doG

Uhhh....no you don't. If you want to make the claim that high availability of handguns leads to high success rates in suicide then you only have to look for comparative data where there are high success rates of suicide. According to Wiki, admittedly a source I don't like, Japan is down at number 10 in the world but the U.S. is down at number 43. People in the U.S. that commit suicide with a firearm do so because of the convenience but the U.S. has the 3rd highest population in the world and still only comes in at 43 when ranked by numbers of successful suicides. Canada on the other hand has only 1/10th the U.S. population so you are not comparing apples with apples. BTW, why do you consistently ignore the success rate of hanging? From your source, the CDC: Considering that hanging took the lead are you going to advocate for tighter controls on ropes, belts, bedsheets, etc.? You also ignored this request from above:

I notice that some of the self-proclaimed scientists that drop by to present their allegedly new science have no better than a primary school level of spelling and grammar, even with tools to help them get it right. For me such inattention to detail, and the laziness to care about the quality of their presentation, undermines the credibility of their ideas from the get go. How do you feel about it?

I could add that tall buildings also increase the success rate of suicide jumpers....

That's a fine example of handpicking statistics in an attempt to support your point. The truth is that the U.S. has one of the highest gun ownership populations of the world and yet it is not even in the top 10 in the world in rates of suicide per capita. Again, are you also advocating tighter restrictions on rope?

That conclusion is unsupported. Japan has the second highest suicide rate in the world and yet she also sports some of the tightest handgun restrictions. All your proposal would achieve is having those that might opt for a handgun to opt for another method. As you mention, drugs have a low success rate but you ignore the fact that hanging, for instance, has a very high success rate. Would you advocate tight restrictions on rope, sheets, clothes or anything else someone could use to hang themselves just because of the success rates of those that hang themselves?

Mismatched or mixed RAM is RAM from different manufacturers. Sometimes RAM from different manufacturers does not run reliably together even if it has all of the same specifications.

God? What's that?

Did you add RAM in an empty slot in addition to your existing RAM? Sometimes mismatched RAM can cause peculiar errors. You might take out the new RAM and see if things go back the way they were.

Unimaginable? I imagine the Universe as much more vast than we could ever know. I can imagine an infinite meta-universe with infinitely many universes like ours, an extension of the scale of nature that we see within our own universe. What big guy?

I only mentioned it because of the problems they have with keeping the guns out of the hands of people they don't want to have guns. You can only acquire guns illegally and yet they're still turning up at schools And just how often have you tried to use a rifle in close quarters compared with a handgun? Aside from all of that though, one of the things I cherish most in the U.S. is my individual freedom and liberty. Why should I be punished by forfeiting any of my liberty in the least because of the actions of others? I've owned guns all of my life. Except when needed they are locked up and inaccessible to others. I've broken no laws with them and I use them responsibly when needed. Why should I suffer any consequences now when I've done nothing improper? Why would you think it should be OK for you and others to take any of my rights or liberties away from me? No snipes intended. Just pointing out a door that the OP himself opened.

Hang on now. In defense of his original post on hand guns and suicide the OP said: And then you want to say we're not allowed to counter that claim with examples of other legitimate uses? After he conceded the stats originally posted included all firearms, not just handguns, i.e.?

I think the law enforcement and military officers of the world would disagree with you that their guns are only useful for murder so the claim they are of "not much use for much else" since it is the key tool in their arsenal for deterrence. I think we probably agree that removing guns from mentally unstable people and those that are criminally inclined would decrease gun violence originating from those individuals. So we really just disagree on disarming responsible, law abiding individuals that would use them for protection and deterrence. IMO armed targets are victims of crime less often than unarmed targets. Feel free to show how disarming potential crime victims that are responsible, law abiding individuals will make them less susceptible to crime. I also just stumbled across an old news piece you might find interesting.

According to the statistics at suicide.org, firearms are the method used in 55% of suicides, not just handguns. Banning handguns alone would not stop those that use a shotgun. All suicides lumped together are an average 0f 10.8 per 100,000 population and firearm deaths are at a rate of 5.9 per 100,000. That's 0.006% of the population. IMO the other 99.994% should not give up their rights to keep and bear arms because of the 0.006%, especially when the 0.006% could just hang themselves anyway if guns were banned. Gun control, i.e. regulation, that makes guns inaccessible to those unqualified or too mentally unstable to bear arms is a reasonable restriction on the population.

Eventually population control will become necessary for survival if the population overwhelmes the resources to support it. Also, religion is not a good reason for anything. IMO religion is the source of many of the world's divisive problems.

Mason's proposed rights were post Constitutional Convention, during the period of ratification. Mason refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the Convention because he had called for a committee to draft a Bill of Rights at the Convention and it was voted down 10-0 with 1 absent. This record is in Volume 2 of Farrand's Records on page 588.

Specific details. People's rights came up and it is the reason several delegates left in protest but I didn't find any particular debate on a right for the people to keep and bear arms.

While off topic I believe this is relevant: With the never ending bait and total lack of support for any of his claims I believe we have a good example here. It would seem the totally fabricated, unsupportable, make believe science is an obvious disruption to on-topic discussion at a science forum. I would suggest feeding the troll no more!

I find no record of such debate in Farrand's Records. It is well known that a number of delegates left the convention in protest because it did not contain a Bill of Rights. Me tell you? It was you that made the statement, "This reinterpretation of the Constitution by a surprisingly activist Supreme Court achieves much the same result." I do not see the court's opinion as a reinterpretation and asked for you to support your statement. All of the rights of the people are derived from the Constitution, as are the rights of the States and the powers of Government.

You need to revisit your history. The Bill of Rights was not a topic at the Constitutional Convention which convened in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The proposed Bill of Rights was presented to Congress on June 8, 1789, two years later. Reinterpretation? Can you provide any evidence that the court has ever ruled that it meant anything else? The history behind the Bill of Rights is in post 7 above. Can you point out any errors of fact in that history? The 2nd Amendment means the same thing today as it did when it was written. It is not the court's job to change the meaning of law over time, only to decide what it means. If the meaning of law becomes outdated then it is the job of Congress to change it, not the court's.

Under Virginia Law, the context of this side discussion, it explicitly said that each free man was to be provided with a firelock and fixed bayonet, powder and balls. They were also required to keep a pound of powder and 4 pounds of balls in their dwelling. This militia was a descendant of the Crown's Militia responsible for protecting the colony prior to the Declaration of Independence.

Do you have links to any data that support your mathless proclamations?

I see his slippery slope argument as just an effort to justify his attempt to legislate regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. One bad argument on top of another. His points are valid that this ruling might be used to overturn other gun control legislation but it is not a valid "reason" for interpreting the 2nd Amendment in any way other than the way it was written. You have to read it and interpret it in context with the era in which it was written. The U.S. was a new nation that had emerged from the Revolutionary War less than 10 years prior. The nation had only a small army that mainly fought small battles with indians. The nation needed an armed citizenry in the event that the nation needed to defend itself. It needed to depend on the availability of a militia: Madison used the need of a militia as a justification to his peers in Congress that the nation needed the right of the people to keep and bear arms but also raised the right of the people to be conscientious objectors as well. His argument well balanced the needs of the new nation with those of it's people. He realized those people may have to rise up in defense of their nation from foreign invasion or invasion within and that the availability of the militia was in the people's interest. That was then and this is now. It would be difficult to proffer an argument today that the best security for our nation is a well regulated militia. We now have 5 branches of military departments for our common defense. Scalia sent a valid message to Congress that the 2nd Amendment may be outmoded and that it is their job to address it, not the court's. It would also be a strained interpretation to read the 2nd Amendment today as protecting a right of the people to keep and bear such arms as grenade launchers or briefcase nukes but the language of that era does not address the needs of today. It was clear that the dissenters saw this too and realized that handguns may need to be regulated like other arms. Their approach in using a fluid interpretation of the law is flawed but many of the points they raise are valid concerns. I think they should have joined Scalia in his message, it would have been a stronger message to Congress.

Breyer's whole dissent is based on the premise that the rights granted in he Bill of Rights are not absolute but subject to regulation. IMO he misses the whole rule of law thing entirely by failing to realize that it is his job to interpret the law "as written". No where is it implied that any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are to be regulated by government. All he does is try to justify government regulation of the 2nd Amendment. I really think we should expect a better argument from someone on the highest court.

I think the first thing I would ask of anyone commenting here is who has read the entirety of the ruling? There are a number of good points made by the court and the dissent. IMO fair commentary can only be made by those that have given both sides their attention. I must agree with the court for the reason given at the close of its opinion where Scalia writes: While acknowledging that the amendment could be outdated, he makes it clear that legislation via judicial fiat is not the role of the court. I could not agree more. The law cannot be a fluid document that means one thing today and something else tomorrow. The rule of law depends on the fact that the law says what it means and that it means what it says. Whenever the law does become obsolete it is the job of legislature to change the law, not the duty of the court to change its interpretation. We have separate branches of government in the judicial and legislative branches for a reason and neither should perform the duties of the other. The dissent makes clear its interpretation is grounded in reading the amendment in the context of the era in which it was written when Stevens writes: Then, having acknowledged the context of the era he advocates a modern day interpretation by writing: IMO, this is an affront to justice, a direct advocation of judicial fiat. Aside from these points it is also my opinion that the court did rule correctly on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as it exists in our Constitution today. It was one of 12 amendments proposed by Madison specifically for the purpose of amending the Constitution to grant rights to the people, not the states. In his opening to the House Madison stated: The people wanted rights that were not given them in the new constitution and one of the reasons was because they considered such rights a safeguard between themselves and the magistrate which represented the state. The Bill of Rights was not about states rights, it was about peoples rights. It was not about a state's right in regulating the militia but the people's right to be armed, at an advantage to the States. It is also helpful in discerning the structure of the 2nd Amendment in reading his original proposal to Congress where he stated: He made 3 statements. They are grammatically joined by semi-colons, not commas and as such are effectively 3 separate sentences in the context of grammar used in the era. He did advocate a right for all the people to keep and bear arms. He justified it with the claim that an armed militia was beneficial and he qualified that by advocating that military service should not be compelled. I could not see this as a requirement for participating in a militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms or Madison would have said that and I think the current ruling reflects that. The entirety of Madison's proposal to Congress and the debate in the House can be read in the Annals of Congress by going to the first session of the first Congress where he begins on page (image) 448. I think one should also note that the majority did acknowledge the trouble caused in modern society by this literal interpretation where Scalia wrote: It seems the majority does see a need for addressing handgun violence but simply felt that the Constitution currently prohibits the method chosen.

I agree with Paranoia, it is a well balanced post. I do have one small question. How do you get a 5-4 decision out of 7 justices