Our View
Gun decision will not fix the real problem
"Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority last week in a landmark decision striking down Chicago's strict firearm ban.
Indeed, self defense is about as basic a right as we have in this country, enshrined by the founders in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
The court's decision is a victory for law-abiding citizens in places like Chicago, where even the strictest gun laws have failed to curb a mounting toll of gun violence.
Ten people were shot to death and 44 others injured by gunfire in a single weekend last month in Chicago. That's more than a person per hour hit by a bullet.
The court's decision is the correct one. Although it will do nothing to solve Chicago's mounting murder rate, and may even aggravate the problem, law-abiding citizens in fear cannot be denied the means to protect themselves.
But the Supreme Court decision gives rise to three observations:
First, unlike Maine, most people in Chicago do not hunt, have no history of owning guns and probably never thought they would need one.
That people in Chicago are fearful and believe they need a weapon to defend themselves speaks volumes about the breakdown of civil society there.
Second, the rapid increase in gun ownership suggests we are approaching a frightening tipping point.
In a society where more and more people are armed, do more and more people feel the need to own and even carry a weapon?
Twenty years ago, minor traffic arguments didn't result in people threatening other people with guns. Today, even in Maine, such threats are regularly reported to police departments.
As more people feel threatened by gun owners, who wants to be the defenseless person without one?
While welcome news for the firearms industry and the National Rifle Association, the proliferation of guns is clearly not the road to a more civil society. If it were, Dodge City would have been the safest place in the old West.
Finally, is there any end to the progression of weapons we need to defend ourselves?
In his remarkable book, "Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun," Geoffrey Canada writes of growing up in the Bronx and seeing, over a period of years, the rules of engagement steadily change.
As the title implies, disputes were once settled with fists. Over time, he saw the Bronx change from a place of relatively harmless fistfights to frequently lethal shootings.
As a young man, he too eventually carried a gun. He talks of how carrying that weapon changed him from a kid who crossed the street to avoid a fight to a young man out looking for one.
Today, we have frightened people buying assault rifles and military sniper rifles to defend themselves. Where does that end? With a rocket propelled grenade launcher in every closet?
Clearly, we all have a right to own and carry guns. But it is very bad news for our society when we do so out of fear for our lives.
editorialboard@sunjournal.com
Advertisement
Displaying comments, from newest to oldest
verified The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
I agree with the writer. It seems to me that Chicago, Skokie, IL Washington D.C. and New York City have been powerless to protect it's citizens from armed thugs. Laws we have on the books are useless, so Education is a way of helping. As to individuals who have served, thanks to you for your service to our country. I too served, although it has nothing to do with the issues at hand. Our forefathers made those laws which we call the Bill of Rights. They were designed to prevent our government from enslaving us, as they say, an armed person is a citizen, and unarmed citizen is a subject. I have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but you would never know it until my life is threatened.
verified Most of this discussion is poppycock
"Indeed, self defense is about as basic a right as we have in this country, enshrined by the founders in the Second Amendment to the Constitution." No it isn't. During the ratifying conventions many of these arguments were brought up to support the right to bear arms. All the amendments that used these arguments including self-defense were defeated. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to the attempt by the British to confiscate colonial arms in Boston and Lexington and Concord. Nothing else.
But self-defense is an inherent human right. To exercise that right one must have access to the means to protect one self. The right to bear arms is now definitively an individual right. That the two should be merged is all to the good. The observations of this editorial are meaningless
been there
done that, Went up Pamola through the Knife Edge and came down Saddle, and quite honestly I rode down most of the way. But it nice that you have rationalized not serving your country, and not impressing on you kids to serve. Better let someone else do the dirty work, you'll just sit around and bitch!
verified Gun Control
Yes we all served, but gun ownership is like owning a car. If you don't know how to use the equipment, you really shouldn't be playing with it. Guns are not toys nor are they Phallis symbals, they are tools that are not very forgiving. If you want to impress someone, try talking them out of it and not using your gun to do so. There is a different world today, filled with people who have no respect for anything or anyone. As for defencing yourself, well do what has to be done, but remember if you make the wrong decision, you will spend a long time in prison, where you can think about the de4cision you made that took a life.
verified The voice of reason....
10-4
Guns
In spite of all the arguments, when seconds count the cops are minutes away.
Good Lord...
You guys need to go to the Goose, have a PBR and talk face to face. Clearly, your differences won't be solved here.
Hashing out your family and personal issues here on a public forum makes me embarassed for you.
I come from a family of people who served, and before
finishing high school I went in to the recruiter to take a physical to see if I could join. Having a hearing problem from since my youth, there was doubt, but military service was instilled in my family, all three of my brothers served as did my sister. But I tried, and went in to the recruiter instead of waiting to be drafted. Yes, they did that in the sixties. Turns out I tried, little consulation, but I tried. Your father-in-law served. Your brother-in-law served. Did you? Your kids? Or is all this talk just blather on your part, or just shame since you do NOT come from a culture of service? I know, you went to the Post Office and signed the card, how brave of you!
MIlitary service was also a
MIlitary service was also a part of my background, my father, 2 grandfathers and many uncles all served. The didference was I was not eleigible until 1979 and at that time it was a VOLUNTEER service - no draft, no requirement to serve and as someon who had the ability and intelligence to go to college, that option seemed a better career choice. Keep in mind, the military was not about serving to fight a war at that point, it was simply a career option for those who chose. As to prior comments about my fitness, priceless coming from you but here's what i sugggest to see who;s in shape - in mid August I will climb Mount Katahdin, Maine;s highest peak, and one of the toughest in the east. I welcome you, Veritas, vooisine ans lil and anyone else to join me - simply pay your own way and lets have agreat day enjoying th best of Maine - no political debate allowed. You up for the challange?
Quite a comment coming from
Quite a comment coming from another who never served a day, in fact never worked a day but instead found a way for taxpayers to pay for his continued existence....
verified Hey Rob.. Got that Grand to back up your Claim...
Or are you letting your Alligator Mouth overload your Hummingbird Azz.....
Let's see what yer made of there, Guy.
WHO is your comment directed
WHO is your comment directed at? Have you been living in a cave ?? Surely you have not read a newspaper or watched TV ! Home invasions are on the rise,simple crime is up ! Armed robberies up ! And people wonder why peopleare carring ??? This is not an isolated case this is every where in Maine and the Nation !!! It isnt about killing anyone its about being prepared in case something happens!
verified wadly (not verified)
From whom are you protecting your family? Is your neighborhood rife with pistol packing mamas and papas? Do you live next to a shooting range? Just remember, as you go around shooting people in self-defense. You gotta prove it.
Why is it they allow you to
Why is it they allow you to post your so off base ! Im sure the only army you served was the salvation army and you most likely stole from the collection pot @ pecks !
I miss Pecks....
Man, I loved that store. Those were the days, just like when my great uncle owned Bonneau's with that grocery delivery system they had in the front of the store. I know...off topic rant, right? So what..I'll keep on going...... And I went to Borques market near Holy Family last Wednesday for the first time in 20 years. The Italian sandwiches only went up a quarter, with tax, over the last 30 years to a whopping buck twenty five. Munching on one of them brought back some good memories.
verified this is just an off hand
this is just an off hand question. why does it say (not verified) next to some posts? is that because the poster is posting from a mobile device? i'm just curious
verified Rob - Your stereotyping of cops and sailors
doesn't serve the boards that well.
Should I stereotype all number-crunchers as short, rotund, power-crazed, ineffectual little desk-jockeys???
verified Quite a comment from booby,
who never served, was always too fat to serve, and never even got his sons to serve. But he's right up there, willing to scarifice some other person's son or daughter, just not his own.
staff To the three of you -- knock
To the three of you -- knock it off.
funny how the warnng never
funny how the warnng never comes until someone on this side of the aisle responds....nice way to be fair, did somepne perhaps cry again to the LSJ or are they simply a paid flunky...suddenly the editorials that make no sense become clearer, tron must have helped write them.
Please enlighten us about
Please enlighten us about your militaryc areer tron, I can take a hit from vertrash, but from you, sorry, its just a pile of crap...
Veritas also made ocmments
Veritas also made ocmments about serving in the Navy, but was caught in several comments where his answers clearly did not match tohse of a true navy man, thus since, anything veritas says is questionable to me..not sure he could have ever been in the navy or been a cop given his stance here...its all a facade from someone who doesn't live in our community but thinks he knows whats best for us...
verified Rob - The only way you could tell a Navy-man from any other ...
Is the much greater depth you would feel him work at.
But I have $1,000 to back up my military/law enforcement credentials if you have $1,000 to refute them.
Game on??
Veritas,
You said in a previous post that you served in combat for your country, but yet it seems you do not support the 2nd ammendment. That doesn't seem right. If anyone should understand an individuals right to defend himself it would be you.
verified So Jim -
Tell us what 'Supporting the 2nd Amendment' means....
Veritas,
You were issued a weapon to defend your life during combat, wouldn't you support that every law abiding citizen also be able to defend himself?
I know I don't live in a combat zone but I'm not so naive as to think think I live in paradise or that the police will always protect me. I read the
newspaper, way to many robberies, assaults and burglaries. Supporting the 2nd ammendment means supporting my decision to "keep and bear arms". The supreme court has ruled that it is an individual right. If you want that right taken away from me than you do not support the 2nd
ammendment.
verified 2nd Amendment - Prefatory Clause
So Jim, in reading Justice Scalia's decision rendered in DC v. Heller, what is the purpose and effect of the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment?
Veritas.
You're dancing around the original question. I didn't want to turn this into an in-depth evaluation of the second ammendment. I just wanted to hear what YOUR VIEW is. In YOUR opinion do you agree I have the right under the second ammendment to arm myself or would you rather I have that right taken away? Are you trying to impress me with how smart you are, because it isn't working. Entertain me with a straight answer.
verified You didn't want an "In-depth evaluation, Jim?"
And why's that??
Have you ever read any Supreme Court Decision? You have no idea why Courts rule as they do? I already told you part of Scalia's finding and that I agreed with it - but evidently it made no impact on you. Perhaps I didn't dumb it down enough for you.
I was smart enough to take advantage of my Veterans' Benefits - pretty much the same ones offered to you, and go on to college while I was working as a cop and take those courses (Constitutional Law) which helped me in my career and in putting cases together in Court so they were pretty much "Defense-Lawyer Proof." What you did with what you earned as a Veteran is your own damn business, but you don't need to insult me for it.
Go back and reread what I wrote, and this time exercise some reading comprehension to find out what I believe.
Now as far as my view - that may be something entirely different. It's like folks having children - just because they can, it doesn't mean that they should.
In my twenty years as a cop, I've seen many, many more negative outcomes resulting from people owning guns than positive outcomes.
Veritas, see below, responded to wrong post.
Veritas, see below, responded to wrong post.
Veteran?
Never once did I mention I was a veteran. I'm just a simple factory worker that was asking a simple question. You accuse me of
lacking comprehension of what I read and yet you thought I was a veteran. I understood your posts fully, no need to "dumb it down".
If you felt insulted by my last post it's probably because I felt you were talking down to me. I have met a few police officers with a superiorty
complex and that is exactly how you come across.
verified Jim, My Apologies
Somewhere in the fray I thought I was talking again to "ajg1959" after he stated he would rather talk to a 'rotting worm.' A 'Senior Moment' - I'm afraid.
There's no reason why you, as a factory worker who's interested in 'Gun Rights,' can't stay on top of the nuts and bolts of Court Decisions through both the internet, National Rifleman, etc. There's a lot of gray areas out there, and as much as some folks would like it to be 'black and white' - it's not that simple.
- I was a member of the NRA for many years, even set up a booth at a gun show back in Illinois.. but thought they (NRA) got a bit radical at one point in my life. Frankly though, some of the folks I began to see at some of the shows began to concern me as much as some of the idiots on the street. I enjoyed collecting guns, was a decent gunsmith in the muzzleloading field, was an Illinois State Certified Police Firearms Instructor, and consistantly shot "Master Class" on the combat course with my service revolver. Guns were a part of my life that I enjoyed, but there is where it ended. For many it doesn't. There was one fella that we wound up taking over 50,000 rounds of .223, 9mm and 7.65 Nato out of his basement, along with about thirty rifles, semi-autos, and pistols - and he was fruiter than hell... Waiting for the revolution - and that was 25 years ago. ATF came in and grabbed some with explosives, grenades, and M-16's. Whatever's legal - there are folks who want to go past the envelope - just to have it. There's a reason they call some "Gun Nuts" - and they earned it the old fashioned way....honestly.
I've known literally hundreds of folks who simply have their guns for hunting, target shooting, defense, or collecting - and it's no big deal. It's as natural to them as a good, smooth, trigger squeeze. Then you've got the hot-dogs, braggards, and cold-dead hands machoistas (yes, I've taken guns away from them, too) who make the entire gun-owning community look bad.
The Right to Arms may be an individual right, but it's not an absolute right. Government may define restrictions. Cooperation between those of opposing viewpoints rather than conflict is to everyone's benefit.
Essential, I came across as an a**hole because I thought I was still dealing with an a**hole. I obviously wasn't. Thanks for jerking a knot through my butt and setting me straight.
Ron
Apology accepted.
Please accept mine also.
An unarmed population
gives the police more control. That is exactly what the writers of the 2nd amendment did not want.
verified Were there 'Police' when the Constitution was Written???
Better check your history.
verified OK, Jim, you're on a good start
If you're going to refer to Supreme Court Decison, then name which one as I did, and we'll go on from there.
Supreme court.
Heller vs Washinton DC and Mcdonald vs Chicago.
verified Jim - Give Heller a thorough read...
You may find that while Scalia et al found the "Right to Bear Arms" an individual Right (which I do agree with) - his argument completely removed it's relation with, through three avenues, the prefatory phrase of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," - Now that was some pretty fancy legal footwork. Had a 'Liberal" Judge carved verbage out of the Constitution that didn't suit him in writing a decision, Fox News Comentators would be on him like stink on shidt with accusations of "Activist Court, etc, etc, etc....)
So is that really 'Supporting" the 2nd Amendment as written? Or as Justice Scalia imagines it?
The Court waited for 'Chicago" to make it a 14th Amendment issue which actually tied a much neater knot.
verified And what did Heller decide?
And what did Heller decide?
Okay, ajg1959
:)
Veritas
have a perfectly good explaination about how private gun ownership protects our freedom of speech, and in fact it protects all of our freedoms.
But I will not discuss anything with you. I have seen your rants, and your left wing hatred of everything our country stands for.
So, marry your same sex partner, smoke all the weed you want, wait for the next government handout.....but please dont ever....ever, address me again.
I'd rather reply to a rotting worm than to acknowledge you.
verified I already answered you once....
You don't have to stutter.
I will answer this one question for you Veritas
I also served from 1978 to 1982. Army, 82nd Airborne
verified Good for you.
USN 1964-73; USNR '79-93 Vietnam '66-'69 Ret E-8 over 22.
Now you can tell me about supporting my Country, Captain America.
Wow, troll has scruples.
Enlighten me tron, If it's not the American taxpayer supporting you then who in their right mind would? If you choose not to answer than it proves that my previous statement was indeed accurate.
verified considering your facts are inaccurate
I'll easily forget it. I've never taken one red cent from nor would I want to. Unlike you, I have scruples.
Scruples? :) Ya right!
Scruples: conscience, principles, ethics, integrity, sense of right and wrong, morality....all joking aside, Tron.... You have NO scruples. :)
What Tron?
You just said the other day that you live off of a government check....and do think it is for retirement either!!
Tell the truth
And another thing tron,
It,s bozos like you who are a threat to this country. Not the law-abiding WORKING citizen who believes he has the right to protect his gift of life. It,s hard working Americans like me that support your loser ass and don't you forget it.
Frightened,
I don't think the majority of us gun owners have firearms because we are" frightened".
It's like having auto insurance, I don't have insurance because I'm afraid to get in an accident,
I'm just being prepared should the need arise. And as for BIG BAD BRAVE TRON, The only thing he is afraid of is being told that from now on, he'll have to actually work for a living.
verified You have auto inurance because the Law requires it...
You have auto inurance because the Law requires it...
veritas
So what's your point? I also have fire and theft insurance which the law doesn't require.
verified You misrepresented the point.
You stated you had it in case the need arose.
May be - but you're legally mandated to have it.
And if you have a mortgage, your lender requires you to have insurance on your property.
Now - do you have any other insurance by 'free choice' - other than your spouse getting on your butt about life insurance???
Sorry,
I should have specified I have renters insurance which covers fire and theft which is indeed free choice.
verified In that case you're 'Spot On'
Many renters ignore that, and find themselves SOL.....
Great idea
But if you wait, you might be dead
One correction
While I agree with the spirit of the debate, I must disagree with the reasoning of several of the posters. The 2nd amendment was not meant as something the federal government allowed us, nor did the founding fathers give us this right. The 2nd, as well as the original 10, were those rights afforded us as free men by the mere virtue of being free men. They are rights we have, not rights we are given.
verified firearms are used for various
firearms are used for various purposes, some legitimate and some illlegal. A lot of people keep them for self-protection and that is a valid and legal reason. The supreme court has ruled that police have no obligation to appear every time a person calls and asks for help. they must make a reasonable attempt to answer calls as time allows but they are to enforce laws and investigate criminal activity. If two calls come in at the same time and only one can be answered then they are not responsible if something (e.g.) rape, murder, robbery occur at the other call. That is when you pull out your gun and warn the miserable dirtbag to back off, if that fails and you think your life is in imminent danger, shoot 'em.
Funny how the same person who
Funny how the same person who come son here and bashes the police as often as she does would somehow think that owning guns for self defense or personal enjoyment would be wrong...damn that constitution for giving us these rights and damne that liberal leaning Supreme Court for not taking away those fredoms...sadly, some poeple have nothing to protect in their lives whether it be personal posessions or loved ones, thuse they see no need to bear arms for self defense...
Umm Well ya
The reason for carrying a firearm is for personal protection, because you are in fear of your life. But thats not bad news its very good news, now crime rates can drop!! this person that wrote this article is clearly not educated. That is the scary thing!!
guns
take away law abiding citizens guns and only the non abiding will survive
Blinded by left wing stupidity
Tron doesnt realize that if the USA did not extend the right to gun ownership to it's citizens, that he wouldnt have the right to speak out with such utter ignorance. Without private ownership of guns he would have lost that right a long time ago.
So, Tron, excercise your to be ignorant, but please respect the law abiding gun owning folks that help you keep that right.
verified Guns have nothing to do with the 'Right to Speak Out'
Would ajg1959 please explain to us exactly how the right to gun ownership confers the right to speak out??
Possession of a firearm merely confers the ability to project force, and therefore - coercion; i.e. - "Do it my way, or I will shoot you." One may just as easily stifle speech with a firearm as they may 'protect' it.
Bad argument blinded by "Right Wing" stupidity, if by anything.
So what does protect our 'Free Speech' in America? In the United States of America, the final protection rests with the power and prestige of the Supreme Court as the supreme arbiter of the Constitution of the United States of America - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137. This formed the basis for 'Judicial Review' under Article III of the Constitution.
'Free Speech' - is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech...."
And who enforces the Constitution? The Supreme Court.
Our Bill of Rights also applies to the States. But it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment prohibition against abridging freedom of speech and of the press were also extended to the States by the 14th Amendment. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
So love your guns all you want; cradle them, caress them, hold them near and dear to your heart, and draw whatever mystic aphrodisiacal powers you may from them.
But they are not the protectors of free speech.
Veritas?
I have a perfectly good explaination about how private gun ownership protects our freedom of speech, and in fact it protects all of our freedoms.
But I will not discuss anything with you. I have seen your rants, and your left wing hatred of everything our country stands for.
So, marry your same sex partner, smoke all the weed you want, wait for the next government handout.....but please dont ever....ever, address me again.
I'd rather reply to a rotting worm than to ackknowledge you.
verified I quote Constitutional Law - and You Won't Respond.
All you can do is refer to rotting worms - that shows us exactly where your playing field is.
I've been in combat and shot at for the U.S.A. Your level of service and sacrifice, Oh Arbiter of What our Country Stands for??
Gonna tell us at the point of a gun to make it real clear??
A right given to us by the
A right given to us by the founding Fathers to protect our Land and Homes LAW ABIDDING CITIZENS who choose to ARM themselves do so knowing they would use a FIREARM as a LAST RESORT ! And then only after careful thought ! Go almost anywhere in the world where there is GUN control you will see the oppressed ! As for the 1st to post pay no attention he does that to get your attention HE is nothing more than a GNAT !
sorry
look not lokk
Pot calling the kettle black?
" Look at the lunatics who frequent this forum"
Lokk at who posted this, " Look at the lunatics who frequent this forum".
'nuff said
So basically what you're saying is that because I own gcivility?
So basically what you're saying is that because I own guns and choose to protect my family and myself that I'm less than civil? Somehow I believe you miss the point and are the one who is less than civil. How dare You look down your nose at law abiding citizens such as I for wanting to protect my family! If you believe your police will be there the instant you realize a threat, you will be dead wrong.
- Agree Agree (1)
verified the rhetoric for the lunatic right
inflames passions to a height of paranoia. Look at the lunatics who frequent this forum, most are cowards and fanatics who wouldn't think one second in using a gun to settle perceived slights. Civilize society has steadily go downhill with the increase of blather for the right wing wackos. We need to counter these thugs before we become a nation of armed people.
- Disagree Disagree (1)
Armed thug?
tron, are you not one of these armed thugs?
- Disagree Disagree (1)
verified 'you said this', 'you said
'you said this', 'you said that', 'tell us the truth'-GOD! this sounds like elementary school!?! why all the pop shots? can't you make this a civil forum rather than trash? can't anyone follow the rules of sj commenting 'guide'?
ALL of you are just ridiculous!
was asking
queen, i pretty sure tron owns a gun. so if he is referring to gun owners as "armed thugs", i was asking he was one of them.
verified i was commenting on all the
i was commenting on all the comments that i've ready under this post. may not be directed so much towards you. people on sj just don't know how to be civil.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Most Popular Today
verified on "J. Ziehm: LePage forgetting his childhood"
Tina
Why is it the states fault that you are a single parent?
verified on "Turning back the clock on social care"
Dan....
You hit the nail on the head.
- Disagree Disagree (1)
verified on "Site plan application approved for Lamb Block in Livermore Falls"
Site plan application approved for Lamb Block in Livermore Falls
I am So Very Happy to hear this Pasted and someone is Finally Getting Livermore Falls back on track to a New Re-Birth!
Just what Livermore Falls Needs! New Life Breathed into it!
Good Luck and Best Wishes to all involved in the Project!
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
Login or create an account here.
Our policy prohibits comments that are:
- Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
- Excessively foul and/or vulgar
- Inappropriately sexual
- Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
- Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
- Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.