Live Free Or Die ... Silly?

February 21, 2008 4:30 PM

Members of the Montana legislature (out of session) appear to be attempting to force the Supreme Court's hand in a fairly landmark gun-control case, Heller v. DC. Through an extra-session resolution, they are invoking contract law, by stating that the contract between the Montana people, through our Constitution, and the Federal Government will be ... ? ... if the Heller case is decided 'incorrectly'. What is at issue is one of the SCOTUS' seminal opportunities to rule concerning collective rights versus individual rights for firearm possession.

These are the resolution signers. Many are up for re-election this year. Please notice that Rick Jore is the highest ranking elected member of the Constitution party, and Resolution signatory.

Brad Johnson, the Secretary of State for Montana (also running for re-election) penned an op-ed in the Washington Times that can only be described as 'confusing' regarding it's intent. Is he claiming that Montana will succeed if not satisfied? Your guess is probably as good as ours.

The Montana blogs respond:
Intelligent Discontent
Left In The West
Left In the West

posted by Wulfgar! (97 comments total)

... ? ...
posted by Avenger at 4:35 PM on February 21

Good for them!
I still don't understand the collectivist argument, "the people" in the first, fourth, fifth amendments means individuals.
But somehow the meaning changes in the Second.
posted by CCK at 4:39 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]

They want to secede? Let them. Blockade the state and wait until February.
posted by eriko at 4:40 PM on February 21

Great idea, Eriko. I've wanted to leave the US for a long time for a state that recognizes and protects individual rights. Montana seems like the perfect place!
posted by CCK at 4:43 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.
posted by athenian at 4:48 PM on February 21 [3 favorites]

It has been held to be a collective right. SCOTUS will not affirm it as a constitutional individual right, because you'll be seeing lawsuits for full-auto weapons in about 3 seconds. Think about the school shootings we'll have then.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:49 PM on February 21

Is he claiming that Montana will succeed if not satisfied?

It will probably succeed, unlike your attempt at spelling "secede." </grammarnazi>
posted by JDHarper at 4:50 PM on February 21

<>grammarnazi >

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by dersins at 4:56 PM on February 21

</grammarnazi>

I think you meant </spellingnazi>. </pedant>
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:58 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

Man I would love to get a little secession action going.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 4:58 PM on February 21

It has been held to be a collective right. SCOTUS will not affirm it as a constitutional individual right, because you'll be seeing lawsuits for full-auto weapons in about 3 seconds. Think about the school shootings we'll have then.

Some courts have held it to be a collective right, and some courts have held it to be an individual right. Certainly the ban on weapons on campus has been a great success in eliminating school shootings.
posted by gyc at 4:59 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

Ironmouth: "It has been held to be a collective right. SCOTUS will not affirm it as a constitutional individual right, because you'll be seeing lawsuits for full-auto weapons in about 3 seconds. Think about the school shootings we'll have then."

That's the most retarded thing I've heard all day. If they do rule that it's an individual right, it doesn't invalidate all limitations on it, it just means that limitations have to be held to a stricter standard than limits on non-fundamental rights.

You may want to start your homework here. The government can still limit fundamental constitutional rights as long as the law passes the strict scrutiny test, which has three prongs: compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored, and least restrictive means.

It's not hard to argue that at least in some circumstances, a law against the civilian ownership of some weapons would pass these tests. It's really no different or more complicated than the old 'fire in a crowded theater' example.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:07 PM on February 21 [2 favorites]

I think you meant .

I hate spellingnazis.
posted by jonmc at 5:11 PM on February 21

I've always wanted to move to Montana, it's had this indescribable allure to me. That allure just turned into full on hardcore lust.

Respect for the citizen, guns, whiskey, and bison ranches. Why live anywhere else?
posted by Science! at 5:14 PM on February 21

The sad thing here is that - considering that SCOTUS has never given us a true interpretation of the second amendment - an interpretation in Heller is pretty necessary. But if this thing out of Montana accomplishes anything at all (which seems highly unlikely) then it will be to make sure that the court decides Heller in as narrow, specific, and non-interpretive way as is possible. I mean, how many places in the U.S. are more dissimilar from D.C. than Montana? Who wants to try to create firearms law which serves both places equally?

If the court can find some way to allow it to be a state's decision, I think that might be ideal, but I don't know how they'd do that. In any case, I'm excited to see how this one turns out.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:30 PM on February 21

Heh. They said "preexisting right".
posted by dilettanti at 5:34 PM on February 21

The Second Amendment means the people have the right to bear any weapon that could have been designed and built in September 1789.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Miniguns? RPGs? Nukes?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:37 PM on February 21

The Second Amendment means the people have the right to bear any weapon that could have been designed and built in September 1789.

Paging Dr. Wendell..
posted by blenderfish at 5:42 PM on February 21

considering that SCOTUS has never given us a true interpretation of the second amendment - an interpretation in Heller is pretty necessary.

Truer words were ne'er spoke ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:42 PM on February 21

If Montana became an independent country, would libertarians flock there and try to create an anti-tax utopia? If so, I'm all for this.
posted by parmanparman at 5:44 PM on February 21

The problem is this; if Montana declares itself exempt from Federal ruling by breach of contract, we aren't seceding, nor are we independent. And kindly remember how the last bid for state independence came out. Montana has nukes, but the Feds have the trigger codes.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:47 PM on February 21

Torture foreigners?

Montana is with you, America

Mess up the economy?

Montana will be by your side, America.

Employ warrentless wiretaps on its own citizens?

God bless America.

Make a decision that might slightly effect a persons ability to be armed at all times?

WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS INFRINGEMENT ON OUR FREEDOM! SOVEREIGNTY NOW! HOW COULD YOU BETRAY YOUR VALUES LIKE THAT, 'MERICA?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:49 PM on February 21 [9 favorites]

The Second Amendment means the people have the right to bear any weapon that could have been designed and built in September 1789.


This is comically absurd. Are there technology restricitons on the other amendments as well?
posted by Snyder at 5:51 PM on February 21 [4 favorites]

I believe the line is supposed to be drawn between arms and ordnance. I believe the difference between the two is that ordnance requires more than one person to operate. It's either that and/or explosives involved in projectiles. The Minigun can require two people to effectively transport because of the weight, and the other two obviously have explosives so I think they'd both be covered.
posted by leviathan3k at 5:51 PM on February 21

Watch out Montana. Look what happened to Idaho when it got all uppity about the Federal Government. Tsk.
posted by Atreides at 5:53 PM on February 21

"...you'll be seeing lawsuits for full-auto weapons in about 3 seconds. Think about the school shootings we'll have then."

Right, right. The reason we don't have people firing off howitzers in schools is because it's illegal.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:54 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

Look what happened to Idaho when it got all uppity about the Federal Government.

Look what happened in Idaho when the Feds got all uppity about an armed guy who was minding his own business.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:04 PM on February 21

This is comically absurd. Are there technology restricitons on the other amendments as well?

The framers intended the first amendment to apply to town criers and political pamphlets, but not email spam.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:05 PM on February 21

"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do succeed. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk."
posted by kirkaracha at 6:27 PM on February 21

I won't even wade in here, but almost everyone who has said "clearly the Second Amendment means this" need to do some research. Second Amendment scholarship is pretty daunting and there are lots of strands, although I think most constitutional scholars do see it as an individual right, including many on the "left," like Laurence Tribe. I think SCOTUS will decide that it is an individual right in Heller, although who knows.
posted by Falconetti at 6:36 PM on February 21

I vote silly.

It might be worth pointing out that the question before the court is this:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

First, the way the question is framed implies that the court thinks that individuals not affiliated with a state-regulated militia do have some right to keep guns in their homes, and that right derives from the Second Amendment.

Secondly, in Montana's contract argument, they suggest that a "collective rights" ruling somehow abrogates the right of individuals to bear arms in the State constitution, which is nonsense. It would just mean there is no constitutional right to bear arms, but the absence of a constitutional right does not automatically render something illegal.

What is more irritating is this right-wing notion that somehow the states are doing the federal government a favor - that montana and the U.S. government struck a bargain. There was no bargain. You accept the U.S. Constitution and ratify a state constitution in accordance with it, or you can piss off. That's not striking a bargain.

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution establishes the supreme court as the supreme arbiter of constitutional law. In other words the Supreme court take precedence over montana's stupid state contract law and even the federal common law of contracts.

Here's the translation: if liberals dominate the Supreme Court and decide that the Second Amendment refers only to state-regulated militias, then tough shit. That's the law. Then it's up to the Supreme court to decide whether a federal law that, say, bans individual gun use take precedence over Montana state law guaranteeing the right. And guess what, Montana will lose, because gun ownership is interstate commerce and the Constitution says that's the exclusive province of the federal government.

"It has been held to be a collective right. SCOTUS will not affirm it as a constitutional individual right, because you'll be seeing lawsuits for full-auto weapons in about 3 seconds. Think about the school shootings we'll have then."

Others have already said it better, but here's a different approach. Maybe we should figure out why people are shooting up their schools, and not their shopping malls or churches, and why they are choosing to shoot up their schools instead of just dropping out of them.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:37 PM on February 21 [2 favorites]

One thing I've never really been able to understand is the coexistence in one and the same person of both: a.) a belief in the relaxation or outright elimination on drug bans, and b.) a tightening or complete imposition of gun bans. Both are considered dangerous by the majority of US citizens, and yet most if not all people I know of a left-leaning bent are in favor of decriminalization of most if not all drugs, believing that this will lead to a lessening of social ills. By contrast, they are in favor of banning most if not all guns on the same grounds.

I understand that guns and drugs are fundamentally different things, but both can lead to significant pain and suffering if misused, and not just on the part of the user. Both are by and large used for recreation (at least by civilians). However, when the talk is of drugs, somehow the American public is responsible enough to use them in a mature, reasoned fashion if only they would be permitted to by the law. When we turn to guns, however, people are suddenly only a short step away from a school slaughter, restrained only by restrictive laws.

Really, I think it's a matter of perceptions. The now defunct assault weapons ban was based largely on the form of certain weapons than any real matter of function. Guns (especially certain kinds of guns) have been demonized. It's painful to see the looks I get any time I demonstrate even a slightly above average knowledge of firearms (and by above average I mean knowing more than that they take "bullets" and can occasionally make a loud noise), as if by simply knowing something I am merely a stone's throw away from a killing spree. Gun enthusiasts are only a marginal step above child molesters on the social acceptability scale in every urban environment I've lived in.

Oh, and you already can own a minigun.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:41 PM on February 21

Oh, and you already can own a minigun.

As long as it was manufactured before 1986
posted by Tenuki at 6:48 PM on February 21

The framers intended the first amendment to apply to town criers and political pamphlets, but not email spam.

Or email in general, presumably? Or message boards, or other forms of computer-based communication? Or telephones, or radio and TV?

Your stance is nonsensical.
posted by Snyder at 6:52 PM on February 21

gun ownership is interstate commerce

..huh? How exactly is gun ownership specifically interstate commerce? What happens when a gun is constructed, delivered, and owned entirely inside one state?

You accept the U.S. Constitution and ratify a state constitution in accordance with it, or you can piss off.

I believe that second part roughly translates to "secession"
posted by leviathan3k at 6:53 PM on February 21

@adamdschneider

As one of the left-leaning liberals you (otherwise) describe, I am in complete agreement with your post. I am very much for drug legalization and against unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership. I would *vastly* prefer training in mature, reasoned gun ownership, coupled with the freedom to actually have them.
posted by leviathan3k at 6:57 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

How exactly is gun ownership specifically interstate commerce?

Since Gonzales v. Raich, everything is interstate commerce.
posted by yath at 7:12 PM on February 21

Maybe we should figure out why people are shooting up their schools, and not their shopping malls or churches

They aren't?
posted by oaf at 7:20 PM on February 21

One thing I've never really been able to understand is the coexistence in one and the same person of both: a.) a belief in the relaxation or outright elimination on drug bans, and b.) a tightening or complete imposition of gun bans.

When was the last time someone walked into a lecture hall and killed six people with a joint, you dumbass?
posted by dersins at 7:22 PM on February 21 [6 favorites]

"Dumbass" was uncalled for. My apologies.
posted by dersins at 7:25 PM on February 21

You may want to start your homework here.

No. All Con Law homework begins with Irwin Motherfucking Chemerinsky.
posted by psmith at 7:27 PM on February 21

"This is comically absurd. Are there technology restricitons on the other amendments as well?"

Been keeping up with the current court and the 4th?

"Really, I think it's a matter of perceptions."

Very few people shoot others with heroin. It's not hard to see a much more legitimate argument against firearms from a classically liberal position.

And I say this while generally supporting gun ownership, though I tend to think of the second amendment as anachronistic and the question much better answered at a local level, even if that means a gun ban.
posted by klangklangston at 7:33 PM on February 21

The Second Amendment means the people have the right to bear any weapon that could have been designed and built in September 1789.

The framers intended the first amendment to apply to town criers and political pamphlets, but not email spam.

Sorry, no offense, but these are probably among the most ridiculous comments I've read on Metafilter. And I support gun distribution and ownership restrictions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:36 PM on February 21

No one shoots others with heroin, and very few have been killed by someone with a joint, but how many criminals are really deterred by laws? Unless you're talking about actually physically removing every gun on the planet, criminals are going to get their hands on a gun if they want one, and I should maintain the right to posess one as a law abiding citizen to protect myself if I feel it's necessary.
posted by jbelshaw at 7:42 PM on February 21

Montana is very pretty. Good burgers, too.
posted by Roman Graves at 7:49 PM on February 21

Been keeping up with the current court and the 4th?

Can you be more specific?
posted by Snyder at 7:50 PM on February 21

I think this move by Montana's democratic governor to reject "real ID" is more interesting...
posted by 445supermag at 7:54 PM on February 21

"No one shoots others with heroin, and very few have been killed by someone with a joint, but how many criminals are really deterred by laws? Unless you're talking about actually physically removing every gun on the planet, criminals are going to get their hands on a gun if they want one, and I should maintain the right to posess one as a law abiding citizen to protect myself if I feel it's necessary."

This is a circular fallacy that really bugs me—Yes, tautologically, criminals are those who don't respect laws. Zing. Gotcha.

But, despite what wikipedia looks like, this is a question for specific localities to determine in their own cost/benefit analysis. In some places, extensive gun ownership may not correlate in a rise in public costs, leaving aside the tangled bullshit of whether guns protect more lives than they end. In other places, it may make more sense to restrict access. And I think it's easy to make the argument that DC is a much better place to restrict access than Montana.
posted by klangklangston at 7:58 PM on February 21

adamschneider One thing I've never really been able to understand is the coexistence in one and the same person of both: a.) a belief in the relaxation or outright elimination on drug bans, and b.) a tightening or complete imposition of gun bans.

Drugs and guns are both dangerous things. It is possible to harm oneself or others, accidentally or on purpose, with either one. Now, obviously, the means and likelihood of harming someone with a drug or a gun are different, and the degree of harm that can be done and the difficulty of recovering from that harm is different, but the justification for regulating either one is the same: danger ought to be minimized down to some acceptable level. Clearly we a have right to consent to danger, but any person put in danger ought to voluntarily and knowledgably consent to it. You can't, unaware and uninformed, consent to anything.

Also, regulation itself always poses dangers which include: (1) forbidden fruit effect, where the transgressive element of possession, and being dangerous beyond any real need to be dangerous, are romanticized; (2) policy inertia, where political committment to a certain course of action (such as illegality of marijuana, or legality of shotguns) ensures it continues long past any rational need for it; (3) the risk of depriving someone who has a real need for the thing (more so with guns, but also applies to medical drugs); (4) corruption in the regulatory process; (5) corruption in enforcement; (6) an economic advantage in criminal circumvention of regulation. So regulation must be carefully balanced at a level where the dangers posed by regulation are less than the danger posed by the thing itself.

So the rational response to drugs and guns derives from the same reasoning. But because the dangers are different, the regulations need to be different. Further, they differ within the categories - not all drugs pose the same level of danger, obviously; and while, broadly speaking, all guns are more dangerous than all recreational drugs, not all guns are equally dangerous.

Gun enthusiasts are only a marginal step above child molesters on the social acceptability scale in every urban environment I've lived in.

In other words, about the same level as heavy drug users?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:03 PM on February 21 [1 favorite]

But you're not going to restrict the people who should be restricted by passing laws. It's illogical. And i'd argue that a gun for a law abiding citizen is needed far more in D.C. than Montana.
posted by jbelshaw at 8:03 PM on February 21

"Can you be more specific?"

Aside from my memory of the heat vision decision, it had been my impression that the Supreme Court had declined to hear cases challenging the government's expanded wiretap or Internet-riffling powers. I tend to believe that they will gladly extend the government's ability to search with new technologies.
posted by klangklangston at 8:16 PM on February 21

jbelshaw: Unless you're talking about actually physically removing every gun on the planet, criminals are going to get their hands on a gun if they want one

Ordinarily the argument against widespread gun ownership is about the number of people who would otherwise not be criminals, who end up making a stupid decision on the spur of the moment. Most gun fatalities are within the family, after all. These aren't bank robbers/muggers/other-convenent-criminal-boogeymen who use guns as the tool of their trade, they're civilians who have a gun for protection, and then one day do something stupid.

Of course, I'm all in favour of American libertarians owning guns.
posted by pompomtom at 8:19 PM on February 21

I'm still not convinced that gun bans do what they are ostensibly intended to do, which is reduce crime, and if they don't do that then they don't belong, period.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:23 PM on February 21

pompomtom: and factor out the suicides that inflate that statistic often cited and what are the real numbers?
posted by jbelshaw at 8:23 PM on February 21

Pastabagel has it right. A "collective right" interpretation wouldn't invalidate the Montana constitutional provision. It would just mean, presumably, that the federal statute restricting gun ownership is not inconsistent with the US constitution. It would then take a federal statute restricting gun ownership in Montana to limit the protections of the Montana constitution. Federal statutes limit state power all the time. Con law 101: federal law wins. Always.

But then... that suggests one reason why viewing the Compact as an enforceable contract is ludicrous. Traditional contract law holds that illusory promises are unenforceable. When the agreement has a provision in it that allows one side arbitrarily to change the terms of the deal, it isn't a contract. The Supremacy clause essentially means that the states can't contract with the federal government in a traditional sense (even ignoring the problem of who might enforce such a contract). Of course, there's also want of consideration, lack of capacity or competence to contract, an incidental beneficiary problem, frustration of purpose, impracticability, unconscionability....
posted by dilettanti at 8:30 PM on February 21

When was the last time someone walked into a lecture hall and killed six people with a joint, you dumbass?

it was 1976 - i was two rows away and just caught a whiff, and i'm still brain damaged

i never knew someone could giggle themselves to death
posted by pyramid termite at 8:32 PM on February 21

And guess what, Montana will lose, because gun ownership is interstate commerce and the Constitution says that's the exclusive province of the federal government.

no, we all will lose, because any attempt to actually ban guns in this country will result in mass rebellion

and it won't be just in montana
posted by pyramid termite at 8:37 PM on February 21

Ordinarily the argument against widespread gun ownership is about the number of people who would otherwise not be criminals, who end up making a stupid decision on the spur of the moment. Most gun fatalities are within the family, after all. These aren't bank robbers/muggers/other-convenent-criminal-boogeymen who use guns as the tool of their trade, they're civilians who have a gun for protection, and then one day do something stupid.

And there's the classic example of the five-year-old who takes daddy's gun to play cowboy. Regulators must think of the children, as well as think of everybody else. Many of these problems come from poor gun storage regulation, rather than gun possession regulation. I'd argue that most such matters (proper storage, psychological fitness) come under proper licensing and training.

Speaking for myself (socially libertarian, economically socialist) I have no major problem with sensible people owning guns for sensible reasons, such that the danger is no greater than, say, driving cars around or owning steak knives. I have a similar attitude to drugs. But if my choices are between (a) any random idiot being allowed to have any kind of gun for any random stupid reason (or no reason at all), or (b) no-one except serving members of the police and military having them, and then only while on duty in uniform, and anyone else with one getting immediately stopped and questioned (definitely not shot on sight!), I'd take the second option.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:51 PM on February 21

jbelshaw:

I have no dog in this particular fight - as I said, I'm happy with Americans having guns if they want them. That aside, the first set of stats to hand say that in 2001 the US had 3.98 gun homicides (per 100,000 pop'n), 5.92 suicides and 0.36 other deaths, while Australia (which I raise as an example of a country in which I would be unhappy with a liberalisation of gun laws) had 0.24/1.34/0.10 respectively. I presume the Australian figures for suicides by other means compensate for this difference, unless Americans are just more depressed or something.

Now, that said, given your attack on the methodology of stats that hadn't even been mentioned, it strikes me that you're arguing from conclusion, backwards, and I expect you'll object to these statistics - so I'm off to the pub.
posted by pompomtom at 9:30 PM on February 21

[T]he way the question is framed implies that the court thinks that individuals not affiliated with a state-regulated militia do have some right to keep guns in their homes, and that right derives from the Second Amendment.

I honestly can't see this any other way. The right described is not for a state-regulated militia, but for the people in general. It literally says "the people" right in the text.
posted by leviathan3k at 9:43 PM on February 21

"When was the last time someone walked into a lecture hall and killed six people with a joint, you dumbass?"

When was the last time someone killed six people because of a video game, you dumbass?

Before we start talking about changing the status quo in favor of the fed curtailing rights, let's take a long hard look at where that road can to lead. It ain't like there aren't already jackasses like Thompson pushing the issue.

Man, loads of people just bitching about pistol totin' cops beating the crap out of people, violating rights, all sorts of nastiness, but oh yeah, take our guns away so we don't hurt each other no more, sir. Who the hell y'all think is going to get the order to go pry them off people? Think guns are just going to disappear because a law is passed?
*sigh*
Can't say I can muster much sympathy for the Montana boatrockers either though. We can't all live like we have nothing but grass and sky in the background of our targets.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:58 PM on February 21

Aside from my memory of the heat vision decision, it had been my impression that the Supreme Court had declined to hear cases challenging the government's expanded wiretap or Internet-riffling powers. I tend to believe that they will gladly extend the government's ability to search with new technologies.

I was thinking more along the lines of citizen utilized technology, (for example, lining your home with a hypothetical material that blocked the heat sensor couldn't be prohibited,) rather then state utilized tech, but I take your point. As to the court declining to hear cases, well, that's something that could go either way, (depending on lower courts decisions,) and something I'm not overly familiar with, especially seeing as there are around 8,000 cases in the docket every year (at least, last I checked.)

In any case, the concept that the Bill of Rights only applies to technologies that could be developed at the time of writing is fucking ridiculous on it's face, regardless of stretches of legal logic that legislators or Courts might apply, as i'm sure you'll agree.
posted by Snyder at 11:37 PM on February 21

I think it's interesting that no-one even mentions amending the constitution to remove or soften the right. I know that there's no realistic political prospect of it happening, but even so. Other countries change their constitutions pretty regularly - America adds (14th amendment, etc), but doesn't ever seem to take away. I guess if your founding myth is of the rightness of the constitution and the wisdom of the founders, it makes it hard to change things that the passage of time has made problematic.
posted by athenian at 12:21 AM on February 22

A liberal can't consistently interpret the bill of rights without the belief that an individual can own nearly any type of firearm imaginable. What allows the other amendments to be expanded to levels unimaginable by the founders while the second is constrained to a incredibly narrow and implausible definition? It's like watching the right fall in love with the free exercise clause and throw out the establishment clause.

I believe this expansion of individual rights is almost always a good thing, in the cases of the first and fourth and fifth, but I can't argue that we should ignore the second just because it might save some lives, in the same way I'm unwilling to argue that the fourth should be relaxed because that might save some lives (in the case of the Protect America Act).

It might be time for an amendment that modified the second to make it more reasonable given the circumstances we now live in, but until then it's a part of the greatest document imaginable, and the other amendments will be well served by protection of the second.
posted by null terminated at 12:38 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

@athenian

You're forgetting about the 21st amendment, which removed the 18th amendment (Prohibition).

I agree though... If a rule in the Constitution is truly a problem, there *is* a process for change. It's not impossible, as the numerous amendments attest to. I don't agree that the second amendment's downsides are as bad as its benefits, but that *should* be the avenue for changing a bad law.
posted by leviathan3k at 12:41 AM on February 22

null terminated It might be time for an amendment that modified the second to make it more reasonable given the circumstances we now live in, but until then it's a part of the greatest document imaginable, and the other amendments will be well served by protection of the second.

This attitude (even if it's conscious hyperbole for you) prevents that solution. Until Americans realize that the Constitution exists for the USA, rather than the USA existing for the Constitution, it will continue to do so.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:24 AM on February 22

Con law 101: federal law wins. Always.

I think the "in Pursuance [of the Constitution]" bit may still be construed to limit which federal laws trump state laws. There's another part of the Constitution which was originally supposed to make redundantly clear that some hypothetical laws which would be constitutional at a state level would nevertheless not be allowed among the strictly enumerated powers allowed to the Federal government.

Of course, this is just nitpicking today, as we now understand those strictly enumerated powers to include "anything that might have even an indirect effect on interstate commerce or general welfare", and we now understand the Tenth Amendment to mean "hey, look behind you! [runs off]".
posted by roystgnr at 6:32 AM on February 22

Ah yes, don't mess with an individual American's rights, I mean those are completely inalienable, that is unless that American lives in DC, where we simply can't be permitted to govern ourselves. Yes, Montanans certainly know what is best for people living thousands of miles away in an urban setting where there are actually people of other races and even immigrants!
posted by Pollomacho at 6:38 AM on February 22

Gun enthusiasts are only a marginal step above child molesters on the social acceptability scale in every urban environment I've lived in.

Well, that's probably because in an urban area, there's not much reason to own a gun except to shoot someone or threaten to do so. Things are different in the county, of course. Hunting is fine by me, and if you keep livestock, you'll want something to chase off the coyotes.

So, hunting rifles, sure. Fully automatic weapons, handguns...why?
posted by echo target at 7:06 AM on February 22

roystgnr: I think the "in Pursuance [of the Constitution]" bit may still be construed to limit which federal laws trump state laws.

Oh, sure. Federal laws can be struck down for conflicting with the federal Constitution. But the 10th Amendment, by its own terms, reserves to the states only those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. If Congress acts within its Constitutionally granted powers - including those explicit and implied in the Necessary and Proper clause, the Commerce clause, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, etc. - then it trumps state law, even state constitutions. But that hardly renders the 10th Amendment meaningless. There are, in practice, Constitutional limits to federal power. The Tenth Amendment has even been cited before in striking down a gun-restriction law. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (reading the Necessary and Proper clause narrowly so as not to render the Tenth Amendment otiose). The Tenth Amendment ensures that federal laws cannot require the states to enforce them, and reserves, among others, the police power to the several states8212;to the extent that it does not conflict with the exercise of federal powers. See Justice Brandeis' opinion in Hamilton v. Kentucky
Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156 (1937).
posted by dilettanti at 7:48 AM on February 22

Argh... the "8212;" crap was supposed to be an em-dash. Stupid filters.
posted by dilettanti at 7:50 AM on February 22

Well, that's probably because in an urban area, there's not much reason to own a gun except to shoot someone or threaten to do so.

Yes, it's a well-reasoned critique on the part of urban dwellers on the necessity of certain tools. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that most of these people have never fired a gun in their lives or even seen one except on TV or internet. Maybe you're different, but the folks I know look down on it no matter where the guns are actually located.

There is really no reason to own a fully automatic weapon other than that you like the sound and feel of it. There seems to be a belief among non-gun owners that a fully automatic weapon (machine gun or submachine gun) constitutes some kind of man-portable weapon of mass destruction. Generally speaking, however, you can do more damage with aimed shots. They are, in my opinion, a waste of perfectly good ammo. In some military contexts they have utility. However, I do not think people should be banned from owning them just because I don't think they're a reasonable purchase. To my knowledge, firearms are the only pieces of personal property that are widely subjected to the "do you need it" standard. No one asks if you need that SUV. Yes, I think the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. In any case, I am not arguing for a repeal of the automatic weapons ban. I realize this is pretty much a lost cause, even if I see it as a frivolous issue, and even thought he number of murders committed with such weapons are laughably small.

I support handgun ownership. Yes, I believe the risks are outweighed by the danger inherent in abrogating the fundamental right of self-defense. If firearms are more of a danger to their owner than anyone else, I doubt very much whether this danger increases significantly as the size of the weapon decreases. Perhaps I am wrong. Are there statistics? When has "this thing is a danger to you" been seen as a good reason to restrict possession of an item by freethinking folk? This is, as I see it, the tie-in between gun and drugs laws.

Ohio recently became a "shall issue" concealed carry state. It did not become a sudden orgy of death and destruction, much like the other states that have passed such laws. Handguns are inferior to longarms in almost every way, except portability and concealability (which Firefox tells me is not a real word; suggestions?), the very things which make them good self-defense tools. However, people also hunt with them and use them for other recreation, not that I think hunting has any bearing on the Second Amendment. This comment has rambled quite a bit, so I'll just end it now.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:52 AM on February 22

Oh, I did forget to say that I think all handgun legislation should be at the state level. No federal restrictions and no local restrictions. This seems like a sensible balance to me. Ohio also recently passed a law stating that no locality may have more restrictive gun laws than the state (which has no restrictions). I am still awaiting the bloodbath.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:53 AM on February 22

"In any case, the concept that the Bill of Rights only applies to technologies that could be developed at the time of writing is fucking ridiculous on it's face, regardless of stretches of legal logic that legislators or Courts might apply, as i'm sure you'll agree."

Yes, but I've never claimed to be a strict constructionist. (And I took the original comment suggesting that the Bill of Rights was limited to contemporary technology to be facetious).
posted by klangklangston at 7:59 AM on February 22

Damn, I mean, if we have to live with gun legislation, I prefer it to be at the state level. I'm gonna go clear my head.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:04 AM on February 22

Well, that's probably because in an urban area, there's not much reason to own a gun except to shoot someone or threaten to do so.

Yes, it's a well-reasoned critique on the part of urban dwellers on the necessity of certain tools. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the fact that most of these people have never fired a gun in their lives or even seen one except on TV or internet.

I see that the well-reasoned critique street runs both ways. I am a DC resident. I am also a gun owner, multiple guns of varying types and sizes, though I do not keep any guns in my home in DC. Why not? Because that would be stupid, unnecessary and, perhaps most of all, illegal. I do not support lifting the ban on handguns in DC. I have not only seen guns up close through them being in my hand, but from them being in someone else's hand shoved in my urban-dwelling face.

I support the ban and would even support strengthening it to include all guns. Unfortunately, as a DC resident I am denied my rights of self governance and self determination as well as my right to not be taxed without representation. I have no problem with people in Montana deciding that they could care less if you walk around with an AR-15 strapped to your shoulder, why not? Because it is their right to decide that for themselves. Why is it that Montanans have a problem with my right to decide for myself what my city's laws will be like?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:07 AM on February 22

Pastabagel is not entirely correct. Yes, the Supremacy Clause means that federal law always trumps state law, but the law challenged here is not a federal law. The DC Circuit struck down a provision enacted by the District of Columbia under its Home Rule authority. It is thus analogous to a state law, and all the Court is really deciding is if the states can pass gun bans.

As a result, either way the Court rules is likely to have little immediate effect. Should the Court rule in favor of an individual right--which does seem logical given that the 1st, 4th, 4th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments all refer to individual rights--Montana's rather expansive concept of gun ownership is completely undisturbed, for the states are always allowed to offer higher protections for the rights enshrined in the Constitution if they feel like it, or even create new ones, provided they do not infringe upon existing federal rights.

But if the Court rules in a more "collective rights" approach, Montana's provisions are still not immediately affected. Again, just because there isn't a federal right to gun ownership doesn't mean that the states can't recognize such a right. The key here is that Pasta is wrong about gun ownership equaling interstate commerce: it doesn't. See U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), where the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting the possession of a firearm on or near schools. The Court held that such a restriction was an improper exercise of the Commerce Power. If this is beyond congressional reach, a blanket prohibition on the possession of a firearm is certainly as well.

Still, this doesn't mean that Congress couldn't significantly interfere. The Gun-Free School Zones Act was quickly resurrected with a "jurisdictional nexus," i.e. Congress made it illegal to possess near a school a gun that had traveled in interstate commerce. As most guns do so travel, this accomplishes pretty much everything the original provision did, but it would not affect any gun manufactured in the state in which it is possessed. All Montana would need to do is start a gun factory to manufacture and distribute as many guns as they liked.

Montana is overreacting. A definitive interpretation of the 2d Amendment is long overdue, but the case probably does not have the import that people seem to think it does.
posted by valkyryn at 9:14 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]

Would this gun have been not shoved in your face if a total ban existed? I guess what I mean is, was this gun obtained by legal means and wielded by a law-abiding citizen? Why would it be stupid to have a gun in your DC home? Presumably this is separate from the illegality issue, as you chose to mention that separately. I would not have a handgun in my Chicago home. It would be stupid because it would be illegal, but I don't see it as stupid for some other reason.
posted by adamdschneider at 9:18 AM on February 22

I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, and my research is woefully forgotten, but doesn't "shall not be infringed" imply that state-level bans are unconstitutional?
posted by adamdschneider at 9:21 AM on February 22

Gun enthusiasts are only a marginal step above child molesters on the social acceptability scale in every urban environment I've lived in.

I've never encountered this. Generally people treat me with great civility when they discover the number of firearms I own.

Make of that what you will.

The Second Amendment means the people have the right to bear any weapon that could have been designed and built in September 1789.

So, I can finally get that cannon? I've been itching to see what chain shot would do to a car...
posted by quin at 9:36 AM on February 22

> So, I can finally get that cannon? I've been itching to see what chain shot would do to a car...

Yes, yes you can. Good fun all around.

How exactly these guys don't run into the "Destructive Device" provisions of the Firearms Act of 1934 I'm not quite sure, but there are a lot of them out there. Some people have even got breech-loading guns. Note that these aren't really 1789 weapons either; ones made out of high-tensile steel would be decently high-tech by Civil War standards. (See the "Parrot Gun" in the linked page for an example, that's an ~1862 design.) I think it might be their use of black versus smokeless powder that lets them do it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:24 AM on February 22

Would this gun have been not shoved in your face if a total ban existed? I guess what I mean is, was this gun obtained by legal means and wielded by a law-abiding citizen?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Doesn't matter, as the gun's legality is a separate issue.

Why would it be stupid to have a gun in your DC home?

I have a child. Guns don't make you safer in general unless they are readily available to the homeowner at the exact moment they are needed. My home is not large, being an urban home, and a gun would not be a sum-positive to safty if one was discharged there. I could go on, but that's a start. The likelyhood of me being caught having an illegal gun in my home is next to nil so that would make it pretty low on the list of reasons.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:28 AM on February 22

The likelyhood of me being caught having an illegal gun in my home is next to nil

Unless you have to use it. The readily available issue is the reason I also oppose gun lock/safe legislation.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:45 AM on February 22

“Until Americans realize that the Constitution exists for the USA, rather than the USA existing for the Constitution, it will continue to do so.”

I don’t think it’s one or the other. I think the U.S.A. is, and should be, one with the Constitution.
We’re not just a chunk of land. It’s an ideal. Not one we live up to all that much, but many of us are trying. You can’t live only for your ideals, but you can’t amend the ideal to convenience yourself at a given time either. You have to embody them. No reason to give that up just because we're hosing it up now.

“To my knowledge, firearms are the only pieces of personal property that are widely subjected to the "do you need it" standard. No one asks if you need that SUV.”

Well said.

“Guns don't make you safer in general unless they are readily available to the homeowner at the exact moment they are needed.”

One could say the same thing about seat belts. Or insurance.
There are a number of other non-lethal first shot options (from bird-shot to flash bang to CS) for a shotgun that do wonders for deterrence and child safety. But I don’t know what your defense needs are, so I can’t speak to them. I myself don’t much care for using firearms in a house. (I prefer knives. It’s less likely to alert a second opponent if I kill the first quietly.) But my wife has a quick draw safe. And I’ve trained her. I mounted a low glare tac light and a laser guide to her revolver so she can easily ID anyone in her sights and her first two shots are simunituons (in case it’s one of our kids and she panics. Highly doubtful given how something real would play out, but...).
Getting hit with wax still hurts though, and it’s red wax, so that should scare the hell out of someone. She’s also got a semiauto, but y’know, revolvers don’t jam like semi autos, so, good for a first encounter in an ambiguious situaiton.

But I dig where you’re coming from. Buddy of mine leaves his service revolver on the kitchen table and he has kids. Really pisses me off. And sometimes folks will rob a home just to get a firearm. The gun is no good if you’re not there to use it.
(We’ve also got an alarm system and, more importantly, big mean looking dogs. They wouldn’t hurt a fly, but an invader wouldn’t know that. Last stranger came over to the house was an old buddy of mine from the service to see how I was recovering. They pretty much fell all over each other trying to sniff his crotch. It’s pretty intimidating unless you know all they’re going to do is sniff.)
posted by Smedleyman at 3:57 PM on February 22

"Some courts have held it to be a collective right, and some courts have held it to be an individual right. Certainly the ban on weapons on campus has been a great success in eliminating school shootings."

I know three people who have started illegally carrying concealed weapons onto campuses with gun bans since last year. After all, we have seen the kind of carnage that lockdowns and hugfests can create.

A lockdown will not help your safety, especially considering the windowed classrooms that have become popular in newer campus buildings around the country. The lockdown is simply there so the SWAT team can be reasonably sure that anybody wandering around during a lockdown is a valid target.
posted by Sukiari at 5:21 PM on February 25

"And there's the classic example of the five-year-old who takes daddy's gun to play cowboy. Regulators must think of the children, as well as think of everybody else."

We should restrict cars for the same reason. After all, there are far more automobile deaths every year than gun deaths, and little Timmy might just try to play "mario Andretti" New child proof ignition systems, door handles, the whole nine yards. Actually, even with all that, you could still accidentally or intentionally injure a person, so it's best to ban cars altogether.

And kitchen knives. There is an appalling amount of knife crime in this country, and every kitchen knife should be locked up. Same with every lawn mower, garden shear, and gas can.

Then, because people often fall, we have to grade the entire nation flat, and provide barriers alongside the grand canyon, every mountain, lake, and stream deeper than 1/18th of an inch. All buildings will have to be a gentle dome shape, suitable perhaps for sledding but not steep enough to injure yourself upon. Saliboats and skateboards will have to be banned.

Sex will have to be banned too, for obvious reasons. Raw fish, un-Pasteurized milk, and cheese made from raw milk will have to go. All foods will have to be pressure cooked for sixteen hours at autoclave temperatures so we can be sure that not a single harmful bacteria, spore, virus, or prion can enter our bodies. All raw produce should be outlawed too, as people die from dirty produce.

We can then proceed to outlaw all literature that features violent acts, as somebody may try to escape the net and rebel. After a few generations of not even knowing the CONCEPT of violence or having the possibility of injury, the words will be gradually dropped from the language.

Then we can get down to the really important things, outlawing poverty, disease, and suffering.
posted by Sukiari at 5:39 PM on February 25

One could say the same thing about seat belts. Or insurance.

Yes, one could, but there have been very few cases of people killed by their insurance policies accidentally going off or their seatbelts being mistakenly belted in the dark.

Frankly, I have confidence that I could safely handle a home defense situation with a firearm if called to do so. I'm not so sure about my neighbors and, really, its them that are more likely to kill me or my family out of their ignorance.

After all, there are far more automobile deaths every year than gun deaths, and little Timmy might just try to play "mario Andretti" New child proof ignition systems, door handles, the whole nine yards.

Ah, so you've forgotten about speed limits, drivers' licensure, seatbelt laws, child safety seat laws, child locks, etc. then? We already regulate cars out the wazoo without much complaint, why then is restricting one type of firearm by the self-determination of the citizens of a place suddenly a violation of the rights of people thousands of miles away?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:31 AM on February 27

We already regulate cars out the wazoo without much complaint

There was a lot of complaint about seat-belt laws, unfortunately the Federal government pushed it (and maximum speed limits, and lots of other pieces of regulation) on states in such a way that while many people were opposed, few states resisted. Anything requiring strongarm tactics that basically involve holding states' infrastructure funding hostage doesn't qualify in my book as without much complaint. Kudos to NH for having the continued balls to resist.

In fact, I think there's far less of a case for seatbelt laws than there are for gun laws, and I'm staunchly opposed to gun laws on both philosophical/theoretical and practical grounds. It's just that there's no Constitutional amendment prohibiting stupid automotive laws, while there is one with regards to firearms. (The 10th Amendment, as usual, is ignored.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:42 AM on February 28

"Ah, so you've forgotten about speed limits, drivers' licensure, seatbelt laws, child safety seat laws, child locks, etc. then? We already regulate cars out the wazoo without much complaint, why then is restricting one type of firearm by the self-determination of the citizens of a place suddenly a violation of the rights of people thousands of miles away?"

Because, as the courts are finally admitting, gun ownership is a Constitutional right. People have firearms for hunting, defense against dangerous animals, target shooting, Cowboy Action Shooting, and a hundred other things. But we as Americans are guaranteed by both of our founding documents to be able to be armed. In fact, it used to be required!

Now as much as any other time in history, people are preyed upon by other humans. They have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, and the right to property - all of which are defended best with firearms. They also exist so that the people can, if the weight of government becomes too oppressive, throw off those chains and form a new government.

Now do you see why people are allowed to own large caliber artillery and even dangerous devices (with the right paperwork)?

Your safety is not guaranteed by the state, nor is it guaranteed by FEMA, or the local police, or the federal government. We know what their securities entail.

A gun lets you take responsibility for your own safety in the face of danger. Something no law or agency can do for you.
posted by Sukiari at 7:20 PM on February 28

"Frankly, I have confidence that I could safely handle a home defense situation with a firearm if called to do so. I'm not so sure about my neighbors and, really, its them that are more likely to kill me or my family out of their ignorance."

Sorry for the DP.

I agree in part. I think there should be more awareness of firearms, the damage that a high powered rifle can do to people several miles away or through cinder block walls, etc.

But I don't think restrictions and the possible resulting general mass ignorance would help either. We have hundreds of millions of guns in America, and easily billions of rounds of ammo - all in private hands. Guns are here. We should educate kids about them. When I was in middle school I took .22 rifle marksmanship at school in Minnesota (1989?).

I think all kids should receive firearms training, except those with problems with violence. If we restrict anybody, lets restrict them. Eventually they will be afraid to attack the nonviolent, normal people because the norms all all be armed and better trained.

And I am convinced that while perhaps 90% of the anti-gun folks out there are well intentioned, I am sure that some are not - and they want guns out of the way to prepare for broader social engineering - the kinds that may be met with gunfire.
posted by Sukiari at 7:30 PM on February 28

Because, as the courts are finally admitting, gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

DC's law doesn't forbid gun ownership however, it forbids handgun ownership.

I agree in part. I think there should be more awareness of firearms

We can have our cake and not shoot it too here folks. You can make unlicenced gun ownership a crime, just as driving without a license (or in some states insurance) a crime. Require people to have a gun license, just as a concealed carry licence or FFL is required to tote a gun or own a machine gun. Make people take a licensure course, pay a fee, learn about safety, buy trigger locks, etc. and then permit them to buy a gun. No one is unconstitutionally barred without due process (weeding out the nuts and felons) and at least the minimum of knowledge is demanded of everyone with a legal gun.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:03 PM on February 28

It doesn't forbid gun ownership, but it forbids the use of guns for the purpose that they were intended. Clearly this is no deterrent to the criminals - DC being one of the worst cities in the USA.

I don't think licenses are the ticket either. Perhaps, if a person demonstrates that they are a violent person and prey upon others, ban them and hit them hard for violations. But I don't think licensing guns is the answer either - if it could even be done! I was thinking more along the lines of public school curricula that serve to educate people about guns.
posted by Sukiari at 12:57 AM on February 29

But I don't think licensing guns is the answer either - if it could even be done!

Why could it not be done? We have business licenses, building permits, drivers' licenses, liquor licenses, etc. why would this be so much more of a burden or dificult to accomplish?

It doesn't forbid gun ownership, but it forbids the use of guns for the purpose that they were intended.

No, actually, the District's hunting and game laws do that as do the laws against homocide and assault with a deadly weapon, and even the noise ordinances place restrictions on gun use. This law restricts handguns from being carried or kept in a home or business in the District without a law enforcement permit, it says nothing about their use.

Clearly this is no deterrent to the criminals - DC being one of the worst cities in the USA.

Kind of a subjective statement. I suppose that depends on if you'd prefer to be shot or raped, really.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:45 AM on February 29

"Eventually they will be afraid to attack the nonviolent, normal people because the norms all all be armed and better trained."

What a bizarre fantasy land you live in!
posted by klangklangston at 8:42 AM on February 29

Why could it not be done? We have business licenses, building permits, drivers' licenses, liquor licenses, etc. why would this be so much more of a burden or dificult to accomplish?

There are so many ways it would be a terrible idea, but just to begin with, the enforcement would be nearly impossible. You can enforce building permits (sort of, some of the time) because it's obvious when someone decides to tear down their house and build a high-rise.

Drivers' licensing is actually spectacularly difficult to enforce: it's really only "enforced" right now because it's so damn easy to get one, it's not worth the risk (for most people) that not having one entails. Among people who can't get drivers' licenses legitimately, the violation rate is huge, and there's really not much of an enforcement structure. Until you run into someone, you're probably not going to get caught. And even then, you're not regulating the possession of a car per se, you're regulating driving it on public roads -- a pretty visible activity.

Liquor licenses deal mostly with the sale and large-scale manufacture of alcoholic beverages, and even then the enforcement is pretty weak. Most licensees are storefronts or restaurants which by their nature are very visible. And again, it's only enforceable even in those situations because the licenses themselves aren't that hard to acquire; as soon as they're tough to get, people start ignoring them. I've been to places where municipalities have declined to issue liquor licenses and most locals can tell you which bodegas or street stands will sell you a six-pack out of the back room.

Since we already regulate firearms dealers -- akin to liquor licenses -- I can only assume that when you talk about "firearms licenses" you mean regulating pure possession. And that's a whole different ball of wax from the examples you cite.

Guns aren't difficult to produce, for starters; 'modern' firearms are by and large early-20th-century technology. Depending on how loosely define 'firearm,' you can build one that's more than capable of killing a person out of plumbing parts. They're also easy to smuggle. Start cutting back on the supply and the unmet demand will be easily met by the black market, where there's even less control than there is now, where we keep suppliers and dealers out in the open.

Second, unlike running a liquor store or driving around town in a car, owning a gun isn't public -- how are you supposed to enforce a possession-permit law? Random house-to-house searches? You could keep people from using guns for legitimate and peaceful purposes by shuttering all the ranges and gun clubs, but you're not going to actually do anything about the guns themselves; certainly not the illegal ones, and especially not the ones in the hands of people who plan to use them nefariously.

All in all, it's a really dumb idea, and it's a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist. There are better ways to expend resources that would have better impacts on crime than constructing a Sisyphean bureaucracy to try and enforce a bunch of regulations on guns that will never effect anyone but people who are inclined to follow the rules anyway.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:32 PM on February 29

"What a bizarre fantasy land you live in!"

Think about it for a minute. Then look around at the fantasy land we all live in. Mine's better.
posted by Sukiari at 4:05 PM on March 5

[feel free to call each other names over MeFi mail and not ressurect a peaceful thread to flip out on each other, thanks.]
posted by jessamyn at 8:56 AM on March 6