Mr. Fink,

I wish to make three points.

First, the case ruled upon by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia Et al vs. Heller) centered upon the issue of self defense. Richard Heller is a Special Police Oficer assigned to provide armed security for Federal judges. He applied to the Washington D.C. city government for a permit to allow him to take his duty weapon home with him so that he could provide for the defense of his family, the same protection that he is tasked to provide Federal Magistrates. The Supreme Court ruling holds in part, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home".

Second, that this ruling clearly defines and classifies a constitutional right, not a "privilege". That is the law and can be changed only by a Constitutional Amendment. Our country is defined by our adherence to the rule of law. Despots, tyrants and even some monarchies throughout history maintain their power by ignoring this concept and by doling out "privileges" to control the populance.

Third, you seem to me to be worried about what people who own firearms might do. Our legal system requires that an individual be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. I would indeed be worried about someone who threatens me with a firearm, or who uses it in a threatening manner directed at others. That is criminal behavior. But the simple fact that someone owns a firearm is not an offense, no matter what fanciful conjectures you may draw.

Finally, what is it about the Supreme Court decision that firghtens you?

This one Peter Cutler got right. The Constitutional debate in the streets, newspapers, and radification conventions of post-revolutionary America make clear that gun ownership is an individual right not a privilege and not just for self-defense either.

It is far from "clear" that gun ownership is an individual right. The Supreme Court's last ruling was close 5-4.

Moreover, the Constitutional language put the "right to bear arms" (doesn't say guns) in the context of a "well-regulated militia" - which we don't have.

Mr. Culter's logic would allow anyone to own machine guns and bazookas since they are "innocent until proven guilty." The Supreme Court does accept limitations on the "arms" we can own - it doesn't specify handguns versus bazookas, so the line is pretty arbitrary.

Mr Fink's excellent posting brings up some great points that Mr. Cutler fails to understand. Guns themselves don't scare Fink, to be sure, but we own more guns than any other country in the world per capital and proliferation is a problem. With so many, it's easy for guns to slip through the cracks of control by good citizens and into the hands of petty thugs and the underbelly of America.

We have a problem in America with guns. Scalia even notes that registration of guns could be allowed. Let's do that.

Guns are also limited by law - we can't buy machine guns. Is it so clear that we should be able to own semi-automatic handguns? It's not.

Mr. Kany recognizes that the general public, by law, is not allowed to purchase machine guns. Indeed, such weapons require a Class III license which is available only after extensive background checks and a hefty fee. At no time have I ever advocated unrestricted purchase of weapons such as machine guns or "bazookas" (a weapon utilized in WWII and Korea, but out of date since then). These and other weapons are already limited by existing law.

Innocent until proven guilty is the basis for our legal system and applies to individuals charged with crimes and undergoing legal prosecution.

A vote of 5-4 does constitute a majority decision and is now the law, no matter what personal objections exist (is Roe vs. Wade also "far from clear"?).

I would suggest that criminal behavior involving firearms be subject to increased harsh and extensive penalties, which would address any problems directly rather than focusing on banning firearms because of subjective speculation over what any individual owning firearms MIGHT do.

Mr. Cutler: would you legalize all drugs, alcohol and tobacco to all ages and, in turn, stiffen penalties if laws are broken under their influence?

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Or are we also concerned about public safety?

I do agree with your point, Mr. Cutler, that Roe v. Wade is not clear in very much the same way that the right to own any kind of weapon is not clear. Of course, that's a red herring to this conversation.

There are some facts that matter to this conversation: the right, as stated in the Constitution, is to bear arms. It's not clear if that means ANY arms, ALL arms or just SOME arms. It says nothing about guns. Historically, the assumption is that citizens should be able to own weapons available at the time of the drafting: muskets, sword and cannons, maybe?

But Mr Cutler is advocating that the public be able to buy bombs & bazookas and get slapped with a penalty if they should make mistakes with these things.

Mr. Culter's logic would also suggest that we let anyone drive cars but come down harshly if they break any laws.

That approach lacks all common sense. It lacks any concern for public safety or the public good.

We don't have a "well-regulated militia"; the public could not overthrow the military; and arms have become violent in a way the Founders could have never forseen.

The DC ruling is just that - one ruling in a territory governed by Congress rather than a state legislature. It was close and the outcome questionable.

Most importantly, Scalia has opened the way for laws to require that all guns be registered - what a great thing. That's where we need to get to work - on that legislation.

I agree with you, Mr. Cutler, that we need to prosecute laws involving firearms with much more weight.

America has more guns per capita than any other country in the world and we have one of the very highest rates of gun violence. Guns are a problem in America. Not just gun owners, but gun trafficking, lack of gun regulation, and a lack of being able to track guns as they proliferate like a virus.

I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy wine. But just because I enjoy wine, doesn't mean it's okay to sell it to children or let people drink and drive. Alcohol is a controlled substance for a reason - the same reason why we need gun control.

Mr. Kany,

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

1. State and Federal law regulate the sale of drugs, alcohol and tobacco to minors. I have never advocated any change to that approach.

2. How many times do I have to repeat that "bombs and bazookas" are not legal for public purchase and I am not advocating such purposes, as I have clearly stated in my previous comments Your accusation that I advocate such purposes is completely false and misleading.

3. Nor have I ever postulated that "anyone" should be allowed to drive cars, without regard to legal restrictions.

Why do you insist on twisting and misinterpreting my words to fit your personal agendas? Are you unable to accept people disagreeing with you and cannot offer a simple factual debate?

Last, The Supreme Court ruled on a Constitutional right, not "one ruling in a territory governed by Congress rather than a state legislature". Constitutional law trumps all other courts and is indeed applicable in all jurisdictions which is one of the major reasons that the Civil Rights movement was ultimately successful.

Mr. Cutler,

Logic, like policy and legislation, leads to its own conclusions. When you set an idea in motion, it often opens its own way to consequence.

When you make an argument like pushing the presumption of innocence, it begs the point as to where to draw the line. The presence of guns is a public safety issue. If you are to take that line of reasoning, then it spills over to all regulated substances whether you intend it or not.

Your argument was abstract and not specific to guns, so there's no reason to keep the conversation limited to guns in questioning the logic.

Remember the ATF? What do you think they were formed for?

Nowhere in the Constitution is the question of "guns" addressed directly. The term is "arms".

The DC ruling was just that - a DC ruling. Or are you advocating "activist" jurisprudence? It sounds like you are and yet I would imagine that you rail against "activist judges" when outcomes tilt against your favor.

If you want to talk about guns as opposed to broader notions of American law, then be specific. Your points were general and if they warranted a response at all, it would come in general terms.

Sorry, Mr. Cutler, I don't twist your words - they come out that way.

Peter Cutler tells us that "our legal system requires that an individual be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. I would indeed be worried about someone who threatens me with a firearm, or who uses it in a threatening manner directed at others. That is criminal behavior. But the simple fact that someone owns a firearm is not an offense, no matter what fanciful conjectures you may draw."

That wasn't true until this law was struck down. Owning a handgun in DC was illegal.

So Peter Cutler's argument is absurd. Basically he said "it's not illegal because this week it's not against the law even though it was last week."

Brilliance.

Can you say "tautology"?

The only redeeming quality about this guy's logic is that he's very clear he will support the law if indeed it is reinstated.

Or maybe he'll say whatever it takes to support his beloved NRA. That's a pretty common tack.

Kany is right with Cutler's "legal system" argument. If Cutler is arguing - as he clearly states in the quoted text - that we need to avoid any and all nanny laws, then he is saying that anyone should be able to smoke drink, take drugs, drive cars, and so on and so forth until they break some law that affects others.

It's not a compelling argument and it really illustrates the weakness of the NRA talking points all of the way through.

Peter Cutler wants me to be able to own a flamethrower as long as I don't point it at anything other than marshmallows.

I wonder if Peter Cutler thinks Iran should be able to arm itself with nukes to defend itself? He's probably really angry that Iraq was invaded since they didn't actually break any international laws but only seemed like a threat.

People like Peter Cutler are the reason why America has lost so much respect.