Justice Scalia Wants You to Have Every Opportunity to Off Yourself

Vasu Murti, you car analogy falls flat on a couple of levels.

"To drive a car, one must be trained, licensed, and have that license periodically renewed."
Yes, to take a car out onto public roads, one must be trained, licensed and have that license periodically renewed. However, one does not need to fulfill any of those requirements to simply OWN a car and keep it on their own property. I don't have a driver's license, and I can purchase and own as many cars as I want to, provided I don't drive them around in public.

Likewise, in order to carry a concealed firearm out into public, you must be trained, licensed and have that license renewed (except for that high-crime murder capital, Vermont, which has no restrictions). But having something in your own home is different from carrying it around?or driving it around?publicly.

"And a car is designed solely as a means of transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are deliberately designed to kill people."
Aside from my disagreement with you that guns are only "designed to kill people," there's another important difference between cars and firearms: Owning a firearm, whether you like it or not, is a constitutional right. Driving a car is merely a privilege. So it's bad comparison.

Guns are the second deadliest consumer product (after cars) on the market.
Wrong. First of all, automobiles kill twice as many people as firearms, so even if you were correct, it's not a close second. However, alcohol and tobacco?consumer products?kill more people every year than cars and guns combined.

"In reality, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that a handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner, a family member, or a friend than it is to kill an intruder. "
This is funny?you're quoting a "statistic" from 1986 that has been thoroughly and completely debunked for it's shoddy methodology many times over?I bet you're not even familiar with the "study" or how the author arrived at those numbers.

I am not going to include a link because then my comment will get caught in moderation and not posted, but google "Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?" or "Kellerman debunked!" to see how absurd that "fact" is.

"Handguns and assault rifles should be banned, and ammunition should be taxed heavily."
You don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.

David I. Carter: Once again, the typical anti-gun hysterics have trotted out all the tired arguments why their failed policies should be tried again, but more. Gun control advocates are like abstinence-only education advocates: they think their policies should be continued and expanded upon, even though they have completely failed in their objectives.

"Fact" 1. That is correct, but irrelevant.

"Fact" 2. That is incorrect and irrelevant.

"Fact" 3. Also incorrect, as popular insurgencies around the world have proven time and time again.

"Fact" 4. You clearly have no idea what that word even means. Fascist does not mean "anyone who I disagree with."

"Fact" 5. Wow, sorry not everyone is an ideologically rigid partisan who can be put neatly into one of apparently only two categories that you have decided we should all fit into. You don't get to dictate to me what I should or should not believe. You also don't get to decide that liberal gun owners are not liberal simply because they disagree with you on that one topic. Screw you.

"Fact" 6. I agree, you certainly don't need a gun to love America?gun ownership for me has nothing to do with patriotism. I have a mind and a heart, and I've almost lost both of them to armed criminals before. I am going to do everything in power to make sure that never happens to me or my wife. You can do as you please.

Go For It!!: Exactly.

No, you don't really understand it correctly, on two levels.

First of all, I don't think any of the anti-gun progressives here think that someone doesn't have the RIGHT to kill themselves?in fact I wager that most of them support the "right to die"?but they probably see suicide done for depression and other such "temporary" reasons to be regrettable, and probably think that the person doesn't really want to die. I'm sure they believe in the right to kill oneself, but think that they shouldn't, if at all possible. They believe, incorrectly, that if there is no gun around, they simply will not bother to kill themselves.

Secondly, the first part of your question is based on the assumption that everyone sees abortion as you do: "end[ing] someone else's life." But they don't, so no, they don't think it's OK to kill someone else. They most likely believe, as I do, that life as an individual, sentient and conscious entity begins sometime in between conception and birth. So whereas I would certainly view an abortion at 8 months as killing someone else, I don't view it that way at 3 weeks.

However, anti-gun, pro-choice people ARE inconsistent in a different regard. They oppose almost any restriction on abortion rights on principle, because they correctly recognize that any legislation restricting abortion in even the smallest manner is, in fact, part of a larger strategy by pro-life advocates to chip away, little by little, until the entire thing can be dismantled. They know that pro-lifers are not going to stop at this one restriction, they will add another, and another, until they can ban abortion outright, or at least make it so hard to get that it is effectively banned.

What they fail to realize is that pro-2nd Amendment advocates correctly see the gun control lobby in the same light: We oppose most "reasonable restrictions" on gun rights on principle, because we correctly recognize that any legislation restricting legal gun ownership in even the smallest manner is, in fact, part of a larger strategy by the gun control lobby to chip away, little by little, until the entire thing can be dismantled. We know that the Brady Campaign is not going to stop at this one restriction, they will add another, and another, until they can ban gun ownership outright, or at least make it so hard to own firearms that they are effectively banned. They have admitted as much.

When they oppose creeping "little by little" legislation, they are "fighting for rights." Yet when we oppose creeping "little by little" legislation, we are being "unreasonable," "paranoid," and it's all some nefarious NRA conspiracy.

Somehow, I don't think the Supreme Court gave a damn about any statistics when it wrote the opinion.

The meat of the opinion is this (slip op. at 25):

"...the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right?unlike some other English rights?was codified in a written Constitution."

I think the coming debate - and the debate that should have been going on all along - is whether or not the Constitution ought to be amended in order to repeal the Second Amendment.

Thus, I think Justice Scalia's concluding remarks to the opinion (p.64) are correct:

"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."

lawyerfan, your logic is terrible:

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about bullets. That's because there weren't any bullets in those days. So I say we should follow the original intent of the framers and allow people to have guns, but let's outlaw bullets. Prohibiting bullets does nothing that conflicts with the framers' original intent.

You are clearly confused as to the difference between the letter of the amendment and the intent of it?banning ammunition most certainly conflicts with the framer's INTENT, but not the letter.

However, according to your ridiculous logic, our first amendment rights extend only to speech spoken, written with quill pens on parchment, or printed with hand-operated printing presses. Newspapers, recorded music, television, telephones, personal computers, email, text messaging and the internet should only be available with government permission: registered, licensed and the content subject to government approval, right?

After all, none of those things existed when the framers ratified the constitution.

Alix, what other people in other countries with other cultures think is absolutely, completely, 100% irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not our domestic policies make sense?it simply doesn't matter one whit.

Then again, I was a punk in high school back when being punk made you an outcast, so I guess I've never really been all that concerned with whether or not other people thought I was crazy.

Well yes, I am mostly a liberal/progressive, which is why I am reading this blog in the first place, and why I subscribe to the magazine. I say "mostly" because I do hold some views that are generally considered "conservative" these days, such as defending the 2nd Amendment as much as the 1st Amendment, but I don't personally see gun rights/control as a liberal/conservative issue?or rather, don't understand why it should be.

On a personal level, I think people have a RIGHT to kill themselves, but if someone I knew was talking about killing themselves or trying to, I would do my best to talk them out of it (assuming they were not terminally ill, etc).

As far as on a larger level, I don't think most gun control advocates support gun control as a way of FORCING people not to kill themselves, but rather hoping that people won't do so if they don't have access to a gun. Of course, this premise is false, as Japan shows us.

That being said, most gun control advocates support gun control not to cut down on suicides, but to cut down on homicides (not that it would work there either). As you can see, it's apparently still news to some people that suicides make up more than half of all gun deaths every year, despite the fact that we gun rights supporters have been telling them this for years. They mostly think "If guns are illegal, people won't be able to shoot each other." They are wrong, of course, but that is generally the mindset I encounter when I'm arguing with people, mostly liberal, about gun rights/gun control, which I actually do very frequently. I've never had anyone argue for gun control as a way to STOP people from killing themselves, they generally are focused more on homicide.

You may recognize that not everyone views pregnancy the way you do, but if you do recognize that, then the contradiction you thought you were highlighting isn't there?it's only a contradiction in the terms that you framed it.

I'm not all that surprised by some doctor's view that abortion is ending someone's life, nor does it change my views on the subject. I am aware that plenty of people feel that way, and the fact that he used to be Hillary's OB-GYN makes his opinion no more compelling to me. I am pro-choice, but more from a rational POV: I am not a fan of abortion, but like firearms, alcohol and drugs, it will not go away simply because we ban it. Banning things is what people do when they are too lazy to deal with the underlying causes of something they find distasteful.

Anyone who opposes abortion should fully support and advocate sex education and contraceptive distribution?the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and REALISTICALLY, that means education and contraception.

Hey People,

This is such a bunch of crap..!!! If someeone wants to off themselves, they will just go and jump off a bridge.
You lib's will do and say ANYTHING to get the population to be disarmed. You are the true Facists and long for the 60's when utopia was in sight. Maybe you should look overseas and see the violence that is coming twords us, and be happy that when they fanatics come, we will be able to defend our country..:-)

BIll

You are wrong

A fundamental question arises.

Do you, or do you not own your own life?

Is it the property of the government?

That's one issue I think Ronald Reagan spoke to correctly when he opposed a military draft.
The draft says the government owns your life, to dispose of as it sees fit, and that, folks, is NOT Liberty and Justice.

Laws telling you can't give up something that's yours but you don't want any more (life) are based on the same premise.

[Bacon] "I love the "Christmas Story" mentality so many of the NRA koolaid drinkers have, where with their Red Rider BB Gun, they'll be prepared to stop the coming invasion of bad guys."

"It has always interested me that when it comes to guns, the same people who campaign for social justice sound just like the ignorant, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic people they claim to be against."
--Posted by: JKW - 05/24/07--

I am a huge, old school Liberal. But I am actually shocked that anyone is shocked at the court's decision. I am from the South, and it has always been taken for granted that an individual has the right to own a gun. I was surprised that the ruling was 5-4 and not 7-2.

As awful as gun violence is in America, people are way out of touch with the mainstream of this country if they ever thought that a man doesn't have the right to own a gun. That is exactly what the Second Amendment says and exactly what its authors meant.

We'd better also take away Dad's belt and shoelaces, keep the aspirin under lock & key and take away his car keys.

Maybe we can get the government to outlaw all those things in order to 'protect' Dad from making a decision the government doesn't want him to make (reducing their pool of taxpayers).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/lawsuit-filed-to-carry-we_n_110...

So who's right is more important? The right of anyone to carry a gun into an airport or the right of everyone else passing through that airport not to have a bunch of random civilian strangers walking around with guns?

I'm for guns, I think they're great, and fun as hell. I think they'd be fine to be treated like bowling balls. It's either home, or you bring it to the alley/range. You don't need a bowling ball in an airport and you sure as hell don't need a gun.

If you say you want to own a gun because it makes you feel good, fine. That's honest and reasonable and I agree with your constitutional right. If you say you want to carry it to fight crime or an impending invasion of non-descript fanatics, you're probably exactly the person who shouldn't get to have guns.

Scalia is NOT the "Chief" Justice, and is just ONE of the Nine top peeps in the Judicial Branch.

The old refrain of "they will find a way anyway" is a myth. A large percentage of suicides are opportunistic. It's not always that well planned and thought out. Someone is in a deep depression and the opportunity presents itself (a bridge without safeguards, a gun in the house) and they just go for it. People make unsuccessful attempts all the time and yet go on to get help and never try again.

Missing the point by a mile.

If you live with a person who has a hair trigger temper (and perhaps you are one of those, given the CAPS and 'shoelaces of death' comments...) it is only reasonable to protect the husband from himself or protect the family from him. Then the presence of guns in the home can become an issue. It is still not yet a government issue, as no crime has yet been comitted.

Here in Minnesota, periodically, a husband kills himself and his whole family. It happens all over the country. Neighbors always say, "They seemed like such a normal family."

Let's say dad has a .44 magnum and a semi-shotgun and several deer rifles, and beats his wife, or smokes meth, or just suffers from rageoholic bouts against himself or others. Scares the children. And the closet is full of guns. Get the picture?

And since you didn't seem to notice, I support the 2nd Amendment and own 4 guns myself. My children and wife were never scared, but there might be husband's out there that need to take that into consideration if they have personality issues. Unless they LIKE scaring their family.

The logic of gun control can best be understood by considering the analogy of the automobile. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. To drive a car, one must be trained, licensed, and have that license periodically renewed. And a car is designed solely as a means of transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are deliberately designed to kill people. It is not unreasonable to demand their regulation.

Guns are the second deadliest consumer product (after cars) on the market. By the end of the decade, firearms will likely supplant automobiles as the leading cause of product-related deaths throughout the United States. In 1990, American guns claimed an estimated 37,000 lives. There are no federal safety standards for the domestic manufacture of guns. There are no voluntary, industry-wide safety standards for the manufacture of guns.

Every two minutes, somebody somewhere in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes, somebody dies from a gunshot wound. Each gun injury involving hospitalization costs $33,159. A license to sell a gun costs 83 cents per month.

A gun rolls off the assembly line in America every 10 seconds. America imports another gun every 11 seconds. There are 246,984 gun dealers in the United States, but only 240 inspectors to keep an eye on them.

There is a popular myth that handgun ownership makes people safer. In reality, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that a handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner, a family member, or a friend than it is to kill an intruder. Over 75 percent of firearm deaths in a typical year involve handguns. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics Report says that nationally, there were 38,317 firearm deaths in 1992, but fewer than 300 justifiable homicides.

Another myth is that gun control laws don t make a difference. In reality, strict handgun regulation saves lives. In Washington, D.C., a tougher gun law actually reduced homicides by 25 percent through the mid-1980s. Again, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 47 lives were saved in Washington, D.C., in a typical year studied, because of that city's handgun ban.

Most other industrialized nations have virtual bans on handgun sales. In 1990, handguns were used in the homicides of 13 people in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 22 in Great Britain, and 68 in Canada, compared to 10,567 in the United States.

Is gun control constitutional? The Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Roger Tatarian, professor emeritus of journalism at California State University, Fresno, notes, however, that "things can change over time" with regards to the original intent of the founders.

The Third Amendment, for example, protects citizens against compulsory quartering of troops in private homes. Technology has also made obsolete the constitutional provision giving Congress the right to declare war. "No president who is warned that a hostile missile is en route...has time nowadays to ask Congress for a declaration of war before responding," states Tartarian. "He can commit the country to an all-out war simply by pressing a button."

Tartarian observes: "The Constitution certainly does not ban private ownership of weapons; that would have been unthinkable for a people still living in an often hostile natural environment and where many depended on hunting for a livelihood. But a tradition of owning arms is one thing and a constitutional guarantee is quite another. They ought not be confused

According to Tatarian: "The Second Amendment as it now exists evolved from a draft offered by James Madison on June 8, 1789. His intent very clearly was to tie the constitutional right to own arms to service in official militias regulated by state governments." Madison's original proposal reads:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The final version of the amendment which emerged from a House-Senate conference on September 25, 1789, also tied the constitutional right to bear arms to service in a militia, and stated that such militias are to be "well regulated":

"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."

Clearly, the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals outside the context of "a well regulated militia." A handgun control ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals in 1982, which issued the following statement: "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

The Supreme Court let the decision stand by refusing to hear the appeal of the handgun lobby. The Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Cruikshank that the Second Amendment doesn't mean anything except "(the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress."

This 1876 ruling established that states and localities are not prevented from enacting their own gun control laws--and they remain free to do so to this day. In 1980, the Supreme Court reconfirmed that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

Guns should be regulated like other consumer products. Handguns and assault rifles should be banned, and ammunition should be taxed heavily.

Shame they forgot to post info about all other forms of suicide - eg, auto "accidents", "accidental overdoses", alcholism, etc.

It's also a shame that they failed to mention that doctors kill more people than people with guns do.

We ALL know that guns don't kill, PEOPLE do! That is, IF you want to be honest.

"We ALL know that guns don't kill, PEOPLE do! That is, IF you want to be honest."

Just as we ALL know that cars don't kill! The operation of vehicles are regulated heavily, to the extent that I have to have my Doctor fill out a form every 6 months, stating that I'm capable of driving safely, because I admitted to the DMV that I take an anti-depressant drug.

Vasu Murti, you car analogy falls flat on a couple of levels.

"To drive a car, one must be trained, licensed, and have that license periodically renewed."
Yes, to take a car out onto public roads, one must be trained, licensed and have that license periodically renewed. However, one does not need to fulfill any of those requirements to simply OWN a car and keep it on their own property. I don't have a driver's license, and I can purchase and own as many cars as I want to, provided I don't drive them around in public.

Likewise, in order to carry a concealed firearm out into public, you must be trained, licensed and have that license renewed (except for that high-crime murder capital, Vermont, which has no restrictions). But having something in your own home is different from carrying it around—or driving it around—publicly.

"And a car is designed solely as a means of transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are deliberately designed to kill people."
Aside from my disagreement with you that guns are only "designed to kill people," there's another important difference between cars and firearms: Owning a firearm, whether you like it or not, is a constitutional right. Driving a car is merely a privilege. So it's bad comparison.

Guns are the second deadliest consumer product (after cars) on the market.
Wrong. First of all, automobiles kill twice as many people as firearms, so even if you were correct, it's not a close second. However, alcohol and tobacco—consumer products—kill more people every year than cars and guns combined.

"In reality, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that a handgun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill the owner, a family member, or a friend than it is to kill an intruder. "
This is funny—you're quoting a "statistic" from 1986 that has been thoroughly and completely debunked for it's shoddy methodology many times over—I bet you're not even familiar with the "study" or how the author arrived at those numbers.

I am not going to include a link because then my comment will get caught in moderation and not posted, but google "Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?" or "Kellerman debunked!" to see how absurd that "fact" is.

"Handguns and assault rifles should be banned, and ammunition should be taxed heavily."
You don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.

Vasu Murti and lawyerfan, right on! Guav, take your gun and eat it.

VASU MURTI:
A cell phone 'conversation' in a moving vehicle pretty much cancels out the driver's ability to maintain full control of the vehicle, therefore negating his/her ability to maintain the standard expected of a responsible, safe driver. Cell phone conversations invariably get the driver emotionally involved -- unlike CB usage, which serves an entirely different purpose. But a car can be turned into a lethal weapon more often than a responsible gun owner would even consider 'going for it'. In the near future the AAA will have statistics available about the carnage caused by sober, licensed drivers who cared more about that 'cell' than your life.
DUTCHMAN

Re the SUICIDE issue:
That's really pointless. People who are hell-bent on committing suicide will use any method available to them. Some people will drive their car into a vehicle full of innocents with no regard to those others. Anti-gunners might 'feel' better by OD'ing. I think just about anyone would be relieved if the 'suicide' shot himself/herself rather than crash a car (the most readily avaiable 'weapon') into an innocent family in order to achieve the most selfish act of cowardice. Suicide is an entirely different bag -- generally it is not a violent act against others; unless, of course you believe everything the "Seedy See" wants to shove at you in the name of Public Health Issues. The Seedy See should stick to its original mission: physical disease control, not political mind bending. Ciao!
DUTCHMAN

Nah! They have kids, THEN off themselves, leaving society to take care of the poor kids! Or, if the anti-choice (aka pro-life) types get their way, perhaps they off themselves because they will be forced to go thru with an unwanted pregnancy that they got because contraceptives and abortions were withheld by certain neighborhood pharmacies. Who knows why people want to end it all? There is a reason for every one who succeeds, and having a gun handy is only one of many means of doing the job. It is, however, perhaps a bit more efficient. Don't get me wrong: I support the decision, since the 2nd Amendment is one of the burdens we bear for having the ability to protect ourselves from an out-of-control government. If only we had an Amendment to keep government from telling us that we can't make the choice of whether to have a baby or not! If only we had an Amendment that would hold hospitals and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their mistakes, which kill far more people EVERY YEAR than guns ever did!