Clarence Thomas, Gun Control and the Case for Black Self-Defense

Well, y'all do want current laws applied to archaic ways of interpretation. Anything else would be embracing Socialism, Marxism or Communism. Isn't that the current thinking? Interpret the law ala our founding fathers? Oh, not when it takes you out of your comfort zone?

I live in the Chicago area. Do you think that if it was innocent, wealthy, white children being killed and wounded in crossfire that it would not be stopped, somehow or other?

notice he said they used it against mobs to DEFEND themselves. Well yes, racism is still alive in this country but it isn't just whites against blacks....black have their share of racism too! and despite racism there are other acts of hate to defend yourselves from...its time for the government to do what our founding fathers made them to do....stay out of the lives of the American people...!!

I'd like to know where the studies are that show any ban on legal ownership of weapons has resulted in a safer community?

Study after study after study shows that LEGAL gun ownership significantly reduces crimes and saves lives.

But then again, this whole topic is ridiculous in the first place. The second ammendment exists for the purpose of being able to do what we did when our country was founded: Maintain our freedoms by force.

In an age when government control and intrusion is spreading like wildfire, the real reason for the second ammendment should be quite clear to everyone.

Liberals of course have no idea what the second ammendment is and make their ridiculous arguments about "self defence" and "hunting", totally ignoring the purpose outlined in the ammendment.

Furthermore, they seem to ignore the facts on even the sub-topics they choose to use to try and twist their agenda into reality.

God bless the court for keeping our freedoms intact and the liberals at bay.

I believe you misunderstood the thrust of Justice Thomas’s concurrent opinion. He was making the case for how the constitution should be read and was understood at the time the 13th amendment was ratified. While some believe that we should always read the Constitution through the eyes of our moderns he believes that we should understand the intent at the time the Constitution was written or amended and view that as a contract. As a contract the second amendment view the ownership of guns as a personal right and the 13th 14th and 15th amendments corrected the errors of the original and extended all those rights to people who were heretofore slaves. The times may have changed but the principles should not have. We have a way of correcting the Constitutional contract and we have done that many times. If we do not like what is says or times have changed lets amend it not change it by Judicial fiat.

Follow this carefully Ms. Clift: The thugs who are classified as "gangbangers" and other similar pleasant descriptions are criminals who by definition do not obey the law. If they are willing to murder or rob, by what stretch of the imagination do you think they will obey gun laws? They steal guns, or buy them from other extralegal sources. The law abiding citizens who need to protect themselves from the criminals and who obtain weapons by legal methods virtually never use them for illegal purposes. If you were to buy Mace, or take a karate class, you wouldn't use that material or that training for evil purposes. If you were to buy a firearm, you likely wouldn't either. What part of this is beyond your understanding?

To the commentators who, with wonderment, ask if liberals really believe that gun control will prevent criminals from having guns when they're not the most law-abiding to begin with: OF COURSE THEY DO.

It's not that they expect a gun-free society (any more than any human arguable-vice that has ever been completely eliminated from any human society in history); it's simply that with a complete ban on handguns, they expect that the level of violence would fall. Probably true. Worth it?

Well, that's an argument which I doubt reasonable people will resolve: The approaches (utilitarianism versus libertarianism) produce different results. Utilitarians will let the absolute number of bullets loosed determine policy and regard as madness any other measure of social well-being than fewer killings and woundings. Libertarians will attach an independent value to the small possibility that widespread, lawful gun possession may deter a particular act of violence and regard as impossibly difficult the task of explaining to a widow(er) that it is better that this particular spouse, who might've had a fighting chance if armed, was killed or injured so that two other, innocent victims not have died (or been injured) elsewhere because there were more guns on the street.

Before I had children (or married), I had great sympathy for the utilitarian argument; as long as it was just my life at risk, I was willing to forgo self-protection in order to reduce the number of others injured. After vows (and parenthood), I see clearly the libertarian argument--and cannot go back. I feel confident that I could tell another grieving parent or spouse, face-to-face, that I would not welcome his or her loved one back to life if it meant I could not acquire a firearm to protect mine from a similar fate. Hard, yes.

Not for one second do I suggest that wider-spread gun ownership would produce lower levels of violence (not for one second do I dismiss the possibility); I am suggesting that there is a widespread (and legitimate) viewpoint that higher levels of violence are intellectually and morally defensible (at least insofar as you allow me, or yourself, the moral latitude to prefer the death of a stranger to a familiar).

Incidentally, consider that this split (utilitarianism versus libertarianism) is an organizing principle of American society since its founding in the 1600's and has application in many analyses of public policy debates: For example, is the purpose of unbridled free enterprise (which includes as a subset, but is not identical to, capitalism) to produce the greatest good for the greatest number (per capita income, perhaps), or opportunities to become wealithy, even if others around you wallow in (relative) poverty? If you think the question silly (or its answer obvious), you may want to ask the question differently: Is it more important that Americans be materially well-off, or free?

As I look at it. We have laws to check the buying of guns in place. What we need is to have the illeagle weapons coming in from Mexico stopped. Every day AK-47's come over our borders. They are bought by crooks just to kill. The money goes to crooks to but more. This is not white or black this is only green. The profit level is high so they will keep doing it. Full gun control is an act done by leaders like Hitler. I own pistols and rifles myself. I've never shot anyone, just like millions in this country. The focus needs to be on the source of blackmarket guns and leave the people that follow the rules.

I carried a weapon for 26 years and I never needed it but the one time I didn't have it with me I was asked for money at a Maryland rest area and was afraid to say no. With a gun I would have said no and if the guy took it further I would have shot him. When the next gun show comes to town I plan on buying another.

We should worry about Monsanto who Clarence Thomas used to work for and how the supreme court rules in favor of Monsanto in their attempts to control the world's food crops