Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. ADVERTISEMENT
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
Unfortunately the gun grabbers are going to try for another AWB. This ruling doesn't strike that chance down... nor does it save our friends gun rights in MA or CA....etc.
Thanks for the permission to protect our families and fellow citizens. Give me a freaking break. All this does is set the precedent for some anti gun court down the road to rule differently. Whats scary is it was only a 5-4 opinion. Should have been 9-0 hands down. Or as someone said the other day to me its not that they support us having guns quite the opposite actually, its just that they aren't ready to demand that we give them up just yet. Any country that has 9 people that arent elected making up laws as they go based on their professional opinion doesnt hold much hope of lasting very long.
Quote from: Romak on June 26, 2008, 09:53 AM NHFT
Whats scary is it was only a 5-4 opinion. Should have been 9-0 hands down.
That's what I was thinking. It's spelled out very clearly in the constitution. ::)
First thing that occurred to me
This quote really pisses me off...
Justice Antonin Scalia said, the Constitution does not permit the absolute prohibition of handguns.
Did that dumb ass squirrel even read the Constitution?
When did, shall not infringe, turn into, can not absolutely prohibit?
And that, absolutely prohibit... that means yes prohibition is allowed but not absolute prohibition.
Which probably means, that security guard can have his pistol and screw everyone else.
Howz about impeaching the 4 dissenters of just finding a shaman and have them send them bad ju ju?
or ;D
Whats a ju ju? Knowing you it has something to do with scooby doo.
Quote from: Romak on June 26, 2008, 11:26 AM NHFT
Whats a ju ju? Knowing you it has something to do with scooby doo.
Isn't some kind of jelly bean they sell at movie theaters?
Quote from: dalebert on June 26, 2008, 11:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: Romak on June 26, 2008, 11:26 AM NHFT
Whats a ju ju? Knowing you it has something to do with scooby doo.
Isn't some kind of jelly bean they sell at movie theaters?
Ju Ju Bee?
5-4 scares the hell out of me.
Ju Ju Bee?
Ahhh thats it.
I'm holding my opinions until later this afternoon when you'll all be able to read them at Homeland Stupidity.
Quote from: 'error'I'm holding my opinions until later this afternoon when you'll all be able to read them at Homeland Stupidity.
I'm interested in checking that out. :) My blog is currently on hiatus while I build a new system for it.
the comments are amazing .... they seem worried to "let" people have too many guns or too many kinds ... and 5-4 ... so it may be possible for some people, some of the time, to have certain guns ... in that part of the empire?
bad ju ju is what you get when someone "smites" you.
I wonder what constitutes too many guns. I have a friend with over 500....is that too many??? His are really big and mostly black, so I guess to those with small testies that may be a bit frightening...Maybe I should talk to Grasshopper and get him to paint all mine pink so they arent as scary.
Yeah, the 5-4 is pretty scary.
What a bunch of fucking asshats.
>:(
"In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Stevens is a liar or a fool, there is plenty of evidence
that the framers wanted to limit the governments
"tools".
These were radicals who had just blown peoples heads off
for putting a tax on their breakfast drink.
His quote shows he believes that we are cattle to be
controlled by the tools of our betters.
The decision itself is what I expected.
Just a small step away from the status quo
while still leaving way to much open to government
interference.
OK, I've made my opinion (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2008/06/26/second-amendment-right-partially-upheld/) known.
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right ..... barely
Quote from: mackler on June 26, 2008, 02:25 PM NHFT
bad ju ju is what you get when someone "smites" you.
It's the effective ingredient in Homeopathic remedies.
The real victory was that it was affirmed as an individual right, like it is in the NH Constitution. That's huge.
Now we can remind our politicians to recall,
whenever they are considering legislation,
that we have the right to be armed. ;D
Quote from: 'erisian'The real victory was that it was affirmed as an individual right
When a man attacks you and you have to use lethal force to defend yourself, I don't declare it a "victory" if you overpower him. I consider it a shame that you were attacked in the first place. 200 years of common sense and command of the English language made it clear - it's an individual right.
Quote from: 'erisian'like it is in the NH Constitution. That's huge.
The New Hampshire Constitution is clear that, like the freedom to choose your own God, it's an individual right. That said, the New Hampshire government people don't allow felons, who deserve their own God, to carry guns, nor do the Federal people. Either (despite the affirmations of individual rights) they don't CARE what your rights are, or felons aren't "individuals". Just remember, blacks weren't "people" either, at some point in the history of the US. They were 3/5, if I've remembered the Constitution correctly...
Gun ownership wasn't affirmed today - government encroachment into rights was told what it has, is and will be doing violates the Constitution. What that means is that they've now been told by 5 more people that what they're doing is wrong.
I don't think for a second that this is a victory.
Our new 2nd Amendment:
^some
A well reulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed quite extensively, but not entirely forbidden.
Cool, this is just like Animal Farm.
I like how they ignored 'and bear' by saying carry could be restricted (ie prohibtied). I don't know if they called it restricted or regulated, but some evil legal word.
They could have just voided the whole thing saying none of the states are free anymore, so it doesn't apply.
They are the same dinks pimps and whores that gave us Kelo Decision in June '06 (channelled by Dawg R.I.P.). Probably same split with Roberts replacing O'Connor.
Animal Farm .... exactly
The amusing part of the 5-4 split, was that even the minority held that the 2nd is an individual right.
That's right: the vote was 9-0 that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. And yet somehow Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer found that the DC total ban didn't infringe that right. And Kennedy had to be persuaded to the majority by way of a milquetoast ruling.
Quote from: Pat K on June 26, 2008, 02:42 PM NHFT
"In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Stevens is a liar or a fool, there is plenty of evidence
that the framers wanted to limit the governments
"tools".
These were radicals who had just blown peoples heads off
for putting a tax on their breakfast drink.
His quote shows he believes that we are cattle to be
controlled by the tools of our betters.
The decision itself is what I expected.
Just a small step away from the status quo
while still leaving way to much open to government
interference.
This is all I've been able to talk about all day. While the mendacity of politicians can never be underestimated, this phrase is by far the wort case of outright lying I have ever encountered in over two decades of watching the slow, horrific, train wreck that is the inevitable implosion of our republic. A bald faced, unabashed, shameless and disgraceful LIE. The concept of intellectual dishonesty is in another universe, disgusted even to be associated with Breyer's statement and looking with wide-eyed hope to Brittney Spears for moral guidance. Stalin would blush. Goebbels wouldn't even be able to utter such a statement with a straight face, let alone commit it to posterity by actually writing it down. Even American public school graduates are shaking their heads in dismay over this obvious (even to them) denial of the fundamental character of the Constitution as a document intended to circumscribe the powers of the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was created expressly to limit the power of government to impinge on the natural rights of of human beings, which precede any government. Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, even arch Federalist Alexander Hamilton said as much, and the Founder's intent to make "a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons" was, and IS, absolutely clear. Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, Anti-federalist papers, even Paine's "Common Sense," etc., etc., etc...
Anyway, W is right. The Constitution is nothing but a God-damned piece of paper. If it was anything else, this case would have been dismissed in one sentence, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to grasp?"
Quote from: Pat K on June 26, 2008, 02:42 PM NHFT
"In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Stevens is a liar or a fool, there is plenty of evidence
that the framers wanted to limit the governments
"tools".
These were radicals who had just blown peoples heads off
for putting a tax on their breakfast drink.
His quote shows he believes that we are cattle to be
controlled by the tools of our betters.
The decision itself is what I expected.
Just a small step away from the status quo
while still leaving way to much open to government
interference.
The Preamble to the BoR is pretty comprehensive in the fact that the People weren't willing to just elect the next tyranny... without the BoR, the US Constitution would never had been affirmed.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 26, 2008, 11:00 PM NHFT
The amusing part of the 5-4 split, was that even the minority held that the 2nd is an individual right.
That's right: the vote was 9-0 that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. And yet somehow Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer found that the DC total ban didn't infringe that right. And Kennedy had to be persuaded to the majority by way of a milquetoast ruling.
The four most likely believe the 2nd to be an individual right, but the type of firearm to be regulated.
Quote from: Dylboz on June 27, 2008, 02:12 AM NHFT
Anyway, W is right. The Constitution is nothing but a God-damned piece of paper. If it was anything else, this case would have been dismissed in one sentence, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to grasp?"
One of the few honest things to come out of his mouth. I would find it ironic if a tyrant did a better job of convincing minarchists of the mystical nature of their beliefs than any anarchist was able to do.
This ruling has encouraged me to do a gun rights comic today. It's in the works.
They don't seem any more mystical than believing that everyone that is self-governed will act in an orderly manner... especially since orderly manner will be self-defined and not common.
Nor does it seem mystical in belief that a social animal will form imperfect common order...
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 27, 2008, 10:36 AM NHFT
They don't seem any more mystical than believing that everyone that is self-governed will act in an orderly manner...
I don't believe in some sort of utopia just by ending authoritarian government. I just think using violence to prevent violence is bass-ackwards. It's not that we won't have problems without an authoritarian government. It's that a stupid solution makes things worse than a smarter solution.
The general view is that government will somehow act in an orderly manner. Not true.
Quote from: 'John Edward Mercier'They don't seem any more mystical than believing that everyone that is self-governed will act in an orderly manner... especially since orderly manner will be self-defined and not common.
I'm going to have to ponder on those last few statements, and perhaps write something on it... somewhere.
I was raised as a "liberal" and once I came to see the goverment as violence, I because a voluntaryist and free marketteer. While I appreciate anyone who wants to advance liberty, I really REALLY struggle sometimes with people who come from the "conservative" side. I just see so much negativity in that world-view.
If I seriously believed that left to their own choices that people would be "bad", I'd not support liberty. If a free humanity would "destroy" itself as all the negativity surfaced, then I wouldn't really see anything wrong with that happening. I mean, if humanity isn't good, what's the point in preserving it? I think humanity is DAMN good, and that with the rare individual, people don't want to harm other people.
In Bizarro World, Gun Laws Work
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/06/27/in-bizarro-world-gun-laws-work/
Please, someone submit to Digg. I think this could potentially get a lot of buzz.
This is sort of bench mark, a sink-or-swim time for the comic. I'm going to stop posting a notice here, and elsewhere, every time I post a new comic. This comic is just taking a lot of my time and I have to find ways to make it more efficient so I'm looking at ways to draw it faster and reduce all the related tedium. I don't mind if others choose to do so. In fact, I encourage it. I also strongly encourage people to take advantage of the subscription page where you can choose the RSS feed or the email list. I try very hard not to abuse the list. You should get an average of two emails a week about new strips and sometimes it has a little extra inside information about what's going on.
I wonder if any cops in MANCHESTER, NH read this Supreme Court decision today? There were a couple articles published in the Union Leader. I too find it interesting that it was 5-4, pretty scary that 4 interpreted things different than most who can understand english would. How they can manufacture a different meaning than the words 'shal not infringe" state with a straight face is amazing. As an aside, I'm not real sure I like that appointed for life thing either for Supreme Court Justices. Maybe we should draw names out of a hat or something? >:D
So let's say the vote had gone the other way? How long before things got interesting and what if any "rights" would a State or local mucipality have to allow or disallow guns? Would the Feds use this as an opportunity to grab states rights and restrict guns even more..."legally".
What are the likely legal battles that would have come up if this had gone the other way, anyone?
Okay, this doesn't make sense:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
VS.
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
WTF?
Quote from: dalebert on June 27, 2008, 09:13 AM NHFTI would find it ironic if a tyrant did a better job of convincing minarchists of the mystical nature of their beliefs than any anarchist was able to do.
I wonder if that is how it actually happens .... you see how bad the government thugs really are ... so you turn away from using government power to decide things.
I'm really disappointed that they didn't strike down IL and WI's ban on concealed (and open) carry, I guess I still don't have a right to defend myself when I'm on public property.
Lemme say this.. I think I speak legalese... That said, IANAL and all standard disclaimers apply. I have read the opinions of the court, and it really is perhaps one of the neatest decisions if you like that kind of thing. For the most part, if you can ignore the way law is cited, it's pretty easy to read. They broke the entire 2nd amendment apart and defined everything in a legal, common and historical context.
Quote from: 'Lex Berezhny'Okay, this doesn't make sense:
QuoteSecond Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
QuoteWe also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said...
The reason you're confused is because every Supreme Court ruling contains the assenting and dissenting opinions. The 5 people people who said 'Individual right' explained their opinions in the first quote. The opinion of the court was, just as the first amendment covers the internet, the second amendment covers modern arms.
The 4 people who DISAGREED said "There is already legal precedent for limiting weapons, this was established in Miller...".
Put bluntly, Heller's official findings put doubt on the ability to REGULATE the TYPE of weapon. The term "arm" was defined in Heller as:
Quote from: 'Heller Decision'The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that this ruling ALSO indirectly created case law that would provide a SERIOUS challenge to things like assault weapons bans. The Supreme Court, for reasons of law and image, can't decide on issues that are NOT before the bench. They can't say "You can't regulate the kind of guns that are allowed" except in to rule that the case before them way unfair. They've got an amazing ability to leave basis for other challenges though.
The court's own footnotes say "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". Weed through the specifics of this and they're clear. This case didn't touch if a felon can carry, but we HAVE ruled that bans on specific types of weapons do violate the 2nd amendment.
Okay, lawyer mode OFF!
The case also says "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" and that's a loss, IMO.
What they call commonsense restirctions on the first amendment are those which cause direct harm. The most used example is screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Those words cause a riot, so of course you've violated people for doing such. However, claiming that restricting one's right to carry falls under a commonsense regulation makes no sense. The equivalent of yelling fire in a threatre with speech is like waving a firearm at a crowd to cause a panic. This is assault already, that's the commonsense regulation. To restrict ones abilty to 'keep and bear' is outright Unconstitutional, but they'll just ignore that.
QuoteWhat are the likely legal battles that would have come up if this had gone the other way, anyone?
I'm qualified on that last part, at least.
The first thing that pops into my head is a direct and unavoidable conflict with the NH
State Constitution [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Which, interestingly, was added on December 1, 1982.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on June 27, 2008, 01:50 PM NHFT
Okay, this doesn't make sense:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.
VS.
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
WTF?
Common use at the time... meaning currently. Only black powder weapons would have been common in the 18th century.
Quote from: dalebert on June 27, 2008, 10:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 27, 2008, 10:36 AM NHFT
They don't seem any more mystical than believing that everyone that is self-governed will act in an orderly manner...
I don't believe in some sort of utopia just by ending authoritarian government. I just think using violence to prevent violence is bass-ackwards. It's not that we won't have problems without an authoritarian government. It's that a stupid solution makes things worse than a smarter solution.
Make it more simple.
Your sitting on a bank fishing, a bear is on the opposite bank also fishing. Your aware of each other, but not violent toward one another. Tomorrow the same thing happens... but this time the bear comes and fishes on your side.
The next day the bear returns to the other side of the river to fish.
Is this possible? Of course. But you're also aware of another plausible outcome.
Some are thinking this second outcome would not happen often amongst humans because of human's moral perception... but there is no common moral perception, a majority one, but not a common one. Its this majority one that becomes 'law'...
Think of simple things... why do we drive on the right, instead of the left? Was it the decision of a few people elected through majority perception, or majority perception itself...
I think that there is substantial grounds, starting with the "common use... for lawful purposes" part of the ruling, to challenge the 1934 Firearms act that banned full autos for civilian purposes. Frankly, there are more full-auto so-called "black rifles" in common, lawful use by the cops than there are almost any other particular weapon in circulation, and I would say that their use is lawful, given their possession by the officers of the state. The understanding of the militia as the whole body of able persons in the state who are required to supply their own weapons means they should be able to obtain whatever weapons are commonly employed to those defensive purposes at the time, and right now that means an AK-47 or an M4 carbine. If Iraqis can have a full auto AK, than why can't I?
I am troubled by this "unusual and dangerous" thing. The Miller decision was wrong in that sawed off shotguns were actually quite common in use during the first World War as a device to clear trenches. Drop in, pop off a shell, wheel about and pop off the next. Then you buddies come over the top safely. The wide are of effectiveness combined with the shortened barrel's maneuverability were ideal to the purpose, and in fact they were "in common use at the time." Hell, in Chicago in the 30's, the Thompson was in common use. Are we talking common use by civilians or police? And what to make of the fact that it is regulation that determines what is available on the market, so that a weapon that would be popular and common were it legal to obtain is actually unavailable for that purpose? I think that if the cops use these weapons against criminals, and the 2nd here defines an individual right to a weapon in the home for self-defense, then we should get whatever they get, right?
Anyway, the whole "pass on the right" thing came from Roman roads. It was merely custom, one way or the other, until the Roman conquered places and standardized them by decree. The English, once a Roman dominion adopted the left side or sheer perversity, and they spread it around to their colonies. The Japanese adopted it to be more like the British. I think that at least for the design and handling of cars, that left drive is wrong. I have driven both and unless you're left handed, it is difficult to manage the dash controls and shifter.
Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 28, 2008, 07:23 AM NHFT
Some are thinking this second outcome would not happen often amongst humans because of human's moral perception... but there is no common moral perception, a majority one, but not a common one. Its this majority one that becomes 'law'...
You can acknowledge that people do bad things, like form majorities to get what they want, without saying that it's ok. I don't think rape is more evil than gang rape. I think gang rape is worse. I can acknowledge that it happens without supporting it. We can and should attack the notion of forming laws based on majority opinion because it's irrational. Majorities have fueled all the worst abuses throughout history- wars, the holocaust, racism, etc. At some point, if we want to evolve into a more civilized people, we need to learn this and abandon the notion that consensus leads to more civilized behavior. Collectivism is evil. It leads individuals to try to form a sort of group will that doesn't really exist. There are only individuals pursuing self interest and when you let them vote for some absurd right to use violence, they vote in their self interest; not for what's right, and we've perpetuated this ridiculous notion that it's ok, that what the majority has agreed upon is what's right. If it's not against the law, it's ok. If it is against the law, it's wrong. The whole process absolves everyone involved of any sense of responsibility for their actions. Politicians are just carrying out the will of the voters. Soldiers are just following orders. Voters don't consider themselves responsible for the actions of the politicians they voted for because they were just voting for the lesser evil. The whole system is built on nonsense that's been proven wrong by history time and time again. It leads to abuse and misery and more violence. That's the mysticism of which I speak. We understandably desire an objective morality but it doesn't exist. In using a fallacy to try to create some objective sense of morality, we've created a solution that's worse than the problems we were trying to address.
Look. The really hard problems are not going to have any one simple solution. Millions of people are praying for sick people, a substantial majority, and they're wasting their time. Monopoly government is just as silly. The hard truth we ultimately have to deal with is that we have to find real world solutions. I'm not saying that sick people will suddenly be healed if we abandon prayer. I'm just saying that we need to abandon the nonsense that we've been indoctrinated to believe against all logic and start the hard work necessary to explore viable solutions.
Quote from: dalebert on June 28, 2008, 10:34 AM NHFT
Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.
I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!
Quote from: Pat McCotter on June 28, 2008, 02:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on June 28, 2008, 10:34 AM NHFT
Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.
I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!
I wonder how serious the debate actually got over which side to drive on, does it matter?
I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.
Quote from: Giggan on June 28, 2008, 02:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat McCotter on June 28, 2008, 02:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: dalebert on June 28, 2008, 10:34 AM NHFT
Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.
I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!
I wonder how serious the debate actually got over which side to drive on, does it matter?
I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.
Yes it would. Can you imagine every appliance maker with their own proprietary electrical plug?
Quote from: Giggan on June 28, 2008, 02:53 PM NHFT
I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.
Of course. That's what tends to happen when the gooberment doesn't interfere. Beta died off pretty quickly, right? Cascading Style Sheets have developed a standard across the industry. It doesn't always happen, but to the extent that it really needs to, it tends to. The point is we don't need an aggressive and monopolistic gooberment to develop such useful standards.
Back to the ruling, there's a new t-shirt out:
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff233/lanternlad/hellerkitty372.jpg)
Ordering info:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=16969
Something tells me Kate's gonna be wearing one of those in no time.
Quote from: dalebert on June 28, 2008, 10:34 AM NHFT
Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.
There is no monopoly on roads (highways) in NH... if there were only one entity would have ownership... not the case.
Some roads are even under individual control. In fact, in several of the smaller municipalities every year an article is entered into the town meetings for the town to acquire roads that the individual wishes to 'gift' to them. Until recently with the high cost of roads, the towns use to just accept them willy-nilly... as this provided more access.
Even recently read where the NH DOT (State) was more than willing to cede ownership of a section to a local town... the town balked.
Quote from: dalebert on June 28, 2008, 03:44 PM NHFT
Quote from: Giggan on June 28, 2008, 02:53 PM NHFT
I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.
Of course. That's what tends to happen when the gooberment doesn't interfere. Beta died off pretty quickly, right? Cascading Style Sheets have developed a standard across the industry. It doesn't always happen, but to the extent that it really needs to, it tends to. The point is we don't need an aggressive and monopolistic gooberment to develop such useful standards.
The government doesn't develop any standards.
For example, this year the elected officials could determine that we all drive on the left-side of the road... if society deems it unimportant a factor, we continue to drive on the left-side of the road... if not we elect new officials and possibly go back to driving on the right.
The argument of standards does not hold factual in all cases. Most of the world is on a metric system... by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s. But any signs of such in your area... because around here nothing changed.
The free market always determines the standards... just not moment to moment.
It takes a long term to turn the herd...
Quote from: 'John Edward Mercier'by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s.
That must be why my Chevy's oil drain bolt is in milimeters and my Honda's is in inches. :)
Quote from: Kevin Dean on June 29, 2008, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: 'John Edward Mercier'by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s.
That must be why my Chevy's oil drain bolt is in milimeters and my Honda's is in inches. :)
What kind of Chevy do you have?
Quote from: Kevin Dean on June 29, 2008, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: 'John Edward Mercier'by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s.
That must be why my Chevy's oil drain bolt is in milimeters and my Honda's is in inches. :)
My Coca-Cola comes in 2-liter bottles.
And to make this vaguely relevant, I own a 9mm handgun. :)
Soft drinks in the US are funny that way. They come in 2 litres, and 1 litre plastic bottles... then 12 ounce cans. I don't know if they change the format for foreign countries... but I know they change the formulation in some.
Quote from: 'John Edward Mercier'What kind of Chevy do you have?
2003 Malibu.
Quote from: 'error'My Coca-Cola comes in 2-liter bottles. And to make this vaguely relevant, I own a 9mm handgun.
I'm a child of the internet. :) I've been using computers my entire life (literaly, plaid Arthur games on the Macs in Kindergarten) and been getting my porn online since before the average person could tell you what AOL was, let alone that it sucked.
That said, I think in English, but prefer metric most of the time. I have several 20 gram silver pieces. I'm a fan of the 9mm myself and like thinking of temperature as "percent of boiling". :)
Quote from: Kevin Dean on June 29, 2008, 02:51 PM NHFT
I'm a child of the internet. :) I've been using computers my entire life (literaly, plaid Arthur games on the Macs in Kindergarten) and been getting my porn online since before the average person could tell you what AOL was, let alone that it sucked.
Q-Link sucks. Why some nutjobs decided to reverse engineer it and bring it back, I have no clue.