One might as well say that Ponzi schemes ought to be allowed because they are only a "tool." But then the prime directive of our "pro gun democrats" seems to be that nothing must ever interfere even slightly with gun industry profits.

"by the liberals who oppose gun-control, which is indeed something to think about. "
Only for its unintentional comedy value.

[petronius]

26. No hoops, no propping

Considering that the only part of the original post that I've referred to at all is a comment by the OP, and not the article itself, I don't know how you think I'm "propping" anything. And I think I've stated my opinions clearly enough that no mental leaping is required. Since you haven't addressed any of my previous comments then I won't bother to repeat them...

However, I will say that you've dished up another flawed analogy: Ponzi schemes are tools about as much as mugging is a tool. Also, I haven't the faintest knowledge of or interest in gun industry profits, and I'm not sure why you think they are relevant.

If you honestly believe that progressive principles and gun ownership are incompatible, that's your prerogative - you're wrong, but I doubt that anything I say will change your mind. And I'm glad you found humor in my statement. "At the height of laughter, the universe is flung into a kaleidoscope of new possibilities." (Jean Houston); perhaps some new possibilities will occur to you...

[MrBenchley]

27. Too too funny....

Who DO you guys think you're kidding with this crap?

Since the comment is meaningless without this idiotic press release from a far right wing FELON......

But DO keep on telling us how progressive the views of the Aryan Nation, John AshKKKroft and Larry Pratt are. It is funny as hell.

P.S.: I've met Jean Houston.

[petronius]

31. Meaningless?

It seems to me that the comment from the original poster, as well as everyhing I've said, stand alone quite nicely. You just haven't seen fit the respond to any of it...

And I haven't mentioned the Aryan Nation or anyone else on your list, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[MrBenchley]

32. It's hung on this dishonest press release from a right wing loony

and doesn't stand alone in any way. Nor is it anything but the usual "oh why are they picking on my loved ones" that we get from the trigger-happy on a regular basis.

"I haven't mentioned the Aryan Nation or anyone else on your list"
No, you've been too busy pretending that the vows those charmers are expressing are progressive...which is hooey.

[petronius]

33. Did you read any of my posts?

I'm sure you know perfectly well that nothing I've said relies on the press release. In fact, if my original post hangs on anything it hangs from a flawed analogy that you came up with - the purpose of my first post in this thread was to point out a fallacy in your own logic.

And it had nothing to do with any of my "loved ones", or any "vows" (?) that anyone made.

You also know perfectly well that I haven't claimed that anyone (charmer or not) is progressive - I have spoken only of my own beliefs.

I honestly don't understand why you think that anyone who takes an RKBA stance must automatically be typing from Ashcroft's guest bedroom, or why you think that it is impossible to hold RKBA views along with other progressive principles...

[MrBenchley]

34. I read all of them....

And I honestly don't understand how anybody can pretend with a straight face that there's anything even in the least "progressive" about this RKBA crap.

The initial premise is deeply dishonest, with no factual basis at all, and a clearly traceable provenance to right wing extremism.

The public figures pushing it are not just right wingers, but the most stridently extremist fringe of the right wing.

The entire rationale for the movement seems to be the defense of gun industry profits at all costs, a peculiar itch to shoot one's fellow citizens and get away with it, and the sort of adolescent fantasy that used to be confinded to "men's adventure" stroke magazines.

[DarkPhenyx]

15. it would be what you missed.

the complete absense of any logic or evidence supporting your assertion. Unfortunately it looks like you are going to continue to hold that position even in the presence of logical arguments against it. Too bad. Do I assume that you still believe al'Queda and Iraq were working together before we invaded?

[Lefty48197]

43. Shall issue CCW law in Detroit leads to skyrocketing gun murder rate

What was it you were trying to say about gun control causing murder? Were you rehashing the old tired worn out NRA pro "shall issue" argument?

[MrBenchley]

8. Dreary crap like this makes up the entire RKBA cause

and by the way, the source is a felon and far right wing fundraiser....

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Horribly sloppy logic.

That was the first thing I thought about when I read the "headline". It's almost as good as saying that letting the tax cuts lapse and return taxes to their normal levels is a tax increase.

[Speak no evil]

37. Here's how it works

There are those that argue you and I don't need guns to protect ourselves because that is the job of the police.

The police are very busy and respond to the most serious crimes first. This means they investigate homicides first, burglaries second and prowlers last. If the prowler you call in turns homicidal, the cops will investigate your case according to priority - it is up to you to prevent your case from becoming a homicide investigation.

Think about it another way; if you are not willing to work at saving your own life, why should a cop risk his life to save yours? It is much safer for the cop to investigate your death than to try and prevent it.

The fact that a home owner may be armed makes prowlers think twice before forcing their way into a dwelling known to be occupied because they are afraid of being shot. If the home owner is disarmed by law, the reduced risk of criminals being hurt on the job makes burglary and robbery much more attractive.

Even if you don't want to own guns, the fact that some of your neighbors do reduces your risk of being accosted in your own home.

[billbuckhead]

2. Southern states with weak gun laws lead the states in murder

Tough gun law states Massachusetts and Hawaii have the lowest homicide rate of states with populations over a million.

[goju]

5. Link?

[billbuckhead]

14. Gun Laws Get Credit for Homicide Declines

Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993, when they peaked at nearly 40,000, to around 28,000 annually 1999 through 2001. Although firearm suicides have remained fairly constant at over 16,000 per year, the decrease in gun homicides has accounted for the bulk of the decline. A variety of explanations have been offered to account for the decline in gun homicides, but recent research has demonstrated that strong gun laws should be considered a leading reason.

An article published by the American Journal of Public Health last December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming--had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The study's lead author, Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that "guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans." Combined with a 2000 assessment of gun laws around the nation by the Soros Foundation, the data also show that lax gun laws imperil Americans. That's because the Soros scorecard listed each of the six high-homicide states among the bottom third of states with the weakest gun laws, and it listed the four low-homicide states among the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html>

[library_max]

21. Here's A link, maybe not THE link.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, by state. Note column G, Murder and Non-negligent manslaughter, and then look for the figure per 100,000 inhabitants for each state.

The ten highest per capita are Louisiana with 13.2 (!), Maryland with 9.4, Mississippi with 9.2, Nevada with 8.3, New Mexico with 8.2, Illinois with 7.5, South Carolina with 7.3, Tennessee with 7.2, Arizona and Georgia tied with 7.1 each.

The ten lowest per capita are North Dakota with 0.8, New Hampshire with 0.9, Maine with 1.1, South Dakota with 1.4, Iowa with 1.5, Montana with 1.8, Hawaii with 1.9, Oregon and Utah tied with 2.0 each, and Vermont with 2.1.

The ten lowest are pretty obviously states with mostly rural populations,lacking large metropolitan areas. But I find it interesting that the states with the highest homicide rates, excepting Illinois, are not particularly urban states. I wonder what correlation gun control laws would show with these results.

[denverbill]

6. Oddly enough, they also had the largest number of non-murdered people.

Odd isn't it, how the three largest cities in the US had the three highest total number of murders. I'd be willing to wager that they are also right up there in terms of traffic accidents as well. I guess that proves that laws prohibiting bad driving don't work.

[goju]

12. Rates, not numbers

That is what we need to look at. Per capita rates. DC, with a relatively small NUMBER of people, leads the nation in per capita murder rates.

The same cannot be said for car accidents, can it?

[library_max]

22. DC is one big metropolitan area.

No state is like DC. It is a totally unfair comparison.

Here is a link for metropolitan areas:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls

Same source, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 (latest available).

Washington DC SMSA has a homicide rate of 9.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. SMSAs that exceed that number include New Orleans (24.4!), Victoria TX (17.1), Pine Bluff AR (16.4), Gary IN (14.9), Jackson MS (14.4), Alexandria LA and Baton Rouge(14.2), Shreveport LA (14.0), Savannah GA (13.7), Fayetteville NC (12.8), Baltimore (12.0), Los Angeles (11.8), Hattiesburg MS (11.5), Richmond VA (11.2), Mobile AL (11.0), Detroit (10.9), Little Rock (10.3), Stockton CA (10.1), Las Vegas (9.9), Montgomery AL (9.8), Anniston AL (9.7), and Albuquerque NM (9.6).

What strikes me is how many of those metro areas are south of the Mason-Dixon line (not all - not Gary, Baltimore, or Detroit). And again, I wonder what correlation we would find with gun control laws. I'll bet New Orleans's gun control laws are a whole lot less strict than Washington's.

[library_max]

29. Boy, not much interest in the facts around here.

Guess name-calling is more entertaining.

[MrBenchley]

30. Facts are anti-gun, max...

If you want to impress "pro gun democrats" with RKBA "logic" you need to find some right wing loony like this guy Gottleib making inaccurate and unsupported assumptions in a press release, and then claim that it shows how "progressive" the idea of letting the gun industry run roughshod over everybody else in America is.

After all, freedom means people shooting each other down in cold blood, and that's what I always believed the party was all about, no matter what the platform and actual Democrats say.</sarcasm>

[Romulus]

38. that's very interesting

thanks for the info . . .

Edited to add:
The spreadsheet crashes my computer.

I'm curious if the DC MSA includes Northern VA and suburban MD.:shrug:

[library_max]

46. Did you look at the state one in post #21?

It's a lot shorter.

[MrBenchley]

7. You wonder why "pro gun democrats" rely on right wing loons

and gibberish like this for their cause....and then you realize the answer is obvious.

"In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

""All I have to do is turn the spigot on and the money just flows," Alan Gottlieb once told a reporter. Every month, Gottlieb reaches out to 10 million of his closest friends, asking for contributions or votes. A prominent leader in both the pro-gun and anti-environment Wise Use movement, Gottlieb is likely one of the most powerful men in America.
Gottlieb sounds like part buccaneering entrepreneur and part political gunslinger. He has a remarkable knack for cashing in big on right-wing causes. "I am," he says, "the premier anti-communist, free-enterprise, laissez faire capitalist." He is also:
* President and founder of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, which in 1988 launched the Wise Use movement, today the most powerful anti-environmental force in the country.
* President of two nonprofit corporations, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which form the most potent pro-gun force in the country, aside from the National Rifle Association.
* A master fund raiser for conservative causes and candidates -- the most successful one outside Washington, DC.
* A member of the board of governors on the powerful and ultrasecretive Council for National Policy, whose membership is said to include such familiar right-wing stalwarts as CNP president and former Attorney General Edwin Meese; Paul Weyrich, founding president of the Heritage Foundation; Jerry Falwell; and Oliver North.
* Sole proprietor of a profitable right-wing publishing complex that writes, edits, and distributes conservative books and magazines.
* Owner of KBNP, a business radio station in Portland, and chairman of the board of the Talk America Radio Network, which has 196 affiliated radio stations across the nation.
* A convicted felon. In 1984, Gottlieb pleaded guilty to underpaying income-tax returns by $17,000 and served ten months in federal prison."

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/8-19-95/merchant.html

What swell playmates our trigger happy "enthusiasts" have....

[fob]

16. When this story refers to Chicago, what do they mean?

Chicago population (2000 census) 2,896,016
Cook County 5,376,741
9 County Metro Area 8,272,768
Illinois 12,419,293

How many of the deaths reported in the story were attributed to guns?

Are saying there were no stranglings, stabbings, run over by car, etc? If so, is "gun control" responsible for these deaths too? I can just see the defense attorney, "You know judge, if gun control wasn't so strict, my client wouldn't have had to run over and kill his neighbor. He could have just flashed his heater in a peaceful-like manner and the situation would have resolved itself!"



Then there's this article dicussing the same numbers/info as your link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-02-city-murders_x.htm

-snip-
The city finished 2003 with 599 homicides, police said Thursday. That was down from 648 a year earlier and the first time since 1967 that the total dipped below 600.

-endsnip-

Ooops! Looks like your article contains spin. Homicides are DOWN from last year and below 600 for the first time in 36 YEARS!

Try again!

[Lefty48197]

44. You mean the 2nd amendment supporters lie?

Next thing, you'll be telling me that their right wing Republican leaderbots are liars too...

[library_max]

19. Amazing what you can "prove" when you cherrypick your statistics.

Isn't it remarkable that our three larg3est and most denseley populated metropolitan areas "typically lead the nation in the number of homicides"?

By the way, where are the figures to support that statement? I don't see any tables of statistics anywhere in the article. Makes me wonder what we're not supposed to notice about the real facts of the issue.

Local gun controls don't work anyway, because there are no border checkpoints or customs inspections between localities or states.

[MrBenchley]

28. Even more amazing what some people will accept as proof

and from whom...

Here we have a convicted felon and right wing loony LYING outright about homicide statistics and offering no figures to back up his dishonest contention...

And a passel of "pro gun democrats" busily fighting to assert the "truth" of the press release....

And remember, these are the same people who practically knock each other down when there's a chance to slander Democrats such as John Kerry or Dianne Feinstein...

[Columbia]

35. CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

[MrBenchley]

36. Of course the CDC had been forbidden by the GOP to study

anything in any way favorable to gun control...another fine example of "GOP science"....

[Columbia]

39. For those who have issue with this statement

(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Please further note that this study covered all firearms laws including "pro-gun" ones like shall-issue CCW so that statement covers that one as well.

I'm a reasonable person, I can concede that both authoritative gun control and liberalized gun rights have very little effect (if any) on violent crime.

[MrBenchley]

40. Now who could have issues with the GOP's faith-based science?

[library_max]

47. Problem with holding up social reforms to the standard of scientific proof

You can't control the variables, so the correlations have to be sky-high to give you a scientifically significant finding. Republicans will also gladly tell you that there's also no scientific proof that global warming is caused by pollution or that discrimination leads to poverty. Very little social reform would be possible if it had to be proved scientifically in advance.

[anonymous44]

41. Yeah, it sucks

I'm from Chicago land area and I know the laws of Illinois regarding guns. A number of people constantly bitch that guns are brought into states or cities from another state. In Illinois, you have to have a permit to buy any firearm or ammo. So by the anti's logic criminals should not be able to bring guns or ammo into Chicago because they would have to get FOID(permit). Yet, there are all these murders in Chicago. Now, the antis are going to cry that they are brought from other states and to that I say that federal law prohibits interstate firearm purchases unless it goes through FFL (dealer performs background check). You can't go to Indiana and buy a gun. YOu have to give them your drivers license and once they see that you're out of state, they won't sell it to you. So much for Daley's gun ban.

[Lefty48197]

42. Leave it to the SAF to lie their asses off just like Bush does

The SAF should look at Detroit. It has only 1/3 the population of Chicago, yet Detroit is on pace to have about 500 murders this year. All this after the SAF told us that passing a "shall issue" ccw law in Michigan would REDUCE crime. As usual, the gun nuts have their heads up their asses.

[MrBenchley]

45. A bit more about this scumbag Gottleib and his SAF

"Gottlieb and Arnold are describing environmental direct-mail pitches but Arnold in an interview on Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, also told us that "in direct mail, fear, hate and revenge go a long way."
Apparently deception also goes a long way. In June 1994, Gottlieb sent a mass mailing that appeared to come directly from Rep. Philip M. Crane (R) of Illinois, though the postmark was Bellevue. The envelope bore a replica of the Congressional seal and in large, bold letters identified the sender as: The Honorable Philip M. Crane Rep. Crane, Member of Congress. The return address, however was Bellevue.
The letter inside bore Congressman Crane's signature.
"Dear Friends," the letter started off, "I recently asked Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for the names of a few selected Americans with whom I could communicate directly on a matter of great importance to our gun rights.
Yours was one of the names Alan gave me.
Will you join with me and U. S. Senators Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Don Nickles and other distinguished Americans as a member of the National Advisory Council of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? "
<snip>
"With the 1986 amendment of the articles of incorporation, the word "membership" was removed from the incorporation papers by Gottlieb's board of directors. Other changes turned the CCRKBA into a corporation. What this means is that there are no members of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is simply a corporation that receives donations without extending any rights to participate in the operation of the corporation: a committee without members that asks for money.

So what is the purpose of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? In a June 15 article this year, Seattle Times writer David G. Savage wrote that gun ownership is not a Second Amendment right. He went further and quoted former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger as accusing the National Rifle Association of perpetuating a "fraud on the American people" by asserting an individual Second Amendment right to gun ownership.
In the entire history of the United States, a Second Amendment issue has gone before the Supreme Court only once. That was in 1937 when two bootleggers were caught crossing a state line with a sawed-off shotgun. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the law which they had broken violated the Second Amendment. The court found that the Second Amendment pertained to the states' right to raise and maintain armed forces, not a personal right to possess a sawed-off shotgun: "...we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Since that case, all claims of an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have been rejected by the courts.
The lack of an individual right to possess arms is a great source of fear among gun owners. If the individual right does not exist, it is technically possible that slowly increasing the stringency of gun regulations could ultimately ban all private gun ownership. The result has been that some politically active gun owners have fought tooth and nail to prevent any and all new gun laws, in the fear that some day in the future, all guns will be outlawed or taxed so heavily that most people will not be able to own one.
From this position, sometimes called the "slippery slope argument", it is not a very large step to another interpretation: the real intent of the Second Amendment was to authorize revolution and rebellion. In The Rights of Gun Owners, Gottlieb wrote, "The Founding Fathers had an abiding fear of government. At the time the Constitution was drafted they had just concluded a long and bloody war against one form of tyranny. However, they were equally concerned about the kind of government they had just established. Their concern was that a centralized federal government could evolve into a dictatorship."
At the same time he became a member of the YAF's national advisory board and the national treasurer of the American Conservative Union, positions he still holds. The American Conservative Union is one of the New Right groups, like the YAF, that sprang into being out the Goldwater presidential campaign. Founded by 100 right-wing, anti-communist conservatives, an ACU statement of principles supports "capitalism... the only economic system of our time that is compatible with political liberty." Closely allied with the YAF through the Conservative Political Action Conference, the ACU lobbies Congress on conservative issues and publishes "scorecards" so the rest of the country will know how well congressional members have responded to conservative pressures. "

http://www.nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/merchant.htm